Do you really consider the Grand Slams to be of equal value?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Djokovic has 6 Australian Opens, 3 Wimbledons, and 2 US Opens.

When Federer won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.

When Nadal won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 US Open.

When Sampras won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 2 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 US Opens.

Would Sampras trade one of his Wimbledons or US Opens for another Australian Open to have greater diversity? No way. Because we all know that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are the two most prestigious and valued Grand Slams.

 

[Cenarius]

I value higher FO and W than the hardcourt slams.I mean 1 on grass, 1 on clay but 2 on hardcourt?

W=FO>>>>UO>>>>>>>>AO

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Only Wimbledon can have a claim of being a bit more prestigious than others, with all of its tradition.

 

[ollinger]

Does every thought of the OP have the same agenda?? And the things "we all know" are by no means commonly held beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Does every thought of the OP have the same agenda?? And the things "we all know" are by no means commonly held beliefs.

If his agenda is what you think it is, he probably would have fully credited Fed with the correct number of Wimbledon wins by #11 (doesn't add up right now)

 

[Krish872007]

I don't know why people still take a dump on the AO. The players receive fantastic treatment in Melbourne and it has earned the "Happy Slam" nickname. And as of now, the prestige factor has less relevance. So Wimbledon is only very marginally above the others - but not at a significant level/

 

[tennisaddict]

Kyrgios just said yesterday if he had one wish it is to win Wimbledon. He said that is clearly even over world #1

 

[GabeT]

no good to stay stuck in the past. The era of some Slams being worth more than others is long gone.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Djokovic has 6 Australian Opens, 3 Wimbledons, and 2 US Opens.

When Federer won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 3 Australian Opens, 4 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.

When Nadal won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 US Open.

When Sampras won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 2 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 US Opens.

Would Sampras trade one of his Wimbledons or US Opens for another Australian Open to have greater diversity? No way. Because we all know that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are the two most prestigious and valued Grand Slams.

I didn't knew this ,please tell this to Sampras as he went on a war against Agassi in 2000 and against Safin in 2002 Ao . Also say this to Fed as he started crying after loosing 09 AO but was ok after loosing Wimbledon 08 .
Troll op .

 

[CYGS]

Kyrgios just said yesterday if he had one wish it is to win Wimbledon. He said that is clearly even over world #1

Kyrgios also said his buddy banged Wawrinka's girlfriend. He said a lot of things.

 

[roger presley]

Every Slam counts.

 

[tennisaddict]

Kyrgios also said his buddy banged Wawrinka's girlfriend. He said a lot of things.

He also said Fed is the GOAT

 

[CYGS]

He also said Fed is the GOAT

Not surprising, but Nadal, Berdych, Coric, Chung, Tomic & Raonic disagree. It's okay.

 

[Gazelle]

Cincy is above them all.

 

[ollinger]

"When DId All Four Slams Supposedly Become Equal" was posted by the OP Dec. 2013 here, beating the same dead horse, trying to convince us that WImbledon and USO are somehow more important than other slams, presumably because of his man-crush Federer's exploits. Last time I looked, pretty much all the top players play at all the slams and have to win seven best-of-five matches. Personally, I give more value to the French Open, where more skill and patience is demanded to win points, and where a hot server can't march through the field just by holding serve. Laver once said "clay is the game," his sense that the greatest skill was required to win on that surface.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Not surprising, but Nadal, Berdych, Coric, Chung, Tomic & Raonic disagree. It's okay.

Now this gets interesting... did you randomly pluck quotes from these players about who is the Greatest? Do you think that if you polled all, Federer would not win? Come on now.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[CYGS]

Now this gets interesting... did you randomly pluck quotes from these players about who is the Greatest? Do you think that if you polled all, Federer would not win? Come on now.

Interesting. Why don't you go question tennisaddict's claim that Kyrgios said Federer is GOAT? I've never read anything that was even remotely close, and Federer lost their only encounter to Kyrgios.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Interesting. Why don't you go question tennisaddict's claim that Kyrgios said Federer is GOAT? I've never read anything that was even remotely close, and Federer lost their only encounter to Kyrgios.

He named one guy, and you responded by rattling off six names. It's true that six is more than one, but 83 is also more than 17. Point is, you'd have to get a larger cross-section than just a few random names.

 

[CYGS]

He named one guy, and you responded by rattling off six names. It's true that six is more than one, but 83 is also more than 17. Point is, you'd have to get a larger cross-section than just a few random names.

No, that's not the reason. The reason behind your selective questioning and hypocrisy stems entirely from the fact that his fits your agenda while mine don't.

 

[nowhereman]

Cincy >>>> AO + RG + Wimbledon + USO

 

[tennisaddict]

Interesting. Why don't you go question tennisaddict's claim that Kyrgios said Federer is GOAT? I've never read anything that was even remotely close, and Federer lost their only encounter to Kyrgios.

That just means you don't read enough.

 

[CYGS]

That just means you don't read enough.

Enlighten me.

 

[uliks]

If AO is really the second string slam, less worthy than the other slams, then why Federer care so much about this tournament?!

 

[NatF]

Wimbledon > all the others

 

[nowhereman]

Wimbledon > all the others

Cincy > all others

 

[Deleted member 743561]

If AO is really the second string slam, less worthy than the other slams, then why Federer care so much about this tournament?!

Not the first person to post this sentiment. Don't you think it had a lot more to do with the opponent, and the cumulative effect of losing major finals generally, rather than the tournament itself?

 

[tennisaddict]

Enlighten me.

If you are interested, look it up yourself. And I dont misquote like how you did with 'Novak is greatest ? " article by removing the question mark.

 

[uliks]

Not the first person to post this sentiment. Don't you think it had a lot more to do with the opponent, and the cumulative effect of losing major finals generally, rather than the tournament itself?

Hmm, there are images with Federer crying also from before 2009. Why the hell Fed care so much about this tournament?!

 

[Deleted member 743561]

"When DId All Four Slams Supposedly Become Equal" was posted by the OP Dec. 2013 here, beating the same dead horse, trying to convince us that WImbledon and USO are somehow more important than other slams, presumably because of his man-crush Federer's exploits. Last time I looked, pretty much all the top players play at all the slams and have to win seven best-of-five matches. Personally, I give more value to the French Open, where more skill and patience is demanded to win points, and where a hot server can't march through the field just by holding serve. Laver once said "clay is the game," his sense that the greatest skill was required to win on that surface.

RG requires a more niche skill set. No slow major will ever be valued the most, because it rewards a kind of tennis that is not at the heart of the game. I think RG has had the fewest winners, because it's a surface for specialists. Players who excel at Wimbledon also excel elsewhere. The great champs at Wimbledon have won numerous other majors... but it doesn't go the other way.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Hmm, there are images with Federer crying also from before 2009. Why the hell Fed care so much about this tournament?!

Am I missing something here? You're posting a photo of a man holding the trophy to make your point? He gets emotional win or lose! You could post a hundred different photos of Fed shedding tears. Next...

 

[TMF]

I didn't knew this ,please tell this to Sampras as he went on a war against Agassi in 2000 and against Safin in 2002 Ao . Also say this to Fed as he started crying after loosing 09 AO but was ok after loosing Wimbledon 08 .
Troll op .

You actually believe Federer values AO more than Wimbledon then you have never follow his entire career.
Federer's dream of winning Wimbledon was even before he join the ATP tour. It was always his #1 tournament, the same can be said for Sampras.

 

[CYGS]

If you are interested, look it up yourself. And I dont misquote like how you did with 'Novak is greatest ? " article by removing the question mark.

As expected.

 

[tennisaddict]

As expected.

Google is your friend. Type 'Kyrgios Federer greatest'.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

You actually believe Federer values AO more than Wimbledon then you have never follow his entire career.
Federer's dream of winning Wimbledon was even before he join the ATP tour. It was always his #1 tournament, the same can be said for Sampras.

Not saying it was not, but if he never valued AO then why did he cry? After winning once and after loosing also.

 

[CYGS]

Google is your friend. Type 'Kyrgios Federer greatest'.

Type Nadal Doha Defeat. Google is your friend too.

 

[NatF]

Cincy > all others

Dubai > Halle > Cincy > all others

 

[TMF]

Not saying it was not, but if he never valued AO then why did he cry? After winning once and after loosing also.

I don't think the OP meant to say the AO is not a value tournament because of course it is. Every player values the 4 slams, but the AO isn't as prestigious as the other two slams, especially Wimbledon, the Holy Grail in tennis.

 

[nowhereman]

Dubai > Halle > Cincy > all others

Don't forget Basel too.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

@TMF Which is the second? I hope you don't end up saying US open as Nat F said Wimbledon > others, and I agree with him. Difference is not big, it is just historic, points are given same.
Reason Ao and RG was less preferred and US more in 70 because of less prize money, the moment prize money and other facilities became same, all the remaining three became equal and AO has become players favorite because of better scheduling and facilities.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

@TMF Which is the second? I hope you don't end up saying US open as Nat F said Wimbledon > others, and I agree with him. Difference is not big, it is just historic, points are given same.
Reason Ao and RG was less preferred and US more in 70 because of less prize money, the moment prize money and other facilities became same, all the remaining three became equal and AO has become players favorite because of better scheduling and facilities.

I think the thing they like best is that it's at the beginning of the season. Everyone has a clean slate, and is freshest. The year has yet to play out, and they hope to get off on the right foot.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I think the thing they like best is that it's at the beginning of the season. Everyone has a clean slate, and is freshest. They year has yet to play out, and they hope to get off on the right foot.

Agree with your point completely.

 

[haqq777]

On paper they all have the same value off course. Rest is all very subjective.

 

[haqq777]

On paper they all have the same value off course. Rest is all very subjective.

Obviously I meant in term of ATP points. Prize money is a different story.

 

[haqq777]

RG requires a more niche skill set. No slow major will ever be valued the most, because it rewards a kind of tennis that is not at the heart of the game. I think RG has had the fewest winners, because it's a surface for specialists. Players who excel at Wimbledon also excel elsewhere. The great champs at Wimbledon have won numerous other majors... but it doesn't go the other way.

I'm not so sure about it not being "at the heart of the game" really. It's been played on clay, which is obviously a slower surface, since late nineteenth century. If anything it lies very much in the dead center of the heart of the game. Definitely agree about the surface being for specialists.

 

[NatF]

Don't forget Basel too.

Yes and of course Istanbul > Roland Garros

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I'm not so sure about it not being "at the heart of the game" really. It's been played on clay, which is obviously a slower surface, since late nineteenth century. If anything it lies very much in the dead center of the heart of the game. Definitely agree about the surface being for specialists.

What keeps things going? Innovation. Creative, attacking tennis pushes the envelope, and spurs change. Defense is responsive, and stifles change.

 

[haqq777]

@TMF the moment prize money and other facilities became same, all the remaining three became equal and AO has become players favorite because of better scheduling and facilities.

The prize money still has a big variation between the first two slams prize money versus the last two.

AO: 31 Million USD
FO: 30 Million USD
Wimbledon: 42.2 Million USD
USO: 42.25 Million USD

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

What keeps things going? Innovation. Creative, attacking tennis pushes the envelope, and spurs change. Defense is responsive, and stifles change.

No, both defense and attack are integral parts of the game. They have both, at different times, spurred the game forward. Even a superficial look at tennis history easily demonstrates this.

 

[dr325i]

Djokovic has 6 Australian Opens, 3 Wimbledons, and 2 US Opens.

When Federer won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.

When Nadal won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 US Open.

When Sampras won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 2 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 US Opens.

Would Sampras trade one of his Wimbledons or US Opens for another Australian Open to have greater diversity? No way. Because we all know that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are the two most prestigious and valued Grand Slams.

That is why they get more money and points for those two tournaments. That's why it is tougher to get in to those two tournaments than the FO & AO for those outside first 128. That is why top pros only care about those two tournaments. Ah, wait...