Author Topic: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)  (Read 5113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2013, 02:37:43 PM »
Interesting title to the article you cite, Emma.

Quote
Tennis Television Ratings Tumble

Someone order up a Roger-Rafa and Sharapova-Venus final. CBS needs it!


Thanks! What other sources can you post that I can use?

This article predates Djokovic-Murray...oh by the way.   :rofl_2:

Thanks for missing the point. This article was from last year which I've already mentioned in my previous post and I told you specifically that this year's rating was 4% more than the previous year's. Maybe you need a drink. It's too early for you to make your brain work.

Also, this forum is and was always about Federer fans as at least 70% of its members are Federer fans. Men's tennis forum has no lack of tennis fans. So not the barometer you want to base your opinions on. And the FB touch was hysterical. Keep us entertained. At least it's working with the Fedtards.
You are everything I am not.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2013, 02:38:25 PM »
Emma!!! Why didn't you post this article for me? Darn you, Emma! Making me look up the obvious!!!  :mad1:

These are f*cking Australians! Those damned Aussies!! :cursing: :ranting:

Quote
Why tennis is becoming harder to watch on TV
ROAR (Australian Source)

The (2011) womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

The facts on the television ratings for the 2011 Australian Open make for dismal reading. Almost as dismal as the menís final. An average of 934,000 viewers in the five capital cities is 20 per cent down on last yearís Open, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The drop in two years is an astonishing 36 per cent.

The womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

There were 300,000 viewers more for the womenís final than for the menís final.
The menís final, in viewers numbers, was down 42 per cent from last yearís final between Roger Federer and Murray. A 7 spokesman, interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, said that a ďcombination of the vagaries of the unknowns in sports and expanding viewing optionsĒ were probably to blame for the falling number of viewers.

I take the phrase ďvagaries of the unknowns in sportĒ to mean that there was no Federer or Nadal or the Williams sisters in the menís and womenís finals. If this is what he meant, the figures of last yearís menís final, which involved Federer, suggests that there is some truth in the statement.

Finally, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are to tennis what Tiger Woods was (past tense) to golf. They are magic doing what they do, absolutely watchable in their different ways. Their presence was sorely missed in the final.


Nadal, the Gene Kelly of tennis, so relentless, courageous, athletic, energetic and powerful, and Federer, the Fred Astaire of tennis, effortlessly brilliant, suave, thoughtful and stylish. Both of them are totally watchable stars.

Djokovic and Murray are nowhere in the same class of watchability.

Djokovic has his incessant ball-bouncing and Murray must be the most lacklustre, boring and unwatchable top 10 player ever, with his mutterings and continual hang-dog look.



http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/03/why-tennis-is-becoming-harder-to-watch-on-tv/


I swear I didn't write this article, though I could have, and I learned everything I needed to know by watching the AO thread post counts drop drastically from 2009 to 2013.

 :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:  :rofl_2:  :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 02:44:00 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2013, 02:46:02 PM »
Emma!!! Why didn't you post this article for me? Darn you, Emma! Making me look up the obvious!!!  :mad1:

These are f*cking Australians! Those damned Aussies!! :cursing: :ranting:

Quote
Why tennis is becoming harder to watch on TV
ROAR (Australian Source)

The (2011) womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

The facts on the television ratings for the 2011 Australian Open make for dismal reading. Almost as dismal as the menís final. An average of 934,000 viewers in the five capital cities is 20 per cent down on last yearís Open, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The drop in two years is an astonishing 36 per cent.

The womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

There were 300,000 viewers more for the womenís final than for the menís final.
The menís final, in viewers numbers, was down 42 per cent from last yearís final between Roger Federer and Murray. A 7 spokesman, interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, said that a ďcombination of the vagaries of the unknowns in sports and expanding viewing optionsĒ were probably to blame for the falling number of viewers.

I take the phrase ďvagaries of the unknowns in sportĒ to mean that there was no Federer or Nadal or the Williams sisters in the menís and womenís finals. If this is what he meant, the figures of last yearís menís final, which involved Federer, suggests that there is some truth in the statement.

Finally, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are to tennis what Tiger Woods was (past tense) to golf. They are magic doing what they do, absolutely watchable in their different ways.
Their presence was sorely missed in the final.



Nadal, the Gene Kelly of tennis, so relentless, courageous, athletic, energetic and powerful, and Federer, the Fred Astaire of tennis, effortlessly brilliant, suave, thoughtful and stylish. Both of them are totally watchable stars.

Djokovic and Murray are nowhere in the same class of watchability.

Djokovic has his incessant ball-bouncing and Murray must be the most lacklustre, boring and unwatchable top 10 player ever, with his mutterings and continual hang-dog look.



http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/03/why-tennis-is-becoming-harder-to-watch-on-tv/


I swear I didn't write this article, though I could have, and I learned everything I needed to no by watching the AO thread post counts drop drastically from 2009 to 2013.

 :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:  :rofl_2:  :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:


It's mostly an article and a lot of it is just one's personal opinion. Some bitter opinion I might as well add and probably written by a Fedtard as most articles are these days. 

You still have to answer my question - why any of Federer vs Nadal final either at Wimbledon or USO didn't get the highest rating?
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2013, 02:49:31 PM »
BTW, you are comparing women's vs men's. Apples and oranges. Way to go, really. You know a lot of you watch the ladies so that you can take a good look at their undies.

Anyway, once Federer retires, all these f**ked up fans who are mostly casual fans who know nothing about tennis will go away and the b**ching will stop as well. Can't wait for that.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 02:50:12 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2013, 02:50:25 PM »
Interesting title to the article you cite, Emma.

Quote
Tennis Television Ratings Tumble

Someone order up a Roger-Rafa and Sharapova-Venus final. CBS needs it!


Thanks! What other sources can you post that I can use?

This article predates Djokovic-Murray...oh by the way.   :rofl_2:

This article was from last year which I've already mentioned in my previous post...

Well, if you've mentioned this in a previous post, then you've mischaracterized it twice!

This article was written BEFORE the 2010 US Open final, i.e., the last final included was a Monday final in 2009 between Fed and Delpo.

More please!!!



« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 02:51:05 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2013, 02:54:57 PM »
Tennis epic tops TV ratings Updated Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:51pm AEDT
 
Djokovic throws shirt after winning Open
 
Photo: Novak Djokovic beat Spaniard Rafael Nadal in five sets. (ABC News/Tony Trung)   

More than 2.4 million television viewers stayed up until the early hours of the morning to watch Novak Djokovic be crowned the 2012 Australian Open champion.

The Serbian beat Spaniard Rafael Nadal in a five-set match.

Despite the match ending at 1.37am, 2.415 million Australians stuck it out until the presentation, making it the most-watched television program of the evening.

Seven blitzed its rivals with the tennis taking out the top six positions in the television rankings.
 
The final lasted five hours and 53 minutes, the longest in Grand Slam history.

The interview with Djokovic after the match attracted 2.288 million viewers (second most-watched show), while the match itself had a peak average audience of 2.108 million (third place).
 
The introduction to the match also had 1.390 million viewers.
 
Over on Ten, the Zooey Deschanel comedy New Girl attracted 1.288 million viewers, while new US drama Homeland had 1.169 million viewers.
 
Seven News was the highest-ranking news program, with 1.248 million, followed by Nine News with 1.231 million viewers.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 02:55:42 PM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2013, 02:56:34 PM »
Emma!!! Why didn't you post this article for me? Darn you, Emma! Making me look up the obvious!!!  :mad1:

These are f*cking Australians! Those damned Aussies!! :cursing: :ranting:

Quote
Why tennis is becoming harder to watch on TV
ROAR (Australian Source)

The (2011) womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

The facts on the television ratings for the 2011 Australian Open make for dismal reading. Almost as dismal as the menís final. An average of 934,000 viewers in the five capital cities is 20 per cent down on last yearís Open, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The drop in two years is an astonishing 36 per cent.

The womenís final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the menís final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.

There were 300,000 viewers more for the womenís final than for the menís final.
The menís final, in viewers numbers, was down 42 per cent from last yearís final between Roger Federer and Murray. A 7 spokesman, interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, said that a ďcombination of the vagaries of the unknowns in sports and expanding viewing optionsĒ were probably to blame for the falling number of viewers.

I take the phrase ďvagaries of the unknowns in sportĒ to mean that there was no Federer or Nadal or the Williams sisters in the menís and womenís finals. If this is what he meant, the figures of last yearís menís final, which involved Federer, suggests that there is some truth in the statement.

Finally, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are to tennis what Tiger Woods was (past tense) to golf. They are magic doing what they do, absolutely watchable in their different ways.
Their presence was sorely missed in the final.



Nadal, the Gene Kelly of tennis, so relentless, courageous, athletic, energetic and powerful, and Federer, the Fred Astaire of tennis, effortlessly brilliant, suave, thoughtful and stylish. Both of them are totally watchable stars.

Djokovic and Murray are nowhere in the same class of watchability.

Djokovic has his incessant ball-bouncing and Murray must be the most lacklustre, boring and unwatchable top 10 player ever, with his mutterings and continual hang-dog look.



http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/03/why-tennis-is-becoming-harder-to-watch-on-tv/


I swear I didn't write this article, though I could have, and I learned everything I needed to no by watching the AO thread post counts drop drastically from 2009 to 2013.

 :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:  :rofl_2:  :rofl_2: :rofl_2: :rofl_2:


It's mostly an article and a lot of it is just one's personal opinion. Some bitter opinion I might as well add and probably written by a Fedtard as most articles are these days. 

You still have to answer my question - why any of Federer vs Nadal final either at Wimbledon or USO didn't get the highest rating?


You know what, goofball, if it weren't for the OBJECTIVE data cited in the first paragraph, the dude wouldn't have written the article.

Just like me, what the scribe has done is attempt to interpret OBJECTIVE data, something neither you nor Rafa816 have attempted to do. You both think ratings/attendance numbers take place in the vacuum between your ears.
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2013, 02:58:43 PM »
Tennis epic tops TV ratings Updated Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:51pm AEDT
 
Djokovic throws shirt after winning Open
 
Photo: Novak Djokovic beat Spaniard Rafael Nadal in five sets. (ABC News/Tony Trung)   

More than 2.4 million television viewers stayed up until the early hours of the morning to watch Novak Djokovic be crowned the 2012 Australian Open champion.

The Serbian beat Spaniard Rafael Nadal in a five-set match.

Despite the match ending at 1.37am, 2.415 million Australians stuck it out until the presentation, making it the most-watched television program of the evening.

Seven blitzed its rivals with the tennis taking out the top six positions in the television rankings.
 
The final lasted five hours and 53 minutes, the longest in Grand Slam history.

The interview with Djokovic after the match attracted 2.288 million viewers (second most-watched show), while the match itself had a peak average audience of 2.108 million (third place).
 
The introduction to the match also had 1.390 million viewers.
 
Over on Ten, the Zooey Deschanel comedy New Girl attracted 1.288 million viewers, while new US drama Homeland had 1.169 million viewers.
 
Seven News was the highest-ranking news program, with 1.248 million, followed by Nine News with 1.231 million viewers.


Oh, I thought that was going to be an article about Djokovic-Murray.

Thanks again for the assist!


Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate other than the Nadal-Djokovic final outperformed Celebrity Splash and Come Date With Me.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 03:05:22 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2013, 03:00:26 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards. 
 
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2013, 03:06:58 PM »
And you are comparing women vs men. The objectivity flies out the window right there.
 
You forget that Nole/Murray is a fairly new rivalry. Rome wasnít built a day. Neither was Sampras vs Agassi or Federer vs Nadal. No one cared about Sampras/Agassi rivalry. It only picked up in the late 90s.
 
 
You are everything I am not.

Offline Gawdblessya

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1129
  • In the blink of an eye, the universe.
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2013, 03:13:22 PM »
Other than for Djokovic / Murray tards, the AO 2013 finals match was not compelling viewing, and no amount of ranting to the contrary will change that fact.  Here were the two best players in the world  playing each other, and this was the match they could muster up. Murray's performance was especially disappointing. Djokovic has a superb game & Murray has improved his game & confidence enormously. It promised to be a better match than it was.  And for me, the disappointment relates to that alone. Nothing more or less than that.

In comparison, for example, the Djokovic / Wawrinka match was compelling viewing, as was the Federer / Murray match.   

Viewing figures are bound to reflect a number of factors. Here, the Wimbledon 2012 final had the highest Wimbledon viewing figures ever, according to the BBC.  In large part, that would be due to Murray being British. The previous highest figures were for a Henman match, again, according to the BBC.  And again, because Henman is British.  Viewing figures are not the yardstick for measuring whether a match was a good match or not, nor can they shed light on the merits of the games of player. All they can guage is interest & interest in the match can arise for any number of reasons.

Link to the article on the BBC viewing figures:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/09/andy-murray-wimbledon-final-17m-viewers
Carpe Diem

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2013, 03:14:07 PM »
Here...read it.
 
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2013/01/29/Media/ratings.aspx
 
 More Than 5 Million Watch Australian Open Men's Final On BBC; Ratings Up In Austalia   Published January 29, 2013 Font Size     
 
More than 5 million viewers in his native country watched Andy Murray lose in the Australian Open men's fianl.A peak audience of more than 5 million viewers watched Andy Murray's "agonising defeat" to Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open tennis final on BBC1 on Sunday morning, according to John Plunkett of the London GUARDIAN. The broadcast averaged 4.1 million viewers for a 38% share of the audience between 8:15am and 12:45pm. A 15-minute peak of 5.1 million tuned in between midday and 12:15pm. In the FA Cup, ITV's live coverage of Oldham Athletic's 3-2 win over Liverpool "proved a ratings winner" with a 15-minute teatime peak of nearly 7 million viewers. FA Cup Live had an average of 4.5 million viewers for a 25.8% share between 3:30pm and 6:05pm. Live coverage of the match itself, which kicked off at 4pm, averaged 5.2 million with a peak of 6.8 million for its climax between 5.45pm and 6pm (GUARDIAN, 1/28).

RATINGS UP IN AUSTRALIA: In Sydney, Michael Bodey reported TV ratings for the men's final were up 4% from last year. The Seven Network said that an average audience of 2.12 million viewers watched the match, with a peak audience of 2.64 million viewers. An audience of 2.18 million "stayed for the presentation" of the trophy at 11pm (THE AUSTRALIAN, 1/28).

You are everything I am not.

Offline EnriqueIG8

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 562
  • Gender: Male
  • Tots Units Fem ForÁa
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2013, 03:15:39 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards.

Because they haven't met at the US Open, yet.  :whistling:
Fill In The Draw @ T4U
Ranking: #1 (High: #1)
Titles: 7 [Australian Open, Auckland, Zagreb, San Jose, Marseille, Delray Beach & MS Monte Carlo]



Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2013, 03:17:36 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards.

Why don't you ask that question in your own thread so I can ignore you?

None of that has anything to do with Fed/Nadal :spot on:  >  Djokovic/Murray  :::O

Why would I pander to Fedfans? I've been :hammer: them for 7 years.

A few years ago, 5 hour matches were extraordinary and "epic." But my claim is that there are diminishing returns to these marathons for players, viewers, spectators, and networks alike. As I've said elsewhere, individually, Djokovic and Murray are fine. But since they don't compliment one another on the court, their tennis in uninspiring. Very long rallies featuring points that are restarted 2 or 3 times.
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2013, 03:21:17 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards.

Because they haven't met at the US Open, yet.  :whistling:

Yes, but this goes without saying that it won't matter because the Americans only care about their own players first. So it wonít make any difference. But more importantly, their matches are identical and one sided. Their H2H since 2008 in GS is 5-0 Nadal. Thatís so interesting that I want to jump off a bridge right now. Utter rubbish.
You are everything I am not.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2013, 03:22:30 PM »

In comparison, for example, the Djokovic / Wawrinka match was compelling viewing, as was the Federer / Murray match. 


Good examples since both matches featured a clash of style: one offensive player, the other defensive.

Djokovic-Murray will never rise to Djokovic-Wawrinka status.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 03:25:04 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2013, 03:23:24 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards.

Why don't you ask that question in your own thread so I can ignore you?

None of that has anything to do with Fed/Nadal :spot on:  >  Djokovic/Murray  :::O

Why would I pander to Fedfans? I've been :hammer: them for 7 years.

A few years ago, 5 hour matches were extraordinary and "epic." But my claim is that there are diminishing returns to these marathons for players, viewers, spectators, and networks alike. As I've said elsewhere, individually, Djokovic and Murray are fine. But since they don't compliment one another on the court, their tennis in uninspiring. Very long rallies featuring points that are restarted 2 or 3 times.

Right, right when we have 5-0 Nadal (vs Federer) and 2-1 Nole (vs Murray) in GS. Makes f**king sense.  ..-)
You are everything I am not.

Offline EnriqueIG8

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 562
  • Gender: Male
  • Tots Units Fem ForÁa
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2013, 03:28:46 PM »
Babbs, why don't you tell me why Federer vs Nadal matches despite being so "sexy" has yet to top any TV ratings either at Wimbledon or at the USO? The top 3 places are taken by Sampras and Agassi in their time but this apparent sexy due have yet to topple them.

Anyway, this goes without saying that this thread is Heaven for the tards.

Because they haven't met at the US Open, yet.  :whistling:

Yes, but this goes without saying that it won't matter because the Americans only care about their own players first. So it wonít make any difference. But more importantly, their matches are identical and one sided. Their H2H since 2008 in GS is 5-0 Nadal. Thatís so interesting that I want to jump off a bridge right now. Utter rubbish.

Yes, as a Fedfan I agree with you here. Too bad their H2H is a little bit biased because Fed reached all those clay finals, while Rafito didn't reach as many finals on indoor hardcourt, fast hardcourt.

You are a little right though.
Fill In The Draw @ T4U
Ranking: #1 (High: #1)
Titles: 7 [Australian Open, Auckland, Zagreb, San Jose, Marseille, Delray Beach & MS Monte Carlo]



Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2013, 03:41:10 PM »
Here...read it.
 
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2013/01/29/Media/ratings.aspx
 
 More Than 5 Million Watch Australian Open Men's Final On BBC; Ratings Up In Austalia   Published January 29, 2013 Font Size     
 


So for the Aussies, Aussies tuned in to their home slam in greater numbers this year than last. That's good for Aussie tele!
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2013, 03:46:16 PM »

Viewing figures are bound to reflect a number of factors. Here, the Wimbledon 2012 final had the highest Wimbledon viewing figures ever, according to the BBC.  In large part, that would be due to Murray being British. The previous highest figures were for a Henman match, again, according to the BBC.  And again, because Henman is British.  Viewing figures are not the yardstick for measuring whether a match was a good match or not, nor can they shed light on the merits of the games of player. All they can guage is interest & interest in the match can arise for any number of reasons.



Surely this can't be! According to Emma, it's only us f*cking Americans that tune in for our homies.
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif