2023 Wimbledon F: Alcaraz vs. Djokovic

[MargaretMcAleer]

Speaking of Rune, it looks like he will play Umag Open and then the Three NA HC tournaments (Canada, Cincy, and USO). I am curious to see on how he does on the three NA HC tournaments.

Rune is playing the Hopman Cup first with partner Clara Tausen starting tomorrow in Nice
Alcaraz is also playing the Hopman Cup as well, even after his Wimbledon win

 

[Vince Evert]

Men's final has resulted in biggest T V ratings for B.B.C since 2016 !

Wimbledon Coverage Breaks BBC Records – Global Bulletin​

Coverage of the iconic Wimbledon tennis tournament has led to record-breaking numbers for U.K. broadcaster BBC. There were 54.3 million streams of the BBC’s coverage on streamer iPlayer and BBC Sport online during the two-week long competition – up from 53.8 million in 2022. On BBC One, there was a peak audience of 11.3 million to watch Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz beat Serbia’s Novak Djokovic in five sets in the men’s singles finals, the highest since the U.K.’s Andy Murray won in 2016. The match was also streamed live 4.1 million times on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sport online, an increase of 58% from 2022.


During the women’s singles final, where Czech player Markéta Vondroušová triumphed over Tunisia’s Ons Jabeur, there was a peak audience of 4.5 million on BBC One – an increase from 2022’s 3.1 million. The match was streamed 1.3 million times on BBC iPlayer, an 85% increase from 2022. Across the tournament, 25.6 million watched Wimbledon on BBC TV.




Barbara Slater, director of BBC Sport, said: “It’s great to see that we have been able to meet the viewing demands of audiences, with significant increases in streaming of both the men’s and women’s finals, and a huge peak on BBC One on Sunday. We are continually committed to bringing the very best coverage of Wimbledon to audiences across the U.K., so I’m enormously proud that we have been able to do that once again this year.”

https://variety.com/2023/tv/global/wimbledon-bbc-viewership-1235672039/​

 

[Vince Evert]

and across the Atlantic, second best ratings for ESPN and ABC since 2011,

Alcaraz-Djokovic second-best Wimbledon final in 11 years​

A much-anticipated men’s final that lived up to the hype, Carlos Alcaraz’ defeat of Novak Djokovic delivered one of the largest Wimbledon audiences in the past decade.

Sunday’s Carlos Alcaraz-Novak Djokovic Wimbledon men’s final averaged a 1.7 rating and 3.20 million viewers on ESPN, trailing only Djokovic-Roger Federer in 2019 (3.83M) as the most-watched Wimbledon singles final in more than a decade — since Federer-Andy Murray in 2012 (3.93M).

Alcaraz’ five-set win increased 34% in ratings and 43% in viewership from Djokovic-Nick Kyrgios last year (1.3, 2.24M).

Encore coverage on ABC averaged a 0.6 and 948,000 later in the day.

On Saturday, Marketa Vondrousova’s win over Ons Jabeur in the women’s final averaged a 0.8 and 1.33 million — up 11% and 10% respectively from Elena Rybakina’s win over Jabeur last year (0.7, 1.21M) and the most-watched women’s final since Serena Williams’ last in 2019 (1.7, 2.44M). Encore coverage drew a 0.5 and 762,000 on ABC.

In other action, Friday’s men’s semifinals averaged a 0.6 and 891,000 on ESPN — up 34% in ratings and 38% in viewership from last year, when only one semifinal was played due to Rafael Nadal pulling out due to injury (0.41, 644K). The previous day’s women’s semifinals averaged a 0.43 (+22%) and 699,000 (+31%).

Alcaraz-Djokovic second-best Wimbledon final in 11 years

Carlos Alcaraz' defeat of Novak Djokovic delivered one of the largest Wimbledon audiences in the past decade.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

 

[Kieran]

Oh, I'm not being Wimbledon formal. Just saying, our kids are growing up!

Yeah but we’re not growing up, that’s the point! Chaz it is.

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran

no, this result doesn’t hightlight that it’s just beleif, as if anyone that thinks they can beat novak, they can.

Which nobody said..

 

[Moxie]

Which nobody said..

Honestly, I thought that last post from MikeOne was very confusing. Rather reversing himself on Alcaraz. Actually seeming to try to convince us that Alcaraz is a unique talent, which I think a few of us were trying to explain HIM earlier, rather than just some lucky fella.

Then he says some are trying to make it about age. I don't think anyone was. A few of us noted that Novak "looked" old late in that match, and he did, but i don't recall anyone suggesting that's why he lost. Still, I don't understand posters who feel that it has no bearing whatsoever, especially when the age gap is the greatest in a men's final since Conners d. Rosewall in 1974.

 

[kskate2]

Honestly, I thought that last post from MikeOne was very confusing. Rather reversing himself on Alcaraz. Actually seeming to try to convince us that Alcaraz is a unique talent, which I think a few of us were trying to explain HIM earlier, rather than just some lucky fella.

Then he says some are trying to make it about age. I don't think anyone was. A few of us noted that Novak "looked" old late in that match, and he did, but i don't recall anyone suggesting that's why he lost. Still, I don't understand posters who feel that it has no bearing whatsoever, especially when the age gap is the greatest in a men's final since Conners d. Rosewall in 1974.

It's classic fanboyism. The age factor is only relevant because he lost. If he'd won, we would never hear the end of a 36 yr old besting everyone in the field. AKA, RG. Dude was 36 last month too and ran through everybody. Now, a month later he runs through the first 6 rounds and then on the last day of the event we're supposed to believe he declined so much that he just looked old in the final?

 

[Jelenafan]

It's classic fanboyism. The age factor is only relevant because he lost. If he'd won, we would never hear the end of a 36 yr old besting everyone in the field. AKA, RG. Dude was 36 last month too and ran through everybody. Now, a month later he runs through the first 6 rounds and then on the last day of the event we're supposed to believe he declined so much that he just looked old in the final?

Novak certainly looked good manhandling the 21 year old Sinner in straight sets in the SF’s.

 

[Kieran]

Honestly, I thought that last post from MikeOne was very confusing. Rather reversing himself on Alcaraz. Actually seeming to try to convince us that Alcaraz is a unique talent, which I think a few of us were trying to explain HIM earlier, rather than just some lucky fella.

Then he says some are trying to make it about age. I don't think anyone was. A few of us noted that Novak "looked" old late in that match, and he did, but i don't recall anyone suggesting that's why he lost. Still, I don't understand posters who feel that it has no bearing whatsoever, especially when the age gap is the greatest in a men's final since Conners d. Rosewall in 1974.

Exactly. Plus he seems to think I’m saying that if you only have to believe you’ll win and you will win. That isn’t what I said. What I’m saying is that you will definitely lose if you don’t think you can win. He needs to look at the difference between Novak in 2010 and 2011. Novak became a beast in 2011, but in 2010? There was a justifiable feeling that his best was in the past.

As for Carlos being lucky, I think you mentioned above a couple of timely net cords Novak got to dig him out of shit. And yes, he looked old. Whatever he had in that bag he’s very attached to when he wanders off stage for a long and leisurely piss, it isn’t de-aging technology in terms of how he looks. I know I often compare his younger face to Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver, but now he looks like The Irishman, and again, without the de-aging technology..

 

[tented]

Who is Srdjan Djokovic? Novak Djokovic’s father slams journo for calling is son ‘LOAT’

 

[Kieran]

Who is Srdjan Djokovic? Novak Djokovic’s father slams journo for calling is son ‘LOAT’

It is quite a statistic, isn’t it? Losing 1/3 of all his slam finals. Good for him that he’s consistent!

 

[Moxie]

I suppose everyone has to weigh in on the final and this is Novak's former coach, Nikola Pilic's take. To me, it's a bit like @MikeOne's position. Basically, if Novak had played better, he wouldn't have lost.

Pilic says:

“That was not the real Novak Djokovic. It was not Novak’s day and Alcaraz himself admitted it. He could have won the second set, but he didn’t make those two backhands well [in the tiebreak] and his opponent took advantage of that.” (Editorial comment: My point would be, why shouldn't he have??)

“In the second set he completely fell, but in the fourth he got up and started playing well again. In the fifth, he made mistakes in his service and thus allowed Alcaraz to break. That was a problem in general during the match, the service movement didn’t look right.

“For example, in the [fourth round] match against [Hubert] Hurkacz, he served perfectly, and in the final, he did not make an ace for two whole sets. If only Novak had played as he knows how, he wouldn’t have lost.”

_______________

I'm sorry, but Hurkacz is no Alcaraz. As to the serving, @Kieran has questioned the low ace count, but it happened on both sides of the net, so I'd say the return of each affected the serve of the other, at least to some extent. (Other questions on that point are still up for debate.)

If find this kind of moaning that one player wasn't up to snuff on the day unbecoming, especially when it (barely) credits the player who actually DID rise to the challenge and win it. Sure, Novak is a great champion at Wimbledon, and sure we were (most of us) pretty surprised as to how it when down in the end. But to say simply, facilely, that "it wasn't the real Novak," or, "if only Novak had played as he knows how..." is cheap. Did Novak substitute in his less-talented brother? No, that was actually Djokovic playing that match. The real one. Why didn't he play better? Well, we've discussed that, too, but he didn't.

I bring it up, and give this pointless article air because I've heard it before. The 2008 Wimbledon final springs to mind, with Fedfans declaring that Roger was far from his best, (despite all accounts to the contrary, in terms of it being a great match.) The 2013 US Open final was also a source of long debate here, the argument being that Novak's resume on HC's "should" have won him that match.

No one is going to hand you a championship. You have to take it. I don't care how good you are on paper. In the men's, you have 5 sets to make it come good. I have no patience with "woulda, coulda, shoulda" for Novak in this one.

 

[Vince Evert]

here here MOX,

Now is Alcaraz going to be your next favorite when Nadal hangs up the racquet ?

 

[Moxie]

here here MOX,

Now is Alcaraz going to be your next favorite when Nadal hangs up the racquet ?

I don't think I've been coy about it. I'll be 100% Rafa until he retires, but Alcaraz is my #2.

 

[Kieran]

I suppose everyone has to weigh in on the final and this is Novak's former coach, Nikola Pilic's take. To me, it's a bit like @MikeOne's position. Basically, if Novak had played better, he wouldn't have lost.

Pilic says:

“That was not the real Novak Djokovic. It was not Novak’s day and Alcaraz himself admitted it. He could have won the second set, but he didn’t make those two backhands well [in the tiebreak] and his opponent took advantage of that.” (Editorial comment: My point would be, why shouldn't he have??)

“In the second set he completely fell, but in the fourth he got up and started playing well again. In the fifth, he made mistakes in his service and thus allowed Alcaraz to break. That was a problem in general during the match, the service movement didn’t look right.

“For example, in the [fourth round] match against [Hubert] Hurkacz, he served perfectly, and in the final, he did not make an ace for two whole sets. If only Novak had played as he knows how, he wouldn’t have lost.”

_______________

I'm sorry, but Hurkacz is no Alcaraz. As to the serving, @Kieran has questioned the low ace count, but it happened on both sides of the net, so I'd say the return of each affected the serve of the other, at least to some extent. (Other questions on that point are still up for debate.)

If find this kind of moaning that one player wasn't up to snuff on the day unbecoming, especially when it (barely) credits the player who actually DID rise to the challenge and win it. Sure, Novak is a great champion at Wimbledon, and sure we were (most of us) pretty surprised as to how it when down in the end. But to say simply, facilely, that "it wasn't the real Novak," or, "if only Novak had played as he knows how..." is cheap. Did Novak substitute in his less-talented brother? No, that was actually Djokovic playing that match. The real one. Why didn't he play better? Well, we've discussed that, too, but he didn't.

I bring it up, and give this pointless article air because I've heard it before. The 2008 Wimbledon final springs to mind, with Fedfans declaring that Roger was far from his best, (despite all accounts to the contrary, in terms of it being a great match.) The 2013 US Open final was also a source of long debate here, the argument being that Novak's resume on HC's "should" have won him that match.

No one is going to hand you a championship. You have to take it. I don't care how good you are on paper. In the men's, you have 5 sets to make it come good. I have no patience with "woulda, coulda, shoulda" for Novak in this one.

I saw the Pilic article on one of them dodgy jingoistic sports sites where the reporting seems to be done by a cheap early version of Google translate, and their knowledge of sports is distant. Pilic was described as a “tennis legend.” That was a red flag right there. It was a nationalistic rag, spewing the same nationalistic nonsense we from see a lot of Djokolytes…

 

[Jelenafan]

I suppose everyone has to weigh in on the final and this is Novak's former coach, Nikola Pilic's take. To me, it's a bit like @MikeOne's position. Basically, if Novak had played better, he wouldn't have lost.

Pilic says:

“That was not the real Novak Djokovic. It was not Novak’s day and Alcaraz himself admitted it. He could have won the second set, but he didn’t make those two backhands well [in the tiebreak] and his opponent took advantage of that.” (Editorial comment: My point would be, why shouldn't he have??)

“In the second set he completely fell, but in the fourth he got up and started playing well again. In the fifth, he made mistakes in his service and thus allowed Alcaraz to break. That was a problem in general during the match, the service movement didn’t look right.

“For example, in the [fourth round] match against [Hubert] Hurkacz, he served perfectly, and in the final, he did not make an ace for two whole sets. If only Novak had played as he knows how, he wouldn’t have lost.”

_______________

This is all so silly. Federites have previously maintained that Federer was less than at his best at the 2019 Wimbledon final vs Djokovic and yet he held 2 Championship points serving at 40-15.

At that point, if only 8 time Wimbledon Champhion Federer had played “as he knows how”, he wouldn't have lost?

I’m sure Novak fans would find THAT reasoning specious & unfair & irrelevant to the actual outcome.

 

[atttomole]

This is all so silly. Federites have previously maintained that Federer was less than at his best at the 2019 Wimbledon final vs Djokovic and yet he held 2 Championship points serving at 40-15.

At that point, if only 8 time Wimbledon Champhion Federer had played “as he knows how”, he wouldn't have lost?

I’m sure Novak fans would find THAT reasoning specious & unfair & irrelevant to the actual outcome.

Hypothetically if someone holds 2 match points, does it mean that they are playing at their best? There is no way of knowing that. The only thing we know is that Rogers squandered 2 match points, which left me incredulous.

 

[Moxie]

@Kieran, @Jelenafan: I agree that the article is silly, pointless, which I acknowledge in my post (I mean, Yahoo! Sports??) My point is that I've seen that kind of partisan argument used around here, most recently by MikeOne. I thought the Pilic quotes showed just how stupid and whiny, not to mention ungracious, it is.

 

[Jelenafan]

Hypothetically if someone holds 2 match points, does it mean that they are playing at their best? There is no way of knowing that. The only thing we know is that Rogers squandered 2 match points, which left me incredulous.

I get your point, but IMO it does indicate the player was at least playing well enough to win that particular match against that opponent.

Especially if said player got to match-point first on their own serve , because then the match is literally on their racket.

So as a tennis fan, I can certainly empathize with fans thinking their player “should have won” and being incredulous about the final result.

(ETA: just realized both the USO SF 2011 & the 2019 W final was Federer 40-15 on his serve, i think the 2010 USO SF was 15-40 Novak serving.)

I’m more forgiving if a player reaches matchpoint on the opponent’s serve, and the opponent responds with a screaming ace or service winner erasing it. Not much a player can do in that scenario.

 

[shawnbm]

Much is made of Federer losing to Novak in 2019 SW19. It had to be his greatest loss and frustrating beyond belief, but who really thought he would beat Novak back then? It was making the final that was inspiring. Him getting two championship points on his service was incredible. But, Novak got back those serves and hung tough. He deserved the title, even if Roger ought to have won if only he had hit an ace or one of his best services. It did not happen, unfortunately. But Roger did play well as did Nole, obviously.