Relative Value of different Grand Slams

[El Dude]

One more thing. One way to get a sense of importance/prestige of Slams would be to chart something like how many of the top 10 were seeded at each tournament in every year. It would only give an indication and be rather tedious, but I think it would tell us something.

For instance, eyeballing it a bit, from what I gather the Australian Open made a big jump in the mid-80s (In 1984 only 3 year-end top 10 players played in the Slam, whereas in in 1986--after missing 1985--7 of the top ten played). But it wasn't until the mid-90s that "everyone" played the Australian Open. Even into the late 80s and early 90s, a lot of top American players didn't play the AO.

In other words, there's a transition from about 1985 to 1995 where the AO goes from being a "second tier" Grand Slam to being on par with the rest. According to shawnbm, the French Open probably went through a similar transition in the 70s, although my guess is that before Borg it was still bigger than the AO pre-1985.

 

[mrzz]

I think El Dude touched a very important point a few posts ago. You must separate what the public thinks from what the players think.

When it comes to the public, I would think that these things could be pretty regional. I was a child in the 80's, but I clearly remember the importance people in Brazil used to give to Roland Garros in those days (and still give). The only reason I can imagine is the surface. Clay was basically the only surface we had (and still is by far the most popular), so people would watch tennis played on clay. It took me some good years to even consider the other surfaces as proper tennis...

 

[Tennis Miller]

For what it's worth, in the last 15 years or so, the French and the Australian have probably had the most 1 slam wonder winners. I don't know how that cuts one way or the other in the discussion, but maybe it has some bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
TM

Lol! In the last decade the French has had the fewest one slam wonders! :laydownlaughing

Sorry, I either made a typo or had a brain cramp. But I meant to say the last 25 years -- going back to Chang and Gomez in the 89 and 90 RGs.

Cheers

TM

 

[Federberg]

For what it's worth, in the last 15 years or so, the French and the Australian have probably had the most 1 slam wonder winners. I don't know how that cuts one way or the other in the discussion, but maybe it has some bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
TM

Lol! In the last decade the French has had the fewest one slam wonders! :laydownlaughing

Sorry, I either made a typo or had a brain cramp. But I meant to say the last 25 years -- going back to Chang and Gomez in the 89 and 90 RGs.

Cheers

TM

Yes I got that. I was being a bit facetious. Sorry!

 

[Tennis Miller]

Lol! In the last decade the French has had the fewest one slam wonders! :laydownlaughing

Sorry, I either made a typo or had a brain cramp. But I meant to say the last 25 years -- going back to Chang and Gomez in the 89 and 90 RGs.

Cheers

TM

Yes I got that. I was being a bit facetious. Sorry!

Before Rafa went on his run, there were actually SEVEN one slam wonders who won the French between 1989 and 2004. Chang, Gomez, Muster, Moya, Costa, Ferrero and Gaudio. No other slam comes close to that. The US Open has had 3 in 25 years -- Roddick, Delpo and Cilic. Wimby had 4 if you go all the way back to 87-- Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Goran. AO also has had 3 in the last 25 years-- Korda, Johanson and Stanimal. So I was wrong about the AO. I have no idea if this affects the perceived "prestige" of the events, but I thought it was an interesting factoid.

Cheers
TM

 

[tented]

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

Therefore some think less of it? Or it's somehow downgraded in some people's view? If that's the case, then what about Wimbledon? Isn't that a specialized surface? Yet isn't it thought of more highly than the others?

Not saying I agreed with that view. I was merely reporting what I've heard.

It would be intellectually dishonest to downgrade Roland Garros because it's a specialized surface. If anything, Wimbledon is more specialized since it's the only big tournament played on grass. With clay, there are three Masters, plus a GS, which forces more players to play on that surface, vs. the number of people who play warm-up tournaments such as Queen's Club or Halle.

 

[shawnbm]

Wimbledon is most important because it is the oldest and is played on the surface tennis was born on. The entire world knows The Championships are the pinnacle of tennis and the vast majority of tennis professionals dream of winning at SW19--not Melbourne, Paris or New York. It will likely always be that way.

 

[tented]

Wimbledon is most important because it is the oldest and is played on the surface tennis was born on. The entire world knows The Championships are the pinnacle of tennis and the vast majority of tennis professionals dream of winning at SW19--not Melbourne, Paris or New York. It will likely always be that way.

I agree. I hope you don't think I'm trying to claim otherwise. My point is it's inappropriate to downgrade Roland Garros because it's a "specialized surface" which is also the case with Wimbledon -- and no one would make any excuse to downgrade SW19.

 

[Federberg]

Therefore some think less of it? Or it's somehow downgraded in some people's view? If that's the case, then what about Wimbledon? Isn't that a specialized surface? Yet isn't it thought of more highly than the others?

Not saying I agreed with that view. I was merely reporting what I've heard.

It would be intellectually dishonest to downgrade Roland Garros because it's a specialized surface. If anything, Wimbledon is more specialized since it's the only big tournament played on grass. With clay, there are three Masters, plus a GS, which forces more players to play on that surface, vs. the number of people who play warm-up tournaments such as Queen's Club or Halle.

Tell them that buddy.. I repeat.. just passing on comments I'd heard. El Dude's suggest might be the best way for the historic context, but certainly over the last 15 years they're all on a par with each other

 

[shawnbm]

Wimbledon is most important because it is the oldest and is played on the surface tennis was born on. The entire world knows The Championships are the pinnacle of tennis and the vast majority of tennis professionals dream of winning at SW19--not Melbourne, Paris or New York. It will likely always be that way.

I agree. I hope you don't think I'm trying to claim otherwise. My point is it's inappropriate to downgrade Roland Garros because it's a "specialized surface" which is also the case with Wimbledon -- and no one would make any excuse to downgrade SW19.

And I would be remiss in not adding that, of all the surfaces, hardcourt is truly the most specialized and the newest. Tennis was born on grass and then expanded to the red clay of Europe. Those were the two surfaces for decades in the 20th century. Now, do not get me wrong – I continue to believe that Harcourt is the best and truest test for all tennis players, whether raised with the serve and volley on grass or with the baseline slugging of clay court tennis. At the end of the day with respect to Hardcourts, the baseline player can play his game and the serve and volleyer/attacker can play his game, with both being able to play well on that surface. Hardcourt is ubiquitous and, where Hardcourts can be placed, it is the great equalizer, so to speak.

 

[August]

Surely Wimbledon is the most special slam. AO is the one that is easily considered as the least prestigious, due to best players having not always played it. As for USO/FO, it's hard to say. FO is unique as the only clay slam whereas USO isn't the only HC slam. On the other hand, HC is the most competitive surface and the USO is the more prestigious HC slam. I wouldn't really rate either of them above. And those differences are only in the prestige. I think it's very much the same effort to win whatever slam so treat them equal. Of course, the surfaces make some difference. It's harder to fluke a slam title on a slow surface whereas it's harder to dominate a slam on a fast surface.

 

[TsarMatt]

Wimbledon is most important because it is the oldest and is played on the surface tennis was born on. The entire world knows The Championships are the pinnacle of tennis and the vast majority of tennis professionals dream of winning at SW19--not Melbourne, Paris or New York. It will likely always be that way.

I agree. I hope you don't think I'm trying to claim otherwise. My point is it's inappropriate to downgrade Roland Garros because it's a "specialized surface" which is also the case with Wimbledon -- and no one would make any excuse to downgrade SW19.

Agreed. I see all the 4 Grand Slams as events that spawn different surfaces with different demands. There are some things you can do on grass that is difficult to do on clay and vice-versa. The surfaces utilise different areas of your game and that's why only a very small minority of players can win both.

I think Roland Garros has become victim to some unneeded denunciation of sorts over the years primarily because of Nadal's freakish dominance. It's like his constant winning of the event has devalued the GS because he's always winning it. Or people just negatively associate Nadal's game strictly with the GS which is why some people don't like it. I dunno.

 

[mrzz]

^But, on the other hand, RG might become the jewel of the crown for everyone else, specially if it is done by beating Nadal in the process. For Nadal himself, however, there's nothing like this available.

 

[El Dude]

Surely Wimbledon is the most special slam. AO is the one that is easily considered as the least prestigious, due to best players having not always played it. As for USO/FO, it's hard to say. FO is unique as the only clay slam whereas USO isn't the only HC slam. On the other hand, HC is the most competitive surface and the USO is the more prestigious HC slam. I wouldn't really rate either of them above. And those differences are only in the prestige. I think it's very much the same effort to win whatever slam so treat them equal. Of course, the surfaces make some difference. It's harder to fluke a slam title on a slow surface whereas it's harder to dominate a slam on a fast surface.

You make a really good point here - that in terms of heritage, there's nothing like Wimbledon but at the same time all Slams are equally difficult to win these days, all with the same level of competition.

 

[El Dude]

I can't help but notice how Kieran "likes" all the posts that point toward Roland Garros being equal to other Slams. Kieran, you're too obvious. :snigger

 

[Federberg]

I can't help but notice how Kieran "likes" all the posts that point toward Roland Garros being equal to other Slams. Kieran, you're too obvious. :snigger

Pathetically obvious isn't it? No pretence of objectivity!

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can't help but notice how Kieran "likes" all the posts that point toward Roland Garros being equal to other Slams. Kieran, you're too obvious. :snigger

Pathetically obvious isn't it? No pretence of objectivity!

How is it any different than trying to claim the FO is a "specialized surface"?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let me state a fact to this thread: The French Open gets more worldwide coverage than the US Open. Outside of North America, it is the bigger tournament. And I'm someone who thinks that right now, all slams are virtually equal (especially in players and tennis hardcore fans' eyes), with Wimbledon having a slight edge in prestige.

 

[Federberg]

I can't help but notice how Kieran "likes" all the posts that point toward Roland Garros being equal to other Slams. Kieran, you're too obvious. :snigger

Pathetically obvious isn't it? No pretence of objectivity!

How is it any different than trying to claim the FO is a "specialized surface"?

For the record, and I'm surprised I have to say it again, I don't think it is a specialised surface. I passed on comments I've heard about the RG, I never said I agreed with them. I rather agreed with the comment that if you say clay is specialised then what about grass.

What gets me is that some people are so focussed on player bias they can refuse to read what is put forth plainly. I mean for goodness sakes (and I'm not directing this at you), what happens when our player of the day retires and our next player is proficient on another surface do we then start arguing the opposite? It's silly.

 

[Federberg]

Let me state a fact to this thread: The French Open gets more worldwide coverage than the US Open. Outside of North America, it is the bigger tournament. And I'm someone who thinks that right now, all slams are virtually equal (especially in players and tennis hardcore fans' eyes), with Wimbledon having a slight edge in prestige.

That's debatable. Would love to see stats. Anyway.. board meetings tomorrow so off to sleep!