AO vs USO -- which is the better HC GS?

[syc23]

AO is the better HC slam as it's better organised. However if players were asked which slam the would add onto their resume, it would be USO.

In terms of prestige this is the order:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open

 

[firepanda]

The crowd at the AO annoy me, as do the commentators and interviewers. Damned Australians. But that said, it's the only slam reasonably in my time zone, so I prefer it for that reason.

 

[ASH1485]

level of tennis is higher in the AO, the players seem fresh and hungry and well prepared physically.

personally i prefer the australian open. i just enjoy the tournament's atmosphere more than the USO

 

[MaiDee]

Australian Open.

I think the U.S. Open is probably the worst slam.

Absolutely agree!

 

[matchmaker]

AO has been better in last years. More spectacular matches, better scheduling. USO need to get a roof and eliminate 5th set tiebreak. Why don't they do the men's semis on Friday, the women's semis on Saturday, and both finals on Sunday. Women play best of three, so that should be feasible and it actually gives them a lot of media exposure.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I remember a time when some people thought the USO was the most important major to win.

Nowadays, the USO has really lost a lot of its luster. Horrible scheduling, a bad time of year due to weather and NFL, poor facilities and location, etc., etc. Meanwhile, RG has become super important for CGS reasons and the AO has become a fantastic tournament with great play quality.

If I were a player, I'd still probably win the USO, but it would be close, and highly colored by the fact that I'm American.

 

[rossi46]

The easiest way to judge the prestiege of a slam is to look at the players who have won. When you do so it becomes clear that Wimbledon and the US Open are streets ahead of the Aust Open and Roland Garros in status.

Granted the Aust Open has grown in status through the nineties and beyond. Roland Garros has often been won by players who are not considered to be great champions of the game ( obviously Borg and nadal withstanding)

This is yet another reason why Sampras and Federer are such great players - they dominated the two most prestigous grand slams.

Food for thought.

Yeah you are right, look at some of the hacks who have won the French Open, Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, Federer. Really low quality players.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

The easiest way to judge the prestiege of a slam is to look at the players who have won. When you do so it becomes clear that Wimbledon and the US Open are streets ahead of the Aust Open and Roland Garros in status.

Granted the Aust Open has grown in status through the nineties and beyond. Roland Garros has often been won by players who are not considered to be great champions of the game ( obviously Borg and nadal withstanding)

This is yet another reason why Sampras and Federer are such great players - they dominated the two most prestigous grand slams.

Food for thought.

Have you ever considered that the reason for less well-known players winning RG is because (i) it is really hard to be consistently good on a physical surface and (ii) fast-court players have more majors (and, with WTF, really 3/5 of the biggest events) and thus more opportunities to win big events and get big time ranking points?

Clay courts make up about 35% of the ATP schedule, yet only 20% of the majors + WTF. You'd know a lot more about some of those clay-courters if clay had 2 majors as opposed to 1, which would keep it more in line with its importance throughout the year.

 

[tacou]

AO. I like the 5th set tb but the wind makes for some crap tennis and the second week is depressing instead of exciting because you know there will be no GS tennis for 5 months.

AO has great tennis because players have actually gotten rest and valuable practice time. Earlier poster who said there is "something off about the atmosphere" must be stoned. The has the best of Wimbledon's intelligence and the USO's boisterousness.

 

[netlets]

The matches have been better at the AO since the players are fresh. The players are at the end of the season by the time they hit NY and sometimes injuries and fatigue effect the overall quality of the matches.

 

[Towser83]

Us open has bad scheduling and a final set tiebreak which i don't like, but i still much prefer it to the ao.

There is also the fact that in the open era only 3 one slam wonders have won the uso and one of them is delpo who is still playing, the ao has had 6 one slam wonders winning it (wimby 4, rg 10)

So that makes it look a bit more prestigious imo.

 

[martini1]

AO is the better HC slam as it's better organised. However if players were asked which slam the would add onto their resume, it would be USO.

In terms of prestige this is the order:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open

Other than Wimbledon I think #2-4 would have tons of different answers from different people, especially the way it is going right now, I won't be surprised in 10 yrs people would say AO is #2. All it needs is a bunch epic matches by HOFers, especially in the final.