PDA

View Full Version : "Women's tennis is twice as popular as men's tennis...because of Venus and Serena"


Hulet
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:22 PM
Not my opinion, but of Sports Marketing Group managing director Nye Lavalle. His full quote is this: "Golf is increasing its cool because of one man -- Tiger Woods. We see the same thing happening in women's tennis because of the Williams sisters. Women's tennis is twice as popular as men's tennis right now. Without question it's because of Venus and Serena Williams."

Whole article (which deals mostly with Golf) is at: http://www.charleston.net/stories/081903/spo_ss047818.shtml

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:27 PM
true. you either love to love the sisters or love to hate them. just like a certain Ms Hingis :)

TonyP
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:33 PM
I assume this comment was made before the last Wimbledon, which showed a 14 percent drop in TV ratings in the US for the women's final. I think the Williams sisters have already lost some of their luster because they generally play such bad matches against each other.

Men's tennis has produced much better tennis in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, the players on the men's side are not very colorful.

But other players on the women's side were just as colorful as the Williams sisters and fyi, Tiger Woods has not won a major in his last six tries. Its usually a mistake to bet the farm on any single athlete in any sport.

Infiniti2001
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:40 PM
I assume this comment was made before the last Wimbledon, which showed a 14 percent drop in TV ratings in the US for the women's final. I think the Williams sisters have already lost some of their luster because they generally play such bad matches against each other.



it was 13%lower not 14 :rolleyes: Meanwhile going from 4.6 to 4. 0 is not as bad as "some" want us to believe. :eek:

M2k
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:43 PM
Not my opinion, but of Sports Marketing Group managing director Nye Lavalle. His full quote is this:

Whole article (which deals mostly with Golf) is at: http://www.charleston.net/stories/081903/spo_ss047818.shtml


...surely we can't forget Anna ;) and to a certain extend Hingis...;)



Women's tennis rocks

Hulet
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:45 PM
I don't know when the comments were made but reading the article it seems to me that they were made after the PGA championships (which was after Wimbledon?). Btw, I think the 13% drop in TV rating was for both the mens and womens Wimbledon finals so you can attribute that to the drop in popularity of Tennis in general in US rather than the Williams sisters.

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:46 PM
i actually prefer mens matches but the reason i love womens tennis more is because the men have NO PERSONALITY! Andy Roddick gets a lot of shit for actually owning one. 99% of the players on the ATP are dull as shit

MartinaI
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:46 PM
Women's tennis began it's revival with Martina and Anna hitting the scene with sex appeal and controversy. The Williamses have boosted the profile in the US mostly, which was in dire straights. You can't discount Monica's return, Capriati's return, Steffi's last minute revival and the Belgian phenomona .They have all played their part I think. It would be unfair to chose a single source for the popularity of women's tennis.

Hulet
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:48 PM
Yup, SJW. I think the success of Roddick might lift the mens popularity b/c he has personality unlike the other monolithic players. It is strange that the interesting players in both mens and womens tennis are hugely disliked too.

TeeRexx
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:54 PM
When VENUS & SERENA are off the tour, in 7-8 years, the drop off in interest in womens tennis will be tremendous.

Womens golf will then overtake tennis because the WILLIAMS will take up that sport after their tennis careers. :eek: :)

Cariaoke
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:58 PM
Daddy Rich is teaching Serena how to play golf; her drive is stellar but her short game is womp womp womp.... :tape:

harloo
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:13 PM
it was 13%lower not 14 :rolleyes: Meanwhile going from 4.6 to 4. 0 is not as bad as "some" want us to believe. :eek:

It sure is better than the 2.0 rating the FO recieved, and that was the men's and women's final combined.

Diya
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:17 PM
It was Martina Hingis that started this and the sisters(as usual) are only following her footsteps :p

lizchris
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:24 PM
I assume this comment was made before the last Wimbledon, which showed a 14 percent drop in TV ratings in the US for the women's final. I think the Williams sisters have already lost some of their luster because they generally play such bad matches against each other.

Men's tennis has produced much better tennis in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, the players on the men's side are not very colorful.

But other players on the women's side were just as colorful as the Williams sisters and fyi, Tiger Woods has not won a major in his last six tries. Its usually a mistake to bet the farm on any single athlete in any sport.

They might play bad matches, but they still rate hight than the rest of the current top ten. BTW, the dropoff of the French Open women's final was more than twice that of the Wimbeldon dropoff. Are you goinf to blame that on the Williams sisters too?

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:24 PM
They are very unpopular in my country. You ppl tend to draw the conclusion about this popularity bullshit just by looking at a few countries ignoring the majority of countries in the world.

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:28 PM
where are u from? let me guess.........Belgium?

SerenaSlam
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:30 PM
They are very unpopular in my country. You ppl tend to draw the conclusion about this popularity bullshit just by looking at a few countries ignoring the majority of countries in the world.
this is a "world" sport yes indeed. but i think the main reason why so many people give the "united states" standpoint, is b/c its like the 3rd largest country. and its the most popular sports wise. that is why a lot of the analysis etc come from America. and hell, i don't know why you people are arguing when this is an "american" article, anyone with some common sense would know and understand he is talking about popularity in the states, and not europe etc :rolleyes:

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:30 PM
where are u from? let me guess.........Belgium?

I think the sistaz have already made enough money to support themselves and their family for the rest of their lives.
They are popular..well.. very popular among certain people.
They are very unpopular among yet certain people.
They are even unknown amongst yet certain people.
They are still my most favorite players by far....

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:33 PM
answer the question please

thanks

JackFrost
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:34 PM
Well, I know many people, who didnīt watch tennis anymore, because of the sisters. They were bored by the dominance of Venus and Serena.
In Germany Venus and Serena are not unpopular (especially Venus had her fans in Hamburg), but they donīt watch women tennis just because of them. Ten years ago, tennis was much more popular than today. And every year, the interest in tennis goes down.

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:35 PM
this is a "world" sport yes indeed. but i think the main reason why so many people give the "united states" standpoint, is b/c its like the 3rd largest country. and its the most popular sports wise. that is why a lot of the analysis etc come from America. and hell, i don't know why you people are arguing when this is an "american" article, anyone with some common sense would know and understand he is talking about popularity in the states, and not europe etc :rolleyes:

They are lucky to be americans. Their popularity is majorly because of the fact they were luckily born in the country named U.S.A. It's like the tour itself is pre much owned by that country so they can afford to igornore the rest of the countries though three of the majors belong to non-American countries, two of which are pre much kissing the yanks' assss.
Measureing one's popularity, it's far from enough to just look at a few countries whether it's relevant to the popularity of the tour itself.. If you are popular in the u.s., then of course you're boosting the popularity of the tour for that obvious reason I have stated above.. but it's not correct to maintain they are the most popular in the world in most of which the tour doesn't even have tournaments.

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:36 PM
also, 10 years ago German tennis fans had Steffi Graf, so that could explain the loss of interest ;)

JackFrost
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:41 PM
also, 10 years ago German tennis fans had Steffi Graf, so that could explain the loss of interest ;)

Ok...that may be a good point... ;)

Diya
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:42 PM
Whats new ? :rolleyes:

Most of the Williamsphiles ALWAYS give the W/S more credit than they actually deserve .......i guess we all do that with our faves coz we are supposed to be fans but some of these people here make the sisters sound like God's gift to mankind :rolleyes:

The sisters are great for tennis just like most of the other champion players but please they are not bigger than the game itself :rolleyes:

TonyP
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:45 PM
I'm sure the French Open final got much lower ratings --in the U.S. Most causual sport fans knew little to nothing about Kim and Justine. With no Americans in the finals, the ratings were bound to plummit, in the United States.

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:46 PM
Whats new ? :rolleyes:

Most of the Williamsphiles ALWAYS give the W/S more credit than they actually do .......i guess we all do that with our faves coz we are supposed to be fans but some of these people here make the sisters sound like God's gift to mankind :rolleyes:

The sisters are great for tennis just like most of the other champion players but please they are not bigger than the game itself :rolleyes:

Couldn't be said better. :worship: :worship:

I still luv my girls.

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:49 PM
I'm sure the French Open final got much lower ratings --in the U.S. Most causual sport fans knew little to nothing about Kim and Justine. With no Americans in the finals, the ratings were bound to plummit, in the United States.

Again, another piece of shit.
You are a yank aren't ya? You can say exaclty the same shit about the sisters' "unpopularity" or "unfamousity" in other parts of the world.
I know America is the most important country for the tour only because it's got "money", so we can't afford not to put it ahead of any other country. You're lucky to be a yank.

TeeRexx
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:50 PM
The 2003 RG finals were down nearly 50% from the previous WILLIAMS final. :P

Malin
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:51 PM
But I thought all over America was racist??

Women's tennis isn't more popular than men's, just look at how packed men's tournament's are even on the first day, compared to women's that have like 10 people, if that.

Becool
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:51 PM
CamilleVidann who do you think u're decieving with this signature?

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:52 PM
and WTF are u from and stop avoiding the Q

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:01 PM
CamilleVidann who do you think u're decieving with this signature?

I'm not deciving nobody for your information. I really mean what my signiture says believe it or not.
I just don't wanna bind myself in the same stinky nest as some obsessed Williams fans. I dunno which nest you belong to but I'm happy to be outa there. I'm happy to be a lone Williams fan who supports the sistaz fair and square for all the rest of the players. I don't treat the sistaz as if they were god or goddess. They still live on the same ground as we all do and what they have done in tennis is so astonishing that I always support them but do I worship them? Holy cow....
If you wanna be as true a fan as I am, you better distance yourself from the front line a while and sit back, relax and try put things in perspective. You will c what i mean.

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:02 PM
and WTF are u from and stop avoiding the Q

Ts not worth answering at the moment cuz it's no big deal and not relevant enough on my part.

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:02 PM
By the way you guessed wrong. I'm no Belgian.

Crazy Canuck
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:03 PM
i actually prefer mens matches but the reason i love womens tennis more is because the men have NO PERSONALITY! Andy Roddick gets a lot of shit for actually owning one. 99% of the players on the ATP are dull as shit
Define "personality", then fill me in on your source that over 1000 guys you don't know are lacking one. Thanks in advance!

Crazy Canuck
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:05 PM
But I thought all over America was racist??

Women's tennis isn't more popular than men's, just look at how packed men's tournament's are even on the first day, compared to women's that have like 10 people, if that.
That's not entirely true.... unless you are using LA as your example for womens tournaments ;)

However I fail to understand why some of you are so obsessed with proving that mens tennis is less popular than womens - who the fuck cares which is more popular? If one is popular, the whole sport is better off. So why the competition?

SerenaSlam
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:05 PM
By the way you guessed wrong. I'm no Belgian.
i have nick names for my friends. dumb fuck the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectivly. i seems you need to be the 4th. you act like a dumb fuck at times. a kid playing games. what is the reason as to why you cannot answer a simple question? its not a guessin game. people in here are not typing just to have you reply to them with questions and not answers. wake up dumb fuck. answer the people and quit acting like a dumb fuck. you people in here make me say these things, then you wanna report me. well if that is how it has to be so be it. but let it be known that im doing this for a reason.

just asnwer em dumb fuck!

lizchris
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:06 PM
I'm sure the French Open final got much lower ratings --in the U.S. Most causual sport fans knew little to nothing about Kim and Justine. With no Americans in the finals, the ratings were bound to plummit, in the United States.

The 2002 French Open had higher ratings than the 2001 French Open. Guess who played in the 2002 French Open?

Hulet
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:08 PM
Whats new ? :rolleyes:

Most of the Williamsphiles ALWAYS give the W/S more credit than they actually deserve .......i guess we all do that with our faves coz we are supposed to be fans but some of these people here make the sisters sound like God's gift to mankind :rolleyes:

The sisters are great for tennis just like most of the other champion players but please they are not bigger than the game itself :rolleyes:
I don't think that quote was from a "Williamsphile" but from a sports marketing firm which does a lot of research on the popularity of a certain sport and athlet. Its clients are companies who try to reach the maximum amount of sports fans through advertising. So, I think you can be assured that his comments are fair. What would he gain by playing up the contribution of Williams sisters contrary to the fact and lose crediblity in the process?

Crazy Canuck
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:08 PM
where are u from? let me guess.........Belgium?
How exactly did you draw that conclusion? Did I miss something about his posts that screamed "Belgian" or is this just you slamming Belgians for no particular reason?

Crazy Canuck
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:08 PM
i have nick names for my friends. dumb fuck the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectivly. i seems you need to be the 4th. you act like a dumb fuck at times. a kid playing games. what is the reason as to why you cannot answer a simple question? its not a guessin game. people in here are not typing just to have you reply to them with questions and not answers. wake up dumb fuck. answer the people and quit acting like a dumb fuck. you people in here make me say these things, then you wanna report me. well if that is how it has to be so be it. but let it be known that im doing this for a reason.

just asnwer em dumb fuck!
Don't pop a vein or anything :)

CamilleVidann
Aug 19th, 2003, 05:11 PM
i have nick names for my friends. dumb fuck the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectivly. i seems you need to be the 4th. you act like a dumb fuck at times. a kid playing games. what is the reason as to why you cannot answer a simple question? its not a guessin game. people in here are not typing just to have you reply to them with questions and not answers. wake up dumb fuck. answer the people and quit acting like a dumb fuck. you people in here make me say these things, then you wanna report me. well if that is how it has to be so be it. but let it be known that im doing this for a reason.

just asnwer em dumb fuck!

First: watch your language

Second: I ain't answer questions I find irrelevant to the topic of the discussion.

Third: I'm not a fuckin dumb ass and yet happy to be the fourth on your dmub fuckin list.

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 06:51 PM
Define "personality", then fill me in on your source that over 1000 guys you don't know are lacking one. Thanks in advance!

its an opinion...i checked and im allowed to have one too :tape:

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 06:53 PM
How exactly did you draw that conclusion? Did I miss something about his posts that screamed "Belgian" or is this just you slamming Belgians for no particular reason?

im not slamming belgians :rolleyes: she said they werent popular in that country, and my Belgian friends have told me Venus and Serena arent popular there

is that ok?

thanks

TonyP
Aug 19th, 2003, 06:59 PM
For the record, tennis is a sport that usually tries to stamp out personality at all costs. Tennis is all about decorum, about showing no emotion before, during and even after play.

A polite, but usually limp handshake at the net is all that was allowed in the sport for both men and women and less for women. Its the British influence on the sport in my opinion.

Those players who have come along with personalities have usually paid the price for it. And the irony is, it is usually not other players who complain, it is the press and other self appointed high priests of the temple of tennis who cry out in condemnation for those whose transgression is actually showing some emotion.

Diya
Aug 19th, 2003, 07:00 PM
The Williams fans ALWAYS complain when anyone makes sweeping statements like " These Williams fans are so __________ " but it seems like some of these whiners feel its ok say to that if a person dislikes a Williams then he/she could be from Belgium :rolleyes: ! That sure ain't hypocritical :lol:

SJW
Aug 19th, 2003, 07:01 PM
its funny, because the players with personality are actually the ones drawing people to the sport :tape:

CamilleVidann
Aug 20th, 2003, 01:46 AM
It's nonsense to claim there's no personality in men's tennis cuz everyone does have a personality otherwise you would be a gorrila or monkey. it's an insult to someone if you say he or she has no personality. Not showing much emotions is part of his personality you like it or not. If you want to prove men's tennis is boring, then try and come up with much more rational explanations.

Sam L
Aug 20th, 2003, 02:18 AM
LOL @ the very idea.

I know a lot of people who works in Marketing, and something related to the Williams sisters' marketing campaigns must be paying this guy's salary. ;)

Volcana
Aug 20th, 2003, 03:33 AM
They are very unpopular in my country. You ppl tend to draw the conclusion about this popularity bullshit just by looking at a few countries ignoring the majority of countries in the world.

Follow the money

Tplayer
Aug 20th, 2003, 03:49 AM
Women's tennis is twice as popular as the mens but not because of the Williams sisters. In fact it has grown in popularity because the Williams sisters are both taking a standing 8 count.
Actually, most tennis fans do not like the Williams sisters and they will go down in the history books as having been booed at more events and more often than any other female player in the history of the game.
Thats a fact!

TeeRexx
Aug 20th, 2003, 05:42 AM
Bood by fans like TonyP, but adored by the remaining 95% of the fans and the TV networks. :eek: :p LOL

Crazy Canuck
Aug 20th, 2003, 05:59 AM
im not slamming belgians :rolleyes: she said they werent popular in that country, and my Belgian friends have told me Venus and Serena arent popular there

is that ok?

thanks
Why so defensive? :)

Crazy Canuck
Aug 20th, 2003, 06:03 AM
its an opinion...i checked and im allowed to have one too :tape:
You seem to have a problem with elaborating on your opinions when they are questioned. I seem to remember having an identical conversation with you a while and it ended up with you posting 600 posts of ":tape:" while a few idiots supported such nonsense. Are you headed in that direction again, or have you grown? :)

I'm allowed to have the opinion that Serena has a terrible serve, btw, but that doesn't mean that it would make any sense ;)

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2003, 06:48 AM
"They might play bad matches, but they still rate hight than the rest of the current top ten. BTW, the dropoff of the French Open women's final was more than twice that of the Wimbeldon dropoff. Are you goinf to blame that on the Williams sisters too?"

Yes because there was no Williams sister in the final the rating took a tremendous blow!

Brian Stewart
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:29 AM
Well, I see another civilized discussion has broken out here. :)

The article in question was published Tuesday. Which means it was compiled within the last week. As to the exact nature of the "twice as popular", he's probably refering to corporate interest.

And while I don't care much for the current state of the men's tour, I never bought into that "peronality" nonsense, and how it relates to popularity of a sport (or lack thereof). Even though he was considered somewhat of a teen idol, Borg was never charismatic on court. And Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg were hardly effervescent.

Much has been made over the years about the "personalities" of Connors and McEnroe drawing in the fans. But it wasn't their "bad boy" behavior that was their main drawing point. There have been many other "bad boys" (and girls) over the years, but they never became that popular. People like Connors and McEnroe were big because they were first-rate players, and tough competitors. And then they had that bad boy thing on top of it. Its far easier to be the anti-hero if you're capable of meeting the hero on even terms.

Look how Agassi was first sold. The rebel, bucking tradition. "Image is everything." However, were he not blessed with 20/15 vision and loads of talent, Agassi would have faded from the public consciousness faster than the Jensens.

It's analogous to the Kournikova situation. She didn't get all of that attention because of her looks and personality. She got it because she could play some damn good tennis. And had looks and personality. There's a reason why she gets big endorsement $, and not the dozens of other beautiful women on the WTA tour. Much like there's a reason some writers are clamoring for a new Jimmy Connors, and not a new Jeff Tarango.

Those who want to find a reason for the slip in popularity of the men's tour (particularly in terms of TV ratings) point their finger at this "personality" issue. There are a number of factors, but I don't think it's the primary one by any stretch.

One factor is the quality of play, which I feel has dropped, particularly from a technical standpoint. But to Joe Average, who doesn't know much about such things, the bigger issue is consistency. Sports fans expect the top players/teams to consistently produce top results. In a sport like tennis, that would mean the top players consistently reaching quarters, semis, finals of tournaments. That's how sports fans get to know players. Seeing them produce consistently, especially on the big stage.

All sports have gotten more athletic, and seen their overall talent pools deepen. But the top players should still rise to the top on a regular basis. If they don't, interest slides. It's happened in all sports. The article from which the title quote springs mentions a dropoff in viewer interest even in such mainstays as football and basketball. Why? Increased parity. With no dominant teams, and leading contenders changing annually, it's harder to keep up.

And that's for sports that already have huge fan bases. The bottom line is, parity does NOT sell. People don't watch sports to see everyone playing the same. They watch to see those who will step up. The elite. That's why we get the same handful of teams on "Game of the Week" all the time. Not many want to see two middle-of-the road teams playing, even though they are very skilled. Because they aren't playing at a level expected of elite teams.

That problem has plagued men's tennis in recent years. Nobody has stepped up and played at a level expected of a top 10 player in every tournament they've played in a season. Not even Agassi, who has played a few tournaments for appearance fees, and then lost early in a dismal effort. Sure, we know it wasn't the "real" Agassi, and that when he's motivated, he always plays at a top 10 level. But he isn't always so driven. He saves himself for the big events. But Joe Sportsfan looks at it like "I guess he isn't that good." The spinmeisters can try all they want to put a positive face on this inconsistency. They can swing their incense pots and chant "depth" until they've all got a contact high. But the average sportsfan is going to see it as mediocrity.

As for the "competition" between the two tours over which one is more popular, I agree that it is silly. And it is largely coming from one side. Both tours have wanted to be as popular as possible. But the folks who run the men's tour, and those who support them in the tennis press, have always had a sort of crusade to try to make the men's tour more popular than the women's. That's why you hear all these potshots coming from male players and assorted writers whenever a men's draw falls apart at a slam. Rather than be glad that top women are still in the tournament to draw viewers in the second week, and give some spillover to some of the heretofore unkonwn or little known players who might still be in the men's field, they instead attack the women, and try to dissuade people from watching them. We have seen a lot of negativity directed at the women's tour, particularly since the Williams ascended to the top. As John Lloyd puts it, the success of the sisters, considering where they come from, is one of the great stories "in all of sport". Tennis writers should be hyping them at every opportunity. Instead, they are trying to diminish the accomplishments of clan Williams by denigrating them and their competitors.

In the mid 90's, the hype was about Agassi vs Sampras. "The Great Rivalry". During that time, when Seles was out, and Capriati was out, and Kournikova, Hingis, Williams, etc. weren't a factor yet, the women got shoved into the background by the tennis press. And the leaders of the women's tour were asked if they were jealous of the men's tour getting so much attention because of Agassi and Sampras. To the surprise of the tennis writers, the women's tour said no. Because they realized what the big picture was. Whatever makes one tour more popular, makes tennis more popular. And whatever makes tennis more popular, makes the other tour more popular. The men's tour still hasn't grasped that concept. One gets the impression that if the TV Fairy went to the women's tour and said "I'll wave my wand, and you'll draw 'X' million viewers for every tour telecast", and "X" was a very good number, they'd be happy, regardless of what the men were given. However, if the Fairy offered the same deal to the men, they'd be unhappy if the women got "X+2" million viewers, even though they would be successful in their own right. That's why tennis isn't more popular. You've got 2 tours trying to be successful, but one of them is also trying to bring the other down, so they don't get ahead.

As for the Williams effect itself, there was a recent release about TV viewers at last year's US Open. Over the 2 week event, 200 million people tuned in at some time to watch. Over 20 million seperate people tuned in at some time during the women's final. That's the 3rd highest total ever in one country for a tennis match, behind King/Riggs (over 30 million), and the 2001 women's final (23 million). That's a lot of eyeballs. And, historically, when someone boosts a sport like that, there is a spillover effect even when they aren't playing.

(P.S. is it an oxymoron to have such a lengthy "quick" reply? :))

persond
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:44 AM
I assume this comment was made before the last Wimbledon, which showed a 14 percent drop in TV ratings in the US for the women's final. I think the Williams sisters have already lost some of their luster because they generally play such bad matches against each other.

Men's tennis has produced much better tennis in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, the players on the men's side are not very colorful.

But other players on the women's side were just as colorful as the Williams sisters and fyi, Tiger Woods has not won a major in his last six tries. Its usually a mistake to bet the farm on any single athlete in any sport.


TONYPEE, DIDN'T YOUR MAMA TELL YOU THAT WHEN YOU "ASSUME", YOU MAKE AN "ASS" OF "U" AND "ME"...!!! :p :p You're ALWAYS so phucking negative when it comes to anything relating to the Williamses...!!! Take a phucking chill pill...!!! So you don't like them, do as I and many others do when we don't like particular players; keep you phucking opinions to yourself...!!! You are such a "nitpicker", I can barely stand to read your responses. For, I know how negative they'll be from the onset...!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

persond
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:49 AM
Women's tennis is twice as popular as the mens but not because of the Williams sisters. In fact it has grown in popularity because the Williams sisters are both taking a standing 8 count.
Actually, most tennis fans do not like the Williams sisters and they will go down in the history books as having been booed at more events and more often than any other female player in the history of the game.
Thats a fact!


Goes to show how "LITTLE" you know about history...!!! And, we all know what the phucking booing is all about, don't we Tplayer...???

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:54 AM
[B]TONYPEE, DIDN'T YOUR MAMA TELL YOU THAT WHEN YOU "ASSUME", YOU MAKE AN "ASS" OF "U" AND "ME"...!!! :p :p You're ALWAYS so phucking negative when it comes to anything relating to the Williamses...!!! Take a phucking chill pill...!!! So you don't like them, do as I and many others do when we don't like particular players; keep you phucking opinions to yourself...!!! You are such a "nitpicker", I can barely stand to read your responses. For, I know how negative they'll be from the onset...!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ah, another witty, intelligent post from this most respected poster!

persond
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:56 AM
The Williams fans ALWAYS complain when anyone makes sweeping statements like " These Williams fans are so __________ " but it seems like some of these whiners feel its ok say to that if a person dislikes a Williams then he/she could be from Belgium :rolleyes: ! That sure ain't hypocritical :lol:


There your "dumbass" go again, lumping all Williams fans together...!!! Who gives a "flying Phuck" what the people of Belgium do or think...??? Do you really think people sit around wondering what the Belgians think about "shite"...???

persond
Aug 20th, 2003, 08:02 AM
Ah, another witty, intelligent post from this most respected poster!


And, like I really give a "rats azz" about your impression of me and my posts...hell, half the shite in this thread, your comments included, lack intelligence...so what's your point...???

SJW
Aug 20th, 2003, 10:20 AM
Why so defensive? :)

im sorry, i thought you were implying that i think only Belgium dislikes the sisters.....and you would never think that right? ;)

SJW
Aug 20th, 2003, 10:30 AM
You seem to have a problem with elaborating on your opinions when they are questioned. I seem to remember having an identical conversation with you a while and it ended up with you posting 600 posts of ":tape:" while a few idiots supported such nonsense. Are you headed in that direction again, or have you grown? :)

I'm allowed to have the opinion that Serena has a terrible serve, btw, but that doesn't mean that it would make any sense ;)

ill make an elaboration. i think Andy Roddick is where mens tennis will be for now. you know why? cos he managed to get more of my friends into mens tennis during the 4 weeks of Queens and Wimbledon than were into it before. they all knew the Williams sisters, but never watched tennis. i would just like to say theyre all white but i guess that has nothing to do with it *must not use tape smilie*. as for the rest of the tour, Andre Agassi is married to the best womans player to grace the game (mwahahahaha to all those who dont agree), yea casual fans will care about him. Roger Federer is the most talented mens player but he's slightly dull. Coria, bar his drug drama, is NOT someone i feel i want to know about his private life, his likes and dislikes, basically, i think hes BORING outside of his tennis. same as most top players bar Hewitt and Blake, plus Agassi and Roddick.....oh and Marat really needs to come back cos hes quite a character ;)

i know you should like the game BASED on the game and game alone, but u dont think Beckhams fans like him due to what his right foot can do, do you? :rolleyes: ;) he's a celebrity outside his sport, and i think thats why the wta own the atp (not because of the quality of tennis, cos lets face it, womens tennis is crap quality in comparison)

ps: dont ever say Serenas serve is crap :fiery: :p ;)

CamilleVidann
Aug 20th, 2003, 10:44 AM
ill make an elaboration. i think Andy Roddick is where mens tennis will be for now. you know why? cos he managed to get more of my friends into mens tennis during the 4 weeks of Queens and Wimbledon than were into it before. they all knew the Williams sisters, but never watched tennis. i would just like to say theyre all white but i guess that has nothing to do with it *must not use tape smilie*. as for the rest of the tour, Andre Agassi is married to the best womans player to grace the game (mwahahahaha to all those who dont agree), yea casual fans will care about him. Roger Federer is the most talented mens player but he's slightly dull. Coria, bar his drug drama, is NOT someone i feel i want to know about his private life, his likes and dislikes, basically, i think hes BORING outside of his tennis. same as most top players bar Hewitt and Blake, plus Agassi and Roddick.....oh and Marat really needs to come back cos hes quite a character ;)

i know you should like the game BASED on the game and game alone, but u dont think Beckhams fans like him due to what his right foot can do, do you? :rolleyes: ;) he's a celebrity outside his sport, and i think thats why the wta own the atp (not because of the quality of tennis, cos lets face it, womens tennis is crap quality in comparison)

ps: dont ever say Serenas serve is crap :fiery: :p ;)

So what does David do differently from the ATP players? By your logic, Beckham has the personality which gives me such carisma. I don't know much about him as I'm so indifferent to football but it's just pathetic he's so popular in my country where ppl barelly know his personality. I think the hype the media have created around him is playing a big part in his popularity in many parts of the world espeically in Asia where he used to be unknown as hell until the world cup last year.
Part of the reason why women's tour is flourishing is luck. There happens to be the kind of players the media love to hype and spread stories about. It's not like the ATP players are boring or have no personality but it's all about LUCK!!! By the way what the hell is your definition of "personality"?
I'd rather my favorite players celebrities only inside the sport.

SJW
Aug 20th, 2003, 10:56 AM
So what does David do differently from the ATP players? By your logic, Beckham has the personality which gives me such carisma. I don't know much about him as I'm so indifferent to football but it's just pathetic he's so popular in my country where ppl barelly know his personality. I think the hype the media have created around him is playing a big part in his popularity in many parts of the world espeically in Asia where he used to be unknown as hell until the world cup last year.
Part of the reason why women's tour is flourishing is luck. There happens to be the kind of players the media love to hype and spread stories about. It's not like the ATP players are boring or have no personality but it's all about LUCK!!! By the way what the hell is your definition of "personality"?
I'd rather my favorite players celebrities only inside the sport.

David Beckham has people wanting to know his every move. its pathetic when hes on the news all the time, and when he makes the front page of every newspaper for changing hairstyle, but the most important thing is HES GOOD FOR ENGLISH FOOTBALL, HES GOOD FOR FOOTBALL IN GENERAL, and the guy is one of the leaders of trying to kick racism out of football.

so even though im a Liverpool fan, and he used to play for United, i totally respect the guy (also hes England captain, and soccer is the only sport i support England in)

CamilleVidann
Aug 20th, 2003, 11:08 AM
I respect David for his football skills. I don't know if he deserves all the atteion and hype he's been receiving.. Not that I care about it anyways. I just think it's not right to slum the ATP tour as boring just because there's no personality "you like". For me ATP is full of personalities. It's just different for everyone. There're loads of ppl I don't understand in the world so I don't even bother to try and figure out why ppl do what they do like why they follow certain people etc.
Without the hype the media generate, there's noone who is famous and popular anywhere on the globe.

SJW
Aug 20th, 2003, 11:13 AM
I just think it's not right to slum the ATP tour as boring just because there's no personality "you like".

It's just different for everyone.

this is verging on contradiction

CamilleVidann
Aug 20th, 2003, 11:21 AM
Opps..not slum... I meant "slam"
I don't see any contradition in in that my post...
Can you please elaborate on that?

SJW
Aug 20th, 2003, 11:44 AM
ur telling me dont slam the atp just cos I think its personality-less

and then you go on to say "its different for everyone".....dont you think you should apply "its different for everyone" BEFORE you tell me i shouldnt slam the ATP?

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2003, 12:24 PM
And, like I really give a "rats azz" about your impression of me and my posts...hell, half the shite in this thread, your comments included, lack intelligence...so what's your point...???

Well, considering you're not interested in the opinions/actions of an entire country (Belgium) then I really doubt you would bear any credence to my comments either!

sartrista7
Aug 20th, 2003, 01:53 PM
Take a phucking chill pill...!!!

Oh, the irony of persond imparting this wisdom.

SJW, it's perfectly obvious that what you call 'personality' is 90% created by media hype. You get to know about Roddick's brattishness because it's given blanket coverage; media saturation -> interest in player. You say you don't feel like knowing about Guillermo Coria outside the tennis court, but that is because no one ever talks about him, so you don't know anything about him which would spark that interest.

The ATP's problem isn't so much 'lack of personality' as 'piss-poor marketing' (which = only marketing the players from the USA or English-speaking countries, because the other men rarely give good quote in their second language). (Well, I actually think a huge problem with the ATP is the insane extent to which the players appear to be surface specialists, but I digress.)

venusfan
Aug 20th, 2003, 02:21 PM
Seles return after the Steffi hired hitman on Seles fiasco got me tuned to tennis but Venus amazing run at the 1997 US Open got me hooked to tennis and her ever since.

alfajeffster
Aug 20th, 2003, 02:40 PM
Seles return after the Steffi hired hitman on Seles fiasco got me tuned to tennis but Venus amazing run at the 1997 US Open got me hooked to tennis and her ever since.

Venus pulling out of the Indian Wells ESPN Prime Time semi against her sister 5 minutes before the match got me wanting to see more of the Williams sisters version of women's tennis, that's for sure! :fiery:

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 02:45 PM
so how come you're a fan- wait, don't answer that :rolleyes: I had nothing better to do than respond to something you wrote- i usually ignore you :wavey:

So you're saying you can't like a particular player if they're not popular in your country - huh? The last time I saw Schalken was not exactly an A-list celebrity in cities over here, but that doesn't mean I don't like him.

Sad, isn't it, to think that a tour where a handful of top players hog the big titles because of the lack of opposition to stop them is more popular than a tour with infinitely better quality and competitiveness.

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 02:53 PM
Ah yes, I getcha. I understand perfectly, I am frequently fecitious (?) myself, but I wouldn't have thought it was worth the effort personally.

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Damn straight! ;)

Hulet
Aug 20th, 2003, 04:23 PM
Seems to me there is some contradition here: most tennis fans (granted on a message board) seem to claim the sisters are "not liked" by tennis fans, but a sports market analyst insists that the sisters give _womens'_ tennis popularity. So, which is it? It seems to me that this contradition can be solved by dividing tennis fans into two: the most established, hardcore tennis fans which abuse ESPN for not scheduling more Tennis on TV (let's call them the oldies) and the fans which turn on their TV once in a while to watch tennis during the slams and other major tournaments(the newbies). I am guessing the latter are more recent addition to tennis fandom while the former were watching since they were 5 or about. It seems to me the sisters brought more of those newbies into tennis - people who were not interested in tennis before but are willing to spend their precious two hour now to watch Venus and Serena clobber opponents. The oldies however hate the new game and attention brought by the sisters so tend not to be their fans. So, while people claim the sisters are unpopular, they are saying they are not liked by the oldies. While the marketing analysts claim that the sisters are well-liked by fans, they are including most of the causual tennis fans.

Is that a fair explanation of the contradition? Or am I spouting garbage?

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 04:29 PM
Well, it's a fairly reasonable point, but I'm what you would call a "newbie" and I certainly wasn't attracted to tennis by the Williams sisters, so I'm not sure it's as easily categorisable as you think. But don't worry - only a very few people on here actually spout literal garbage, and their presence has not infested this thread of late.

Hulet
Aug 20th, 2003, 04:39 PM
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hendouble. I would have never guessed that you are a newbie. So, who made you a tennis fan? Don't say Henman.

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 04:48 PM
Shocking thought, is it? Well, don't worry. I can't say that any particular player got me into tennis - I just got into the Grand Slams around the middle of 2001, found the tennis itself very enjoyable, and the liking for players followed. In fact, Wimbledon and the US Open from that year were what really got me into tennis - so many classic matches, so many memorable moments.

It's funny, I'd been vaguely following Wimbledon for years previously, when all the interest was on the women's side because of the varying winners while Sampras took home the trophy every year on the men's. Now the trend has reversed itself, but I can safely say that it was the Grand Slam atmosphere that made tennis so special for me.

Hulet
Aug 20th, 2003, 05:12 PM
Cool. I guess I am kind of an oldie + more of a newbie fan. I rememeber, when I was really a kid (not older than six), watching McEnroe, Chang, Graff, Seles, and Becker on the TV in Africa, where I was born and grew up. I also remember playing tennis when I was young: not on a professional court, nor with an official racket or net. My friends and I would ask the local butcher for a thigh bone of an ox, from which we scrape all the meat and dried it out in the sun. You can basically grip it as a tennis racket and the ball bounces easily from it, but it's kind of heavy. The net was just a string tied on the soccer fields goal post. We couldn't afford the tennis balls so we have to visit the tennis club nearby where the affluent play on, and hide behind the bushes, wait until they mishit the ball over the fence, run away with the ball. Then, we play until dusk. :lol: It's funny to think about it now. Then, suddenly the TV station stopped showing tennis and we forgot tennis and turned our attention to soccer. It wasn't until I came to Canada 5 years ago that I become interested in tennis again. So, there you go, my "how I become a tennis fan" essay. :)

Hendouble
Aug 20th, 2003, 05:18 PM
I have to admit, that is a highly distinctive way of discovering tennis. I got hit in the eye by a tennis ball once at my local courts, but that doesn't sound quite so engaging when I describe it on a message board.

BigTennisFan
Aug 20th, 2003, 06:00 PM
Well, I see another civilized discussion has broken out here. :)

The article in question was published Tuesday. Which means it was compiled within the last week. As to the exact nature of the "twice as popular", he's probably refering to corporate interest.

And while I don't care much for the current state of the men's tour, I never bought into that "peronality" nonsense, and how it relates to popularity of a sport (or lack thereof). Even though he was considered somewhat of a teen idol, Borg was never charismatic on court. And Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg were hardly effervescent.

Much has been made over the years about the "personalities" of Connors and McEnroe drawing in the fans. But it wasn't their "bad boy" behavior that was their main drawing point. There have been many other "bad boys" (and girls) over the years, but they never became that popular. People like Connors and McEnroe were big because they were first-rate players, and tough competitors. And then they had that bad boy thing on top of it. Its far easier to be the anti-hero if you're capable of meeting the hero on even terms.

Look how Agassi was first sold. The rebel, bucking tradition. "Image is everything." However, were he not blessed with 20/15 vision and loads of talent, Agassi would have faded from the public consciousness faster than the Jensens.

It's analogous to the Kournikova situation. She didn't get all of that attention because of her looks and personality. She got it because she could play some damn good tennis. And had looks and personality. There's a reason why she gets big endorsement $, and not the dozens of other beautiful women on the WTA tour. Much like there's a reason some writers are clamoring for a new Jimmy Connors, and not a new Jeff Tarango.

Those who want to find a reason for the slip in popularity of the men's tour (particularly in terms of TV ratings) point their finger at this "personality" issue. There are a number of factors, but I don't think it's the primary one by any stretch.

One factor is the quality of play, which I feel has dropped, particularly from a technical standpoint. But to Joe Average, who doesn't know much about such things, the bigger issue is consistency. Sports fans expect the top players/teams to consistently produce top results. In a sport like tennis, that would mean the top players consistently reaching quarters, semis, finals of tournaments. That's how sports fans get to know players. Seeing them produce consistently, especially on the big stage.

All sports have gotten more athletic, and seen their overall talent pools deepen. But the top players should still rise to the top on a regular basis. If they don't, interest slides. It's happened in all sports. The article from which the title quote springs mentions a dropoff in viewer interest even in such mainstays as football and basketball. Why? Increased parity. With no dominant teams, and leading contenders changing annually, it's harder to keep up.

And that's for sports that already have huge fan bases. The bottom line is, parity does NOT sell. People don't watch sports to see everyone playing the same. They watch to see those who will step up. The elite. That's why we get the same handful of teams on "Game of the Week" all the time. Not many want to see two middle-of-the road teams playing, even though they are very skilled. Because they aren't playing at a level expected of elite teams.

That problem has plagued men's tennis in recent years. Nobody has stepped up and played at a level expected of a top 10 player in every tournament they've played in a season. Not even Agassi, who has played a few tournaments for appearance fees, and then lost early in a dismal effort. Sure, we know it wasn't the "real" Agassi, and that when he's motivated, he always plays at a top 10 level. But he isn't always so driven. He saves himself for the big events. But Joe Sportsfan looks at it like "I guess he isn't that good." The spinmeisters can try all they want to put a positive face on this inconsistency. They can swing their incense pots and chant "depth" until they've all got a contact high. But the average sportsfan is going to see it as mediocrity.

As for the "competition" between the two tours over which one is more popular, I agree that it is silly. And it is largely coming from one side. Both tours have wanted to be as popular as possible. But the folks who run the men's tour, and those who support them in the tennis press, have always had a sort of crusade to try to make the men's tour more popular than the women's. That's why you hear all these potshots coming from male players and assorted writers whenever a men's draw falls apart at a slam. Rather than be glad that top women are still in the tournament to draw viewers in the second week, and give some spillover to some of the heretofore unkonwn or little known players who might still be in the men's field, they instead attack the women, and try to dissuade people from watching them. We have seen a lot of negativity directed at the women's tour, particularly since the Williams ascended to the top. As John Lloyd puts it, the success of the sisters, considering where they come from, is one of the great stories "in all of sport". Tennis writers should be hyping them at every opportunity. Instead, they are trying to diminish the accomplishments of clan Williams by denigrating them and their competitors.

In the mid 90's, the hype was about Agassi vs Sampras. "The Great Rivalry". During that time, when Seles was out, and Capriati was out, and Kournikova, Hingis, Williams, etc. weren't a factor yet, the women got shoved into the background by the tennis press. And the leaders of the women's tour were asked if they were jealous of the men's tour getting so much attention because of Agassi and Sampras. To the surprise of the tennis writers, the women's tour said no. Because they realized what the big picture was. Whatever makes one tour more popular, makes tennis more popular. And whatever makes tennis more popular, makes the other tour more popular. The men's tour still hasn't grasped that concept. One gets the impression that if the TV Fairy went to the women's tour and said "I'll wave my wand, and you'll draw 'X' million viewers for every tour telecast", and "X" was a very good number, they'd be happy, regardless of what the men were given. However, if the Fairy offered the same deal to the men, they'd be unhappy if the women got "X+2" million viewers, even though they would be successful in their own right. That's why tennis isn't more popular. You've got 2 tours trying to be successful, but one of them is also trying to bring the other down, so they don't get ahead.

As for the Williams effect itself, there was a recent release about TV viewers at last year's US Open. Over the 2 week event, 200 million people tuned in at some time to watch. Over 20 million seperate people tuned in at some time during the women's final. That's the 3rd highest total ever in one country for a tennis match, behind King/Riggs (over 30 million), and the 2001 women's final (23 million). That's a lot of eyeballs. And, historically, when someone boosts a sport like that, there is a spillover effect even when they aren't playing.

(P.S. is it an oxymoron to have such a lengthy "quick" reply? :))


Brian, your cogent posts are always a joy to read. Truth beautifully presented.
I really wish that you could get this post published in a mainstream sports venue. Are you submitting your writings?

Then of course it would be hard to get published because you make too much sense and the powers that be don't want to look like bigger assholes than they are. :)

1jackson2001
Aug 20th, 2003, 07:47 PM
Agreed, BTF.

CamilleVidann
Aug 21st, 2003, 02:21 AM
Seems to me there is some contradition here: most tennis fans (granted on a message board) seem to claim the sisters are "not liked" by tennis fans, but a sports market analyst insists that the sisters give _womens'_ tennis popularity. So, which is it? It seems to me that this contradition can be solved by dividing tennis fans into two: the most established, hardcore tennis fans which abuse ESPN for not scheduling more Tennis on TV (let's call them the oldies) and the fans which turn on their TV once in a while to watch tennis during the slams and other major tournaments(the newbies). I am guessing the latter are more recent addition to tennis fandom while the former were watching since they were 5 or about. It seems to me the sisters brought more of those newbies into tennis - people who were not interested in tennis before but are willing to spend their precious two hour now to watch Venus and Serena clobber opponents. The oldies however hate the new game and attention brought by the sisters so tend not to be their fans. So, while people claim the sisters are unpopular, they are saying they are not liked by the oldies. While the marketing analysts claim that the sisters are well-liked by fans, they are including most of the causual tennis fans.

Is that a fair explanation of the contradition? Or am I spouting garbage?


Drawing high TV rating doesn't necessarily mean the players are popular.
Actually the more they are hated, the more attention they get.
We should be thankful to those Williams haters cuz they turn in hoping to see them lose, so the haters somehow contribute to boosting TV rating when the sistaz are playing.
I don't like Andy Roddick but nevertheless I turn TV on when his match is aired cuz I desparately wanna see his butt kicked big time.

Runningtennisguy
Aug 21st, 2003, 02:38 AM
Sad that two women that bring flare and so much more to the tennis game are called boring to watch and make tennis not worth watching. Tell me who else does it like the Williamses. Nobody. How would you feel if you made it to the final with your brother or sister to every grandslam and won all the time. Wouldnt you feel great about yourself and your sibling.Yet people lable you "dominant" and "boring to the game" when you are just doing what you are supposed to do.......win. Oh but we want them to win, just not all the time. Give me a break, open your eyes :eek:

barmaid
Aug 21st, 2003, 02:47 AM
Women's tennis began it's revival with Martina and Anna hitting the scene with sex appeal and controversy. The Williamses have boosted the profile in the US mostly, which was in dire straights. You can't discount Monica's return, Capriati's return, Steffi's last minute revival and the Belgian phenomona .They have all played their part I think. It would be unfair to chose a single source for the popularity of women's tennis.
Excellent summation....you cannot exclude the above mentioned players from the claim that "women's tennis is more popular than men's"!! :Martina :hearts: Anna :kiss: Monica :angel: Capriati :tape: Steffi :worship: the Belgians :bounce: and many other promising newcomers ;)



barmaid :wavey:

php
Aug 21st, 2003, 02:47 AM
Boo hoo hoo!
Cry me a river!

SerialKiller#69
Aug 21st, 2003, 10:15 AM
Because of Venus and Serena? Yeah right.