Is Wimbledon in trouble? Interest-wise, level wise.

liriel

Semi-Pro
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hopefully some of the young players will be able to make the transition to grass more strongly in the next couple of years. For sure none of the younger crop look naturalv on the surface and I'm a little concerned that the days of classic high quality encounters at Wimbledon might be gone for now...
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Would be fine with me if it receded and eventually disappeared, as it seems silly to have a tournament on a surface that nobody practices on until two weeks before. The game may have started out on lawns, but it's moved since then. But reputations die more slowly than reality so it will hang on and be fine for some time.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon always seems more traditional when you see it in black and white.

On the other hand, grass is synonymous with tennis, golf, cricket and horse racing.

Hard court events are somewhat charmless without this association with grass.
 

liriel

Semi-Pro
I agree with you.
Wimbledon is a classic and has the old charm but is it a good thing?
This year it was the most boring slam so the future doesn't look too bright. Not Wimbledon's fault but players'.
When will the players adopt?
I also fear like you that we won't see too many classics. Till then I feel like it's even more overpriced event.
For years it was Roger..
 

gadge

Professional
Novak fan here but this year’s Wimbledon was a dull one. There was 0 unpredictability about the men’s side. Women’s side was a bit fun though with barty, pliskova, kerber and aryna all established players making the semies.
 

gjm127

Professional
There is no relevant build-up to Wimbledon that makes it a culminating tournament like RG or USO. It's just a bunch of players who don't know how to play on grass and don't have any time to get up to speed on it either in the season. This hurts Wimbledon in my opinion, but Wimbledon survives because of its unique stance, prestige, no ads, summer scheduling, etc... Also probably because it's Fed's pet slam and Fed is the most likeable (fan favorite) player as of late.
 

MurraysMetalHip

Hall of Fame
It is, and will always be, the finest and most prestigious tournament on the calendar. It is the one that everyone who doesn’t have a “home” slam wants to win above anywhere else. This year’s edition may not have been great, but the reality is that we have been spoilt for the last 15 years in all majors, and we should be bracing ourselves for just how underwhelming tennis is going to be in the post-Nad/Fed/Djok era.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
It is, and will always be, the finest and most prestigious tournament on the calendar. It is the one that everyone who doesn’t have a “home” slam wants to win above anywhere else. This year’s edition may not have been great, but the reality is that we have been spoilt for the last 15 years in all majors, and we should be bracing ourselves for just how underwhelming tennis is going to be in the post-Nad/Fed/Djok era.
Nah, it'll be interesting because the outcomes won't be pre-determined. We'll see if that changes next year, or we have to wait longer. If Djoker loses in Australia, I see Wimbledon as his best chance at #21 because none of the younger players are comfortable on grass by comparison.
 

tennis24x7

Semi-Pro
Wimbledon always seems more traditional when you see it in black and white.

On the other hand, grass is synonymous with tennis, golf, cricket and horse racing.

Hard court events are somewhat charmless without this association with grass.
You can add a "was" to your statements. Like someone mentioned here the game has moved on. Even in cricket the tests and one-dayers have given way to T-20. The world is moving ahead. If Wimbledon wants to sustain same level of interest it needs to lengthen the grass season.
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
I mean what was the biggest story at Wimbledon this year? Serena slips and retires, Mannarino retires due to slip vs. Federer, various gifs of players falling, etc. etc.

The men’s and women’s SF/F weren’t great tennis, mainly because the young guys have only played on grass like 10 times in their entire life.

And then you come on here and people bemoan the “green clay” and lack of real grass court tennis. It’s hilarious to see how reality gets viewed when you have an agenda.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon is just fine.

Keep in mind that players have not had a chance to play on grass in two years, so that did play a part in how this year went. One Wimbledon not living up to expectations doesn't mean the slam is in trouble. It was the best slam of 2018 and 2019 for epicness.
 
I think the men’s game in general is in trouble. No one wants to see a generation dominate that still can’t consistently take the previous generation out in their mid 30s. If Nadal/Djoker run is totally done after next year, the game in general is in trouble. I’m only sticking around to see how the slam race goes between Nadal and djoker. I have no interest in watching Medvedevs ugly arse game LOL

the only guy with a nice game is tstsipas and he’s a wreck mentally as a player
 

tex123

Professional
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
I don't know what to make of your post.

Wimbledon is for the people. It is prestigious tournament that is steeped in tradition. Name one Slam that offers tickets by public ballot. It does not matter how much money you have - everyone has an equal chance to win the public ballot. If you missed the public ballot, you go there early on the day like 2AM (or camp) and queue. By noon, you will reach the till and will be offered a ground ticket to get in. But you are not really queuing. Bring a mat. Sit down with your friends. When the queue moves, move your mat. There are toilets and plenty of food stalls in the queueing area. It is a fantastic atmosphere. If you haven't done it, I recommend that you do it. You will enjoy it. Lastly, if you have loads of ££, you can buy debenture tickets. If you are a member of a club, the club enters you into a public ballot. I have won public ballot numerous times. It is illegal to resell the tickets unless they are debenture tickets. The other slams want $$ on ticketmaster and they get sold out months before the event. People flog it on **** for ridiculous prices. So, I don't understand your expensive comment.

How's it Novak's to lose? People don't realise how much damage Zv and Med have done to Novak at the Olympics and USO. That aura of invincibility is gone and he's been checked into Hotel Retirement. He's still a force but NextGen can smell blood.
Med can't play on grass I agree. He does not have slice and he's too tall to counter slices. He's a dinosaur on hard courts though. Tsitsi has the game for grass but he's does not know how to play on it. My bet is for Tsitsi to win French. My bet is on Zv with his booming serve and rock solid backhand to win Wimbledon. I think he's has got over his mental issues with his serves. Then there is Shapovalov if someone can tame him. Roger may be back for Wimbledon too - who knows?
 

ibbi

Legend
I think that Wimbledon will be able to sustain itself based purely on name, prestige, and history for a little while. It's a tourist destination spot. But yes, at some point before that goodwill expires you would think they'd be needing some younger players to step up, because they rely on star wattage just like anything else. I do think Emma obviously has a lot of potential to fill that void, and the likes of Medvedev and more so Berrettini, Zverev, Shapovalov, and even Felix are not a million miles away either. Should they all become the fixtures atop the sport that many expect then they'll help too.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon is an event. It's not a grass season. The ATP is responsible for seasons. There has been no comparable change in tennis compared to T-20, and cricket tests still do well.

You can add a "was" to your statements. Like someone mentioned here the game has moved on. Even in cricket the tests and one-dayers have given way to T-20. The world is moving ahead. If Wimbledon wants to sustain same level of interest it needs to lengthen the grass season.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
The interest level this year was very low but it was competing with England being in the Euro Final so it's probably best to reserve judgement.

Raducanu will certainly up the interest on the women's side for the next few years.
 

Milehigh5280

Professional
Like The Masters in golf, it doesn't matter who's playing, Wimbledon will always be the biggest and most prestigious tournament. Obviously they're greater when players like Tiger Woods or Federer are playing, but personally I'll never lose interest
 
Hopefully some of the young players will be able to make the transition to grass more strongly in the next couple of years. For sure none of the younger crop look naturalv on the surface and I'm a little concerned that the days of classic high quality encounters at Wimbledon might be gone for now...
This might culminate in Novak Djokovic equaling (surpassing??) Peter Sampras in WC titles, which is absolutely disgusting.
 

dtl_lover

Rookie
lol no...it is still the most popular and prestigious GS. With Raducanu's emergence, Brits will also have a genuine title contender to root for after Andy's decline in recent years. I can't imagine the amount of pressure on Raducanu at next year's Wimbledon
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
It's not called WimbleDONE for nothing!
 

liriel

Semi-Pro
I appreciate seeing Novak's fan (I like him too as well as Fedal, I'm strange like that) agreeing is was boring this year. Just like I agree that sometimes RG is boring even though Rafa won.
I see the forum is torn.
Almost everyone agrees though that like you and Iga Swiatek said it's with no build up and lasts only two weeks. When the big 3 played it was full glory.
Now the players might take years to figure out how to play well.
Thank you for reminding me that basically everyone remembers it for being slippery, Serena's epic dress and fall.
I know the huge tradition behind it but the next gen can bring it on during us open - we started to see it. Even though it's not my favourite slam at all.
Almost all the promo for Wimbledon was Roger and Roger.
Attending Wimbledon before 2021 must have been an amazing experience.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
Wimbledon is never in trouble, son.
 

goldengate14

Semi-Pro
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
The world is changig and W is seen as a mainly white privilege type event that is not inclusive. That image is damagig nowadays and they really need to modernise urgently. The AO has got it bang on. On its way to being THE Major to win.
 

Dufflefan

New User
Wimbledon is for the people. It is prestigious tournament that is steeped in tradition. Name one Slam that offers tickets by public ballot. It does not matter how much money you have - everyone has an equal chance to win the public ballot. If you missed the public ballot, you go there early on the day like 2AM (or camp) and queue. By noon, you will reach the till and will be offered a ground ticket to get in. But you are not really queuing. Bring a mat. Sit down with your friends. When the queue moves, move your mat. There are toilets and plenty of food stalls in the queueing area. It is a fantastic atmosphere. If you haven't done it, I recommend that you do it. You will enjoy it. Lastly, if you have loads of ££, you can buy debenture tickets. If you are a member of a club, the club enters you into a public ballot. I have won public ballot numerous times. It is illegal to resell the tickets unless they are debenture tickets. The other slams want $$ on ticketmaster and they get sold out months before the event. People flog it on **** for ridiculous prices. So, I don't understand your expensive comment.
While I understand the perspective you're trying to illustrate, I don't think there is a case to be made that Wimbledon is "for the people." To the contrary, it is one of the most elitist events in Britain and the global sporting calendar - if, indeed, it is more a sporting than social event. It has a very selective ticket allocation program, a long association with British royalty, a very successful role in channeling global sporting capital, and a long history of social exclusion. Combined - and very carefully cultivated as Philip Brook made brazenly clear in his Harvard Business School-sponsored dinner speech at the London Capital Club in 2017 - these elements constitute the image of "tradition" which ultimately is the AELTC/Wimbledon/The Championships brand.

First, the public ballot system is very problematic. It is continuously oversubscribed, at some moments in the past by as much as a factor of ten, and the ballot does not include the tickets which are reserved for the multiple corporate entities which buy debenture passes and other level tickets, nor the tennis clubs who have LTA registration and can request tickets using that status. Moreover, while it accounts for only a small percentage of overall tickets, there is the royal box and invitations to the "rich and famous" celebrities (David Beckham, Jackie Stewart, etc.). Wimbledon will, quite unsurprisingly, defend its image endlessly and the more it does so, the more the image of "tradition" and "prestige" is placed in the public eye. Additionally, the famous (infamous?) queue of people arriving and queuing at 2:00am, having to wait for hours while sitting on a public path/sidewalk, often in the rain and with tents, right outside the walls and fences of the AELTC serves the elitist image perfectly - it marks inside the club grounds as "special" and "for the deserving." Their brand, in part, depends (arguably even relies) on those who queue outside for it makes the club and tournament a space of "the privilege" of being inside.

Second, the AELTC has a long association with royalty, the British upper class, and Imperialism. King George V, as then Prince of Wales, was made President of the club in 1907, and other club presidents were educated at elite British schools such Herbert Wilberforce, and Louis Greig (plus others). In 1923, the niece of Wilberforce's doubles partner married the Duke of York, and by the 1930s it was very clear that the AELTC was proud of it's association with whiteness and imperialism. When John Crawford won the men's singles title in 1933, he was accepted not only because he was from a British territory, but because he had "on court dignity." It was clear, that when Fred Perry won the men's singles title the following year, the elitist reputation of the tournament and club was well-established across the world. When New Yorker columnist John Tunis became aware that Fred Perry's father was a trade unionist and Labour MP, he referred to Perry as "a poor boy without a varsity background" who was "unpopular" at Wimbledon because it was "the most snobbish centre of sport in the world." Without going over all the examples between the 1960s and 2000s, the same is still true, but is constructed carefully around "the new" royalty. The prime example of this is the role of Kate Middleton who, as a patron of the AELTC, and as the Duchess of Cambridge, is not presented as the old "royalty of inheritance" but as the new "royalty of achievement" - basically, the same socio-political mechanics with a different image.

Third, the AELTC and Wimbledon has a long history of social exclusion, even to the present day where there are clear systems of how attendance and participation is used to create ideas of "proper" and "improper" behavior. When Alan Mills joined the AELTC staff in 1977, he recalled how the professionalization of the game had ushered in "a different kind of animal [that] had come to stalk the court, and once the barriers of good conduct [were] broken down, this new breed...begun to stampede into the former bastion of civilised behaviour." Perhaps best embodied by John McEnroe, this new brashness was so offensive to the AELTC staff that some, like Bob Jenkins, called for special, harsher punishments for such behavior and even after winning the title in 1981, McEnroe was refused the offer of honorary AELTC membership.

Nonetheless, the AELTC knew that to not get "left behind" they had to adapt, and recoded the rules of "properness" in ways that were just as exclusionary but which still served their original purpose. For example, when Agassi boycotted Wimbledon over the dress code from 1988 to 1990, then AELTC President John Curry paid him a special visit to convince him to play, with Agassi later saying it was "special" to be back in the tournament. There were of course, historical exclusions along gender lines as well. Aside from the well-known issues such as pay, certain clothing rules for women served the inclusion/exclusion purpose - e.g. the catsuit worn by Anne White in 1985 which was banned for being "inappropriate" thereby clearly reinforcing the AELTC's ideas of what is "properly feminine." In the present, these methods still exist but are simply recoded and more nuanced. In 2005, the media were especially focused on the grunting of female players, with NBC even producing a short video on the issue which ended with a women sporting a large floppy summer hat stating that "Sharapova's grunting is appalling" in a very upper class English accent. In this example, the clothing of women was still a mark of "properness" - but rather than the focus being on the player, the focus was on the audience - specifically, how the women's clothing marked her as a "Wimbledon insider" and therefore "qualified" to speak on "the properness" of behavior.

Ultimately, by accepting professionalism, but altering the mediums and visibility through which their elitism could be maintained, the AELTC have been enormously successful in marketing their elitism as a brand of "tradition." The club specially headhunted a marketing director in 1985, in 1989 they hired a special TV marketing director, and then recruited an IT specialist marketing director in 1995. In doing, they aimed for an image of purity - something which they argue prevents what their internal marketing documents refer to as "ambush marketing" - the idea that no commercial sponsorship is allowed inside their grounds unless it is inline with what they call "the key objective...to enhance the unique character and image of The Championships as...tennis in an English garden." In terms of how this marketing channels global capital, the goal has always been keep the exclusivity of British tennis. From all their income, between 1995 and 2005 records show they paid the LTA £292m - yet the national participation in the sport remains largely unchanged (despite Andy Murray's high profile) and LTA-developed British players have had minimal impact on the ATP and WTA tours.

Ultimately, the AELTC and Wimbledon have a long and still-standing elitism which has been very carefully repackaged to create a highly marketable brand. In my own view, this means Wimbledon will continue to have longevity; it's proven time and again that it can adapt elitist views into a very cleverly packaged image. Therefore, any temporary dip in the quality of the tennis will likely not be an issue primarily because, as the above hopefully shows, Wimbledon is more a social event built on elitism, than a sporting event historically built on meritocracy.
 
I am not sure Wimbledon is in trouble more than tennis in general. Don´t get me wrong, but the Big 3 took tennis to new heights, and the next gen seem unlikely to do that. Unfortunately most of the next gen is just big serve + forehand and baseline game. It is also very unlikely that we will see many as consistent as the Big 3, and this could pose trouble for any player gaining a big fanbase. Wimbledon still has prestige and is during the summer, so I don´t think it is in big trouble.
 

beltsman

Legend
Wimbledon has the prestigious feel and I know people will still attend. Wimbledon can get very expensive. Having said that it WAS different spending when you had the big 3 (ok, mostly Roger and Novak) and could see them live.
Now you can see it's Novak's to lose but the others still don't know how to play on grass so basically the level is way worse than any other slam.
For me it makes it less interesting. I have no idea what they'd do going forward. Wimbledon probably will still be expensive but has some issues I mentioned.
What's your take?
It was kept afloat by only Roger. Now? What's the point? They catered to HC/clay and get what they deserve. Grass will die within 10 years. Sad.
 

BGod

Legend
Grass Masters would fix a lot of these issues honestly. In the meantime if Novak wins 5 consecutive Wimbledons at least the 5 club will be a legacy continued for the event.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The world is changig and W is seen as a mainly white privilege type event that is not inclusive. That image is damagig nowadays and they really need to modernise urgently. The AO has got it bang on. On its way to being THE Major to win.
What does the AO do that Wimbledon doesn't?
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I am not sure Wimbledon is in trouble more than tennis in general. Don´t get me wrong, but the Big 3 took tennis to new heights, and the next gen seem unlikely to do that. Unfortunately most of the next gen is just big serve + forehand and baseline game. It is also very unlikely that we will see many as consistent as the Big 3, and this could pose trouble for any player gaining a big fanbase. Wimbledon still has prestige and is during the summer, so I don´t think it is in big trouble.
Yeah, less about Wimbledon specifically being in trouble. It's the Monaco of tennis tournaments. Tennis itself...with all the hype over Raducanu-Fernandez, you'd think lots of people were glued to the match in the US. But my aunt and her daughter, both of whom used to casually follow tennis, were merely aware of it. My uncle is a rec tennis player and watched. Tennis is just generally not as much of a big deal anymore.
 
Like The Masters in golf, it doesn't matter who's playing, Wimbledon will always be the biggest and most prestigious tournament. Obviously they're greater when players like Tiger Woods or Federer are playing, but personally I'll never lose interest
Except The Masters isn't the most prestigious golf tournament, it's The Open.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon is holding on its prestigious status but that's all they can boast now basically as a Slam and the new generation of players don't seem to be very focused on prestige. With grass being such a rare surface on the tour that it's not necessary to be successful overall, the incentive to give your all is just not there. And when players aren't bothered, the tournament is unlikely to be very exciting.
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
let's talk about the last decade......wimbledon would have been ignored by the masses by now if not for the greatest tennis match that was ever played the 2008 final.......that match is single handedly carrying its legacy over the last 13 years or so.......the level of competition on grass died long back with the death of specialists........understandably roland garros and us open have been gaining in popularity with lots of classic contests over the last decade or so........lots of players can play and compete quite well on both those surfaces as they play on those surfaces year round.......
 
Top