I hate to say I told you so, well actually lets not lie I really don't. The ratings are in fans fing love the modern game

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 8:26

First topic message reminder :

..NEW YORK (AP) -- Andy Murray's five-set victory over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final was watched by more than 16 million on TV, an increase from last year's 11.8 million and the highest total since 2007.

CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Murray's 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2 win. It was an increase of 4.4 million from Djokovic's victory against Rafael Nadal in the 2011 final and 10.3 million more than Nadal's victory over Djokovic two years ago, according to Nielsen numbers provided by the network.

The men's final was originally scheduled for Sunday but it was pushed back a day due to rain.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/more-16-million-watch-murrays-003443993--ten.html

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 18:56

Good for you but for the majority of viewers the match started well within their workday, that was the point I am making and not on a sunday like the 2007 final that you keep pointing to which occurred on a sunday. Most people get home from work here from 530 to 630 so even on the east coast most people missed the first half of the match.

by bogbrush Thu 13 Sep - 18:58

And you keep missing that the TV stats count anyone tuning in at all, not watching it through.

Do you get it yet?

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 19:08

And you seemed to miss the part that CBS and Associated press are announcing and increase of 25 percent for their high off of the high of last year. But I guess that doesn't fit into your thesis that everything is terrible and that we must do exactly as you say because you are the great and knowing prophet BB. Well it worked for moses, abraham, and mohammed maybe it will work for you. Proof is in the pudding right there, as factless and brainless as any philosphy is it is bound to find some adherents if someone keeps repeating the myth enough.

by bogbrush Thu 13 Sep - 19:35

You have a funny habit of changing tack as soon as you see you've been exposed. This line of discussion began when I addressed this comment from you;

socal1976 wrote:This for a monday final that basically played in the middle of the day for most of the country.

I told you that since 85% of the country had this reaching it's climax in mid/late evening your comment was nonsense but as usual you stick with it for a while.
Now, true to form, you want to switch to injury records, whatever else gets away from the egg

you plastered all over your own face. Laugh

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 19:42

No I am happy to talk about the ratings which CBS who actually has a vested interest in downplaying, as they pay more money for higher rated events in the next contract states that the high for Novak and Andy match was 25 percent up. Now it seems some numbers are down some are up and there are conflicting reports. But what there is no conflict if I am reading what julius has posted correctly is that the high point ratings of Murray and Novak this year is up big over the ratings last year. Now that is more limited than the post I made, but it is a positive nonethless. And certainly doesn't fit into the picture of doom and gloom you keep painting. In fact if you go online and just google "US open 2012 men's final tv ratings" you will see that vast majority of articles point to what I have been saying. Again doesn't fit in with the picture you paint but i have gotten used to your endless misrepresentations.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 13 Sep - 19:55

Aside from viewing figures though here are what the media made of it:-

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1329915-finally-andy-murray-defeats-novak-djokovic-to-win-first-grand-slam-title

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/sports/tennis/with-us-open-win-andy-murray-clears-grand-slam-hurdle.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 20:05

Not surprisingly the media reviews are glowing as well but that is another thing you won't be hearing much about on this site unless I bring it up.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 13 Sep - 20:08

socal1976 wrote:No I am happy to talk about the ratings which CBS who actually has a vested interest in downplaying,

I disagree with that part - yes, they might pay more, but so will the advertisers pay them more - and thus increase their profits.

by User 774433 Thu 13 Sep - 20:16

socal1976 wrote:Not surprisingly the media reviews are glowing as well but that is another thing you won't be hearing much about on this site unless I bring it up.

Socal I write for SportPulse (non-paid). This was my report of the final: http://www.sportpulse.net/content/andy-murray-seals-us-open-glory-4646

Now actually I thought that due to the wind, and the fact both players play similar tennis, that the quality of the match wasn't that great.

Yet in the article I have written, this doesn't seem to be what I think.
Can you figure out why?

by socal1976 Thu 13 Sep - 21:02

I understand the point you are making IMBL, but frankly it isn't just the media. The fans don't get up and give standing Os because they aren't entertained. You see it often over the course of the match. The ratings are healthy they were at the USO this year and the other one that I checked was the AO another uptick in domestic audience there as well. The attendance numbers are pretty good as well. So I am not basing just on media reviews.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri 14 Sep - 13:42

Andy Murray's five-set victory over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final was watched by more than 16 million on TV, an increase from last year's 11.8 million and the highest total since 2007.

Never knew there was 16 million Scots running around US.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri 14 Sep - 13:44

Only 11 million tuning in to watch a Nadalovic final

More proof that Murray is best for the future of tennis over the 2 boring baseliners.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 14 Sep - 13:45

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Andy Murray's five-set victory over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final was watched by more than 16 million on TV, an increase from last year's 11.8 million and the highest total since 2007.
Never knew there was 16 million Scots running around US.

by Turron Fri 14 Sep - 17:50

I found some history which some of you might find interesting - US figures only of course
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/09/u-s-open-after-low-overnights-singles-finals-finish-with-multi-year-highs/

Ratings/Viewership For U.S. Open Singles Finals Past decade
* The 2010 men’s final began on CBS and concluded on ESPN2.
The men’s final has been postponed to Monday due to rain for five consecutive years (2008-2012); the women’s final has been postponed to Sunday in four of five years (2008-09, 2011-12).

Year	Net	Winner	Rating	Viewers (000)	Net	Winner	Rating	Viewers (000)
2012	CBS	Murray	2.4	3,552	CBS	S. Williams	3.4	5,165
2011	CBS	Djokovic	2.3	3,336	CBS	Stosur	3.3	4,927
2010	CBS	Nadal	1.8	2,466	CBS	Clijsters	1.7	2,609
2010	ESPN		1.2	1,850
2009	CBS	Del Potro	2.3	3,391	ESPN2	Clijsters	1.1	1,828
2008	CBS	Federer	1.7	2,317	CBS	S. Williams	3.3	4,849
2007	CBS	Federer	3.7	5,363	CBS	Henin	2.1	3,086
2006	CBS	Federer	4.1	6,015	CBS	Sharapova	2.4	3,501
2005	CBS	Federer	4.8	7,135	CBS	Clijsters	2.7	4,056
2004	CBS	Federer	2.5	3,428	CBS	Kuznetsova	2.2	3,172
2003	CBS	Roddick	3.5	5,318	CBS	Henin	2.5	3,703
2002	CBS	Sampras	6.2	9,363	CBS	S. Williams	5.2	7,892

This doesn't seem to tell us much except that if advertisers in the US are looking for large audiences then their ad planning should focus on US interest in both the men's and the women's finals. Over 14 million viewers in 2002 with no other year coming anywhere near. Rolling Eyes

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 18:37

Great research Turron, it isn't surpirsing the most highly rated matches have featured an American man or woman in the finals. The last 5 finals have been monday's which brings the ratings down in comparison. In fact interestingly, the lowest rate of the MONDAY FINALS IN THE LAST 5 YEARS was federer's victory in 2008. Tennis in the last decade with the leaving of Agassi and Sampras went down in the US, but again as we see from the trendline of 2008 to the present we see a steady building back up of the ratings. The earlier part of the decade the numbers are stronger because you have Pete and Andre. The low point seeems to be 2008 from 2008 till today we see a pick up of over 30 PERCENT IN THE RATINGS.

Also you can't look at the early decade numbers without considering that viewing opitions went through the roof and ratings are down for most individual shows and programs. The reason being is that instead of most Americans having 100 channels to choose from now they have something like 1000 or 2000 channels to choose from.

Great research fits in to what I have been saying that tennis was way down after Sampras and Agassi left and that in the last few years however tennis is back on the uptick in interest.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 18:43

socal1976 wrote:
Great research fits in to what I have been saying that tennis was way down after Sampras and Agassi left and that in the last few years however tennis is back on the uptick in interest.

Don't make me laugh.

Maybe in America Socal, maybe in America.

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 18:51

That was exactly my point IMBL IN AMERICA, after Sampras and Agassi went down tennis went off the radar in the states fed and Nadal started to bring the interest back and despite the naysayers and their claim that when fed leaves there is no one to market the facts say different.

What the facts say is that Murray and Djokovic on A MONDAY, OUTDREW Roger Federer on a MONDAY final by nearly 40 percent. If you compare the ratings of the FIRST MONDAY FINAL IN 08 against the finals of LAST MONDAY FINAL IN 2012 YOU WILL SEE THAT RATINGS ARE 40 PERCENT HIGHER.

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 19:00

Whoops now add sportsmedia watch to the people that are saying that the ratings are up over last year honestly the only cite I have found that claims the ratings are down is the one julius cited, I am starting to think that in your research JUlius you found an outlier or a mistaken report. This sportsmedia watch cited by Turron seems to be saying like the sites I posted to that the ratings are up!

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:01

socal1976 wrote:That was exactly my point IMBL IN AMERICA,

Yes, Americans are generally very nationality oriented. They are the best in the world at American football, baseball, and basketball. I don't think they like following sports where their nation is not the best, a loss of pride maybe.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 19:03

Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began. Laugh

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:06

bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.

I would point out the blinking obvious, but I won't bother.
We all know why you're saying what you're saying.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 19:20

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.
I would point out the blinking obvious, but I won't bother.
We all know why you're saying what you're saying.

Because that's what the numbers say?

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:22

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:24

2007: Viewers: 5,363,000
Final was between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic

2008: Viewers: 2,317,000
Final was between Roger Federer and Andy Murray

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:26

Now either:
-Roger had a massive dip in popularity between 2007 and 2008.
-Djokovic was far more popular than Murray- and brought many fans to watch.
-Tennis had a massive popularity dip as whole in the US between 2007 and 2008.

Or... the blinking obvious. I can't understand how you can't see it.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 19:31

No evidence to support such a proposition.

I guess next up the numbers prove the explanation of the numbers? I can't wait...

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 14 Sep - 19:49

oh come on BB, you're usually quite reasonable (if a bit Fed-fanatic but we all have our favourites). I think it's pretty obvious what IMBL's getting at here. Anyway, here's a small hint: look at the day (of the week) the finals were played on Wink

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:52

Stats taken from 2003-2012. This is over the span of 10 years. 5 finals have been played on Sunday, 5 on Monday.

Viewing figures for finals played on Sunday (in thousands):
5,318 + 3,428 + 7,135 + 6,015 + 5,363= 27,259

Viewing figures for finals played on Monday (in thousands):
2,317 + 3,391 + 4,316 (ESPN & CBS) + 3,336 + 3,552 = 16,913

So a clear showing that the average viewing figures for Sunday finals are fare higher. An average of around 2 million more every time.
Nevertheless we can also see that the timings are spaced 2003-2007, and 2008-2012. Someone could say that the 'era' has been less popular etc. However this statement can't be backed up.
Why?
Because of the sharp decline between 2007 (Sunday final), and 2008 (Monday final). A massive decrease of more than 3 million. Now either we can say this is due to the Sunday/ Monday change, which the trend indicates, or we can say that there is a secondary factor.
However I see no reason for this to be the case. In 2008 Nadal and Federer had just played arguably the greatest match in the history of the game. The popularity of tennis did not dramatically dip. Federer played in both the 2007 and 2008 finals, his popularity did not dramatically dip. Djokovic was not far more popular than Murray- in-fact if we look at H2H Murray had a better chance of causing an upset then Djokovic did.
So the main factor is clearly the change from Sunday to Monday. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 19:55

Now I am not saying that tennis has increased in popularity with these stats, I honestly don't know whether it has or not.
Certainly we need a much larger study, with media expansion these days a lot of matches can be seen on the internet rather than TV.
However to use the US Open final viewing figures as some sort of proof, is hugely flawed, as it is very clear as I have shown the a trend in the day of the final plays a big role. Hence that evidence is hugely compromised.

by Turron Fri 14 Sep - 20:25

It Must Be Love wrote:Stats taken from 2003-2012. This is over the span of 10 years. 5 finals have been played on Sunday, 5 on Monday.

Viewing figures for finals played on Monday (in thousands):
2,317 + 3,391 + 4,316 (ESPN & CBS) + 3,336 + 3,552 = 16,913

It can't be right to add the ESPN to the CBS figures. That final began on CBS and finished on ESPN so there will be some double counting going on. That doesn't negate your argument that Monday's figures are substantially below those on Sunday.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 20:27

Turron wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Stats taken from 2003-2012. This is over the span of 10 years. 5 finals have been played on Sunday, 5 on Monday.

Viewing figures for finals played on Monday (in thousands):
2,317 + 3,391 + 4,316 (ESPN & CBS) + 3,336 + 3,552 = 16,913

It can't be right to add the ESPN to the CBS figures. That final began on CBS and finished on ESPN so there will be some double counting going on. That doesn't negate your argument that Monday's figures are substantially below those on Sunday.

Apologies, I was not sure how that worked, I don't live in America. There must have been some sort of overlap, so it's difficult to put a precise number on it.

But, you are right, that just backs up my argument even more.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 20:56

Mad for Chelsea wrote:oh come on BB, you're usually quite reasonable (if a bit Fed-fanatic but we all have our favourites). I think it's pretty obvious what IMBL's getting at here. Anyway, here's a small hint: look at the day (of the week) the finals were played on

Ssshhh!

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 21:01

bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.

More lies, omissions, and misrepresentations by BB , do you get the fact that the last 5 finals were played on Monday and not sunday like everyone keeps telling you but you act like this fact doesn't exist. Typical of the level of misrepresentation and dishonesty you have exemplified in all of your posts when having a discussion on one of my points. Maybe you are too dense and ignorant to understand that people working on monday have less time to watch TV but it doesn't seem like that fact is lost on anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size. This is a classic technique of the BB simply IGNORE THE MOST RELEVANT AND PERTINENT FACT AND COVER UP FOR HIS LACK OF LOGIC AND INTELLECT WITH SOPHMORIC JOKES that frankly aren't very funny.

Bottom line last 5 finals all on Monday, the highest rated of the last five finals Djokovic v. Murray in 2012.

And not surpursingly the 2 HIGHEST RATED FINALS INVOLVED ANDRE IN 2005 AND PETE IN 2002, EXACTLY TO MY POINT TENNIS COLLAPSED IN THE STATES WHEN THESE TWO WENT AWAY BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IT IS ON AN UPTICK.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 21:02

bogbrush wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:oh come on BB, you're usually quite reasonable (if a bit Fed-fanatic but we all have our favourites). I think it's pretty obvious what IMBL's getting at here. Anyway, here's a small hint: look at the day (of the week) the finals were played on
Ssshhh!

Good back-track Whistle

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 21:04

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.

More lies, omissions, and misrepresentations by BB , do you get the fact that the last 5 finals were played on Monday and not sunday like everyone keeps telling you but you act like this fact doesn't exist. Typical of the level of misrepresentation and dishonesty you have exemplified in all of your posts when having a discussion on one of my points. Maybe you are too dense and ignorant to understand that people working on monday have less time to watch TV but it doesn't seem like that fact is lost on anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size. This is a classic technique of the BB simply IGNORE THE MOST RELEVANT AND PERTINENT FACT AND COVER UP FOR HIS LACK OF LOGIC AND INTELLECT WITH SOPHMORIC JOKES that frankly aren't very funny.

Bottom line last 5 finals all on Monday, the highest rated of the last five finals Djokovic v. Murray in 2012.

And not surpursingly the 2 HIGHEST RATED FINALS INVOLVED ANDRE IN 2005 AND PETE IN 2002, EXACTLY TO MY POINT TENNIS COLLAPSED IN THE STATES WHEN THESE TWO WENT AWAY BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IT IS ON AN UPTICK.

Socal, this wasn't really needed.
I made a post at 7:52 PM (UK time) and BB accepted it.

You don't need capital letters, etc. to win a debate.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 21:15

But if he puts it in capitals it shows he really means it.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 21:17

Hey IMBL, what effect do you think it has to have a match last 5 hours? Viewing figures reflect the number tuning in some time, so a looooong match should get more viewers, right?

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 21:18

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.

More lies, omissions, and misrepresentations by BB , do you get the fact that the last 5 finals were played on Monday and not sunday like everyone keeps telling you but you act like this fact doesn't exist. Typical of the level of misrepresentation and dishonesty you have exemplified in all of your posts when having a discussion on one of my points. Maybe you are too dense and ignorant to understand that people working on monday have less time to watch TV but it doesn't seem like that fact is lost on anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size. This is a classic technique of the BB simply IGNORE THE MOST RELEVANT AND PERTINENT FACT AND COVER UP FOR HIS LACK OF LOGIC AND INTELLECT WITH SOPHMORIC JOKES that frankly aren't very funny.

Bottom line last 5 finals all on Monday, the highest rated of the last five finals Djokovic v. Murray in 2012.

And not surpursingly the 2 HIGHEST RATED FINALS INVOLVED ANDRE IN 2005 AND PETE IN 2002, EXACTLY TO MY POINT TENNIS COLLAPSED IN THE STATES WHEN THESE TWO WENT AWAY BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IT IS ON AN UPTICK.

I think you lack self control.

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 21:26

It Must Be Love wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Miles down on 2005-7.

In fact it all seems to have gone to the dogs as soon as the "Golden Era" began.

More lies, omissions, and misrepresentations by BB , do you get the fact that the last 5 finals were played on Monday and not sunday like everyone keeps telling you but you act like this fact doesn't exist. Typical of the level of misrepresentation and dishonesty you have exemplified in all of your posts when having a discussion on one of my points. Maybe you are too dense and ignorant to understand that people working on monday have less time to watch TV but it doesn't seem like that fact is lost on anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size. This is a classic technique of the BB simply IGNORE THE MOST RELEVANT AND PERTINENT FACT AND COVER UP FOR HIS LACK OF LOGIC AND INTELLECT WITH SOPHMORIC JOKES that frankly aren't very funny.

Bottom line last 5 finals all on Monday, the highest rated of the last five finals Djokovic v. Murray in 2012.

And not surpursingly the 2 HIGHEST RATED FINALS INVOLVED ANDRE IN 2005 AND PETE IN 2002, EXACTLY TO MY POINT TENNIS COLLAPSED IN THE STATES WHEN THESE TWO WENT AWAY BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IT IS ON AN UPTICK.

Socal, this wasn't really needed.
I made a post at 7:52 PM (UK time) and BB accepted it.

You don't need capital letters, etc. to win a debate.

Exposing BB and his lies and misrepresentations is always needed, and I CAN PUT ANYTHING I LIKE IN CAPS TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT I AM SAYING, and i choose to treat BB exactly the way he deserves. Please don't feel like you can tell me what I can and can't say to people, I like you IMBL, but this is typical of BB. MAKE A MATERIAL OMISSION AND IGNORE PERTINENT FACTS.

So tell me IMBL is BB an idiot who can't understand that people watch less TV on Monday than Sunday? Or is the alternative true that he will stop at no level of lies, misrepresentation, or ommissions to attack me and my positions? He has such spite for me that he even sided with a guy who he himself witnessed open with racial epithets at me ,the guy has it out for me which is obvious SO ILL TREAT HIM ANY WHICH WAY I FCUKING LIKE.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 21:28

bogbrush wrote:Hey IMBL, what effect do you think it has to have a match last 5 hours? Viewing figures reflect the number tuning in some time, so a looooong match should get more viewers, right?

It's difficult to say.
Firstly I must know how the viewing figures are done. How long do you have to watch the match for it to count?

Also if we have more people to watch the tele then more people will watch the tennis. If less people are free to watch it originally, then this will obviously have an impact.

But yes, you are right in saying that I think a longer match would benefit the viewing figures, as it gives a chance for people to watch it in the late evening, when the match could have been finished. So we can use it to explain why it may have had more view that the 2011 final which was also on Monday.

Nevertheless I still believe that it is unfair to put it on the same platform as a Sunday final, as we don't know how much that affects it. Would a 3 hour match on Sunday between Djokovic and Murray have similar viewing figures to a 5 hour match on Monday? It's difficult to tell.

btw you can call me Amritia thumbsup

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 21:33

Socal.. I'm not saying what you 'have' to do... you can do what you like Wink

I'm just pointing out that it's possible to win an argument, in-fact some could say even more effective, if you argue without capital letters and stuff.

Of course, it is your call, how you debate, this is a free world Wink

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 21:35

Yes what we can say for sure is that this is a 5 year high and when compared to all other Monday finals it is 40 percent increase for example the low point which was fed's final in 08 on a Monday.

Last time I checked 2.4>1.7. By the way one most also understand that TV ratings are much lower for individual shows or events on average than they have ever been. In the past people had fewer channels and modes of accessing entertainment. In the 1950s when the US had 3 TV channels the last episode of "I love Lucy" garnered 75 percent of the audience not hard when there are only 3 channels to choose from.

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 21:40

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal.. I'm not saying what you 'have' to do... you can do what you like

I'm just pointing out that it's possible to win an argument, in-fact some could say even more effective, if you argue without capital letters and stuff.

Of course, it is your call, how you debate, this is a free world

I debate people who debate me respectfully with respect. When I am convinced someone is dishonest and disrespectful than I treat them accordingly. You tell me, is MR. CEO too stupid to discern that less people watch TV Monday day than Sunday Day or will he stop at no level of lies and omissions to attack me? A material omission is legally almost as bad as an outright lie, I don't tolerate that kind of crap.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 14 Sep - 21:43

I'm feeling relaxed tonight.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Sep - 21:50

socal1976 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Socal.. I'm not saying what you 'have' to do... you can do what you like

I'm just pointing out that it's possible to win an argument, in-fact some could say even more effective, if you argue without capital letters and stuff.

Of course, it is your call, how you debate, this is a free world

I debate people who debate me respectfully with respect. When I am convinced someone is dishonest and disrespectful than I treat them accordingly. You tell me, is MR. CEO too stupid to discern that less people watch TV Monday day than Sunday Day or will he stop at no level of lies and omissions to attack me? A material omission is legally almost as bad as an outright lie, I don't tolerate that kind of crap.

OMG, you don't tolerate?

Wow, I wish I'd known that before! Yikes

by time please Fri 14 Sep - 22:17

'it is possible to win an argument'

To be quite honest amritia and socal, this is when posters become very tedious because you just don't seem to be able to accept that sometimes you have to agree to differ. Some of the most interesting threads are when you are lots of different points of view without someone hijacking it and shouting down the rest for hour upon hour, and some of the threads most likely to turn most people off are when someone gets their teeth into an argument and keeps repeating themselves ad infinitum for months on end in the misguided belief that they are 'winning' which is actually a subjective concept in this case!

by socal1976 Fri 14 Sep - 22:28

Fair enough timeplease but some people enjoy the discussion others don't. I for one second don't think I am winning, or frankly care to win, I just love the sport and I am a big fan. If people accept what I say is fine if they don't it is fine. I don't do threads to win, what exactly is it that I would be winning anyway? I talk about tennis passionately the same reason I play it 4 or 5 times a week and tolerate ice baths of my feet and chiropractic treatments on the low back to play, well because I love it.

If I get upset with certain individuals it has nothing to do with the subject matter of thread it is because I don't apporve of something much more than their tennis opinion. You can disagree with me on tennis all day and night TP has it ever gotten hostile between us?

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 22:30

time please wrote:Some of the most interesting threads are when you are lots of different points of view without someone hijacking it and shouting down the rest for hour upon hour, and some of the threads most likely to turn most people off are when someone gets their teeth into an argument and keeps repeating themselves ad infinitum for months on end in the misguided belief that they are 'winning' which is actually a subjective concept in this case!

Is this what you feel I have done?

I showed stats which showed that there were higher viewing figures for finals on Sunday compared to Monday. I also specified, in the following post, that I am not sure whether the popularity of tennis has increased or decreased, as there are many different forms of media etc. which we have to take into account.
Then Bogbrush asked me whether I agreed that having a longer match means there will be higher viewing figures, I agreed, but still felt that it is a bit unfair to compare it to another final on a Sunday.
What exactly did I win?
The only conclusion I came to us that there is no definitive conclusion on whether tennis has had an increased/decreased popularity. I don't see your point.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Sep - 22:34

Time Please, before you come with other accusations, check out my homogenisation vs variety: popularity thread.
I cover arguments for both sides of the debate, and leave the conclusion open. I guess you'll pick a fault with that too I suppose.

by time please Fri 14 Sep - 22:35

The hostility is becoming tiresome socal

IMBL - I used your phrase, quoted you directly and it is the phrase I strongly disagree with and that is clearly what I said. I then illustrated how, for me, the 'it is possible to win' behaviour becomes very tedious in practice imo.

Anyway, goodnight all - no appetite for disagreement tonight!

by Sponsored content