On a beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon I would think that two thirds of the population were on the beach, in the garden, at B&Q, or just generally enjoying themselves (excepting the ones at B&Q ).

Most people are also able to get more than one channel on their equipment. Have you lost your remote?

I wouldn't say the cold, from what I saw those that didnt want to watch the Tennis went to the beach in the baking sunshine
I really don't know what the fuss is all about to be honest, 3 weeks out the the year and your moaning about schedule changes that may occur for the odd day or two.
Its not like there's nothing else on to watch is there with the other 150 odd channels on your Freesat box. You could even catch up on some of the recordings you've not watched yet.

If desperate surely you could catch the latest news on your local radio station or on the net, sometimes the local news website is updated before the programme goes live - then again, regional news generally goes out later on in the evening.

Was there anything in particular you were interested in locally, had Loose women visited a church coffee morning near you.

Of the propulation actually viewing TV at the time, that is the substantial majoriity. But, as usual with you, don't let facts get in the way of your bitter and twisted views on life.

Somewhat premature of you
I was out enjoying the sun while the match was in progress and I did notice that lots of those around us were following it from the internet on mobile devices. So hard to judge the actual viewing figures from TV stats. However, from what I've seen of you on many forums, uncomfortable truths are not likely to sway your views.

Well what are the facts then as you clearly have them at your finger tips, or at least your version. I don't need to live my life through the achievements of others, unlike some. I had a reasonable amount of athletics success of my own when younger, albeit that is some years ago now.

My position is that the BBC should have their own sports channel and stop pushing sport down viewers throats.

And as usual you have to resort to insults in an effort to get your point across. A somewhat unedifying spectre and does you little credit.

A glance at your contributions to the forums you lurk in shows you to be a renowned expert in that field. So I guess I'm being judged by an expert.

You have my point.

Even the soaps are lucky to get 1/3 of those viewing figures these days so its a no brainer that the majority of the tv viewing audience wanted to see the tennis .
I'm no sports fan but with so many channels and multiple alternatives for viewing your argument is nonsense against such an obvious crowd pleasing broadcast.

They don't have enough sport .
You would be the first to post on a thread criticising them if they were going to spend millions on sport to fill a sport channel when there are already other sports channels.

With hundreds of alternative channels its one button push from saving your throat.

I did watch some of the final but I am no sports fan and would really like to see things like The World Cup hidden away on Sky Sports but even with that view I know your post is bollocks

You completely miss the point - would my selecting another channel have magic'd up the programmes that are often cancelled because of the late schedule change? If it will then of course I can do that on future occasions.

Why don't you put 'Wimbledon' in your diary for this time next year? That way you will have scheduled any late schedule change.
Might make your life a little easier and happier

Is that to go along side the World Cup, The Olympics, European Athletics, European Championships, Jam Making, Golf, etc. etc.

Well 2 of those are a couple of weeks every 4 years which I'm sure you should be able to cope with that disruption to your life.

You mentioned Regional News, this might have been cancelled early evening but would have been shown later that evening - I doubt it's content would have changed significantly from what was shown in the morning, if you like keeping up to date with local news there are other alternatives.

Is it really that hard to find alternative entertainment for when occasions like this happen, which is not that often - no excuse if there is a pvr in use. Is it really worth spending millions on a dedicated channel just in case a sporting event overruns, I would see that upsetting more of the population than those missing their favorite programme.

According to what was said on POV the beeb receives more complaints on this subject than any other. One wonders how many of those who think this is quite acceptable would feel the same if they had just sat down to watch their favourite football team/tennis player only to find it cancelled as the programme on planting potatoes was over running?

I would be very happy if POV and news (that has it's own dedicated channel anyway) were replaced by the European Jam Making Championships. I thought Jam Making would be too much of an elitist sport to be covered on the BBC. It is excellent news that the BBC in it's efforts to serve the population, not just a vocal minority, will be covering this extreme sport live this year! (hope it's in HD)

Yes well sarcasm apart, we both know that people wouldn't be happy we're that to become a reality. The other complete mystery and again covered in this thread is why the to and fro between channels as if the viewer isn't able to switch channels.

So we actually agree. If the BBC rescheduled because of the over running 'boil off', the majority of the population would be displeased as it is a minority sport(?). However you said a third of the population WATCHED Murray. Add the people at the beach, at B&Q, mowing the lawn etc. who WANTED to watch. Then add the people who don't care and just watched something else (like me), you come to a fiqure way in the majority.

The BBC got it right.

The number of people displeased by their decision(s), to my knowledge, at present, is, errr, one.

The BBC got it wrong. They always get it wrong when it comes to unplanned schedule-fiddling for the patball screwing up tennis-lovers, tennis-haters and tennis-don't-care-lessers alike.

Ok then, how about this from the Guardian (I figured this source would have more credibility with you):

"Andy Murray's historic Wimbledon tennis triumph was watched by a peak audience of more than 17 million viewers, the biggest since modern ratings records began more than 20 years ago.

The Scot's straight-sets win over Novak Djokovic – making him the first Briton to win the Wimbledon men's title since Fred Perry in 1936 – averaged 12.1 million viewers across the entirety of BBC1's coverage between 1.45pm and 6pm on Sunday, a 72.8% share of the audience."

What on earth are you on about with your reference to the achievements of others?

You are clearly losing all the arguments on this thread, but no doubt you will continue denying reality.

Source for you assertions please? No I thought not.

Quite simple really, you along with many others, including the politicians love to bask in the reflected glory of success. Sport always has been used as a form of social control, well documented.

UK population currently over sixty million, so thanks for making my point.

The Beeb bring the nation together for sporting events. They, and I, could not care less about a few hundred who complain about a brainless soap or other banal show being delayed or postponed.

Equally we couldn't give a shiny shite at those who look down their nose at sports fans.