PDA

View Full Version : Why such low crowds for the women?


hellas719
Jul 1st, 2010, 04:29 AM
:help:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled.jpg?t=1277929646

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled2.jpg?t=1277930638

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled4.jpg?t=1277932362

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled5.jpg?t=1277932626

During a GS Semifinal:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled3.jpg?t=1277931183
:tape:

I just don't get it :shrug:. The men have no problems filling seats, and the women have more stars :shrug:

Michael.
Jul 1st, 2010, 04:35 AM
I think that last picture of the GS Semifinal was being played at the same time as Serena vs Clijsters so that's probably why.

wildemu
Jul 1st, 2010, 04:52 AM
the wickmayer/woz match was only empty because of them being pushed over from their original court. Fans didn't have enough time to react and there was the epic match at ashe stadium.

Serenus Christ
Jul 1st, 2010, 04:53 AM
you answered the question already

hellas719
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:06 PM
I forgot :p

But what about the other photos? :shrug:

FedererBulgaria
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:11 PM
:help:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled.jpg?t=1277929646

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled2.jpg?t=1277930638

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled4.jpg?t=1277932362

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled5.jpg?t=1277932626

During a GS Semifinal:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled3.jpg?t=1277931183
:tape:

I just don't get it :shrug:. The men have no problems filling seats, and the women have more stars :shrug:


:help: Its ugly to watch

zaidf
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:11 PM
Because crowds want to watch good tennis?

The Witch-king
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:31 PM
just ask yourself whether you would go watch wozniacki and wickmayer....by choice.

wayitis
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:34 PM
because WTA fans'd rather be busy in tennis message boards fighting with each other, cursing at Mary Carrillo and Martina Navratilova or at ESPN and SkySport than actually being at tournaments cheering for their favourites... ;):p

Kipling
Jul 7th, 2010, 10:58 PM
because WTA fans'd rather be busy in tennis message boards fighting with each other, cursing at Mary Carrillo and Martina Navratilova or at ESPN and SkySport than actually being at tournaments cheering for their favourites... ;):p


Unfortunately, this is true.

Andrew's question does not have a single answer. It's a complex equation. There's a lot of factors.

In general, women's tennis is never going to have the credibility that men's tennis has. It's like golf--Annika Sorenstam was a tremendous player, but fans having to make decisions with their luxury dollars are going to want to see the best players they can, and that is men, like it or not. Bigger, stronger, faster and able to play week to week and create rivalries without their bodies breaking down. When people talk about the great women players of all time, invariably the names that come to mind are Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, Margaret Court, Steffi Graf--players who could win 100 matches and a dozen tournaments a year and STILL play at the top of their games in the slams. That's credible women's tennis. No woman today can do that.

Livestream is a very nice luxury, but it has helped killed crowds for women's tennis. Take away the option to watch from your living room, and more people will go to tournaments.

Location of tournaments has a great deal to do with it as well. Put a tournament in a resort or wealthy retirement community, where people are not at work all day when most matches are played and you will see larger crowds.

Look, it obviously looks bad on TV to see the stands like that, but as a big fan of women's tennis I say go see them in person and show your support. I go to a few tournaments every year and always have a great time, empty stands or not. The players do appreciate it when there's someone there to cheer.

goldenlox
Jul 7th, 2010, 11:08 PM
Nothing to worry about. I read the mens final on NBC in the US was down 55% from last year.
As Fed declines, womens tennis will take over.

xan
Jul 7th, 2010, 11:34 PM
Depends where you are and who is playing.

Wimbledon seats are nearly always full, except in the lull after a big match. The top draws like Masha and the Williamses tend to fill the stadiums - even if the fans only come to root against them!

MisterMan
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:14 AM
The cost is unrealistic. One match could cost a couple approx $250 US, no exaggeration. Ticket, parking, food, drink. If they want to SEE the match, it'll cost that much.
The match will more than likely last 55 minutes?? maybe 50? maybe there will be an injury withdrawal after 15 minutes? the average human can't/won't pay for that.
Those empty seats will continue to be empty until the cost comes down.

Atrixo
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:23 AM
The cost is unrealistic. One match could cost a couple approx $250 US, no exaggeration. Ticket, parking, food, drink. If they want to SEE the match, it'll cost that much.
The match will more than likely last 55 minutes?? maybe 50? maybe there will be an injury withdrawal after 15 minutes? the average human can't/won't pay for that.
Those empty seats will continue to be empty until the cost comes down.

I agree, cost is probably the primary factor contributing to smaller crowds. This isn't something exclusive to the WTA, either. Have you seen how barren a lot of the ATP events are?

Tennis needs to develop and improve different revenue streams, other than gate attendance. If corporate sponsorship and government subsidies were unlimited, I'm sure a lot of event organizers could greatly reduce the cost of attending for fans. If there were large sum television contracts as well, that would further contribute to the reduction of costs to fans. But with the current world economic climate, and the lack of television revenue, I don't see this changing for tennis anytime soon.

Baselinebasher
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:19 AM
Because the quality of tennis is generally very low?

Mynarco
Jul 8th, 2010, 02:24 AM
I can't be arsed staying to watch Wozniacki play tennis.

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:26 AM
:help:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled.jpg?t=1277929646

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled2.jpg?t=1277930638

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled4.jpg?t=1277932362

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled5.jpg?t=1277932626

During a GS Semifinal:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled3.jpg?t=1277931183
:tape:

I just don't get it :shrug:. The men have no problems filling seats, and the women have more stars :shrug:

There are a lot of men stars for those of us who follow ATP, too, you know.

Aaron.
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:31 AM
I can't be arsed staying to watch Wozniacki play tennis. :rolls:

Dave.
Jul 8th, 2010, 05:23 AM
I agree, cost is probably the primary factor contributing to smaller crowds. This isn't something exclusive to the WTA, either. Have you seen how barren a lot of the ATP events are?

Tennis needs to develop and improve different revenue streams, other than gate attendance. If corporate sponsorship and government subsidies were unlimited, I'm sure a lot of event organizers could greatly reduce the cost of attending for fans. If there were large sum television contracts as well, that would further contribute to the reduction of costs to fans. But with the current world economic climate, and the lack of television revenue, I don't see this changing for tennis anytime soon.

Maybe it's because other revenue streams are sufficient enough that tennis tournaments don't feel the need to lower ticket prices? :shrug:


For the people here that go to these (American/US Open series) tournaments, is it just the stadiums that are empty or are the grounds empty too?

Serenita
Jul 8th, 2010, 05:29 AM
:help:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled.jpg?t=1277929646

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled2.jpg?t=1277930638

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled4.jpg?t=1277932362

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled5.jpg?t=1277932626

During a GS Semifinal:
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu244/tennisace719/Untitled3.jpg?t=1277931183
:tape:

I just don't get it :shrug:. The men have no problems filling seats, and the women have more stars :shrug:

Simple ; No Serena, Venus, or missing "Pova" shoulder or even Lady JaJa in those pics. People like watching stars, not pushers who bore the crowd to death.

TennisFan66
Jul 8th, 2010, 08:02 AM
A very large survey was done during USO 2009 (TV viewing audience) and the womens matches stacked up very well Vs mens. Near 50% split. Nit picking a couple of pictures from a couple of tournaments doesn't constitute a survey ..

If I troll the net and find some pics with empty seats for an ATP match, then we can have the same thread about the mens game?

Whitehead's Boy
Jul 8th, 2010, 08:13 AM
Sometimes stands appear to be empty but they still sell a reasonable amount of tickets. For example, the New Haven tournament would break attendance record and it always looked like the stadium was empty.

Keep in mind:
- Some people just don't show up, especially corporate tickets.
- Some people are walking around or eating, people don't stay on their seat the whole day.
- Some people are watching a match in another court.
- Some people arrived late or left early.

So it's *normal* that tennis stadium usually appear empty, except for the final.

As for tickets price, it varies a lot from tournament to tournament. Some tournaments are sort of cheap to attend (like the AO), others are outrageously expensive (like Charleston). For the number of hours you get, tennis tickets are actually generally a bargain.

But yeah, ATP tournaments are generally better attended than WTA tournaments. Just because the Wimbledon's women's final has better rating than the men's final doesn't mean women's tennis is more popular. When it concerns regular events, mens's tennis is far more popular.

TennisFan66
Jul 8th, 2010, 08:38 AM
Just a PS. The empty seats during a GS semi... You know OP, I think I can see its Wickmayer in the pic so it is likely USO 2009.

You could have done just the slightest of research into your evidence pics and you'd learn the semi in question was suffering from long term rain delays and finally played very late at night.


If you are genuinely interested, look for the large survey done during this GS.

Shepster
Jul 8th, 2010, 09:32 AM
I just don't get it :shrug:. The men have no problems filling seats, and the women have more stars :shrug:
As someone else said, depends entirely where you are. Hell, even the French Open if it was a mens or womens match it wouldn't matter, the French had their lunch, turned up late, watched Rafa then went home after his match. Next day repeat the process with Federer, beyond those two there's a laughably low interest in tennis in general there and it only kicks in at the semi finals. It was embarrassing and wasn't just for the women. I've also seen day 1 of a Masters get less people in the stands for a Murray match than Rybarikova/Kulikova did this year in Birmingham :tape::lol:

LoveFifteen
Jul 8th, 2010, 02:45 PM
So it's *normal* that tennis stadium usually appear empty, except for the final.

I would have to disagree. Certain ATP events are packed from Day One. The Legg Mason tournament in DC and the Masters in Cincinnati, for example.

The quality of women's tennis is much lower. It really stands out a lot more when you watch it live too.

babsi
Jul 8th, 2010, 02:52 PM
It would be great if you could say which tournament each picture is.

I am guessing at least one of those is from LA...I don't really need to say anymore.

And I would also guess one would be the 2nd match in a night session. After the 1st match lots and I means lots of people go. Night matches are for really for people who work and are looking for somewhere to go and just go for 1 match.

TennisFan66
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:01 PM
I would have to disagree. Certain ATP events are packed from Day One. The Legg Mason tournament in DC and the Masters in Cincinnati, for example.

The quality of women's tennis is much lower. It really stands out a lot more when you watch it live too.


Thats because your definition of quality = hard serves, hard hitting, which gives spectacular socalled winners.

So back to men Vs women physical strength. Woman cannot run 100 meters sub 10 sec. Women footballers are ... not to be disrespectful ... truly she1t compared to men. I dont watch womens football btw.

Womens handball on the other hand is as exciting and riveting as the mens. Despite I am sure any half decent team in Bundesliga would easily beat all the top national sides.

Personally, I enjoy watching women play tennis the way women plays and not some ATP womens clone. But thats just me and why I am not fussed about your perceived lack of 'quality' ..

Wimbledon9
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:12 PM
The play of the women is not very entertaining and they have small personalities.

Slutiana
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Transitional period = Sucky quality, Aging stars & faceless top players

How many times does this have to be repeated?

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:39 PM
The play of the women is not very entertaining and they have small personalities.


:spit: If that is your opinion then why are watching it?

LoveFifteen
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:41 PM
Thats because your definition of quality = hard serves, hard hitting, which gives spectacular socalled winners.

Yes, yes, my definition of quality is booming serves and hard hitting, which is why my favorite female players have been Martina Hingis and Chris Evert. :unsure:

Some of the women play great matches, but the ATP is simply doing better right now. You go watch ATP matches, and you see so much more variety and skill. It's simply a fact right now.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:41 PM
Transitional period = Sucky quality, Aging stars & faceless top players

How many times does this have to be repeated?


With Serena still collecting the Slam titles, with Kim and Justine back and reaching Slam finals, this is not a transitional period. :rolleyes:

ptkten
Jul 8th, 2010, 04:24 PM
Besides the U.S. Open semi, these are pictures from early round matches between two relatively unknown players in combined events or majors. I recognize the first picture from Indian Wells and the Azarenka one from the 1st round of the U.S. Open. Of course people at these tournaments are going to choose a men's match to watch over Suarez-Navarro-Kleybanova or Azarenka-Dulgheru. The Wozniacki semi was a unique situation where they bumped it to Louis Armstrong at the last second and no tickets had been sold to watch that match. The only people there were the very few people who decided to watch that match instead of Kim-Serena, which we know almost nobody would do.

I agree with the poster that said the WTA does well with attendance when they're held in places where people have money or resort areas like Stanford, Charleston, and San Diego. They also have decent attendance when a star is playing like Venus, Serena, or Maria. The worst is when they hold the men's and women's events back-to-back like they did in Cincinnati last year and do with Rome all the time. People aren't going to pay money for both weeks of tennis, so they just choose to go to the men's event which leaves the women's tournament with low attendance.

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Yes, yes, my definition of quality is booming serves and hard hitting, which is why my favorite female players have been Martina Hingis and Chris Evert. :unsure:

Some of the women play great matches, but the ATP is simply doing better right now. You go watch ATP matches, and you see so much more variety and skill. It's simply a fact right now.

Agree. ATP was shite during the early part of the last decade and WTA was far more interesting. Now the roles are reversed. And sometimes they're equally fun.

That's why I watch both. And, of course, on any given day you can still see some great matches between some of the women, and some horrible snoozers between some of the men.

Wiggly
Jul 8th, 2010, 04:44 PM
Well, for most of the year, people are working.

On a Monday, in April, nobody will be interested to take a day off that you could use later on during he year to watch two journeywomen battling it out in a tennis complex 45 minutes away from downtown.

Summer events are doing better, especially if they have well-known stars.
But if the Sisters, the Belgians and Sharapova aren't there, good luck.

Plus fans have the possibility to attend an ATP or a WTA event close to their home. If their budget is tight, they'll chose the best product, which is the ATP (for now).

In the past, people were saying they prefered the WTA because the rallies laster longer and it as smarter. Quite the opposite today as the game is quite "brainless", which can leads to outstanding quality when on or an horror show when off, which is 90% of the time. And pushers don't attract anybody.

Slutiana
Jul 8th, 2010, 04:50 PM
Yes, yes, my definition of quality is booming serves and hard hitting, which is why my favorite female players have been Martina Hingis and Chris Evert. :unsure:

Some of the women play great matches, but the ATP is simply doing better right now. You go watch ATP matches, and you see so much more variety and skill. It's simply a fact right now.
:hysteric: Too good.

And I definitely agree.
With Serena still collecting the Slam titles, with Kim and Justine back and reaching Slam finals, this is not a transitional period. :rolleyes:
No need to come at me with that attitude, Matthew. Serena is 28, Kimothy is 27, Justine is 28 and Venus is 30, and they plus only a select few are what's left of this great generation. They are all either inconsistent or focussing on the slams and we're just waiting for a new batch of talented young players to sieze the throne and give the tour a much-needed boost.

I wonder how long we'll have to wait.
Agree. ATP was shite during the early part of the last decade and WTA was far more interesting. Now the roles are reversed. And sometimes they're equally fun.

That's why I watch both. And, of course, on any given day you can still see some great matches between some of the women, and some horrible snoozers between some of the men.
And I agree with this too.

TennisFan66
Jul 8th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Btw here's a little something:

2009 US Open Experienced by More Fans Than Ever (hhttp://www.usopen.org/2009_us_open_experienced_by_more_fans_than_ever/)

AdeyC
Jul 8th, 2010, 07:27 PM
A lot of it depends on the venue and whether there's much home interest left (excluding Grand Slams). I used to go to the Brighton tournament in the late 70's/early 80's when Navratilova, Austin, Wade, Barker, etc, were playing and it'd be virtually full even for first/second rounds. Fast forward to the late 80's when apart from Steffi Graf, most of the top playerss didn't play there and the British women were out by the end of round one and the venue was less than half full by the middle of the week.

Shepster
Jul 8th, 2010, 08:44 PM
A lot of it depends on the venue and whether there's much home interest left (excluding Grand Slams).
...
British women were out by the end of round one and the venue was less than half full by the middle of the week.
Taking Brum as an example the early week-attendance this year *soared* and the only thing I can put it down to (because Sharapova/Li Na were there last year too) is Laura Robson (and to a much lesser degree Heather Watson). They were around for the first few days and while it didn't necessarily drop off after they lost, the interest in them is almost certainly what was getting pretty much double the people through the door on the first day.

Someone else (Whitehead's Boy) mentioned this too, but watching the livestreams this week you see lots more people come into the show court when the home person is playing (the Swedes in Bastad and Szavay in Budapest), so they are at the complex but they're just spread more evenly otherwise. Same thing happenswith Maria at Brum, when she's on centre the outer courts are smattered with a few die hards, coaches and players watching the rest before/after their matches.

hellas719
Jul 9th, 2010, 04:25 AM
There are a lot of men stars for those of us who follow ATP, too, you know.

Simple ; No Serena, Venus, or missing "Pova" shoulder or even Lady JaJa in those pics. People like watching stars, not pushers who bore the crowd to death.

There are more WTA stars/household names :shrug:. Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Jankovic, and Ivanovic for the WTA. On the ATP the only household names are Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, and Roddick. Plus Dementieva, Safina, and Kuznetsova might also be considered household names :shrug:

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 07:48 AM
There are more WTA stars/household names :shrug:. Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Jankovic, and Ivanovic for the WTA. On the ATP the only household names are Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, and Roddick. Plus Dementieva, Safina, and Kuznetsova might also be considered household names :shrug:


OP, your whole supposition is wrong.

BluSthil
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:09 PM
The talent pool is real weak, very little competition at the top, and the match time is generally short.

There are some signs of talent on the horizon. Let's hope so...

I believe that female players ought to play the best out of 5 at GS events ! The prize money is the same. Why would the guys want to play the best out of 5 ? Oh ya, they are the stronger sex...

Pops Maellard
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:33 PM
There are low crowds for women because this supposedly constitutes Top 5-level tennis. :help:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_bzAPWsR2E&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_bzAPWsR2E&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:37 PM
If they want to increase crowds, its like any other business.
Lower prices, or advertise more.
The USO has no problems, they keep raising prizemoney

tennisvideos
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:48 PM
Probably because the artistry, flair, personalities and tactics have been killed off by modern technology and big business.

In the olden days (LOL) when wooden rackets were de rigour, there was an abundance of different styles, and the girls had to use their brains to win the points - you couldn't just blast winners from the baseline. Watch an old Evert or Durr match on video ... it was like chess back then. Only Hingis from the past decade could replicate that style and be successful against the big hitters of today. And even she couldn't survive it for long.

These days most of the girls play a similar baseline bashing game (except for a few like Schiavone & Henin). So it gets a little tired watching the same style of play every match. Plus with big business and prizemoney so high a lot of players compete these days as though it is a job and not for the love of it, which was unquestioned in the pre-open era and up until the end of the 70s. These days you don't get the sense of the love of the game you had back in the golden days. Of course I am generalising here but these are some of the things that spring to my mind. I have been watching tennis since the early 70s - and these are just my observations and thoughts.

Today I prefer to watch the men play. Never in my life would I have thought that. But they seem to be able to handle the power ... I am not sure why, maybe they have the speed to run down the powerful shots more readily and keep the ball in play more. Not sure what it is, but I do enjoy the mens game more now. And that was never the case until after Hingis retired ...

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:12 PM
ShameOn and others, keep telling yourself WTA is dead ..

TV audience rallied behind U.S. Open upstart Melanie Oudin (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/11/sports/sp-sports-media11)

2009 US Open Experienced by More Fans Than Ever
(http://www.usopen.org/2009_us_open_experienced_by_more_fans_than_ever/)

WTA players like Sam Stosur, Caroline Wozniacki and recently Schiavone are continously taking TV viewing numbers to new highs ..

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:16 PM
From New Haven website:

The Series has produced record attendance, TV viewership and live broadcast hours for the sport (http://www.pilotpentennis.com/TournamentInformation/) ..

Whitehead's Boy
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:38 PM
Wait, are you saying there were better crowds during the 70s? Objectively women's tennis in the last 10 and 15 years is a far superior and more popular product than it ever was.

The question we should ask ourselves is why should we expect big crowds all the time? Tennis as a sport is not that popular, and womens sports is in general not as popular as mens sports. I think all factors considered, womens tennis is doing just fine. There are peaks of popularity, obviously.

Bonta
Jul 9th, 2010, 06:17 PM
Wait, are you saying there were better crowds during the 70s? Objectively women's tennis in the last 10 and 15 years is a far superior and more popular product than it ever was.

The question we should ask ourselves is why should we expect big crowds all the time? Tennis as a sport is not that popular, and womens sports is in general not as popular as mens sports. I think all factors considered, womens tennis is doing just fine. There are peaks of popularity, obviously.

WTA is a viable commodity these days. Billie Jean King must be proud.

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 06:49 PM
Womens tennis is by far the biggest womens sport.
But they are not going to have huge crowds at every match, every tournament.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 9th, 2010, 07:22 PM
Maybe the reason is because not ALL of us want to pay half a paycheck to see GOATrena double-bagel some unknown Russian/"other" Eastern European (Let's say "Unseededfillerova" or "Nonamewildcardeva") The competition out there isn't very good, so unless I see two of the following names - S.Williams, V.Williams, Henin, Clijsters, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Jankovich, mayyyyybe Sharapova if one of the others are on the list - It likely won't be worth the effort. Besides, the aforementioned double bagel looks just as good on my TV screen.

LightWarrior
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:25 PM
-Lack of stars being consistent at the top level these days.
-All the "OVAs" playing alike, the public is getting lost and thus indifferent.
-The Roadmap has pretty much killed the wta tour. For instance, tournaments that used to be played in Germany.

Wiggly
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:41 PM
There are more WTA stars/household names :shrug:. Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Jankovic, and Ivanovic for the WTA. On the ATP the only household names are Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, and Roddick. Plus Dementieva, Safina, and Kuznetsova might also be considered household names :shrug:

The WTA might have more "stars" but the ATP's stars have much more star power. And they're very different.

Ask anyone to name a player, 70% will say Roger or Rafael.

Sammo
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:45 PM
Because women's tennis was at its best in the early 2000's/late 90's and now it's at its worst, only boring baseline rallies that end up with unforced errors, well usually Sam Stosur's matches are more or less full of people.

Sammo
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:45 PM
The WTA might have more "stars" but the ATP's stars have much more star power. And they're very different.

Ask anyone to name a player, 70% will say Roger or Rafael.

And of those 80 % Roger and 20 % Nadal :devil:

Sammo
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:47 PM
Wait, are you saying there were better crowds during the 70s? Objectively women's tennis in the last 10 and 15 years is a far superior and more popular product than it ever was.

The question we should ask ourselves is why should we expect big crowds all the time? Tennis as a sport is not that popular, and womens sports is in general not as popular as mens sports. I think all factors considered, womens tennis is doing just fine. There are peaks of popularity, obviously.

Of course, in the 70's 25000 people watched the women's doubles final :happy:

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:51 PM
Instead of all these 'one person' claims about how poor attended womens tennis matches are, why dont you bother to actually look into real numbers first?

Then you'll see attendance is UP .. not down and that womens side is holding its own Vs men ..

Latter more than can be said about ... pretty much any other sport in the world ..

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:55 PM
I would be more worried about the men's side.
A 55% decrease in US ratings, and who says Fed and Rafa will be slam finals in a year or 2.
Could be Cilic and Berdych. Lets see those ratings