PDA

View Full Version : Murray V Djokovic draws highest TV audience since 2007


batz
09-12-2012, 04:49 AM
http://www.startribune.com/sports/169399776.html?refer=y

16 million tuned in, 4 million more than Rafa v Nole last year.

tank_job
09-12-2012, 04:52 AM
Murray's longstanding close-but-no-cigar problem resonated with the Americans in a big way.

It was clear that the crowd also wanted to be a part of his break-through.

DragonBlaze
09-12-2012, 04:53 AM
http://www.startribune.com/sports/169399776.html?refer=y

16 million tuned in, 4 million more than Rafa v Nole last year.

Interesting, I wonder why? Rafa is clearly a bigger name than Nole/Murray??

Also according to that article only 6 million or so tuned in to see Rafa win the Career Slam in 2010 :-|.

Anybody got any explanations??

Highest since 2007 makes sense since that was the last Sunday final.

mistik
09-12-2012, 04:56 AM
Murray reaching a GS final and going for his 1 is still a big news.People are used to see the likes of Nadal and Djokovic win.Even my grandmother was curious if Murray in the end win a major title.That says it all.:)

tusharlovesrafa
09-12-2012, 05:00 AM
Makes no sense to me..I remember watching the news after 2008 wimbly finals,where nearly 1.1 million people watched that final only in INDIA.So the total audience all over the world would be a lot higher..Bogus numbers..

nereis
09-12-2012, 06:07 AM
Murray presents a hugely compelling underdog story. He's a scrappy boy from a 'working class' background in a sport full of sons of bankers, businessmen and slick operators.

It's the same secret to why Rocky movies have a cult following.

Cup8489
09-12-2012, 06:11 AM
Makes no sense to me..I remember watching the news after 2008 wimbly finals,where nearly 1.1 million people watched that final only in INDIA.So the total audience all over the world would be a lot higher..Bogus numbers..

Highest USO audience since 2007. Many people watch 2008 wimbledon. it was a sunday, and it was Fedal.

CMM
09-12-2012, 06:16 AM
Anybody got any explanations??

It might have something to do with this http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/09/cbs-espn-abandon-u-s-open-final/18911/

jt1224x0
09-12-2012, 06:19 AM
the women had 18 million :)

tennisMVP
09-12-2012, 07:16 AM
The reason is that Djokovic's 2011 has propelled him into star status in America. Djokovic's 2011 has been hailed as the greatest year ever or one of. His hype level grew since then, so now in 2012 he's a big star. Whereas in 2010 and 2011 the final was "Nadal vs that Serbian guy". 2010 and 2011 were considered a "let-down" because people had been hoping for Nadal vs Federer. This year Djokovic isn't a let down, he's a star.

tacou
09-12-2012, 07:21 AM
I don't get it. Worldwide?

lendlmac
09-12-2012, 09:51 AM
it's a brand new day folks in men's tennis...it's a brand new day. :)

batz
09-12-2012, 10:01 AM
I don't get it. Worldwide?

No - just USA.

Clarky21
09-12-2012, 10:22 AM
The reason is that Djokovic's 2011 has propelled him into star status in America. Djokovic's 2011 has been hailed as the greatest year ever or one of. His hype level grew since then, so now in 2012 he's a big star. Whereas in 2010 and 2011 the final was "Nadal vs that Serbian guy". 2010 and 2011 were considered a "let-down" because people had been hoping for Nadal vs Federer. This year Djokovic isn't a let down, he's a star.



Total bs. If I walked up to a stranger on the street and asked them who Novak Djokovic is they would look at me totally bewildered. Especially because tennis is a fringe sport in the US. And **** isn't even that popular world wide outside of Serbia. Recently,less than 25 people showed up to his press conference while there were more than a hundred at Fed's at the same tournament. He's a dud plain and simple.

krz
09-12-2012, 10:25 AM
Interesting, I wonder why? Rafa is clearly a bigger name than Nole/Murray??


They don't call him ****** for nothing :P

krz
09-12-2012, 10:26 AM
the women had 18 million :)

so you're saying people don't skip work to watch tennis? STOP THE PRESSES!

tacou
09-12-2012, 11:40 AM
No - just USA.

those are pretty big numbers, especially for a program that started Monday at 4pm....

BreakPoint
09-12-2012, 11:46 AM
http://www.startribune.com/sports/169399776.html?refer=y

16 million tuned in, 4 million more than Rafa v Nole last year.


"CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Murray's 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2 win. It was an increase of 4.4 million from Djokovic's victory against Rafael Nadal in the 2011 final and 10.3 million more than Nadal's victory over Djokovic two years ago, according to Nielsen numbers provided by the network."

And 10.3 million more than the 2010 final when Nadal beat Djokovic. That means only 5.9 million tuned in for that match, only about 1/3 as many as this year's final.

The numbers don't lie. Apparently very few people are interested in watching Nadal play and even fewer want to watch Nadal win. :shock:

Homeboy Hotel
09-12-2012, 11:55 AM
Anyone care to take a stab in the dark to what the worldwide stats were?

El Diablo
09-12-2012, 12:03 PM
.....and.....the Dow just hit its highest level since.....2007! Coincidence? I doubt it.

jt1224x0
09-12-2012, 12:04 PM
so you're saying people don't skip work to watch tennis? STOP THE PRESSES!

are you mad?

The-Champ
09-12-2012, 01:27 PM
http://www.startribune.com/sports/169399776.html?refer=y

16 million tuned in, 4 million more than Rafa v Nole last year.

Many people want to see Murray succeed. I've mentioned in another thread that he will reach the popularity level of Fedal, maybe exceed it. Andy is a global superstar now which he truly deserves. Also celebrities support him.

Homeboy Hotel
09-12-2012, 01:30 PM
Many people want to see Murray succeed. I've mentioned in another thread that he will reach the popularity level of Fedal, maybe exceed it. Andy is a global superstar now which he truly deserves. Also celebrities support him.

This is true. More big names expressed their emotion when Murray lost Wimbledon/AO's etc and when he won USO than a Djokovic win/Fed #18/Nadal career grand slam.

cork_screw
09-12-2012, 05:14 PM
I think some of it might be the day and time it was scheduled. There was another USO that was scheduled for monday and that might have been overshadowed by the difference in the subtraction of nadal and fed, but I do believe that people tend to stay home more on monday evenings rather than sunday noon time where more people are out and about, especially in the fall season. But yes, many were probably also brits. Monday night is a popular night to have programming because it's a night people don't schedule things on. Just a little side point.

FeŮa14
09-12-2012, 05:17 PM
No - just USA.

Have you managed to find the stats for the UK?

I'm guessing with it being on Sky and so late, they won't be that high. Even so, would be interesting to know.

ledwix
09-12-2012, 05:39 PM
The Murray final lasted longer than Djokovic's victory, which lasted longer than Nadal's victory. So that's also a factor since it says they measured how many people watched "all or part" of the match.

Also, Djokovic is still not well-known in America, because no tennis players are known here except Federer and Nadal, plus whatever American players get mentioned on ESPN. In fact my friend met a Rafael who went by Rafa yet had *never* heard of Nadal when mentioned in comparison to him. Another friend of mine who is an average American sports junkie had never heard of Djokovic when I mentioned him in the middle of 2011. To be well known as a tennis player here you have to be a legend. To be well-known in football you just need to get injured so you can be part of the endless injury reports and slowmo replays they broadcrast.

tennisMVP
09-12-2012, 05:48 PM
"CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Murray's 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2 win. It was an increase of 4.4 million from Djokovic's victory against Rafael Nadal in the 2011 final and 10.3 million more than Nadal's victory over Djokovic two years ago, according to Nielsen numbers provided by the network."

And 10.3 million more than the 2010 final when Nadal beat Djokovic. That means only 5.9 million tuned in for that match, only about 1/3 as many as this year's final.

The numbers don't lie. Apparently very few people are interested in watching Nadal play and even fewer want to watch Nadal win. :shock:

How many Americans knew anything about Djokovic in 2010/2011? Since then, Djokovic has produced one of the top 3 years in the Open Era. In 2012, the media focused on Djokovic because of the amazing 2011. That tends to make you a star in America. That is the difference, not Murray.

oneness
09-12-2012, 06:20 PM
Twitter conversation.

Jon Wertheim ‏@jon_wertheim
Hey @richarddeitsch : tennis fans are asking you to make sense of these us open finals ratings: Good? Bad? Misleading?

Richard Deitsch ‏@richarddeitsch
@jon_wertheim Little misleading because of lateness of the match. Peaked at 9-9:15 pm so casual tune-in factor. Still, a lot of viewers..

Not sure if this related.

@linzsports: "Who ever invented tennis can SUCK IT right now I wanna watch How I Met Your Mother!!!" http://deadsp.in/RPYXPM

90's Clay
09-12-2012, 06:35 PM
Im surprised there are so many people fans of murray's game.

BreakPoint
09-12-2012, 08:36 PM
I think some of it might be the day and time it was scheduled. There was another USO that was scheduled for monday and that might have been overshadowed by the difference in the subtraction of nadal and fed, but I do believe that people tend to stay home more on monday evenings rather than sunday noon time where more people are out and about, especially in the fall season. But yes, many were probably also brits. Monday night is a popular night to have programming because it's a night people don't schedule things on. Just a little side point.
But all three finals ('10, '11, '12) were at the same time and day - Monday at 4:00pm EST.

Nadal was favored to win in 2010 in his amazing year - thus, only 5.9 million people tuned in.

Djokovic was favored to win in 2011 in his amazing year -so the number of people tuning in doubled to 11.8 million.

This year, no Nadal at all, so the number of people tuning in skyrocketed to 16.2 million, which is almost triple the number of viewers watching in 2010 when Nadal won.

The conclusion is clear - no Nadal means highest ratings. Nadal winning means lowest ratings. People don't want to tune in to watch Nadal play and even fewer want to watch Nadal win. I guess most people find his game, bolo forehand, loud grunting, butt picking, etc. just too annoying?

BTW, these rating have nothing to do with Brits tuning in because there are American TV ratings only.

BreakPoint
09-12-2012, 08:39 PM
How many Americans knew anything about Djokovic in 2010/2011? Since then, Djokovic has produced one of the top 3 years in the Open Era. In 2012, the media focused on Djokovic because of the amazing 2011. That tends to make you a star in America. That is the difference, not Murray.
I'd say the difference is more likely the absence of Nadal. :)

People obviously knew about Nadal in 2010 (he already won the French and Wimbledon that year, remember?), yet only 1/3 as many people watched his match as compared to Murray's match.

tennisMVP
09-12-2012, 08:54 PM
I'd say the difference is more likely the absence of Nadal. :)

People obviously knew about Nadal in 2010 (he already won the French and Wimbledon that year, remember?), yet only 1/3 as many people watched his match as compared to Murray's match.

I think in 2010 and 2011 it was like "Legend Nadal vs the Serbian".

Whereas in 2012, Americans knew who Murray was because he's been the symbol of Great Britain for some time now, he's like part of the Royal Family almost, especially after the Olympics. And like I alluded to earlier, America know who Djokovic is NOW because of the huge hype that followed 2011.

I think in 2012 it is like "Legend Djokovic vs Symbol of Britain Murray".

So I think Nadal vs Murray would have an audience just as big as Djokovic vs Murray.

And now Nadal vs Djokovic would have a big audience too as Djokovic's stardom has arrived.

Either way, nobody knows the exact reasons for anything. I'm just speculating. And I doubt we've seen the last US Open final with Nadal in it, so we'll judge in future (assuming he plays STAR Djokovic or Murray).

CMM
09-12-2012, 09:25 PM
I'd say the difference is more likely the absence of Nadal. :)

People obviously knew about Nadal in 2010 (he already won the French and Wimbledon that year, remember?), yet only 1/3 as many people watched his match as compared to Murray's match.

Dude, can't you read?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/09/cbs-espn-abandon-u-s-open-final/18911/
There's also a comment on that article
When the rain delay occurred during Monday's final I missed the commentators' statement (assuming there was one) that the match would resume on ESPN2. I thought I heard the tail end of a comment saying that the match would resume at 9:30pm if the rain stopped (?) In any case, despite leaving the TV on CBS the rest of the evening I heard nothing further about the match. Unaware that it had been switched to ESPN2, I missed the rest of the final. I am furious with CBS for abandoning coverage and even more furious that more wasn't done to alert fans to the switch to ESPN2. What about putting a crawl on the bottom of the screen ?? After putting hours and hours into watching US Open matches and so much looking forward to seeing Rafael Nadal win his career Grand Slam, I was denied the opportunity due to CBS' poor handling of the situation. I am in shock and disbelief that I missed the match.

BreakPoint
09-12-2012, 10:03 PM
Dude, can't you read?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/09/cbs-espn-abandon-u-s-open-final/18911/
There's also a comment on that article
What do you mean - "Can't I read?" Am I supposed to have already read an article that you hadn't posted yet? :???:

And, so what? Most of the 2010 final was on CBS. Where were all the viewers? Not a whole lot of viewers even started to watch it on CBS.

CMM
09-12-2012, 10:54 PM
What do you mean - "Can't I read?" Am I supposed to have already read an article that you hadn't posted yet? :???:
It was posted on the previous page.

And, so what? Most of the 2010 final was on CBS. Where were all the viewers? Not a whole lot of viewers even started to watch it on CBS.
I don't think they measure how many people started to watch it.

The AO slugfest was very popular.
Eurosport recorded its best ever #tennis audience during Djokovic vs Nadal on Sunday - reached 20 million viewers overall, peak of 7.9m.

http://twitter.com/#!/AFraser/status/164368913642160128

WOW: Aussie Channel 7's coverage of Djokovic v Nadal top ranked show of 2012-average audience of 1,860,000 watched until after 1.30 AM... peak audience of almost 4 million. Cant imagine what negative spin the 'tennis isnt popular' folks can say about that

http://twitter.com/TennisReporters/status/164381130282369024

BreakPoint
09-12-2012, 11:25 PM
^^^^^

Djokovic was favored and won that match. He had beaten Nadal like 6 times in a row already in finals. People tuned in to see another beatdown of Nadal. :)

That's why the ratings for the US Open doubled in 2011 when Djokovic beat up on Nadal than in 2010 when Nadal won. :shock:

Fedex
09-13-2012, 01:02 AM
Have you managed to find the stats for the UK?

I'm guessing with it being on Sky and so late, they won't be that high. Even so, would be interesting to know.

Shocking it wasn't on BBC.
Probably the single greatest British sporting moment missed.
I had to watch it in a pub then got chucked out at quarter past midnight then the rest on a stream on my laptop at home.
Sky have got a lot to answer for monopolising significant sporting events like this.
Britain wants to promote tennis and they can't show a Brit winning the final of a slam!
It's really pathetic.

tennisMVP
09-13-2012, 02:17 AM
That Australian audience is the most incredible thing I've ever heard in my life. A peak audience of 4 million, in a population as small as Australia. And so late into the night, incredible.

Nadal-vs-Djokovic was more popular than the Melbourne Cup (biggest horse race in Australia).

SempreSami
09-13-2012, 04:01 AM
Have you managed to find the stats for the UK?

I'm guessing with it being on Sky and so late, they won't be that high. Even so, would be interesting to know.

That scripted "thank you" he gave to Sky when he joined them in their studio was pathetic. You never get anyone saying thank you to the BBC at Wimbledon.

DRII
09-13-2012, 04:17 AM
"CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Murray's 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2 win. It was an increase of 4.4 million from Djokovic's victory against Rafael Nadal in the 2011 final and 10.3 million more than Nadal's victory over Djokovic two years ago, according to Nielsen numbers provided by the network."

And 10.3 million more than the 2010 final when Nadal beat Djokovic. That means only 5.9 million tuned in for that match, only about 1/3 as many as this year's final.

The numbers don't lie. Apparently very few people are interested in watching Nadal play and even fewer want to watch Nadal win. :shock:


Dream on...

perhaps Nole's 'tight shorts', that you're obsessed with, attracted plenty of viewers like yourself.

DRII
09-13-2012, 04:20 AM
Twitter conversation.

Jon Wertheim ‏@jon_wertheim
Hey @richarddeitsch : tennis fans are asking you to make sense of these us open finals ratings: Good? Bad? Misleading?

Richard Deitsch ‏@richarddeitsch
@jon_wertheim Little misleading because of lateness of the match. Peaked at 9-9:15 pm so casual tune-in factor. Still, a lot of viewers..

Not sure if this related.

@linzsports: "Who ever invented tennis can SUCK IT right now I wanna watch How I Met Your Mother!!!" http://deadsp.in/RPYXPM



Exactly!

People were tuning in for CBS primetime, which is the most watched channel in the U.S.

Hopefully some will become more interested in tennis and watch on a regular basis; doubt it though...

Mainad
09-13-2012, 04:23 AM
Shocking it wasn't on BBC.
Probably the single greatest British sporting moment missed.
I had to watch it in a pub then got chucked out at quarter past midnight then the rest on a stream on my laptop at home.
Sky have got a lot to answer for monopolising significant sporting events like this.
Britain wants to promote tennis and they can't show a Brit winning the final of a slam!
It's really pathetic.

I totally agree. I've had Sky and Eurosport for years so I guess I've becoome a bit spoiled. I tend to forget not everyone has access to these channels. It is bad form that the BBC were not able to show Murray winning his first Slam. Was it purely for contractual reasons? Surely they could have come to some arrangement.

Did no local tennis-loving pub landlords manage to get a licence to stay open for Murray's match? That's also a shame!

namelessone
09-13-2012, 04:31 AM
Can't believe people think Nadal is a bad draw for ratings. There are tons of people that want to see him. 2010 USO and 2012 RG were rained out at times, with breaks as it were(I am a Nadal fan and I couldn't see the full matches) and they still got great ratings.

What you need for high ratings is two stars of near equal stature. When you get a star and a more unknown guy(to the masses that is), the ratings will be lower.

You can't take how much people love to watch a player just by the ratings on certain networks. Look at this article:
http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

On CBS, Fed, a player with a spectacular style, regularly features on the lowest ratings list for finals:

WIMBLEDON MEN’S FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988 ):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

Peters
09-13-2012, 04:34 AM
I totally agree. I've had Sky and Eurosport for years so I guess I've becoome a bit spoiled. I tend to forget not everyone has access to these channels. It is bad form that the BBC were not able to show Murray winning his first Slam. Was it purely for contractual reasons? Surely they could have come to some arrangement.
Yes, the BBC could have forked out for the final if they wanted, everything has a price (Sky would have been compensated), but they've been throwing their toys out the pram lately due to what they perceive to be unfair budget cuts.

Instead of cutting back on the crap that no-one watches on the likes of BBC3 and streamlining it, they've simply been sticking two fingers up to sports fans and dropping that stuff instead. Like F1 being sold to Sky, etc.

It was in the nation's interests for the Murray match to be shown on the BBC, live to everyone. But times have changed unfortunately.

tennisMVP
09-13-2012, 04:59 AM
Can't believe people think Nadal is a bad draw for ratings. There are tons of people that want to see him. 2010 USO and 2012 RG were rained out at times, with breaks as it were(I am a Nadal fan and I couldn't see the full matches) and they still got great ratings.

What you need for high ratings is two stars of near equal stature. When you get a star and a more unknown guy(to the masses that is), the ratings will be lower.

You can't take how much people love to watch a player just by the ratings on certain networks. Look at this article:
http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

On CBS, Fed, a player with a spectacular style, regularly features on the lowest ratings list for finals:

WIMBLEDON MENíS FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988 ):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

U.S. OPEN MENíS FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

Also interesting to see what the ratings were for 2009 AO final, and compare it to the 2012 AO final. I suspect 2012 would have the higher rating.

10is93
09-13-2012, 05:27 AM
You can't take how much people love to watch a player just by the ratings on certain networks. Look at this article:
http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

On CBS, Fed, a player with a spectacular style, regularly features on the lowest ratings list for finals:

WIMBLEDON MENíS FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988 ):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

U.S. OPEN MENíS FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

Now you can replace some matches with the Nadal/ Djokovic finals
Nadal and Djokovic Wimbledon 2011 earned a 1.8
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/07/wimbledon-wrap-slightly-more-viewers-for-nbcs-swan-song/

And at the USO, the Delpo/Fed match did better.
2010
Mondayís Nadal/Djokovic U.S. Open Menís Final averaged a 1.8 final rating and 2.5 million viewers on CBS and a 1.2 and 1.85 million on ESPN2.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010/09/they-hate-mondays-another-year-of-low/

2011
Ratings and Viewership Rise For U.S. Open Menís Final: The Novak Djokovic/Rafael Nadal U.S. Open Menís Final drew a 2.3 final rating and 3.336 million viewers on CBS September 12, up 28% in ratings and 35% in viewership from the CBS portion of last yearís final (Nadal/Djokovic: 1.8, 2.466M), and flat and down 2%, respectively, compared to 2009 (Del Potro/Federer: 2.3, 3.391M).The last time the Menís Final aired in the traditional Sunday afternoon timeslot (2007), the match drew a 3.7 and 5.363 million viewers. (Nielsen)

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/09/more-ratings-u-s-open-final-wnba-playoffs-kansas-city-royals/

For this year the numbers of people who watched in all or part is high but the match earned a 2.2 in ratings.
Monday finals are not good for the ratings, there is football at the same time, and I remember in 2008 many fans complained the match wasn't showed on TV where they lived in the US and had to watch on a livestream. Maybe it also happened for others monday finals.

SempreSami
09-13-2012, 05:27 AM
Yes, the BBC could have forked out for the final if they wanted, everything has a price (Sky would have been compensated), but they've been throwing their toys out the pram lately due to what they perceive to be unfair budget cuts.

Instead of cutting back on the crap that no-one watches on the likes of BBC3 and streamlining it, they've simply been sticking two fingers up to sports fans and dropping that stuff instead. Like F1 being sold to Sky, etc.

It was in the nation's interests for the Murray match to be shown on the BBC, live to everyone. But times have changed unfortunately.

The Beeb might have cut back on a lot of things, but they did deliver the best ever coverage for the Olympics.

batz
09-13-2012, 05:34 AM
Sorry guys, but from a commercial perspective, Sky would need to be mental to give up their exclusive access to the USO final. They are a subscription company - it's how they make money. If they start selling their exclusive rights to free to air broadcasters every time a big event happens, then nobody would subscribe - because we'd all know that we could see it on the beeb.


I thought it was telling that Murray spent 20 minutes in the Sky studio within half an hour of winning his first slam - he thanked Sky for all their support of tennis in the UK and said that they were a godsend to him when he has his long injury as a youngster - it allowed him to watch a lot of tennis players.

dudeski
09-13-2012, 05:42 AM
But all three finals ('10, '11, '12) were at the same time and day - Monday at 4:00pm EST.

Nadal was favored to win in 2010 in his amazing year - thus, only 5.9 million people tuned in.

Djokovic was favored to win in 2011 in his amazing year -so the number of people tuning in doubled to 11.8 million.

This year, no Nadal at all, so the number of people tuning in skyrocketed to 16.2 million, which is almost triple the number of viewers watching in 2010 when Nadal won.

The conclusion is clear - no Nadal means highest ratings. Nadal winning means lowest ratings. People don't want to tune in to watch Nadal play and even fewer want to watch Nadal win. I guess most people find his game, bolo forehand, loud grunting, butt picking, etc. just too annoying?

BTW, these rating have nothing to do with Brits tuning in because there are American TV ratings only.

Great analysis. Fully agree.

krz
09-13-2012, 06:02 AM
are you mad?

http://emotibot.net/pix/3420.jpg

syc23
09-13-2012, 06:24 AM
I was disappointed that BBC didn't fork out the cash to show such an important event. I don't normally subscribe to Sky as I'm normally content with watching AO on Eurosport, FO on Eurosport/ITV, Wimby on the BBC. USO has exclusive coverage of all the matches that involves Murray and any of the mens top 4 leaving Eurosport showing the leftovers which no one cares about.

I only subscribe to Sky for 1 month just before the start of Cincy and then cancel after USO. I can get live streams but £22 to subscribe is not bad as I cannot be bothered with crappy livestreams cutting out during the important moments in a match which they always seem to do!