PDA

View Full Version : Why is the Australian Open considered the least prestigous out of the 4 slams?


PhatChineseDude
10-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Most people seem to pick the Australian open as the least prestigous slam, yet many discussions seem to suggest that in terms of atmoshphere,etc, it is the best one. I'd have to agree with that. It was the first tornament(to my knowledge) that bring in the closing roofs, first one to use hawkeye, first one to have nighttime finals; like the us open has nightime matches. I know that up until the late 80's a lot of the top players skipped it, but now, everyone plays it.

Also, the fact that it has the most different champions, and clearly seems to be the hardest one to defend gives good argument that it is the fairest of the slams, to both attacking and defensive players.

Plus, its the one i've always followed the most, being from Melbourne.. and definitly my favourite one :)

Thoughts/opinions?

Max G.
10-29-2009, 04:26 PM
Holdout from the times when lots of players would skip it because it was far away and at a bad time of year.

Moose Malloy
10-29-2009, 04:36 PM
first one to use hawkeye, first one to have nighttime finals; like the us open has nightime matches.

Uh, USO was the first major to use hawkeye('06) And the first major to have a night time final(women's final starting in '01)

AO had its first night time final in '05.

also, the AO only started being a 128 player draw event in 1988.

PhatChineseDude
10-29-2009, 04:43 PM
[QUOTE=Moose Malloy;4065368]Uh, USO was the first major to use hawkeye('06) And the first major to have a night time final(women's final starting in '01)

AO had its first night time final in '05.

QUOTE]



Oh... my bad. I don't really follow women's tennis that much and I missed the us open '06. But all the other points still stand :)

doom
10-29-2009, 05:49 PM
All those changes you mentioned are part of the reason its the least prestigious. It's only been played at the current site for 20 years, it was on grass before that at a different venue. It used to swap cities. It used to be held just after Christmas. There was one year when it was played twice and the next year it wasn't played at all.

When it was played just after Christmas none of the top players would show up unless they had to play Australia in the Davis Cup final in Australia in the week before and then they would stay on to play. The Australian Open has only been on par with the other slams for about 15 years now.

Even Agassi never bothered showing up until 1995 because he just didn't want to travel that far.

Compare that to Wimbledon and the French, which have always been played on the same surface, at the same time of year and at the same venue.

BreakPoint
10-29-2009, 08:56 PM
It's the same reason that Cornell is less prestigious than Harvard even though both are in the Ivy League. ;-)

The Australian Open is the youngest of the four Grand Slams and started in the 20th century in 1905. It's also so far away that many of the top pros from Europe and America skipped it for many years, which made it less prestigious to win since the top players weren't in the competition. The fact that it was held around Christmas time for many years also didn't help matters as many of the pros wanted to stay home with their families that time of the year.

veroniquem
10-29-2009, 08:59 PM
Who says it is? It used to be but I really don't think that's true anymore.

BreakPoint
10-29-2009, 09:03 PM
Who says it is? It used to be but I really don't think that's true anymore.
Because even Australians, like Rafter and Hewitt, would rather win Wimbledon than the Australian Open.

Ask Federer if he would rather give up one of his Wimbledon titles or one of his Australian Open titles.

The Australian Open has never even been covered by one of the Big 3 TV networks in the U.S.

MuseFan
10-29-2009, 11:38 PM
Ask Federer if the Australian Open is important. He cried so hard after losing the final this year, 'nuff said.

dropshot winner
10-29-2009, 11:42 PM
It's the fluke slam, just look at some of the finalists (Schuttler, Clement) and winners (Korda, Johannson).

thetheorist
10-29-2009, 11:46 PM
Doesn't have a distinct character. FO and Wimbledon are popular partly because of their surfaces (clay slam, grass slam), and USO has been owning the 'hardcourt slam' distinction. In this view, AO looks like an extra slam.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 12:22 AM
Ask Federer if the Australian Open is important. He cried so hard after losing the final this year, 'nuff said.
That had nothing to do with the tournament. He would have done the same at any tournament in which the crowd publicly displayed their unconditional love and devotion to him during his hour of failure. He thoroughly disappointed his fans, yet they shouted that they still loved him despite his failure to win it for them. That made him emotional.

The same thing happened in Basel a few years ago when he lost the final and disappointed his hometown fans. The fans still cheered for him and loved him despite his failure so he got emotional and cried. Does that mean that Federer thinks the Basel tournament is more prestigious and important than Wimbledon?

Cesc Fabregas
10-30-2009, 01:43 AM
Because even Australians, like Rafter and Hewitt, would rather win Wimbledon than the Australian Open.

Ask Federer if he would rather give up one of his Wimbledon titles or one of his Australian Open titles.

The Australian Open has never even been covered by one of the Big 3 TV networks in the U.S.

Hewitt said the highlight of his career was getting to Australian Open final in 2005, not winning the US Open or Wimbledon. Clearly Hewitt's favourite tournament is the Australian.

dropshot winner
10-30-2009, 02:34 AM
Hewitt said the highlight of his career was getting to Australian Open final in 2005, not winning the US Open or Wimbledon. Clearly Hewitt's favourite tournament is the Australian.
Hewitt played some unbelievable matches that tournament (5 setter against Nadal and Nalbandian), it was a rollercoaster, unlike USO01 and Wim02.

PhatChineseDude
10-30-2009, 03:52 AM
Hewitt said the highlight of his career was getting to Australian Open final in 2005, not winning the US Open or Wimbledon. Clearly Hewitt's favourite tournament is the Australian.

Hewitt Also said after beating Federer in 2003 in the Davis cup semi's in Australia that it was better then winning a grand slam.

I'd also take Safin's '05 Trophy over Hewitt's '02 Wimbledon one any day of the week

chalkflewup
10-30-2009, 03:57 AM
Brian Teacher won a Slam. Guess which one? ;)

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-30-2009, 05:01 AM
Because even Australians, like Rafter and Hewitt, would rather win Wimbledon than the Australian Open.

Ask Federer if he would rather give up one of his Wimbledon titles or one of his Australian Open titles.

The Australian Open has never even been covered by one of the Big 3 TV networks in the U.S.

Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish.

You are an idiot talking crap yet again...

BHud
10-30-2009, 05:58 AM
I would say lack of history, tradition, consistency, worldwide media coverage, etc...but now I believe it's right on par with the other 3. I love watching the new season kick off in January with the "fun" slam! In fact, I would rather travel to that slam than either Wimbledon or the French...

lawrence
10-30-2009, 06:09 AM
Wimbledon > AO > FO > USO.

Who cares about lack of media coverage or what surfaces they've used in the past. Now is now, and right now; the crowds are the most involved, the atmosphere is the best, the courts look great and also seem to be balanced in terms of not being too fast or too slow and don't particularly favour any specific player.
Not to mention the main stadium is named after one of the sports best.

Anaconda
10-30-2009, 06:23 AM
The australian open is the least prestigous GS because you don't have to be good to win it. Just ask Johansson

dropshot winner
10-30-2009, 06:25 AM
The australian open is the least prestigous GS because you don't have to be good to win it. Just ask Johansson
That's a bit harsh... but I agree that all the fluke winners and finalists decreased the "value" of the Australian Open somewhat.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-30-2009, 06:31 AM
Most people seem to pick the Australian open as the least prestigous slam, yet many discussions seem to suggest that in terms of atmoshphere,etc, it is the best one. I'd have to agree with that. It was the first tornament(to my knowledge) that bring in the closing roofs, first one to use hawkeye, first one to have nighttime finals; like the us open has nightime matches. I know that up until the late 80's a lot of the top players skipped it, but now, everyone plays it.

Also, the fact that it has the most different champions, and clearly seems to be the hardest one to defend gives good argument that it is the fairest of the slams, to both attacking and defensive players.

Plus, its the one i've always followed the most, being from Melbourne.. and definitly my favourite one :)

Thoughts/opinions?

Probably because in the 70`s and 80`s lots of top-players didnt even go there, and it was a bad time of the year, bad schedueling.
Nowadays the status of it is a lot higher, but imo it is still the least prestigeous GS.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-30-2009, 06:32 AM
The australian open is the least prestigous GS because you don't have to be good to win it. Just ask Johansson
Thats not really fair, he still won 7 5-set matches, and for a Swede winning in that weather -that impressive! AND he beat prime Safin in the final.

Gorecki
10-30-2009, 06:43 AM
Because even Australians, like Rafter and Hewitt, would rather win Wimbledon than the Australian Open.

Ask Federer if he would rather give up one of his Wimbledon titles or one of his Australian Open titles.

The Australian Open has never even been covered by one of the Big 3 TV networks in the U.S.

since when American Networks opinions are worldwide vinculative?

USO is not covered by the biggest sports channel in my country, and the AO is.. what does that tell you? to me it says CONTRACTS

Anaconda
10-30-2009, 06:58 AM
Thats not really fair, he still won 7 5-set matches, and for a Swede winning in that weather -that impressive! AND he beat prime Safin in the final.

True, but he wasn't really meant to win a slam . But i admit calling him 'not very good' is harsh as every slam winner is good.

jms007
10-30-2009, 07:28 AM
since when American Networks opinions are worldwide vinculative?

USO is not covered by the biggest sports channel in my country, and the AO is.. what does that tell you? to me it says CONTRACTS

Yeah, contracts. I suspect the US Open contract is more expensive than the AO.

But that aside, I personally think the AO has been more fun to watch than USO in the past couple of years. US Open has kind of been a turn-off, partially because of the disrespect the organizers and TV producers at the US show to non-US players. Yeah Agassi is entertaining to listen to, but there's a guy who's playing a match while you focus your camera on the commentator's booth!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-30-2009, 07:31 AM
True, but he wasn't really meant to win a slam . But i admit calling him 'not very good' is harsh as every slam winner is good.
No he wasnt, everyone in Sweden were shocked like crazy, it came from nowhere.
Yes, thats true.

Gorecki
10-30-2009, 07:37 AM
Yeah, contracts. I suspect the US Open contract is more expensive than the AO.

not my point..

the uso has contracted broadcast with the third channel... contracts are contracts... they are binding.. just that... proves nothing either way... is this more clear?

Gemini
10-30-2009, 07:40 AM
The australian open is the least prestigous GS because you don't have to be good to win it. Just ask Johansson

Obviously, I have to disagree with that logic as Johansson was VERY good player when he was on tour. He wasn't necessarily Grand Slam winning talent but he got lucky enough that year that he did win it.

One reason the AO is viewed as lesser than the other three is because many players didn't want to make the trek down to Australia from other parts of the world.

Kegzz
10-30-2009, 07:41 AM
It's because it's younger and hasn't got as much history as the other three slams. However, I see that as something that is amongst fans. I don't think the players will care as winning a Grand Slam makes you a GS Champion, something a lot of players want.

jms007
10-30-2009, 07:56 AM
not my point..

the uso has contracted broadcast with the third channel... contracts are contracts... they are binding.. just that... proves nothing either way... is this more clear?

mmmhmm, I gotcha.
What's the third channel, btw?

Gorecki
10-30-2009, 09:38 AM
mmmhmm, I gotcha.
What's the third channel, btw?

what good would it do? it's one of many national channels! do you know the Portuguese TV channels?

fyi, it's the SportTv 2 channel

GeoffB
10-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Wimbledon and RG have continuously been the top grass and clay court tournaments for essentially the entire history of the sport, so obviously those will be the most prestigious two.

So the AO has two factors working against it. First, it's a hardcourt tournament, which produces great tennis but does seem to lack some of the soul (and certainly history) of the traditional clay and grass surfaces. Secondly, no matter what surface the AO picks, it will be competing against another slam (unless they go with carpet or synthetic grass, which I think would be even worse). If it picks grass, it'll play second fiddle to Wimbledon, same for RG with clay. As it stands, it's the "other" hardcourt major to the USO.

That said, the AO is plenty prestigious, so this isn't exactly a problem. Plus, there's plenty to like more about the AO than the USO. I wince every time some corporate dufus takes mike during the finals ceremony of the USO and starts announcing the size of each check (pausing for crowd approval). The most recent ceremony was particularly painful - telling Del Potro he needed to make it quick with his speech because they were running out of time, yet taking plenty of time to spew corporate sludge about how great it must be to drive a Lexus.

jms007
10-30-2009, 11:01 AM
what good would it do? it's one of many national channels! do you know the Portuguese TV channels?

fyi, it's the SportTv 2 channel

No, not really. I wanted to know if it was one of "free" major public channels or a sport-specific channel. Just wanted to know the deal in other countries for my own curiousity.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:06 AM
Hewitt said the highlight of his career was getting to Australian Open final in 2005, not winning the US Open or Wimbledon. Clearly Hewitt's favourite tournament is the Australian.
Yeah, right, Hewitt would rather not win a Grand Slam than to win Wimbledon or to win his very first Grand Slam at the US Open. Tell me another one. :-?

If he did indeed say that, which I highly doubt he did, he was lying to the Australian press to make his Australian fans feel better.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:12 AM
Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish.

You are an idiot talking crap yet again...
Ask Patrick Rafter if the biggest disappointment in his career was not winning Wimbledon or not winning the Australian Open.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:13 AM
Wimbledon > AO > FO > USO.

Who cares about lack of media coverage or what surfaces they've used in the past. Now is now, and right now; the crowds are the most involved, the atmosphere is the best, the courts look great and also seem to be balanced in terms of not being too fast or too slow and don't particularly favour any specific player.
Not to mention the main stadium is named after one of the sports best.
The OP's question is about prestige, not which GS is the most player or fan friendly.

Gorecki
10-30-2009, 11:17 AM
No, not really. I wanted to know if it was one of "free" major public channels or a sport-specific channel. Just wanted to know the deal in other countries for my own curiousity.

ok. legit question...

all of them are pay per view local sports channels...

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:18 AM
since when American Networks opinions are worldwide vinculative?

USO is not covered by the biggest sports channel in my country, and the AO is.. what does that tell you? to me it says CONTRACTS
Hmmm....the last I checked, the U.S. is a much bigger media market than Portugal is.

The TV networks in the U.S. didn't cover the AO because they didn't think it would draw enough viewers. That's the bottom line. If they thought they could make money, they would have covered it. It's NOT about contracts, it's about RATINGS!!

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:21 AM
ok. legit question...

all of them are pay per view local sports channels...
The other 3 Slams are covered by free broadcast network stations in the U.S. However, the AO for a while was not covered by ANY network. Now it's covered by ESPN and Tennis Channel, both of which are pay cable channels. You can't watch it over the air for free, like you can the other 3 Slams.

Gorecki
10-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Hmmm....the last I checked, the U.S. is a much bigger media market than Portugal is.

The TV networks in the U.S. didn't cover the AO because they didn't think it would draw enough viewers. That's the bottom line. If they thought they could make money, they would have covered it. It's NOT about contracts, it's about RATINGS!!

last time i checked USO is not the biggest Tennis event in Australia. your point?

Cesc Fabregas
10-30-2009, 11:25 AM
Ask Patrick Rafter if the biggest disappointment in his career was not winning Wimbledon or not winning the Australian Open.

Thats because he came closer to winning Wimbledon, he never got a sniff of winning the Australian.

the fat pumpkin
10-30-2009, 11:25 AM
The Austrilian Open is my favorite.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 01:40 PM
last time i checked USO is not the biggest Tennis event in Australia. your point?
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

The US Open is covered by the TV networks in Australia, is it not?

DownTheLine
10-30-2009, 01:42 PM
Hewitt said the highlight of his career was getting to Australian Open final in 2005, not winning the US Open or Wimbledon. Clearly Hewitt's favourite tournament is the Australian.

He would be hated by his country if he didn't say that.

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 01:42 PM
Thats because he came closer to winning Wimbledon, he never got a sniff of winning the Australian.

Maybe that's because he wanted to win Wimbledon more badly than he wanted to win the Australian Open?

How close did Sampras get to winning the French Open compared to Wimbledon? Which one did Sampras care about more?

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-30-2009, 09:13 PM
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

The US Open is covered by the TV networks in Australia, is it not?

Actually I am not sure if it is? In fact, I think it is on Fox Sports, which is a cable channel. But the AO, Wimbeldon, and the French are on free to air (after a certain time)...

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-30-2009, 09:16 PM
Maybe that's because he wanted to win Wimbledon more badly than he wanted to win the Australian Open?

How close did Sampras get to winning the French Open compared to Wimbledon? Which one did Sampras care about more?

As usual, you are only speculating about what Rafter thought.. From what I know, surfing is more important to him now...

lawrence
10-30-2009, 11:20 PM
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

The US Open is covered by the TV networks in Australia, is it not?

AO and Wimbledon are on covered in Australia, the USO and French however are not (excluding pay per view channels).

Blinkism
10-30-2009, 11:26 PM
After the horrible Trophy Presentation at the US Open this year and the messed up scheduling that ruined quality tennis- I'd say the USO was my least favorite slam this year.

The Australian Open was excellent, as were the other 2 slams.

I think, in time, the Australian Open might overtake or come close to the USO in prestige if they can establish some sort of tradition.

This will require players "owning" the Aussie Open. Winning it for many years in a row, like Nad at the FO and Fed at the USO and Wimby

nfor304
10-30-2009, 11:45 PM
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

The US Open is covered by the TV networks in Australia, is it not?

The USopen is not covered by any free to air channels. Only the Australian and Wimbledon are. The french and US are only on cable channels.

Also what are you basing this theory on Hewitt and Rafter wanting to win other slams more so than the Australian? Hewitt especially even when he was 16 always said his dream was to win the Australian Open. He went there every year as a kid and dreamed of winning it his whole life.

Rafter has also said this many many times.

Rafter is now the publisher of the Australian Tennis magazine and has said many times that he was disappointed he never did as well in Australia as he did overseas. He has said many times he was disappointed he never came close to winning the Australian Open.

His comments about Wimbledon were because he lost 2 extremely close matches that he could have won with a little luck. He lost by 1 break of serve against Ivanisevic in 2001 and was a set and 4-1 in the tiebreaker up against Sampras in 2000 in a match that was frequently interrupted by rain.

PhatChineseDude
10-30-2009, 11:50 PM
The USopen is not covered by any free to air channels. Only the Australian and Wimbledon are. The french and US are only on cable channels.

Also what are you basing this theory on Hewitt and Rafter wanting to win other slams more so than the Australian? Hewitt especially even when he was 16 always said his dream was to win the Australian Open. He went there every year as a kid and dreamed of winning it his whole life.

Rafter has also said this many many times.

Rafter is now the publisher of the Australian Tennis magazine and has said many times that he was disappointed he never did as well in Australia as he did overseas. He has said many times he was disappointed he never came close to winning the Australian Open.

His comments about Wimbledon were because he lost 2 extremely close matches that he could have won with a little luck. He lost by 1 break of serve against Ivanisevic in 2001 and was a set and 4-1 in the tiebreaker up against Sampras in 2000 in a match that was frequently interrupted by rain.

Channel 9 usually cover theus open towards the end. They've done so the last few years, to the best of my knowledge. And I know they do Wimbledon as well, but I can't remember if it's from the first round onwards or just starts in the middle

BreakPoint
10-30-2009, 11:59 PM
The USopen is not covered by any free to air channels. Only the Australian and Wimbledon are. The french and US are only on cable channels.

Also what are you basing this theory on Hewitt and Rafter wanting to win other slams more so than the Australian? Hewitt especially even when he was 16 always said his dream was to win the Australian Open. He went there every year as a kid and dreamed of winning it his whole life.

Rafter has also said this many many times.

Rafter is now the publisher of the Australian Tennis magazine and has said many times that he was disappointed he never did as well in Australia as he did overseas. He has said many times he was disappointed he never came close to winning the Australian Open.

His comments about Wimbledon were because he lost 2 extremely close matches that he could have won with a little luck. He lost by 1 break of serve against Ivanisevic in 2001 and was a set and 4-1 in the tiebreaker up against Sampras in 2000 in a match that was frequently interrupted by rain.
I base my comment on the fact that even Rafter and Hewitt know that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, the one that all pros want to win. Even Sampras thinks Wimbledon is more important than his own US Open. And even the best claycourter ever, Nadal, has said that the tournament he always wanted to win as a kid was Wimbledon, not the French Open.

If you asked any pro if they could win only one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open, I'd bet all of them would choose to win Wimbledon, even the Australian pros.

Keifers
10-31-2009, 12:11 AM
I went to the AO in 2005 and loved it.

The atmosphere (fun, relaxed), the staff (friendly), the fans (knowledgeable and fun-loving)... all great.


Btw, imo, Aussie fans would completely understand if the Grand Slam committee barred Serena from playing in the 2010 AO. No matter her great tennis and start power, they know that Serena's behavior at the '09 USO deserves much more than a slap on the wrist.

Keifers
10-31-2009, 12:19 AM
I base my comment on the fact that even Rafter and Hewitt know that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, the one that all pros want to win. Even Sampras thinks Wimbledon is more important than his own US Open. And even the best claycourter ever, Nadal, has said that the tournament he always wanted to win as a kid was Wimbledon, not the French Open.

If you asked any pro if they could win only one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open, I'd bet all of them would choose to win Wimbledon, even the Australian pros.
Yep, it would be a tough choice for Rafter and Hewitt (both are great patriots), but given the choice of one or the other, they would opt for Wimbledon.


Amusing story: After Hewitt won the USO in 2001, The Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide (ahem, my godsister's husband) presented him with a Key to the City in a huge hometown celebration. The next year, Hewitt won Wimbledon and the City Fathers were very much at a loss as to what to give him in honor of that (more prestigious) achievement.

McBrat
10-31-2009, 01:30 AM
After the horrible Trophy Presentation at the US Open this year and the messed up scheduling that ruined quality tennis- I'd say the USO was my least favorite slam this year.

The Australian Open was excellent, as were the other 2 slams.

I think, in time, the Australian Open might overtake or come close to the USO in prestige if they can establish some sort of tradition.

This will require players "owning" the Aussie Open. Winning it for many years in a row, like Nad at the FO and Fed at the USO and WimbyLol, I see your point. Agassi holds the open era record with 4 titles over 9 years. Roy Emerson won the most titles before the open era and he had one of the worst H2Hs against Laver and Rosewall.:p

But, the Aussie Open seems to have a tradition of producing some winners who aren't always at their best but are still good enough to win slams, so that's kinda nice. ;)

It has a much better reputation now, with so many top players competing. And they usually perform quite well. Plus, footy season is over by then so more people show up. Some don't realise how players can just go troppo playing in the Australian heat.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-31-2009, 01:31 AM
I base my comment on the fact that even Rafter and Hewitt know that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, the one that all pros want to win. Even Sampras thinks Wimbledon is more important than his own US Open. And even the best claycourter ever, Nadal, has said that the tournament he always wanted to win as a kid was Wimbledon, not the French Open.

If you asked any pro if they could win only one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open, I'd bet all of them would choose to win Wimbledon, even the Australian pros.

No, you are basing this only what YOU think. Not what Hewitt or Rafter think..

You simply cant tell lies on a message board claiming you know what anyone thinks, and get away with it.. You don't know period.

McBrat
10-31-2009, 01:32 AM
Amusing story: After Hewitt won the USO in 2001, The Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide (ahem, my godsister's husband) presented him with a Key to the City in a huge hometown celebration.You know Alfred Huang? That's awesome!8) Is he still at UniSA? He's pretty brilliant academically, too.

nfor304
10-31-2009, 01:34 AM
I base my comment on the fact that even Rafter and Hewitt know that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, the one that all pros want to win. Even Sampras thinks Wimbledon is more important than his own US Open. And even the best claycourter ever, Nadal, has said that the tournament he always wanted to win as a kid was Wimbledon, not the French Open.

If you asked any pro if they could win only one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open, I'd bet all of them would choose to win Wimbledon, even the Australian pros.

So your just assuming you know what they think then, rather than listening to what they actually say.

BreakPoint
10-31-2009, 01:44 AM
No, you are basing this only what YOU think. Not what Hewitt or Rafter think..

You simply cant tell lies on a message board claiming you know what anyone thinks, and get away with it.. You don't know period.

So your just assuming you know what they think then, rather than listening to what they actually say.
Yes, it is my personal opinion. But I'd bet both Rafter and Hewitt have the same opinion. If you don't believe me, why don't you call them up and ask them?

Ask them if they could only win one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open. Also ask Hewitt if he would be willing to give up his Wimbledon title for an Australian Open title. I know the answer. Anyone who doesn't is fooling themselves.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-31-2009, 02:38 AM
Yes, it is my personal opinion. But I'd bet both Rafter and Hewitt have the same opinion. If you don't believe me, why don't you call them up and ask them?

Ask them if they could only win one Grand Slam in their career, would they rather win Wimbledon or the Australian Open. Also ask Hewitt if he would be willing to give up his Wimbledon title for an Australian Open title. I know the answer. Anyone who doesn't is fooling themselves.

So now you are betting that they would say that... rofl

lawrence
10-31-2009, 03:43 AM
Channel 9 usually cover theus open towards the end. They've done so the last few years, to the best of my knowledge. And I know they do Wimbledon as well, but I can't remember if it's from the first round onwards or just starts in the middle

I searched far and wide on both my remote control and online TV guides to find the USO matches, but in the end I had to stream :\

120mphBodyServe
10-31-2009, 04:04 AM
It isn't the least prestigious.
The US Open is...
The US Open SUCKS!!!!!

Cyan
10-31-2009, 09:17 AM
I think the least prestigious is the USO. With all the white trash, beer guzzling, NASCAR loving people yelling....

President
10-31-2009, 09:19 AM
I think the least prestigious is the USO. With all the white trash, beer guzzling, NASCAR loving people yelling....

I think the least prestigious is the FO. With all the effeminate, snail eating, soccer loving people whistling....

dincuss
10-31-2009, 10:27 AM
Aus Open is my favorite slam..... :D

I love the courts, colors, the new racket technologies coming out, new apparel. A good way to start the new year.

BreakPoint
10-31-2009, 11:31 AM
So now you are betting that they would say that... rofl

It would be an easy way for me to make a million dollars. :)

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-31-2009, 05:00 PM
Well I have been giving you are hard time the last few days. And in all honesty it wasn't all that hard.. You make up, change, contradict, distort, and even believe everything you say, that its easy to just sit back and watch you talk crap... :)

I wouldn't take up betting old mate. You cant change the outcome and result, like you can do with your posts.