Why is everyone talking about Nadal vs Federer and not Hamilton vs Raikkonen?
Lewis Hamilton won his home Grand Prix for the first time yesterday. You might have noticed.
But while the British media often get criticised (with some justification) for the hype they lavish on Hamilton, another sports story knocked him off the front page in many newspapers.
So why did the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadar tennis final at Wimbledon relegate home hero Hamilton in the sports pages?
It’s not just in the newspapers – my daily routine brought me into contact with many people who had something to say about the tennis and not much about F1. It might seem strange to foreigners that British people were discussing the fortunes of a Spaniard and a Swiss more avidly than a British sportsman triumphing at home.
So why is this?
From a journalistic point of view I think the fact the tennis finished several hours later than the British Grand Prix has a lot to do with it. News travels faster than ever in the internet age, and editors want the freshest content on the outside pages, which do the job of selling the newspaper.
Perhaps Nadal and Federer are particularly interesting personalities. I don’t know because I’m not interested in tennis.
Also I do think sports enthusiasts often have a snobbery about motor racing. Because the car plays such a large part in an individual’s performance – especially in F1 – some consider it not a sport at all.
The over-complexity of modern F1 rules have made this worse. Qualifying used to be about who could do the fastest individual lap – now it’s about the delicate balance between fuel strategy and one-lap performance. And as we don’t know a driver’s fuel load when he qualifies, no-one really knows what’s gone on until the race has finished.
Races are made more confusing by complex and uninteresting refuelling strategies. Teams going to great lengths to keep thier rivals (and consequently the fans) in the dark about what they’re doing.
These are all obstacles that prevent F1 from being accessible to ordinary sports fans. We can point at the sheer power of a Federer serve – which hit 129mph yesterday – with ease. Yet even those of us who follow F1 with a passion can’t say for sure if Lewis Hamilton’s win yesterday was down to incredible skill, or a set-up geared towards wet weather, or somewhere between the two.
Has Formula 1 become too opaque?
chunter said on 7th July 2008, 22:37
I heard comments on US radio that the tennis was a bit overhyped, but then again, the US didn’t think tennis was that great while Sampras and Agassi were in their primes. The status quo of the United States don’t really like much of anything.
On the positive side of things, while F1 was not mentioned in the list, the same personality commented that it’s been a pretty good sports year concerning quality from a spectator’s point of view. If you figure in the Euros and F1′s three way tie, it’s been a pretty good sports year around the world.
To really answer the question, though, “athletic” sport nudges Nascar to the back of the pages in the US all the time. Motorsport is the sort of thing where a majority of its followers by-and-large don’t like other forms of sport… like tennis.
chunter said on 7th July 2008, 22:38
At time of writing, all the google ads at the top of this page are about tennis.
Nathan said on 7th July 2008, 22:49
To be honest I don’t think it’s that F1 is harder to understand than Tennis. If you go really deep into the game of tennis it gets very complex very quickly and the same can be said of Motorsport and most probably many other sports. I think the main reason Nadal-Federer is everywhere is because it had to be the best Tennis match I have ever seen – and that’s not just my opinion. It was an epic match, and unfortunately I don’t think the Grand Prix was quite as epic. But like somebody said above me, if Ferrari had put Kimi on new inters then this race could very well have reached those epic proportions.
Alianora La Canta said on 7th July 2008, 22:50
Keith, people find F1 harder to understand than tennis because they
a) are more likely to have watched and participated in tennis
b) tennis is a pretty simple game in terms of rules, while F1 is not
c) the rules stay fundamentally the same from one year to another
d) people can see when the rules are kept and when not in tennis, whereas in F1 it’s often a matter of conjecture if you’re not armed with a mass of statistics and replays from suitable angles.
Alex Andronov said on 7th July 2008, 23:11
Tennis is simpler to understand.
It was the end of perhaps the most important series (certainly to the british press).
The papers know more people watched it and are therefore interested.
Most importantly though: The tennis match yesterday was a better match than the F1 race was. Closer and more important – it was an historic passing of a torch momement. The equivelent of Alonso beating Schumacher. Nadal has waited a good number of years to do this on grass and has had to radically alter his game to do it.
It was by far the more important sporting event. And that is why it is front page news. To be fair the two British events shouldn’t be on the same weekend – and won’t be from next year. And also to be fair Hamilton is at least on on of those papers.
Toby said on 7th July 2008, 23:22
I don’t want to cause any offense, but I would see this as “women’s business”. To clarify, more men are interested in F1 than women, but tennis fans are spread much more evenly between the two sexes. Therefore more interest in the result, therefore a front and back cover spread. Imagine the pasting the papers would get if they splashed Hamilton across the front page, relegating Wimbledon to a box in the corner. The papers are just following the money thay can get from BOTH sexes.
Daniel said on 7th July 2008, 23:36
It depends on where you are. In Brazil, for example, Formula 1 is easier to understand than tennis, simply because we only had two top players until now (Maria Bueno and Gustavo Kuerten), and one of them on the late 1950s and early 1960s, so the game isn’t covered, commented or practiced so frequently down here, while motorsport, even if its harder to participate in it, is an everyday topic.
About the complexity, yes, F1 is generaly more complicated, but in some aspects, tennis is worse, for example, the entry ranking system, compared to the World Championship standings. While every Grand Prix awards the same number of points, and the series contemplates only 20 to 30 drivers, that stops and restarts counting from zero season after season, the ATP entry ranking is a complex table where tourneaments are divided in several grades of importance (Grand Slams, Masters Cup, Masters Series, International Series Gold, International Series, Challengers, Futures) and that ranks more than 1000 players at the same time, that is never “erased to start again”, since the 1970s!
Jack said on 7th July 2008, 23:37
I think it’s mainly because Nadal and Federer have had a strong rivalry over many years, whereas Hamilton and Raikkonen don’t really have much of a rivalry – Raikkonen doesn’t care.
Also it was an incredible game of tennis. Maybe it’s also to do with the difference between the two sports – the Wimbledon final was constantly full of exciting, fast play, whereas the Grand Prix only featured major incidents every 10 minutes or so, despite how good it was compared to other races.
Jack said on 7th July 2008, 23:41
Another thing is that we can see the reactions of the tennis players on court (although Federer and Nadal probably aren’t the best examples of this). Tennis has a more personal touch over F1.
Ollie said on 7th July 2008, 23:54
Keith & F1Fanatic readers:
I read this post in my feed reader, and the knee-jerk answer that came into my head was that it isn’t is F1 too opaque?, it should be for how years has F1 been too opaque?.
Then I came over to comment and started reading the comments. I read most up until #15 and then decided to comment further.
I actually think it is the title that is wrong. But I do this all the time, literally all the time on my site. I start off with a goal but as I type, the target moves and I end up talking about something ever so slightly different.
The first question Keith asks us is ‘Why are people talking about tennis and not F1?’ and the second question (as I see it, by the way) is asking if Formula One is too opaque.
Although I think Keith was hoping to relate the two, I don’t think it has worked too well. But I humbly admit, I am not one to speak having done this just about everyday of my life.
The answer to the first question has been answered by many above me. The answer to the second was answered by my re-interpretation of the question. :) <– That’s a big smile, by the way. And of course, I could be barking up a wrong tree as well. Done that many times…
Ollie said on 8th July 2008, 0:09
*for how many years has F1 been too opaque?*
Yeah, ignore my spelling and shocking grammar, ’tis late in Ollie-land.
Mike Bowen said on 8th July 2008, 0:23
Perhaps the UK has had Lewis Hamilton overkill. I am a massive F1 fan and looking forward to the BBC coverage next year more than ever because all ITV can talk about is Lewis Hamilton. It is cringe worthy to hear those morons (Allem Blundell and Brundle) taking about him, how amazing he is, what a wonderful driver he is. They are turning many fans away by the sheer bias towards him. You would swear the young kid can do no wrong.
To compare him to Senna, Prost and even Schumacher is just ridiculous in such an early stage of his career. No wonder Lewis is feeling the pressure. His head has grown too large for his body.
Going back to your original question as to why such little attention was given to the F1, and the achievements of Lewis Hamilton???
Perhaps because Wimbledon has given us such fantastic entertainment and the mens final was the best ever in the history of the game, with one great advantage over F1. It was a fight to the very end by two of the greatest players in the world.
Lewis is no where near the greatest driver in the world until he wins 7 or more world championships, and he hardly raced on Sunday, (I mean proper racing, side by side) and it definitely wasn’t the greatest British grand prix I have witnessed. (The days of Mansell, Senna and Prost or even Schumacher, Hill and Mika) would be more like it).
Fer no 65 said on 8th July 2008, 0:32
Keith… can’t belive you wrote that xP…
you said you’re not interested in tennis…
It was an historic moment. Federer won 5 consecutive times at Wimbledon, the last match he lost was in 2002…
And Nadal, the King of Clay courts, defeat him… After 5 hours and several rain delays…
Also, F1 is lacking that special thing Football or Tennis has… Grand Slams are incredible tournaments, and the high voltage of their games is incredible…
I watched Wimbledon’s finals… It’s an incredible feeling you have after 5 hours playing, that if you miss the ball you’ll loose all you have been constructing from 2 weeks ago…
It’s only difficult to explain, you just have to watch and feel it…
Wimbledon’s final yesterday was much much better than F1 best race this season (maybe)…
Fer no 65 said on 8th July 2008, 0:36
also you can’t compare Nadal-Federer with Hamilton-Raikkonen…
It’s so different.
F1 lacks that… Big emotions over the race.
I read here some people that went to Silvertone. They said the first lap was incredible, but then it was boring and they couldn’t realise what was happening…
That’s impossible with tennis… It’s emotional from beginning to end…
You’ll have to attend Wimbledon next year :P
Green Flag said on 8th July 2008, 0:38
Tennis is a far more personal sport than F1. The average person can identify with a tennis player. Most people have held a tennis racket, maybe played a passable game. Few ever get close enough to touch an F1 car, let alone drive one. With tennis, and similarly, golf, the courtside, golf course and TV audiences live each moment of joy and anguish with the players, often for hours. One hardly ever sees a driver without his helmet on, certainly never while he’s working and under pressure.
Which is why many more sports fans follow tennis and golf than F1. Roger Federer or Tiger Woods will always have a larger fan base, and get more column inches, than world champions like Senna, Schumacher and Alonso, never mind the non-champions like Hamilton.
Finalists like Federer and Nadal have to win seven tough matches just to reach the Wimbledon – or any championship – final. Not at all easy. And, most important, they do it themselves, no team help during a match, no special equipment. Tennis and golf audiences understand and appreciate this. Tiger or Federer would contend with almost any current, well made equipment. No way that Hamilton would have won yesterday in a BMW, never mind a Force India. Very few F1 drivers won races with a truly inferior car – and I don’t mean races where the major contenders DNF’d. There are really only three – Tazio Nuvolari, Stirling Moss and Michael Schumacher.
So, it’s not surprising that Wimbledon trounced Silverstone. By the way, Keith, you missed an outstanding match. Don’t miss it next year.