The Australian is better than the USO, IMO.

[MasturB]

After watching this year's Australian (and for the last few years), I have to say that I now enjoy it much more than our own slam.

Watching the matches, you can definitely notice a different vibe between a match in Rod Laver arena as opposed to on Arthur Ashe.

There's more energy in Australian crowds, and it seems to make matches much more fun to watch. There also seems to be more exciting and competitive matches happening on a daily basis.

USO really really soured me after the way they treated Del Po during the ceremony. The trophy ceremony was a joke all around. It has more to do with the fact that in the US, tennis isn't big ratings wise which is why it doesn't get enough respect by the TV networks.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I completely agree.

The vibe is so positive at the Australian Open and I think the new surface and the colours help to give it a really cool atmosphere as well.

I was definitely frustrated and annoyed with how Del Potro was treated during that US Open 2009 ceremony; just let the guy say some words!? It was really ridiculous.

I feel the fans really pay good attention at the AO and there is less background noise in general. It feels more focused.

HOWEVER, I also see the relative lack of attention at the US Open alluring, in a way. It's like the players are out in the wilderness and all the background noise too makes the atmosphere really unique. When the players put on a really good show the crowd starts really getting into it and becomes really attentive and the contrasts lead to an overall curious and intriguing atmosphere for the US Open

 

[downdaline]

There's more energy in Australian crowds, and it seems to make matches much more fun to watch.

I prefer to say that there's more POSITIVE energy in Australian crowds. I dunno, but it really seems like the Aussies just REALLY love to watch tennis, regardless of who wins.

I dont recall a player getting boo-ed in the Aussie Open - can't say that about the USO.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

All the 4 Slams have a unique atmosphere and their differences make them all very special in their own ways, that's for sure.

 

[MasturB]

I prefer to say that there's more POSITIVE energy in Australian crowds. I dunno, but it really seems like the Aussies just REALLY love to watch tennis, regardless of who wins.

I dont recall a player getting boo-ed in the Aussie Open - can't say that about the USO.

That's what I mean though. The more energy they bring, the more the players start feeding off of it.

They appreciate and enjoy the tennis, which is the same boat I'm in. USO is just a more casual crowd.

 

[MasturB]

All the 4 Slams have a unique atmosphere and their differences make them all very special in their own ways, that's for sure.

This is how I see it.

Australian - Very Very Very positive crowd. A lot of energy and enthusiasm, which sometimes the players will feed into. It makes for a very entertaining match, especially if you live in the US and are watching it late at night. They rooted more for Federer than they did Hewitt, just because they appreciate the tennis greatness that Federer brings to the table.

French - Smart crowd. They aren't as rowdy as the Australian bunch, but they are enthusiastic when they see great tennis going on.

Wimbledon - Smart crowd and quiet crowd understandably so for the tradition. They do however know when to really "cheer" on the opponents in between points.

USO - Rude crowd. Lots of people making noises, airplanes flying overhead, distractions. Crowd does erupt when there is an amazing play. Only time it gets exciting it seems like, is when Federer hits a ridiculous shot on Djokovic.

 

[rommil]

Well, I think it reflects the city where it's held at. To me the AO seems to have a friendlier, livelier vibe. Try going to the finals at the US open where it's very lively in the stadium but dead on the grounds. To me the AO seems lively everywhere. I plan to go to Melbourne next year.

 

[JennyS]

After watching this year's Australian (and for the last few years), I have to say that I now enjoy it much more than our own slam.

Watching the matches, you can definitely notice a different vibe between a match in Rod Laver arena as opposed to on Arthur Ashe.

There's more energy in Australian crowds, and it seems to make matches much more fun to watch. There also seems to be more exciting and competitive matches happening on a daily basis.

USO really really soured me after the way they treated Del Po during the ceremony. The trophy ceremony was a joke all around. It has more to do with the fact that in the US, tennis isn't big ratings wise which is why it doesn't get enough respect by the TV networks.

Count me in on the AO>USO bandwagon. Someone on here predicted that the Australian will be considered a more important Slam than the US Open someday. There are several reasons why I agree:

A. Marketing the Aussie Open as the Slam of Asia/Pacific was a brilliant idea. Apparently more people in China wached Li/Serena than live in the US!

B. The Australian Open is a much bigger event in Australia than the US Open is in the US. The opening weekend of the NFL always overshadows the Open every year.

C. The final set tiebreak is horrible IMO. Imagine the men's final ending in a tiebreak. It would be ridiculously unfair to decide it that way.

D. No day off before the final all for television. Might as well call the US Open the made for tv slam.

E. American players are fading and once the Williams sisters and Roddick retire, I think the US Open's luster will really fade.

 

[egn]

This is how I see it.

Australian - Very Very Very positive crowd. A lot of energy and enthusiasm, which sometimes the players will feed into. It makes for a very entertaining match, especially if you live in the US and are watching it late at night. They rooted more for Federer than they did Hewitt, just because they appreciate the tennis greatness that Federer brings to the table.

How is that a good thing. I hate that. I would rather see the home slam rooting for the home player. It disgusts me honestly. AO annoys me a lot though in the early rounds cause you get the bunches of people from the various different countries going absolutely nuts. The small courts can be quite hellish to watch.

French - Smart crowd. They aren't as rowdy as the Australian bunch, but they are enthusiastic when they see great tennis going on.

Go watch the 2003 Serena-Henin match..one of the most disgusting crowds I have ever seen...actually 2003 was just a bad year all around. The French crowd is good and bad..it depends on the match and the players. They don't bother me too much though.

Wimbledon - Smart crowd and quiet crowd understandably so for the tradition. They do however know when to really "cheer" on the opponents in between points.

Agree Wimbledon is nice because you can watch tennis.

USO - Rude crowd. Lots of people making noises, airplanes flying overhead, distractions. Crowd does erupt when there is an amazing play. Only time it gets exciting it seems like, is when Federer hits a ridiculous shot on Djokovic.

Like the AO it's on and off. Not the USO fault its built near two major airports..its in NYC. It's kind of like what are you supposed to do. They built two airports in Queens the USO didn't go LETS BUILD THOSE AIRPORTS TO DISTRACT PLAYERS. I've never been watching the USO and been like OMG SO RUDE MUST TURN OFF. It is really just like the AO..for some reason the hardcourt slam bring out the more loud fans, but thats cause it doesn't feel like the traditional environments that the French and Wimbledon bring.

 

[JennyS]

This is how I see it.

Australian - Very Very Very positive crowd. A lot of energy and enthusiasm, which sometimes the players will feed into. It makes for a very entertaining match, especially if you live in the US and are watching it late at night. They rooted more for Federer than they did Hewitt, just because they appreciate the tennis greatness that Federer brings to the table.

French - Smart crowd. They aren't as rowdy as the Australian bunch, but they are enthusiastic when they see great tennis going on.

Wimbledon - Smart crowd and quiet crowd understandably so for the tradition. They do however know when to really "cheer" on the opponents in between points.

USO - Rude crowd. Lots of people making noises, airplanes flying overhead, distractions. Crowd does erupt when there is an amazing play. Only time it gets exciting it seems like, is when Federer hits a ridiculous shot on Djokovic.

Not to mention, fans get up and come back in during play. When I was at the 2006 men's final, my view kept getting obstructed during important points because people kept coming in with their trays full of hot dogs and beers. Ugh!

 

[MasturB]

Count me in on the AO>USO bandwagon. Someone on here predicted that the Australian will be considered a more important Slam than the US Open someday. There are several reasons why I agree:

A. Marketing the Aussie Open as the Slam of Asia/Pacific was a brilliant idea. Apparently more people in China wached Li/Serena than live in the US!

Ehh, in defense of the US though, China has a like a bajillion people, and their timezone is much more easier to align with Australian time than here in the US.

It's 3-5am here Eastern time when the good night matches at Rod Laver start playing.

 

[MasturB]

How is that a good thing. I hate that. I would rather see the home slam rooting for the home player. It disgusts me honestly. AO annoys me a lot though in the early rounds cause you get the bunches of people from the various different countries going absolutely nuts. The small courts can be quite hellish to watch.

Well to me, I like watching other pro sports here in the US where the crowd gets loud and the players feed off of it. You'll see it in basketball, football, and sometimes baseball (end of game when closer comes in and starts striking people out) Sometimes the crowd can swing the match and give a momentum boost to someone. Rafa does a fistpump and goes vamos down in the set 5-1, the crowd goes nuts and next thing you know he's tied the set at 5-5.

Like the AO it's on and off. Not the USO fault its built near two major airports..its in NYC. It's kind of like what are you supposed to do. They built two airports in Queens the USO didn't go LETS BUILD THOSE AIRPORTS TO DISTRACT PLAYERS. I've never been watching the USO and been like OMG SO RUDE MUST TURN OFF. It is really just like the AO..for some reason the hardcourt slam bring out the more loud fans, but thats cause it doesn't feel like the traditional environments that the French and Wimbledon bring.

I'm not blaming them for that, but it does make me get kinda annoyed when I'm watching the day matches and you can hear the airplane over the ball being struck.

Like mentioned, all slams have a different environment, but most are positive environments where the players are focused on and have the best chance of performing at the highest level.

Response in quote.

 

[egn]

Count me in on the AO>USO bandwagon. Someone on here predicted that the Australian will be considered a more important Slam than the US Open someday. There are several reasons why I agree:

A. Marketing the Aussie Open as the Slam of Asia/Pacific was a brilliant idea. Apparently more people in China wached Li/Serena than live in the US!

Umm that has more to do with the time difference..do you realize what time the match was played in the US...and Li is like China's first big thing in tennis so she is going to get praise.

B. The Australian Open is a much bigger event in Australia than the US Open is in the US. The opening weekend of the NFL always overshadows the Open every year.

Agreed but the people who are going to watch tennis are still going to watch and care about the US Open..globally I doubt the NFL really hurts the US Open.

C. The final set tiebreak is horrible IMO. Imagine the men's final ending in a tiebreak. It would be ridiculously unfair to decide it that way.

Agreed..but

D. No day off before the final all for television. Might as well call the US Open the made for tv slam.

Oh no..cry a river. I kind of like it better. It shows who is a tougher player. G

E. American players are fading and once the Williams sisters and Roddick retire, I think the US Open's luster will really fade.

Huh..last british player to win a slam. Fed Perry. Last Aussie to win a slam Lleyton Hewitt. Last American to win a slam Serena Williams less than a month ago..male Roddick..which was more recent than either of the two. Amount of Aussie women threatening a slam run at the moment.. possibly one..amount of American women..one if not two..amount of Aussie men..0 unless Hewitt does a huge run amount of American men 1...When was the last French Man a slam winner..Yannick Noah?? I mean seriously if luster determined on who was a dominate force in tennis Wimbledon would mean nothing. US Open will always hold it's prestige because it is the later part of the year, the final slam, so many of the great champions were dominate there, guys like Tilden, Sampras, Fed, Connors, Lendl, Edberg etc.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I dont even think there is even a contest. USO sucks for variety of different reasons. It is still being held because despite the fact that it sucks, plenty of attendance to show for it and revenues are at an all time high.

Rowdy/Rude/bad crowd is very prevelant at Usopen. The transportation to Flushing medows sucks. Every single thing towards and at USOPEN is all about squeezing dollars from the visitors. greedy vendors/stalls are the norm. The ushers are unfriendly at the best, Customer service is almost non existant, Tickets cost a lot and the lower end tickets are good for seats that almost fall under FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) restrictions, Scheduling is done to suit Television. The hype is so much and for some strange reason HYPE the city as well, the list goes on.

Yes, I dread my annual trip to USopen but i still make it because it is still one of the places where i can find all the top pros playing and usually put their best effort.

Having been to all the slams (and some more than once) ,In my book, the order is AO--> FO-->Wimbledon--> USopen.

 

[mlewis721]

If they lowered the price of beer at the USO it'd be just as much fun as the AO. But you'd have to nail all the chairs down.

 

[Cantankersore]

As far as prestige, it obviously has a ways to go. As far as good tennis, my only problem is the time difference.

 

[JennyS]

Umm that has more to do with the time difference..do you realize what time the match was played in the US...and Li is like China's first big thing in tennis so she is going to get praise.



Agreed but the people who are going to watch tennis are still going to watch and care about the US Open..globally I doubt the NFL really hurts the US Open.



Agreed..but



Oh no..cry a river. I kind of like it better. It shows who is a tougher player. G



Huh..last british player to win a slam. Fed Perry. Last Aussie to win a slam Lleyton Hewitt. Last American to win a slam Serena Williams less than a month ago..male Roddick..which was more recent than either of the two. Amount of Aussie women threatening a slam run at the moment.. possibly one..amount of American women..one if not two..amount of Aussie men..0 unless Hewitt does a huge run amount of American men 1...When was the last French Man a slam winner..Yannick Noah?? I mean seriously if luster determined on who was a dominate force in tennis Wimbledon would mean nothing. US Open will always hold it's prestige because it is the later part of the year, the final slam, so many of the great champions were dominate there, guys like Tilden, Sampras, Fed, Connors, Lendl, Edberg etc.

I was always under the impression that mostly American players ranked the US Open on par with Wimbledon. With no top American players around, how many players are going to say the USO is the Slam they always dreamed of winning?

On the other hand, EVERY player (except for maybe claycourt specialists) dreams of winning Wimbledon. Winning the French is a huge deal to Europeans and South Americans.

 

[JennyS]

Ehh, in defense of the US though, China has a like a bajillion people, and their timezone is much more easier to align with Australian time than here in the US.

It's 3-5am here Eastern time when the good night matches at Rod Laver start playing.

That's the point though. The fact that tennis is becoming more and more popular in Asia is absolutely huge for the Australian Open. It could wind up being the Slam Asian players really want to win and they'll consider it their home Slam.

The night finals (and night men's semis) was also a great idea for European audiences. Look at how all the fans in Scotland were so excited about Murray being the final. Would they have gotten together and watched if the final was at 3:00AM British time?

 

[lawrence]

Not to mention Australia is one of them countries everyone loves 8)

 

[rudester]

I had an opportunity to go down and watch the Australian Open a couple of years back, and though i have not been to any other grand slams. I was really impressed with the knowledgeable great fans at the AO, they were there to watch great tennis and have fun, and this was my experience also. I would like to check out other slams as well, but i must admit the US open is last on my list after Wimbledon and the French, not quite sure why this is, but i suspect it is because of the rampant overdone commercialism i perceive, just an opinion, but an honest one at that. I would love to go back and see another AO. i love the game of tennis and this love thrives at this grand slam.

 

[RCizzle65]

I think I'm starting to agree with AO over USO, even though it is in our country....but I'm basing this off TV

 

[egn]

I was always under the impression that mostly American players ranked the US Open on par with Wimbledon. With no top American players around, how many players are going to say the USO is the Slam they always dreamed of winning?

On the other hand, EVERY player (except for maybe claycourt specialists) dreams of winning Wimbledon. Winning the French is a huge deal to Europeans and South Americans.

Well who says they have always dreamed of winning the AO. Murray has said he favors the US to Wimbledon. Its all preference. I'm pretty sure the consensus is wimbledon..and really after that the rest are just equal. I wouldn't say winning the French is a huge deal for said people, I mean they get excited but they won a slam. Do you think Del Po cares that he won a US and not a French..he looked damn happy when he won the US.

 

[Carsomyr]

Slow down, folks. The US Open has pretty consistently been considered the second most prestigious Slam after Wimbledon, and I don't think a poor handling of the trophy ceremony is going to change that. The Aussie, however, has changed surfaces three times in twenty-five years, putting a question mark next to historical context.

It doesn't really make a difference, anyway, if one is a nudge more important than any other, as all four are miles more important than any other tournament.

 

[nfor304]

Slow down, folks. The US Open has pretty consistently been considered the second most prestigious Slam after Wimbledon, and I don't think a poor handling of the trophy ceremony is going to change that. The Aussie, however, has changed surfaces three times in twenty-five years, putting a question mark next to historical context.

It doesn't really make a difference, anyway, if one is a nudge more important than any other, as all four are miles more important than any other tournament.

The US Open has changed surfaces 3 times in the last 36 years. Also far more drastic surface changes. The difference between Rebound ace and Plexicushion isn't huge.

I do agree though that I think the US open is the second most important slam, and the Aus Open probably still last. The Aus Open has been gaining ground on the other slams every year though....

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The US Open has changed surfaces 3 times in the last 36 years. Also far more drastic surface changes. The difference between Rebound ace and Plexicushion isn't huge.

I do agree though that I think the US open is the second most important slam, and the Aus Open probably still last. The Aus Open has been gaining ground on the other slams every year though....

Especially with the caliber of players who are now making finals now. In the last two years we have 3 years we have had Federer twice, Murray, Nadal and Djokovic once (and Tsonga once).

In terms of personal preference though, US Open probably comes last for me; something like:

Wimbledon > RG/AO >>> US

Each '>' is worth a small amount of preference.

Wimbledon has just been epic for the last 3 years with the mens finals of course. AO has produced some awesome matches recently and had a great final last year and I just love watching the tennis on the RG clay. US Open has felt a little dead to me but last years mens final was pretty epic and awesome.

Roger and out.

 

[Spider]

Well, it is no secret that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history.

US open and the French open are combined at number two position at the moment. I think AO is comparatively weaker, because of the timing difference and most people find it very difficult to watch live tennis.

I guess if we could move the AO somewhere closer, it would get more visibility, and more people can watch better tennis.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Well, it is no secret that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history.

US open and the French open are combined at number two position at the moment. I think AO is comparatively weaker, because of the timing difference and most people find it very difficult to watch live tennis.

I guess if we could move the AO somewhere closer, it would get more visibility, and more people can watch better tennis.

I don't think there is much arguing that general hierarchy, but I think the OP is talking more about just the personal preference for events. I mean, some people like Wimbledon the least, personally.

 

[nfor304]

Well, it is no secret that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history.

US open and the French open are combined at number two position at the moment. I think AO is comparatively weaker, because of the timing difference and most people find it very difficult to watch live tennis.

I guess if we could move the AO somewhere closer, it would get more visibility, and more people can watch better tennis.

So I guess when you say 'most people' that doesn't include Australia or any part of Asia at all?

The Australian Open is the grand slam of the Asia Pacific region, and it caters to that fast growing region just fine.

If it moved somewhere more suitable to you, like somewhere in Europe or the USA it would surely have an even worse standing than it does now in terms of relevance.

 

[Spider]

So I guess when you say 'most people' that doesn't include Australia or any part of Asia at all?

The Australian Open is the grand slam of the Asia Pacific region, and it caters to that fast growing region just fine.

If it moved somewhere more suitable to you, like somewhere in Europe or the USA it would surely have an even worse standing than it does now in terms of relevance.

I mean, to a larger tennis audience and this would result in better ratings, which is what tennis needs. This seems to be the main problem as the timing difference causes a lot of problems to tennis enthusiasts.

 

[sh@de]

I like AO waaayyy wayyy more than USO... simply because I'm near AO's time zone .

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

1. RG (despite Nadal)
2. AO
3. SW19
4. USO

 

[viduka0101]

i prefer AO also
but then again i prefer every slam over USO

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

^^ Agree. Points end too fast.

 

[Fedexeon]

I love USO but I do agree it has alot catch-up to do, especially now that we know they will be building a roof stadium in Roland Garros and a roof over the Margaret Court Arena in Australian Open. It has been 2 consecutive years that the men's final was ruined by rain in USO. This is definitely not good for the sport when the most important match is being played on Monday instead of Sunday.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Slow down, folks. The US Open has pretty consistently been considered the second most prestigious Slam after Wimbledon, and I don't think a poor handling of the trophy ceremony is going to change that. The Aussie, however, has changed surfaces three times in twenty-five years, putting a question mark next to historical context.

It doesn't really make a difference, anyway, if one is a nudge more important than any other, as all four are miles more important than any other tournament.

I must have missed that email. Any data to backup that statement?

 

[deltox]

I must have missed that email. Any data to backup that statement?

how bout a consensus poll =p

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295486&highlight=prestigious+slam


View Poll Results: Which is the biggest slam after Wimbledon?
French Open 69 45.10%
US Open 84 54.90%
Australian Open 12 7.84%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 153. This poll is closed


granted its not science, but its the opinions of over 150 tennis fans. so better than just one persons opinion

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

cause you get the bunches of people from the various different countries going absolutely nuts.

Some forget this about the AO; wild nationalism is often disturbing, to say the least.


FO:

Go watch the 2003 Serena-Henin match..one of the most disgusting crowds I have ever seen...actually 2003 was just a bad year all around.

Agreed. The crowd was abusive beyond belief and displayed their true nature in that match, which one can assume remains, though not always displayed.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

how bout a consensus poll =p

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295486&highlight=prestigious+slam


View Poll Results: Which is the biggest slam after Wimbledon?
French Open 69 45.10%
US Open 84 54.90%
Australian Open 12 7.84%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 153. This poll is closed


granted its not science, but its the opinions of over 150 tennis fans. so better than just one persons opinion

I would expect a primarily US based forum like TW to have atleast 55% of ppl supporting USO as second biggest slam.

The Poll itself is a bit biased. "Biggest slam after wimbledon?" LOL

 

[nickarnold2000]

All the slams have their good and bad points, IMO but I'm not a big fan of the high camera angles used at the USO(except for the court level camera but they don't use it enough). Wimbly and Oz cameras are much lower to the court.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Uggg USO is certainly not 2nd best. I don't think Wimby is best either.

 

[deltox]

I would expect a primarily US based forum like TW to have atleast 55% of ppl supporting USO as second biggest slam.

The Poll itself is a bit biased. "Biggest slam after wimbledon?" LOL

well, the pros rank them differently, but almost every pro cept clay court specialists rank Wimbledon at the top, and AO at the bottom.


when have you ever heard a pro tennis player in an interview say ,"OMG, my biggest dream is to hold up the trophy at the Australian Open."

lemme help you with this answer, never once.

in almost all cases winning wimbledon seems to be their top priority when they start and have 0 under the belt.

FO, USO is debateable.

this AO is the best talk is only going on becuase its the only one that has happened so far this year.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

well, the pros rank them differently, but almost every pro cept clay court specialists rank Wimbledon at the top, and AO at the bottom.


when have you ever heard a pro tennis player in an interview say ,"OMG, my biggest dream is to hold up the trophy at the Australian Open."

lemme help you with this answer, never once.

in almost all cases winning wimbledon seems to be their top priority when they start and have 0 under the belt.

FO, USO is debateable.

this AO is the best talk is only going on becuase its the only one that has happened so far this year.

Lets define "Best". I wont be a pro so a pro's perspective isnt going to help my case(but i respect that others do care about it).

Since my tennis is largely scholarship/recreational purposes, I only care about what my experience is when i visit the slams. USO -- i used to live 20 mts away from the place, is the worst. Yes i am a bit biased but it stems from me being to Usopen several times and every single time the experience only getting worse.

 

[deltox]

Lets define "Best". I wont be a pro so a pro's perspective isnt going to help my case(but i respect that others do care about it).

Since my tennis is largely scholarship/recreational purposes, I only care about what my experience is when i visit the slams. USO -- i used to live 20 mts away from the place, is the worst. Yes i am a bit biased but it stems from me being to Usopen several times and every single time the experience only getting worse.

the USO is the only one ive been to, but in my 3 trips there ive noticed one thing

locals dont like the event so much, tourists love the energy and excitement. some people only go for the night matches that run into the whee morning hours.

in my experiences, the players have all been awesome. the USTA members stuff is awesome. the bryan brothers always have a ton of fun at the USO. arthur ashe kids day is phenomonal. but i guess others could have a worse experience, but the truth is that most as chiming in based solely on tv announcers and matches they watch on tv.

we want to plan another slam trip next year, we are debating wimbl and ao. but the only reason AO is there is for the awesome tourism and beautiful scenery, animals , nature and stuff.

 

[JennyS]

well, the pros rank them differently, but almost every pro cept clay court specialists rank Wimbledon at the top, and AO at the bottom.


when have you ever heard a pro tennis player in an interview say ,"OMG, my biggest dream is to hold up the trophy at the Australian Open."

lemme help you with this answer, never once.

in almost all cases winning wimbledon seems to be their top priority when they start and have 0 under the belt.

FO, USO is debateable.

this AO is the best talk is only going on becuase its the only one that has happened so far this year.

Ana Ivanovic said that Australian is her favorite Slam. I'd think Australian players dream of winning it over the French Open. Also, the last two men's runners up cried in the trophy ceremony. Nadal collapsed onto the court when he won. The pros don't hold their nose up at it anymore.

Just think how far the Aussie has come in the last 10 years. If Asian players start really doing well, the Aussie will be even bigger than it is now.

 

[Blinkism]

I'd say, "round-for-round", the AO is easily the best in terms of quality.

In terms of the quality of finals, Wimbledon easily wins that category.

The USO, though, is at the bottom of my list in terms of the quality of the play there and the quality of the finals (barring last year's final).

In terms of atmosphere and organization, I'd say the AO is quickly becoming one of the top slams. It may not have historical prestige like the other slams, but it's branding itself as the "modern" slam- especially now that the AO is going to get a huge boost in funding (what was it, 400 million dollars? :shock.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

the USO is the only one ive been to, but in my 3 trips there ive noticed one thing

locals dont like the event so much, tourists love the energy and excitement. some people only go for the night matches that run into the whee morning hours.

in my experiences, the players have all been awesome. the USTA members stuff is awesome. the bryan brothers always have a ton of fun at the USO. arthur ashe kids day is phenomonal. but i guess others could have a worse experience, but the truth is that most as chiming in based solely on tv announcers and matches they watch on tv.

we want to plan another slam trip next year, we are debating wimbl and ao. but the only reason AO is there is for the awesome tourism and beautiful scenery, animals , nature and stuff.

There was one USO, when i saw an USHER asking a family to leave because a 3 yr old was crying on Arthur ashe kids days. I was only couple of rows below but watched this action develop as i went to get some water. As far as i can tell i didnt see anything unusual with the kid or his crying but i found the Usher to be utterly inconsiderate. Several such incidents and i know why i dislike USO. Ofcourse no one is asking me to come to USO and i can chose not to go but these days i get good seats and i will take any punishment to watch the Nadals/Federers of the world displaying their craft.

 

[charliefedererer]

The AO has a lot going for it. The Aussie crowds are number one, being enthusiastic fans of great tennis and not just home town rooters (Regretfully for them, there has been a halt to Australian dominence of the sport. Would there be world wide condemnation at center court behavior if Laver, Rosewall, Newk, Court and Goolagong were running the table? Probably not as these likable champs would have had international support). Second, the slow hard court surface gives a true bounce, giving grinders at least a chance, and allowing us to see the shot making skills it takes to win a well constructed point, as well as the athleticism that can turn a point around.
Thank goodness they gave up on the impossible attempt to keep grass courts green and playable during the Australian summer.

Aside from the time difference, the only major drawback is the stifling hot summers (got a break this year). Some may applaud the "fitness test", but I'm much more a fan of good tennis and not much of a fan of watching players struggle in the sauna. Australia has led the way with retractable roof stadiums, with 2 more roofs for outside courts under construction. But if they moved the tournament once (from late December into the even hotter late January), why couldn't they move it again to place it as the culmination of the winter hard court season in March? This could allow for more rest for top players after the indoor season, and yet still let them round into form at Miami, Indian Wells, and tune up matches of their choosing?

Yet, I still have enjoyed the Australian Open on TV. I'd love to get down there.

 

[kingdaddy41788]

I was always under the impression that mostly American players ranked the US Open on par with Wimbledon. With no top American players around, how many players are going to say the USO is the Slam they always dreamed of winning?

On the other hand, EVERY player (except for maybe claycourt specialists) dreams of winning Wimbledon. Winning the French is a huge deal to Europeans and South Americans.

I don't know of many who rank it on par with Wimbledon. Everyone would rather win Wimbledon. Although, the more I think about it, I'd like to win Wimbledon on REAL grass courts. It just wouldn't feel as good to me to win it on the surface it is now. I mean, it would still feel amazing, but it would always be just a little tainted. Most of you will say that's dumb, but that's how I feel.

I'd rank them Wimbledon > FO > US Open & AO. I'd put the AO and US open on equal footing, but that may change soon. And there are rude fans at every sporting event. The only issue I have with the US Open is that the people who can afford the best seats often know nothing about tennis. It's a social event for them while the rest of us who really want to see the tennis can only afford the cheap seats. Idk if it's the same at the other slams...

 

[deltox]

I don't know of many who rank it on par with Wimbledon. Everyone would rather win Wimbledon. Although, the more I think about it, I'd like to win Wimbledon on REAL grass courts. It just wouldn't feel as good to me to win it on the surface it is now. I mean, it would still feel amazing, but it would always be just a little tainted. Most of you will say that's dumb, but that's how I feel.

I'd rank them Wimbledon > FO > US Open & AO. I'd put the AO and US open on equal footing, but that may change soon. And there are rude fans at every sporting event. The only issue I have with the US Open is that the people who can afford the best seats often know nothing about tennis. It's a social event for them while the rest of us who really want to see the tennis can only afford the cheap seats. Idk if it's the same at the other slams...[/QUOTE]

remember the AO final. the prince and his squad had quite a front row boxes to house all his security and entourage.

im not defending the uso fans, NY people are rude in general so what did they expect when it was put in new york.

sadly for a us city there is not many but there is 2 much better choices for the host city

miami
las vegas

both are major tennis hot spots, with above average attitudes in general

 

[rommil]

Slow down, folks. The US Open has pretty consistently been considered the second most prestigious Slam after Wimbledon, and I don't think a poor handling of the trophy ceremony is going to change that. The Aussie, however, has changed surfaces three times in twenty-five years, putting a question mark next to historical context.

It doesn't really make a difference, anyway, if one is a nudge more important than any other, as all four are miles more important than any other tournament.

We can discuss about which one is more prestigious than the other but I think the OP was centering more on the vibe of the tournament. I have been to the US Open multiple times (first week, second week, finals etc) and that's why I always recommend people to go in the first week since there are more people and players milling around. Have you been to the USO towards the last few days of the tournament? Walk around the grounds. It's dead. Add on the mix of crowd, the NYC folks, the out of towners and the out of country visitors which can potentially be fun but it doesn't translate that way. There is an atmosphere of commercialism and being guarded, it is NYC after all. The warmth of Australia comes through even on TV.