I hate to say I told you so, well actually lets not lie I really don't. The ratings are in fans fing love the modern game

..NEW YORK (AP) -- Andy Murray's five-set victory over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final was watched by more than 16 million on TV, an increase from last year's 11.8 million and the highest total since 2007.

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

The men's final was originally scheduled for Sunday but it was pushed back a day due to rain.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/more-16-million-watch-murrays-003443993--ten.html

This is massive for the health of tennis and its viability as major sport. This for a monday final that basically played in the middle of the day for most of the country. A 4.4 million spike for a final featuring no Nadal, No federer, and no American.

As I have stated over and over again the health of the game is good. The ratings are strong, attendance is strong, and the quality is strong. People talk about the drastic problems in the game and the need for radical change. Numbers like this guarantee that the games is not hurting and no evidence is really brought in to show that many of these online myths are true or not. Not only that but outside the pages of a few websites no one, no one is going to change because of the numbers I cited:

1. Fans are leaving the game: No they aren't tennis is down in the states recently but it is back on the up tick in recent years with Fed and Nadal coming up. And yes now murray and Djokovic are box office here as well, the proof is in the pudding. And the game is getting even more global into new markets never before available.

2. That the style of play results in injuries and burnouts. Not really Djoko and Murray have played about 75-80 matches each for the last 5 years. Fed never misses a spot and poor Nadal has bad knees. Players are playing longer and longer. Burnout in fact was a much better problem in the 80s maybe it was all that good coke.

3. After Fedal there are no star players or charismatic guys and the game will go down. Well for not the first time, we are seeing that the fans like Andy Murray and Novak as well. Not as much as fedal but they don't know them as much. Novak has been on every big talk show in the states some a couple of times. People like talking to him and he engages the fans. Murray is another shining example of a pretty nice and bright tennis champ who loves his mum and his best gal, what is more marketable than that? People like these guys and will like them more the more they get exposed to them. Same goes for the gentle giant Del Po.

Now the question begs to be asked with all these knowledgable tennis fans on 606v2 why exactly is everything negative about today's game and its future? Why is it that this style of play that brings fans out of its seats and has them brave monsoon conditions to watch a final featuring no Americans, is so universally hated on this website. Or at least it seems so.

I for my part love it, and am happy to have a second helping of more of it.
I see none of these 3 calamaties befalling tennis.

I saw some of Andy's appearances on US TV and I was very impressed with his performance.

Smiling, communicative, funny - he actually showed real-Andy not media-Andy.

Coupled with Novak's growing reputation and Del Potro's sudden tendency to work the crowd like a rock singer(!), I don't think a post-Fedal era will be without its stars.

What did you see him on HM? I looked for some but couldn't find anything

I agree Murdoch, everyone seems so gloomy and so critical. All we here about are changes to everything. Change the courts, move the slams, ban string compositions, sprays, limit racquet head size, use quicker balls, and limit the weight of racquets. Has an adequate case been made that the game is in trouble, well I think the answer is no.

Tennis should be very proud of the quality of champion that we have bread in the last few years. Fed has been a dream so has Rafa. And the other guys are there growing and all of them seem to be genuinely well behaved and nice guys. I mean how weird is it that we have 4 of the best players in the world and not a single one of them has changed a wife or girlfriend. Here in the states every day you hear about athletes beating their girlfriends, impregnating a bunch of women out of wedlock, or being prosecuted by the law. I mean one of our great stars' major problems is that he loves his mum too much.

the only real problem with tennis popularity is simple: over-reliance on a handful of stars. However, contrary to popular belief this isn't really a new phenomenon. Federer carried the game for about five years (Roddick a bit in the US). Then Nadal came along and beat him regularly, so people had a great rivalry to enjoy. Then came the new boys on the block Andy and Novak and we had the term "big 4" (which may only have been a "big 3" until recently...). The trouble people have is that no one else seems to be breaking through.

Of course tennis has always been about its stars: the Borgs, Lendls, Connors, MacEnroes, Edbergs, Beckers. And rivalries too. They're what makes it special.

3 of the big 4 still have quite a few years left in them (here's hoping Rafa gets fit again soon) so I don't see anything to worry about yet, and by then maybe Raonic will have realised that rather than try to hit exclusively forehands for a whole match he could actually work on improving his backhand, Harrison will have found consistency, Tomic will have screwed his head on, etc. There's potential aplenty, and while it's not being fulfilled just yet, there's absolutely no need to panic.

As I have stated over and over again - there is no evidence that a Fedal final would attract more viewers and no reason that draw-rigging would be done to get one. I guess this proves it. At least thats one conspiracy theory laid to rest

This is a relatively new phenomenon the fedal draw rigging took place over a 5 year period.

now let's not start that one again

though watch the conspirators come out in force if Novak and Murray are drawn in the same half in the next couple of tournaments...

killer938 wrote:What did you see him on HM? I looked for some but couldn't find anything

Search for CBS This Morning. It's on YouTube but I don't have access at work to post you the link!

JuliusHMarx wrote:As I have stated over and over again - there is no evidence that a Fedal final would attract more viewers and no reason that draw-rigging would be done to get one. I guess this proves it. At least thats one conspiracy theory laid to rest

Good point, always thought that argument was tenuous.

Regarding viewing figures, of course like any brand the popularity reflects the net accumulated weight of brand equity, which takes a long time to accumulate and an equally long time to dissipate. Federer and Nadal have played a huge part in building that so it's only natural that the current game is reaping the rewards.

Anyone experienced in business knows, though, that todays results reflect yesterdays input, and that what we do today will show tomorrowin the future. It's the future of the mens game that is in jeopardy because of the actions taken today, and in particular when the variety is finally removed once Federer goes. Obviously that will get past a lot of people but it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

I am surprised to hear how awful the 2010 numbers were (really just 6m vs >16m 2012) but not surprised to hear that 2007 was bigger than yesterday.

ATP will have Andy's interviews on American TV

Mad for Chelsea wrote:now let's not start that one again

though watch the conspirators come out in force if Novak and Murray are drawn in the same half in the next couple of tournaments...

You guys are really waving the red meat in front of me. But I will not take the bait this is not about draw rigging but about ratings and the health of the game. Thanks again Moderator in chief JUlius who again shifts the topic of the thread in violation of good posting and moderating form.

Julius what are your thoughts on the 3 big points that I made and the ratings, am I boring you with the actual thread topic?

Don't worry MfC, I'm just teasing. socal, you do need to learn what teasing is! (Hint - it's usually followed by an emoticon)

I did say last week or so that I was a bit bored by Fed/Nadal and that I suspected many fans felt the same way. Those viewing figures would indicate that I may have been right.

The problem is that in a couple of years people will get a bit bored of Djoko/Murray and there are no younger players coming up to replace them.

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:As I have stated over and over again - there is no evidence that a Fedal final would attract more viewers and no reason that draw-rigging would be done to get one. I guess this proves it. At least thats one conspiracy theory laid to rest

Good point, always thought that argument was tenuous.

Regarding viewing figures, of course like any brand the popularity reflects the net accumulated weight of brand equity, which takes a long time to accumulate and an equally long time to dissipate. Federer and Nadal have played a huge part in building that so it's only natural that the current game is reaping the rewards.

Anyone experienced in business knows, though, that todays results reflect yesterdays input, and that what we do today will show tomorrowin the future. It's the future of the mens game that is in jeopardy because of the actions taken today, and in particular when the variety is finally removed once Federer goes. Obviously that will get past a lot of people but it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

So we base the need for radical change to a healthy game based on nothing more than your anectodal arguments, no facts, and your assertions of how well you say you read the business climate? Sorry I don't see any case being made, at least some thing other than your word in being able to read the future of the game better than the people actually running it.

right now no, but as I said two years is time enough for Raonic to realise he has a rubbish backhand. I think he may even have done so, but he might also work out that he can improve it (instead of trying to play only FHs in the match), and even do so.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't worry MfC, I'm just teasing. socal, you do need to learn what teasing is! (Hint - it's usually followed by an emoticon)

I did say last week or so that I was a bit bored by Fed/Nadal and that I suspected many fans felt the same way. Those viewing figures would indicate that I may have been right.

The problem is that in a couple of years people will get a bit bored of Djoko/Murray and there are no younger players coming up to replace them.

Again nothing more than just making unsupported assertions doesn't make it true. You don't know which of the players will make a move in the next couple of years it could be Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level. Or a player could raise up from the juniors and futures. I don't feel a slate of changes are required till I actually see some evidence on these three grounds which you don't comment on.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:As I have stated over and over again - there is no evidence that a Fedal final would attract more viewers and no reason that draw-rigging would be done to get one. I guess this proves it. At least thats one conspiracy theory laid to rest

Good point, always thought that argument was tenuous.

Regarding viewing figures, of course like any brand the popularity reflects the net accumulated weight of brand equity, which takes a long time to accumulate and an equally long time to dissipate. Federer and Nadal have played a huge part in building that so it's only natural that the current game is reaping the rewards.

Anyone experienced in business knows, though, that todays results reflect yesterdays input, and that what we do today will show tomorrowin the future. It's the future of the mens game that is in jeopardy because of the actions taken today, and in particular when the variety is finally removed once Federer goes. Obviously that will get past a lot of people but it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

So we base the need for radical change to a healthy game based on nothing more than your anectodal arguments, no facts, and your assertions of how well you say you read the business climate? Sorry I don't see any case being made, at least some thing other than your word in being able to read the future of the game better than the people actually running it.

Well you're the one saying viewing figures are down on 2007, and I'm the one who knows something about brand management. There's a few facts to be going on with.

socal1976 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:now let's not start that one again

though watch the conspirators come out in force if Novak and Murray are drawn in the same half in the next couple of tournaments...

You guys are really waving the red meat in front of me. But I will not take the bait this is not about draw rigging but about ratings and the health of the game. Thanks again Moderator in chief JUlius who again shifts the topic of the thread in violation of good posting and moderating form.

Julius what are your thoughts on the 3 big points that I made and the ratings, am I boring you with the actual thread topic?

Actually I thought he made a fair point, since you've always associated alleged draw rigging with viewing figures.

Not sure how his post was off topic on that basis.

Whoops just checked the final it was Djoko and Fed not Roddick in the 07 final but I think that was the last sunday final in the last 5 years and that is why it had the higher ratings. Sunday finals during the day is a much better broadcast window for a major sports in the states than Monday afternoon when everyone is at work. Could someone look up if that match was on a sunday or Monday? Because that would basically defeat your point BB. And you can't talk away a 25 percent one year bump and 5 year high, you would certainly talk it up to your shareholders if that was part of your resume.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't worry MfC, I'm just teasing. socal, you do need to learn what teasing is! (Hint - it's usually followed by an emoticon)

I did say last week or so that I was a bit bored by Fed/Nadal and that I suspected many fans felt the same way. Those viewing figures would indicate that I may have been right.

The problem is that in a couple of years people will get a bit bored of Djoko/Murray and there are no younger players coming up to replace them.

Again nothing more than just making unsupported assertions doesn't make it true. You don't know which of the players will make a move in the next couple of years it could be Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level. Or a player could raise up from the juniors and futures. I don't feel a slate of changes are required till I actually see some evidence on these three grounds which you don't comment on.

Translation: Let's not change anything until it's too late.

socal1976 wrote:A in 2007 I think if I am not mistaken Roddick and American was in the final with fed. I am just going off the top of my head so that would explain why the ratings in 07 are higher than the last couple of years. Also I don't know if it was on a sunday or not.

No, it was Djokovic v Federer. And the final didn't stretch over 5 hours; you'll find those TV stats include people who watched a part of it and so these endless matches will inevitably have higher viewing figures - it's virtually impossible to avoid at least a portion of it!!

So that doesn't explain it.

bogbrush wrote: It's the future of the mens game that is in jeopardy because of the actions taken today, and in particular when the variety is finally removed once Federer goes. Obviously that will get past a lot of people but it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

Possibly. But let's fast forward two years or so. Fed has retired, Ferrer has retired or dropped down the rankings. Nadal may have been forced to retire or may have a reduced schedule.

That could give us a hypothetical top 4 of Novak, Andy, Del Potro and maybe Tsonga? Maybe Raonic or someone else has stepped up? That would still be good mix of styles and personalities.

It would also be a top 4 that I suspect would not have a stranglehold on slam semis like the current top 4.

Obviously there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes to this scenario but nor do I see it as unlikely. I'm not so certain that the post-Federer era will be the road to oblivion unless changes are made.

OK then

1. Fans are leaving the game. The viewing figures are lower than 2007. Fans have left the game in the last 5 years. Before this year's final, it was quite a bad drop. Any arguments made before this year's final could only be made on the available evidence prior to that - unless they were assertions unsupported by actual evidence

2. That the style of play results in injuries and burnouts. I've never made that argument.

3. After Fedal there are no star players or charismatic guys and the game will go down. To state that "Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level" is an unsupported assertion - it is no more or less a judgement than my own. Hewitt and Roddick were star players and charismatic guys but some people think that was a poor era for tennis.

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK then

1. Fans are leaving the game. The viewing figures are lower than 2007. Fans have left the game in the last 5 years. Before this year's final, it was quite a bad drop. Any arguments made before this year's final could only be made on the available evidence prior to that - unless they were assertions unsupported by actual evidence

2. That the style of play results in injuries and burnouts. I've never made that argument.

3. After Fedal there are no star players or charismatic guys and the game will go down. To state that "Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level" is an unsupported assertion - it is no more or less a judgement than my own. Hewitt and Roddick were star players and charismatic guys but some people think that was a poor era for tennis.

Plus, extremely long matches inevitably have higher viewing figures and those statistics don't reflect people who watched the whole game but those who tune in.
This is bound to inflate the figures for these crazily long matches.

So, all in all, it's a pity job socal didn't resist saying "I told you so", because the facts contradict.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The viewing figures are lower than 2007. Fans have left the game in the last 5 years.

Don't forget that 2007 was the last time a final was played on a Sunday. That alone would likely give it higher viewing figures.

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK then

1. Fans are leaving the game. The viewing figures are lower than 2007. Fans have left the game in the last 5 years. Before this year's final, it was quite a bad drop. Any arguments made before this year's final could only be made on the available evidence prior to that - unless they were assertions unsupported by actual evidence

2. That the style of play results in injuries and burnouts. I've never made that argument.

3. After Fedal there are no star players or charismatic guys and the game will go down. To state that "Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level" is an unsupported assertion - it is no more or less a judgement than my own. Hewitt and Roddick were star players and charismatic guys but some people think that was a poor era for tennis.

On point see above I think if i am not mistaken 2007 was the last sunny sunday. Someone should check that but I am pretty sure. Sorry like I said your point doesn't talk away why as the finals get longer and supposedly more tedious that the ratings this year are up 25 percent and at 5 year high. Wow sounds like serious problems

On fed being charismatic his game is he really isn't, neither is nadal frankly. Nothing makes fed or Nadal innately charismatic, they won a lot and accumulated fans because they played great and conducted themselves well. The fans seem to like Novak and Andy well enough as the ratings indicate so again your point fails again. 25 percent more people watched this final than last years final that had Nadal, so your point fails on that front as well in my opinion.


Goodnight I will respond to all good faith posters tomorrow.

socal1976 wrote:Whoops just checked the final it was Djoko and Fed not Roddick in the 07 final but I think that was the last sunday final in the last 5 years and that is why it had the higher ratings. Sunday finals during the day is a much better broadcast window for a major sports in the states than Monday afternoon when everyone is at work. Could someone look up if that match was on a sunday or Monday? Because that would basically defeat your point BB. And you can't talk away a 25 percent one year bump and 5 year high, you would certainly talk it up to your shareholders if that was part of your resume.

I don't have shareholders, at least not outside the three of us who run the place.

Oh dear
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-11/murray-s-grand-slam-breakthrough-draws-12-percent-lower-cbs-tv-rating

socal1976 wrote:Goodnight I will respond to all good faith posters tomorrow.

Translation: People who didn't expose my dodgy grasp of facts.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Oh dear
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-11/murray-s-grand-slam-breakthrough-draws-12-percent-lower-cbs-tv-rating

Oh dear indeed.

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK then

1. Fans are leaving the game. The viewing figures are lower than 2007. Fans have left the game in the last 5 years. Before this year's final, it was quite a bad drop. Any arguments made before this year's final could only be made on the available evidence prior to that - unless they were assertions unsupported by actual evidence

2. That the style of play results in injuries and burnouts. I've never made that argument.

3. After Fedal there are no star players or charismatic guys and the game will go down. To state that "Raonic, Tomic, Harrison, of Del Po could play great for a decade and murray and Djoko another 5-8 years at a high level" is an unsupported assertion - it is no more or less a judgement than my own. Hewitt and Roddick were star players and charismatic guys but some people think that was a poor era for tennis.

Plus, extremely long matches inevitably have higher viewing figures and those statistics don't reflect people who watched the whole game but those who tune in.
This is bound to inflate the figures for these crazily long matches.

So, all in all, it's a pity job socal didn't resist saying "I told you so", because the facts contradict.

Wrong 2007 was on a sunday a day off for Americans so it blows you pitiful point out of the water.

That is strange because associated press is reporting a massive increase. And also the article explains that Sunday was the day of the USO final in 2007. But that is weird I provided the link it strange why some people are reporting one way and others the other way.

My dodgey grasp of facts read the article I posted it is plain to see what exactly is dodgey about what it says? we have a conflicting report, maybe you can't read the link I provided it is all there I posted the whole thing.

How does the day of the week have any connection to a longer match inevitably attracting higher stats because it's on longer.

Are you saying there are fewer hours on Sunday or something?

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

socal1976 wrote:This is massive for the health of tennis and its viability as major sport. This for a monday final that basically played in the middle of the day for most of the country. A 4.4 million spike for a final featuring no Nadal, No federer, and no American.

These figures don't tell us anything about the effect of Federer or an American not being in a final - they tell us that Murray vs. Djoko 2012 was more watched that Djoko vs. Nadal 2010 and 2011.

That may suggest that the Nadal vs. Djoko rivalry does not capture the imagination, that Nadal is of more interest to fans when he is up against a more contrasting style of player (certainly that's my personal view - I found the USO 2011 and the Aus O 2012 to be turn-offs).

The bigger issue is variety of play, and that is a very long-term issue. Variety of play on the Tour derives from what coaches and young players decided will maximise their chances in the future. If the conditions are all the same when the Juniors are learning, the resulting senior players will increasingly look like one another to all but the most knowledgeable tennis watchers. I'd say that is the problem with the women's game now that the likes of Henin, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Kuznetsova have ceased to play or compete at the top. In the current mens' top 8 there are a lot of quite different players - Fed, Djoko, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer, JMDP, Tsonga, Berdych. They are all at least in their mid-20's with, I think, the possible exception of JMDP who is a bit younger. They really learned to play the game 10+ years ago, before the homogenisation really began to bite. In the next 5 years new players will be emerging who learned to play during the 2000's, the era of homogenising conditions. It is to be expected that there'll be a lull when the superstars of the top 4 are no longer playing - that's perfectly normal and nothing to get into a twist about, it's part of life. However, it is to be hoped that the upper echelons of men's will continue to have variety even if they can't match the quality of the likes of Fed, Nadal and so-on. If they do not I think that there's a bleak time ahead for men's tennis until something is done to change. Nothing extreme, just changes which suggest that some young players might think it worth trusting in their net-play, using a SHBH and slice, as well as patroling the baseline and hitting heavy topspin on both wings.

There do seem to be conflicting reports, and if we have to base any arguments on evidence, then it's obviously difficult to state with certainty that we are correct.

Without understanding the complex way the US do their TV ratings, it appears there were more viewers who saw part of the match, but less who watched it for any length of time. From my link, there is a peak for the last 15 mins of the match (up from 2.3 overall to 4.6 - whatever that means).

This would indicate (but not definitely) that many viewers got bored with the length of the final (or sneaked a peak at work), switched off, and just tuned in again to see the end of it.

Whereas last year's final had less viewers who saw part of if. but more who stayed with it. Maybe because it was shorter, maybe because it had Nadal - who knows?

It seems conclusions and "I told you so" cannot be so hastily drawn.

socal1976 wrote:This is massive for the health of tennis and its viability as major sport. This for a monday final that basically played in the middle of the day for most of the country.

The first point was played around 4.15pm ET, finishing around 9pm.

Currently about half the US population lives on Eastern Time with the next largest share being 33% on Central. Only about 15% live on Pacific Time.

So for the great majority of the population the match was played in late afternnoon with the climax at mid/late evening; pretty much peak time.

What were we saying about your dodgy grasp of facts earlier?

I think we should also consider the fact that more people have watched to see whether Murray would win his first slam. This is the great story after all. If Murray had already won a slam, say USO 2011, I wonder how many would have bothered to stick with this rather tedious (yes, I will use the word again, unlike many websites who claim this was tennis of earth-shattering quality) final. We'll see if and when Murray and Djoker play again in a final (outside of Wimbledon, where obviously the home interest would push up the viewership figures).

TA. most of the web-sites I've seen have highlighted the 5-set drama/excitement and brutal, physical nature of the match, rather than claiming that the tennis itself was of the highest quality.

Hmm, Julius maybe. Was it not Simon Reed who said though that the tennis was good? Mind you, it's tough to know for sure whether tennis nowadays is anything more than all those things you spell out. I really think it's sad to see words like "brutal"/ "physical" dominating news reports.

Tennisanorak wrote:Hmm, Julius maybe. Was it not Simon Reed who said though that the tennis was good? Mind you, it's tough to know for sure whether tennis nowadays is anything more than all those things you spell out. I really think it's sad to see words like "brutal"/ "physical" dominating news reports.

A smiley would help, but in the absence of that I presume they anyone quoting Simon Reed is being ironic.

Could mean they don't like Nadal?

But equally be due to other factors, like the weather that day, or what was on the other channels.

barrystar wrote:

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

socal1976 wrote:This is massive for the health of tennis and its viability as major sport. This for a monday final that basically played in the middle of the day for most of the country. A 4.4 million spike for a final featuring no Nadal, No federer, and no American.

These figures don't tell us anything about the effect of Federer or an American not being in a final - they tell us that Murray vs. Djoko 2012 was more watched that Djoko vs. Nadal 2010 and 2011.

That may suggest that the Nadal vs. Djoko rivalry does not capture the imagination, that Nadal is of more interest to fans when he is up against a more contrasting style of player (certainly that's my personal view - I found the USO 2011 and the Aus O 2012 to be turn-offs).

The bigger issue is variety of play, and that is a very long-term issue. Variety of play on the Tour derives from what coaches and young players decided will maximise their chances in the future. If the conditions are all the same when the Juniors are learning, the resulting senior players will increasingly look like one another to all but the most knowledgeable tennis watchers. I'd say that is the problem with the women's game now that the likes of Henin, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Kuznetsova have ceased to play or compete at the top. In the current mens' top 8 there are a lot of quite different players - Fed, Djoko, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer, JMDP, Tsonga, Berdych. They are all at least in their mid-20's with, I think, the possible exception of JMDP who is a bit younger. They really learned to play the game 10+ years ago, before the homogenisation really began to bite. In the next 5 years new players will be emerging who learned to play during the 2000's, the era of homogenising conditions. It is to be expected that there'll be a lull when the superstars of the top 4 are no longer playing - that's perfectly normal and nothing to get into a twist about, it's part of life. However, it is to be hoped that the upper echelons of men's will continue to have variety even if they can't match the quality of the likes of Fed, Nadal and so-on. If they do not I think that there's a bleak time ahead for men's tennis until something is done to change. Nothing extreme, just changes which suggest that some young players might think it worth trusting in their net-play, using a SHBH and slice, as well as patroling the baseline and hitting heavy topspin on both wings.

i don't see that has that much to do with the surfaces. Let's look at Federer's generation. We have Roddick (straight up and down big serving baseliner); Nalbandian (stylish aggressive baseliner) and Hewitt (defensive baseliner). I guess we also have Ferrer; Davydenko and Safin in that group - defensive; aggressive and ultra-aggressive baseliners respectively.

Is that much different to the next generation? Dimitrov is an all-court player with touch and feel; Harrison is a big serving American with more ability at the net than Roddick; Raonic relies on a big serve and aggressive game and Tomic is more defensive, relying on changes of pace, different spins etc. If anything, they are more varied than Federer's generation. We are not seeing a whole bunch of Ferrer clones coming through.

What we are lacking is an out and out serve volleyer in the style of Rafter or Henman. I don't see that the courts are really to blame for that though. That had already occurred by the time the courts started to get slower in 2003 or so. It is a product of the graphite racquets and different coaching methods which started in the 90s onwards.

BornSlippy is a hundred percent right that is a great post. Look at he youngsters Harrison, Tomic, and Raonic they all are different style players and I think play completely varied games. Also S and V has been losing ground since the mid 80s and the graphite racquet, so to lay all the responsibility for reversing a 30 year steady trend on changing conditions would require radical changes. By the time they slowed down the courts in early 2000s already basically only and aged Pete and a couple of other guys were serve and volleyers. S and V was already dying out prior to the luxis and slower courts.

To support my argument I ask you to consider this... while CBS reported that viewership of Monday's final was up to 16.2 million viewers from 11.8 million in 2011, they also reported that the Sunday ladies final contested between Serena Williams and Viktoria Azarenka drew a robust 17.7 million viewers (the highest numbers since 2002), all while the NFL was kicking off it's opening weekend. As any red blooded American can attest, nearly every male in the country was glued to their television sets on Sunday already obsessing over their favorite teams and fantasy leagues - yet still over 17 million viewers tuned into that match at the same time, and 16 million more did the same while the Bengals and Ravens were simultaneously kicking off Monday night football on ESPN.

http://www.examiner.com/article/us-open-2012-report-16-million-tune-to-watch-andy-murray-make-history

CBS is also reporting the numbers to be up to 16 million from last year. Now there seems to be with most ratings numbers different break downs and time slots but what is being reported is that the high for Murray v. Novak is up over the high for Nadal and Djoko and is the highest of all the rain delayed finals of the last 5 years.

So my point stands the proponents of radical changes are the ones that have to prove we need radical change not the other way around.

And again no facts, no facts are brought in to support their arguments. We are just accept their anectodal assertinos that slower courts bring on burnout and injuries more so in the past with no proof. Fans are leaving the game and won't enjoy the product and we are not seeing that. And that there are no quality marketable figures after Fedal and that isn't the case either.

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't think a post-Fedal era will be without its stars.

It would never be. The myth that the world of Tennis would enter some terrible dark phase was put about by disillusioned Fedal fans, suddenly aware that their domination is at an end (not over, i.e. it would be no surprise if they won 2-3 slams next year)

I remember feeling the same in 1985, when it was clear that Mac and Conners would no longer win majors. And around 2002, when Sampras had gone and Agassi was going

But they were all neurotic worries, Willander, Lendl, Becker and Edberg proved great watching. Fed etc (even Roddick :-)) has proved just as good. And now we have Andvak plus players like Monfils who when he comes back might appreciate the game, stop fooling around and concentrate on harnessing that great talent

The game will carry on with no worries

By the way BB the final tipped off at 1pm pacific, 2 pm mountain, 3pm central time zone, and 4 pm eastern. Well within the work day of 100 percent of the nation. It seems you are the one who is dodgey in your reading comprehension and portrayal of the facts, but I already knew that. Does your workday end at 2 or 3 pm every monday is that what your shareholders are paying the big bucks for?

It would also seem that the popularity of the WTA is at a near all-time high. More viewers than the men's final!
At least if the ATP turns into the WTA in a few years, it will still be very popular.

That is more due to serena in the finals an American in the finals always means more US ratings than when their isn't one. I don't think that is different than anywhere else really.

But still highest women's final since 2002 is nothing to sneeze out either I guess neither men or womens game is really hurting right now.

socal1976 wrote:By the way BB the final tipped off at 1pm pacific, 2 pm mountain, 3pm central time zone, and 4 pm eastern. Well within the work day of 100 percent of the nation. It seems you are the one who is dodgey in your reading comprehension and portrayal of the facts, but I already knew that. Does your workday end at 2 or 3 pm every monday is that what your shareholders are paying the big bucks for?

Well since 85% of the population lives in the last two they were able to be counted in those stats (which record numbers tuning in at all, not for the whole match) up to 8 or 9 pm. I can't believe you missed that so I suppose you're just misrepresenting.

So let's clear it up; for 85% of the US population this match was happening big time during prime time evening TV. It was clear enough first time but that spells it out easy enough even for you.

My workday finishes when I like because I don't have shareholders paying me, I own the business,