Coup Droit wrote:

---

Vandenburg wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

goldfish wrote:

---

Just came on here to catch up with comments on today's final having been out all day, only to find one very short comment from Julia. Guess no one was that bothered, same old, same old. Can't say I minded too much who won but I did expect some sort of commentary/reaction to such a tight match that I wasn't able to see myself. Guess there was too much else going on today.

---

Yeah, like England (eventually) beating the Kiwis to win the Cricket World Cup.    Couldn't be arsed to watch the tennis, since I don't particularly like Roger the Lodger or Djokovic.  That said, the former went up a bit in my estimation when he invited/paid for Evo to go & practise with him at his home in Switzerland earlier in the year.  Wouldn't have bothered with the cricket, either, had not Sky waived its exclusive rights to coverage & allowed Channel 4 to show coverage on terrestrial TV.

---

 It speaks volumes for Cricket, that the world cup final featuring ENGLAND, only  gets a tv audience of 4 million, while the Wimbledon final, featuring 2 Europeans, draws in 9 million.  The majority of people did not even know the cricket world cup was taking place. 

In 2005 after the ashes, cricket was in the limelight, even people on the street had heard of players like Flintoff, now these days it is basically Rugby League or Darts. 

---

Channel 4 had an audience of about 4.5 million for the cricket

Sky had another 4 million or so.

You've got to put the two together to get the full tv audience  

---

According to the Indy, there was a combined peak audience of 8.3 millions, which compares quite favourably with the Wimbledon peak audience of 9.6 millions.