Serena Withdraws From Australian Open!!

That’s not the point. We know Serena is good. The problem is a poster in here think she’s bigger than the sport. He doesn’t even watch tennis and had no idea that tennis are televise on ESPN2(not on ESPN), but still insist on being ignorance. A few of his gems...

*No one care about Dementieva(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5233934&postcount=91)
*Henin’s return to tennis was a bust(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5237415&postcount=124)
*He think tennis isn’t shown on ESPN2(but on ESPN) http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5248629&postcount=236
*ATP is sliding into the grave(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5142955&postcount=40)
*Serena has impact on attendance(IW and USO proved her wrong - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5175509&postcount=104)
Ohhhhh.....

.....let Mother Marjorie cook on this.......

TMF, do you think that Thundervolley feels that the sport of women's tennis will somehow suffer without the presence of Serena Williams?

Mother Marjorie thinks that Serena Williams' impact on the sport is only as valid as the effort she put into making it her priority. If it were that Serena Williams were the type of tennis professional that gave 110% to playing the sport, her absence would make an impact. However, she's had so many lengthy absences throughout her career that tennis fans have become immune to her not being around.

So, the question is, when Serena Williams finally makes that final downward spiral into final retirement, will tennis fans actually notice, when she's already absent from the sport for lengthy periods already?

Mother Marjorie would like to know. Yes, she would.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Ohhhhh.....

.....let Mother Marjorie cook on this.......

TMF, do you think that Thundervolley feels that the sport of women's tennis will somehow suffer without the presence of Serena Williams?

Mother Marjorie thinks that Serena Williams' impact on the sport is only as valid as the effort she put into making it her priority. If it were that Serena Williams were the type of tennis professional that gave 110% to playing the sport, her absence would make an impact. However, she's had so many lengthy absences throughout her career that tennis fans have become immune to her not being around.

So, the question is, when Serena Williams finally makes that final downward spiral into final retirement, will tennis fans actually notice, when she's already absent from the sport for lengthy periods already?

Mother Marjorie would like to know. Yes, she would.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
I believe Serena doesn’t love the game as much as the Graf, Martina, Federer or Nadal. Not even close. You look at players who have family(fed, hewitt, clijsters), as busy as they are, they put in valuable efforts to play tennis. And off court, some of them invest time to play charity events to raise money for the children or the poor need family. Notice all the WTA players won the awards at the end of the year…they either(or both) have an impact on tennis or doing something good for the game or to the community. So to answer to your question, no, I don’t think Serena has an impact b/c the lack of commitment. How can you be a fan of a player that doesn’t play enough tennis for you to watch? I don’t think IW couldn’t careless without her playing anymore after their success for the past years, and USO announced their most success tourney in history.

When Serena finally call it quit, yeah, in the USA, her fans will notice, but not even close compared to other US players(Chris, Pete or Andre). Even Sharapova(Russian who live in FL) would be way more noticeable than Serena if she chose to retire. In Europe, I don’t think there’s hardly(if any) impact or fans noticing her retirement. They are doing fine without her. No one is complaining.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
ESPN is a broadcaster with many channels, singling out a difference between ESPN and ESPN2 is a pretty weak arguement.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
ESPN is a broadcaster with many channels, singling out a difference between ESPN and ESPN2 is a pretty weak arguement.
It’s not weak. ESPN is the MAIN one, and is the main contributor, while the others channels play smaller roles. Notice the major events with most viewers normally watched are on ESPN. Alternative sports such as billiards, tennis, pokers with lesser viewers are reserved for ESPN2. My point is tennis play a small role in TV rating. It’s shown less on TV in compared to other sports and has less viewers. If little league world series takes the precedent over tennis then what does that really say about tennis? Also, the Tennis Channel is their main rival. Both had to shared…certain hours throughout the day will be either on TTC or ESPN2. Hardly you see(if any) both live tennis shown on channel.

My point is ESPN overall doesn’t take that much of a hit without tennis. but take away the NBA? They’ll go crazy!!!
 

LameTennisPlayer

Professional
Serena isn't bigger than the sport, but she's very important to the sport and her absence definitely hurts. Trying to downplay it as if she isn't is just wasting time.
I gurantee you that if there is going to be a Clijsters vs Stosur Final there wouldn't be an empty seat at Melbourne Park, I'll be there regardless.
 
I gurantee you that if there is going to be a Clijsters vs Stosur Final there wouldn't be an empty seat at Melbourne Park, I'll be there regardless.
That's because Stosur's an Aussie, and Kim's an adopted Aussie from her years with Hewitt. Put Zvonareva and Wozniacki and it'd be far less attended. Still doesn't change the fact that Serena being absent hurts.

I know now TMF is going to post his Indian Wells numbers - but that is an obvious spurious relationship and the fact that attendance is up cannot be solely linked to the absence of Serena.
 
That's because Stosur's an Aussie, and Kim's an adopted Aussie from her years with Hewitt. Put Zvonareva and Wozniacki and it'd be far less attended. Still doesn't change the fact that Serena being absent hurts.

I know now TMF is going to post his Indian Wells numbers - but that is an obvious spurious relationship and the fact that attendance is up cannot be solely linked to the absence of Serena.
Mother Marjorie would venture to say that if Kim and Justine are on opposite sides of the draw and make it into the finals, the ratings will be great.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Mother Marjorie would venture to say that if Kim and Justine are on opposite sides of the draw and make it into the finals, the ratings will be great.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
Of course, I don't see why not. We are talking about the Player of the Year and the Comeback Player of the Year.

They are back to save tennis.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That's because Stosur's an Aussie, and Kim's an adopted Aussie from her years with Hewitt. Put Zvonareva and Wozniacki and it'd be far less attended. Still doesn't change the fact that Serena being absent hurts.

I know now TMF is going to post his Indian Wells numbers - but that is an obvious spurious relationship and the fact that attendance is up cannot be solely linked to the absence of Serena.
You don’t like IW, fine. I’ll use another tournament...

Miami, as many fans consider the 5th GS, where celebrities come to see. 2010 was played WITHOUT Serena, but the tournament still set a record more the most attendance in history. The tournament recorded 11 session sellouts, set eight session records and surpassed 300,000 in attendance for the first time in tournament history.
http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2010/Tournament-Week-2/Miami-Sunday-Record-Year.aspx
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It is irrelevant as IW is not a major. Now clear the *** from your eyes, and pay attention to the following: IW is not a major, and irrelevant to this discussion.
IW has the 5th highest number of attendance of all the events this year, only behind GS events. Serena use to play this tourney, but ever since she’s boycotted, the event continue to have immense success. That is a fact !


Moving on...
Yes, let’s move on...
Miami as you know, is consider by many is the 5th slam. This year Serena didn’t play, but the event didn’t take a hit. In fact, they said the tourney recorded 11 session sellouts , set eight session records and surpassed 300,000 in attendance for the first time in tournament history. http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2010/Tournament-Week-2/Miami-Sunday-Record-Year.aspx



The majors are in question, not the forgettable IW.
Ok, getting desperate now? You want MAJOR event? You got it!
The 2010 USO(without Serena) was the most successful in history. Once again, over 700,000 spectators came to watch tennis. That is a fact !
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/art...556087331.html


I'VE GAVE YOU 3 EXAMPLE AND THOSE EVENTS ARE PLAYED ON US SOIL.:)




TMF now claims ESPN does not broadcast tennis!
That’s right, everyone know ESPN2 broadcast tennis except clueless one you. Thanks for proving to everyone once again that you don’t watch tennis. :oops:
I was right all along.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
IW has the 5th highest number of attendance of all the events this year, only behind GS events. Serena use to play this tourney, but ever since she’s boycotted, the event continue to have immense success. That is a fact !
IW does not matter. Until it is officially registered as the 5th major, you are (once again) in desperation mode.



The 2010 USO(without Serena) was the most successful in history.
If it is not successful with the sport's biggest audience, then it is not a success. Period. Ticket sales will always pale in comparison to the millions (the majority) who watch tennis on television.

Now, explain how this "most successful in history" nonsense, when the ratings were down thanks to the dreary participants in the final, which continues the downslide when certain players are not present. We are waiting, Mr. Hooded Hate.

That’s right, everyone know ESPN2 broadcast tennis except clueless one you
No. You said "ESPN" does not show tennis, which reveals a complete ignorance of this family of channels contracts to show pro tennis. You shot your gaping maw off, and now you are paying for it again and again.

It really sucks to be you, Mr. Me English Good Not So.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
There you go again. This discussion is about Serena Williams, not Queen Justine Henin
If you really believed that, then you would have conquered the urge to post photos of Henin earlier in this thread--which you just indicated was not about her.

Tsk, tsk.

The difference between Justine Henin's career and Serena Williams is that of expectations.
No one cares about wholly subjective "expectations" when all is said and done. In the grand scheme of things, if slam counts are the strongest consideration of a recongnized "great" status, then you have invalidated your Henin with the very same criteria you set for Serena. There's no squirming out of this, MM. As it stands, if both retired today, allegedly "anemic" Serena--with her particular number of majors is still considered one of the greatest players in history (we have read enough articles and heard commentators repeatedly say this), while Henin--again, by your own standards of judgement--must be a minor footnote.
 
You don’t like IW, fine. I’ll use another tournament...

Miami, as many fans consider the 5th GS, where celebrities come to see. 2010 was played WITHOUT Serena, but the tournament still set a record more the most attendance in history. The tournament recorded 11 session sellouts, set eight session records and surpassed 300,000 in attendance for the first time in tournament history.
http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2010/Tournament-Week-2/Miami-Sunday-Record-Year.aspx
You continue on with this logical fallacy. For a tournament as big as IW, Miami, the slams, one person's absence does not affect attendance numbers. The prestige of the event alone is enough to get people to come more often than not.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
IW does not matter. Until it is officially registered as the 5th major, you are (once again) in desperation mode.
You are in no position to say which tourney matters or not. Fact is IW is an attractive tourney and the best players showed up. Not only that, Jankovic and Stosur, a non-American were in the final, which prove further the Serena doesn't boost attendance number, but these European players.
You are in no position to say which tourney matters or not. Fact is IW is an attractive tourney and the best players showed up. Not only that, Jankovic and Stosur, a non-American were in the final, which prove further the Serena/venus doesn't boost attendance number, but these European players are responsible for it. IW director must have loving it !


If it is not successful with the sport's biggest audience, then it is not a success. Period. Ticket sales will always pale in comparison to the millions (the majority) who watch tennis on television.

Now, explain how this "most successful in history" nonsense, when the ratings were down thanks to the dreary participants in the final, which continues the downslide when certain players are not present. We are waiting, Mr. Hooded Hate.
You said Serena is bigger than the sport. If you are right, then tournaments(especially in the US) ticket sales should skyrocket! Capiche? I proved you wrong. You then desperately ignore master event and ask for a major event. Well? I gave you 2010 USO. Here we go again.http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/art...556087331.html

Since you don't watch tennis, atleast you know how to read, don't you?

No. You said "ESPN" does not show tennis, which reveals a complete ignorance of this family of channels contracts to show pro tennis. You shot your gaping maw off, and now you are paying for it again and again.
That’s right, I said ESPN2 broadcast tennis and everyone knows that except clueless one like you. Thanks for proving to everyone once again that you don’t watch tennis. :oops:
I was right all along.

It really sucks to be you, Mr. Me English Good Not So.

Really? You mean it's so great to be you...

*No one care about Dementieva(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5233934&postcount=91)
*Henin’s return to tennis was a bust(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5237415&postcount=124)
*you think tennis isn’t shown on ESPN2(but on ESPN) http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5248629&postcount=236
*ATP is sliding into the grave(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5142955&postcount=40)
*Serena has impact on attendance(IW and USO proved her wrong - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5175509&postcount=104)
 
No one cares about wholly subjective "expectations" when all is said and done. In the grand scheme of things, if slam counts are the strongest consideration of a recongnized "great" status, then you have invalidated your Henin with the very same criteria you set for Serena. There's no squirming out of this, MM.
Mother Marjorie never claimed that Queen Justine Henin was one of the greatest tennis players of all-time, like you have Serena Williams, oh no she didn't. What Mother Marjorie said was that this generation was the worst in women's tennis history:

In order to better understand the natural progression of women's tennis, you must first look at its history. From its inception, there has always been some player in every generation of women's tennis to challenge its predecessors mark on tennis history (exception in the 1940's when Grand Slam play in Europe was suspended due to WWII). The current generation in the WTA has usurped history and has not been able to field a player consistent enough to challenge the historical greats records in the sport of women's tennis:

(1887-1893) Lottie Dodd 5 GS singles titles
(1886-1900) Blanche Bingley 6 GS singles titles
(1903-1914) Dorothea Douglass 7 GS singles titles
(1915-1926) Molla Bjurstedt 8 GS singles titles
(1919-1926) Suzanne Lenglen 8 GS singles titles

(1923-1938) Helen Wills Moody 19 GS singles titles

(1951-1953) Maureen Connolly Brinker 9 GS singles titles*
(*1st calendar year GS in women's tennis history, yes Maureen single-handedly saved this generation)

(1960-1973) Margaret Court 24 GS singles titles*
(*second calendar year GS in women's tennis history)

(1974-1986) Chris Evert 18 GS singles titles
(best winning percentage in Open Era, most consecutive wins on clay in history, record French Open wins)

(1978-1990) Martina Navrátilová 18 GS singles titles
(won most singles titles in women's tennis history, including a record number of Wimbledon titles)

(1987-1999) Steffi Graf 22 GS singles titles*
(*first Golden calendar year GS in women's tennis history, most weeks at number one, first to win all four majors on four different occasions)

(1999-2010)
Serena Williams 13 GS singles titles


Mother Marjorie believes there is a direct corrolation between the decline in interest in televised women's tennis since Stefanie Graf's retirement in 1999, and the subsequent inability of the current generation to challenge the accomplishments of their predecessors marks on history:

Let's take a look at arguably the most watched and historic tennis tournament on Earth, Wimbledon (US Nielsen Ratings):

1987 3.95 NBC NAVRATILOVA/GRAF (RU)
1988 4.29 NBC GRAF
1989 4.56 NBC GRAF

1991 4.65 NBC GRAF
1992 4.48 NBC GRAF
1993 3.74 NBC GRAF

1995 3.54 NBC GRAF
1996 2.91 NBC GRAF

1999 3.38 NBC DAVENPORT/GRAF (RU)

2000 4.07 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2001 3.20 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2002 2.71 NBC S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2003 2.49 NBC S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2004 2.54 NBC SHARAPOVA/S. WILLIAMS RU
2005 2.49 NBC V. WILLIAMS

2007 2.29 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2008 2.64 NBC V. WILLIAMS/S. WILLIAMS RU
2009 S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2010 1.6 NBC S. WILLIAMS


Given the improvement in tennis technology, travel, and increased television coverage of tennis, it would appear as though the current generation of women would enjoy better ratings and popularity, but it never culminated. All of these technological improvements haven't transformed tennis in the way that a glowing tennis star that challenges tennis history could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK4M1_JQaT4&feature=related

So you ask yourself, "Why would Mother Marjorie say such a thing about any generation of women's tennis players?" Well, Mother Marjorie notes that not all of the current generation of tennis players are of "tennis shape" which might have something to do with their lack of being able approach their predecessors historical marks. With the exception of players like V. Williams and Queen Justine Henin, some of the others are more athletic but carry so many more pounds. You can't be a big girl and expect to make history in the sport of tennis. Oh, no you cannot.

Mother Marjorie tears-up thinking of how some from this generation have abandoned the challenge of tennis history to walk the red carpet in big girl sizes. Bigger is not always better. No, it is not.
As it stands, if both retired today, allegedly "anemic" Serena--with her particular number of majors is still considered one of the greatest players in history (we have read enough articles and heard commentators repeatedly say this), while Henin--again, by your own standards of judgement--must be a minor footnote.
Again, the difference between Queen Justine and Serena Williams is that Queen Justine exceeded her expectations/potential, while Serena squandered hers in favor of celebrity and outside interests. Not to mention that Queen Justine still holds a winning record against Serena Williams in grand slam singles matches.

Serena's inability to fully commit to the sport of tennis doesn't make her one of the all-time greats. She's simply not. Not when she's won only a handful of tournaments when compared to the greats of the sport, or was ranked number one less than half the time some of her predecessors were, or only finished the year ranked number one on TWO occasions. The numbers aren't there, and you know it. Where are the record-setting performances? What historical marks has she broken when compared to her predecessors?

The more Mother Marjorie thinks about it, the more she's coming to the conclusion that Serena Williams just didn't have the psychological prowess or the tennis physique to approach her predecessors historically. How sad that is. But true.

Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You continue on with this logical fallacy. For a tournament as big as IW, Miami, the slams, one person's absence does not affect attendance numbers. The prestige of the event alone is enough to get people to come more often than not.
Serena doesn’t have any impact b/c she’s not that of a big star like Thundervolley try to put it. MJ left the game, ticket sales in Chicago went down, tv rating for the playoff went down. The Lebron James’s trade help tv rating, ticket sales went down in Cleveland, while in Miami the season tickets was sold out long before the regular season even got started! The Heat has no more season tickets to sell they end up firing their ticket-sale staff. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/31/1754155/with-heat-season-tickets-sold.html


According to Thundervolley, he think Serena in tennis is like the James or the MJ in the NBA, which is nonsense. But what do I expect from someone who doesn’t watch tennis and have no idea that tennis are shown on ESPN2.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The other players do not matter, as men's tennis sans Nadal and Federer would be at the bottom of the grave instead of slowly slidng into it.
Can you please enlighten us about the ATP is slowly sliding into the grave?

What the chairman said below is totally the opposite to what you have said. So who's delusional...you are him?


"The 2010 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals had a lot to live up to after an impressive debut in London last year. A combination of outstanding tennis and a spectacular show for the fans at The O2 provided the perfect finale to a historic year for men’s tennis," said ATP Executive Chairman and President Adam Helfant. "I’d like to thank tennis fans around the world for their support and enthusiasm throughout the year, and we look forward to another exciting season in 2011."

ON TV
• Globally, the tournament was televised by 52 broadcasters in 170 countries
• More than1,500 hours of tournament action were broadcast across the globe
• In the UK, more than 60 hours of coverage was featured live on Sky Sports and more than 15 hours on BBC
• The audience peak on the BBC was 2.9 million viewers for the end of Saturday’s semi-final between Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray. The final between Nadal and Roger Federer peaked at 2 million.

BY THE NUMBERS
• 368,236 – total number of people to pass through The O2 site, including the new Barclays ATP World Tour Finals Fan Zone and restaurants and bars, during the eight days of the tournament
• 17,280 – average number of tweets per day with #FinalShowdown
• 2,750 – number of metres of string used throughout the tournament to string player racquets
• 1,601 – number of children who tried out to become one of the 30 Barclays Ball Kids
• 44 – total number of hours of tennis played throughout the week (44 hours, 16 minutes, 7 seconds).
• 28 – total number of hours required to lay down the centre court inside The O2.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
Let's take a look at arguably the most watched and historic tennis tournament on Earth, Wimbledon (US Nielsen Ratings):

1987 3.95 NBC NAVRATILOVA/GRAF (RU)
1988 4.29 NBC GRAF
1989 4.56 NBC GRAF

1991 4.65 NBC GRAF
1992 4.48 NBC GRAF
1993 3.74 NBC GRAF

1995 3.54 NBC GRAF
1996 2.91 NBC GRAF

1999 3.38 NBC DAVENPORT/GRAF (RU)

2000 4.07 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2001 3.20 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2002 2.71 NBC S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2003 2.49 NBC S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2004 2.54 NBC SHARAPOVA/S. WILLIAMS RU
2005 2.49 NBC V. WILLIAMS

2007 2.29 NBC V. WILLIAMS
2008 2.64 NBC V. WILLIAMS/S. WILLIAMS RU
2009 S. WILLIAMS/V. WILLIAMS RU
2010 1.6 NBC S. WILLIAMS
athletic but carry so many more pounds. Mother Marjorie A 2 the nn
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
Interesting ratings. I would say you have a point there with the popularity. I would still be interested in the gender breakdown of the ratings. Just to see if males have been pulled away by an increase with the popularity of other sports (All team sports ratings, too include racing & golf; hockey has probably stayed near same, not in a hockey region). You notice the drop in the mid-nineties & again at turn of century.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Can you.....(fill in unintelligible internet rambling)
Summation:

TMF is troubled by simple math, as he insists on making the argument that the limited number of on-site attendees of the USO somehow proves popularity when the sport's biggest audience is the television audience--the latter showing a distinct disinterest in non-Williams finals over the decade, particularly finals with Clijsters and of specific interest, the subject of TMF's hype, Wozniacki. To this day, his "new math" has failed to come within a country mile of proving his BS.

TMF cannot prove how the professional, experienced statement of ESPN's senior director the programming department regarding the positive effects of the Williams sisters on tennis is invalid, when he--by nature of his title--would have an intimate knowledge of how the very events he programs perform, while TMF does not to any degree. Instead, he (TMF) simply tries to downgrade it with no evidence-based counter, which says much about his utter hate-based desperation in any discussion where the Williams family are subjects. This is the same person who swore Wozniacki would win the 2010 US Open, and was "popular." Clearly, her "popularity" could not draw or surpass decade-high ratings with the sport's biggest audience when she appeared in the 2009 final, or in this year's USO semifinals.

TMF has no explanation for this.

TMF's pathological hatred of the Williams family is so dangerous, that it would be wise for said family to add a security detail to all public and private appearances, as the member in question cannot be trusted to control his growing hatred of famous people he does not know, which--historically speaking--has left a legacy of violence.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Mother Marjorie never claimed that Queen Justine Henin was one of the greatest tennis players of all-time
The "Queen" title, and your endless, multi-thread praise of her career invalidates your little claim of innocence.

Again, the difference between Queen Justine and Serena Williams is that Queen Justine exceeded her expectations/potential, while Serena squandered hers in favor of celebrity and outside interests. Not to mention that Queen Justine still holds a winning record against Serena Williams in grand slam singles matches.
Irrelevant. The majors title count determines where one stands in history, not the wholly subjective notion of "expectations" and by this universal criteria of majors titles (one you employed when making anti-SW statements), Henin is not only anything other than great, but she (like Hingis, Venus, Seles, et al) falls far below Serena, who many former players, writers, and others--believe is one of the greatest in the sport's history.

So, for every predictable attack you launch against SW, the glaring truth is that the key point of judgement is more applicable to Henin, thus your "queen" is more than likely....a mere handmaiden.
 
The "Queen" title, and your endless, multi-thread praise of her career invalidates your little claim of innocence.



Irrelevant. The majors title count determines where one stands in history, not the wholly subjective notion of "expectations" and by this universal criteria of majors titles (one you employed when making anti-SW statements), Henin is not only anything other than great, but she (like Hingis, Venus, Seles, et al) falls far below Serena, who many former players, writers, and others--believe is one of the greatest in the sport's history.
So, for every predictable attack you launch against SW, the glaring truth is that the key point of judgement is more applicable to Henin, thus your "queen" is more than likely....a mere handmaiden.
Mother Marjorie doesn't remember a parade of people ever saying that Serena Williams is one of the greatest in sports history. Sounds a little bit like narcassitic fan denial.

37 titles in 13 years is not great in the sport of tennis. It is in golf, or bowling, or even skiiing.
474-101 82% winning percentage is not great.

WTA Tournaments Won:
1 Martina Navratilova 167
2 Chris Evert 154
3 Steffi Graf 107
4 Margaret Court 92
5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
6 Billie Jean King 67
7 Lindsay Davenport 55
= Virginia Wade 55
9 Monica Seles 53
10 Justine Henin 43
= Martina Hingis 43
= Venus Williams 43
13 Kim Clijsters* 40
14 Serena Williams 37
15 Conchita Martínez 33

For heaven sakes, even Ginny Wade won more titles than her.

The first best player of any tennis generation in history unable to challenge or approach the records of her predecessors....not great. And please explain to Mother Marjorie how Serena Williams transformed the sport into something positive going forward. How did she leave her mark in a way that inspired the following generation of players? Where are all the young, talented American women at? Where are they?

Its what you get as an athlete when you embrace fame and celebrity instead of staying true to the sport that made you a star.

Just an FYI, Serena Williams won't be playing in the Australian Open and will likely sit out the French Championships. The weight problem which has hampered her results during her career will likely be an issue by then. She turns 30 this year and it get more and more difficult to shed those unwanted pounds as you age.

Face it. She didn't have the mental or the physical attributes to be the greatest or even sit among the best in that circle. How can you call someone who only won 37 titles in her tennis career the best ever? Do you know who Maureen Connolly is? Probably not, I shouldn't have asked.

So go ahead. Support her second career as a QVC host selling larger-sized "boyfriend sweaters" for big girls and let go of the tennis issue. If you were the least bit interested in the sanctity of tennis and its history, you wouldn't be making a case for a poseur who has only won 37 tennis tournaments in her career and only 82% of her matches lifetime, yet calls herself "the best." Its done, and she's done. Let it go. There's nothing you can do to change history.

Unlike you, Mother Marjorie didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Oh, no, she did not!


Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
Yes, She Is The Queen
 
Last edited:

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
The Williams sisters are without any doubt great tennis players. I personally enjoy their tennis. But I can't stop wondering, specially if Venus also skips AO, if there is something else behind these injuries, maybe a cosmetical surgery? ... I guess we will have to wait and see...
 
The Williams sisters are without any doubt great tennis players. I personally enjoy their tennis. But I can't stop wondering, specially if Venus also skips AO, if there is something else behind these injuries, maybe a cosmetical surgery? ... I guess we will have to wait and see...
Venus Williams should skip the Australian Open at this point in her career given her past lackluster performances. Oops, Mother Marjorie forgot that only Venus Williams can save the Australian Open television ratings. Just look at what Venus did for Wimbledon television ratings.

As Always, The Queen,

Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Mother Marjorie doesn't remember a parade of people ever saying that Serena Williams is one of the greatest in sports history.
You are old enough to search this forum for the quotes, articles, etc., which sparked the usual hooded hatred, so you can skip the ignorance bit.



37 titles in 13 years is not great in the sport of tennis. It is in golf, or bowling, or even skiiing.
Irrelevant, since majors titles are the central concern when determining status in tennis history, thus your predicted attacks are as limp as your false notion that SW's majors do not place her on the all time great list. Meanwhile your so-called "queen" Henin is not in the conversation at all.

Tough sh*t, Normie.

Unlike you, Mother Marjorie didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Oh, no, she did not!
Oh yes, you--like certain members of this society--continue to spew a historically inaccurate line with "Kool Aid." It was not correct or cute years ago, and it just plain embarassing in the present day.
 
Last edited:
You are old enough to search this forum for the quotes, articles, etc., which sparked the usual hooded hatred, so you can skip the ignorance bit.





Irrelevant, since majors titles are the central concern when determining status in tennis history, thus your predicted attacks are as limp as your false notion that SW's majors do not place her on the all time great list. Meanwhile your so-called "queen" Henin is not in the conversation at all.

Tough sh*t, Normie.



Oh yes, you--like certain members of this society--continue to spew a historically inaccurate line with "Kool Aid." It was not correct or cute years ago, and it just plain embarassing in the present day.
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html

Your history regarding debates concerning Serena Williams is that when you feel you have lost, you go straight for the race card. You did not disappoint in this instance.

There is no such thing as affirmative action when it relates to tennis history. Either you have the numbers or you don't. Serena Williams doesn't, so get over it. Stop trying to dumb-down the history of women's tennis by propping up the career of Serena Williams. There are those of us that know better, oh, yes we do.

Mother Marjorie will say it AGAIN. Unlike you, Mother Marjorie didn't drink the Kool-Aid. And she never will. So go ahead, continue drinking until you drown your silly self.

And if Mother Marjorie forgot to tell you, have a happy holiday and Happy Australian and French Open! :lol:




Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 
Last edited:
Are we really arguing this crap on Christmas? Man get a life.
There really isn't argument on this subject anymore. Thundervolley does provide a little filler space in the thread when he wants bear his fangs and salivate. Beyond that, all that needs to be said, or could be said, has been said.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Queen of Talk Tennis Warehouse
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
We can always wait after Christmas Season. Thundervolley was taken woodsheds too much for 2010 already. 2010 is closed. 2011, coming soon.
Still living in your fantasy of hooded hatred.

To reiterate:

TMF is troubled by simple math, as he insists on making the argument that the limited number of on-site attendees of the USO somehow proves popularity when the sport's biggest audience is the television audience--the latter showing a distinct disinterest in non-Williams finals over the decade, particularly finals with Clijsters and of specific interest, the subject of TMF's hype, Wozniacki. To this day, his "new math" has failed to come within a country mile of proving his BS.

TMF cannot prove how the professional, experienced statement of ESPN's senior director the programming department regarding the positive effects of the Williams sisters on tennis is invalid, when he--by nature of his title--would have an intimate knowledge of how the very events he programs perform, while TMF does not to any degree. Instead, he (TMF) simply tries to downgrade it with no evidence-based counter, which says much about his utter hate-based desperation in any discussion where the Williams family are subjects. This is the same person who swore Wozniacki would win the 2010 US Open, and was "popular." Clearly, her "popularity" could not draw or surpass decade-high ratings with the sport's biggest audience when she appeared in the 2009 final, or in this year's USO semifinals.

TMF had no explanation for this in 2010, and he/she/it will not in 2011.

TMF's pathological hatred of the Williams family is so dangerous, that it would be wise for said family to add a security detail to all public and private appearances, as the member in question cannot be trusted to control his growing hatred of famous people he does not know, which--historically speaking--has left a legacy of violence.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It is irrelevant as IW is not a major. Now clear the *** from your eyes, and pay attention to the following: IW is not a major, and irrelevant to this discussion.
IW has the 5th highest number of attendance of all the events this year, only behind GS events. Serena use to play this tourney, but ever since she’s boycotted, the event continue to have immense success. That is a fact !


Moving on...
Yes, let’s move on...
Miami as you know, is consider by many is the 5th slam. This year Serena didn’t play, but the event didn’t take a hit. In fact, they said the tourney recorded 11 session sellouts , set eight session records and surpassed 300,000 in attendance for the first time in tournament history. http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2010/Tournament-Week-2/Miami-Sunday-Record-Year.aspx



The majors are in question, not the forgettable IW.
Ok, getting desperate now? You want MAJOR event? You got it!
The 2010 USO(without Serena) was the most successful in history. Once again, over 700,000 spectators came to watch tennis. That is a fact !
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/art...556087331.html


I'VE GAVE YOU 3 EXAMPLE AND THOSE EVENTS ARE PLAYED ON US SOIL.:)




TMF now claims ESPN does not broadcast tennis!
That’s right, everyone know ESPN2 broadcast tennis except clueless one you. Thanks for proving to everyone once again that you don’t watch tennis. :oops:
I was right all along.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That "single" person--along with the CBS execs' opinions (links also repeatedly posted on this board) are the experts, who know the numbers and interest from the sport's most significant audience. You are not an expert (at anything) to any degree, and still fail to produce any evidence to support your BS fantasties over the course of 10 pages.

It is always fun to toss the facts of the experts into your ever-drooling maw.
STOP LYING!

Your quote only has one single opinion from ESPN...
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
"The absence of the Williams sisters at any event — be it a major or non-major — is significant," said Jason Bernstein, a senior director in ESPN's programming department. "Fans, print and electronic media interest, TV ratings and overall buzz are all reduced."
In fact, ESPN doesn't broadcast tennis, it's reserve for bigger sports(NFL, NBA). ESPN2 present alternative sports such as poker, bowling, tennis or billiards. ESPN also has few other smaller networks(ESPN classic, ESPN news, ESPN deporte, etc). Overall, tennis makes very little impact from this cable tv network. Also keep in mind many fans have criticize ESPN2 for being a fanatic of the WS, Roddick, Blake and other American players. They have a habit of showing replay of their matches, and not showing live tennis, which is more exciting.

And I've told you ESPN alone doesn't draw a conclusion about overall rating throughout the world.
there's a total of 195 countries around the world. And ESPN is only one of a few thousands network.

Don't thank me, I'm glad to be here to teach you something that you have no clue(since you don't watch tennis).



She won two majors in 2010--the only prize of significance in professional tennis, while Wozniacki and Sharapova failed to win any.

Top that, or continue to butcher basic english and soak your diapers over the utter failure of Wozniacki to win a major, when obtuse, knuckle-dragging types like you were swearing she would.
Do you have reading comprehension problems ????

I said winning an award, not a tennis event! Here is an example:

•Kim Clijsters wins Player of the Year honors for second time in her career
•Maria Sharapova wins numerous fan awards in addition to Humanitarian of the Year



If you don't watch tennis, atleast learn how to read !!
 

luvly

Professional
IW has the 5th highest number of attendance of all the events this year, only behind GS events. Serena use to play this tourney, but ever since she’s boycotted, the event continue to have immense success. That is a fact !

This is a pointless claim and its a combined event since they started boycotting the event there have been a lot of big name atp players to emerge...you cant actually used combined events unless it is giving you individual match attendance.

but i am sure you will give some stupid response to try and justify why your point stands even though the attendance for a combined event is not a valid measure to show success for either tour because you cant not actually tell what matches are being attended
 
This is a pointless claim and its a combined event since they started boycotting the event there have been a lot of big name atp players to emerge...you cant actually used combined events unless it is giving you individual match attendance.

but i am sure you will give some stupid response to try and justify why your point stands even though the attendance for a combined event is not a valid measure to show success for either tour because you cant not actually tell what matches are being attended
I've tried telling this to the mighty failure and he just ignores it. It's quite sad TBH.
 

luvly

Professional
I've tried telling this to the mighty failure and he just ignores it. It's quite sad TBH.
i couldnt stand it any longer validity is a basic rule in the scientific method...you have to measure what you claim to measure his example is like saying i am going to measure your reading skills and then hading out math test....
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
This is a pointless claim and its a combined event since they started boycotting the event there have been a lot of big name atp players to emerge...you cant actually used combined events unless it is giving you individual match attendance.

but i am sure you will give some stupid response to try and justify why your point stands even though the attendance for a combined event is not a valid measure to show success for either tour because you cant not actually tell what matches are being attended
I've tried telling this to the mighty failure and he just ignores it. It's quite sad TBH.
NONSENSE!
So what you basically saying the ATP got incredibly popular to makeup the loss of the WS? Agassi, Safin wasn't a big name back then? Fed made the final for 6 straight years...was he just became a big name in 2010??

According to Thundervolley, men's tennis is sliding into the grave.

The other players do not matter, as men's tennis sans Nadal and Federer would be at the bottom of the grave instead of slowly slidng into it.

So if both the ATP is dying and the WTA with no WS, then less fans should be buying ticket. Especially when it's played in the United States.

Total past attendance at IW:

http://www.bnpparibasopen.com/Media/Attendance.aspx
2009: 332,498
2008: 331,269
2007: 303,398
2006: 270,453


http://www.bnpparibasopen.com/Media/Press-Room.aspx
"Last year more than 332,000 fans passed through the gates, making it the fifth most attended tennis tournament in the world and the most attended next to the four Grand Slams."

And you conveniently ignore the 2010 US Open, where they also said it was the most successful tournament in history.
 
Last edited:
i couldnt stand it any longer validity is a basic rule in the scientific method...you have to measure what you claim to measure his example is like saying i am going to measure your reading skills and then hading out math test....
Yep, perfect example of using a spurious relationship to prove a point.

TMF, many have noted how the ATP has grown since the early 2000s since the Fed-Nadal rivalry has become THE storyline in tennis, which undoubtedly is a factor in increasing ticket sales. I don't speak for Thunder, and often disagree w/ him, I only speak for myself, and yes the ATP has grown and overtaken the WTA measurably since the early 2000s when many said that the WTA was stronger than the ATP w/ WS, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, etc as names and faces, while the ATP had the likes of Johannson and Coria (no offense) winning slams.

Another factor to take into account is that the ATP promotes itself and is showcased on far more occasions that the WTA. Players like Fed, Nads, Rod, Murray often have the marquis matches at the big tourneys, while the WTA matches are merely opening acts. To act as if the WTA is thriving w/o the WS based on these numbers is pure irresponsibility and only shows the bias you inevitably come at this issue with.
 
Last edited:

luvly

Professional
NONSENSE!
So what you basically saying the ATP got incredibly popular to makeup the loss of the WS? Agassi, Safin wasn't a big name back then? Fed made the final for 6 straight years...was he just became a big name in 2010??

According to Thundervolley, men's tennis is sliding into the grave.




So if both the ATP is dying and the WTA with no WS, then less fans should be buying ticket. Especially when it's played in the United States.




And you conveniently ignore the 2010 US Open, where they also said it was the most successful tournament in history.
lol you are missing the point i was just giving you another factor that can contribute to the attendance changes...it could also be the general growth of the sport.

but it doesnt change the fact that your measure is invalid. here is an example this summer i attended the cincy masters when i went to purchase tickets for the full week the best pricing was if i also purchases tickets the women's event, so i did that because it was the best price. while at the event i spoke to several people who had done the same. i also do not doubt that there were people who only attended the women's event but also bought the full series package which included both events.

i bring up this example because when you look at the overall ticket sells it will not reflect if the attendees were more interested in the men's or women's event. it would be an invalid measure if i solely looked at tickets sells. what would be a more appropriate measure would be to look at the actual tickets that were used at the gate and not just purchases across the two separate events held at the same venue becuase this would give me actual attendance for each event.

this is not something that is possible at combined events because you can look at the tickets purchased to get an overview but to separate the popularity of the men's event from the women's event at a combined you could only look at actual attendance on the days that just the men or women played.

i really cant think of any other way to explain it to you, the facts that you are using are not valid measures
 

luvly

Professional
Yep, perfect example of using a spurious relationship to prove a point.

TMF, many have noted how the ATP has grown since the early 2000s since the Fed-Nadal rivalry has become THE storyline in tennis, which undoubtedly is a factor in increasing ticket sales. I don't speak for Thunder, and often disagree w/ him, I only speak for myself, and yes the ATP has grown and overtaken the WTA measurably since the early 2000s when many said that the WTA was stronger than the ATP w/ WS, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, etc as names and faces, while the ATP had the likes of Johannson and Coria (no offense) winning slams.

Another factor to take into account is that the ATP promotes itself and is showcased on far more occasions that the WTA. Players like Fed, Nads, Rod, Murray often have the marquis matches at the big tourneys, while the WTA matches are merely opening acts. To act as if the WTA is thriving w/o the WS based on these numbers is pure irresponsibility and only shows the bias you inevitably come at this issue with.

i know it makes me really sad that his is misusing the attendance numbers to fit his needs....then he is too shallow to even consider contributing factors that could also have an effect on the topic at hand...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
lol you are missing the point i was just giving you another factor that can contribute to the attendance changes...it could also be the general growth of the sport.

but it doesnt change the fact that your measure is invalid. here is an example this summer i attended the cincy masters when i went to purchase tickets for the full week the best pricing was if i also purchases tickets the women's event, so i did that because it was the best price. while at the event i spoke to several people who had done the same. i also do not doubt that there were people who only attended the women's event but also bought the full series package which included both events.

i bring up this example because when you look at the overall ticket sells it will not reflect if the attendees were more interested in the men's or women's event. it would be an invalid measure if i solely looked at tickets sells. what would be a more appropriate measure would be to look at the actual tickets that were used at the gate and not just purchases across the two separate events held at the same venue becuase this would give me actual attendance for each event.

this is not something that is possible at combined events because you can look at the tickets purchased to get an overview but to separate the popularity of the men's event from the women's event at a combined you could only look at actual attendance on the days that just the men or women played.

i really cant think of any other way to explain it to you, the facts that you are using are not valid measures
I don't see your point. The ticket price normally have better price tag if purchase in package(multiple matches) instead of one single match. Are you saying IW didn't have special deal offering before 2002(right before the WS boycotted)?

Still that does not prove the with or without the WS hurts the attendance. I can say the loss of any top wta player would lose a few fans coming to watch. But how does that affect the tournament? Hardly. But according to thundervolley, Serena is the key player, and missing her is a blow to the event. Nonsense! IW continue to flourish without the sisters.

The ATP was always >>>> than the WTA. So are you trying to say before the WS boycotted IW, the WTA rival the ATP?? And all the sudden the ATP got incredibly popular which outweight the absence the sisters that results in more number of attendance? Silly.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
i know it makes me really sad that his is misusing the attendance numbers to fit his needs....then he is too shallow to even consider contributing factors that could also have an effect on the topic at hand...
Nonsense.
And what proof do you have that more fans passed thru the gate for the women's matches before the WS boycotted? None. So don't try to make your argument as fact. Most likely the women's matches gain more attendance since the fact we have is IW continue to grow with success.
 

luvly

Professional
Nonsense.
And what proof do you have that more fans passed thru the gate for the women's matches before the WS boycotted? None. So don't try to make your argument as fact. Most likely the women's matches gain more attendance since the fact we have is IW continue to grow with success.
lol i never said they did...you cant say they didnt

until the combined events start keep details of how many people attend each match you can not make your claim that is a fact....

that is all i have stated...
 

luvly

Professional
I don't see your point. The ticket price normally have better price tag if purchase in package(multiple matches) instead of one single match. Are you saying IW didn't have special deal offering before 2002(right before the WS boycotted)?

Still that does not prove the with or without the WS hurts the attendance. I can say the loss of any top wta player would lose a few fans coming to watch. But how does that affect the tournament? Hardly. But according to thundervolley, Serena is the key player, and missing her is a blow to the event. Nonsense! IW continue to flourish without the sisters.

The ATP was always >>>> than the WTA. So are you trying to say before the WS boycotted IW, the WTA rival the ATP?? And all the sudden the ATP got incredibly popular which outweight the absence the sisters that results in more number of attendance? Silly.
you didnt listen. last year you could purchase tickets for the cincy event a few ways.

tickets per session (day and night) for each day you wanted to attended
you could purchase mini packages (say sunday, tuesday, and the finals etc)
or a series package
for the series package you could purchase tickets for either the mens only event or the women's only event or both events combined. meaning you had the same seats for the whole two week of events which were separate events (the event is changing this year to a 8 day event men and women combined)

the best pricing offered was if you bought the series package for the men and women combined....

if you only bought the series package for the men it was more if you only bought the series package for the women only thus even though i only wanted to attend the men's event i bought tickets to the women's event. i am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

i am simply trying to explain to you why you can not use ticket sales to make the claim you are making...

from what i have gathered thundervolley has never used tickets or attendance in his claims...he has used viewership of women's finals which would actually be a more valid measure than you are using...

FYI i am only trying to explain to you why the measure you are using is invalid... i dont really care about the rest of the crap you are arguing about i am just trying to give you some knowledge of how science works....

but you are not getting it so carry on ignorance is bliss
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Miami as you know, is consider by many is the 5th slam.
It is not a major, thus your entire rant--like the majority of your posts--is puerile BS at best.



This year Serena didn’t play, but the event didn’t take a hit. In fact, they said the tourney recorded 11 session sellouts , set eight session records and surpassed 300,000 in attendance for the first time in tournament history

Once again...

You are not only troubled by basic english, but simple math, as you insists on making the argument that the limited number of on-site attendees of the USO somehow proves popularity when the sport's biggest audience is the television audience--the latter showing a distinct disinterest in non-Williams finals over the decade, particularly finals with Clijsters and of specific interest, the subject of your hype, Wozniacki. To this day, your "new math" has failed to come within a country mile of supporting your BS.

Now, unless you can are going to finally prove the on-site attendance somehow surpasses the sport's biggest audience--the same audience showing a growing lack of interest where specific factors are considered, then you continue your tradition of avoidance and failure.

Time to dance, boy.

Regarding ESPN: to this day, you have failed to prove how the professional, experienced statement of ESPN's senior director the programming department regarding the positive effects of the Williams sisters on tennis is invalid, when he--by nature of his title--would have an intimate knowledge of how the very events he programs perform, while you do not to any degree.

The stage is waiting. Invalidate his position, while proving how your isolationist view is correct.

Regarding Wozniacki: you swore Wozniacki would win the 2010 US Open, and was "popular." Clearly, her "popularity" could not draw or surpass decade-high ratings with the sport's biggest audience when she appeared in the 2009 final, or in this year's USO semifinals.

Start explaining how your new blonde crush did not live up to your ill-minded hype (well known on this board).

To conclude: without question, you display pathological degrees of hatred of the Williams family which is utterly dangerous and historically speaking, has left a legacy of violence. You need to be on a watch list ASAP, before you turn your personal hell into a public tragedy.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
i am simply trying to explain to you why you can not use ticket sales to make the claim you are making...

from what i have gathered thundervolley has never used tickets or attendance in his claims...he has used viewership of women's finals which would actually be a more valid measure than you are using...

FYI i am only trying to explain to you why the measure you are using is invalid... i dont really care about the rest of the crap you are arguing about i am just trying to give you some knowledge of how science works....

but you are not getting it so carry on ignorance is bliss
Accurate assessment, luvly.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
you didnt listen. last year you could purchase tickets for the cincy event a few ways.

tickets per session (day and night) for each day you wanted to attended
you could purchase mini packages (say sunday, tuesday, and the finals etc)
or a series package
for the series package you could purchase tickets for either the mens only event or the women's only event or both events combined. meaning you had the same seats for the whole two week of events which were separate events (the event is changing this year to a 8 day event men and women combined)

the best pricing offered was if you bought the series package for the men and women combined....

if you only bought the series package for the men it was more if you only bought the series package for the women only thus even though i only wanted to attend the men's event i bought tickets to the women's event. i am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

i am simply trying to explain to you why you can not use ticket sales to make the claim you are making...

from what i have gathered thundervolley has never used tickets or attendance in his claims...he has used viewership of women's finals which would actually be a more valid measure than you are using...

FYI i am only trying to explain to you why the measure you are using is invalid... i dont really care about the rest of the crap you are arguing about i am just trying to give you some knowledge of how science works....

but you are not getting it so carry on ignorance is bliss
I don't need you to explain to me how tickets are being sold. I wanted to know how exactly it affected the ticket sale before and after the WS boycotted the event. If you have any reason it has, then explain...that's my point. The rest of your comments means is pointless except about Thundervolley. He dare to say only the major(conveniently ignore IW) affected the attendance without the WS, so I posted the link about the 2010 USO, where they say it's the most successful tournament in history !
 
Top