PDA

View Full Version : Australian Open Finals Register Mixed Ratings For ESPN


tennisIlove09
Feb 24th, 2003, 08:51 PM
Australian Open Finals Register Mixed Ratings For ESPN

By Tennis Week
02/24/2003

Andre Agassi's appeal to American viewers resulted in significant rise in ratings for the men's Australian Open final, while the fourth straight Grand Slam final between the Williams sisters produced a slight drop in the number of viewers tuning into the women's final.


The second-seeded Agassi annihilated Germany's Rainer Schuettler 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 to become the first non-Australian man to capture four Australian Open championships. Though the match was a blow out offering little doubt about the outcome from the outset, Agassi's appeal to fans saw ESPN's ratings rise to a 1.8 for the men's final from a 1.2 rating the network generated for the 2002 men's final in which Sweden's Thomas Johansson defeated Marat Safin.

The Australian Open women's final between the Williams sisters in which Serena Williams completed the "Serena Slam" with a 7-6 (7-4), 3-6, 6-4 victory over Venus Williams registered a 2.1 rating which was slightly lower than the 2.3 rating recorded the previous year when Jennifer Capriati fought off a record four match points to defeat Martina Hingis and successfully defend her Australian Open crown.

It was the eighth Grand Slam crown in Agassiís collection, which matches the career totals of Hall of Famers Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Ken Rosewall and Fred Perry. The 32-year-old Agassi

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 24th, 2003, 09:33 PM
Yes, but the womens semifinals were the highest EVER tennis match on ESPN.

ktwtennis
Feb 24th, 2003, 09:55 PM
What did I just hear? Are the great Williams finals really boring the American public? Why yes, that's what the statistics ARE showing!

Pureracket
Feb 24th, 2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by ktwtennis
What did I just hear? Are the great Williams finals really boring the American public? Why yes, that's what the statistics ARE showing!

Is it just me, or do the "haters" seem like a group of rabid animals when it comes to the Williams sisters?

tennisfan1972
Feb 24th, 2003, 10:12 PM
2.1 > 1.8
2.3 > 1.2

venusfan
Feb 24th, 2003, 10:24 PM
that's 1 person with the nielson box going out on a saturday night..

ratings are just really stupid if u ask me.. until the day when everyone has a box, all these ratings crap is just silly.. why does 1 person represent what 1.2 million thinks..

Volcana
Feb 24th, 2003, 11:08 PM
Well, while both were top flight entertainament, I thought the 2002 final was a bit better than the 2003, even though I enojyed the 2003 more. (Williams fan here) So I'm glad 2002 got a few extra fans.

Hingis and Capriati bring their own fan base. I'd have expected their matchup to do well. Besides, does anyone really WANT the WTA to become like golf, where there's a 'Tiger Tour', and 'oh yeah those guys'. Massive ratings drops whenever Venus and Serena aren't around isn't real good for the tour.


Go Big TV Ratings!

Myskina Lina
Feb 24th, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by venusfan
that's 1 person with the nielson box going out on a saturday night..

ratings are just really stupid if u ask me.. until the day when everyone has a box, all these ratings crap is just silly.. why does 1 person represent what 1.2 million thinks..


I agree, TV ratings are a big joke when they only know what .000001% is actually watching. :rolleyes:

WtaTour4Ever
Feb 24th, 2003, 11:32 PM
Kinda hard to beat last years final, way to much drama :-) That said, Womens Tennis still rocks :-)

Freewoman33
Feb 24th, 2003, 11:56 PM
Wow! You mean to tell me that women's tennis rank higher than men's on a regular basis, yet ESPN choses to show men's tennis more often? What sense does that make? Oh well! I guess the big sponsors (Sexists) prefer to support men's tennis.

There are four things in this society that will never go away:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Racism
4. Sexism

Rocketta
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:11 AM
I love how the article makes it seem like the mens ratings blew away the women's ratings. :rolleyes:

Also, I wonder if these rankings had anything to do with ESPN spotlighting Aggasi's every FREAKING match and barely showing a women's match live. It wouldn't have anything to do with ESPN deliberately focusing on Men's tennis while treating women's tennis as a second class citizen?? and still the men didn't get higher ratings???

ktwtennis
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by venusfan
that's 1 person with the nielson box going out on a saturday night..

ratings are just really stupid if u ask me.. until the day when everyone has a box, all these ratings crap is just silly.. why does 1 person represent what 1.2 million thinks.. You mean, they mean nothing when the Williams aren't making headlines?

gweeny
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:09 AM
the ratings might drop. Which means the other women tennis players must raise their game up. It is not Venus and Serena's fault that they are better than the rest of the tour. Frankly, I have not gotten tired of watching the williams finals, even though venus has been on the losing end.

ptkten
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:11 AM
ktwtennis...it sounds like you're just bitter that they were in the finals. The women STILL had better ratings than the men despite what the article was trying to say. The Williams-Williams finals attract many casual viewers, if not avid tennis viewers, and ratings with the sisters playing have been consistently very high. Of course, last years final was extremely interesting and full of drama but stop bashing the Williams sisters when they continue to help the game. Just get over your hatred of them.

Crazy Canuck
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:15 AM
Well this doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know...

"Americans like watching Americans". 2 Americans facing off in a final draws more viewers than 1 in a final.

Not shocking. If the final had been Roddick vs Agassi the number for the mens final would have been much higher, for that reason.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:44 AM
Rebecca - the mens final was higher. I think you misread the article, or I'm misreading your post.


Anyways, whether we like ratings or not, they determine ads, and viewership, so they are important regardless.

Again, I say, The Women's Semifinals were the HIGHEST RATED EVER on ESPN.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:44 AM
for any tennis match.

period.

WtaTour4Ever
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:09 AM
Okay maybe it's past my bedtime but, Joshua

How is the men's rating 1.8 > womens rating of 2.1.

CC
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:36 AM
The men rose from 1.2 to 1.8

The women fell from 2.3 to 2.1

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:57 AM
I'm talking about the semifinals....re-read my post ;)

WtaTour4Ever
Feb 25th, 2003, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Rebecca - the mens final was higher. I think you misread the article, or I'm misreading your post.



This is the post that has me confused. :confused:

ptkten
Feb 25th, 2003, 03:44 AM
He is saying that the men's final rating was higher than the year before

Simplify
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:10 AM
He is saying that the men's final rating was higher than the year before
True, but in BOTH years the women's ratings were higher than the men.
Womens Tennis still rocks :-)
You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 25th, 2003, 05:38 PM
LOL, sorry for the confusion all. I didn't even notice the women had higher ratings.....stupid me - I read the article and assumed the men blew the women away in ratings.......of course it wasn't true, it was just ESPN's bias ;)

spartanfan
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:11 PM
Does anyone know what the ratings were for the womens and mens semifinals??

WtaTour4Ever
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:20 PM
I believe the womens semis were 2.8.

Messenger
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:46 PM
Almost twice as many people watched Jenn/Marti over... actually I can't remember who played last year. That Swedish guy versus that... guy

Crazy Canuck
Feb 26th, 2003, 04:56 AM
VSFan1 aka Joshua L. -

Erm, I think that you've straightened things out since you first posted to me in this thread?

By the way, that random use of bold font and various sizes of yout words did little for my retention of what you were trying to say. If I couldn't understand that the first time, i would be a moron. The clutter of letters just makes it less appealing to read, and seem rather condescending and unnecessarry... Especially seeing as it had nothing to do with my post whatsoever..

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 26th, 2003, 05:44 PM
How confident of you Rebecca to think that entire post was directed towards you - only the first part was.

The second part was directed toward the other ramblings going on in here.

King Lindsay
Feb 26th, 2003, 05:52 PM
VenusFan and MyskinaLina, neither one of you has a great grasp of percentages if you think TV ratings are that inaccurate.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 26th, 2003, 05:53 PM
oh, and lol, do you feel better about yourself after you made that post?

Crazy Canuck
Feb 26th, 2003, 08:37 PM
Perhaps if you had not tagged the comment on underneathe a paragraph that was clearly directed at me, then I would not have replied to it.

Crazy Canuck
Feb 26th, 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
oh, and lol, do you feel better about yourself after you made that post?

Is this directed at me, or King Lindsay?

If it's for me, then might I ask: what the hell does that mean? Do I feel better? Feel better from what?

TeeRexx
Feb 26th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Aussie Open ratings are usually about one half the ratings of the better Grand slam events. :)
------
from MSNBC.COM
-----------

"The rain-slogged 2002 Wimbledon averaged a 2.1 rating for its 15 telecasts, 22 percent lower than 2001, and 36 percent lower than 2000. But the Saturday broadcast, featuring the womenís final between sisters Serena and Venus Williams, drew a 4.6 rating ó 31 percent higher than 2001."

----------

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 26th, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Rebecca
Is this directed at me, or King Lindsay?

If it's for me, then might I ask: what the hell does that mean? Do I feel better? Feel better from what?

It is for you.

croat123
Feb 27th, 2003, 01:07 AM
the ranting would be higher is the finals weren't on so late est, so that stat really doesn't show much. expect ratings higher that 3 for most of RG

Crazy Canuck
Feb 27th, 2003, 02:13 AM
VSFan1 aka Joshua L. -

Well then, if it is for me, why not answer my questions?

Do I feel better from what? Was I ill, and nobody told me?

Sam L
Feb 27th, 2003, 04:14 AM
Interesting, at the end of the day it appears that the American public would still prefer to watch one American man as opposed to two American women playing in a grand slam final. Or is it because of who the Americans were? Who knows! :confused:

Leena
Feb 27th, 2003, 04:19 AM
Nobody has mentioned the real reason for the ratings increase: Chris Fowler & Jim Courier.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 1st, 2003, 06:00 PM
Since I have to explain it Rebecca - your posts have little value in contributing to the subject of the threads.

You seem to get your jollies off of completely criticizing others posts while completely ignoring the topic at hand.

If this wasn't a pattern that I'd notice I would have never picked up on it, but everytime I read one of your posts, you seem to insult others so you can feel better about yourself.

Deny it if you want, cause I know you will :) But you and me know the truth.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 1st, 2003, 06:13 PM
Since I have to explain it Rebecca - your posts have little value in contributing to the subject of the threads.

You seem to get your jollies off of completely criticizing others posts while completely ignoring the topic at hand.

If this wasn't a pattern that I'd notice I would have never picked up on it, but everytime I read one of your posts, you seem to insult others so you can feel better about yourself.

Deny it if you want, cause I know you will :) But you and me know the truth.


You know, if you had decided to share your expert psychological opinion about me in a thread where I had actually gone on an attacking rampage, than your post here would make sense.

On the contrary, I started this thread by pointing out my opinion of why the womens final draws more viewers. You proceeded to totally misread my post, then go on to repeat something that you have said about 23423 times and put it in huge bold letters, as if assuming that the rest of us are idiots who couldn't have read it otherwise.

Infact, aside from commenting on the fact that you decided to talk down to me for absolutely no reason, I have done nothing negative in this thread. It was you who made a point of being rude to me, and not the other way around. Hypocrite?

As for the point about feeling better about myself based on my postings on an internet message board - I do hope that you realize how petty that sounds. I certaintly wasn't pissing with anxiety when this site was down, which would indicate that you, and any other poster means about as much to me as a grain of salt. It's rather difficult to gain personal satisfaction from something that you don't care about, isn't it?

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 1st, 2003, 06:53 PM
As for the point about feeling better about myself based on my postings on an internet message board - I do hope that you realize how petty that sounds. I certaintly wasn't pissing with anxiety when this site was down, which would indicate that you, and any other poster means about as much to me as a grain of salt. It's rather difficult to gain personal satisfaction from something that you don't care about, isn't it?

Thanks for humoring me! Not quite what I expected - but close too it! :)

Crazy Canuck
Mar 1st, 2003, 06:57 PM
Thanks for humoring me! Not quite what I expected - but close too it! :)
Oh? No response to the other two paragraphs, which outline how you've commented on MY unnecessary attacking behavior, while demonstrating some of your own? Surely if you are going to have the ego to think that you can speak on behalf of me, you can stand to admit that you are being a hypocrite?

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 1st, 2003, 07:39 PM
I admit it that I'm a hypocrite........everyone is. And to maintain that you are not is....well, hypocritical.

Regardless, the fact remains that you choose to not acknowledge that you constantly trivialize others. I was just calling you down.....in other words, I'm acting exactly like you.

Keep responding, this is fun!

Crazy Canuck
Mar 2nd, 2003, 12:32 AM
Do you still want me to keep responding?

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 2nd, 2003, 04:59 AM
No....I did this before the PM I sent you :)

Crazy Canuck
Mar 2nd, 2003, 05:26 AM
Okay :kiss:

1jackson2001
Mar 2nd, 2003, 07:28 AM
Yes, both last year's and this year's ratings for women (final) are higher than the men...but there were no American men last year while there was one for women. There was Agassi for the men and both Williams for the women this year. Notice just by having one popular American man closes the gap between the ratings considerably (not to mention the sisters are the most popular on the women's side at the moment). If Roddick had played in the finals against Agassi, the women wouldn't even hold a candle to the men in ratings. ;)

Oh, and the Williams are sisters..something truly special to happen at the top of a sport. If there were brothers at the top of ATP, the men's ratings would blow the women's even more out of the water. ;)

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 2nd, 2003, 08:16 AM
OMG, a kiss from Rebecca! I'm honored :o

Crazy Canuck
Mar 2nd, 2003, 04:47 PM
I even brushed my teeth, especially for you!

King Lindsay
Mar 2nd, 2003, 04:52 PM
now that is rare!

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 2nd, 2003, 06:13 PM
HEY - she's Canadian, not British!




;)