Emma Raducanu brings in record TV audience in Sabalenka Wimbledon loss as BBC viewing figures revealed
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
MORE than five million people tuned in to watch Emma Raducanu's incredible Wimbledon battle with Aryna Sabalenka on Friday night.
Located in a prime time slot on BBC One, the match received the Beeb's third-highest ratings for any non-final contest in the last three years, and the most of the this tournament so far.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
5
Emma Raducanu's battle with Aryna Sabalenka was watched by more than five million people
Credit: Shutterstock Editorial
The enthralling contest, which saw world No1 Sabalenka narrowly beat British favourite Raducanu 7-6 6-4, was watched by a peak audience of 5.32 million.
Raducanu's brilliant third round effort also received more than 1.2 million streaming requests on BBC iPlayer.
The most watched non-final match of the last four years at Wimbledon was Raducanu's fourth round with Lulu Sun last year, which peaked at 5.47 million viewers.
Second was Andy Murray's battle with John Isner back in 2022, which peaked at 5.34 million.
READ MORE WIMBLEDON
Wimbledon 2025 British duo Kartal and Norrie eye quarters as Fritz & Alcaraz also feature
This year's tournament has already been a smash hit with viewers watching at home.
Across the first five days of the tournament, the BBC received more than 31 million online streaming requests.
This was a more than 50 per cent increase on last year's numbers.
Raducanu's three matches drew incredible interest from British fans, with Friday night in particular played in front of a raucous Centre Court crowd.
BEST ONLINE CASINOS - TOP SITES IN THE UK
5
Andy Murray's 2022 battle with John Isner was also a smash hit with viewers
Credit: The Times
5
Raducanu was beaten by Lulu Sun in front of a huge TV audience last year
Credit: The Times
Fans have also been enamoured by matches involving fellow Brits Sonay Kartal and Cameron Norrie - as well as former champions Carlos Alcaraz and of course, Novak Djokovic.
Raducanu took the positives from her defeat on Friday night, even though she was naturally disappointed.
Carlos Alcaraz claims he 'will do whatever she wants me to do' in revealing Emma Raducanu interview after Wimbledon win
The British No1 said: "It does give me confidence because I think the problem before was that I felt like I was gulfs away from the very top.
"Having a match like that where I had chances in both sets, it does give me confidence.
"At the same time, it's very difficult to take right now."
After the match, Sabalenka tipped Raducanu to return to the top 10.
5
Wimbledon 2025 LIVE - follow all the latest scores and updates from a thrilling fortnight at SW19
Expanding on that assessment during her press conference, the Belarusian added: "I cannot predict anything, but I'm definitely sure that, maybe not in a month, but maybe a bit longer period, she's definitely going to get back to the top.
"She's fighting. She's playing much better. She's more consistent. I can see that mentally she's healthy. I think that's really important. I'm pretty sure she's getting there.
"About the atmosphere… sometimes my ears were really blocked from how loud it was, but I really enjoyed it.
"I was trying to trick my brain, and I was pretending that people were cheering for me. Sometimes when they were screaming 'Emma', it sounded like Aryna."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Cameron Norrie sets up Carlos Alcaraz clash after sportsmanship spat
There have been bigger wins against better opponents during his career, but Cameron Norrie's Wimbledon fourth-round victory on Sunday ranked as one of his most satisfying triumphs. The last British singles player standing at the All England Club this year withstood a barrage of 103 winners from the racket of Chile's Nicolás Jarry to prevail 6-3, 7-6 (7-4), 6-7 (7-9), 6-7 (5-7), 6-3. At four hours and 27 minutes, it is the longest match the 29-year-old Norrie has ever contested. Norrie, ranked No61 in the world, was exceptional in the way he maintained his focus for an extended period of time as there was much to overcome. The pinpoint serving of the 6ft 7in Jarry produced a total of 46 aces, not only making it challenging to break but also putting greater importance on Norrie's own service holds. Jarry added to the drama by making complaints about Norrie's sportsmanship. First he complained about the length of time Norrie was taking to bounce the ball before his second serve, and even imitated it to make his point clear. After the match Jarry then confronted Norrie by the side of the court to air another grievance about his constant fist pumping and shouts of 'Come on'. The vast majority of the 12,000-capacity crowd on No1 Court unsurprisingly rallied behind the home player and booed Jarry in response. 'He said I was a little bit vocal but that is my energy,' Norrie said. 'I told him he competed so well and it was a great match. 'I wanted to take my time on the second serve and making sure that I'm getting myself ready to set. I actually didn't even notice he was upset with that. I don't want to rush into it and hit a quick double fault. If I'm hitting a second serve, I have to be ready for sure.' Jarry said: 'He's very competitive, so he knows how to make the most of the important games and the important parts of the match.' Another test of Norrie's resilience came in the final two sets. In the third-set tie-break he had a match point for a straight-sets victory but failed to convert and was kept out on court for another two hours as Jarry launched a stirring fightback. The relief was evident at the end when Norrie fell to the court and rolled on to his back in celebration. Three years after reaching the semi-finals here, he has become only the fourth Briton to reach a Wimbledon men's singles quarter-final on multiple occasions in the open era, joining Andy Murray, Tim Henman and Roger Taylor. 'Honestly I don't know how I did that [winning],' Norrie said. 'Credit to Nico. He did an unbelievable job. He played better than me in both tie-breaks [that he lost]. I had to keep fighting.' Centre Court now awaits for Norrie on Tuesday. He had specifically requested a return to No1 Court on Sunday because of his preference for the more feverish atmosphere and the closer position of his coaching box. There is no way, though, that his quarter-final against Carlos Alcaraz can be anywhere other than the main stadium. Norrie leaves No1 Court with fond memories of beating a formidable opponent. Jarry may have come through qualifying with a world ranking of No143, but the 29-year-old made for quite a challenge as someone whose career-high was No16. The reason for his fall down the rankings was the diagnosis of an inner ear disorder, vestibular neuritis, which made it difficult for him to play with the effects of dizziness, vertigo and loss of balance. Well aware that this was going to be a match in which dips of concentration on his serve would be punished, Norrie was mightily relieved in the opening game to save a break point. From there it was an efficient set, with Norrie remaining steady in all facets of his play before having his patience rewarded with a key break for 5-3. More of the same followed in the second set, with Norrie taking his opportunity when the moment came with a backhand cross-court winner on his first set point at 6-4 in the tie-break. At this point Jarry decided to raise a complaint with the umpire Eva Asderaki about Norrie's slow ball bouncing — well within the rules before a second serve as the 25-second limit is only in place before the first serve — and then did the same himself minutes later. The first match point for Norrie came in the third-set tie-break at 6-5, but a bold and brave series of attacking shots paid off for Jarry as he stole the set at 8-7 with a forehand winner. Norrie then let slip another lead in the fourth-set tie-break by losing five of the next six points to be dragged into a fifth set. Norrie remained steadfast despite the setbacks and finally claimed a long-awaited second break of serve for 2-0, the first in the match for either player since the eighth game of the first set. It helped that it was partly gifted through a double fault and an unforced backhand error by Jarry. One break was enough for Norrie to go on and see out the victory, continuing an unexpected turnaround for him on the court this summer. He arrived at the Geneva Open seven weeks ago for qualifying because his ranking was too low for direct entry at No91. Since then he has reached the last 16 of the French Open and now the last eight of Wimbledon, rising to a projected ranking of No43. 'At the beginning of this year, I struggled with confidence,' Norrie said. 'I want to enjoy my tennis more and I'm doing that. It is a bonus to win but enjoying it is what matters. I am so happy to be in another quarter-final in the best tournament in the world.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Brits humiliated as 'simple' maths question for children leaves adults stumped
A seemingly simple maths question designed for children has left swathes of adults struggling to work out the answer - with some saying it 'hurts their head' to think about it Swathes of Brits have been left red-faced after failing to solve this 'simple' children's maths puzzle. Brainteasers like this may seem like just a little bit of fun, but they're actually a great form of mental exercise. There has even been some research published that suggests regularly solving puzzles like this one can actually help improve your concentration levels and better your attention span. They're also a great way to spice up your morning commute, and can keep the kids quiet for a couple of minutes while you try to get dinner sorted in peace. However, this particular brainteaser is leaving fully grown adults rather humiliated - as they just can't manage to solve it. Admit it, we've all been stumped by a maths question that seems like child's play for our kids but leaves us scratching our heads. With many mathematical concepts gathering dust in the recesses of our memories, it's no surprise we're left baffled by puzzles meant to be easy-peasy. And this crafty conundrum is causing quite the stir online. The brainteaser spread like wildfire on social media, with some folks even claiming it bamboozled their brains so much it 'hurt'. As previously reported, the brainteaser made its rounds on X (formerly Twitter) courtesy of @yawdmontweet, who asked: "What is the closest time to midnight?" You have four choices to pick from: A. 11:55 am B. 12:06 am C. 11:50 am D. 12:03 am While the answer might leap out at you, the replies under the viral post were a mix of confusion and debate. A large chunk of the commenters landed on A, figuring it's the one closest to midnight approaching. A baffled user declared: "It says closest 'to' midnight. And not 'from' Midnight. Stop overcomplicating everything. The answer is A." Another pointed out: "It says closest TO midnight ... not after midnight. A," while a third added: "Would have to be A. Time cannot go in reverse so the fact that B and D are after midnight means they can't be the answer." But others quickly shot down this theory, arguing that the question was simply asking which time was 'closest' to midnight, regardless of whether it came before or after it, leading them to insist that the correct answer would be D, 12:03 am. One person argued: "Y'all are getting me f***ing mad now. If you call an airline and ask for the closest flight to midnight possible and they put you on an 11:55 am flight instead of a few minutes past midnight, you would be frigging furious. Maths is supposed to be practical." Support came from another who said: "How y'all saying 'to' not 'after'. If you have to work at midnight and you're running late, and you tell the boss 'I'll get there as close to the time as possible' which of these is that?". Someone else jumped in to clarify: "The question speaks to proximity and not chronology, so the answer is D," while yet another stated firmly: "Clearly a lot of children have been left behind. The answer is D! 'To' just means closest to the time itself, not insinuating that it's necessarily before midnight." Up for another mental workout? Check out our collection of tricky brainteasers, riddles, and puzzles here. Or, learn more about your hidden personality traits with these mind-boggling optical illusions.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Wimbledon says a call on a shot that landed out was missed because the electronic system was off
A ball that clearly landed long in a match at Centre Court wasn't called out Sunday because the electronic system that replaced line judges at Wimbledon this year accidentally was shut off for three points. And, because the replay review procedure that used to be in place also has been scrapped, the chair umpire called for a do-over on the point at 4-all in the first set — much to the dismay of Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, the player who would have won the game if the proper call had been made originally. Pavlyuchenkova wound up getting broken there to trail Sonay Kartal of Britain, but she eventually did manage to come back to win the match 7-6 (3), 6-4 and reach the quarterfinals at the All England Club for the first time since 2016. 'You took the game away from me,' 2021 French Open runner-up Pavlyuchenkova told chair umpire Nico Helwerth at the changeover after the game ended. Pavlyuchenkova, who is Russian, also said in the moment that the decision-making there went in Kartal's favor because she is a local player. Next for Pavlyuchenkova is a match against No. 13 Amanda Anisimova of the United States, a 6-2, 5-7, 6-4 winner against No. 30 Linda Noskova on Sunday night. Anisimova also was a Wimbledon quarterfinalist in 2022; her best Slam showing was making the 2019 French Open semifinals at age 17. At her news conference, Pavlyuchenkova said Helwerth told her following the match that he did think Kartal's shot landed out. 'I think he felt bad, a little bit,' Pavlyuchenkova said. 'He probably felt like he should have taken the initiative and called it out.' Pavlyuchenkova also said Helwerth 'probably was scared to take such a big decision.' Pavlyuchenkova was serving and had a game point when Kartal hit a backhand that landed beyond the opposite baseline, TV replays showed. But there was no sound of one of the recorded voices being used for the first time at Wimbledon to reflect when the technology being used in place of human officials determines that a ball landed out. At least Pavlyuchenkova could joke about the whole episode later. Asked how she'd feel about it had she lost the match, Pavlyuchenkova responded with a laugh: 'I would just say that I hate Wimbledon and never come back.' She also cracked that chair umpires are 'very good at giving fines and code violations' and never miss those, but perhaps it would be beneficial if they did a better job of noticing mistaken calls. Kartal said she couldn't see where her shot went. 'That situation is a rarity. I don't think it's really ever happened — if it has. It's tough. What can you do? The umpire's trying his best in that situation, and he handled it fine,' Kartal said. 'I think the system just malfunctioned a little bit, and the fairest way was what he did: replay the point.' Helwerth delayed play while he made a phone call from his stand. Eventually, play resumed, Pavlyuchenkova missed a forehand on the replay, then lost the game a few points later. The tournament looked into it afterward and blamed 'human error,' saying that the line-calling setup 'was deactivated in error on part of the server's side of the court for one game by those operating the system,' according to an All England Club spokesperson, who added: 'We continue to have full confidence in the accuracy of the ball-tracking technology.' The spokesperson also said Pavlyuchenkova and Kartal received apologies from the club. The French Open is now the only Grand Slam tournament that still uses line judges instead of electronic calls. From 2007 through last year, players were allowed to challenge in-or-out calls at Wimbledon; a video review was employed to decide whether a line judge's — or chair umpire's — ruling was correct. That challenge system was removed for the current tournament, but there immediately were demands on social media from some tennis fans or observers to bring that back to aid chair umpires. Pavlyuchenkova agreed, saying: 'We should probably look into something else to have better decisions.' Taylor Fritz, who reached the quarterfinals with a win at a different court Sunday, didn't see what happened. But when it was explained by a reporter, his biggest question was why the chair umpire didn't just make the call himself if it was so clear what actually happened on Kartal's shot. 'The chair umpire has to make the call,' 2024 U.S. Open finalist Fritz said. 'Why is he there if he's not going to call the ball?' ___
