PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC.COM: LOW TV Ratings for Tennis Unless VENUS, SERENA or AGASSI are in the Finals


Foot_Fault
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:07 PM
SOURCE:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4800736/


washingtonpost.com Highlights

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040421/040421_williamsFashion_vmed_8p.vmedium.jpg Jeff Gross / Getty Images file
Tennis seeking
to overcome several faults
Sport suffering from low TV ratings, disinterested players
Serena Williams spends more time modeling than playing tennis, Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins says.

COMMENTARY
By Sally Jenkins
Columnist
http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceWaPost.gif
Updated: 11:28 p.m. ET April 21, 2004

I'm trying to think of anything more culturally irrelevant than tennis. New Age music festivals? Sport fishing and rare book auctions also come to mind. Here's how irrelevant the sport has become: Eleven days ago a U.S. Davis Cup team led by Andy Roddick beat Sweden in the quarterfinals on American soil, and it only merited a brief mention on the nightly sportscasts. You probably missed it, because Tiger Woods's slump seemed so much more important at the time. So did Sean Penn's political views, and Pete Rose's future, and Lesley Stahl's hair style.

advertisement
http://global.msads.net/ads/1/0000000001_000000000000000068744.jpg (http://g.msn.com/0AD0000L/591464.1??PID=2184865&UIT=G&TargetID=1010901&AN=31775&PG=NBCSMS)Tennis is dead. It has been dead before, but at the moment it's dead without precedent. Combine aloof players with basic business errors, and what you have is a sport with no heartbeat. In an effort to resuscitate it, a hapless alphabet soup of governing bodies this week joined with ESPN in trumping up something called the "U.S. Open Series," a six-week summer season of big-bonus televised tournaments. The idea is to get tennis on TV more regularly, provide audiences with a better sense of continuity and familiarity with players, and thereby bring back the game. We'll see.

http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/SITEWIDE/PartnerColorBoxLogos/WaPost_333_GCH.gif
• More from Sally Jenkins (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/columns/jenkinssally/?nav=msn-1)
• More from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/?nav=msn-1)


The question is whether the public wants more of something that they're already not watching.

Here are just a few of the spectator sports with better attendance figures than tennis, according to a 2002 survey in the Sports Business Journal: rodeo, soccer and greyhound racing.

The reason for this new big deal "series" – which by the way is only the most recent gimmicky "series" in tennis – is that the USTA, along with the ATP men's tour and the Women's Tennis Association, badly needed some kind of lightning rod because TV ratings have been so perilously weak lately. ESPN's numbers for its men's tennis events are off 33 percent from two years ago; only 249,000 households tuned in per telecast in 2003, and while women's tennis is slightly better, it's still flat, off by 5 percent, with 365,000 households tuning in per show.

Even the four Grand Slam events, which historically have always managed to consistently interest audiences, have seen precipitous ratings drops. Unless Andre Agassi or Venus and Serena Williams are in the final, people just don't seem to care like they used to. Last year's U.S. Open final between Roddick and top-ranked Juan Carlos Ferrero produced a 3.5 rating, a 44 percent fall from the previous year. Justine Henin-Hardenne's victory over No. 1 Kim Clijsters got a 2.5, down a precipitous 52 percent. And at Wimbledon, Roger Federer's victory over Mark Philippoussis drew the lowest overnight U.S. television rating on record for a men's final at the All England Club.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ColorBoxes/Styles/ColorBoxImages(GlobalOnlyPlease)/peacock_7788aa.gifTennis
• Austin: Serena has something to prove (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4586762/)
• Collins: Young U.S. stars in Davis Cup (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4224608/)
• Collins: Agassi will be around for awhile (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4101689/)
• Newsweek: Serena's next game (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4050966/)
• ATP schedule, winners (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939245/)
• WTA schedule, winners (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939247/)
• More on tennis (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3166915/)


What happened? Why is tennis, which ruled the airwaves and enjoyed packed arenas in the 1970s and '80s, and even three years ago still had some buzz, suddenly falling so flat with the public in the millennium? The answer comes in the form of another question: Why should we watch a sport that even the players seem disinterested in? Especially when we can log on to the Internet and shop on eBay, or check our Blackberries, or click on a DVD?

You can put all the tennis on television that you want, but it won't alter the fact that the sport is driven by its stars and personalities, and at the moment there is a problematic cast at the top of both the men and women's games. Venus and Serena Williams don't even play their own sport; all they do is withdraw from tournaments with injuries and have dalliances with other professions, from fashion designing to acting, and turn up for an isolated trophy here or there. The men aren't much better. Six top players withdrew from the Monte Carlo Open this week, including top-ranked Federer, Agassi, Roddick, James Blake and Mardy Fish.

There is one thing no network or governing body or tricked-up schedule can do, and that's make the players play.

Golf, once a narrow and boring rich white man's game, has become the far more populist and connective sport – and one annually rated by sponsors as giving the most satisfaction to its financial backers, too. While tennis has done a swan dive over the last year, consider the LPGA. Attendance for the 33-event tour rose 9 percent last season, and 12 percent in 2002. Its network viewership was up 4 percent last year and a whopping 21 percent in 2002.

Tennis is a complicated failure. No one party or factor can be solely blamed. The problem is not fragmented internationalism, or a lack of stars. Federer is a pleasure to watch, an interesting and amiable man who is possessed of some of the most gorgeous strokes ever. It's not his fault, or that of Kim Clijsters, that the sport is in what might be called a star-transition and we simply don't know them as well yet as we know, say, Agassi or Monica Seles.

But it is the fault of the governing bodies that technology is ruining the quality of the game, and fields have become cluttered, with too many tournaments and too many indistinguishable players. Six male finalists turned up in Grand Slam finals in 2003, guys who shot up from the bottom 100s, guys like David Nalbandian, Guillermo Coria and Thomas Johansson. This is not to say they are unworthy or uninteresting. But at a certain point it's difficult to keep track of Jiri Novak, Sjeng Schalken and Paradorn Srichaphan plus a half dozen Argentines and another six or seven Spaniards who float in and out of the top 20 and various finals. As many as thirty players are liable to win ATP events in a season.

Equipment has something to do with it. Both John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova have each remarked that racket technology makes the game "too easy" with the result that too many players play exactly alike. Matches are generic, strokes homogenized, with fewer interesting contrasts in styles, or changeups.

This makes it hard for the public to connect with much of anyone. Contrast that with the game we watched in the 1970s and '80s, when there were more clear-cut rivals: Ivan Lendl showed up in 19 Grand Slam finals, and John McEnroe in 10, and we knew they didn't like each other. No wonder we tuned in.

It's taken a collective effort of lousy marketing, bad business practices, and apathetic players over a period of many years, but the end result is clear: Tennis has slowly but surely dislocated its audience, both physically and emotionally. It has squandered its star power, its history and its tradition. So can the new Open series and ESPN save tennis? Only if it manages to personalize the game again. Only if it manages to make the Federers and Clijsters come alive in our imaginations as the next great creative geniuses, the natural and personable successors in a traditional yet vivid and lively sport, the one we always loved.

If it doesn't do that, then the game is gone for good.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

tennisIlove09
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:23 PM
But Andy is all that and a bag of chips.
The Belgian finals are classics!

For shame!

Paneru
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:23 PM
But Andy is all that and a bag of chips.
The Belgian finals are classics!

For shame!
:lol:

spokenword73
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:24 PM
WOw! what a harsh assessment of the game of tennis. One way to increase tennis' popularity, is to make it more urban friendly. http://smileys.******************/cat/10_1_20.gif (http://www.******************/?partner=ZSzeb001) The writer did say soccer gets more attention, and of course it would, since soccer is the #1 sport in the world, no?

CanadianBoy21
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:33 PM
this article has some valid points, but it concludes to extremely.
What tennis needs is the players healthy, especially on the women's side, and all will be fine.

DunkMachine
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:53 PM
ouch

ptkten
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:03 PM
:rolleyes:

First of all, golf certainly does not have the same players winning every week so she's flat out wrong to say that it's because the men have unknown's winning majors that the ratings have slipped.

Also, Venus and Serena were INJURED. Now that they're back they are playing a decent amount of tournaments. Plus, Venus and Serena doing stuff out of tennis is good for the sport, not bad. When they're doing commercials or acting on shows, it helps with the crossover appeal.

and I'm sure her stats are somewhat skewed, I wonder what the LPGA's rating is compared to tennis, and what the average tennis rating is, compared to the average of the other sports listed. I'm sure tennis has higher ratings.

There are some problems with tennis, but not the one's she listed.

cool bird
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:08 PM
Well maybe. But USA is not the world. I think tennis will be fine

Andy T
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:10 PM
Is this true for the rest of the planet too or just a "little America" problem? Anyone have info on viewing stats elsewhere?
Fewer people are watching tennis in the states?

"It's not his [Federer's] fault, or that of Kim Clijsters, that the sport is in what might be called a star-transition and we simply don't know them as well yet as we know, say, Agassi or Monica Seles."

- who makes stars? The media: the same reporters who write articles like this! If we don't know them, why is that?

"Six male finalists turned up in Grand Slam finals in 2003, guys who shot up from the bottom 100s, guys like David Nalbandian, Guillermo Coria and Thomas Johansson. This is not to say they are unworthy or uninteresting. But at a certain point it's difficult to keep track of Jiri Novak, Sjeng Schalken and Paradorn Srichaphan plus a half dozen Argentines and another six or seven Spaniards who float in and out of the top 20 and various finals. As many as thirty players are liable to win ATP events in a season. "

Surprise, surprise, no American is listed amongst these difficult-to-keep-track-of players? Especially all those anonymous "Spaniards" and "Argentines" (perhaps "foreigners" was the word you were looking for, sweetie)

"Equipment has something to do with it. Both John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova have each remarked that racket technology makes the game "too easy" with the result that too many players play exactly alike. Matches are generic, strokes homogenized, with fewer interesting contrasts in styles, or changeups. This makes it hard for the public to connect with much of anyone. Contrast that with the game we watched in the 1970s and '80s, when there were more clear-cut rivals: Ivan Lendl showed up in 19 Grand Slam finals, and John McEnroe in 10, and we knew they didn't like each other. No wonder we tuned in."

The last three years in women's tennis have consisted of finals pitting either have Serena-Venus or Kim-Justine against each other. From 1990-2003, Sampras showed up in 18 finals and Agassi in 13. The public has not yet arrived at a level of stupidity where it cannot see a difference in the games of Serena and Justine or Sampras and Agassi.

"...Only if it manages to make the Federers and Clijsters come alive in our imaginations as the next great creative geniuses, the natural and personable successors in a traditional yet vivid and lively sport, the one we always loved. If it doesn't do that, then the game is gone for good. "

The tv commentators and the journalists make the players come alive (that's their job, isn't it?) so maybe Sally Jenkin and her employer should be asking why she's obviously failing.

calabar
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:23 PM
I swear the word ARROGANCE must have been coined in the USA. If American audiences cannot connect with a sport, therefore it must be dead. What hogwash.

TeeRexx
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:36 PM
I swear the word jealousy must have been coined outside of the USA (it was) because so many people in other countries seem to want what America has.:eek: :p

But I have been saying for years that TV ratings go up when the Williams are playing.:worship: :)

But, when they are gone we may have a bunch of Russians playing at the top and then we shall see what we shall see, eh?;) :rolleyes:

Bye.:wavey:

Ballbuster
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:41 PM
His points are valid and not.

He didn't mention Henin, I wonder why?

MartinaI
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:41 PM
It's a rather sad state of affairs when Americans cannot appreciate players from different countries. Perhaps US audiences should give it a try, heck, they may even like it. It must be pretty boring to be so one dimensional.

pigam
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:46 PM
:singer: Amèèrica amèèèèèèèèricaaaaaa ... :rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:49 PM
I guess Americans are more interested in siding with NBA stars who (purportedly) rape and pillage, and voting talented people off of "American Idol"!! :mad: I don't get it! :banghead: :shrug:

victory1
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:00 PM
Actually, the reason rating is so low, because there's so much sport in American television, that ratings are made up of the casual tennis fan. Remember I posted an article on one of the sisters slam final ratings for the US Open. It stated that 30.5 million people watched the prime time final with the sisters. Therefore beating game 5 of the World Series that year by a little less than a million. I posted the article because I was amazed that they beat baseball (not just a regular game but a World Series game).
Example, my sister does not watch tennis, but if she's turning station and see Venus or Serena playing she'll watch, but she's not a tennis fan.

Sofiane
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:44 PM
Ok Guys THE WORLD is NOT only the USA!!
R americans able to understand this?

tenn_ace
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:50 PM
wasn't S.Williams in Miami final? it wasn't a blockbuster, right?

besides, it's just US market anyways... so what Sofiane said...

Sofiane
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:51 PM
I swear the word jealousy must have been coined outside of the USA (it was) because so many people in other countries seem to want what America has.:eek: :p .....

Like Irak came right to America to get the oil? right?
And every country wants a president as stupid as G.W.Bush, that's for sure.
Ask your head before writing you will be able to make a fool of yourself less often.

Andy T
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:51 PM
I swear the word jealousy must have been coined outside of the USA (it was) because so many people in other countries seem to want what America has.:eek: :p

But I have been saying for years that TV ratings go up when the Williams are playing.:worship: :)

But, when they are gone we may have a bunch of Russians playing at the top and then we shall see what we shall see, eh?;) :rolleyes:

Bye.:wavey:

Yea right. Nothing against Americans but here's a list of all the things I admire America for/am jealous of in America:

A democracy where the guy who wins the most votes loses,

A place which respects international human rights to the point where it interns its "prisoners" on islands without charging them for years and refuses to allow its citizens to be tried in an international court,

which shrieks out about foreign TV showing pictures of its POWs and then broadcasts images of people it has captured or killed,

which has the hyposcrisy to depose foreign leaders it doesn't like, liberate its allies from foreign oppression and then endorse the annexation of land from other states by its allies,

which has the largerst stockpile of WMDs the world has ever known,

which preaches free speech and democracy, then punishes its neighbours with economic sanctions when they don't do what it wants,

not to mention the problems with obesity, the millions living under the poverty line, the terrible environmental record, the gun laws, the executions, the fanatical religious fundamentalism and the accompanying views on evolution, the highly developed public health and social security systems, the two weeks' holiday a year.....

I'm on the next plane over - so get the fingerprinting machine ready, why don't you!

Sofiane
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:56 PM
Yea right. Nothing against Americans but here's a list of all the things I admire America for/am jealous of in America:

A democracy where the guy who wins the most votes loses,

A place which respects international human rights to the point where it interns its "prisoners" on islands without charging them for years and refuses to allow its cittizens to be tried in an international court,

which shrieks out about foreign TV showing pictures of its POWs and then broadcasts images of people it has captured or killed,

which has the hyposcrisy to depose foreign leaders it doesn't like, liberate its allies from foreign oppression and then endorse the annexation of land from other states by its allies,

which has the largerst stockpile of WMDs the world has ever known,

which preaches free speech and democracy, then punishes its neighbours with economic snactions when they don't do what it wants,

not to mention the problems with obesity, the millions living under the poverty line, the terrible environmental record, the gun laws, the executions, the fanatical religious fundamentalism and the accompanying views on evolution, the highly developed public health and social security systems, the two weeks' holiday a year.....

I'm on the next plane over - so get the fingerprinting machine ready, why don't you!:worship: Ok on l'a écrit en même temps je crois! Ce TeeRex est l'ignorance en personne (numérique du moins!)

SelesFan70
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:00 PM
Fermez votre bouche! :mad:

alexusjonesfan
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:01 PM
And it's only going to go downhill from here.

The networks are caught in their own vicious circle. Well gee umm..if you bothered to introduce non-American players (other than just Maria Sharapova) to the public in the early rounds at the expense of not showing a taped Agassi match for the 16th time, they might not all turn away when those 'foreigners' are all you've got left to show in the final rounds of a tournament.

miranda_lou
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:07 PM
Ms. Jenkins, like most American sports writers, only see the odd tennis match. She has no idea who these players are nor does she bother to find out.

This is not to say they are unworthy or uninteresting. But at a certain point it's difficult to keep track of Jiri Novak, Sjeng Schalken and Paradorn Srichaphan plus a half dozen Argentines and another six or seven Spaniards who float in and out of the top 20 and various finals. As many as thirty players are liable to win ATP events in a season. "
Better not tell the people of Thailand that Paradorn isn't well known.:tape:

Would somebody please tell me what's wrong with having a lot of different players win tournaments?:rolleyes: I would think, if a person was a REAL tennis fan, they wouldn't mind learning about Jiri Novak or Sjeng Schalken (both very interesting people, by the way). And as for Coria, he has one of the most wonderful, fun to watch games of any player out there (exactly like a young Agassi, his idol). When I saw him play twice down in Miami last month, he was on the Grandstand court and the place was standing room only.

I'm an American tennis fan and, honestly, I'm embarrassed by reporters like this Sally Jenkins.:tape: Tennis is doing just fine worldwide and the tennis tournaments I've gone to in the States are always crowded and the fans have a great time. I wish people like her would just shut up and learn more about this wonderful game.

Andy T
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:16 PM
Maybe she doesn't give a damn about what she writes as long as it's published and there's a pay cheque for it.

calabar
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:25 PM
If one were to apply the Sally Jenkins paradigm to other sports then Soccer (or FOOTBALL as it is known to the remaining 95% of the world's population) is in serious trouble globally, since hardly anyone in the USA cares about this sport. And Freddy Adu aside, the sport will remain marginalized in the US for the forseeable future.

Rocketta
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:48 PM
Why do you people care so much? :shrug:

No America is not the world and so what if we don't watch tennis if non-americans are playing what does that have to do with y'all? Y'all are all evolved above us right? So be evolved. Gee whiz...

You can't have it both ways...You can't pitch a temper tantrum and say in the same breath but we're better than you.

The article rightly or wrongly is talking about Americans not other countries...did I miss something in the article where the author was talking about TV ratings in other countries? Should the TV networks care about ratings in other countries? Can an American author actually write an article about America and not have some of you make the comment, "There's other countries in the World." Well no shit Sherlock! Wow, What a shock! :eek:

Is America perfect, nope...Did I see anyone say that it was in this thread? Did I also see anyone call any country out in this thread and put it down? Oh yeah I did the same America bashing that is always acceptable on this board. Let me guess TeeRex stating foreignors are jealous is all the cause you need right? Yeah I've heard it all before. Have you heard the term, "Look in the Mirror" cause some of y'all are the biggest hypocrits around.

Gee, here I was thinking NBC broadcast all over the world. I'm sure this journalist thinks so too that's why when she's talking about ratings she's talking about the world. I mean it couldn't possible be implied that an article written for a website for an American cable channel is only referring to ratings in America? That's not possible is it?

I mean the writer should've incorporated the opinions of the Turks, Isrealis,Somalians,Irish and many more people so that it would reflect the global view because I'm sure when articles are written in your home countries they do the same exact thing. :rolleyes:

Rocketta
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:49 PM
and don't get me wrong I don't agree with her article in the least. I think the networks should show more variety of players but that has nothing to do with the sorry state of bashing that some of you think is ok to do on here and if it was retaliated you would be up in arms. :rolleyes:

Black Mamba.
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:56 PM
Tennis isn't popular in the States because tennis is considered one of the lower tier sports in this country. The Break down is as Follows

Tier 1:

Football (NFL and College)
Basketball (NBA NCAA Tournement)
Baseball (MLB)
Nascar( I'm not a fan but lots of people like it)
Golf( Tiger Woods and company make it interesting , but only during the majors)


Tier II


Hockey (Usually have low TV ratings compared to the other sports, many teams will get cut by next year)

Tennis (Very few identifiable household names for the average fan.)

Soccer (Very popular sport to play, but not to watch because MLS is garbage)

SelesFan70
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:59 PM
Tennis isn't popular in the States because tennis is considered one of the lower tier sports in this country. The Break down is as Follows

Tier 1:

Football (NFL and College)
Basketball (NBA NCAA Tournement)
Baseball (MLB)
Nascar( I'm not a fan but lots of people like it)
Golf( Tiger Woods and company make it interesting , but only during the majors)


Tier II


Hockey (Usually have low TV ratings compared to the other sports, many teams will get cut by next year)

Tennis (Very few identifiable household names for the average fan.)

Soccer (Very popular sport to play, but not to watch because MLS is garbage)

:shrug: I just don't get baseball. Fat, out of shape, over paid (men) who just more or less stand there for few hours?? :rolleyes:

Pamela Shriver
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:59 PM
MSNBC.COM: LOW TV Ratings for Tennis Unless VENUS, SERENA or AGASSI are in the Finals
Ahh ignore em, they said the ratings were low unless I was in the finals when I was playing.

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:06 PM
First, this is strictly about AMERICAN audiences. The author is too provincial to note that.

Secong, I hate anything that takes cheap shots at Venus or Serena, but I have to admit I've made many of the same points about tennis marketing.

Third, being unable to make Roddick a star is a bit shocking.

Nice pic of Serena


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040421/040421_williamsFashion_vmed_8p.vmedium.jpg

I do see a bit of a contradiction in these two statements.

Unless Andre Agassi or Venus and Serena Williams are in the final, people just don't seem to care like they used to.
at the moment there is a problematic cast at the top of both the men and women's games. Venus and Serena Williams don't even play their own sport; all they do is withdraw from tournaments with injuries and have dalliances with other professions, from fashion designing to acting, and turn up for an isolated trophy here or there.The statements aren't in contradiction, they just point up interesting dichotomy. According to the author, the two most popular players in women's tennis 'don't even play their own sport'. Wasn't five out of six GS finals enough?

Now, obviously, (maybe it isn't obvious if you've never been in marketing) the marketing department would have been happier if Kim won three GS titles than Justine. Kim is more outgoing and personable and comes with the Lleyton Hewitt romance, which comes with the James Blake rivalry. More storylines. More hooks. But shockingly, the better player won. The marketing department will just have to deal.

'The Hand' was unfortunate. It made JH2 a tougher sell to American audiences.

hotandspicey
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:20 PM
Thank God,that's only one person's point of view!!!!!:rolleyes:

Rocketta
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:21 PM
Thank God,that's only one person's point of view!!!!!:rolleyes:
No it's Americans point of view...:rolleyes:

mariok
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:02 AM
i don't blame americans for watching tennis less then they used to. There are more and more top players from other countries each year and people like to watch someone who's from the States? I don't have a problem with that. But, I do have a problem with an article that says:
"So can the new Open series and ESPN save tennis? Only if it manages to personalize the game again. Only if it manages to make the Federers and Clijsters come alive in our imaginations as the next great creative geniuses, the natural and personable successors in a traditional yet vivid and lively sport, the one we always loved. If it doesn't do that, then the game is gone for good.
And that's why, I think, non-americans raised their voices... If Americans don't watch it it doesn't mean the game is gone for good. But, I think the writer actually ment "gone for good in the USA"... :rolleyes:

But, the problem with tennis in the States is a problem of TV stations and media, someone sad it- it's them who make stars. Come one, don't tell me that Martina Navratilova could have been a star and Williams/Belgians/Roddick/Federer/Safin... cannot?! It's just playing stupid, I don't now what else to say. The point is, Americans watch it less because it's not all about Sampras/Agassi/Courier, and it's NORMAL! But if the raitings are falling too fast then it's TVs and media to blame!

TeeRexx
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:40 AM
Yea right. Nothing against Americans but here's a list of all the things I admire America for/am jealous of in America:

A democracy where the guy who wins the most votes loses,

A place which respects international human rights to the point where it interns its "prisoners" on islands without charging them for years and refuses to allow its citizens to be tried in an international court,

which shrieks out about foreign TV showing pictures of its POWs and then broadcasts images of people it has captured or killed,

which has the hyposcrisy to depose foreign leaders it doesn't like, liberate its allies from foreign oppression and then endorse the annexation of land from other states by its allies,

which has the largerst stockpile of WMDs the world has ever known,

which preaches free speech and democracy, then punishes its neighbours with economic sanctions when they don't do what it wants,

not to mention the problems with obesity, the millions living under the poverty line, the terrible environmental record, the gun laws, the executions, the fanatical religious fundamentalism and the accompanying views on evolution, the highly developed public health and social security systems, the two weeks' holiday a year.....

I'm on the next plane over - so get the fingerprinting machine ready, why don't you!
Good post.:) I'll meet you at the airport and you should be just in time to vote in the election before we put your ass in a Marine unit and drop you in Baghdad.:eek: :lol:

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 02:22 AM
Wait a minute. Isn't someone going to argue that Venus and Serena AREN'T the most popular players on tour? How the hell did this thread get so long without someone disputing THAT point? The author is just wrong. Venus and Serena AREN'T popular, and tennis DOESN'T get good ratings when they're on.:)

ico4498
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:05 AM
not sure why so many find it fascinating that a writer for an American network affiliate would concern herself with the American market. ?

anyways, the writer threw enough stuff out there to hit some bulleyes. tennis needs centralized management to better compete in the American market. the tangled web of duchies that now run tennis got no chance 'gainst NFL, MLB, NBA etc. nil, zip, nada ...

Greenout
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:10 AM
Why should non-tennis fans even care about non-American tennis
players when they are treated with dubious articles and comments
by the USA media?

How can Americans care about Europeans or Ai Sugiyama when
they are told by tennis commentators and writers as not important
enough to really care about?

arcus
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:39 AM
Tennis isn't popular in the States because tennis is considered one of the lower tier sports in this country. The Break down is as Follows

Tier 1:

Football (NFL and College)
Basketball (NBA NCAA Tournement)
Baseball (MLB)
Nascar( I'm not a fan but lots of people like it)
Golf( Tiger Woods and company make it interesting , but only during the majors)


Tier II


Hockey (Usually have low TV ratings compared to the other sports, many teams will get cut by next year)

Tennis (Very few identifiable household names for the average fan.)

Soccer (Very popular sport to play, but not to watch because MLS is garbage)


U left our ice-skating, which till recently was scandalously more popular than tennis..

perhaps thats changed of late, though right now with the pathetic narrowness and limitation of TV coverage, poker and tiddly-winks will win out against tennis. :(

BigTennisFan
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:32 AM
Why do you people care so much? :shrug:

No America is not the world and so what if we don't watch tennis if non-americans are playing what does that have to do with y'all? Y'all are all evolved above us right? So be evolved. Gee whiz...

You can't have it both ways...You can't pitch a temper tantrum and say in the same breath but we're better than you.

The article rightly or wrongly is talking about Americans not other countries...did I miss something in the article where the author was talking about TV ratings in other countries? Should the TV networks care about ratings in other countries? Can an American author actually write an article about America and not have some of you make the comment, "There's other countries in the World." Well no shit Sherlock! Wow, What a shock! :eek:

Is America perfect, nope...Did I see anyone say that it was in this thread? Did I also see anyone call any country out in this thread and put it down? Oh yeah I did the same America bashing that is always acceptable on this board. Let me guess TeeRex stating foreignors are jealous is all the cause you need right? Yeah I've heard it all before. Have you heard the term, "Look in the Mirror" cause some of y'all are the biggest hypocrits around.

Gee, here I was thinking NBC broadcast all over the world. I'm sure this journalist thinks so too that's why when she's talking about ratings she's talking about the world. I mean it couldn't possible be implied that an article written for a website for an American cable channel is only referring to ratings in America? That's not possible is it?

I mean the writer should've incorporated the opinions of the Turks, Isrealis,Somalians,Irish and many more people so that it would reflect the global view because I'm sure when articles are written in your home countries they do the same exact thing. :rolleyes:
Hallelujah, Amen!!!:worship: :worship:

Greenout
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:41 AM
Your mistaken. NBC Doesn't broadcast around the world!!!!!
Some shows from NBC are aired in other countries; but it's not NBC-
local stations around the world buy rights to air it.

Sports events that are owned by NBC are also sold and aired in
other countries- again it's not NBC- but shown on local networks
as an event from the USA.

There's cable programming from MSNBC aired internationally as
a financial newstation;but again the programming may be different
or based with a local slant say MSNBC Australia where all the stock
reports are about Australia or Asia and presented by an Australian
reading the stock market numbers.

Rocketta
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:50 AM
Your mistaken. NBC Doesn't broadcast around the world!!!!!
Some shows from NBC are aired in other countries; but it's not NBC-
local stations around the world buy rights to air it.

Sports events that are owned by NBC are also sold and aired in
other countries- again it's not NBC- but shown on local networks
as an event from the USA.

There's cable programming from MSNBC aired internationally as
a financial newstation;but again the programming may be different
or based with a local slant say MSNBC Australia where all the stock
reports are about Australia or Asia and presented by an Australian
reading the stock market numbers.
I don't know if this was aimed at me but I was being facetious. I didn't think NBC was aired all over the world. I know differently actually...that's the point. The article is about the american television market no matter how wrong the author might be. We all know America does not equal the world. When writing a piece about an american television market for an american cable company's website did the author actually have to say in every other sentence, "in america" for us to know she meant in America? :confused:

Greenout
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:52 AM
I don't know if this was aimed at me but I was being facetious. I didn't think NBC was aired all over the world. I know differently actually...that's the point. The article is about the american television market no matter how wrong the author might be. We all know America does not equal the world. When writing a piece about an american television market for an american cable company's website did the author actually have to say in every other sentence, "in america" for us to know she meant in America? :confused:


Very Sorry, Rocketta- you were just making a pointed exaggerated
remark. Understood.

It's just that it seems from where I'm at that America has gone
really conservative and inward after 9/11. I thought we would
grow a bit more, and be opened minded toward the world. Again,
it's different for me because I have to live in a foreign country and
must be open and outward as a guest here. Cheers.

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:53 AM
When writing a piece about an american television market for an american cable company's website did the author actually have to say in every other sentence, "in america" for us to know she meant in America? :confused:
If the writer is writing for an explicitly American market, there's no need to say it at all. But in an internet universe, is there really any such thing as a purely 'American' market?

Rocketta
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:05 AM
If the writer is writing for an explicitly American market, there's no need to say it at all. But in an internet universe, is there really any such thing as a purely 'American' market?
true but we've seen the way things are edited on the internet....:tape: I wouldn't exactly call it high quality...;) I don't think it even crosses their mind that a tennis fan of another country would wander onto their site and read the article because they love tennis. ;)

Although, I will say this I think it's kind of clear the writer is speaking in terms of the US audience though. I mean I think her points are poorly thought out but I don't think the author is in anyway trying to represent a global view of tennis, nor should she have to she's writing for a cable channel that has a limited audience. I'm trying to think does NBC even show any tennis anymore or do they still have Wimbledon? Wow, I can't even remember.

Rocketta
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:08 AM
Very Sorry, Rocketta- you were just making a pointed exaggerated
remark. Understood.

It's just that it seems from where I'm at that America has gone
really conservative and inward after 9/11. I thought we would
grow a bit more, and be opened minded toward the world. Again,
it's different for me because I have to live in a foreign country and
must be open and outward as a guest here. Cheers.
No, I hear ya. I don't think the article is the best written piece around that's for sure. :lol:

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:19 AM
Although, I will say this I think it's kind of clear the writer is speaking in terms of the US audience though. I mean I think her points are poorly thought out but I don't think the author is in anyway trying to represent a global view of tennis
The thing is, the phrase 'tennis is dead' didn't seem in anyway local. It's a global sport. If I said 'soccer/football is dead', or 'auto-racing is dead' or 'golf is dead', who would assume I was limiting myself to one country?

Rocketta
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:43 AM
The thing is, the phrase 'tennis is dead' didn't seem in anyway local. It's a global sport. If I said 'soccer/football is dead', or 'auto-racing is dead' or 'golf is dead', who would assume I was limiting myself to one country?
It did to me because the writer was speaking in terms of the tennis american tv market and to think she meant globally would mean then you would have to interpret that the author feels that the American tv market controlls the global tennis community. I would have to read the article again but I don't think she makes any of those connections. To make the statement, "Tennis is dead" is a generic all encompasing type statement but I think it is within the context of the market she is talking about. I think it's a fallacy even if she is only referring to America. If I'm writing an article about college basketball tv coverage in the ACC and I end the article by saying if such and such doesn't happen basketball will be dead (which of course would never happen in the ACC) everyone would know based on the fact that the article is about basketball in the ACC and not all of College basketball that I mean basketball within the ACC is dead and not all college basketball. Like I said could it have been better written yes but is it so vague that you don't know the author is referring to the US, no I don't think so. :shrug:

I'm off to bed..:)

miranda_lou
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:32 PM
The whole problem with that article is that Sally Jenkins was writing for MSNBC which means it went out over the Internet which is a global source of news. To think that people in other countries won't read it is being very much unaware of what is happening in the world. Everything written or spoken is seen and/or heard by people all over the world. So, for Ms. Jenkins to conclude her article with "tennis is dead" shows how naive she is.:rolleyes:

When the day comes that the tournaments begin to offer less money to the players or the tournaments get less money from sponsors or the promoters begin to not earn a profit, then and only then will I worry about tennis dying. As it stands, on a worldwide basis, tennis is alive and quite well.:kiss: :hearts:

miranda_lou
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:36 PM
By the way, didn't Sports Illustrated, the "sport" magazine that hardly ever has anything about tennis in it, have a cover story about the death of tennis way back in 1996 0r 97???

Seems to me, tennis is taking a looong time to kick the bucket.:lol: :lol: :lol:

cynicole
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:40 PM
By the way, didn't Sports Illustrated, the "sport" magazine that hardly ever has anything about tennis in it, have a cover story about the death of tennis way back in 1996 0r 97???

Seems to me, tennis is taking a looong time to kick the bucket.:lol: :lol: :lol:It was in 1994.

And guess who wrote it?

SALLY JENKINS! :rolleyes:

see link
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/1994/0509.html

miranda_lou
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:45 PM
Sally Jenkins wrote that??? Now, that's funny.:lol:

Ten years later and she's still predicting the demise of a sport she obviously hates.:rolleyes: Sally needs to get a life. Maybe go on television and debate the relative popularity of soccer in the U.S. of A.:lol:

Now, this thread can die because Sally has lost what little credibility she had.:smash:

pigam
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:16 PM
:lol:
NIce tracking down, Cynicole :) !
You're right miranda_lou. She hàs lost a lot of credibility!

Crazy Canuck
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:11 PM
This article makes a ridiculous number of factual errors. We cut it up on menstennisforums the otherday. There is a thread over there for those interested in reading it.

Essentially, I think that it's unfortunate that there is a market for talentless hacks like Sally Jenkins to find work. She clearly doesn't research her articles, and that alone makes her a pathetic journalist.

Don't these papers have fact checkers, or do they just print any old crap that they want? I could easily write a paper about football just by knowing a few key players names and throwing in my own ignorant biases, but I'm not sure it would be worthy of print. So why on earth was this pile of crap? :confused:

Crazy Canuck
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:14 PM
Oh, and imagine my surprise that people on this board actually found a way to DEFEND the article. Wildly hilarious, but not surprising.