- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The facts on the television ratings for the 2011 Australian Open make for dismal reading. Almost as dismal as the men’s final. An average of 934,000 viewers in the five capital cities is 20 per cent down on last year’s Open, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The drop in two years is an astonishing 36 per cent.
The women’s final between Kim Clijisters, in her sweat-drenched green outfit, and Li Na, out-rated the men’s final between the personable Novak Djokovic and the dismal, muttering Andy Murray by 21 per cent.
There were 300,000 viewers more for the women’s final than for the men’s final.
The men’s final, in viewers numbers, was down 42 per cent from last year’s final between Roger Federer and Murray. A 7 spokesman, interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, said that a “combination of the vagaries of the unknowns in sports and expanding viewing options” were probably to blame for the falling number of viewers.
I take the phrase “vagaries of the unknowns in sport” to mean that there was no Federer or Nadal or the Williams sisters in the men’s and women’s finals. If this is what he meant, the figures of last year’s men’s final, which involved Federer, suggests that there is some truth in the statement.
Some truth, but not the whole truth.
I would argue that there are a number of other factors that tend to make tennis hard to watch on television right now.
There is the air pollution of the shrieking and grunting of many of the leading female players. There are rules that would allow the umpires to shut up the grunters. But the authorities are so fearful of the celebrity players (who make up the majority of the grunters) that they refuse to do anything to stop this hideous practice.
The senseless on-court grunting is matched with the equally senseless match commentaries. Jim Courier and Sandy Roberts, in particular, tend to drive a viewer to distraction with their banalities.
Lleyton Hewitt was a breath of fresh air. John Alexander was missed. And why Channel 7 don’t make John Newcombe and Fred Stolle an offer they can’t refuse to do the main commentary is beyond me.
Then there are all the little things that happen on court, like the incessant ball bouncing before serves by players like Djokovic. I counted 13 bounces before a ball toss on one point before switching off in frustration and turning on the radio to listen to a commentary.
Multiply the number of bounces with the number of serves and you get so many bounces (over a 1000 in a long match) that counting sheep becomes supplanted as a fail-safe way of putting yourself to sleep.
Finally, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are to tennis what Tiger Woods was (past tense) to golf. They are magic doing what they do, absolutely watchable in their different ways.
Their presence was sorely missed in the final.
Nadal, the Gene Kelly of tennis, so relentless, courageous, athletic, energetic and powerful, and Federer, the Fred Astaire of tennis, effortlessly brilliant, suave, thoughtful and stylish. Both of them are totally watchable stars.
Djokovic and Murray are nowhere in the same class of watchability.
Djokovic has his incessant ball-bouncing and Murray must be the most lacklustre, boring and unwatchable top 10 player ever, with his mutterings and continual hang-dog look.
If he is finding it all too much to enjoy himself, we can’t be surprised that the viewers decided the same thing too by turning off their television sets in droves.