Box Office Rating

We all know who's hogged 3 slams this season and grabbed a good chunk of ranking points. Djokovic is the clear number 1. He still however has a bit to learn as far as topping the Box Office ratings. He should look for an example to the two players who remain at the top of these particular ratings.

Every player entering the WTF this year had a heap of excuses they could have used if they put in a sub par performance. Also despite the huge prize money and ranking points on offer for the top players it isn't rated as highly as slams or even other tournaments.

But its billed as a big event. Lots of people have payed high prices for just 1 singles (and a doubles.. )match. Not to mention others watching on screen. Nadal and Federer always draw the biggest crowds. Watching them this week its understandable why. Both in very different circumstances managed to put on a show. Few would have left their matches feeling short changed.

Djokovic in contast looked disinterested. I'm not being critical of his standard of play. It just that he made his matches appear unimportant. Maybe to him they were. Its not the way to get to the top of the box office ratings though...

By way of an aside to the main theme of your article ........ I'm just intrigued as to exactly which of the "other tournaments" (ie other than Slams) are more highly rated than the WTF ; and more highly rated by whom ??

WTF is not finished yet. Hold your horses.

Well Novak does have the coolest picture at the O2; he'd most likely be cast in some movie as a hero of some kind in greek/roman mythology which could be a box office hit especially if it's in 3d.

I find it interesting that virtually all Nadal fans are keen to downgrade the status of the WTF and yet are quite happy to elevate the status of the Olympic games, despite the latter having virtually zero tennis history.

I wonder why that is?

The WTF is clearly the fifth most important event in the calender. Or perhaps the OP believes that tourneys like Miami, Rome, Paris etc are more important? Will anyone even remember who won those tourneys in a few years?

Just take a look at the past champs at the WTF, which include JMac, Becker, Lendl, Sampras and Federer.

Djokovic still has a petulance about him when he's not feeling perfect, he doesn't know how to deal with pressure when the opponent isn't moonballing and giving him time. Pretty much what i'd expect from a guy who impersonates those above him (jealousy?)

deleted - double post

emancipator - you could have added Agassi, Connors and Borg as past champs too ........

All the BIG names.

(although not as big as Olympics gold medallist Nicolas Massu of course....... )

lags72 wrote:emancipator - you could have added Agassi, Connors and Borg as past champs too ........

All the BIG names.

(although not as big as Olympics gold medallist Nicolas Massu of course....... )

Don't forget the great Swiss Olympic champion..

























Rosset

Ah yes - wasn't that the year the legendary Jordi Arrese took Silver .....??

Who?.. Oh I see what you mean

come on, Rosset was a decent player, last Swiss to be ranked in front of Roger Federer.

emancipator wrote:I find it interesting that virtually all Nadal fans are keen to downgrade the status of the WTF and yet are quite happy to elevate the status of the Olympic games, despite the latter having virtually zero tennis history.

I wonder why that is?

The WTF is clearly the fifth most important event in the calender. Or perhaps the OP believes that tourneys like Miami, Rome, Paris etc are more important? Will anyone even remember who won those tourneys in a few years?

Just take a look at the past champs at the WTF, which include JMac, Becker, Lendl, Sampras and Federer.

I agree with you in the main.

There is a chasm between the slams and the WTF for me though and Federer does seem to really want an Olympic gold in singles, so it must have some cache. You neglected to include Alex Corretja in your roll of honour too...

emancipator wrote:I find it interesting that virtually all Nadal fans are keen to downgrade the status of the WTF and yet are quite happy to elevate the status of the Olympic games, despite the latter having virtually zero tennis history.

I wonder why that is?

The WTF is clearly the fifth most important event in the calender. Or perhaps the OP believes that tourneys like Miami, Rome, Paris etc are more important? Will anyone even remember who won those tourneys in a few years?

Just take a look at the past champs at the WTF, which include JMac, Becker, Lendl, Sampras and Federer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely you mean Djokovic fans as he was the one who looked uninterested. It was Nadal (and Federer) who have put on a show.

Indeed.. I also missed out Borg, Connors, Agassi and Djokovic.

Not many one hit wonders there

Naughty, naughty Hawkeye. I think you know exactly what I mean. But allow me to refresh your memory.

hawkeye wrote:Also despite the huge prize money and ranking points on offer for the top players it isn't rated as highly as slams or even other tournaments

Agreed, and I also think it is 5th, albeit a distance behind the slams.

The question is will Federer fans think more of Olympic gold if their man gets a gold in singles? If he does, then it will help the prestige of it, with Nadal and Federer as previous winners, not to mention Agassi. History has to start somewhere.

Personally, as a Fed fan, in a choice between him winning the OG or the WTF, both as a one off occurrence, I would go for the WTF.

At this stage in his career, if he wins his 6th WTF and thus breaks the record, then next year I would prefer him to win the OG rather than the WTF. Just for completion.

emancipator

My article was about Box Office ratings. They can differ from the sort that Djokovic has become the clear number 1 with. The WTF rate very highly as far as Box Office ratings go.

Federer (of course) but also Nadal have probably added to their Box Office rating at this years WTF. Djokovic has probably dropped a few points...

And your point is a good one. If in 20 years time the OG roll call includes the recent greats of the game, and it remains a permanent fixture in the Games the undoubtedly the prestige and legacy associated with it will also increase.

Positively 4th Street wrote:
..............................................................................

There is a chasm between the slams and the WTF for me though and Federer does seem to really want an Olympic gold in singles, so it must have some cache. You neglected to include Alex Corretja in your roll of honour too...

I wouldn't doubt for one moment that there is a gulf between the Slams and WTF, we all agree on that I think. Bo5 + depth of entry field tells us as much

But "a chasm" ??? Is that not a touch exaggerated ....??

People have won Slams without meeting a single top ten player throughout the tournament

Something that could NEVER happen at the WTF ........ !

Olympic gold is a big one and definitely very covetable for tennis players.
First you get one or two opportunities to have a proper go only .
Secondly, just because it's a relatively new olympic sport, doesn't devalue it, on the contrary, it's another thing to win.
Most of these tennis players grew up with the Olympic games hype, which admittedly has lost a lot of it glamour and appeal.
It's seems it's a privilege for anybody but the Brits to represent their country for some reason.

Chasm and gulf are synonyms.

This is off topic but all the important stuff is won over 5 sets...

Positively 4th Street wrote:Chasm and gulf are synonyms.

Play nice. You know what he meant.

Of course he does. Just suited him to evade the point I guess, but others will see that.

Well, I do, but he did write gulf as his own view and the opportunity to be a pedant was one I found impossible to resist.

Granted, chasm was an exaggeration. The point about having to beat exclusively top-ranked guys is a valid one.

hawkeye wrote:This is off topic but all the important stuff is won over 5 sets...

Of course.. I wonder why rafa even bothers with all those masters tournaments. Maybe they should be removed from his list of achievements.

Roger, otoh, won most of his when the finals were played as BO5.

lags72 wrote:Of course he does. Just suited him to evade the point I guess, but others will see that.

I am not sure what point I was evading. I have already stated that I see the WTF as next most important after the slams, you waded in to essentially split hairs it would seem.

hawkeye wrote:This is off topic but all the important stuff is won over 5 sets...

Now you've really confused me hawkeye !

There's obviously no dispute as to the importance of the Slams.

However ..... you've yet to tell us which are the "other tournaments" that are allegedly more highly rated than the WTF, as stated in your main article. Over how many sets are they played ? And by who exactly (other than yourself) are they more highly rated ? By players ?? Fans ?? ATP ...?? ITF ??

lags72 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:This is off topic but all the important stuff is won over 5 sets...

Now you've really confused me hawkeye !

There's obviously no dispute as to the importance of the Slams.

However ..... you've yet to tell us which are the "other tournaments" that are allegedly more highly rated than the WTF, as stated in your main article. Over how many sets are they played ? And by who exactly (other than yourself) are they more highly rated ? By players ?? Fans ?? ATP ...?? ITF ??

Lags,

You could be waiting a long time for an answer to these questions.

Pos4thStreet :

Fair enough. If you rate it next after the Slams then we're in agreement on that ; perhaps I misunderstood your 'chasm' comment (although I still think it's an overly-strong word, given some of the winners in Slam history .... )

Cheers lags, I do and am glad we agree. Perhaps saying there is a clear hierarchy would have been more apt, with the slams in the first tier.