Really why should some one has to take credit of retiring early and not wining all four. AO wasnt important but US Open was important even in his time. Let me be clear Borg wining 6 RG titles 5 Wimbledons still so special. I still put him above someone like Djokovic on great players list but thats where it ends.
His first coach, an Australian, died in a car accident while on a safari that Roger and his family recommended he go on.Hmm, there are images with Federer crying also from before 2009. Why the hell Fed care so much about this tournament?!
The other 3 slams are debatable today, and reasonably one can argue for either one. I personally believe the USO is the 2nd biggest slam. However unlike during Borg's heyday when the WCT was more important than AO, it's justify to say the AO wasn't as big as the other 3 slams.
The only interesting point in that table is the never reched no.1 column. Im happy to put USO over FO...i love USO, but the FO definitely carries more prestige these days. But i like the never reached no.1 column as i would like USO to be second personally. I dont like the french and their crowds are ignorant in my view.Yes, but the French had the highest number of both one time winners: 10 (vs 4 for USO and Wimbledon) and winners who never reached #1: 12 (vs 5 and 6 for USO and Wimbledon)
Why is this so hard to understand?!
Can you back up that comment about why clay was invented? Isnt clay and grass the two natural original surfaces? Im happy to be wrong but id love to see some evidence of what you sy as that would be interesting. Hard court tennis though is not as good as either clay or grass. Much easier to play on.
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
If he ever wins 7 AO I will be glad create a public poll.
No counts are same because in even strong grass field he would dominated everbody apart from Sampras. Fed movement is magical and can defeat 90s Becker, Edberg Goran etc.
As an American I would say that the AO has already won the battle. Something really stupid goes wrong at the USO each year. Rain delays in QFs and Fs really ruin the result by delaying matches horribly. That also makes RG the worst for me, because the France is are even more backwards than the US. No surprise we won't have a roof until next year. Everything in this country is falling apart - airports, railroads, bridges.
What make AO better is that there court speed is medium making every player and their style countable. Players are fresh also.
I'd put Wimbledon above all others if there were more grass tournaments. But I think grass is almost a joke now because there is not enough practice on it, and this has been going on for some time. At least there are a lot of tournaments each year on clay, so it is the second most used surface even if it only has one slam..
I think they should turn 1 clay master and 1 hard court master as a grass one
The AO is the best organized slam and it's not even close,it's no wonder all the players love it so much. Look at the rain they had this year (rare for Melbourne this time of year) and look how little it derailed the tournament. The French Open and Wimbledon often end up in trouble because they don't have night sessions,and Wimbledon no middle Sunday. The US Open has had problems with it's lack of roof,sometimes having to play the final on the 3rd Monday which is absurd
No. Just no.
I would value all four equally because the best players in the world all show up for each of them and try like hell to win them.
Great post and absolutely correct as usual.
I see what you are saying, but there are also fast court specialists who either skip Wimbledon or don't try very hard there.
For the most part I do not have much respect for these players, and perhaps you also get the idea.
It did not have more variety for those who could not win on clay and grass, but Agassi should get far more credit. His best surface was HC, but somehow he managed to win both W and RG.
This gets my vote for GOAT stupid post.
Exactly. The surfaces have been as homologated as possible. What used to be an interesting game that tested different players with different skill sets had become nearly one game, one style, one surface. I sort of feel sorry for modern fans. They are missing out on a lot of great rivalries and playing styles we got to witness in previous years.
Was asked to Nole in 2006 he Said AO and Wimbledon.
Your logic say Wimbledon must be the least important since not just Federer, but all players on the tour played LESS on grass than on clay and hard court.
Djokovic alluded to this i think afer the match saying how the AO is progressing and i thought he was making a subtle dig at the other 3 Majors. You think USA is bad..try living in UK!! It is basically the Middle East on tour!
Are you talking about infrastructure? That's what is so bad now in the US.
I still think it below USO but it is rapidly catching up. America needs to produce some players. America is the key market for tennis, its where the money is.
No. My logic says that we would see better tennis on grass if players played on grass more often. Last year Novak played 7 matches, only at Wimbledon. He would not get away with that if there were more players around who were really good on grass and who played more often on grass.
