Fed's Slam Window Shut

[Moxie]

^ The public may "lag" but they buy the tickets and watch the advertising. I'd say, between the final they got, and putting it when they did on a Monday, the USOpen got the rating disaster they deserved.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

Some serious tennis fans might want to see new finalists/winners, but it doesn't appear the public at large does. The ratings for the men's final "drew just a 1.9 overnight rating, down 32 percent from Rafael Nadal’s win over Novak Djokovic last year, reports Sports Business Daily. It was also less than half the 4.0 rating drawn by the women’s final between Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki, played on Sunday."

The public wants at least one of "those guys."

Public at large will change their choices too. They always do, but always are lagging.

This is true but it's not really that simple. Yes, sooner or later people will have to accept change, but if you look at any sport, people always prefer dominance and stability. There's a reason why Ali, Tyson and Mayweather were/are such draws in boxing, and there's a reason boxing goes through "dead phases" on PPV when there is a lack of stars. There's also a reason why Michael Jordan is arguably the most popular athlete in the history of the US, and the NBA struggled to fill his void for a while, until other true superstars emerged. You can say the same about the post Sampras/pre-Federer era in tennis.

If in a couple of years, Federer is completely too old to win anything and Nadal is broken down by injuries, make no mistake about it, tennis WILL struggle as far as marketing and popularity.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

Some serious tennis fans might want to see new finalists/winners, but it doesn't appear the public at large does. The ratings for the men's final "drew just a 1.9 overnight rating, down 32 percent from Rafael Nadal’s win over Novak Djokovic last year, reports Sports Business Daily. It was also less than half the 4.0 rating drawn by the women’s final between Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki, played on Sunday."

The public wants at least one of "those guys."

Public at large will change their choices too. They always do, but always are lagging.

This is true but it's not really that simple. Yes, sooner or later people will have to accept change, but if you look at any sport, people always prefer dominance and stability. There's a reason why Ali, Tyson and Mayweather were/are such draws in boxing, and there's a reason boxing goes through "dead phases" on PPV when there is a lack of stars. There's also a reason why Michael Jordan is arguably the most popular athlete in the history of the US, and the NBA struggled to fill his void for a while, until other true superstars emerged. You can say the same about the post Sampras/pre-Federer era in tennis.

If in a couple of years, Federer is completely too old to win anything and Nadal is broken down by injuries, make no mistake about it, tennis WILL struggle as far as marketing and popularity.

Good points BS.. The biggest fan draw on the tour are the Williams sisters, Rafael Nadal and Federer, not in that order. It has been that way for almost 10 years or more in regards to Venus and Serena..I remember meeting Roger back in Indy walking around the grounds of the RCA tournament in Indy, who would have ever known he would become Fed.

 

[Federberg]

This is true but it's not really that simple. Yes, sooner or later people will have to accept change, but if you look at any sport, people always prefer dominance and stability. There's a reason why Ali, Tyson and Mayweather were/are such draws in boxing, and there's a reason boxing goes through "dead phases" on PPV when there is a lack of stars. There's also a reason why Michael Jordan is arguably the most popular athlete in the history of the US, and the NBA struggled to fill his void for a while, until other true superstars emerged.

More popular than the Babe? Surprising..

 

[jhar26]

Was it really that boring seeing the same guys winning everything? I honestly never thought so. For starters, they were 4 guys. That's already plenty.

And not just any 4 guys: two of the all-time greats, and two who have already done more than enough to guarantee their entry into the Hall of Fame.

Would these people have said the same thing when, say, Borg was winning Wimbledon and RG so often? The mid- to late-70's are viewed as a golden era, yet I don't recall anyone criticizing it for having such dominant players (Connors, McEnroe), including another all-time great (Borg).

Some serious tennis fans might want to see new finalists/winners, but it doesn't appear the public at large does. The ratings for the men's final "drew just a 1.9 overnight rating, down 32 percent from Rafael Nadal’s win over Novak Djokovic last year, reports Sports Business Daily. It was also less than half the 4.0 rating drawn by the women’s final between Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki, played on Sunday."

The public wants at least one of "those guys."

Public at large will change their choices too. They always do, but always are lagging.

This is true but it's not really that simple. Yes, sooner or later people will have to accept change, but if you look at any sport, people always prefer dominance and stability. There's a reason why Ali, Tyson and Mayweather were/are such draws in boxing, and there's a reason boxing goes through "dead phases" on PPV when there is a lack of stars. There's also a reason why Michael Jordan is arguably the most popular athlete in the history of the US, and the NBA struggled to fill his void for a while, until other true superstars emerged. You can say the same about the post Sampras/pre-Federer era in tennis.

If in a couple of years, Federer is completely too old to win anything and Nadal is broken down by injuries, make no mistake about it, tennis WILL struggle as far as marketing and popularity.

The blame for much of that must go to the media and even to tennis fans themselves though. Take for example the womens semis at the FO this year. For the Sharapova semi there was a full stadium. For the Halep semi it was half empty. How is that possible? Because the media hadn't bothered to inform the massses that Halep was a sensational new star who had won six tournaments in eight months. She was a top three player but to the masses she was just a complete unknown who had fluked her way to a slam semi. On the other hand, when the media DO give a newcomer some attention like they have done with Bouchard fans call that player "overhyped" and not worthy of the attention he or she is getting. Well, I'm sorry, but people can't have it both ways. If every single story out there has to be about Williams, Sharapova and the big four on the mens side they musn't be surprised that the masses are completely clueless about anyone else. Much of it also has to do with tennis fans' slam-fetish. Once you have won a slam you're a genius, but when you haven't you're just a scrub, and there's not much middle ground.

Boxing's struggles are self inflicted. Exactly how many weight divisions are there now in boxing? And each division has it's WBA, WBO, WBC, IBF, IBO, NRA, IRA, CIA, FBI and PLO "champion of the wooooorld!" There used to be a time when there were just eight weight divisions and every boxing fan knew who was champ in what division. But I challenge anyone to tell me who the current IBO super lightweight champ is. It's a complete mess, like having ten FO and Wimbledon champs who all refuse to play each other in case they would lose and could no longer claim to be better than that other bum who has one of the alphabet belts.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not sure it's the media's fault. In fact I'm certain it's not. You have to blame the ATP or WTA for that. It is THEIR responsibility to market their product (the players) as best they can. If they don't do it properly it's no one elses fault, not the media or fans.

 

[jhar26]

^I'm not sure it's the media's fault. In fact I'm certain it's not. You have to blame the ATP or WTA for that. It is THEIR responsibility to market their product (the players) as best they can. If they don't do it properly it's no one elses fault, not the media or fans.

Well, the media should be able to figure out for themselves that, say, Raonic and Halep are good players worthy of a story or two (or three or four). They shouldn't need the ATP or WTA to tell them that. And fans shouldn't cry "hype" whenever the ATP or WTA put a player not named Federer, Nadal, Williams or Sharapova on the frontPage of their website.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not sure it's the media's fault. In fact I'm certain it's not. You have to blame the ATP or WTA for that. It is THEIR responsibility to market their product (the players) as best they can. If they don't do it properly it's no one elses fault, not the media or fans.

Well, the media should be able to figure out for themselves that, say, Raonic and Halep are good players worthy of a story or two (or three or four). They shouldn't need the ATP or WTA to tell them that. And fans shouldn't cry "hype" whenever the ATP or WTA put a player not named Federer, Nadal, Williams or Sharapova on the frontPage of their website.

In my view it's about entertainment. The tennis authorities are trying to sell a product, which competes in various markets against other sports and tv entertainment. They need to come up with a narrative which captivates the public. If they do their job properly then the media will follow. At the end of the day the media will only make the effort if there's something in it for them. Tennis has no god given right to captivate our attention

 

[jhar26]

^I'm not sure it's the media's fault. In fact I'm certain it's not. You have to blame the ATP or WTA for that. It is THEIR responsibility to market their product (the players) as best they can. If they don't do it properly it's no one elses fault, not the media or fans.

Well, the media should be able to figure out for themselves that, say, Raonic and Halep are good players worthy of a story or two (or three or four). They shouldn't need the ATP or WTA to tell them that. And fans shouldn't cry "hype" whenever the ATP or WTA put a player not named Federer, Nadal, Williams or Sharapova on the frontPage of their website.

In my view it's about entertainment. The tennis authorities are trying to sell a product, which competes in various markets against other sports and tv entertainment. They need to come up with a narrative which captivates the public. If they do their job properly then the media will follow. At the end of the day the media will only make the effort if there's something in it for them. Tennis has no god given right to captivate our attention

True. But tennis needs some back up stories besides the main narrative that the public is aware off. What will we be left with once the big four retire or start to peddle backwards? The big zero if the public isn't being made aware of the fact that there are other players out there who can also play some good ball.

 

[brokenshoelace]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

 

[jhar26]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

If you are a top 10 player in a sport with worldwide popularity I'd call that very impressive. It doesn't make you Federer, but Rooney isn't Messi either but people nevertheless know who he is. I think it's healthy for a sport to not just be dependent on a few people, because if they all of a sudden start to mess up or retire, what then?

 

[Federberg]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

Totally agree with this. The marketing only has credibility when the product is of decent quality

 

[brokenshoelace]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

If you are a top 10 player in a sport with worldwide popularity I'd call that very impressive. It doesn't make you Federer, but Rooney isn't Messi either but people nevertheless know who he is. I think it's healthy for a sport to not just be dependent on a few people, because if they all of a sudden start to mess up or retire, what then?

It's very impressive from a pure sport standpoint, absolutely. But that alone is not going to put butts in seats.

I'd be wary of Soccer comparisons because the sport on the whole is so much more popular that it never really hinges on a few people. Not to mention, it's a team sport. People will root for their teams and tune in to watch them. Sure, superstars help, and the likes of Messi and Ronaldo absolutely help maintain its popularity, but Soccer will always be popular.

Tennis, being an individual sport, is far more dependent on specific athletes. Yes, it of course is more healthy for the sport (any sport, really) not to be so heavily reliant on a few people, but that seldom is the case in individual sports.

 

[jhar26]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

Totally agree with this. The marketing only has credibility when the product is of decent quality

And only the big four are decent quality? :huh:

 

[Federberg]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

If you are a top 10 player in a sport with worldwide popularity I'd call that very impressive. It doesn't make you Federer, but Rooney isn't Messi either but people nevertheless know who he is. I think it's healthy for a sport to not just be dependent on a few people, because if they all of a sudden start to mess up or retire, what then?

I agree on the dependence issue. The difference with football is that fans follow teams, whether national or club. And that, along with player performance, drives player popularity. In tennis, 2 things need to happen... 1, marketing for tennis in general ,2, player self marketing

But as BS points out if the product is rubbish, that's really tough to do. But certainly the onus is not on the media to make it happen. Tennis has to be responsible for how it's perceived

 

[Federberg]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

Totally agree with this. The marketing only has credibility when the product is of decent quality

And only the big four are decent quality? :huh:

No no. That's not what I'm saying. But clearly the ATP has been resting on their laurels because they have these 4 great players. Clearly that goes up in smoke if at least one of them doesn't make a major final. You can understand why they were complacent. The fact is.. the big 4 can handle their own product penetration. The public's imagination has already been ignited. The ATP should have been doing another "New balls please" type campaign to bring the likes of Dimi, Kei et al to the publics attention. I don't recall seeing any campaign by the ATP to increase public familiarity with the next generation. Obviously there's no guarantee they would have focused on the right players. But I haven't even seen any marketing on the wrong players!

 

[jhar26]

All the marketing in the world means nothing without the results to back it up. It's not like guys like Raonic or Dimitrov would be mega stars by now had they been marketed property. They just haven't been winning.

If you are a top 10 player in a sport with worldwide popularity I'd call that very impressive. It doesn't make you Federer, but Rooney isn't Messi either but people nevertheless know who he is. I think it's healthy for a sport to not just be dependent on a few people, because if they all of a sudden start to mess up or retire, what then?

It's very impressive from a pure sport standpoint, absolutely. But that alone is not going to put butts in seats.

I'd be wary of Soccer comparisons because the sport on the whole is so much more popular that it never really hinges on a few people. Not to mention, it's a team sport. People will root for their teams and tune in to watch them. Sure, superstars help, and the likes of Messi and Ronaldo absolutely help maintain its popularity, but Soccer will always be popular.

Tennis, being an individual sport, is far more dependent on specific athletes. Yes, it of course is more healthy for the sport (any sport, really) not to be so heavily reliant on a few people, but that seldom is the case in individual sports.

I understand what you're saying and partly even agree with it. But to get back to my earler example. The stadium at the FO being full for the Sharapova semi and half empti for the Halep semi. Or at the USO - How many top matches between quality players from both tours in the latter stages of the tournament were there played for a disappointing number of fans? I find that unacceptable really. That is, part of me understands it, but it also means that the fanbase for tennis (as opposed to that of this or that player) as a sport is rather limited.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I like the occasional surprise slam finalist. For example Soderling vs. Nadal 2010 French Open final was an extremely exciting situation. It was straight sets but the hype was huge.
And now that Wawrinka has beaten Nadal at Australia, their next slam final will be huge :clap

 

[herios]

I like the occasional surprise slam finalist. For example Soderling vs. Nadal 2010 French Open final was an extremely exciting situation. It was straight sets but the hype was huge.
And now that Wawrinka has beaten Nadal at Australia, their next slam final will be huge :clap

There is no guarantee they will meet in a slam again, never mind in a final.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I like the occasional surprise slam finalist. For example Soderling vs. Nadal 2010 French Open final was an extremely exciting situation. It was straight sets but the hype was huge.
And now that Wawrinka has beaten Nadal at Australia, their next slam final will be huge :clap

There is no guarantee they will meet in a slam again, never mind in a final.

Exactly, and that's what makes the less expected final match-ups most exciting :grin:
We've already seen all that Nadjokovic has to offer.
Now its time for more Nadrinka and others.