Why is the Australian Open considered the least prestigous out of the 4 slams?

PhatChineseDude · Oct 29, 2009

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. · Oct 29, 2009

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 · Oct 29, 2009

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 · Oct 29, 2009

Moose Malloy said:
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 · Oct 29, 2009

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 · Oct 29, 2009

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 · Oct 29, 2009

Who says it is? It used to be but I really don't think that's true anymore.

BreakPoint · Oct 29, 2009

veroniquem said:
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 · Oct 29, 2009

Ask Federer if the Australian Open is important. He cried so hard after losing the final this year, 'nuff said.

dropshot winner · Oct 29, 2009

It's the fluke slam, just look at some of the finalists (Schuttler, Clement) and winners (Korda, Johannson).

thetheorist · Oct 29, 2009

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 · Oct 30, 2009

MuseFan said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Brian Teacher won a Slam. Guess which one?

Darth_Timmaayyy!! · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

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 · Oct 30, 2009

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 · Oct 30, 2009

The australian open is the least prestigous GS because you don't have to be good to win it. Just ask Johansson

dropshot winner · Oct 30, 2009

Anaconda said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

PhatChineseDude said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Anaconda said:
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.

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

TheMagicianOfPrecision said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Gorecki said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Anaconda said:
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.

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 30, 2009

jms007 said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Anaconda said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

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 · Oct 30, 2009

Gorecki said:
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?

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 30, 2009

jms007 said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

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 · Oct 30, 2009

Gorecki said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Darth_Timmaayyy!! said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

lawrence said:
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.

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 30, 2009

jms007 said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Gorecki said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Gorecki said:
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.

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

The Austrilian Open is my favorite.

BreakPoint · Oct 30, 2009

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

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

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

DownTheLine · Oct 30, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
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!! · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

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!! · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
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 · Oct 30, 2009

BreakPoint said:
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

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 · Oct 30, 2009

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

Why is the Australian Open considered the least prestigous out of the 4 slams?

New User

Legend

G.O.A.T.

New User

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

New User

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Hall of Fame

Professional

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Rookie

Professional

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Legend

New User

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads