PDA

View Full Version : Discrepancy in Semi Final Crowds


Langers
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:50 AM
I've been watching the ATP coverage all week. I have been hearing how the crowds have been flocking out of the stadium court as soon as the mens matches were completed and a womens was about to start. I saw the Semi Finals of the women and they weren't wrong. I have never seen such a discrepancy between crowds for the ATP as opposed to the WTA. It was virtually packed for the two men SF’s but it was practically empty for the women. :eek:

That's pretty compelling.

Williamsser
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:54 AM
I'm not surprised at the discrepancy. Women do not deserve equal pay.

mckyle.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:56 AM
Roddick/Nadal
Federer/Murray

vs.

Zvonareva/Azarenka
Ivanovic/Pavlyuchenkova

Go figure!

Not to mention Friday vs. Saturday

Volcana
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:58 AM
I'm not surprised at the discrepancy. Women do not deserve equal pay.Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?

SM
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:11 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?
It's the womens tennis association, not the Williams tennis association :tape:

Donny
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:16 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?

I would be for the tournaments deciding what to pay the women and the men's draws. Unconditionally pairing the two doesn't make much sense.

Volcana
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:19 AM
It's the womens tennis association, not the Williams tennis association :tape:So?I would be for the tournaments deciding what to pay the women and the men's draws. Unconditionally pairing the two doesn't make much sense.The tournaments DO decide. No one forces them to pay the fees to become a 'Premier' event.

tennnisfannn
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:20 AM
I'm not surprised at the discrepancy. Women do not deserve equal pay.
You must live in a dream world, as long as Tiger Woods makes a million dollars more a day for wearing Nike products than the child who stitched his shoes for 12 hours a day, there will never be fairness in this world. So if you would rather see Nadal win 100,000 more tomorrow tha Ana find a more worthwhile cause!

duhcity
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:42 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?

Really? You think the Mens Wimbledon Final had less viewers than Women? I dont think any match Venus or Serena play could trump a comparable mens match unless they play each other in a tournament with decent coverage. I might be wrong, but I completely think you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

Also, a fixed formula for TV ad revenue would still slight the women. The reason there have been barely any streams for womens tennis this week is because nobody bothers to air it.
You could say its just IW because the WS dont play, but even Miami has pretty dismal scheduling times. Yet there has been some type of stream for every single mens single match on stadium 1 and 2. Clearly if money was calculated from TV ratings, womens tennis would be quite a dreadful paying job.

Black Mamba.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:45 AM
According to some people your eyes are just playing tricks on you. After all, this year's tournament has record crowds. Maybe the people are taking a bathroom break during the women's matches? :lol::lol::lol:

OZTENNIS
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:55 AM
No Sharapova, no Americans, no superstars.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:02 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?
?

In USA . Not in the rest of the world (200 or more countries)

Volcana
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:06 AM
Really? You think the Mens Wimbledon Final had less viewers than Women?This year, I don't know. All of the All-Williams GS finals have had great ratings, but this year's build-up to Federer-Nadal was, well, basically a year in the making. I dont think any match Venus or Serena play could trump a comparable mens match unless they play each other in a tournament with decent coverage. I might be wrong, but I completely think you pulled that statistic out of your ass.I'm not sure what you mean by a tournament with 'decent coverage'. GS finals, by definition, are covered pretty well. And if you check out the rating for the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon finals, the women's final got higher rating than the men's EVERY one of those years. It's not solely a Williams sisters phenomenon either. The 2002 OZ final between Hingis and Capriati had higher TV ratings than the men's final as well.

However. until I provide links to sources, we can only agree to disagree.

Andy.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:08 AM
Had the semis featured Maria, Venus and Seena there would have been huge crouds.

DimaDinosaur
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:22 AM
It's understandable why they would leave. They're there for the tennis after all.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:27 AM
The men are just more exciting to watch atm. The superstars of the WTA are all gone except for the Williamses and Sharapova.

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:38 AM
Really? You think the Mens Wimbledon Final had less viewers than Women? I dont think any match Venus or Serena play could trump a comparable mens match unless they play each other in a tournament with decent coverage. I might be wrong, but I completely think you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

Also, a fixed formula for TV ad revenue would still slight the women. The reason there have been barely any streams for womens tennis this week is because nobody bothers to air it.
You could say its just IW because the WS dont play, but even Miami has pretty dismal scheduling times. Yet there has been some type of stream for every single mens single match on stadium 1 and 2. Clearly if money was calculated from TV ratings, womens tennis would be quite a dreadful paying job.

First of all the Women final of the U.S Open last year out-rated the Mens final by over a million viewers and the 2005 Wimbledon Ladies final out-rated the 2005 Mens final and the 2002 Wimbledon ladies double final out-rated the 2002 Mens singles final and the 2001 U.S Open Women's final out-rated the 2001 Mens U.S Open final-(heck it out-rated College football and everything else on television that night) same thing in 2002, so it has happened a bunch of times and I'm sure I haven't listed all of the recent ones. The Womens Miami final most of the last 10 years has out-rated the Mens. There are more Womens tennis tournaments on ESPN and national television in the U.S than Men's.

The reason there were not streams of the womens matches was not because nobody cared. If that were true then why were the 8 attempts to stream womens matches all shut down within minutes do to copyright infringement threats? Two channel on Justinetv were shut down this week. The WTA has this idiotic deal with TennisTV.com and they will stop any attempt to show the matches for free. They want Womens tennis fans to pay for matches they could see for free 2 years ago.:fiery: IW Womens tourney has been crippled by the lack of star power and excitement, the early round losses of the top players didn't help at either. It's a shame, but these things are cyclical it won't be this way in a couple of years, people will get bored with Nadal as they did for a time with Federer, moods and perceptions will change as they always do.:wavey:


Here is a little proof of the 2005 Wimbledon final ratings. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/95183

Golovinjured.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 07:29 AM
First of all the Women final of the U.S Open last year out-rated the Mens final by over a million viewers and the 2005 Wimbledon Ladies final out-rated the 2005 Mens final and the 2002 Wimbledon ladies double final out-rated the 2002 Mens singles final and the 2001 U.S Open Women's final out-rated the 2001 Mens U.S Open final-(heck it out-rated College football and everything else on television that night) same thing in 2002, so it has happened a bunch of times and I'm sure I haven't listed all of the recent ones. The Womens Miami final most of the last 10 years has out-rated the Mens. There are more Womens tennis tournaments on ESPN and national television in the U.S than Men's.

The reason there were not streams of the womens matches was not because nobody cared. If that were true then why were the 8 attempts to stream womens matches all shut down within minutes do to copyright infringement threats? Two channel on Justinetv were shut down this week. The WTA has this idiotic deal with TennisTV.com and they will stop any attempt to show the matches for free. They want Womens tennis fans to pay for matches they could see for free 2 years ago.:fiery: IW Womens tourney has been crippled by the lack of star power and excitement, the early round losses of the top players didn't help at either. It's a shame, but these things are cyclical it won't be this way in a couple of years, people will get bored with Nadal as they did for a time with Federer, moods and perceptions will change as they always do.:wavey:


Here is a little proof of the 2005 Wimbledon final ratings. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/95183

Apart from the epic Venus-Davenport final in 2005, you're going back almost a decade to find competitive ratings. Not that good a point. :wavey:

Langers
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:39 AM
Roddick/Nadal
Federer/Murray

vs.

Zvonareva/Azarenka
Ivanovic/Pavlyuchenkova

Go figure!

Not to mention Friday vs. Saturday
Ahhhh 3 of those players are top 10. Some argument. :help:

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:43 AM
Apart from the epic Venus-Davenport final in 2005, you're going back almost a decade to find competitive ratings. Not that good a point. :wavey:

A decade ago would be the 90's. How is last years U.S Open final and 4 years ago a decade? You don't have to be a math wizard to figure that out.:rolleyes:

Golovinjured.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:46 AM
A decade ago would be the 90's. How is last years U.S Open final and 4 years ago a decade? You don't have to be a math wizard to figure that out.:rolleyes:

2002 Wimbledon ladies double final out-rated the 2002 Mens singles final and the 2001 U.S Open Women's final out-rated the 2001 Mens U.S Open final-(heck it out-rated College football and everything else on television that night) same thing in 2002

I said almost a decade. 7-8 years, almost a decade. :wavey:

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:52 AM
2002 Wimbledon ladies double final out-rated the 2002 Mens singles final and the 2001 U.S Open Women's final out-rated the 2001 Mens U.S Open final-(heck it out-rated College football and everything else on television that night) same thing in 2002

I said almost a decade. 7-8 years, almost a decade. :wavey:

Those were a couple of examples not the whole argument. You want me to point out how 3 of the last 5 Australian Open finals have out-rated the Men's? The womens got higher ratings even before the dumb move to put the men's final at 3am U.S time. I love how people on this board take a small percentage of an argument they can nitpick and forget the rest of it. :rolleyes:

sammy01
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:52 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?

the mens wimbledon final this year outdrew the womens everywhere. your arguement that womens tennis rates higher in america when theres an american or 2 in the final is utterly stupid. people are going to watch if theres a home player in the final. the girls junior wimbledon final with robson in, scored higher ratings than the all williams final last year in the uk, does that mean on a worldwide popularity scale robson >>>>>>>>>>> the williams sisters:help:. get real mens tennis is a lot more watched than womens and there will always be peaks in t.v audiences for a home player in a final be it a man or woman.

A decade ago would be the 90's. How is last years U.S Open final and 4 years ago a decade? You don't have to be a math wizard to figure that out.:rolleyes:

see above!

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:09 AM
see above!

You do know that the 2007 Australian Open Women's final drew higher ratings in Australia than the Men's, and as far as I know neither Serena nor Maria are Australian.:devil:

Yes ratings are different in each part of the world, 100 million people watched Zheng Jie in the Semis of Wimbledon, Federer and Nadal can't touch that.:worship: The ratings will always jump when and attractive match up is in the cards, but for a Women's sport to even compete on the same landscape and to quite often surpass the Men in something as big as telivision ratings is a great thing for Women's sport. For all the trashing here no one could have imagined this even 20 years ago. It's fine that Fed/Nadal did great in the ratings last year, but the Men will loose in the ratings war again in the future to the right Women's match up. Some are trying to insult the Women's game by saying they got out-rated at this tourney or that tourney but aren't the Men supposed to win that battle ever time?:shrug: The fact that they loose it as often as they do says something great about Women's tennis.:D Outside of gymnastics (which is not as popular as tennis) name me a womens sport that comes within a mile of the television ratings of their male counterpart?:bounce::wavey:

TheBoiledEgg
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:13 AM
the mens wimbledon final this year outdrew the womens everywhere. your arguement that womens tennis rates higher in america when theres an american or 2 in the final is utterly stupid. people are going to watch if theres a home player in the final. the girls junior wimbledon final with robson in, scored higher ratings than the all williams final last year in the uk, does that mean on a worldwide popularity scale robson >>>>>>>>>>> the williams sisters:help:. get real mens tennis is a lot more watched than womens and there will always be peaks in t.v audiences for a home player in a final be it a man or woman.



see above!

Robson >>>> Williamsx2 though ;)

sammy01
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:14 AM
You do know that the 2007 Australian Open Women's final drew higher ratings in Australia than the Men's, and as far as I know neither Serena nor Maria are Australian.:devil:

Yes ratings are different in each part of the world, 100 million people watched Zheng Jie in the Semis of Wimbledon, Federer and Nadal can't touch that.:worship: The ratings will always jump when and attractive match up is in the cards, but for a Women's sport to even compete on the same landscape and to quite often surpass the Men in something as big as telivision ratings is a great thing for Women's sport. For all the trashing here no one could have imagined this even 20 years ago. It's fine that Fed/Nadal did great in the ratings last year, but the Men will loose in the ratings war again in the future to the right Women's match up. Some are trying to insult the Women's game by saying they got out-rated at this tourney or that tourney but aren't the Men supposed to win that battle ever time?:shrug: The fact that they loose it as often as they do says something great about Women's tennis.:D Outside of gymnastics (which is not as popular as tennis) name me a womens sport that comes within a mile of the television ratings of their male counterpart?:bounce::wavey:

figure skating. no i take you're point but women beating men in ratings in tennis is the exception not the rule. oh course its good, but theres usualy a reason, like home country player, big match up ect.

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:17 AM
figure skating. no i take you're point but women beating men in ratings in tennis is the exception not the rule. oh course its good, but theres usualy a reason, like home country player, big match up ect.

Not any more. I thought about mentioning figure skating, but it has hit the skids(pun intended) since Michele Kwan's retirement. I loved figure skating but I can't tell you the last time I saw it on television or even saw it covered on sports news.

The big match up thing applies to men's tennis too, in Federer's first Wimbledon final that was the lowest rated Men's Wimbledon final in over 20 years. So a crappy match up in a Men's final will get bad ratings too.

sammy01
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:18 AM
Not any more. I thought about mentioning figure skating, but it has hit the skids(pun intended) since Michele Kwan's retirement. I loved figure skating but I can't tell you the last time I saw it on television or even saw it covered on sports news.

just hope you wont be saying the same about womens tennis in 5 years time, cus i can see it happening ;)

Slammer7
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:22 AM
just hope you wont be saying the same about womens tennis in 5 years time, cus i can see it happening ;)

I could see that happening to a curtain degree, but not completely, because figure skating is centered around the Olympics and tennis has 4 big competitions every year. Tennis has a sturdier base to stand on than any sport where the Olympics are the pinnacle of achievement.

johnoo
Mar 22nd, 2009, 09:48 AM
I love it how this is always about americian viewer figures,the womens AO final was more likely moved to a night match so it would be at a ideal time for europe,it depends who is playing but tv companies and viewing figures often dictate when a match will be played and if its a case of getting better viewing figures in europe so be it,example of that is sky getting murray to play at peak evening viewing time in the uk.Going back to the streams and tennistv,well most of europe cannot get it so that would mean the eurosport player which did not show the semi's live,still not show why the ES player at least did not show the semi's,and its not a case of ES pulling out at the last minute because of who was playing,according to the schedule at livesportontv which it has the live matches a month or two ahead the semi's at IW was never going to be shown live.

Le Chat
Mar 22nd, 2009, 10:02 AM
In USA . Not in the rest of the world (200 or more countries)



Even in the rest of the world trust me ... after local players they are (with Sharapova) the stars of the WTA who draw the most crowd in stadiums , maybe not as much as men , but enough to be satisfy and avoid empty stadiums like what happened this year IW .

tennnisfannn
Mar 22nd, 2009, 10:32 AM
Ratings is specific to a region and is dependant on if the local player is on, Dokic vs Kleybanova/safina was reported as the biggest tv night in australia better than the nada/verdasco or even the final.

Slutiana
Mar 22nd, 2009, 10:46 AM
No Sharapova, no Americans, no superstars.
Exactly. Is this not proof that a big tournament isnt nothing without them unless its a joint event.

Marshmallow
Mar 22nd, 2009, 11:34 AM
I've been watching the ATP coverage all week. I have been hearing how the crowds have been flocking out of the stadium court as soon as the mens matches were completed and a womens was about to start. I saw the Semi Finals of the women and they weren't wrong. I have never seen such a discrepancy between crowds for the ATP as opposed to the WTA. It was virtually packed for the two men SF’s but it was practically empty for the women. :eek:

That's pretty compelling.

Interesting. Probable reasons?

The men are just more exciting to watch atm. The superstars of the WTA are all gone except for the Williamses and Sharapova.

No Sharapova, no Americans, no superstars.

I think these are excellent points that almost hit the nail on the head. Here is a sort clip of the Indian Wells Semi-final from 2006 Hingis V Sharapova

GascfefgPYI&feature=related

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

That's a pretty big crowd for two non-american players. Difference between this and this years Indian Wells semi (and final) - is that in the clip we are watching a match between 2 tennis superstars. A high-quality match too.

The Daviator
Mar 22nd, 2009, 11:37 AM
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3536/335536241369ac595064b.jpg

Looks good to me :shrug:

No Sharapova, no Americans, no superstars.

So why are there events with all 3 that have rubbish attendance?

Lolo8
Mar 22nd, 2009, 11:39 AM
Why don't people realize that the ATP is what people really come to see. The ATP always carried the WTA even when the true great female
players were in the game .The WTA has always been just a side show for the ATP. The mens game always was and will be more popular than the womens. I would say that the only period when womens tennis got more attention than the mens was between 2000 through 2003 when the Williams were dominate and started playing night time matches at the US Open. During the 2000 through 20003 period you had Capriarti, Hingis, Clisters, Davenport, Kornikova and Henin in the mix that made it a great period in the womens game. When 2004 came around and the Russians took the slams that year the WTA hasn't been the same I'm afraid to say even with all the Sharapova hype machine.With the exception of 2005 wimbledon final and a few other matches the WTA hasn't really been great since 2003.

Le Chat
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:00 PM
http://

Looks good to me :shrug:



Realy ?


IW 2009 quarters finals Radwanska /Pav.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLlqSgNTBU

dreamgoddess099
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:08 PM
Why don't people realize that the ATP is what people really come to see. The ATP always carried the WTA even when the true great female
players were in the game .The WTA has always been just a side show for the ATP. The mens game always was and will be more popular than the womens.

Why don't you just say "I like men's tennis better than the women and I want you all to agree with me because I'm scared and lonely standing out on this limb all by myself."

BTW, since men's tennis is so popular, why does the Women's version of this board have 56,748 members while to Men's version only has 39,638?

Langers
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:21 PM
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3536/335536241369ac595064b.jpg

Looks good to me :shrug:



So why are there events with all 3 that have rubbish attendance?
Well did you see the crowd for Vika/Vera? The first half an hour was dead, no people or atmosphere.

The Daviator
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:24 PM
Well did you see the crowd for Vika/Vera? The first half an hour was dead, no people or atmosphere.

Yeah, the point is, that's a women's match, and there's a good crowd, or maybe only Ana pulls them in :p

eugreene2
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:39 PM
Realy ?


IW 2009 quarters finals Radwanska /Pav.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLlqSgNTBU

I'm a fan of ATP & WTA. Fan of tennis but I'm not going to see that match. In fact, I don't even want someone to buy me a ticket to see Radwanska/Pav. Come on people, you know that's not gonna out-sell say Verdasco/Acasuso (The comparable men's match according to the rankings).

MarieC
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:48 PM
The WTA is lacking the superstars that are needed to draw a crowd. The lack of consistency at the top of the game right now is definitely hurting the WTA's chance to build these superstars. I can only speak from a North American perspective, but the current crop of top players (Safina, Dementieva, Zvonareva,etc.) aren't exactly oozing the star quality to draw the crowds in. There's a reason why a semi-final between Zvonareva and Azarenka was placed in the dead lead-off spot on Friday. It's because no one would bother to watch it no matter what time of day it was.

The Williams sisters and Sharapova are the superstars in the game. They're the big marquee names that can draw the crowds in. Without them the crowds are going to be dead for the most part. The WTA needs to do a better job at building these superstars. I'd say Ivanovic is on the outside bubble of being one of the superstars. She's able to draw a bit larger crowds than the other girls on tour so just a bit more of a marketing push on her could help develop her into the superstar the tour needs. A little more consistency from her also wouldn't hurt.

Lolo8
Mar 22nd, 2009, 01:03 PM
Why don't you just say "I like men's tennis better than the women and I want you all to agree with me because I'm scared and lonely standing out on this limb all by myself."

BTW, since men's tennis is so popular, why does the Women's version of this board have 56,748 members while to Men's version only has 39,638?

And your going to measure the popularity of the tour based on a messageboard?::lol::eek: By the way I never said I liked the mens game better than the women's. I'm just stating what is true which is the mens tour has always been the main attraction in tennis.

Cp6uja
Mar 22nd, 2009, 01:11 PM
I'm actually impressed how many crowd Ana attracted in her matches against both unseeded Anastasia's (Yakimova R64, and Pavlychenkova SF). Indian Wells central court was 2nd biggest on tennis tour and IW is small city in terms of where is playing all other big tennis events - so 10.000 is really great number, and Ana Ivanovic is already star even in USA where she is for sure less popular than in Europe, Australia or Asia. 10K crowd make 16K seats stadium to looks almost half-empty, but at almost every other worlds big central court it will be enough for full stadium.

With sisters and Sharapova it means 4 big stars in WTA... which is really not so big difference with ATP.

exposbabe
Mar 22nd, 2009, 02:01 PM
The U.S. Open finals in 2008 are not a true measure.
They were rain-delayed, remember?
The men's final was played late on a Monday afternoon - a work day - and many of the affiliates in the U.S. didn't even carry it, committed to local programming.

dreamgoddess099
Mar 22nd, 2009, 03:12 PM
And your going to measure the popularity of the tour based on a messageboard?::lol::eek:It's better than your approach of trying to pass your opinion off as fact with no numbers at all. You're one to talk about measurements considering you didn't even bother to give any data to support your statements.

By the way I never said I liked the mens game better than the women's.Yeah, saying the WTA is just a side show for the ATP just screams the women are my fav.:rolleyes:
I'm just stating what is true which is the mens tour has always been the main attraction in tennis.
Maybe for you, but don't try to tell the rest of us what attracts us to tennis.

Wiggly
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:45 PM
The WTA had only star left after the 2nd round, Ivanovic.
On the other hand, the ATP had Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, etc.

Again, the Russians might be the best players in the game but nobody know them and they don't attract anybodym, except Sharapova.

RFSTB
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:53 PM
Not any more. I thought about mentioning figure skating, but it has hit the skids(pun intended) since Michele Kwan's retirement. I loved figure skating but I can't tell you the last time I saw it on television or even saw it covered on sports news.

The big match up thing applies to men's tennis too, in Federer's first Wimbledon final that was the lowest rated Men's Wimbledon final in over 20 years. So a crappy match up in a Men's final will get bad ratings too.

You mean they still show figure skating on TV?:p You're right FS has pretty much fallen off everyone's radar screen since Michelle Kwan retired. Women's skating tend to draw a much bigger audience than men's, but since 2006 it's pretty much even out. I think the biggest reason is women's skating tend to draw more casual fans, only the die-hards fans cross over to follow men's skating. Due to lack of US female stars, most casual fans(like me) have deserted the sport. So the only people who watch skating these days are a small core of die-hard fans who follow the sport itself rather than the stars.

I think that's also happening to tennis. Women's tennis drew in a lot of casual fans in the late 90's because of WS, Hingis, Kournikova, then Sharapova. But now these stars have retired/injured/ passed their peak and no longer dominate. I think most people who watch tennis these days are probably more hardcore fans who follow the tennis rather than the personalities, especially those who watch outside of Wimbledon or USO. And there's no question men's tennis is much more exciting to watch these days because of the quality of play and also consistency of their top stars.

The only matches I've watched at IW are the 2 M's SF yesterday. 3 of the 4 men have won slams, 1 reached the USO F last year. Who are the W in the SF? The only name recognizable to me is Ivanovic and she hasn't done anything since winning the FO. The M's SF drew a great crowd. They should just price it according to demand. If they charge less for the women's SF, I'm sure people will stick around.

Marshmallow
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:45 PM
Why don't people realize that the ATP is what people really come to see. The ATP always carried the WTA even when the true great female
players were in the game .The WTA has always been just a side show for the ATP. The mens game always was and will be more popular than the womens. I would say that the only period when womens tennis got more attention than the mens was between 2000 through 2003 when the Williams were dominate and started playing night time matches at the US Open. During the 2000 through 20003 period you had Capriarti, Hingis, Clisters, Davenport, Kornikova and Henin in the mix that made it a great period in the womens game. When 2004 came around and the Russians took the slams that year the WTA hasn't been the same I'm afraid to say even with all the Sharapova hype machine.With the exception of 2005 wimbledon final and a few other matches the WTA hasn't really been great since 2003.

I agree, but this is merely illustrative of the gender bias in sport viewership. You can probably say the same for any women's sport, the only exceptions being events that have women greased up and and dressed in floss - or exuding femininity (gymnastics and ice skating). Tennis has done well to at times be referred to as the premier women's sport. I never see any women's football, golf, don't even know if women's cricket or rugby exist.

sammy01
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:15 PM
Why don't you just say "I like men's tennis better than the women and I want you all to agree with me because I'm scared and lonely standing out on this limb all by myself."

BTW, since men's tennis is so popular, why does the Women's version of this board have 56,748 members while to Men's version only has 39,638?

i thought that was because this womens forum has been around a lot longer than the mens version, maybe someone could clarify that for me? the older the forum the more time to build members.

Volcana
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:17 PM
I'd say Ivanovic is on the outside bubble of being one of the superstars. She's able to draw a bit larger crowds than the other girls on tour so just a bit more of a marketing push on her could help develop her into the superstar the tour needs. A little more consistency from her also wouldn't hurt.Your last sentence is the critical one. Except replace the word 'little' with 'lot'. Ivanovic HAD the marketing push. But that does nothing if the player doesn't back it up on the court. Ivanovic has punted her first chance to be a Sharapova-level star. She'll likely have more chances, but this one is gone. A la Serena after the 1999 US Open. She didn't keep winning. And Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport and Venus has their days in the sun. Then Serena cam back like a hurricane.

The tour was virtually begging Ivanovic to step up after RG, and do some winning. And while the Williams sisters tok every big title since the Olympics after that, there were plenty of non-slam event s to be won, especially with Sharapova gone.

johnoo
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:41 PM
don't even know if women's cricket exist.
funny you should say that the day england became world champions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/womens_cricket/7957519.stm

edificio
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:48 PM
Sad but true ...

The men's matches have been packed all week, attendances for the women sparse by comparison. Barely 200 in the stands for the Ivanovic v Flavia night match, it was embarassing. Shame, because it was quite a good match.

This is not true. The men's matches have NOT been packed all week. I've been watching. I don't know what you've been watching. Most of the day matches have not been full at all. Nowhere near capacity, whether a men's match or women's.

Also, you cannot compare weekday matches to nighttime and weekend, end-of-tournament (QF, SF, F) matches. Attendance is always more spare during the day, except at the slams.

I agree with someone upthread. Some people just want to dog the women's tour. The attendance during the daytime at this tournament has not been great, even with the tournament's increase in attendance. By the way, some of these men's matches have not been that interesting, except for a couple late-night thrillers. Right now, I'm still thinking about whether I will bother to watch the men's final.

LDVTennis
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:52 PM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Would you just stop. This is blatantly false.

You've never provided any evidence to back up the claim that "most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue." This may be true of the four majors, but it is not true of IW and Miami. So, your claim is blatantly wrong on the basis that your "term" big tournament includes them.

As for your other idea. I got an even better one. How do you like this? How about establishing a fixed formula for money paid by a title sponsor to the tour and each of its players? Each of the players on the tour will only get as much money from the title sponsorship bonus pool as it can be determined their play or their presence at an event results in the purchase of a sponsor's product?

Based on this, let's see how much money Serena Williams should have made the last quarter. The important data is at this link --- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090320/bs_nm/us_telecoms;_ylt=Ar0mMa_GuKPDooNzLio.EGCX.aF4;_ylu =X3oDMTE5Z3ZzazMzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1tb3N0LXZpZXdlZ ARzbGsDc29ueWVyaWNzc29u.

For some background, also see this link --- http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2005/8903.htm.

Here are the facts:

SonyE lost almost $500 million dollars last quarter and continued to lose market share.

All of this happened while Serena Williams won the Australian Open and became the No. 1 player in the world again.

Under its 6- year promotional contract with the WTA, Sony will pay the WTA (including Serena and Venus) approximately 14.7 million dollars this year.

If this contract were rewritten based on a formula that paid each player in accordance with the number of mobile phones that it could be determined each sold for SonyE, Serena would owe SonyE some portion of that $14.7 million dollars. Given that she is the No. 1 player in the world, her portion of that amount would be greater.

Call it pay for performance. How much money do you think Serena would have made last year under this formula? A lot less, that's for sure.

Marshmallow
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:54 PM
funny you should say that the day england became world champions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/womens_cricket/7957519.stm

:speakles: :spit:

Oh boy, next you'll be telling me there are female Jockeys :lol:... oh wait are there :eek:?

Should I be embarrassed? Is this even gonna make the sports headlines or news feeds?

mckyle.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 07:15 PM
Ahhhh 3 of those players are top 10. Some argument. :help:

Okay, if the men's semifinals were Davydenko/Simon and Monfils/Gulbis (similar situation to the women's, three top ten players and an up-and-comer) then the crowds definitely wouldn't be packed :lol:

duhcity
Mar 22nd, 2009, 07:34 PM
Okay, if the men's semifinals were Davydenko/Simon and Monfils/Gulbis (similar situation to the women's, three top ten players and an up-and-comer) then the crowds definitely wouldn't be packed :lol:

But the fact is that the ATP rarely has to struggle with a decimated field.
Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick and other top ten players are often very likely to make the quarters. The last few tournaments have gone to seeding actually (Bar Simon :sad: But hes doing better in slam showings!).

The top women players compared to the top men are inconsistent and its never a guarantee to see the biggest stars at the end, which includes the WS and Sharapova.

Most people don't like not being able to see their favorites.
I think most of us on the forum enjoy an upset here or there to watch up and coming or reemerging players come up.

I still enjoy womens tennis more than mens because I find the story and matchups more compelling, even if its not tennis wise

DA FOREHAND
Mar 22nd, 2009, 07:46 PM
You must live in a dream world, as long as Tiger Woods makes a million dollars more a day for wearing Nike products than the child who stitched his shoes for 12 hours a day, there will never be fairness in this world. So if you would rather see Nadal win 100,000 more tomorrow tha Ana find a more worthwhile cause!

the world isn't meant to be fair...

RFSTB
Mar 22nd, 2009, 07:48 PM
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2005/8903.htm.


That's interesting. According to that article, the Sony Erisson title sponsorship of the WTA is a 6 year deal signed on Jan. 5th, 2005, for $88M total, roughly $14.6M a year. That means it expires at the end of 2010. At the time the contract was signed, Sharapova had just beaten Serena in '04 Wimbledon. Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis were all still around, and the economy was riding high on the housing bubble.

Fast forward 4 yrs to 2009, most of the top stars are gone, no new stars emerged, the economy is in a major recession, Sony Erisson just announced a big loss and job cuts in 2008...I would be really surprised if the contract is renewed at the end of next year.

Andrew..
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:02 PM
The WTA could go through another period without a title sponsor, like when Sanex dropped out around 2003.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 12:11 AM
Given that when Venus or Serena play a GS final, they almost always get higher TV ratings than the men's final, whoever it is, would you therefore support Venus and Serena being paid more than the men. Especially, since most of the money in big tournaments comes from TV ad revenue?

Would it be best to established a fixed formula for TV ad revenue, and ticket sales, and pay each player based on the amount of money they are calculated to make the tournament?

Should the popular players make more for winning a tournament than the unknown players? Should Serena be paid more for winning Miami than say .... Nikolay Davydenko?

The answer to all your questions is yes!

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 12:55 AM
It's the womens tennis association, not the Williams tennis association :tape:


From an article by STEVE BIERLEY



So both of them will take part in what might be described as community service, although they can pick a place within 125 miles of this desert town where Afro-Caribbean faces are not so much in the minority as virtually nonexistent. They are set to lose $400,000 (Serena) and $200,000 (Venus) out of an annual bonus pot, although to them this is small change. In other words the WTA, the women's ruling body, has bent over backwards not to upset the Williamses. Small wonder that some cynics refer to the WTA as the Williams Tennis Association.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 02:29 AM
Apart from the epic Venus-Davenport final in 2005, you're going back almost a decade to find competitive ratings. Not that good a point. :wavey:

In spite of the length of time the fact that Vee and Ree's

famous USO prime time time match being the highest rated

Tennis match in history is a good point.

Then there is this:

01/30/2007

The ceiling was closed above Rod Laver Arena, but the ratings went through the roof. The Australian Open's clash of champions created a ratings record for ESPN2. Unseeded Serena Williams' 6-1, 6-2 comprehensive conquest of top-seeded Maria Sharapova in the Oz Open final was a historic telecast for the Grand Slam network.

The final was the highest-rated and most watched tennis telecast in ESPN2 history. The match, which started at 9:30 p.m. Eastern time on Friday night, registered a 1.9 rating, drawing an average 1,715,000 homes, which was double the audience and ratings for the 2006 final between Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin-Hardenne. The 2006 women's final drew a 0.9 rating and average 839,000 homes.

And This:
NEW YORK (AP) — The all-Belgian U.S. Open final was watched in about half as many homes as last year's all-Williams title match.
Justine Henin-Hardenne's 7-5, 6-1 victory over Kim Clijsters on Saturday night drew a preliminary national TV rating of 2.5 on CBS Sports. That means an average of 2.5% of the country's television households tuned in from 8 p.m. to 10:06 p.m.
It's a 52% drop from the 5.2 rating for the 2002 final, when Serena Williams beat older sister Venus in straight sets.
And it's 63% lower than the 6.8 rating in 2001, when Venus beat Serena for the Open title — and drew a larger audience than a Top 25 college football game on another network.
There was a similar drop in viewership for NBC at the French Open, when Henin-Hardenne beat Clijsters in the first Grand Slam tournament final between two Belgians. That final's ratings were about 40% lower than the 2002 championship match, which also was played by the Williams sisters.
The U.S. Open men's semifinals Saturday afternoon also drew lower ratings than a year ago, averaging a 2.3, compared to 2.9 last year and 2.8 in 2001.


The point is that when the Williams Sisters are playing the

tournaments make more money. Its why the Tennis establishment

has been trying to get them back to IW since 2001. Its why no

matter how mad event officials get at them for withdrawing they

don't say anything negative hoping they will play next year.

Its why Larry Scott passed a rule to force them back to IW and left

an escape clause in case it didn't work. After all Miami is next

Its why the USO honshos

and sponsors bigwigs were down on the court apologizing to Serena

for Alvez's cheating before the next point. They didn't want another

IW. Its why they have Challenges now. I could go on but......

Its all about the Benjamins.

Andrew..
Mar 23rd, 2009, 02:40 AM
Its why the USO honshos and sponsors bigwigs were down on the court apologizing to Serena for Alvez's cheating before the next point. They didn't want another IW. Its why they have Challenges now. I could go on but......

Its all about the Benjamins.
The situation at the US Open that year would have never turned into another IW. Ever.

And as for Alvez "cheating", no. She screwed up, big time. But there was no reason for her to rig the match.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 02:43 AM
Those were a couple of examples not the whole argument. You want me to point out how 3 of the last 5 Australian Open finals have out-rated the Men's? The womens got higher ratings even before the dumb move to put the men's final at 3am U.S time. I love how people on this board take a small percentage of an argument they can nitpick and forget the rest of it. :rolleyes:

You are right Slammer.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 02:57 AM
the mens wimbledon final this year outdrew the womens everywhere. your arguement that womens tennis rates higher in america when theres an american or 2 in the final is utterly stupid. people are going to watch if theres a home player in the final. the girls junior wimbledon final with robson in, scored higher ratings than the all williams final last year in the uk, does that mean on a worldwide popularity scale robson >>>>>>>>>>> the williams sisters:help:. get real mens tennis is a lot more watched than womens and there will always be peaks in t.v audiences for a home player in a final be it a man or woman.



see above!

When Robson talked all that trash about beating Serena

next year I wanted to see her play. Couldn't find it anywhere.

You can find Vee & Ree's matches all over the internet.

( except IW for obvious reasons ).

Was it shown anywhere except the UK.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 03:17 AM
And your going to measure the popularity of the tour based on a messageboard?::lol::eek: By the way I never said I liked the mens game better than the women's. I'm just stating what is true which is the mens tour has always been the main attraction in tennis.

In every message board I go to it the same. There is not a time

I go to them that the majority of the threads are not about the

WTA and the WS.

shotgun
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:05 AM
It's understandable why they would leave. They're there for the tennis after all.

:worship:

TheBoiledEgg
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:09 AM
Okay, if the men's semifinals were Davydenko/Simon and Monfils/Gulbis (similar situation to the women's, three top ten players and an up-and-comer) then the crowds definitely wouldn't be packed :lol:

wrong there
Zvonareva vs Wozniacki was played to about 100 people in Stadium 1, yet at same time Stadium 2 was totally full watching Verdasco vs Kohlschriber

TheBoiledEgg
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:10 AM
When Robson talked all that trash about beating Serena

next year I wanted to see her play. Couldn't find it anywhere.

You can find Vee & Ree's matches all over the internet.

( except IW for obvious reasons ).

Was it shown anywhere except the UK.

thats the whole point, your agrument about US ratings.......
well the UK ratings, Robson got more :p

mckyle.
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:15 AM
wrong there
Zvonareva vs Wozniacki was played to about 100 people in Stadium 1, yet at same time Stadium 2 was totally full watching Verdasco vs Kohlschriber

Nope, I'm always right, sorry :)

bobbynorwich
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:34 AM
The point is that when the Williams Sisters are playing the

tournaments make more money. Its why the Tennis establishment

has been trying to get them back to IW since 2001.


Organizers know that if the Williams sisters played IW, none of the racists would attend and the stands would be totally empty. Thus the tourney would lose megabucks. Inviting them is kinda like when you know someone you don't want to come to your party won't come anyway, you invite them just to appear polite.



Its why Larry Scott passed a rule to force them back to IW and left

an escape clause in case it didn't work.



The WTA --- knowing the sisters wouldn't attend --- figured it might as well squeeze some money out of them with either a fine or loss of year-end bonus. More dollars in WTA's bank account.

HRHoliviasmith
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:42 AM
Organizers know that if the Williams sisters played IW, none of the racists would attend and the stands would be totally empty. Thus the tourney would lose megabucks. Inviting them is kinda like when you know someone you don't want to come to your party won't come anyway, you invite them just to appear polite.



The WTA --- knowing the sisters wouldn't attend --- figured it might as well squeeze some money out of them with either a fine or loss of year-end bonus. More dollars in WTA's bank account.

do you really believe what you just typed?

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:47 AM
The situation at the US Open that year would have never turned into another IW. Ever.

And as for Alvez "cheating", no. She screwed up, big time. But there was no reason for her to rig the match.

Then why did she overrule the call from the other side of

the court. " The ball was In "

And there were 3 or 4 other bad calls that the

replays clearly showed in the deciding game.

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:52 AM
thats the whole point, your agrument about US ratings.......
well the UK ratings, Robson got more :p

I didn't mention anything about US ratings. My point is

worldwide ratings. Robson is a UK player. But in the world

Very few, if any saw her play. Everyone saw the Sister play

rjd1111
Mar 23rd, 2009, 04:55 AM
Organizers know that if the Williams sisters played IW, none of the racists would attend and the stands would be totally empty. Thus the tourney would lose megabucks. Inviting them is kinda like when you know someone you don't want to come to your party won't come anyway, you invite them just to appear polite.



The WTA --- knowing the sisters wouldn't attend --- figured it might as well squeeze some money out of them with either a fine or loss of year-end bonus. More dollars in WTA's bank account.

Do you Actually believe this drivel.

bobbynorwich
Mar 23rd, 2009, 05:05 AM
Do you really believe what you just typed?

Certainly believe that the racist Indian Wells fans wouldn't attend if Williams sisters played and the stands would be empty.

Only half believe that WTA saw a chance to make $.5 million+ on the Williams boycott. Why wouldn't they, it's easy money.

bobbynorwich
Mar 23rd, 2009, 05:07 AM
Do you really believe what you just typed?

Certainly believe that the racist Indian Wells fans wouldn't attend if Williams sisters played and the stands would be empty.

Only half believe that WTA saw a chance to make $.5 million+ on the Williams boycott. Why wouldn't they, it's easy money.

bobbynorwich
Mar 23rd, 2009, 05:07 AM
Do you really believe what you just typed?

Certainly believe that the racist Indian Wells fans wouldn't attend if Williams sisters played and the stands would be empty.

Only half believe that WTA saw a chance to make $.5 million+ on the Williams boycott. Why wouldn't they, it's easy money.

Larrybidd
Mar 23rd, 2009, 07:29 AM
The situation at the US Open that year would have never turned into another IW. Ever.

And as for Alvez "cheating", no. She screwed up, big time. But there was no reason for her to rig the match.

Wasn't Alvez (sic) in the chair for Venus' final in Mexico a few weeks ago? It was always the case that Venus accepted that that Open incident was an honest mistake. She's a reasonable woman who only holds grudges for VERY good reason. ;o)

Andrew..
Mar 23rd, 2009, 07:52 AM
Then why did she overrule the call from the other side of

the court. " The ball was In "

And there were 3 or 4 other bad calls that the

replays clearly showed in the deciding game.
Because she screwed up. Why would she go out of her way to make Serena lose? If the ITF or WTA thought that was the case, she would never be umping matches again. She's still a Silver Badge.

Umpires make mistakes all the time. It doesn't mean matches are rigged.

sammy01
Mar 23rd, 2009, 07:59 AM
Because she screwed up. Why would she go out of her way to make Serena lose? If the ITF or WTA thought that was the case, she would never be umping matches again. She's still a Silver Badge.

Umpires make mistakes all the time. It doesn't mean matches are rigged.

CUz iTz tHE WorLD AgaINSt thE WillIAMs SisTAzzzzzZZzzzz RemEMbER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111!!!!!!!!!

Slammer7
Mar 23rd, 2009, 08:20 AM
The whole Alvez thing was a matter of umpire incompetence. She was not ready for the big stage and when she got on it she screwed up royally. The whole thing exposed a scandal in the umpiring ranks as the gold badge umps (the best in the world) had been suspended for graft at the Olympics. The best umpires had sold their FREE Olympic tickets to other events and they got caught, and several of them were suspended. So the U.S Open comes around right after the Olympics and the umpire that should have been doing the Serena/Capriati match(Lynn Welch) wasn't there and an untested rookie was used instead. The ITF who ran the umpires at the time had hoped nothing bad would happen and the relative inexperience of the umpire wouldn't be exposed.:o Well the worst possible thing happened the umpire was the story.:help: It was unfortunate that it happened during Serena's match but it could have happened to anybody.:shrug: It didn't help matters that 2 months before Venus was the victim of an incompetent umpire too, so some folks minds had to wonder. I still don't feel comfortable with that women in the chair of any match and she still makes mistakes that I don't see other umpires make, but she is one of the "highest ranked" umpires in the world as she was at the YEC. I generally don't notice umpires, but that's a name and a face I will never forget.:devil:

P.S has anybody seen that new androgynous umpire? I saw her/him umpire during Acapulco and Monterrey, I think the umpire is from Israel. Anyone know the name?

Larrybidd
Mar 23rd, 2009, 08:23 AM
Then why did she overrule the call from the other side of

the court. " The ball was In "

And there were 3 or 4 other bad calls that the

replays clearly showed in the deciding game.

I'm confused. There's the Venus/Sprem match where the Umpire gave Sprem an extra point in a tie-break. Then there the match you seem to be describing (Serena/Cappy) where the Umpire made an overrule of a ball that was not only as far away from the chair as possible, it wasn't even close. Serena was playing against at least 2 people that day. Even Cappy couldn't believe how many breaks she got that match from the officials. If she didn't offer to take the Umpire to dinner that nite she should have.

Le Chat
Mar 23rd, 2009, 08:31 AM
Certainly believe that the racist Indian Wells fans wouldn't attend if Williams sisters played and the stands would be empty.

Only half believe that WTA saw a chance to make $.5 million+ on the Williams boycott. Why wouldn't they, it's easy money.

So you agree that there were racial abuse at IW ..? good to have open your eyes and good that you also noticed that WTA is making money on the Williams boycott for racism ... congratulation .;)

So there is a respectable reason why the WS are taking a stand like you see .

Wojtek
Mar 23rd, 2009, 09:56 AM
Well it was empty for whole event. When men played on CC it was full, no free space, during the 1/4 Radwanska- Pavlychenkova there were 100 viewers

Wojtek
Mar 23rd, 2009, 10:00 AM
Okay, if the men's semifinals were Davydenko/Simon and Monfils/Gulbis (similar situation to the women's, three top ten players and an up-and-comer) then the crowds definitely wouldn't be packed :lol:

hmmm it was full pakced in almost every men match also on stadium 2 and 3 and it was empty in almost all women matches.

bobbynorwich
Mar 23rd, 2009, 01:38 PM
So you agree that there were racial abuse at IW ..? good to have open your eyes and good that you also noticed that WTA is making money on the Williams boycott for racism ... congratulation .

Yes, I believe if Williams sisters ever attended Indian Wells the stands would be almost empty because all those racist fans would stay home.

Yes, I don't think the WTA is bothered by taking $.5 million in fines from the Williams sisters regardless of the reason.

Le Chat
Mar 23rd, 2009, 03:59 PM
Yes, I believe if Williams sisters ever attended Indian Wells the stands would be almost empty because all those racist fans would stay home.

Yes, I don't think the WTA is bothered by taking $.5 million in fines from the Williams sisters regardless of the reason.

Well.. thats why i say Congratulation for your open eyes , since contrary to a lot of posters here , you are one of the rare to have notice racism in IW and WTA and point out that the IW crowd would have stayed at home because the WS are black , respect my friend...:lick:

raffles
Mar 24th, 2009, 08:11 AM
When Robson talked all that trash about beating Serena

next year I wanted to see her play. Couldn't find it anywhere.

You can find Vee & Ree's matches all over the internet.

( except IW for obvious reasons ).

Was it shown anywhere except the UK.
Haha, you know that whatever happens they would probably dump a Williams down to no1 to have Robson on CC. Not any home player of course but if its Robson that's a different matter. Of course she might well soon go the way of the glorious Annabelle Croft and we won't have to worry about her talking 'trash' about the Williams again.

Wojtek
Mar 24th, 2009, 08:32 AM
Yes, I believe if Williams sisters ever attended Indian Wells the stands would be almost empty because all those racist fans would stay home.

Yes, I don't think the WTA is bothered by taking $.5 million in fines from the Williams sisters regardless of the reason.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: when Blake played the was crowd and everything was ok.

Slammer7
Mar 24th, 2009, 08:36 AM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: when Blake played the was crowd and everything was ok.

And we all know Blake's a strong black women.:haha:

woodrow1029
Mar 25th, 2009, 10:41 PM
The whole Alvez thing was a matter of umpire incompetence. She was not ready for the big stage and when she got on it she screwed up royally. The whole thing exposed a scandal in the umpiring ranks as the gold badge umps (the best in the world) had been suspended for graft at the Olympics. The best umpires had sold their FREE Olympic tickets to other events and they got caught, and several of them were suspended. So the U.S Open comes around right after the Olympics and the umpire that should have been doing the Serena/Capriati match(Lynn Welch) wasn't there and an untested rookie was used instead. The ITF who ran the umpires at the time had hoped nothing bad would happen and the relative inexperience of the umpire wouldn't be exposed.:o Well the worst possible thing happened the umpire was the story.:help: It was unfortunate that it happened during Serena's match but it could have happened to anybody.:shrug: It didn't help matters that 2 months before Venus was the victim of an incompetent umpire too, so some folks minds had to wonder. I still don't feel comfortable with that women in the chair of any match and she still makes mistakes that I don't see other umpires make, but she is one of the "highest ranked" umpires in the world as she was at the YEC. I generally don't notice umpires, but that's a name and a face I will never forget.:devil:

P.S has anybody seen that new androgynous umpire? I saw her/him umpire during Acapulco and Monterrey, I think the umpire is from Israel. Anyone know the name?

I have to ask, where did you get your information from?

woodrow1029
Mar 25th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Because she screwed up. Why would she go out of her way to make Serena lose? If the ITF or WTA thought that was the case, she would never be umping matches again. She's still a Silver Badge.

Umpires make mistakes all the time. It doesn't mean matches are rigged.

She is not still a silver badge. She is a gold badge.

Slammer7
Mar 25th, 2009, 11:14 PM
I have to ask, where did you get your information from? I'm not sure which aspect of my post you are referring too, but I will assume it was the part about the umpires. So here is a story about it. I was a incorrect about the exact infraction but it was a scandal none the less.http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2004/09/12/2004-09-12_chair_umps_involved_in_olymp.html

CHAIR UMPS INVOLVED IN OLYMPIC SCANDAL 3 get boot in credential forging scheme
BY SAM BORDEN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER With Wayne Coffey

Sunday, September 12th 2004, 7:02AM

THREE "GOLD-BADGE" chair umpires were dismissed early from the U.S. Open because of their involvement in a credential-forging scheme at the Olympics, multiple sources told the Daily News yesterday.

And the early departures may have been one reason why Mariana Alves - a lower-ranked, or "silver-badge" official - was assigned to the controversial Serena Williams-Jennifer Capriati quarterfinal.

According to sources, several tennis officials working in Athens were involved in a plan to alter their credentials to allow them increased access to the Games. Two of the officials, Matthew McAleer and Diane Larkin, were caught by security trying to use the false credentials and were deported.

Stefan Fransson, the International Tennis Federation's Grand Slam supervisor and a top international official at the U.S. Open, said he first learned during qualifying that three high-level umpires working the Open had been involved in the Athens scheme. The ITF allowed the umpires - Fergus Murphy, Lynn Welch and Christina Olausson - to work Open matches for more than a week while an investigation took place, but the trio was booted from the tournament early in the second week. Further penalties against the officials, including suspension, are possible, Fransson said.

"They fully understood and accepted that they made a mistake in Athens," Fransson said. "We were obviously very disappointed that anyone would do this. (In) the Olympic movement, it's a very, very serious offense."

Welch, a highly regarded umpire who has worked six U.S. Open finals, did not return calls. Attempts to reach Murphy were unsuccessful. Olausson, reached on her cell phone in Denmark, said only, "I can't talk about this, I'm sorry."

Thirty to 35 chair umpires work at a Grand Slam, nearly all of them at "bronze-badge" level or higher. Without a full complement of top-ranked umpires, tournament officials may have used lesser-ranked umpires in marquee matches. Though it's not out of the ordinary for silver-badge officials to work the later rounds in the singles bracket, an examination of tournament records shows that Alves worked show-court matches on five consecutive days, with the Capriati-Williams match being the last one.

She umpired the Francesca Schiavone-Angela Haynes match on Sept. 3, the Mary Pierce-Maria Sharapova match Sept. 4, the Elena Dementieva-Vera Zvonareva tilt on Sunday and the Justine Henin-Hardenne-Nadia Petrova match on Monday.

"That's very unusual," one umpire who requested anonymity said. "Even working back-to-back days on a show court is unusual."

Alves made a surprising overrule against Williams on a crucial point in the third set, a call that tournament officials admitted was wrong and led to Alves being held out of further duty at the Open. Williams said afterward she felt like she had been "robbed."

Officials have been in the spotlight since Wimbledon, when chair umpire Ted Watts erroneously gave Karolina Sprem an extra point in a tiebreaker with Venus Williams, a mistake that helped Sprem upset Williams. After the incident involving Serena Williams, the sisters' father, Richard, told the Daily News: "It was ridiculous. It's the second time this has happened. Serena should've called the (tournament) referee and asked him to get that ump out of that chair. If the ump refused to get out of the chair, Serena should've walked off the court."

Alves is an experienced official from Portugal, but several officials said she likely would not have been assigned such a high-profile matchup if higher-ranked umpires had been available.

"She was in over her head," one umpire said. "There's no way she would have been doing that match if (the dismissed umpires) were still working."


The idea that they would alter their credentials to gain access to other venues is awful, but I was right about the fact that Alvez was in the chair because of an umpiring scandal. If these umpires hadn't been greedy and treacherous she would have never been there and the whole mess would have never happened. I didn't know that it was those 3 umpires, I will never look at them the same again. Hope this is what you wanted to know.

woodrow1029
Mar 25th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. I worked Athens (however, I was not one of the 12 involved in this incident) and had you not posted that article, I would have explained it.

So the U.S Open comes around right after the Olympics and the umpire that should have been doing the Serena/Capriati match(Lynn Welch) wasn't there and an untested rookie was used instead.

That is not necessarily true either. There is no way to know that Lynn would have been doing that match.

Boomguy
Mar 26th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Getting back on topic the WTA has 3 major Stars, The Williams Sisters and Maria Sharapova and Kim Cljisters hopefully will returning back because she was a great fan favorite. 2nd Grade Stars like Ana Ivanovic, Amelie Mauresmo, Daniela Hantuchova and possibly Jelena Jankovic and Jelena Dokic are pulling in people but not as great as 4 best.

I can see why people are more interested in Verdasco now because he played a great match againest Rafa in the Aus open Semis and possibly his looks to.

Usually the crowds are really bad in Monday to Friday and the first match on centre court but on the weekends its a full house no matter who plays. Night Matches sometimes bring in good crowds but the tickets.

I want to know if the Americans care about thier lower ranked Americans, like Mattek-Sands, King and Craybas. There seems to be no support for them at all.