Rank all Slams by year since 2004

InsideOut900

InsideOut900

Legend
Now that all Slams in 2017 were played, I want to make this ranking.

To have a definitive answer at the end, I will make it like a minigame, so each Slam gets points for being ranked: 4 points for being the best, 3 for being the 2nd best and so on.

I will start:

2004: AO>Wimbledon>USO>RG
2005: AO>USO>RG>>>Wimbledon
2006: USO>AO>Wimbledon>RG
2007: Wimbledon>USO>RG>AO
2008: Wimbledon>AO>USO>RG
2009: AO>RG>Wimbledon>USO(all were awesome in their own regard really)
2010: USO>Wimbledon>AO>>>>RG
2011: RG>USO>Wimbledon>>>AO
2012: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2013: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2014: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2015: RG>Wimbledon>AO>USO
2016: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2017: AO>>>>>Wimbledon>RG>USO

SO imo AO gets 42 points, Wimbledon gets 41 points, nearly as good as AO, RG has 29 points and USO has 28 points.

I couldn't decide which Slam was better in 2014 and 2016 between RG and USO, so I went for the one that had bigger names(Djokovic and Nadal as winners).

One may feel like swapping Wimbledon and AO in 2012, which would reverse the final score(41-42)

What do you think?
 
I'd probably swap the AO and Wimbledon in 2008 off the top of my head. Wimbledon has that final and maybe Gasquet and Murray, but the AO had Baggy vs Hewitt, Kohli vs Roddick,Federer vs Tips. I don't really remember any other great matches. Just feel the AO had more memorable matches.
 
Why not start from 2003,

2003: Wim>>USO>AO>FO
2004: AO>Wim>USO>>>FO
2005: Wim>USO=AO>FO
2006: Wim>USO>AO>>FO
2007: AO>Wim>USO>FO
2008: USO>>Wim>FO=AO
2009: FO=Wim>AO=USO
2010: AO>>USO>Wim>FO
2011: FO>USO>>AO>>Wim
2012: Wim>>AO>FO=USO
2013: AO>>>FO>Wim>>USO
2014: Wim>USO>AO>>FO
2015: USO>Wim>FO>>>AO
2016: Wim>AO>>USO>FO
2017: AO>>Wim>>>USO>FO
 
InsideOut900 said:
Now that all Slams in 2017 were played, I want to make this ranking.

To have a definitive answer at the end, I will make it like a minigame, so each Slam gets points for being ranked: 4 points for being the best, 3 for being the 2nd best and so on.

I will start:

2004: AO>Wimbledon>USO>RG
2005: AO>USO>RG>>>Wimbledon
2006: USO>AO>Wimbledon>RG
2007: Wimbledon>USO>RG>AO
2008: Wimbledon>AO>USO>RG
2009: AO>RG>Wimbledon>USO(all were awesome in their own regard really)
2010: USO>Wimbledon>AO>>>>RG
2011: RG>USO>Wimbledon>>>AO
2012: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2013: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2014: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2015: RG>Wimbledon>AO>USO
2016: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2017: AO>>>>>Wimbledon>RG>USO

SO imo AO gets 42 points, Wimbledon gets 41 points, nearly as good as AO, RG has 29 points and USO has 28 points.

I couldn't decide which Slam was better in 2014 and 2016 between RG and USO, so I went for the one that had bigger names(Djokovic and Nadal as winners).

One may feel like swapping Wimbledon and AO in 2012, which would reverse the final score(41-42)

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree.

This is why I will always respect you as a poster, you leave your bias at the door.
 
Sport said:
How on earth is "La Decima" less relevant than the 8th Wimbledon title won against an injured Cilic?
Click to expand...
Sport said:
Too many unobjective Fed and Djokovic fans on this thread...
Click to expand...

lol, the 'genius' strikes again.
It has to do with the whole tournament.

Wimbledon had Muller's run including that 5-setter vs Nadal, vs cilic.
It had Querrey making SF after 3 5-setters - tsonga, Anderson, Murray.
The 4-setter b/w cilic and Querrey was interesting as well. Even the SF b/w fed and Berdych was a good one even if a straight setter. And of course fed winning his 8th.

RG had the interesting 5-setter b/w stan-murray in the SF+thiem taking out djoko in straights. and Nadal winning his 10th. That's it.
 
04: AO > Wimbledon > USO >>>>> RG
05: AO > USO > Wimbledon > RG
06: Wimbledon > USO=AO > RG
07: Wimbledon > AO > USO > RG
08: USO > Wimbledon > AO >>>>> RG
09: AO > RG > Wimbledon > USO
10: AO >>>>> Wimbledon > USO > RG
11: RG > USO > Wimbledon > AO
12: Wimbledon > AO >>>>>USO >>>>> RG
13: AO > USO > Wimbledon > RG
14: Wimbledon > AO > USO > RG
15: USO > RG >>>>> Wimbledon >>>>> AO
16: AO > USO >>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon > RG
 
KINGROGER said:
04: AO > Wimbledon > USO >>>>> RG
05: AO > USO > Wimbledon > RG
06: Wimbledon > USO=AO > RG
07: Wimbledon > AO > USO > RG
08: USO > Wimbledon > AO >>>>> RG
09: AO > RG > Wimbledon > USO
10: AO >>>>> Wimbledon > USO > RG
11: RG > USO > Wimbledon > AO
12: Wimbledon > AO >>>>>USO >>>>> RG
13: AO > USO > Wimbledon > RG
14: Wimbledon > AO > USO > RG
15: USO > RG >>>>> Wimbledon >>>>> AO
16: AO > USO >>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon > RG
Click to expand...
Roland Garros conveniently ranked last every year except for the two years with Fed's biggest wins (09 final & 11 semis) and the year Fed's biggest rivals both lost (15). Let me put on my surprised face lol :p
 
MeatTornado said:
Roland Garros conveniently ranked last every year except for the two years with Fed's biggest wins (09 final & 11 semis) and the year Fed's biggest rivals both lost (15). Let me put on my surprised face lol :p
Click to expand...
Let's be honest though, 06-08 were crap aside from the intrigue of 06 to see if Fed could overcome Nadal.

Fed and Nadal sweeping through the draw for Nadal to inevitably moonball -> OHBH his way to a 4 set win. Barely any excitement. Feel same way about Fed's Wimbledon this year as much as I loved him getting 8.

No doubt 2009, 2011, 2015 some of the most exciting tournaments. Yes they just happened to have big Federer wins but it's something different.
 
2017: AO>>>>USO>>RG>W
2016: RG>>>W>USO>AO
2015: RG>USO>W>>AO
2014: AO>USO>W>RG
2013: W>RG>>>>USO>AO
2012: AO>W>>>USO>>RG
2011: W>USO>RG>>AO
 
abmk said:
lol, the 'genius' strikes again.
It has to do with the whole tournament.

Wimbledon had Muller's run including that 5-setter vs Nadal, vs cilic.
It had Querrey making SF after 3 5-setters - tsonga, Anderson, Murray.
The 4-setter b/w cilic and Querrey was interesting as well. Even the SF b/w fed and Berdych was a good one even if a straight setter. And of course fed winning his 8th.

RG had the interesting 5-setter b/w stan-murray in the SF+thiem taking out djoko in straights. and Nadal winning his 10th. That's it.
Click to expand...

RG this year had 7 of the top 8 seeds in the QF. The line-up was Murray-Nishi, Wawa-Cilic and Thiem-Djokovic. Murray went through a tough draw of Delp-Khachanov-Nishikori to make the SF. Nadal put in one of the most dominant performances ever in a GS and his level against Stan in the final was arguably his best since his peak. Besides, Carreno-Raonic and Djokovic-Schwartzman were fun matches, Nadal R3 was scarry, Nole being trashed was shocking, Murray-Wawrinka was a classic and the event of La Decima is likely to never occur ever in tennis and was one of the most special moments we'll probably have.
 
abmk said:
lol, the 'genius' strikes again.
It has to do with the whole tournament.

Wimbledon had Muller's run including that 5-setter vs Nadal, vs cilic.
It had Querrey making SF after 3 5-setters - tsonga, Anderson, Murray.
The 4-setter b/w cilic and Querrey was interesting as well. Even the SF b/w fed and Berdych was a good one even if a straight setter. And of course fed winning his 8th.

RG had the interesting 5-setter b/w stan-murray in the SF+thiem taking out djoko in straights. and Nadal winning his 10th. That's it.
Click to expand...

Funny how you strategically forgot to quote this comment of mine:
Sport said:
NEW_BORN said:
2008: USO>>Wim
Click to expand...
How on earth is the US Open 2008 more relevant than Wimbledon 2008, the GS that produced arguably the greatest tennis match of all time?
Click to expand...

You know I was right, he was an unobjective Fed fan here.
 
Sport said:
Funny how you strategically forgot to quote this comment of mine:


You know I was right, he was an unobjective Fed fan here.
Click to expand...

How about you look at the mirror and realise you are a completely unobjective Nadal fan before talking about unobjective Fed fans or Djokovic fans ?
That was the point of showing why Wimbledon this year was better than RG this year.
 
No way is 2010 US Open the best Slam of 2010, I'd say 2010 Wimbledon equal to 2010 AO, 2010 US next and 2010 FO last.
 
Rafa the King said:
RG this year had 7 of the top 8 seeds in the QF. The line-up was Murray-Nishi, Wawa-Cilic and Thiem-Djokovic. Murray went through a tough draw of Delp-Khachanov-Nishikori to make the SF. Nadal put in one of the most dominant performances ever in a GS and his level against Stan in the final was arguably his best since his peak. Besides, Carreno-Raonic and Djokovic-Schwartzman were fun matches, Nadal R3 was scarry, Nole being trashed was shocking, Murray-Wawrinka was a classic and the event of La Decima is likely to never occur ever in tennis and was one of the most special moments we'll probably have.
Click to expand...

Khachanov is not a threat on clay.

Murray did have a tricky draw before the SF, but still less tough than those of Querrey, Muller, Cilic at Wimby - that's not one, but 3 players.

We all knew Cilic not going to beat Wawa on clay unless Wawa really played badly. So that's not really that interesting.

Djokovic-schwartzmann was fun for a while with some great rallies, but schwartzmann going away in sets 4 and 5 put a dampener on that.
didn't watch Raonic-PCB , but heard it was a good match.

I already mentioned murray-wawa , nadal's 10th and thiem taking out djoko in straights before in any case.

Yeah, Nadal's La decima was significant with that amazing performance in the final and winning without losing a set.

But so was Federer's 8th with great form , becoming the oldest man to win Wimbledon in Open era and only the 2nd time Wimbledon has been won without losing a set (after Borg in 76). Also the thing that makes me put it over 10th RG is that he crossed Sampras and became the sole leader at Wimbledon in terms of titles won.

Nadal's GOATing performance in the final is more than compensated by Federer having to face 1 pretty good performance - berdych, a good perf ( for 2 of 3 sets ) - Raonic and a good one from Zverev as well. Both Thiem and Stan under-performed making Nadal's draw clearly easier. Haase was the only one who put a good performance by his standards.

Overall wimby was clearly better with better matches. Apart from the ones I already mentioned :

Raonic-Zverev 5-setter - Raonic being clutch and surviving.
Berdych-Thiem 5-setter.

Murray-Fognini was entertaining even though not high quality.
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
How about you look at the mirror and realise you are a completely unobjective Nadal fan before talking about unobjective Fed fans or Djokovic fans ?
That was the point of showing why Wimbledon this year was better than RG this year.
Click to expand...

TMF said:
It's about the number of quality matches in slam with 128 players. Wimbledon had more quality and exciting matches than the FO.
Click to expand...

I disagree, you are the unobjective here. Both Grand Slams were pretty much the same. I don't see any reason to consider Wimbledon 2017 better than RG 2017. And it's not like comparing Roland Garros 2008 with Wimbledon 2008. It's a really close case. When two Grand Slams are so close in terms of historical greatness, it comes to personal taste which one do you consider "better".

In RG 2017 Nadal became the first man in history to make double digits in a Grand Slam. There was a lot of expectation in the Djokovic-Thiem match. Thiem won easily in 3 sets but I still liked the match (the first 2 sets). The Nadal-Thiem also had a lot of expectation. Nadal won in 3 sets but it wasn't a bad match. Thiem didn't play bad, Nadal was just too good. The same happened in the final, where an amazing Nadald estroyed Wawrinka. The Wawrinka-Murray semifinal and the Del Potro-Murray were other great matches.

In Wimbledon 2017 Federer became the first man to win 8 Wimbledon titles. The Nadal-Müller was a great match. Another one really interesting was the Zverev-Raonic. There was a lot of expectation for the Federer-Dimitrov and Federer-Raonic matches. Federer defeated both easilty playing at high level. The SF with Berdych was slightly more close but Federer was too much. The final was very boring, much worse than the RG final due to the physical and mental problems of Cilic on the court.

I see no reason to consider WB 2017 better than RG 2017... unless you are a Federer fan.
 
KINGROGER said:
Let's be honest though, 06-08 were crap aside from the intrigue of 06 to see if Fed could overcome Nadal.

Fed and Nadal sweeping through the draw for Nadal to inevitably moonball -> OHBH his way to a 4 set win. Barely any excitement. Feel same way about Fed's Wimbledon this year as much as I loved him getting 8.

No doubt 2009, 2011, 2015 some of the most exciting tournaments. Yes they just happened to have big Federer wins but it's something different.
Click to expand...

2006, 2007, 2008 maybe.

2010 had some great matches, Soderling-Federer, Soderling-Berdych in the semis, and a couple others.

2013 had some really good matches. The Djokovic-Nadal semi was an amazing match.

And even 2005 had a lot of really good matches, Davydenko's upset of Coria, Davenport-Puerta in the semis, Federer-Nadal in the semis, the unexpected Nadal-Puerta battle in the final, and Canas in the quarters going to 5 sets.

I agree RG 2009 was a great event, but 2011 was a bore aside from the Federer-Djokovic great semi final and big upset win of Fed, with a subpar Nadal in his poorest RG winning form of all 10 of his titles probably still relatively breezing to victory after winning an ugly 5 setter with Isner to open.
 
2017 I would say Australian Open >>>>>> Roland Garros = Wimbledon > U.S Open

All the slams bar Australia were crapola overall this year, with U.S Open even moreso than the other 2. Maybe RG just over Wimbledon though for the great Murray-Wawrinka semi final alone.
 
Sport said:
I disagree, you are the unobjective here. Both Grand Slams were pretty much the same. I don't see any reason to consider Wimbledon 2017 better than RG 2017. And it's not like comparing Roland Garros 2008 with Wimbledon 2008. It's a really close case. When two Grand Slams are so close in terms of historical greatness, it comes to personal taste which one do you consider "better".

In RG 2017 Nadal became the first man in history to make double digits in a Grand Slam. There was a lot of expectation in the Djokovic-Thiem match. Thiem won easily in 3 sets but I still liked the match (the first 2 sets). The Nadal-Thiem also had a lot of expectation. Nadal won in 3 sets but it wasn't a bad match. Thiem didn't play bad, Nadal was just too good. The same happened in the final, where an amazing Nadald estroyed Wawrinka. The Wawrinka-Murray semifinal and the Del Potro-Murray were other great matches.

In Wimbledon 2017 Federer became the first man to win 8 Wimbledon titles. The Nadal-Müller was a great match. Another one really interesting was the Zverev-Raonic. There was a lot of expectation for the Federer-Dimitrov and Federer-Raonic matches. Federer defeated both easilty playing at high level. The SF with Berdych was slightly more close but Federer was too much. The final was very boring, much worse than the RG final due to the physical and mental problems of Cilic on the court.

I see no reason to consider WB 2017 better than RG 2017... unless you are a Federer fan.
Click to expand...

Thiem played well below par in the SF. you are utterly delusional to think otherwise. Nadal played well, but was nowhere near unplayable in the semi.

same with the final ?

you can't even make out the Nadal played considerably better in the final than he did in the semi ? what sort of a shi*ty fan are you ?

There were plenty of other good matches at wimbledon --- already mentioned above.

Just because you didn't watch them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Federer-berdych at wimbledon was clearly better than murray-delpo at RG, especially more so considering the last set of murray-delpo was a bagel.


which one was more important - federer's 8th or nadal's 10 is close and depends, but not which was the better slam -- Wimbledon clearly had better matches and was more interesting.


RG :

1. Nadal's dominant 10th RG
2. GOATing performance in the final
3. stan-murray 5-setter
4. thiem beating Djokovic in straights
5. PCB-Raonic 5-setter
6. Djokovic-Schwartzmann 5-setter


Wimbledon :

1. Federer's dominant 8th wimbledon
2. nadal-muller 5-setter that went deep in the 5th
3. very competitive 3-setter semi b/w fed-berdych
4. muller-cilic 5-setter
5. querrey-tsonga 5-setter
6. querrey-anderson 5-setter
7 . querrey-murray 5-setter
8. zverev-raonic 5-setter
9. berdych-thiem 5-setter
10. cilic-querrey 4-setter in the semi

clearly obvious which one had more highlights points and was better. (though not by a big margin)
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are very similar to OP's, so not much point making another list.

Oh yes, 2009 was awesome, the best. All Slams were up there in terms of quality and drama. What a year that was!
 
InsideOut900 said:
Now that all Slams in 2017 were played, I want to make this ranking.

To have a definitive answer at the end, I will make it like a minigame, so each Slam gets points for being ranked: 4 points for being the best, 3 for being the 2nd best and so on.

I will start:

2004: AO>Wimbledon>USO>RG
2005: AO>USO>RG>>>Wimbledon
2006: USO>AO>Wimbledon>RG
2007: Wimbledon>USO>RG>AO
2008: Wimbledon>AO>USO>RG
2009: AO>RG>Wimbledon>USO(all were awesome in their own regard really)
2010: USO>Wimbledon>AO>>>>RG
2011: RG>USO>Wimbledon>>>AO
2012: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2013: AO>Wimbledon>RG>USO
2014: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2015: RG>Wimbledon>AO>USO
2016: Wimbledon>AO>RG>USO
2017: AO>>>>>Wimbledon>RG>USO

SO imo AO gets 42 points, Wimbledon gets 41 points, nearly as good as AO, RG has 29 points and USO has 28 points.

I couldn't decide which Slam was better in 2014 and 2016 between RG and USO, so I went for the one that had bigger names(Djokovic and Nadal as winners).

One may feel like swapping Wimbledon and AO in 2012, which would reverse the final score(41-42)

What do you think?
Click to expand...

What criteria are we working on? Overall quality of the men's and women's matches through the tourney? Quality of the finals? Historical significance of the tournament? We need metrics otherwise it is far too open ended....
 
every7 said:
What criteria are we working on? Overall quality of the men's and women's matches through the tourney? Quality of the finals? Historical significance of the tournament? We need metrics otherwise it is far too open ended....
Click to expand...

I don't care about historical significance too much, though I do give a bonus to Slam that meant something.

Just the general level of competition and the amount of quality matches that resulted from it. The higher the round those matches happened the better too.
Dud finals put down the tournaments, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NoleFam
What Slams did the Big 3 take MTOs?
2 3
Replies
113
Views
3K
ibbi
ibbi
N
If the Big 4 didn't exist
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Deleted member 307496
D
ghostofMecir
Most dominant men’s slam runs by Dominance ratio
Replies
12
Views
393
weakera
weakera
King No1e
Rank best to worst Slam finals for each year
Replies
23
Views
886
RS
RS
Red Rick
Big 3 amount of series of consecutive Slam titles
2
Replies
69
Views
2K
Deleted member 771911
D
Back
Top