PDA

View Full Version : Whatís up with all this sick French Open fascination?


dudero
02-08-2006, 06:24 AM
Whoís currently the best male player in world? (Iíll give you a hint Ė itís Roger Federer). Who was the best player before Federer? Pete Sampras. They have combined for 0 French Open final appearances while winning at least 2 of each of other grand slams. And for some reason I donít think itís coincidence. Letís face it Ė clay court tennis is about endurance, not about skill. If you enjoy watching 5 hours of Montilla vs. Montanes Ė fine, itís your prerogative. But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative Ė I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

norcal
02-08-2006, 06:27 AM
But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative Ė I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

I've read a lot of strange stuff on this board and that statement ranks right up there.

VGP
02-08-2006, 06:38 AM
Man, what a troll sounding post.

Winning Roland Garros is quite the accomplishment. Hats off to those that have done it more than once.

dudero - do you just turn a blind eye when the players hit the dirt?

ezdude1970
02-08-2006, 08:31 AM
I agree with Duderoís post. For me watching the Dirt Open matches it is like staring at the pendulum for 5 hours straight, donít get me wrong, it might be more exciting than just staring at the wall, but I could find couple other things to do to occupy my time. It is just unfortunate that the dirt season lasts for the agonizing 5 month, and we have to suffer thru praises to yet another Sancho Panzo that came out of nowhere and now is the greatest thing since slice bread. Wake me up the week before the Wimbledon when the real tennis begins!

VGP
02-08-2006, 08:35 AM
...we have to suffer thru praises to yet another Sancho Panzo that came out of nowhere and now is the greatest thing since slice bread...


Is that a racist comment?

norcal
02-08-2006, 08:53 AM
Is that a racist comment?I think Sancho Panzo is a character from the book Don Quixote.

Galactus
02-08-2006, 10:11 AM
I kind of agree...and I don't.
True, watching cklay-court tennis can get rather dull but you have to face facts: is it one the most common surfaces in the world.
For me, the last true al'-round tennis players to 'own' Rolland Garros were Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl in the 80s.
Forget Kuerten and Brugera: they didn't do s*h*t on any other surface, bar clay.

Ronaldo
02-08-2006, 10:18 AM
Dud, like it or don't, you best learn to love dirt/slow surfaces. Your fast court season lasts about 8-10 weeks now.

Colpo
02-08-2006, 10:32 AM
I think you're wrong about the French. It's a great event, it's a Slam, and it's in a showcase world city (uh, Paris). Unlike the Australian Open, the French has never had a 'down' period, although it is and has been generally regarded as the 3rd of the 4 Slams. Clay court tennis, in this power laden age, is very entertaining to watch because the points have to be developed and they're easier to follow strategy-wise (anybody see either of Acasuso's sf or f victories in Chile last weekend? - that's balling!). Finally, it would be an extraordinary accomplishment for Federer to add this title to his list, because it's probably his least best surface and because it's the favorite surface of so many other players. I admire Roger's goal and am looking forward to see how the spring develops.

Shaolin
02-08-2006, 10:34 AM
Clay is an important surface throughout the world. Its possible that the majority of tennis worldwide is played on clay. If youre going to complain about something, complain about grass. The grass court season=1 month and 4 tournaments. And our most prestigious major is played on it. Thats a joke.

jgunnink
02-08-2006, 10:36 AM
I'll be tuning in to see if Roger can pull it off. If he does, he clearly distinguishes himself from Sampras et. al. as the consummate all-surface player.

When was the last time we had one of those? Agassi's the only man in recent history to do a career slam.

Roger almost did it last year. I felt Nadal caught him on an off day and it was still a 5 setter. I think it's exciting.

Galactus
02-08-2006, 10:40 AM
I think you're wrong about the French. It's a great event, it's a Slam, and it's in a showcase world city (uh, Paris). Unlike the Australian Open, the French has never had a 'down' period, although it is and has been generally regarded as the 3rd of the 4 Slams. Clay court tennis, in this power laden age, is very entertaining to watch because the points have to be developed and they're easier to follow strategy-wise (anybody see either of Acasuso's sf or f victories in Chile last weekend? - that's balling!). Finally, it would be an extraordinary accomplishment for Federer to add this title to his list, because it's probably his least best surface and because it's the favorite surface of so many other players. I admire Roger's goal and am looking forward to see how the spring develops.
So why can't clay-courters do jack-***** on hard-court, grass or carpet? :confused:

spinbalz
02-08-2006, 10:43 AM
For me, the last true al'-round tennis players to 'own' Rolland Garros were Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl in the 80s.
Forget Kuerten and Brugera: they didn't do s*h*t on any other surface, bar clay.

Don't you remember Agassi?

Galactus
02-08-2006, 10:50 AM
Don't you remember Agassi?
Yeah - he had ONE win against a guy who got to ONE final in his entire career. Even worse, that guy couldnt shut Agassi out at 2 sets up. :rolleyes:

Both Wilander and Lendl won Garros 3 times each.

Kaptain Karl
02-08-2006, 11:28 AM
I (partially) agree with the OP.

When the French Open is on TV, I get lots more done than with any other Slam event. Because I mostly *listen* to the French and get my work done. I listen for the announcers to get excited about a particular point and watch the (usually abbreviated ... Yea!) replay of that point.

I love most clay events. I don't like the "clay" they use in Roland Garros. It is not just too slow; it's BORING.

Har-Tru and Rubico (the American green clays) are my favorite surfaces of all....

- KK

Rataplan
02-08-2006, 11:54 AM
it was still a 5 setter. I think it's exciting.
Nope, it was a 4 setter

spinbalz
02-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Yeah - he had ONE win against a guy who got to ONE final in his entire career. Even worse, that guy couldnt shut Agassi out at 2 sets up. :rolleyes:


No, he had 1 win against the rest of the ATP field composed of the 128 best players of the moment, like every other winner of every other Slam event, it doesn't take a genius to be able to understand that! :rolleyes:

And you can add 2 FO finals for Agassi, which says much about his ability to compete on clay.

VGP
02-08-2006, 04:26 PM
No, he had 1 win against the rest of the ATP field composed of the 128 best players of the moment, like every other winner of every other Slam event, it doesn't take a genius to be able to understand that! :rolleyes:

And you can add 2 FO finals for Agassi, which says much about his ability to compete on clay.



Yup. I agree with spinbalz.

Chang broke the "no USA man since Trabert" curse.

Do I sense the start of the "no USA man since Agassi"......?


Perhaps the OP has something against the French?

yo_3133
02-08-2006, 04:27 PM
I've read a lot of strange stuff on this board and that statement ranks right up there.
i agree, fed can win in clay, and if you're good enough to be the best ever you must be able to win in all sorts of courts

Phil
02-08-2006, 04:30 PM
Whoís currently the best male player in world? (Iíll give you a hint Ė itís Roger Federer). Who was the best player before Federer? Pete Sampras. They have combined for 0 French Open final appearances while winning at least 2 of each of other grand slams. And for some reason I donít think itís coincidence. Letís face it Ė clay court tennis is about endurance, not about skill. If you enjoy watching 5 hours of Montilla vs. Montanes Ė fine, itís your prerogative. But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative Ė I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

I don't have more respect for Sampras, Fed, etc. for NOT winning RG, and would certainly have more respect if they HAD won it. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of this post.

RG is one of the Majors and it is a big part of professional tennis, but it truely does bring out the one-dimensional no-names who seem to, amazingly, disappear completely after RG. But...this subject has been debated ad naseum on this Board!

donnyz89
02-08-2006, 05:28 PM
I think French is a tough surface for anyone to win. The best fitted player will come out on top, thats why you dont often see one player dominating the french because it all comes down to on court fitness and how one player feels that day. The best trained players will last the longest. This just makes federer winning it so much sweeter. I think he will win it.

VGP
02-08-2006, 05:54 PM
Borg was great.

FalconX
02-08-2006, 06:10 PM
haha. I learned tennis on clay (grew up outside the US). I love sliding around on the dirt. To me it's an art. Dirt adds a new dimension to the game. it's the only surface when during a single point players can switch between from defence to offence 3-4 times. You have to use all your tennis skills to win on clay. Got to have the touch, and the all the big shots. Most of these clay courters are even better volleyers than most American players these days (except Dent). With the new racquet technology even the serve is important. You see a guy like Verkerk make it all the way up to the final with his big serve beating along the way the most proficient of clay courters in Coria.

FalconX
02-08-2006, 06:18 PM
RG is one of the Majors and it is a big part of professional tennis, but it truely does bring out the one-dimensional no-names who seem to, amazingly, disappear completely after RG. But...this subject has been debated ad naseum on this Board!

As if wimbledon doesn't have their Alexander Popp and Ivo Karlovic types who probably couldn't win a single point from back of the court against average college players in the US.

Talk about one-dimensional...

FalconX
02-08-2006, 06:27 PM
Borg was great.

That one-dimensional greaser won exactly 3 championships @ wimbledon only 2 weeks after beating everyone on the clay courts of Paris.

Phil
02-08-2006, 07:10 PM
As if wimbledon doesn't have their Alexander Popp and Ivo Karlovic types who probably couldn't win a single point from back of the court against average college players in the US.

Talk about one-dimensional...

Don't forget Wayne Arthurs. But against COLLEGE PLAYERS? That's stretching it a bit. I hear you though, but there are a lot...A LOT more clay savvants than there are grass ones. Scores of them.

arosen
02-08-2006, 07:21 PM
Having more respect for players that DONT win the French? Some twisted logic here. I loved watching Henman go all the way to the semis at the French, he served and volleyed ( how crazy was THAT?) his way up the draw and guess what, Verkerk wasn't exactly your classic clay grinder either. All this whining about French being boring, the whiners watch the wrong matches.

Steve Huff
02-08-2006, 07:25 PM
Borg never won the US Open though. I don't think he even went to many (if any) Australian Opens. Lendl never won Wimbledon. Connor, although he never won the French, did win the US Open when it was played on clay. He's the only player to win the US Open on all 3 surfaces (clay, grass, and hard courts). Laver won the Grand Slam twice, so I guess that would make him one of the top, if not THE top, player ever.

Max G.
02-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Perhaps the OP has something against the French?

Nah, you think??? ;-) I would've never guessed!

Well, upon careful analysis, maybe he does... nah, can't be.





(sorry, couldn't resist the sarcastic comment.)

jgunnink
02-09-2006, 09:22 AM
You're right, Rog did lose in 4 to Nadal. My bad.

I loved Henman's run at the French. So unlikely and yet he didn't give up even to the end.

If Sampras had gotten to just one final there I could feel that he tried. Maybe with the new racquet technology he could have, since, as someone else said, the serve has become more important at RG.

As for Laver's slams - not to diminish, but I believe several of slams were grass courts then (I thought at least the u.s. open was).

Not to ask a stupid question, but has RG been red clay forever?

VGP
02-09-2006, 09:23 AM
Not to ask a stupid question, but has RG been red clay forever?

Yes. It has.

jgunnink
02-09-2006, 09:30 AM
I just looked this up, turns out the red clay has been there since 1928:

The French Open began as a national tournament in 1891. In 1925, the French Championships opened itself to international competitors with the event held on a grass surface alternatively between the Racing Club de France and the Stade Français. For the 1928 Davis Cup challenge, a new tennis stadium was built at Porte d’Auteuil. Named for a hero of World War I, the new Stade Roland Garros, and Court Philippe Chatrier, was built with a red clay (terre battue) playing surface, one which alters the ball's bounce and the player's approach to the match vis-à-vis grass courts. As such, over the years, clay court specialists have evolved who often succeed here whilst higher ranked players may struggle like the great champion Pete Sampras and current World No. 1 Roger Federer who won every other Grand Slam several times but never the French Open. As of 2006, the last six, 8 of the last 9, 11 of the last 13, and 13 of the last 17 French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other Grand Slam tournament. On the female side of tennis, the French Open is the title that has prevented players such as Lindsay Davenport from achieving a career Grand Slam and in 1997, it was the only Grand Slam that a 16-year old Martina Hingis failed to win.

fishuuuuu
02-09-2006, 09:33 AM
Whoís currently the best male player in world? (Iíll give you a hint Ė itís Roger Federer). Who was the best player before Federer? Pete Sampras. They have combined for 0 French Open final appearances while winning at least 2 of each of other grand slams. And for some reason I donít think itís coincidence. Letís face it Ė clay court tennis is about endurance, not about skill. If you enjoy watching 5 hours of Montilla vs. Montanes Ė fine, itís your prerogative. But enough crying already that Sampras, Federer, MCcenroe, Connors not winning French open is something negative Ė I have even more respect for them since they never did win Fraud Open.

Actually ... any match regardless of the surface is won by skill. Federer winning one would show that he had not only skill but also endurance to conquer clay court specialists, something Sampras was unable to do.

sandiegotennisboy
02-09-2006, 09:34 AM
i like the FO better than wimpy-don

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 09:43 AM
As if wimbledon doesn't have their Alexander Popp and Ivo Karlovic types who probably couldn't win a single point from back of the court against average college players in the US.

Talk about one-dimensional...

True but Wimbledon has never had one of these one-dimensional types actually win the whole thing. While the French has Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Costa, etc. Guys who never did anything outside of the French. At least Krajicek, Stich, Ivanisevic have had good results at the other slams.
A guy like Mariono Puerta(who I believe had 2 wins total on hardcourts before the French) almost won the French last year. No way would Karlovic or Popp get anywhere near the final at Wimbledon.

ACE of Hearts
02-09-2006, 09:54 AM
I think Fed knows that a french open title would separate him from Sampras.I will say that Fed is already a better clay courter then Sampras was.It will be interesting too see these masters series clay tournaments leading up to the french open.Its about indurance like someone mentioned.

Gugafan_Redux
02-09-2006, 09:57 AM
Gustavo Kuerten (BRA )

Wimbledon, England
Grand Slam, 21-Jun-99, O, Grass , Draw: 128

R128 Wilkinson, Chris (GBR ) 198 6-4 6-4 6-4
R64 Prinosil, David (GER ) 57 6-3 6-3 6-2
R32 Zimonjic, Nenad (SCG ) 266 6-4 6-4 6-2
R16 Manta, Lorenzo (SUI ) 196 7-5 6-4 5-7 6-3
Q Agassi, Andre (USA ) 4 3-6 4-6 4-6

--------------
Miami, FL, U.S.A.
Tennis Masters Series, 20-Mar-00, O, Hard , Draw: 96


R128 Bye, () N/A
R64 Clement, Arnaud (FRA ) 47 6-7(5) 7-6(4) 7-5
R32 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO ) 53 7-6(4) 6-3
R16 Pozzi, Gianluca (ITA ) 83 6-4 7-6(3)
Q Ferreira, Wayne (RSA ) 24 6-3 6-1
S Agassi, Andre (USA ) 2 6-1 6-4
F Sampras, Pete (USA ) 8 1-6 7-6(2) 6-7(5) 6-7(10)

---------------------------------

Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.
Tennis Masters Series, 7-Aug-00, O, Hard , Draw: 64

R64 Golmard, Jerome (FRA ) 35 6-0 6-4
R32 Pozzi, Gianluca (ITA ) 48 7-5 6-3
R16 Koubek, Stefan (AUT ) 45 1-6 6-1 6-2
Q Martin, Todd (USA ) 119 6-7 6-3 7-6(5)
S Henman, Tim (GBR ) 17 7-6(11) 3-6 6-7

------------------------------

Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A.
International Series Gold, 14-Aug-00, O, Hard , Draw: 56

R64 Bye, () N/A
R32 Woodbridge, Todd (AUS ) 138 5-7 6-4 6-1
R16 Dent, Taylor (USA ) 147 6-2 7-6(4)
Q Ferreira, Wayne (RSA ) 17 6-2 6-3
S Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS ) 9 7-5 6-2
W Safin, Marat (RUS ) 4 3-6 7-6(2) 7-6(2)

-------------------

Tennis Masters Cup, Lisbon, Portugal
WC, 27-Nov-00, I, Hard , Draw: 8

RR Agassi, Andre (USA ) 8 6-4 4-6 3-6
RR Norman, Magnus (SWE ) 4 7-5 6-3
RR Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS ) 5 6-3 6-4
S Sampras, Pete (USA ) 3 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4
W Agassi, Andre (USA ) 8 6-4 6-4 6-4

---------------------------
Cincinnati TMS, Ohio, USA
Tennis Masters Series, 6-Aug-01, O, Hard , Draw: 64

R64 Roddick, Andy (USA ) 24 7-6(3) 6-1
R32 Haas, Tommy (GER ) 22 7-6(4) 7-6(10)
R16 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO ) 11 6-2 6-1
Q Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS ) 10 6-4 3-6 6-4
S Henman, Tim (GBR ) 8 6-2 1-6 7-6(4)
W Rafter, Patrick (AUS ) 4 6-1 6-3

----------------------------
Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A.
International Series Gold, 13-Aug-01, O, Hard , Draw: 56

R64 Bye, () N/A
R32 Okun, Noam (ISR ) 230 6-4 6-3
R16 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) 43 7-6(5) 7-5
Q Henman, Tim (GBR ) 7 3-6 6-1 7-5
S Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO ) 11 1-6 6-3 6-2
F Rafter, Patrick (AUS ) 4 2-4

------------------------
US Open, NY, U.S.A.
Grand Slam, 27-Aug-01, O, Hard , Draw: 128

R128 Vacek, Daniel (CZE ) 234 6-4 6-4 3-6 7-5
R64 Pless, Kristian (DEN ) 98 6-3 6-4 6-4
R32 Mirnyi, Max (BLR ) 53 6-7(5) 5-7 7-6(4) 7-6(3) 6-2
R16 Costa, Albert (ESP ) 41 6-4 6-4 7-6(7)
Q Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS ) 8 4-6 6 3-6

ACE of Hearts
02-09-2006, 10:01 AM
I think Guga is definetly the exception, the guy has one of the best backhands.I want to see him compete at Wimbledon this year.Come on Guga!That backhand is lethal, especially on grass!

Defcon
02-09-2006, 10:11 AM
The worst thing about clay court tennis is these so called 'clay specialists' who have no hope of competing on any other surface, and instead of making an effort, usually withdraw and whine about Wimbledon not giving them the proper seeding they 'deserve'. The typical clay court game consists of endless looping topspins, waiting for an unforced error, with an occasional drop shot thrown in to spice things up.

Thankfully this has changed with players like Nalby, Ferrero and Nadal who have all court games and actually have a stated aim of winning other slams.

However I will say that the neutralizing aspect of clay allows some (a very few some) to play smart, tactical tennis and not get overpowered. I don't think we'd have Fabrice Santoro's if they didn't have clay to develop their game.

VGP
02-09-2006, 10:14 AM
I think Fed knows that a french open title would separate him from Sampras.I will say that Fed is already a better clay courter then Sampras was.It will be interesting too see these masters series clay tournaments leading up to the french open.Its about indurance like someone mentioned.

Remember, Federer grew up on clay. Sampras didn't.

Although that didn't stop Chang, Courier, and Agassi.

Would have been nice if all of the fab four could have had RG titles.

FalconX
02-09-2006, 10:34 AM
True but Wimbledon has never had one of these one-dimensional types actually win the whole thing. While the French has Gomez, Bruguera, Muster, Costa, etc. Guys who never did anything outside of the French. At least Krajicek, Stich, Ivanisevic have had good results at the other slams.
A guy like Mariono Puerta(who I believe had 2 wins total on hardcourts before the French) almost won the French last year. No way would Karlovic or Popp get anywhere near the final at Wimbledon.

Muster, Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten have all had good results in other slams. Neither Krajicek nor Ivanisevic reached a final at any other slam. The two of them might have reached 2 semis besides wimbledon. It's a bigger shock to me that someone like Goran after 3 years of doing virtually nothing can still come back and win wimbledon.

Andres
02-09-2006, 11:06 AM
Muster, Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten have all had good results in other slams. Neither Krajicek nor Ivanisevic reached a final at any other slam. The two of them might have reached 2 semis besides wimbledon. It's a bigger shock to me that someone like Goran after 3 years of doing virtually nothing can still come back and win wimbledon.

Ahh, the beauty of tennis ;)

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 11:13 AM
Ok, Falcon let me put it this way. Wimbledon champs Sampras, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek all made the semis of the French, their worst surface. Do you honestly believe Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Puerta, Nadal, Ferrero, Coria etc could ever realistically make the semis of Wimbledon? That's what I mean by one-dimensional.

VGP
02-09-2006, 11:23 AM
Ok, Falcon let me put it this way. Wimbledon champs Sampras, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek all made the semis of the French, their worst surface. Do you honestly believe Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Puerta, Nadal, Ferrero, Coria etc could ever realistically make the semis of Wimbledon? That's what I mean by one-dimensional.


That's a good point.

But, where's the motivation? There are so many clay court events that players can make a lot in earnings and boost their rankings (Rios) being clay court specialists. Hence the term.

FalconX
02-09-2006, 11:47 AM
Ok, Falcon let me put it this way. Wimbledon champs Sampras, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek all made the semis of the French, their worst surface. Do you honestly believe Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Puerta, Nadal, Ferrero, Coria etc could ever realistically make the semis of Wimbledon? That's what I mean by one-dimensional.

Which proves what?That clay court specialists' game is perhaps less adaptable to grass than is fast court players game to clay.Which begs the question: is French open more exciting than Wimbledon since so many players with different style of play could make deep runs into the tournament?

Kaptain Karl
02-09-2006, 11:49 AM
[KK shakes his head....]

Ok, Falcon let me put it this way. Wimbledon champs Sampras, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek all made the semis of the French, their worst surface. Do you honestly believe Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Puerta, Nadal, Ferrero, Coria etc could ever realistically make the semis of Wimbledon? That's what I mean by one-dimensional.Wow! I agree with Moose.

Did you people just feel the Earth *wobble* just a little?

- KK

Kaptain Karl
02-09-2006, 11:54 AM
Which begs the question: is French open more exciting than Wimbledon since so many players with different style of play could make deep runs into the tournament?"French Open" and "exciting" don't belong in the same sentence. (But to answer your question) "No" the FO isn't more exciting than Wimby -- ever.

- KK

FalconX
02-09-2006, 11:58 AM
And again as far as one-dimensional is concerned I still maintain that those types of players who depend so much on their serve are the most one-dimensional ones.

Anyone remember that match Agassi played against Rusedski in canada last year?I think Rusedski must have only won 3 or 4 points on Agassi serve. And it wasn't that Andre was serving well. He was getting balls back into play, but he just couldn't win a point chiping and charging or playing from the baseline. It was incredibly embarassing. Karlovic, Philippoussis (although he can occasionally crack a winner), and even roddick have far more one-deminsional games. Once you take their serves away, they can barely do a thing to win a point.

FalconX
02-09-2006, 12:04 PM
"French Open" and "exciting" don't belong in the same sentence. (But to answer your question) "No" the FO isn't more exciting than Wimby -- ever.

- KK

I think many people in South America, western Europe, russia and even some Scandinavia disagree. FO is the one they wanna watch and win. But you're entitled to your opinion.

For me personally I think Australia has had some of the finest matches in recent years. That's the one I really find exciting. I don't really like Wimbledon.

dudero
02-09-2006, 12:24 PM
I think many people in South America, western Europe, russia and even some Scandinavia disagree. FO is the one they wanna watch and win. But you're entitled to your opinion.


Falcon, how could you forget about Japan, where every little boy's dream is to be like their hero - Kabayashi, and eat 60 hotdogs in 3 minutes...

Andres
02-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Ok, Falcon let me put it this way. Wimbledon champs Sampras, Stich, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek all made the semis of the French, their worst surface. Do you honestly believe Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Puerta, Nadal, Ferrero, Coria etc could ever realistically make the semis of Wimbledon? That's what I mean by one-dimensional.

Coria just made the 4th round ;)
JCF did it also... it's not semis, it's true... but it's not crap ;)

mislav
02-09-2006, 12:34 PM
French Open is a great fun to watch. I just hate the current trend to moving to even faster surfaces reducing the game to explosive serves and fast reflexes. I prefer to see some brain usage during the points - that's where the beauty of the game lies in my opinion.

Andres
02-09-2006, 12:39 PM
French Open is a great fun to watch. I just hate the current trend to moving to even faster surfaces reducing the game to explosive serves and fast reflexes. I prefer to see some brain usage during the points - that's where the beauty of the game lies in my opinion.

Doesn't sound Croatian at all :)

VGP
02-09-2006, 12:41 PM
Winning Roland Garros pays better than competitive eating.....


http://www.ifoce.com/contests.php?action=detail&eventID=14

dudero
02-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Winning Roland Garros pays better than competitive eating.....


http://www.ifoce.com/contests.php?action=detail&eventID=14

Not bad at all, considering all their food expenses

Dedans Penthouse
02-09-2006, 01:39 PM
....Unlike the Australian Open, the French has never had a 'down' period, although it is and has been generally regarded as the 3rd of the 4 Slams.
Sorry; major "wrong" there:

1. Beginning in 1940, Roland Garros Stadium had the (very) dubious distinction of serving as an internment camp for Jews and other "undesirables" including the Hungarian-born writer Arthur Koestler who slept under guard in one of the center court locker rooms. Oi vey?!!! Oui.

2. The French Open was in such a sad state as recently as the 1970's. Former American great Cliff Ritchie asked (begged) President Phillipe Chatrier to take charge in saving the tournament, telling Chatrier that Roland Garros "looked like an abandoned stadium."

3. Things got so bad financially, that the French Open was actually called The Vanaos Open in 1972 as the French Tennis Federation took 350,000 francs from a cosmetics company for the right to rename it The Vanaos Open. Fortunately, they only sold their soul to the corporate devil for one year and the tourney regained its rightful name. But it should be noted that the Aussie Open, for all it's "down time" was never (even for one day) referred to along the lines of "The Shrimp-on-the-Barbie Open" ;-)

4. A quote from the man who spearheaded the drive to save the French Open himself, Messr. Philippe Chatrier after watching the Borg-Vilas final in 1978: "frightful, a real cure for insomnia."

5. The attendence for the entire 2 weeks in 1972 totalled only 51,101 which over 14 days translates to a shockingly few 3,650 people on average per day. Must've been a lot of babies conceived 'neath the blankets in the upper deck during the chilly days of the fortnight. "That ball was IN!!...check the mark!"

6. The site itself in the early 1970's was only 3.25 hectares (8 acres) and contained...get this: FIVE COURTS. (today it is 8 acres containing 20 courts).

Don't get me wrong, I love the French Open and thank goodness Philippe was around to "get it done." Merci Philippe, ol' chap! (smirk)

Lastly, about that "clay-court bum" Sampras:

what do 2 time French Open Champion Jim Courier (1991, 1992) and 2 time French Open champion Sergi Bruguera (1993, 1994) as well as former French Open champion (1995) and #1 in the world Thomas Muster have in common?

They've all gotten their asses handed to them at one time or another..........by Pete Sampras.........at The French Open.

Yeah, an exhausted Sampras (having the much tougher draw of the two) eventually got beat by the eventual French Open champ Yegevny Kafelnikov, but it can be noted that the "clay court bum" did own a 4-1 CLAY court record against Kafelnikov, including Davis Cup in Russia on red clay. Oh, one other thing: when Sampras did attain the #1 ranking in the world, he didn't go in the tank and lose 6 (or was it 7?) straight matches---IN THE FIRST ROUND like Yegevny the dog did. No, Sampras will never be mistaken for Bjorn Borg on clay, but he (on his best day) was "slightly" better than the clay-court partisians who practically chirp with glee in deriding his record. How many of the French Open champs have won the Italian Open? Just curious. Did Sampras? Just curious.


Again, don't get me wrong, I love the French Open. And yes, the "power" racquets have livened it up nicely. But: an Alberto Beresutegi making the finals of Wimbledon? Of the U.S. Open? Of the Aussie Open? He'd have a better chance of seeing God, what with that screwball forehand grip and non-existant backhand.

mislav
02-09-2006, 01:39 PM
Doesn't sound Croatian at all :)
lol I must say I sometimes wonder myself... :D

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 01:43 PM
A quote from the man who spearheaded the drive to save the French Open himself, Messr. Philippe Chatrier after watching the Borg-Vilas final in 1978: "frightful, a real cure for insomnia."

I just saw that match & thought it was pretty good. They were both hitting the ball pretty hard & trying to be aggressive. Vilas hit some crazy backhand overheads that Borg got back. And the stands were full (including some celebrities-Jack Nicholson looked like he was having a good time), so Chatrier shouldn't have complained.
I think watching Lendl-Wilander in those French finals of the 80s was worse. That could cure insomnia.

Things got so bad financially, that the French Open was actually called The Vanaos Open in 1972 as the French Tennis Federation took 350,000 francs from a cosmetics company for the right to rename it The Vanaos Open. Fortunately, they only sold their soul to the corporate devil for one year and the tourney regained its rightful name. But it should be noted that the Aussie Open, for all it's "down time" was never (even for one day) referred to along the lines of

Actually, the Australian Open, was for many years- the Ford Australian Open.

devila
02-09-2006, 01:49 PM
If Federer's legs slow down and his arms can't extend far enough due to wear and tear, what will the Fed Freaks call him? 2 1/2-dimensional?

bluegrasser
02-09-2006, 01:50 PM
I enjoy the FO, yea, the baseline bashing can get a little long, but seeing those great players slip and slide in the dirt, well, it's like a war, like playing Football on real grass and dirt instead of the plastic stuff. I also think it's the most difficult slam to win...

alienhamster
02-09-2006, 08:43 PM
Clay court tennis is definitely boring at times, but often in the ways chess is boring. Clay rewards patience and defense more than any other surface, so you often get to see headier matches there.

The FO is a welcome contrast to the other majors, but it's possibly the only one where I'd maybe rather see best of 3 setters.

katarddx
02-10-2006, 05:02 PM
I (partially) agree with the OP.

When the French Open is on TV, I get lots more done than with any other Slam event. Because I mostly *listen* to the French and get my work done. I listen for the announcers to get excited about a particular point and watch the (usually abbreviated ... Yea!) replay of that point.

I love most clay events. I don't like the "clay" they use in Roland Garros. It is not just too slow; it's BORING.

Har-Tru and Rubico (the American green clays) are my favorite surfaces of all....

- KK
contrary to KK, (just a personal preference) I LOVE red clay. I grew up on it and will preffer vs. any other surface to play on. Green clay is close but no cigar...To watch, well that is another issue...

Kaptain Karl
02-11-2006, 06:22 AM
contrary to KK, (just a personal preference) I LOVE red clay. I grew up on it and will preffer vs. any other surface to play on.As my mom frequently says, "That's why they make chocolate AND vanilla." I *do* like the Red Clay found all around New England. (It is real clay and "a touch" slower than Har-Tru. But I'm told it's nowhere near the ... mush ... of European Red Clay.)

I grew up playing on Har-Tru. One college summer, some buddies and I decided to play all the NE tourneys we could. I was in Maine, on Red Clay, playing a Round 1 match against a guy I thought must be the "local hero" cuz the stands were packed. After winning in 3, I asked my buddy (who'd been in the stands) "who the local hero was?" He said, "They weren't watching *him*; they were watching YOU. They were all surprised to see someone playing S&V on clay ... and winning!"

(The Red was only a *little* slower than the Har-Tru I'd played all my youth. I used a LOT of Slice and Kick Serves....)

- KK

katarddx
02-11-2006, 08:25 AM
As my mom frequently says, "That's why they make chocolate AND vanilla." I *do* like the Red Clay found all around New England. (It is real clay and "a touch" slower than Har-Tru. But I'm told it's nowhere near the ... mush ... of European Red Clay.)

I grew up playing on Har-Tru. One college summer, some buddies and I decided to play all the NE tourneys we could. I was in Maine, on Red Clay, playing a Round 1 match against a guy I thought must be the "local hero" cuz the stands were packed. After winning in 3, I asked my buddy (who'd been in the stands) "who the local hero was?" He said, "They weren't watching *him*; they were watching YOU. They were all surprised to see someone playing S&V on clay ... and winning!"

(The Red was only a *little* slower than the Har-Tru I'd played all my youth. I used a LOT of Slice and Kick Serves....)

- KK
that is the way to do it! i really don't understand some people are trying to make point of playind a lot of top-spin on red clay, but afterwards thay are claiming how tired they are since "their" game was not the "right" one and so on... all you have to do is adjust, and i really like the "Chocolate AND Vanilla" comparrison; that is why we have 4 Slams, a little bit for everyone (i hope). thanks KK
BTW. i was talking about european red clay, just to clarify.

federerforever
02-11-2006, 09:02 AM
In my opinion French Open is the most important grand slam and should be the most prestigous, not Wimbledon. That's because French Open mainly tests the tennis player's ability to win points by smartly constructing points and winning long rallies. That's what tennis is all about. It is not about being able to win cheap points with aces or a third point which is a volley. Other grand slams are for slackers. Which is why Pete Sampras is a joke in my opinion and if Federer will never win a French Open he will also be a joke even if he wins 20 grand slams. Which is why Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Agassi are right now top 3 greatest players of all time because they were excellent on all surfaces and remember that Agassi did not start to play Australian Opne until 1995. He could have won 9 Australian Opens if he really wanted.

West Coast Ace
02-11-2006, 09:03 AM
As my mom frequently says, "That's why they make chocolate AND vanilla." I *do* like the Red Clay found all around New England. (It is real clay and "a touch" slower than Har-Tru. But I'm told it's nowhere near the ... mush ... of European Red Clay.)

I grew up playing on Har-Tru. One college summer, some buddies and I decided to play all the NE tourneys we could. I was in Maine, on Red Clay, playing a Round 1 match against a guy I thought must be the "local hero" cuz the stands were packed. After winning in 3, I asked my buddy (who'd been in the stands) "who the local hero was?" He said, "They weren't watching *him*; they were watching YOU. They were all surprised to see someone playing S&V on clay ... and winning!"

(The Red was only a *little* slower than the Har-Tru I'd played all my youth. I used a LOT of Slice and Kick Serves....)

- KK
KK, I find myself usually agreeing with you but not on this one.

Since the 70-80's when the FO looked like they were hitting over a volleyball net and you could go take a sh*t and come back and resume watching the same point, the FFT has done the wise thing and sped the game up - they knew to increase interest they had to attract all tennis fans, not just the usual suspects - Europeans and S. Americans who grew up on the stuff. I was there before the tournament a few years ago and watched some of the laborers do the back breaking work of scraping the courts down to the very hard base. Unless Paris has a real run of cold, damp weather, I don't think the courts will play that much slower than what we just saw at the AO.

VGP
02-11-2006, 09:24 AM
In my opinion French Open is the most important grand slam and should be the most prestigous, not Wimbledon. That's because French Open mainly tests the tennis player's ability to win points by smartly constructing points and winning long rallies. That's what tennis is all about. It is not about being able to win cheap points with aces or a third point which is a volley. Other grand slams are for slackers. Which is why Pete Sampras is a joke in my opinion and if Federer will never win a French Open he will also be a joke even if he wins 20 grand slams. Which is why Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Agassi are right now top 3 greatest players of all time because they were excellent on all surfaces and remember that Agassi did not start to play Australian Opne until 1995. He could have won 9 Australian Opens if he really wanted.


Sampras a joke, huh? Did you actually watch him play? Federer joke if he never wins Roland Garros? Whatever.

Kaptain Karl
02-11-2006, 09:44 AM
... the FFT has done the wise thing and sped the game up - they knew to increase interest they had to attract all tennis fans, not just the usual suspects - Europeans and S. Americans who grew up on the stuff. I was there before the tournament a few years ago and watched some of the laborers do the back breaking work of scraping the courts down to the very hard base. Unless Paris has a real run of cold, damp weather, I don't think the courts will play that much slower than what we just saw at the AO.I didn't know this. I hope you are right....

- KK

shawn1122
02-11-2006, 01:57 PM
I just watched Federer versus Gasquet from Monte Carlo 2005, and if anyone thinks that is slow play, they're on some type of drug.

Dedans Penthouse
02-12-2006, 07:26 AM
In my opinion French Open is the most important grand slam....Which is why Pete Sampras is a joke in my opinion and if Federer will never win a French Open he will also be a joke even if he wins 20 grand slams.
No more phone calls please.......we have a winner!

wow.

DashaandSafin
02-12-2006, 07:51 AM
I personally love playing on clay, or Har Tru anyway becuase in America there is no European Red Clay. However, i rather watch the USO or AO rather than FO.