Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by arodnadal, Jul 24, 2006.
what do you think is the touhest grand slam to win?
For Federer and Sampras the French Open.
French I'd say. So many nobody claycourters could knock you out.
Definitely French open. You need to be both physically and mentally fit to win the Frech open.
Wimbledon, far and away. Looking back over the years, you can see that typically speaking only the truly great players have been particularly successful there. I look at the French as the opposite - yes it takes a certain amount of physical stamina and ability to win, but too many one hit wonders have won the French and not much else.
Historically, (and before the excessive slowing of conditions tour wide), for the traditional medium/fast courters (offensive baseliners, all-courters, big serve big fh'ers, serve and volleyers, etc.) RG had always been the toughest.
For the heavy topspin, defensive baseliners? Everything else.
I would have to say Wimbledon is the toughest because not many players know how to adapt to playing on the grass. They find it hard to volley and come to the net because everyone seems to think that they can win from behind the baseline.
Is this another poll showing how many Fed and Nadal fans are there ? Aussie and US open are in the poll too, you know.
I say Wimbledon because the grass court season isnt that long so players do have a lot of time to ajust to the new court surface.
i think Wimbledon is the toughest for the rest of the field... just because Federer defends his house with dignity...
For Federer the toughest to win is the French
well id go for the french first ...then wimby...this is because most of the grass court/hard court players come into the french and get beaten by the likes of almagro,coria and gaudio....while vice verca for wimby...the diff is that majority of the players on tour have harc court /grass court games
Wimbeldeon is the toughest to win simply because thats the tournament where all the greats of the game have tried to win. It's the supebowl of tennis.
If the French Open was as meaningful as Wimbeldon then I think Sampras would have had 7 French Opens instead of 7 Wimby's. He would have had the game to win on clay, but since Wimbeldon was the big one, he suited his game for that very purpose.
I think the tour knows that to win Wimbeldon you have to beat a VERY good player, the French Open is more of a duck shoot, you never know what could happend.
i have a question to ask u...r u retarded...samprass couldnt have jsut changed his game if he wanted to...his game was suited for grass...not clay..for example...i have a very good clay court game because i am fast and can get the ball back in play...however i cant say i want to play good on grass
Well, Sampras as a junior had a game more suited for clay. So for that matter did McEnroe. Both played more defensive tennis as juniors. Sampras had a two handed backhand. Both were baseliners. McEnroe didn't start to play attacking serve/volley tennis until he was 17.
Both Sampras and McEnroe, the two greatest grass court players of the last 30 years, changed their game from a clay game to an attacking game because they valued Wimbledon over the other Grand Slams. And the game necessary to win at Wimbledon translated very well to the fast courts of the US Open, and in McEnroe's time to the grass of Australia.
Pete was one of the greatest players to play the game and he formed his game to do well on grass and hardcourts. If the greats grew up thinking the French Open was the best tournament then the greats would have made there success on clay not grass. They didn't though and they all went after Wimbeldon because it means the most and has the most prestiege!
For Borg it was the US Open, but for so many other the French is the most difficult.
For the majority of players throughout history, Wimbeldon has been the toughest!
For the elite and best players, the French Open has been the toughest.
Overall, you have to go with Wimbeldon just because that's where the greats went to excel! The French Open is tough but the caliber of players are not the same. It gives people with maybe a little less skill on a more equal playing field. Where as Wimbeldon if you don't have a certain tool, there's really no chance for you because of the caliber of players in that tournament and the way the courts and surface play!
Wimbledon, you just need to be a grinder to win the French
Emotionally: US Open
It is hard for most players to play on clay if they usually play on hard courts. Transitioning is the hardest part because the ball barely bounces on certain shots plus they have to learn to slide into shots and american tennis is lacking on clay courts.
None of them is tougher than the other.
You have to win 7 matches in all of them, be better than 127 players.
Of course the weather or the surface or some other circumstances can be tougher in one slam compared to other. But your opponents have to cope with those circumstances as well. So that evens it out.
AO *might* be a little bit easier because sometimes not all the top players show up.
The truly great players had some difficulties to win the French, yes?
So obviously the French Open is the toughest ....
The French Open. It tests your stamina and endurance.
depends what your most suited towards.
definitely french open.. since its clay random things can happen
They're all tough. I like the US Open and French Open. US Open because it's the USO and hot, end of year GS. French because clay courters rule there.
I'll have to say the French Open. Its a surface where you have to at your peak in physical ability and fitness compared to other surfaces. Wimbledon on the other hand all you need is a big serve and you could pull off a few matches with that weapon alone.
They are all as tough as each other....there is no one specific grand slam that is harder than another...there are so many factors involved that make each one difficult.
For the Aussie open, the heat is a huge factor so if you didn't do too much conditioning work in the off season then you will suffer.
French, again, fitness plays a bug part as matches can go on forever. As does solid ground strokes from the back of the court.
Wimbledon, yes, a big serve is great but returns are also a big factor in winning....as if you can't return and are holding your service games easily....not going to win!! Will be one hell of a long match!! Also, players have to contend with 'strange' bounces
US open, again, fitness plays a part as the humidity can be very draining.
Luck plays a big part in any Grand Slam win...just thought i'd throw that comment in for good measure!!
I voted Wimbledon just because Federer is so dominant on grass. I guess you could say the same for Nadal at the French.
The French Open is the toughest. You cannot overpower your opponent. You have to use your mind, be in excellent shape and have mental toughness. And you need to know how to slide into shots.
I say French Open. There are soooooooo many players that are specialized to play on clay and nothing else that someone outside of that circle has a very hard time winning.
There are far fewer players who specialize for grass so Wimbledon is more wide open to make a run. Also on grass you can have very limited game with holes that can be covered up with a huge serve.
I think Aussie Open is tough too because it is the start of the year and the heat is ridiculous. Remember that final with Hingis and Capriati? Man . . . looked like Hingis was gonna have a stroke . . . and I know Hingis isn't the most fit player ever but still, she was world number one so her fitness was not awful.
Special mention should also be made for US Open too. In fact, I may change my mind and say US Open for the simple fact that both clay courters and grass courters transition fairly well to hardcourt of US Open. It is also prestigious tournament and with that many top contenders around, it is very difficult to win. At Wimbledon there are top players who suffer on grass, at French there are players who suffer on clay, but at US Open, basically the entire top 50 can play well.
the french should be the obvious choice here. most players in europe, south america, and most of asia grew up on clay and that's their natural surface. there are just so many more outstanding natural clay-courters than there are hard court players, and it makes it that much harder wih every round of the french.
This thread makes no sense. For clay courter specialists, the French is their only hope, for big servers/hitters, a more distant one.
What matters is who you have to play in the slam. Wimbledon is the hardest because Federer is the most difficult to dethrone.
Wimbledon is the only correct answer here. Federer has won 4 in a row, therefore it's the hardest for anyone else to come in and win.
Separate names with a comma.