FanNation - The Republic of Sport

The Ram said 09/02, 10:13 AM
Absolutely.

How many of you watched the Olympics? What events did you watch? Ping Pong? Shooting? Weightlifting? Uh...no.

You watched swimming, beach volleyball and track, right? Why?

Americans.

Phelps. Kerri and Misty. The US Track team.

Would you watch Olympic Beach Volleyball if it's Zimbabwe vs. Czech Republic for the Gold? What about swimming?

Raise your hand if you would have watched a minute of cycling before Lance Armstrong or Greg LeMond.


When was the last time the general public could name the top ranked American Tennis Player? Pete Sampras' heyday? Agassi's?

It's a fact: Americans will watch Americans who kick international butt.

The sport doesn't matter. It could be tiddly-winks, lawn darts, pogo-sticking, or even tennis. If there is a strong American presence, people tune in.

Wimbledon drew 4 Million viewers the last time an American won the Men's title (2000). In the 8 "American free" finals since it has only topped 3 Million viewers once.

Every tournament experiences it. When the US Open is Federer vs. Roddick: 5.1 million tune in. Federer vs. Djokovic: 4.2 mil.

If we don't have a horse in the race we don't care.

The Ram said 09/02, 11:11 AM
"I think it's unfair to compare tennis' situation with Olympics."

Unfair? Why? Because it's horribly damaging to your argument? What about cycling and Lance Armstrong? You didn't address that evidence.


"Besides James Blake was playing Olympic tennis, did anyone care?!?!"

The TD is "strong American presence." Not "isolated American who really overachieves to get 4th."


"Of course when Agassi and Sampras were dominating there were spikes in viewership"

Thanks for agreeing with me.


"Tennis' popularity has increased alot since the 90's"

Could have fooled me.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209


Dance in your semantics all you like with junk like:

"A strong American contender is to be considered a boost in the rating and not necessarily a regular tennis viewership."

Whatever that means. Is that like saying "It depends what the definition of "is" is?

Federer vs. Nadal barely reached the LOWEST rating achieved when there was a US man in the finals. While you consider that a success, I see it as proof of failure. Were Federer and Nadal both US stars, the ratings would have been much higher.

The Ram said 09/02, 12:11 PM
Gladly.

Federer and Nadal are the closest thing we have to household names in tennis...and still no one cares as much as when Americans ruled the court. A marginal increase in ratings over the past 2-3 years (2.06 to 2.64 Million viewers for Wimbledon) is a molehill next to the mountain slope DECLINE tennis ratings have seen since Agassi and Sampras ceased to dominate.

The decline in ratings from 2000-2005 is easily attributable to Sampras and Agassi's decline. The decline in ratings from 2000-2005 coincides with Federer's rise to dominance. Must be coincidence.

Every time Sampras or Agassi appeared in a Final the ratings would spike. Whenever they were absent, ratings would plummet. The last match between Sampras and Agassi was in the US Open final in 2002, and ratings were phenomenal. The next year they dropped 44%.

Very simple question: Would American TV ratings improve if Americans were still a strong presence in mens tennis?

Based on the history of the sport, ratings for events when Americans are involved, and other tendency of EVERY other sport to see a rise in interest when Americans are involved, the only logical conclusion, is:

Yes, they would.