PDA

View Full Version : Australian Open Women's Final Sets Ratings Record


Marcell
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:17 PM
Oz Open Women's Final Sets Ratings Record For ESPN2



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.

The previous top tennis telecast in ESPN2 history was the 2005 women's final in which Serena Williams beat Lindsay Davenport. That match was seen in an average 1,350,000 million homes and drew a 1.5 rating.

Despite the fact it lasted just 63 minutes, the Williams-Sharapova final, featuring two of the most widely-recognized players in the sport, set a ratings record for ESPN2. Only five other matches on ESPN — various Australian Open finals and the 1996 Miami final, which benefitted from a rain delay in drawing viewers who had tuned in for a NASCAR race scheduled for the same time slot — drew larger audiences than the Williams-Sharapova final.

SJW
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:20 PM
Ladies :worship:

Tennisation
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:26 PM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

Rocketta
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:29 PM
I knew that was going to happen. :clap2:


Someone bet me $100 that the ESPN commentary B*&^(es will not spin those numbers like it had more to do with Maria being in the final than Serena? :tape:

what did that other article say the top 5 rated matches all included Serena? :scratch:

!<blocparty>!
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I bet they were pissed it only lasted 63 minutes. :o

trufanjay
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:34 PM
It was obvious. Serena Williams vs. Maria Sharapova. Of course those ratings were going to be through the roof!

Vlover
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:36 PM
There it is!:worship: Still the leading lady for women's tennis contrary to the myth some would like you to believe.;) She doesn't need any stupid ad just mention her name and they know who she is and want to see what she's up to.:cool:

Rocketta
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:37 PM
It was obvious. Serena Williams vs. Maria Sharapova. Of course those ratings were going to be through the roof!

Ah, Serena's improbable run meant there were going to be great ratings....Maria being her oponent was just icing on the cake. :D

RJWCapriati
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:38 PM
:yeah:

tennisjunky
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:46 PM
proof that my two favs are the best in the business.

tennisbum79
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:51 PM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are
second that

Apparently, the 2 shot makers did not catch too many people attention.

I am sure this thread will be forever a reference material for future
discussion reference

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jan 29th, 2007, 10:56 PM
You'd think ESPN's tennis commentators would be nicer to Serena considering she generates so much money for their company :shrug:

Derek.
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Tennis needs Serena and Maria.

I think it's pretty much a proven fact by now. :shrug:

tennisbum79
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:03 PM
You'd think ESPN's tennis commentators would be nicer to Serena considering she generates so much money for their company :shrug:
And for them.

To tell you the truth, ESPN does not that many people on the staff to cover the tournament.

It is only because Serena is keeping their revenue up they can afford to keep
all these people.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:16 PM
And for them.

To tell you the truth, ESPN does not that many people on the staff to cover the tournament.

It is only because Serena is keeping they revenue they can afford to keep
all these people.

Wow, so without Serena Shriver and Carillo wouldn't be getting a check. Especially Shriver, because at least Carillo still has a gig at CBS and also commentates for NBC during the French and Wimbledon. Maybe they should watch their mouths :tape:

stevos
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:29 PM
That is great news, but why does the Australian Open get the highest rated tennis telecast, when some see it as the least important? I mean, you'd think Wimbledon and US Open at least would beat it.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the article correctly, but that one was the best EVER? Good for tennis!

Monica_Rules
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Oh come on two so called americans playign each other was alwasy gonna be a ratings winner in the states.

go hingis
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:31 PM
One for the WTA, nice job girls.

Rocketta
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:32 PM
one reason the AO gets the best ratings is because the matches that lead the day in Australia, are on primetime on the east coast in the US. This match was on at 9:30pm. Another reason is that ESPN does not own the rights to the Slams during the weekends and big matches other than the AO.

Mrs. Peel
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:32 PM
All hats off to Serena. This would not be a record breaker if Serena wasn't in it and let's not pretend otherwise :worship:

Rocketta
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:36 PM
All hats off to Serena. This would not be a record breaker if Serena wasn't in it and let's not pretend otherwise :worship:

I know and if you think about the fact that the match was so short that ESPN had to have some gap filler which means the rankings probably tanked during that part and the average was still 1.8 million......:worship:

Viktymise
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:36 PM
wow, but it thought the most watched final was the 01 USO Final between Venus and Serena and it was one of the biggest ever in tennis :scratch: or was that another channel

Rocketta
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:38 PM
wow, but it thought the most watched final was the 01 USO Final between Venus and Serena and it was one of the biggest ever in tennis :scratch: or was that another channel

that was another channel, CBS I think.

Also, remember these are the rankings for ESPN2 which does not have the market share that ESPN has and especially not as big a share a the big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX)

Viktymise
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:43 PM
that was another channel, CBS I think.

Also, remember these are the rankings for ESPN2 which does not have the market share that ESPN has and especially not as big a share a the big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX)

Yes i think thats the one im thinking of

lizchris
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Wow, so without Serena Shriver and Carillo wouldn't be getting a check. Especially Shriver, because at least Carillo still has a gig at CBS and also commentates for NBC during the French and Wimbledon. Maybe they should watch their mouths :tape:

Pam has a contract with CBS for the US Open. She and Mary Joe are sideline reporters.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Pam has a contract with CBS for the US Open. She and Mary Joe are sideline reporters.

Exactly :p

switz
Jan 29th, 2007, 11:49 PM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

yes because the opinion of American TV viewers is all that counts :lol:

the ratings are still terrible :o More Australians watched the Rafter vs Rusedski final of the US Open and their population is like a 20th of the US :lol:

RenaSlam.
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:16 AM
:worship:

Vlover
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:16 AM
I knew that was going to happen. :clap2:


Someone bet me $100 that the ESPN commentary B*&^(es will not spin those numbers like it had more to do with Maria being in the final than Serena? :tape:

what did that other article say the top 5 rated matches all included Serena? :scratch:

Here is more proof:

If you're seeking further statistical support of Williams' record as a ratings winner, consider that four of the top five Australian Open telecasts in ESPN2 history have featured Serena in a starring role she has come to relish in crafting compelling comebacks after losing the opening set. The top five are:

The 2005 final: Williams defeated Lindsay Davenport, 2-6, 6-3, 6-0 (an average 1.35 million households tuned in, making it ESPN2's highest-rated and most-viewed tennis telecast in Oz Open history).
The 2005 semifinals: Williams fought off match points to beat Maria Sharapova, 2-6, 7-5, 8-6.
The 2003 semifinals: Williams saved match points in conquering Kim Clijsters, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5.
The 2006 semifinals: Justine Henin-Hardenne beat Maria Sharapova, 4-6, 6-1, 6-4. [/QUOTE]

supergrunt
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:41 AM
Oz Open Women's Final Sets Ratings Record For ESPN2



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.[/B] [B]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.

The previous top tennis telecast in ESPN2 history was the 2005 women's final in which Serena Williams beat Lindsay Davenport. That match was seen in an average 1,350,000 million homes and drew a 1.5 rating.

Despite the fact it lasted just 63 minutes, the Williams-Sharapova final, featuring two of the most widely-recognized players in the sport, set a ratings record for ESPN2. Only five other matches on ESPN — various Australian Open finals and the 1996 Miami final, which benefitted from a rain delay in drawing viewers who had tuned in for a NASCAR race scheduled for the same time slot — drew larger audiences than the Williams-Sharapova final.

:confused:

Rocketta
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM
:confused:

see post above for the 5 matches.....4 of which Serena was a part of.

supergrunt
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM
and yet they still show that andy roddick mess live before they show serena :(

LindsayRulz
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:57 AM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

:worship:

Pureracket
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:59 AM
I actually like Maria Sharapova, and I think she'll probably end up breaking Serena's Slam record by the time M.S. retires, but let's face it, those high ratings had VERY little to do with M.S.

Serena is one of the most compelling stories in all of sports right now. Let's use this board as an example.

1handedwonder
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:02 AM
serena+maria= power!!!

SAEKeithSerena
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:04 AM
that's fucking awesome. congrats! her comeback will be the story of the year...

-VSR-
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Serena :bowdown:

No Name Face
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:32 AM
well i live in a house with 7 other guys and we had guests over to watch the match. so if that's any indication of how popular they are, then i'm not surprised at all.

No Name Face
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:33 AM
I actually like Maria Sharapova, and I think she'll probably end up breaking Serena's Slam record by the time M.S. retires, but let's face it, those high ratings had VERY little to do with M.S.

no. no, she won't.

anlavalle
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:33 AM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

just shows that americans only watch americans (maria is sort of), and this final was boring, i think the most entertaining part were the speeches

aussie_fan
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Good to see it get those type of ratings in the U.S.

It rated solidly in Australia as well getting about 1.3 million and abolsutely killing everyone else.

aisha
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:37 AM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

I half agree.

I like Justine's game.

Momo on the other hand puts me to sleep. :yawn:
Because of her, I started to like Juju a teeny bit more. :mad: :o :tape:
Shocking, given her history versus Serena. :shrug:

Simplicity.
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:39 AM
I believe that ESPN is an American television network and in general Americans only watch tennis if Americans are playing. Also doenst help Sharapova is playing.

mckyle.
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:43 AM
The Australian Open always gets the highest ratings for ESPN because it's the only slam final that they show.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:44 AM
:worship: yeah I knew it

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:45 AM
The Australian Open always gets the highest ratings for ESPN because it's the only slam final that they show.

They actually cover RG and Wimbledon, but NBC does the weekends and the finals for both.

mckyle.
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:49 AM
They actually cover RG and Wimbledon, but NBC does the weekends and the finals for both.

okay, no need to quote my post because i pretty much said the same thing you did :)

~Eclipsed~
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:56 AM
this isn't surprising. We all know Serena obvioulsy is going to bring in better ratings in the US than lesser known players like Henin and Mauresmo. Honestly i'm convinced now that it's not just because she's american and people know her, but she's really fun to watch.

Anyone who says tennis is boring...hasn't watched Serena play.:worship:

sweetpeas
Jan 30th, 2007, 05:47 AM
Nice going ""SERENA and MARIA""...THANKS !!!! Both are Beautiful young ladie"s.

tennisbum79
Jan 30th, 2007, 06:00 AM
just shows that americans only watch americans (maria is sort of), and this final was boring, i think the most entertaining part were the speeches
Boring?
Are you sure you watch the final?

tennisbum79
Jan 30th, 2007, 06:07 AM
The Australian Open always gets the highest ratings for ESPN because it's the only slam final that they show.
Excellent explanation.
It is also true they will watch more if an American is involved. Eeven more it
is a dynamic player like Serena.

I am sure the rating shot up in Israel when Peer played Serena.
That is because their country woman was competing at highest level of the tennis world.

IceSkaTennisFan
Jan 30th, 2007, 06:17 AM
That is great news, but why does the Australian Open get the highest rated tennis telecast, when some see it as the least important? I mean, you'd think Wimbledon and US Open at least would beat it.
The USO is on USA. The article was reporting ratings for ESPN2. IIRC, 2002 USO Ladies Final was one of the highest rated in history. I would think that the reason the FO and Wimbledon have not earned as many ratings would be b/c the time zone difference (and the demand for live coverage) makes coverage in non-primetime hours. The AO final, on the other hand, was at a great time to earn ratings.

ce
Jan 30th, 2007, 07:10 AM
:lol: just shows how boring Amelie and Justine are

agree,finally some interesting matches:)

SvetaPleaseWin.
Jan 30th, 2007, 08:43 AM
to americans serena + maria = heaven hence high ratings

Ryan
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:36 PM
It's a shame Maria couldn't do anything to pull it into a third, it's kind of sad that the highest-rated women's match was such a blowout. Anyway, congrats to both of them on being huge celebs in USA - and proving that tennis needs Serena more than Justine and Amelie.

Brαm
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:44 PM
LMAO, so what?
You're talking about Americans watching a final involving an American vs a Russian who lives in the USA! :lol:

Of course the rates will be higher than last year's final with someone from French-speaking Belgium vs someone from France :tape:

But don't you think that last year's final had higher ratings in Belgium and France? Just a thought :bolt:

Ryan
Jan 30th, 2007, 12:47 PM
LMAO, so what?
You're talking about Americans watching a final involving an American vs a Russian who lives in the USA! :lol:

Of course the rates will be higher than last year's final with someone from French-speaking Belgium vs someone from France :tape:

But don't you think that last year's final had higher ratings in Belgium and France? Just a thought :bolt:



I could really care less, because tennis' future hinges more on American ratings and corporations than Belgium's - just a thought.

tennisbum79
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:12 PM
It's a shame Maria couldn't do anything to pull it into a third, it's kind of sad that the highest-rated women's match was such a blowout. Anyway, congrats to both of them on being huge celebs in USA - and proving that tennis needs Serena more than Justine and Amelie.
Those 2 players may have all the shots, but they just are not as exciting.
Sure Johny Mac, Mary C marvells at their style of play
But they have no charisma, they do not hold people's attention.
And that counts a lot in any indvidual sport.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying charisma alone will do the trick.
What I am sressing it that it helps immensely to bring the sport to a broader audience

Look at Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Tiger Woods, Beckham, ohn McEnroe.
And the great Pele. T
hey transcended their respective sports.

Let us be frank, tennis is not a universal sport which is popular around the world.
Not eveybody is as nuts as we are on this board.

tennisbum79
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:14 PM
I could really care less, because tennis' future hinges more on American ratings and corporations than Belgium's - just a thought.
And that is the bottom line, in business sense.

Brαm
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:23 PM
I could really care less, because tennis' future hinges more on American ratings and corporations than Belgium's - just a thought.
Some posters here use TV ratings as an indicator for the QUALITY of tennis matches, which is absolutely bullocks! That's all I'm saying.

tennisbum79
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ryan http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=9930808#post9930808)
I could really care less, because tennis' future hinges more on American ratings and corporations than Belgium's - just a thought.

Some posters here use TV ratings as an indicator for the QUALITY of tennis matches, which is absolutely bullocks! That's all I'm saying.
I am not sure that is what that sentence implies.
I think it has to do with the business bottom line of the WTA.
Revenue generated with advertisers, contract with TV broacasting companies, etc...
The financial side of Tennis.

Volcana
Jan 30th, 2007, 01:48 PM
That is great news, but why does the Australian Open get the highest rated tennis telecast, when some see it as the least important? I mean, you'd think Wimbledon and US Open at least would beat it.Highest rated telecast for ESPN2!!

The Wimbledon and US Open finals are on network TV, and get MUCH higher TV ratings in the USA.
Some posters here use TV ratings as an indicator for the QUALITY of tennis matches, which is absolutely bullocks! That's all I'm saying.Well, you're certainly right in that regard.

TV ratings, ultimately, are just a popularity contest. There have been, if memory serves, seven or eight GS finals where the women's final got higher US TV ratings than the men's final. Either all, or all but one of them, (I can't recall the ratingsof the 2nd Hingis-Capriati GS final) featured one or both of the Williams sisters. And face it, some of the matches were not entertaining at all, especially the early ones. What drove those ratings wasn't the quality of the matches, or the entertainment value. It was the popularity of the players. A decent measure would be, say, a Hingis-Sharpaova US Open women's final, vs Federer-Nadal.

victory1
Jan 30th, 2007, 02:22 PM
wow, but it thought the most watched final was the 01 USO Final between Venus and Serena and it was one of the biggest ever in tennis :scratch: or was that another channel

Yes, that one drew over 23 million in the US on a Saturday night, but that was NBC.