Slam status of the Australian Open at risk(article)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3771
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Interesting article. I thougth the AO was already one of the very best. Looking forwards to seeing it get even better.

Tennis Australia says Australian Open at crossroads

THE Grand slam status of the Australian Open remains at risk according to Tennis Australia.

TA is gravely concerned Melbourne Park, once the grand slam stadia benchmark, has fallen behind its three older rivals.

"The Australian Open, one of the world's four grand slams, is at a crossroad, its future position and existence at risk," TA's annual report warned.

"Demand for the right to stage tennis events has increased dramatically in the past five years, with significant financial backing available in Asia and the Middle East.

"And we are seeing our grand slam partners supercede our once state-of-the-art facilities with massive investments in their own facilities."

TA's alarm comes as two of the world's leading tennis figures - Romanian promoter Ion Tiriac and French Tennis Federation boss Christian Bimes - raised the possibility of changes to the grand slam landscape.

Tiriac, who runs the successful Madrid Masters series, has told the International Tennis Federation he wants to create more majors.

And Bimes, regarded as a tennis progressive, concedes Wimbledon and the Australian, French and US Opens could soon have company.

"Roland Garros will not lose its grand slam status, but I'm convinced that if we don't make progress, there will one day be a fifth grand slam event in Asia and possibly a sixth in Europe," Bimes said.

"The losers would be the French Open and Wimbledon. We want to avoid that at any cost."

Officials at the Australian Open, which positioned itself in 2003 as the grand slam of the Asia Pacific, are acutely aware of Melbourne Park's urgent need of refurbishment.

TA wants a $300 million upgrade and has applied for State Government funding.

"During the past two financial years, Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows and Roland Garros have invested $195 million on redevelopments," TA's report said.

"Qi Zhong stadium in Shanghai, venue of the Tennis Masters Cup, saw an initial investment of $283 million, with a further 80 hectares of land available for redevelopment.

"Since the construction of Vodafone Arena in 2000, there have been only two major capital improvements at Melbourne Park - Rod Laver Arena seating replacement and construction of the city entrance.

"In order to maintain the AO's grand slam status, TA requires substantial investment into venue facilities and infrastructure.

"To this end, the operations and events business unit, in conjunction with Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust, compiled a master plan: 'Tennis at Melbourne Park - a vision for the future'."

If successful, the redevelopment would include new administrative, player and public facilities.

Plans also include a tennis heritage museum, a technology building, upgrades of Rod Laver Arena and other show courts and improved transport accessibility to the site.
 

chiapants226

Professional
lol.. how much money did they spend resurfacing all of their courts? :confused: is the resurfacing of courts not a major capital improvement??? but i do agree that they need more show courts.. so far all they have is rod laver, vodafone arena, margaret court arena, show court 2 and 3. proably a few more show courts would be good :D
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Mabe they could expand the whole place and build a few olympic swimming pools and a few water slides on site to keep everyone cool, and also a waterslide and pool on site for the players.:)
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
much a do about nothing, its a slam and that not going to change, still its the lesser of the four but that won't change no matter what they do either so all this surface talk and what not is just hype
 
L

laurie

Guest
Perhaps part of the problem is that this slam comes too soon into the New Year? There's always a debate about it and the ultra hot weather is always an issue as well as the surface, which they've changed twice in 20 years.

So maybe this article is not that far fetched.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
They should get rid of the TMC with its strange round robin rules and low following and replace it with a fifth indoor Slam in China.
 

AndrewD

Legend
The Natural,

Tennis Australia receives funding from both the Victorian and Australian government. The article, which appears in the biggest selling (but not most respected) newspaper in the country, is a PR exercise designed to elicit support from the average tennis fan and put pressure on the state and federal government for increased funding. Look at the last part of the article and you'll see exactly why it was written. "TA wants a $300 million upgrade and has applied for State Government funding....In order to maintain the AO's grand slam status, TA requires substantial investment into venue facilities and infrastructure". Bingo!

Anyone who takes the 'story' seriously is responding in exactly the way TA wanted.
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
Who decided what events are classified as Grand Slams? I thought that the GS existed outside the scope of the ATP, therefore Masters Series tournaments and ATP commissioners could not exert influence.
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
They should get rid of the TMC with its strange round robin rules and low following and replace it with a fifth indoor Slam in China.

5 Slams? horrible idea, the season is long enough already, slams are two weeks of best of fives, slams still have to mean something, they have to be a special event, if there were five it would be like every time you turn around another slam is going on, it would completely dilute the value of a slam
 
I understand what they're trying to say here, but as a part of tennis tradition, I think that the AO will survive, pretty much no matter what the circumstances are. Granted, many will be vying for a GS to call their own, but I don't know if money's everything in all of this...... Or, rather, it shouldn't be.
 

rommil

Legend
Yeah they should add one more somewhere in Antarctica since they have no tennis tournaments there. Honestly I don't know if I can really take Tiriac that seriously.
 

Chauvalito

Hall of Fame
That is the most ridiculous thing I have read since hearing about Stepanek & Vaidisova getting married.

Comedy.

I for one welcome anther grand slam. I think the money is there in Asia, what this will do to the other grand slams I have no idea.

For pragmatic purposes, china, or Tokyo could work.

People are scared of change in tennis, especially at the top levels. of tennis. We need guys like Ian who will shake things up so the sport doesn't stagnate.

The sport has yet to make progress on scheduling issues for example.
 

CyBorg

Legend
The Natural,

Tennis Australia receives funding from both the Victorian and Australian government. The article, which appears in the biggest selling (but not most respected) newspaper in the country, is a PR exercise designed to elicit support from the average tennis fan and put pressure on the state and federal government for increased funding. Look at the last part of the article and you'll see exactly why it was written. "TA wants a $300 million upgrade and has applied for State Government funding....In order to maintain the AO's grand slam status, TA requires substantial investment into venue facilities and infrastructure". Bingo!

Anyone who takes the 'story' seriously is responding in exactly the way TA wanted.

Ok, so... I don't have to assassinate Tiriac from the top of that tower tomorrow morning?
 

Chauvalito

Hall of Fame
Yeah they should add one more somewhere in Antarctica since they have no tennis tournaments there. Honestly I don't know if I can really take Tiriac that seriously.

The guy is a billionaire business man, so when he says something people notice, he is also a former tennis player and runs a masters series tournament successfully so he has a pretty good handle on things in the tennis world.

He is also a bit of a character, eccentric...I wouldn't put it past him at all.

I would even venture that he could line up investors right now, but cant because you cannot gain grand slam status unless the various organizations can give it to you.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Of course this is the TA lobbying for cash, but:

Keeping in mind that two additional slams wouldn't be Slams until some history was established IMO it would be a good idea.

If two additional "slams" were added and the Slam format were followed it would serve to reduce tourney count, i.e.:

2 events vs the 4 individual week long events they would replace.

A potential of 7 rounds {albiet best of 5 set play for the men} over two weeks vs. 8-10 rounds of play on back-to-back days that would be required for the two individual week long events they would replace.

Players would also have to pace themselves for six huge events a year and the ATP would likely have to lessen the required number of events.

Let's say the Four Slams, Two new majors, and Eight Master's Series Events and the TMC if one should so qualify might be a good list for the only "required" events, or

Four Slams, two new majors replacing two MS events and leave six MS events as warm-ups prior to those Major format events.

Either way it will probably result in less overall play for the players.

There's been a desire to bring the ATP and WTA to more venues at the same time. This would accomplish that too.

The Middle East and China would be willing to invest large money and it might even yield another big grass court event finally lengthening that "season" as many have expressed an interest in that.

Where in the calendar would be the rub, but the idea of two new major like venues, again perhaps another on grass and one indoor may not be such a bad idea even though it will take a years before those events actually earn the status associated with the traditional Majors.
 
Last edited:

HyperHorse

Banned
The year is long enough.
We do not need another Grand Slam.
The players don't need it either.
And we don't need this 4$$h0l3 Romanian telling us how it's going to be....
The 4 Grand Slams are set in stone, that's all you're gonna get, folks...
If you ask me, if push comes to shove there's going to be a massive player backlash. No1 will stand for this...
 

rommil

Legend
The guy is a billionaire business man, so when he says something people notice, he is also a former tennis player and runs a masters series tournament successfully so he has a pretty good handle on things in the tennis world.

He is also a bit of a character, eccentric...I wouldn't put it past him at all.

I would even venture that he could line up investors right now, but cant because you cannot gain grand slam status unless the various organizations can give it to you.

Well to me he looks like somebody that will tie you up on the train tracks and laugh at you with his big mustache while waiting for the train to run over you. He has the money ok but it seems a bit farfetched to get another slam since the 4 have been deeprooted in tradition. I guess you have to start somewhere. But to me Tiriac suggesting another Slam would just look like he wants to make more money(that being an understatement). If he has good handle on tennis maybe he needs to listen to a lot of players already saying that there are too many tournaments. They can choose of course.
 

tzinc

Semi-Pro
This is ridiculous people just don't decided what are GRAND SLAM EVENTS. They can add more majors/grand slams and they can say an AO is not a GRAND SLAM MAJOR anymore etc. All I know is if a player wins THE USO, R.G., and WIMBY and the AO that player will be calling it 4 majors and a GRAND SLAM win for him/her. No matter what the powers that be decide. History cannot be so easily overriden! If the player wins USO, RG and WIMBY and the New G.S. event no one will be talking Grand Slam about those 4 wins.
 
Last edited:
Who decided what events are classified as Grand Slams? I thought that the GS existed outside the scope of the ATP, therefore Masters Series tournaments and ATP commissioners could not exert influence.

The national tournaments of the 4 oldest, most important and dominant tennis nations were the Aus Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Because they were the most important they made up the Grand Slam.
 

Babb

Professional
Well how about three slams? The US, Wimbledon, and French. Why are there two hardcourt slams in the first place? I will simply say that the Australian is my least favorite.
 

Ronny

Hall of Fame
Well how about three slams? The US, Wimbledon, and French. Why are there two hardcourt slams in the first place? I will simply say that the Australian is my least favorite.

actually, im pretty sure that the aus open was held/started before the us open. so why not just the aus open, roland garros and wimbledon.
 
The main issue with the AO is and always has been, timing. It is too early in the year. Their is no build up to the tournament such as the US Open series or the clay court season for the French. Wasn't the AO supposed to be moved to March or April. That would give the players a chance to work into the year and have an Asian swing of the tour to build momentum for the tournament. Right now it just seems to come out of nowhere then their is a 5 month lull until the next major. This is really bad timing and bad marketing by pro tennis.

So move it or loose it.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
I think thats one of its strengths. Theres only a few tournaments leading up to ithe AO, so everyone is relatively fresh and you get the best tennis. There's at least 2 or 3 leadup tournies depending on how many players want to play in. If they had a whole load of tournaments before the A0, many players would be worn out and injured from all of the pounding that their body takes from the hard courts. Everyoen is fresh and motivated after the off season, so its perfect to have a slam with just a few leadup tournies.

One thing I would favour is a longer off season. Mabe they could end the season a few weeks earlier.








The main issue with the AO is and always has been, timing. It is too early in the year. Their is no build up to the tournament such as the US Open series or the clay court season for the French. Wasn't the AO supposed to be moved to March or April. That would give the players a chance to work into the year and have an Asian swing of the tour to build momentum for the tournament. Right now it just seems to come out of nowhere then their is a 5 month lull until the next major. This is really bad timing and bad marketing by pro tennis.

So move it or loose it.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
I am all for couple more Majorslams.

we have AO in Jan. FO in May. WIM right after and USO in sept. In between there are few big tournaments but not a Major.

A major in ASIA would be a good idea. It could be a rolling major that can be hosted by various countries each year.

why should AO/FO/WIM/USO be the only slams?.

It may also help extend the Grass court tournaments. we have so few of them.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
5 Slams? horrible idea, the season is long enough already, slams are two weeks of best of fives, slams still have to mean something, they have to be a special event, if there were five it would be like every time you turn around another slam is going on, it would completely dilute the value of a slam


Only where there is already a Slam. China has money, but no Slams. A fifth indoor Slam in China will attract a lot of attention in Asia.

Having two Slams back to back in 2 weeks (RG and W) was the original bad idea, but it had to be done due to the lousy weather in both places. Now the money and people are in Asia, and time to have a Slam there. A round-robin year ending is a bad idea
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
This is ridiculus, no one is gonna wanna play back to back days for that many rounds. and we don't need any more slams, four is enough. Its already pretty bad that Wimby and the french are a month apart, how much more do these people want to cram the schedule. They may be trying to think of the fans, but players schedules are alreayd hectic enough as it is, they don't want to deal with two more slams. they have enough to worry about with the 4 there already are.
 

fastdunn

Legend
If China wants it to happen, it will somehow make a big influence.
It's not a question of whether it becomes slam or not.
If they want to promote tennis, they would not care much about whether they want to become part of slams or not.
They think somewhat differently. They are the center of universe, if you know what I mean....
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
It isnt about china entirely either. Why should AO/fo/wim/uso be the only ones who have slams. why not other countries?

Historically there may be several reasons. now other countries have enough tennis following and they can afford it.

As is the slams are disorganized. Long gap between AO and Fo. not enough gap between FO and WIM.
 

Blade0324

Hall of Fame
As far as I can see the arguments against another slam far outweigh the arguments for. Adding another slam would cheapen the significance of the slams and would just degrade the sport. 4 slams has been tradition and should continue to be the number. For those who say why should AO/FO/Wimby/ USO be the only ones and why not other countries. It's not about the countries that do or do not have them it's about this being the way it's always been. No reason to mess with this. The only good arguement to me is to have a bit more time between the French and Wimby. Perhaps another week would be good. As for extending the grass court season I'm not so sure there. The grass court tournaments are some of the least participated in by the top players (other than Wimby). I think have 2 hardcourt slams is an excellent idea as it is a surface that is the most universal accross the board. If you were to seek a change in surface for the AO clay would be the only other good option as it is a better surface for playing and viewing. Grass has become basically a thing of the past and tradition and Wimby are the only reasons to still have tournaments on grass courts. It's just not a good surface for todays game in my opinion.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Why is 4 Slams a tradition but 3 of the Slams are not held on grass anymore? Why don't players play with wood racquets?

Tennis has stagnated for a while, and that is why a number of changes have been made, including changes in doubles rules and making the Masters Series non-final matches best of 3, and same for Davis Cup dead rubbers. With new nations coming up with purchasing power and clout, time is ripe for eliminating some of the European indoor tourneys and replacing them with a year end indoor Slam in China. It will be much more of an attention gatherer than indoor tournaments in cold European places.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
As far as I can see the arguments against another slam far outweigh the arguments for. Adding another slam would cheapen the significance of the slams and would just degrade the sport. 4 slams has been tradition and should continue to be the number. For those who say why should AO/FO/Wimby/ USO be the only ones and why not other countries. It's not about the countries that do or do not have them it's about this being the way it's always been. No reason to mess with this. The only good arguement to me is to have a bit more time between the French and Wimby. Perhaps another week would be good. As for extending the grass court season I'm not so sure there. The grass court tournaments are some of the least participated in by the top players (other than Wimby). I think have 2 hardcourt slams is an excellent idea as it is a surface that is the most universal accross the board. If you were to seek a change in surface for the AO clay would be the only other good option as it is a better surface for playing and viewing. Grass has become basically a thing of the past and tradition and Wimby are the only reasons to still have tournaments on grass courts. It's just not a good surface for todays game in my opinion.

Things have changed a lot. So tradition can be tossed out. The game isnt the same, equipment isnt the same, courts arent the same, $$$ arent same.Change is inevitable (except from vending machines).
we have More asian /european audience and hence it is a good idea to add a SLAM for them. Hardcourts are universal?? (not sure.. i can understand clay as it is more easier to setup and maintain especially in some asian countries)

I cant understand you. One side you indicate tradition needs to be followed. On the other side you say Grass courts as thing of past???
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
The talk of adding a Grand Slam seems to revolve around whether China will generate a slam. When I think of the top tennis nations of the world, China doesn't spring to mind. South America seems to have a longer and more fanatical tennis following than any Asian country, and I don't often hear people talking about a South American slam.
 

tzinc

Semi-Pro
People will always think of a Grand Slam as winning the USO, AO, FO, and Wimby.

They can add 1 or 10 more Grand Slams it won't change that reality.
 

Swissv2

Hall of Fame
If there were 5 GS in a year, I can guarantee there will be a player's strike. 2 straight weeks with a 5 set format and less rest for the players that make it to the semis ~ the top players will end up just skipping one GS. The tennis schedule is crazy enough as it is. I can’t think of another sport where one has to travel all over the world endlessly for literally an entire year.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
lol.. how much money did they spend resurfacing all of their courts? :confused: is the resurfacing of courts not a major capital improvement??? but i do agree that they need more show courts.. so far all they have is rod laver, vodafone arena, margaret court arena, show court 2 and 3. proably a few more show courts would be good :D

They resurfaced Rebound Ace every year anyways - so it's not as if the new surface would have been that much more expensive....

The Natural,

Tennis Australia receives funding from both the Victorian and Australian government. The article, which appears in the biggest selling (but not most respected) newspaper in the country, is a PR exercise designed to elicit support from the average tennis fan and put pressure on the state and federal government for increased funding. Look at the last part of the article and you'll see exactly why it was written. "TA wants a $300 million upgrade and has applied for State Government funding....In order to maintain the AO's grand slam status, TA requires substantial investment into venue facilities and infrastructure". Bingo!

Anyone who takes the 'story' seriously is responding in exactly the way TA wanted.

Exactly...
 
I love watching tennis matches on ESPN2 simply because they never really show tennis matches. As for football and basketball, I could give less of a crap because they talk about it all the time.

Relevant?
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
A fifth slam in China would be a good idea, but I highly doubt it will happen. You see, Tennis is hardly the most popular sport in China at all... At least for now.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
If there were 5 GS in a year, I can guarantee there will be a player's strike. 2 straight weeks with a 5 set format and less rest for the players that make it to the semis ~ the top players will end up just skipping one GS. The tennis schedule is crazy enough as it is. I can’t think of another sport where one has to travel all over the world endlessly for literally an entire year.

I completely agree. Players will most likely just skip one of the slams during the year because they will have oppurutunity to make it up, which would defeat the whole purpose of having the fifth slam and degrade the overall quality of the slams we already have. Many in favor of the fifth slam are talking about what it would generate, which I assume boils down to income, and what many fans want to see, but what people in favor of it need to think about is, is it somethings the actual players will support, and considering there are already going be many more required participation tournaments in the next few years, a fifth grand slam seems illogical and a waste. I seriously doubt the players will support it, and if the top players don't support it, they won't play it, which would make it a huge waste of time.
 

baseliner

Professional
I admit I am a traditionalist. Add a 5th (or 6th) slam and there go the record books. With more slams, it becomes easier to become the alltime slam leader. Sampras had only 4 slams to build his record. Down the road when there are 6 slams someone "beats' Pete's record. Do we go back and endow slam status retroactively to even things up? Of course not! Stay with 4 slams. Call the other big tourneys anything you want but they are not slams.
 

Ossric

Semi-Pro
why should AO/FO/WIM/USO be the only slams?.

It's called tradition.

As well, if you add more slams, not only will they not be universally recognised as grand slam tournaments. The overall achievement of winning a grand slam event is lessened as it becomes easier to win one as there'd be more chances.

All in all, there is already enough money in tennis. Make the master series events larger, make more whatever, but the Slams are the Slams for a reason. You can't just make a new tournament and call it a Slam or just magically turn a current tournament into a Slam just because people with money want it that way to make more money.
 

Ossric

Semi-Pro
I completely agree. Players will most likely just skip one of the slams during the year because they will have oppurutunity to make it up, which would defeat the whole purpose of having the fifth slam and degrade the overall quality of the slams we already have. Many in favor of the fifth slam are talking about what it would generate, which I assume boils down to income, and what many fans want to see, but what people in favor of it need to think about is, is it somethings the actual players will support, and considering there are already going be many more required participation tournaments in the next few years, a fifth grand slam seems illogical and a waste. I seriously doubt the players will support it, and if the top players don't support it, they won't play it, which would make it a huge waste of time.

A great point. If the top players don't show up, it isn't exactly a grand slam. Imagine if the top 10 don't show up to a tournament. Nobody is going to respect or consider the winner of that event as a Grand Slam champion. He'll simply be a winner of a big tournament of circumstance. I'd go so far as to say he'd get an asterisk beside his name.
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
A great point. If the top players don't show up, it isn't exactly a grand slam. Imagine if the top 10 don't show up to a tournament. Nobody is going to respect or consider the winner of that event as a Grand Slam champion. He'll simply be a winner of a big tournament of circumstance. I'd go so far as to say he'd get an asterisk beside his name.

That was my thinking exactly, people already consider key biscayne a mini slam due to the 96 player field. I understand people want to recognize china and asia as a whole as an emerging tennis region, but to just give it a slam seems extreme. I think there should definitely be more tournaments in the area and then players can choose whether to play there or not. Organizing the four slams into their schedules is hard enough I can imagine. Plus, the slam would most likely be a hard court slam...since at the end of the year most tournaments are indoor hardcourt. that would make three hardcourt majors, and I think that would lead to, at least in the case of american players, a decreased participation at the french open. You couldn't make it clay, as there are not many clay court events at years end, and players want to tune up on a surface before playing a slam on it. I think the fifth slam idea is a bit much, and this business man just wants to pocket some extra money. maybe if the grand slam schedule is shifted and the demand is there down the line, and the players want it...maybe, but now, its just not worth it at all.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Most common ploy of any advocacy group is to exaggerate the risk....like Jerry Lewis becoming frantic near the end of a telethon about not reaching the goal when most of the large pledges were made months earlier. Tennis Australia wants to scare Aussies into coming up with lots of money
 

stadiumking

New User
The reasoning for the AO becoming defunct, as according to the article, are hardly substantiated or logical.
The logic seems to be that the Australian Open is in danger purely because the venue has had little superficial capital upgrading since the addition of Vodafone Arena. The only outcome I can see from that is that ticket prices will continue to hike (as they have done this year), because the demand is always growing, but the capacities at venues aren't. This hardly spells the end of one of tennis' four major tournaments. It just reflects a basic economic problem of capacity constraints.
Besides, it's not as if the facilities are severely outdated or inadequate. It was only five years ago that Melbourne Park and the Australian Open has facilities and venues far superior to the other three Grand Slam venues. And it is still currently the only venue to have an operational retractable roof over the main stadium.

There is plenty of space in the Melbourne and Olympic Parks precinct. Tennis Australia just needs to be prudent in its dealings with the Victorian Government and the Olympic Park Trust, correspondingly cooperating with other tenants Collingwood FC, (soon to be) Melbourne FC, Melbourne Victory, Athletics Australia, VIS, South Dragons etc, Melbourne Storm. There is underutilised space at the moment, and if TA can liaise with the developers in coming years, the site should be able to accomodate growth easily. For starters, there is space on the other side of Vodafone Arena going away from the city, and there is also the oval inbetween the two major venues that houses corporate marquees for the Open each year; they could be developed for better use.
 
Top