Jump to content
Toups

The Tennis Thread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Not surprising since the French is the least accessible of all the Grand Slam tournaments to watch.

Actually the 1.1 rating and 1.62 million viewers isn't that bad. Last year's final with Nadal vs Anderson at the US Open was much lower and didn't even come close to hitting the million mark in total viewers and had a lower than a 1.0 rating . The problem with tennis is that the media pimps the same players and doesn't feature the up and comers(Thiem wasn't even shown until the fourth round)....and the American males suck so no interest for some to watch. I am surprised the women's wasn't higher with Sloane in the finals. The US Open numbers for the women's matches were higher.

Edited by Soapsuds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says that the viewership is up from last year, I know.  

Compared to Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, even the Australian, Roland Garros seems less accessible to the U.S. audience.

 

Roland Garros barely got any media coverage in mainstream media.  Only NYC sports news the women's final got less than 30 seconds, the men's got a bit more because Nadal is a known name.

Even the fact that two U.S. players (Sloane and Madison) reached the SFs got no coverage in the mainstream media.  

I hate to say this but since ESPN has basically abandoned the clay court season (and tennis in general, to a certain extent), there has been scant broader coverage of tennis outside of the very small, insular tennis media.

Not everyone has TC, which tends to favor U.S. men (who, per usual, did poorly at RG).

You can't grow a viewership this way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

Actually the 1.1 rating and 1.62 million viewers isn't that bad. Last year's final with Nadal vs Anderson at the US Open was much lower and didn't even come close to hitting the million mark in the viewers and had a lower than 1.0 rating. The problem with tennis is that the media pimps the same players and doesn't feature the up and comers(Thiem's wasn't even shown until the fourth round)....and the American males suck so no interest for some in watch. I am surprised the women's wasn't higher with Sloane in the finals. The US Open numbers for the women's matches were higher.

My theory: I think there was a bit of a drumbeat for last year’s USO women’s final due to it being two black American women (biracial in Madison’s case), and there had been four Americans in the semis (with Coco and especially Venus, a legit household name who transcends the sport). I also think Sloane squandered some of her momentum after winning the Slam with all those losses, especially in with the failure to make an impact at the next GS in Australia, so there was less interest in her here (Miami win notwithstanding).

 

EDIT: We’d almost certainly have gotten a boost if Serena hadn’t gotten injured and had advanced. But the Kerbers, Muguruzas, Haleps—excellent players, not stars here.

16 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

The article says that the viewership is up from last year, I know.  

Compared to Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, even the Australian, Roland Garros seems less accessible to the U.S. audience.

 

Roland Garros barely got any media coverage in mainstream media.  Only NYC sports news the women's final got less than 30 seconds, the men's got a bit more because Nadal is a known name.

Even the fact that two U.S. players (Sloane and Madison) reached the SFs got no coverage in the mainstream media.  

I hate to say this but since ESPN has basically abandoned the clay court season (and tennis in general, to a certain extent), there has been scant broader coverage of tennis outside of the very small, insular tennis media.

Not everyone has TC, which tends to favor U.S. men (who, per usual, did poorly at RG).

You can't grow a viewership this way.

 

The tennis audience is aging more quickly than even the daytime soap audience, which is crazy. The sport is speeding toward irrelevance.

Edited by Faulkner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

My theory: I think there was a bit of a drumbeat for last year’s USO women’s final due to it being two black American women (biracial in Madison’s case), and there had been four Americans in the semis (with Coco and especially Venus, a legit household name who transcends the sport). I also think Sloane squandered some of her momentum after winning the Slam with all those losses, especially in with the failure to make an impact at the next GS in Australia, so there was less interest in her here (Miami win notwithstanding).

 

I remember after Serena won her first major, she was still winning tournaments but she wouldn't become a true Slam contender again for another two years (until 2001 when she lost to Venus at the U.S. Open).  U.S. viewers stayed loyal to the sport perhaps because Venus was winning a lot, then you also had Lindsey Davenport who was also a contender for big titles  and on the men's side you started to see the emergence of Andy Roddick but all in all, fans were still following the sport (plenty of men were following Kournikova, for reasons we all can guess).

Back then, CBS, NBC and even ABC (sometimes) was showing tennis. For many years (especially in the 90s), it was possible to see the autumn swing (which was mainly in Europe, in those days) almost every weekend on basic cable!  No expensive digital tier!  This is what I mean by accessibility of the sport.  I hear tennis fans complaining that they subscribe to WTA TV, yet they're still missing matches!  

 

Tennis is the only sport, I truly follow on a consistent basis yet, I sometimes find myself watching NBA finals or even an occasional holiday game between teams(on ABC and ESPN, ESPN3) because it's nice to be able to consistently catch games. Tennis used to be this way but is no longer-- in fact, tennis makes it difficult to find and keep up with the sport.  You have to be a dedicated fan to put up with half this nonsense.

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I remember after Serena won her first major, she was still winning tournaments but she wouldn't become a true Slam contender again for another two years (until 2001 when she lost to Venus at the U.S. Open).  U.S. viewers stayed loyal to the sport perhaps because Venus was winning a lot, then you also had Lindsey Davenport who was also a contender for big titles  and on the men's side you started to see the emergence of Andy Roddick but all in all, fans were still following the sport (plenty of men were following Kournikova, for reasons we all can guess).

Back then, CBS, NBC and even ABC (sometimes) was showing tennis. For many years (especially in the 90s), it was possible to see the autumn swing (which was mainly in Europe, in those days) almost every weekend on basic cable!  No expensive digital tier!  This is what I mean by accessibility of the sport.  I hear tennis fans complaining that they subscribe to WTA TV, yet they're still missing matches!  

 

Tennis is the only sport, I truly follow on a consistent basis yet, I sometimes find myself watching NBA finals or even an occasional holiday game between teams(on ABC and ESPN, ESPN3) because it's nice to be able to consistently catch games. Tennis used to be this way but is no longer-- in fact, tennis makes it difficult to find and keep up with the sport.  You have to be a dedicated fan to put up with half this nonsense.

It’s easy to compare it to golf, which is similarly a country club sport, yet it’s hard to go a week without seeing a tournament on one of the broadcast networks. The PGA audience skews even older than the tennis viewership. But there are many important differences, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 

It’s easy to compare it to golf, which is similarly a country club sport, yet it’s hard to go a week without seeing a tournament on one of the broadcast networks. The PGA audience skews even older than the tennis viewership. But there are many important differences, I know.

 

It's a very similar analogy though. 

I know there have been some dips in viewers when Tiger wasn't playing but overall, golf's numbers have stayed close to what they have been over the last decade or so. 

With the emergence of golfers like Jordan Spieth, casual interest has held on, especially at major events.

On any given Sunday, you can see golf on CBS during warm weather months. 

ESPN also regularly covers golf and I'm always seeing highlights on the local/regional nightly news. 

The Masters, The U.S. Open and the Ryders Cup all get good media coverage (more than 30 seconds, that's for sure) and I don't even watch golf! LOL. 

If anything, there are more public tennis courts than golf courses open to the public in the U.S.

 

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis needs another phenomenon!  It could have been Taylor Townsend or Nick Kyrgios, but at least one of these ships have sailed.  Osaka just may be that person.  

 

The Williams Sisters are close to retirement but Serena remains box office.  That won't last much longer.  Folks quickly forget it was Venus and Serena that took tennis to prime time!  It's gradually worked its way back up to Daytime and, eventually, if something big does not come along, Finals will be held on weekday mornings/afternoons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ChitHappens said:

Tennis needs another phenomenon!  It could have been Taylor Townsend or Nick Kyrgios, but at least one of these ships have sailed.  Osaka just may be that person.  

 

The Williams Sisters are close to retirement but Serena remains box office.  That won't last much longer.  Folks quickly forget it was Venus and Serena that took tennis to prime time!  It's gradually worked its way back up to Daytime and, eventually, if something big does not come along, Finals will be held on weekday mornings/afternoons!

 

How are people going to see them in the U.S. when coverage of the matches are so scattershot?  That's a major problem.  The WTA, in particular, went for that short money with no long term thinking on how they could make the sport more accessible.  

Are there droves of little brown kids from Compton who have access to WTA TV and Tennis TV?  What about TC's online tier that is exorbitant?  US Tennis needs to stop price gouging and trying to handpick faves and open it up to more people.  

 

Although Europe (which makes their matches far more accessible) had great numbers.  Of course, having the men's and women's champions be European surely made a difference but Eurosport makes their matches much more accessible than their U.S. counterparts do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love golf as well and it has the advantage of having 3 of the 4 majors in the US. Also as @DramatistDreamer pointed it out they have break out stars like Jordan Spieth and other American males. The ratings for the Masters final round this year was....7.9 rating and 13.0 million viewers....a lot higher than any tennis match this year.

Edited by Soapsuds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy vs Kyrgios first round next week:o The draw looks real good for the tourney in England.

22 hours ago, Faulkner said:

Federer/Kyrgios semi in Stuttgart.

After the first set Roger hoping and praying that Kyrgios is not on his side of the draw at Wimbledon.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soapsuds said:

Andy vs Kyrgios first round next week:o The draw looks real good for the tourney in England.

After the first set Roger hoping and praying that Kyrgios is not on his side of the draw at Wimbledon.:lol:

We’ll see. Nick is making a mess out of the second set. He thought he could just ace Roger out of the court, but the double faults are piling up and when Roger actually gets a return in play, point Roger.

 

EDIT: Nick got it to a third set TB, but he can sometimes let up against the better players he likes personally (Murray, Fed) as we’ve seen before. He often can be unplayable when he’s serving out of his mind (like the Acapulco match against a befuddled, antsy Novak), but I don’t know if that holds up best-of-five over two weeks. And... he’s injury-prone and gets unsettled when calls or circumstances don’t go his way.

Edited by Faulkner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ash Barty beat Osaka in seemingly routine straights in Nottingham. Konta and Vekic, who I believe had a very competitive match at Wimbledon a couple years ago, are next up in the semis there.

 

Remember Krunic, who had that fairytale run at the USO a few years back? She just came back from a set down to beat Coco in two tiebreakers in ‘s-Hertogenbosch SF. Krunic will play Flipkens in the final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...