LINCICOME: Even Venus vs. Serena is little incentive to care about Slams

By Bernie Lincicome, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press

Williams sisters Serena, left, and Venus in action during their doubles match against Anabel Medina Garrigues and Virginia Ruano Pascual at Wimbledon on Monday.

Tennis is not much on the minds of Americans these days, and to have another Williams-Williams final at Wimbledon will not change that.

It is not that the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, should not demand attention nor deserve it, but they have been around for quite a while now, and the novelty of the two of them playing for a big prize is not what it was.

Nor have they been the kind of fierce rivals that create concern, no real choosing up sides here, more a pained acceptance of duty, their enjoyment in playing each other no greater than ours.

They have always insisted there is no sibling rivalry, and it is easy to believe. It would be much more stirring if there were.

This has not been Pete Sampras vs. Andre Agassi or Martina Navratilova vs. Chris Evert or John McEnroe against the world, the kind of challenges that kept tennis, at best, just above the water line.

And yet the two of them, each alone and together, have been American tennis for the past decade, with varying levels of notice, fading and reappearing, usually when the most people were watching.

It was Venus who, as their 16th meeting approaches, asked how many other families ever produced two world-class athletes.

Well, the first name that comes to mind is Sutter, six of those boys from little Viking, Alberta, all in the NHL. Sure, that's hockey, but it must count as much as tennis.

And there were the DiMaggios, of course. Joe clearly was the best of the bunch, but Dom had a nice career and Vince was in the big leagues for 10 years. How about Cheryl and Reggie Miller?

In tennis, Chris Evert had little sister Jeanne and McEnroe had brother Patrick, not quite on the same level, of course. And not to forget the Spinks brothers, each a world champion, though they never had to meet in the ring.

So, the point is taken. Williams v. Williams could very well be the most compelling of a very short list.

Except that the matches have always been rather ragged and uninspired, Serena holding the edge by one, and the notion does linger that if there had been only one of them that the results would be much more substantial.

Of the 14 Grand Slams between them, Serena has eight and Venus six (four at Wimbledon), and that places them individually in the company of Justine Henin (seven) and Monica Seles (nine), not there with Steffi Graf (22) or Martina (18).

There is no longer the sense of authority the Williamses once held over tennis. They were seeded sixth and seventh, even with their six titles between them, indicating the tennis minds at Wimbledon at least think of them as past it.

The top seeds struggled and disappeared, opening the way for the sisters. Venus had to defeat only one seed and Serena only two.

This might very well be the last time the sisters meet, each having eased away from tennis and each exploring the variety of possibilities after the game. And what then, when they are gone?

Tennis will have no real grip on America, leaving it to the Russian women, the Sharapovas and Dementievas to sort it out.

Lindsay Davenport, likely to retire, is the next highest ranked American woman at No. 25, and there is not another in the top 60.

The male side of American tennis has long since vanished, the promise of Andy Roddick broken and no one else on the horizon. Roddick is the last American man to win a Grand Slam, the '03 U.S. Open, his only one, and James Blake, the next in line, has won none.

Beyond Roddick and Blake there is not an American man ranked in the top 40.

At this Wimbledon, no American male made it out of the first week and only one as far as the third round.

Three Spaniards were in the round of 16, a pair each from Switzerland and Russia and France and Croatia. Very likely the men's final could again come down to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, the most vital rivalry in tennis.

But caring about who wins between them is like caring who wins the European Cup in soccer.

Back here, we're used to being urged by Bud Collins, the man who scolded America into watching tennis in the first place, to join him on the last weekend for Breakfast at Wimbledon.

Not even if he picks up the check.

• July 4, 2008

  9:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SDcat writes:

  Its absurd to think that true American tennis fans are American tilted only and won't watch or care about the Slams.
  This isn't Davis Cup.
  This is Wimbledon. Player vs player, not country vs. country. We love and cheer for underdogs and the top players no matter the country. As for this year's ladies final with the Williams sisters, it will be far more interesting as both are healthy and playing their best. For all their respect towards each other off the court, both are fierce competitors on the court, siblings or not. On the mens side, this could be the end of Federer as perennial champ at Wimbledon due to Nadal's much improved grass play.

• July 6, 2008

  5:09 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SDcat writes:

  Mr. Lincicome,
  The Williams final scored highest ratings since Venus played Davenport. Can't wait to see the ratings for Nadal v. Federer today. Sure seems like Americans are interested in tennis.

  NEW YORK (AP)—The Williams sisters’ duel drew the highest preliminary television ratings for a women’s Wimbledon final in three years.

  Venus Williams’ straight-set victory over younger sister Serena on Saturday earned a 3.4 overnight rating and a 10 share on NBC, the network said Sunday. That’s up 21 percent from the 2.8/8 for last year’s meeting between Venus and Marion Bartoli.

  It’s the best rating since a 4.0/12 in 2005 for the match between Venus and Lindsay Davenport.

  The rating is the percentage watching a program among homes with televisions, and the share is the percentage tuned into the broadcast among those households with TVs on at the time. Overnight ratings measure the country’s largest markets.

• July 6, 2008

  9:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  WalterB writes:

  In the US, tennis is less popular than our major sports because it offers virtually no scandals about drugs, gambling or violence for the Lincicomes to write about. All tennis players seem to do is stay in shape and play their game well and fairly. Boring!

  BTW, both the men's and women's finals were excellent. Hope you enjoyed the Rockies game, Bernie.

• July 8, 2008

  12:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SDcat writes:

  Bernie,
  Read it and think.

  Guess you were wrong about interest in tennis of non-American players.

  NEW YORK -- Wimbledon final ratings this year? A smash.

  Sunday's daylong battle between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal gave NBC its best overnight ratings for a gentlemen's final in eight years, and the best non-U.S. final ratings since 1991.

  "Breakfast at Wimbledon" on Sunday averaged a 4.6 overnight household rating/12 share between 9 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. ET, Nielsen Media Research said. The match, delayed by rain for more than two hours, was won in epic fashion by Nadal. Nadal took home his first Wimbledon title as well as kept Federer from winning his sixth title.

  NBC Sports President Ken Schanzer said Monday that the network lost some of its audience during the rain delay but that it was only temporary.

  "The entire audience came back once they (Federer and Nadal) got back on the court. It was almost like a three-act play," Schanzer said. "The first act was Nadal. The second act was Federer. The third act was the denounement, the resolution. The drama just kept building."

  It was the best overnight rating for a men's final since 2000's Pete Sampras-Patrick Rafter (5.0/14), and up 44% compared with last year's Federer-Nadal match (3.2/9) that Federer won. The peak was 6.5/15 between 4-4:30 p.m. It also was the best overnight men's Wimbledon final since Boris Becker-Michael Stich in 1991, a 5.0/17.