Complaints by Serena and Williams on Wimby Court Scheduling

[wangs78]

The fans mostly on this message board may prefer watching the top males, but the global consensus proves otherwise.


Judging by your post, I can guess you don’t have daughters, and if you do, what are you going to tell them? You’re not worth equal prize money because “nobody including me, your dear old father/mother doesn’t want to see you play anyway”.

What's your source for the global consensus comment? I'd really like to see that. The truth is that sports overall are heavily tilted in favor of men, because, in general, sports are testosterone driven. Tennis is probably one of, if not the, most equitable sports in terms of prize money for men and women. I'd be interested to see how many of the highest-paid male athletes of the world are tennis players (probably very few) and how many of the highest-paid female atheletes are tennis players (probably very many). I'd love to have a daughter one day but I'd have no problem telling her that in general female athletes are paid less than men. I'd be just as comfortable telling my son that male models are paid a lot less than female models. The argument your making is an emotional argument that's logically flawed. If the demand for women players was lower than that for men, then they should indeed be paid less. It has nothing to do with not wanting to hurt your daughter's feelings.

So the argument that ppl in this thread are having should be "Do spectators of the sport of tennis who drive attendance revenue and ad revenue want to see female players just as much as male players?" My guess is probably not. With that said, I think the male/female demand balance is much more even for tennis than for any other sport out there. Can't imagine anyone who'd rather watch the WNBA than the NBA.

 

[wangs78]

You have got to be kidding. Venus and Serena are some of the hugest draws in tennis. Have you seen the crowds at Maria's matches? And even then people are usually rooting for the other player. Maria's "popularity" and endorsements are a product of the commentary booth and their excessive lobbying. The organisers at the tournament I attend each year were losing money on the WTA until Serena entered the tournament. The ticket sales went through the roof. After each match she played the director was on court thanking her for entering as she was shattering records left and right. When she didn't come the next year, guess what? Sales plummeted! Why do you think Mary Carillo and Mary Jo Fernandez were/are always making a plea for them to come back? Their Williams Sisters finals draw the most viewers than any player you can think of, that includes Roger, Rafa, and Maria. You cannot believe everything they say on TV. If you don't believe me, do some research. The Williams Sisters draw not only tennis fans, but there are many who only watch when they play!

You're saying that in the UK, at Wimbledon, more ppl would go to see a final with Serena in it than one with Roger in it??? You can't be serious!!!

 

[Spin Doctor]

Eh, from what I've seen of the women's matches, they're lucky they haven't been relegated to the actual parking lot next to the courts they're complaining about.

I find it hard to believe that there are just as many people who would want to see the women's matches as the men. I would rather see a men's round of 16 match than the women's final.

As for the popularity of women's matches on TV, I imagine that the ratings for the Williams' matches would be higher in the U.S. only, simply because they are American not for the quality of play.

 

[Mr Topspin]

Federer complained at RG for playing on S Lenglen.

Wimbledon doesn't do court scheduling for the USO. The USO is not a part of this discussion. Venus has 4X the number of trophies at this tournament and Serena has twice as many than Maria. Yet, Maria has never been scheduled there, and you think that somehow makes sense? Jelena is the #2 player in the world, higher than Maria, soooo why is Maria getting special treatment?

I agree with all your points. It is shabby treatment no matter how others want to call it. Venus is defending champion and should have been on CC or Ct 1. Serena has less of an argument and Jankovic should also be on CC or Ct 1.

Many people here are forgetting that Federer has played exclusively on CC so far and that does not look like changing. Would it be so unfair for Federer to play on Ct 1 or even Ct 2? I think the point is there is a lack of equity in the decesion making by the AETLC.

And on the point of complaining, it seems that the Williams' clan kop a lot of flak for the smallest indiscretion. Lets not forget that Venus did not even say anything but is guilty by asssociation yet again. However, at RG this year Federer was put on Suzanne Lenglen court, which is equilavent to Ct 1 and guess what? He complained as well.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I know. And they have consistently had higher ratings for years. It's not about popularity. Tennis fans may know Maria, Federer, and even Rafa. But everybody knows the Williams Sisters, even those who don't follow tennis. The arguments for them being delegated to court 2 is faulty, but people believe what they want to believe!

Proof please. Let's see the comparative world television ratings.

I'm sure you believe that the Williams sisters are intensely interesting to everyone but the fact that their "reality" television series lasted about as long as an ice cream cone in the Sahara says differently. I like Venus, at least, but let's not live in a land of make believe on this.



Roger Federer is internationally famous on a grand scale. If a Fed-Nadal match up doesn't outdraw the Williams and whomever they play that will be real news and I'll be checking the ratings.

 

[origmarm]

The way this has always been reported in the British press (Times and BBC) is that where there is a scheduling decision to be taken between matches, the organisers consider the caliber of the players and the quality of the tie irrespective of past scheduling during the tournament i.e. just because you have been on centre court yesterday it does not affect whether you go on centre court tomorrow. This above means that in theory it doesn't matter if you are a man or women and that your ranking or tournament history matters less than the quality of the matchup on the day and the perceived value to the paying public. There is no mandate to promote equality or special treatment for past champions, it is all subjective.

I would suggest that given the quality of the matchups I have seen on centre this tournament compared to the matches on other courts, their judgement has been good.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

http://proathletesonly.com/news/loc...mplaints-over-court-assignments-at-wimbledon/
Pay particular note to Roger's comments about Pete Sampras getting put on court two after winning Wimbledon seven times!
I don't recall Pete whining about it.

When the Williams play each other in the finals I'm sure it won't be on court two. So let's end the end of the world drama, please.

 

[cknobman]

Not really. The Williams Sisters sell a lot more tickets and have higher TV ratings than even Federer.

Not at Wimbledon, and sorry this is a fact. Think bigger than America too. Maybe the Williams draw more American viewers but not worldwide.

 

[oberyn]

Pay particular note to Roger's co... about having to play on Court 2. :confused:

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Pete's comments at that time were in the same vein as those of the current players.

Okay, he wasn't pleased but the world didn't come to an end. The point is, that this sort of thing has happened to people other than those named Williams.

I can't understand why folks are acting as if this is the first time former champions haven't been too pleased about having to play on Court 2.

I don't think the problem is the reaction of the Williams sisters, per se. It's all the kool aid drinking fans of theirs that act like this is some sort of unprecedented slap in the face to them.

 

[oberyn]

Okay, he wasn't pleased but the world didn't come to an end. The point is, that this sort of thing has happened to people other than those named Williams.

I agree with you.

I don't think the problem is the reaction of the Williams sisters, per se. It's all the kool aid drinking fans of theirs that act like this is some sort of unprecedented slap in the face to them.

And Sampras fans (though not as vocal) still complain about 2002. It's what tennis players and their fans do.

 

[tenis]

...crying babies!

 

[heftylefty]

Saddest part about this thread: It was the WTA chairman that complained...not the William Sisters or at least no more than other players.

I guess some people get off on being flamers.

 

[TheTruth]

You're saying that in the UK, at Wimbledon, more ppl would go to see a final with Serena in it than one with Roger in it??? You can't be serious!!!

Your previous post said, my guess, and judging by what you wrote I'm in total agreement, you're guessing. A guess is an unfounded opinion. Every year they tell you about the TV rankings for the finals, especially the ones the Williams Sisters are in. I've been reading them for years. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not guessing!

 

[zagor]

I've read Venus interviews and she didn't complain at all(I don't know about Serena and others).Even though they're sisters people are grouping them too much IMO,they actually have pretty different personalities from what I've seen and if Serena complains that doesn't mean Venus did the same and vice versa.

 

[TheTruth]

Eh, from what I've seen of the women's matches, they're lucky they haven't been relegated to the actual parking lot next to the courts they're complaining about.

I find it hard to believe that there are just as many people who would want to see the women's matches as the men. I would rather see a men's round of 16 match than the women's final.

As for the popularity of women's matches on TV, I imagine that the ratings for the Williams' matches would be higher in the U.S. only, simply because they are American not for the quality of play.

I would rather watch the men too, but what does that have to do with reality? Do you really think the women would get equal money if they weren't bringing in the revenue? Just something to chew on!

 

[TheTruth]

I agree with all your points. It is shabby treatment no matter how others want to call it. Venus is defending champion and should have been on CC or Ct 1. Serena has less of an argument and Jankovic should also be on CC or Ct 1.

Many people here are forgetting that Federer has played exclusively on CC so far and that does not look like changing. Would it be so unfair for Federer to play on Ct 1 or even Ct 2? I think the point is there is a lack of equity in the decesion making by the AETLC.

And on the point of complaining, it seems that the Williams' clan kop a lot of flak for the smallest indiscretion. Lets not forget that Venus did not even say anything but is guilty by asssociation yet again. However, at RG this year Federer was put on Suzanne Lenglen court, which is equilavent to Ct 1 and guess what? He complained as well.

I know. So many people are not informed. That's the bottom line.

 

[seffina]

Frankly, a four time champion deserves a show court. Not all the time, but definitely once or twice during the early rounds.

Women's tennis is not valued the same way. It's sad and disappointing, but it's the truth. And it's also the fault of the players at the moment as well. Just a few years ago, I was just as excited about the WTA matches and as the ATP. Now, not so much. I was also such a huge fan of Henin that I was sorely disappointed when she left the sport.

Many of the posters are saying that people have always complained about this. I agree they have, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't keep on complaining. What is wrong with the WTA complaining? Their job is to fight for their players and even if they don't succeed, they have to keep on fighting.

Venus probably wasn't pleased with the Court 2 assignment, but she probably needs the show courts the least since she never uses Hawkeye.

 

[TheTruth]

Is court 2 or 18 a different size than centre or 1? If not, then no one should complain. Just get out there and play. Tennis already has a reputation as a pansy sport anyway. All this whining does not help that. Tournament has right to schedule as they want. If player does not like it they can choose not to play.

Yes, Centre Court is the biggest, then Court 1. Most of the other courts are small and more intimate as far as the fans watching. You can see the difference when they do the aerial views, or when they're coming back from commercials. Centre Court and Court 1 gives you more room to track balls down without running into the walls. Jelena said Court 18 felt like being on a parking lot. It's also why so many people who have never been on Centre Court suffer with making the adjustment. Top players are not complaining for no reason, especially when those with much stellar resumes are getting the better courts!

 

[TheTruth]

Maria, Rafa and Roger are more sellable and profitable than the William sister's and Jelena Jankovic. As much as Wimbledon is about Tennis and player's, the Organisers want to cash in Tennis fan's money and lets face facts, spectators want to get tickets on the show courts, and they want to see the Stars and with Maria, Rafa and Roger, these are arguably the biggest stars of Tennis at the moment. They attract the revenue, these are the player's people want to watch. Women want to see Rafa's biceps, Men want to see Maria's legs, whether they want to admit it or not. People are in awe of Federer's tennis ability, and he is an accessible tennis player, therefore he sells - he's one of the best tennis player's of all time and has done much to endorse the sport.

It's unfair, but Wimbledon is just as much a revenue making machine, as it is a tennis tournament.

The sport also has faced a tough era on the men's side of the game, enduring first a period of parity and then of dominance by Roger Federer, welcome developments for hardcore fans but a tougher sell to the casual viewer.

During the past five years, ratings have held relatively flat; household ratings for the 25 hours of Wimbledon NBC aired last year averaged a 1.8, off just slightly from the 2.1 five years ago. The numbers indicate that the serious fan is there but cry out for an expansion to more casual viewers.
Some elements, certainly, are proven viewership boosters -- the Williams sisters (Venus and Serena) and longstanding rivalries, to name two. While the appeal of tennis to so many fans is the continuing emergence of new players, it's the long-term rivalries -- as seen in the golden era of Connors-McEnroe in the 1980s or complementary styles of the Sampras-Agassi duels of the late '90s and early '00s -- that drive mainstream success. "We don't root, but we do have facts,

In 2002 the men's finals, matching up Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, received a 6.2 percent rating. Contrast that with the 2004 U.S. Open when the men's final between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt achieved a meager 2.5 percent rating. It was the smallest TV audience on record for a U.S. Open men's final.

The 5.2 percent rating for the 2002 women's final between Serena Williams and her sister Venus also was 52 percent higher than that for the 2003 matchup between Justine Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters. In 2004 the TV ratings for the all-Russian women's final between Svetlana Kuznetsova and Elena Dementieva were a dismal 2.2 percent.

Tennis largely depends upon star power to attract crowds and American stars had dominated the game for years. At the moment TV ratings are better for women's tennis, which still has stars like Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. Shamefully though, some tournaments still offer unequal prize money to their male and female victors.

 

[TheTruth]

The difference, I believe, is that Venus and Serena in the past few years have come into Wimbledon ranked much lower than Maria. So in early rounds they have a higher possibility of being sent to court 2 than does Sharapova. Also, Sharapova has been the better more consistent player since the end of '04, so they probably feel she deserves the two main show courts while Venus and Serena do not (it's not like they're completely off base either..).

Jelena had already played twice on show courts and wasn't very impressive in her win on centre court and it was obvious she wouldn't be at 100% going into the round of 16, whereas Kuznetsova and Radwanska only had one chance at show courts before the 16's AND was a matchup between two fairly high seeds that looked to be much more competitive than Jankovic's match. Only two women's matches can be played on show courts so the reasoning isn't that hard to imagine.

What about Agassi? Didn't his ranking plummet down to the 140's and he only won Wimbledon once. How many times was he on Court 18? Anybody know? Cause he's never been on it since I've been watching tennis!

 

[TheTruth]

Proof please. Let's see the comparative world television ratings.

I'm sure you believe that the Williams sisters are intensely interesting to everyone but the fact that their "reality" television series lasted about as long as an ice cream cone in the Sahara says differently. I like Venus, at least, but let's not live in a land of make believe on this.



Roger Federer is internationally famous on a grand scale. If a Fed-Nadal match up doesn't outdraw the Williams and whomever they play that will be real news and I'll be checking the ratings.

I do have articles for the American contingent, but I'm not going to look up universal stats for you. In the US, Fed ain't the one. Sorry!

TV ratings have dropped considerably in recent years, especially in the United States, where they are largely dependent upon the performance of American players.

In 2002 the men's finals, matching up Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, received a 6.2 percent rating. Contrast that with the 2004 U.S. Open when the men's final between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt achieved a meager 2.5 percent rating. It was the smallest TV audience on record for a U.S. Open men's final.

Tennis may be steeped in tradition. And when played by wizards such as Belgium's Justine Henin-Hardenne and Switzerland's Roger Federer, it may be the most elegant game ever devised. But it is bordering on irrelevance to American sports fans, who are tuning out in droves -- whether turned off by the lightning pace of play, the preponderance of international players whose names they can't pronounce, or the absence of homegrown hellions like Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe.
While the decline has been evident for more than two decades -- interrupted by surges of interest when Venus and Serena Williams do well -- it reached a low when TV ratings for the 2004 U.S. Open rolled in last fall. With no Americans in the finals, the championship matches drew the smallest TV audience on record: a 2.5 rating for the men's final, which pitted Federer against Australia's Lleyton Hewitt; and a 2.2 for the all-Russian women's final, in which Svetlana Kuznetsova defeated Elena Dementieva.

“The women’s side has more superstars who transcend the sport,” Fry said. “They’re recognizable around the world.” Serena Williams, perhaps the best example of a female tennis superstar, has earned not just titles on the court, but also tens of millions of dollars in endorsement deals from companies like Nike, McDonalds and Avon.

Stay tuned after the Wimbledon Finals this year. See who gets the higher ratings. Fed-Nadal or All Williams. If I remember I will come back and post the reactions!

 

[TheTruth]

http://proathletesonly.com/news/loc...mplaints-over-court-assignments-at-wimbledon/
Pay particular note to Roger's comments about Pete Sampras getting put on court two after winning Wimbledon seven times!
I don't recall Pete whining about it.

When the Williams play each other in the finals I'm sure it won't be on court two. So let's end the end of the world drama, please.

I wouldn't say whine, but Pete has spoken on this subject too. He's has openly talked about how hurt he was at the assignment. Alan Mills also publicly apologized to Pete in print a year later for his poor judgment!

 

[TheTruth]

Not at Wimbledon, and sorry this is a fact. Think bigger than America too. Maybe the Williams draw more American viewers but not worldwide.

Is it a fact because you said it, or do you have something to back up your assertion? I know it's true for American viewers.

 

[TheTruth]

Okay, he wasn't pleased but the world didn't come to an end. The point is, that this sort of thing has happened to people other than those named Williams.


I don't think the problem is the reaction of the Williams sisters, per se. It's all the kool aid drinking fans of theirs that act like this is some sort of unprecedented slap in the face to them.

The world isn't coming to an end now, but the point is, any former champion who has won it multiple times would be offended. I thought you said Pete didn't whine about it? Seee?

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I do have articles for the American contingent, but I'm not going to look up universal stats for you. In the US, Fed ain't the one. Sorry!

TV ratings have dropped considerably in recent years, especially in the United States, where they are largely dependent upon the performance of American players.

In 2002 the men's finals, matching up Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, received a 6.2 percent rating. Contrast that with the 2004 U.S. Open when the men's final between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt achieved a meager 2.5 percent rating. It was the smallest TV audience on record for a U.S. Open men's final.

Tennis may be steeped in tradition. And when played by wizards such as Belgium's Justine Henin-Hardenne and Switzerland's Roger Federer, it may be the most elegant game ever devised. But it is bordering on irrelevance to American sports fans, who are tuning out in droves -- whether turned off by the lightning pace of play, the preponderance of international players whose names they can't pronounce, or the absence of homegrown hellions like Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe.
While the decline has been evident for more than two decades -- interrupted by surges of interest when Venus and Serena Williams do well -- it reached a low when TV ratings for the 2004 U.S. Open rolled in last fall. With no Americans in the finals, the championship matches drew the smallest TV audience on record: a 2.5 rating for the men's final, which pitted Federer against Australia's Lleyton Hewitt; and a 2.2 for the all-Russian women's final, in which Svetlana Kuznetsova defeated Elena Dementieva.

“The women’s side has more superstars who transcend the sport,” Fry said. “They’re recognizable around the world.” Serena Williams, perhaps the best example of a female tennis superstar, has earned not just titles on the court, but also tens of millions of dollars in endorsement deals from companies like Nike, McDonalds and Avon.

Stay tuned after the Wimbledon Finals this year. See who gets the higher ratings. Fed-Nadal or All Williams. If I remember I will come back and post the reactions!

When you do don't forget that the viewing audience for Wimbledon will include more than just the people watching from within U.S. borders. I doubt that the Williams will out pull Nadal and Federer anyway, but if they do, you can be sure it will be only in the United States.

 

[taffymoon]

The popularity of women's versus men's playing fluctuates. When the williams sisters were something novel and new, and the mens game was in the tank, they were the big stars, and they got all the goodies - now it's the mens game that is the big draw and that is reflected in the courts choices and the media interest and the fans. It's just subject to change, that's all.

 

[TheTruth]

When you do don't forget that the viewing audience for Wimbledon will include more than just the people watching from within U.S. borders. I doubt that the Williams will out pull Nadal and Federer anyway, but if they do, you can be sure it will be only in the United States.

Unsubstantiated responses like this add nothing to the discussion. What you think, how you feel, and what you believe have no basis in reality. Put your money where your money is. (In case you're not from the US, that means produce data that supports your position). If you have nothing other than your doubts, there really is no need to discuss further!

 

[TheTruth]

I'm still looking, but so far I have found not one article that supported the idea that the men are a bigger draw than the women.

 

[guynamedsean]

To prove it you would just need to devise a way to measure it. It is not being measured. It is in noboby's interest to measure it. The PC thing to do is just pay everybody the same so they do.

There is no need to prove it unless you are stupid. I am not stupid. We come on here everyday and what do we talk about every day: Mens Tennis! Maybe womens tennis every once in a while, but the men's talk far outweighs it.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Unsubstantiated responses like this add nothing to the discussion. What you think, how you feel, and what you believe have no basis in reality. Put your money where your money is. (In case you're not from the US, that means produce data that supports your position). If you have nothing other than your doubts, there really is no need to discuss further!

And once again, where is your proof that the Williams sisters sell more tickets and have higher tv ratings than Federer and Nadal? What you think, feel and believe has been all you've got.

Don't be such a schmuck and demand what you can't give yourself. All I saw were ratings numbers that prove the Williams, in this country alone, draw more people (more casual fans) than Kuznetsova playing Dementiava (wow, what a surprise!).

Interest in a Federer/Nadal match up will be epic. Fan interest in that match will dwarf (hyperbole alert) anything else. It's the main course. Sister against sister will merely be the appetizer.

In a battle of compelling match ups, the men always outdraw the ladies, especially when two all timers like Fed and Nadal are involved.

 

[TheTruth]

When you do don't forget that the viewing audience for Wimbledon will include more than just the people watching from within U.S. borders. I doubt that the Williams will out pull Nadal and Federer anyway, but if they do, you can be sure it will be only in the United States.

Do you have anything to substantiate what you say, even if it's one country. I doubt is not a reasonable argument!

 

[TheTruth]

And once again, where is your proof that the Williams sisters sell more tickets and have higher tv ratings than Federer and Nadal? What you think, feel and believe has been all you've got.

Don't be such a schmuck and demand what you can't give yourself. All I saw were ratings numbers that prove the Williams, in this country alone, draw more people (more casual fans) than Kuznetsova playing Dementiava (wow, what a surprise!).

Interest in a Federer/Nadal match up will be epic. Fan interest in that match will dwarf (hyperbole alert) anything else. It's the main course. Sister against sister will merely be the appetizer.

In a battle of compelling match ups, the men always outdraw the ladies, especially when two all timers like Fed and Nadal are involved.

I provided data for the U.S. What have you provided? Another unsubstantiated opinion. Show something. Anything. What you think means nothing! I knew you weren't going to have anything. All talk!

Nadal-Federer draws lowest rating for French Open title since '03
June 9, 2008
CBSSports.com wire reports



NEW YORK -- Rafael Nadal's rout of Roger Federer in the French Open final drew the lowest TV rating of the duo's three consecutive title matches in Paris.
NBC's telecast of Nadal's 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 victory Sunday drew an overnight rating of 1.8, the network said Monday.

It was the most lopsided Grand Slam men's final in 24 years and lasted less than two hours.

That rating is down from the 2.2 rating in 2007, and the 2.1 in 2006. Each of those years, Nadal beat Federer in four sets.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Not really. The Williams Sisters sell a lot more tickets and have higher TV ratings than even Federer.

Then you said:

"I know. And they have consistently had higher ratings for years. It's not about popularity. Tennis fans may know Maria, Federer, and even Rafa. But everybody knows the Williams Sisters, even those who don't follow tennis. The arguments for them being delegated to court 2 is faulty, but people believe what they want to believe!"

I'm still waiting for that proof that the Williams sell more tickets than Federer and have higher tv ratings. You haven't given me a shred of evidence to show that, compared to Roger Federer, the Williams create more fan interest. And your claim doesn't restrict this fan interest to America either, further weakening your case.

What I have gotten is a comparison between fan interest in Henin/Clijsters and Dementiava/Kuznetsova finals match ups (in the U.S. Open) and the 2002 all Williams finals. Once again, again, it isn't surprising that at the U.S. Open, and for U.S. fans, that the Williams should generate more fan interest than either of those two other weak match ups. But that says nothing about Williams vs. Federer. Certainly not in a world wide perspective anyway.

Were Sampras and Agassi more watched than Hewitt and Federer? They certainly were in this country ( understandably, considering the epic match up between two American icons, with all their history behind them. How could Fed and Hewitt hope to match that?).

So we see your "proof" is no proof at all considering your blanket unqualified claims. Does Serena Williams generate more fan interest, in terms of ratings and ticket sales, than Roger Federer? You made the claim. You provide the proof. This ball is in your court.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Post Wimbledon post script: Somebody better get out the ratings and see who pulled in the most fans.
Here's a hint: It was Nadal and Federer, as you'd expect.
Well, not you, TheTruth, but you as in almost everyone else
but you.
I just wanted this on the record. That's all.

 

[wta_fan]

Well, it's good to bring up the issue, but I doubt that the Wimbledon organizers will care. I mean, they give the winning man a trophy and the winning woman a serving platter.

Lol. I don't really care which court they play at. Latin ESPN did equal coverage of men's and women's matches. So no complains.

 

[TheTruth]

Post Wimbledon post script: Somebody better get out the ratings and see who pulled in the most fans.
Here's a hint: It was Nadal and Federer, as you'd expect.
Well, not you, TheTruth, but you as in almost everyone else
but you.
I just wanted this on the record. That's all.

You are so silly. How are you going to use future results to prove an issue of the past? When we were discussing the ratings, we weren't talking about yesterday. We were talking about how valuable the Williams Sisters have been to the rating system and therefore should not have been relegated to Court 2. Yesterday's final would not figure into that equation unless the debate was who will, as in future tense. Since your post has a bratty tone to it, I'm not going to discuss this with you, but stay tuned as I have the numbers from several different countries.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Not really. The Williams Sisters sell a lot more tickets and have higher TV ratings than even Federer.

Hey Truth!
Here is the statement that you agreed with and amplified upon, that set this all off, for me. You never, not once, have qualified your claims in a past tense time frame. Your claim has been unqualified and unconditional. The Williams sell more tickets and get higher tv ratings....period!

If you'll note there is nothing conditional or past tense about this unqualified statement. It says that the Williams sisters sell a lot more tickets and have higher tv ratings than even Federer.
It doesn't that they always have in the past been more popular.
Or that the Williams sisters are always more popular than Federer, except for this 2008 season.

I said that I doubted that the Williams would outpull a Fed/Nadal matchup, and surprise(!), they didn't. But you asked for proof of what I said indicating very plainly that you did not believe that
that would happen. It kind of blows a hole in your whole line of reasoning, doesn't it?
Now that things have turned out contra to the way you said they would you try to redefine your claims but guess what...it's all in black and white. And it's too late to backtrack now.

Nice try though. I'll bet you save a ton on Chapstick when you talk out of your rear like that.

 

[verbatim100]

In UK women's final was watched by 2 million viewers while the men's final was watched by 13.1million viewers at the peak time (by over 12 million viewers the entire match).

 

[MariaS]

In a battle of compelling match ups, the men always outdraw the ladies, especially when two all timers like Fed and Nadal are involved.

That's fine with me. I love watching the men.

 

[jjk20]

the Wimbledon finals ratings:

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/wimbledon_ratings.asp