O
OhYes
Guest
It is boring bcs only 1 player is going to win it if healthy, everyone knows that not just Djokovic fans. It was certain like it's written in stone since his second win in there.
Which slam is the most prestigous besides Wimbledon to the male players?
- Thread starter Heuristic
- Start date
RaulRamirez
Legend
Yes, Rafa has been phenomenally successful there, but I think you greatly underrate how monumental his achievements at RG are. He still has to - time and time again - defeat a field that is gunning for him, and it can certainly be argued that there are more good clay court players than grass court players.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Au contraire.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Okay, you convinced me: It can't even be argued that there are more good clay court players than grass court players.
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
Recent entertainment value does not equate to prestige if it did the World Tour Finals would be hanging out with Valencia right now.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam because for its first hundred years it was, "The Championships". It was the Super Bowl of tennis. There was no tournament that came close to its stature. Interestingly during that time Davis Cup was considered the second biggest and best trophy in the sport.
Continuing from a historical perepective I would say Roland Garros and the US Open would be close in stature although off the top of my head Roland Garros was better and regularly more attended by the better athletes of the sport earlier than the US Open. Because of that in my opinion, and partly due to its tradition with the clay surface and Stade Roland Garros I would put Roland Garros second and the US Open third.
Of course the Australian Open would be listed last from a historical perspective for most of the reasons already discussed. Top players of the sport like McEnroe were skipping the event to prepare for Davis Cup into the 1980's.
Now if we are to completely ignore historical significance there would certainly be a major shake up. Wimbledon is still alone but behind it I wouldn't disagree with a lineup of 2. Australian Open 3. US Open 4. Roland Garros.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam because for its first hundred years it was, "The Championships". It was the Super Bowl of tennis. There was no tournament that came close to its stature. Interestingly during that time Davis Cup was considered the second biggest and best trophy in the sport.
Continuing from a historical perepective I would say Roland Garros and the US Open would be close in stature although off the top of my head Roland Garros was better and regularly more attended by the better athletes of the sport earlier than the US Open. Because of that in my opinion, and partly due to its tradition with the clay surface and Stade Roland Garros I would put Roland Garros second and the US Open third.
Of course the Australian Open would be listed last from a historical perspective for most of the reasons already discussed. Top players of the sport like McEnroe were skipping the event to prepare for Davis Cup into the 1980's.
Now if we are to completely ignore historical significance there would certainly be a major shake up. Wimbledon is still alone but behind it I wouldn't disagree with a lineup of 2. Australian Open 3. US Open 4. Roland Garros.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Federer: Best surface: grass, second best: HC
Nadal: Best surface: clay, second best: HC
Djokovic: Best surface: HC, second best: grass
Murray: Best surface: grass, second best: HC
Wawrinka: Best surface: HC, second best: clay
Del Potro: Best surface: HC, second best: clay
Did you mean outside of the top 6 of the last years?
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
I still can't believe how djokovic has managed to win 4 WBs and only 3 USO!!????
RaulRamirez
Legend
Federer: Best surface: grass, second best: HC
Nadal: Best surface: clay, second best: HC
Djokovic: Best surface: HC, second best: grass
Murray: Best surface: grass, second best: HC
Wawrinka: Best surface: HC, second best: clay
Del Potro: Best surface: HC, second best: clay
Did you mean outside of the top 6 of the last years?
Your breakdown is pretty accurate among those 6, although I think clay may be Stan's best surface, and Novak (I would say) is at least adept on clay as he is on grass - and yes, I realize that he has 4 Wimby titles and 1 at RG.
Outside of the Top 6 - and perhaps more intangibly - more players grow up playing on clay than on grass, and there is more time for players to tune up for RG each season than there is time to do so for Wimbledon. I also picture players like Ferrer and Thiem who are certainly tough "outs" at RG; you can probably counter them with players like Cilic and even Raonic (?) on grass.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, if that is so, how did you come to the conclusion, that "there are more good clay court players than grass court players"?
I don't see it, and in regard to Nadal's achievements, it should be said, that the only significant clay competition in half of Nadal's runs at RG was a player with significant match up disadvantage.
Last edited:
Atennisone
Hall of Fame
Roland Garros, no doubt!!
RaulRamirez
Legend
It means nothing more than Fed wanted to devote his focus and energies to the other majors - most chiefly, being fresh for Wimbledon.
O
OhYes
Guest
I didn't say he just has to show up, I said when he is healthy it is done deal.
When he is healthy (and he usually is at that time) there is certain hype "nobody can beat Nadal at RG" and most players succumb to that. When Djokovic said Nadal is beatable, everone ridiculed him. Bottom line, Nadal has to fight for it, but it isn't that hard for him as in other Slams due to surface and media hype.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
That is a childish excuse. "Just because my favorite player doesn't win the tournament, the tournament is boring".
According to your logic, tennis in 2015-first half of 2016 was boring, since it was completely dominated by Djokovic. And not only Nadal fans, but also Federer fans largely found that period boring.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Interesting that you speak on behalf of people, about whose opinion you apparently you have no idea.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Yes, this is the paradox. We take it so much for granted that it rather slips by.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
I still have the feeling that Wimbledon and the French are the ones that count most in legacy terms.
If Federer had never won the French it would have been a huge gaping hole. If Nadal had not won in Australia it would not have been quite so big - he could still have pointed to three hard court Slams.
If Federer had never won the French it would have been a huge gaping hole. If Nadal had not won in Australia it would not have been quite so big - he could still have pointed to three hard court Slams.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
? Wawrinka has 2 RG finals. On the other hand, he only has 1 final at the USO and 1 final at the AO. In other words, Mr. Wawrinka averages 2 finals per Grand Slam on clay, and only 1 final per Grand Slam on hard courts. So he is obviously better on clay than hard courts.
Also, Del Potro is obviously better on grass than clay. That's why he defeated Djokovic in the Olympics 2012 on grass. Also, Del Potro could have won 3 WB titles if not for the Big 3. In effect, Delpo lost at WB 2011 to Nadal, WB 2013 to Djokovic and WB 2018 to Nadal. Del Potro was not winning RG 2018 against Thiem or Schwartzmann. His only real option was RG 2009 against Soderling. So Del Potro could have won 3 WB if not for the Big 3, and only 1 RG if not for the Big 3.
RaulRamirez
Legend
So, if that is so, how did you come to the conclusion, that "there are more good clay court players than grass court players"?
I don't see it, and in regard to Nadal's achievements, it should be said, that the only significant clay competition in half of Nadal's runs at RG was a player with significant match up disadvantage.
As with many of these discussions, I'm not sure how exactly we ended up here. Let me make this my final reply for a while - I have other real work to get to.
I originally wrote, and in the context of what I thought were attempts (not you at that point) to disparage what Rafa has achieved at RG: "He still has to - time and time again - defeat a field that is gunning for him, and it can certainly be argued that there are more good clay court players than grass court players."
Now, I won't take the easy way out and state the obvious, that anything can be argued regardless of its merits - because I hold my opinions (even on a site where most opinions are transactional and disposable) to a high standard.
I think I backed up my point that it is quite reasonable to suggest that Rafa has faced as many good, prepared players on clay as anyone has had to face at Wimbledon. If you assert that the others of what most regard as the Top 6 -- Big 4 plus Stan and Delpo - may be marginally better at grass (arguable), that is more than offset as more players growing up on clay, and a much monger clay season to prepare for Roland Garros.
(Other than this parenthetical comment, I'll ignore your silly "significant match-up disadvantage lament.)
Sport
G.O.A.T.
That's an excuse from a Nadal detractor.
Nadal has significantly improved RG's audience. Before Rafa, RG was boring, since it could not be associated with any dominating face. Pretty much like the WTA nowadays.
RG is not dominated by anyone in the WTA and the result is that it is boring.
He was healthy when Soderling crushed him
RaulRamirez
Legend
Agree, with the one proviso that to many there is still a distinction between winning all 4, and just 3. (And no, this doesn't mean that I think Agassi's career was aa good as Borg's or Sampras'...or even Lendl's...though I shouldn't open that can, as worms may jump out .)
BHud
Hall of Fame
Not an excuse...an opinion...
Sport
G.O.A.T.
The real and occult reason behind your opinion is that you hate the idea of Nadal adding more GS titles. You don't want Nadal to increase his GS count, so you just try to rationalize it with the excuse that "RG needs new faces".
Of course you won't admit it, but the secret reason behind your argument is that.
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
But that doesn’t detract from its prestige. Similar to recent entertainment value its recency bias at best. Based on this argument we can also detract from Wimbledon because of Sampras’ and Federer’s domination there. Yet no logical argument can be made that Wimbledon isn’t the most prestigious Grand Slam.
I think people are coming up with their own definition of prestige based on their preconceived biases based on who their favorite players are.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Until RG 2012 Nadal had as his main opponent at RG a player with significant matchup disadvantage.
If that is "silly" to you, that is a confirmation about what is already a long established impression, that you have no idea from tennis.
Do you dispute that there are match ups in tennis?
"Yes", or "No"?
RaulRamirez
Legend
I think it's debatable as to whether sports fans enjoy dominance or parity; to me, I don't have a consistent view. Like most, when it's my team/guy dominating, I like the domination more.
But I agree with your underlying point - many look at clay as if it's the moon's surface and that only Rafa knows how to play on it. (There are plenty of good to very good players who grew up on dirt; Rafa is just a cut above them all.) And this is a way to demean his achievements. The other argument I can kind of see - some may get tired of him winning 11 out of 14 years. I'm a big Rafa fan, so I appreciate each one - and know that none of them really come easy.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
I think a lot of this depend on age too. When I was watching tennis as a kid Wimbledon and the French were quite a bit away from the rest. Borg says even now that although he's sorry he never won the US Open he wouldn't swop one of his Wimbledons for it. McEnroe, on the other hand, has never recovered from throwing away the French Open title.
If you're of the age that remembers McEnroe being desperate to win the French or Lendl to win Wimbledon you think of them as being of supreme importance.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Until RG 2012 Nadal had as his main opponent at RG a player with significant matchup disadvantage.
If that is "silly" to you, that is a confirmation about what is already a long established impression, that you have no idea from tennis.
Do you dispute that there are match ups in tennis?
"Yes", or "No"?
Darn, I'm back, as I guess we both want the last word?
Of course, all of sports, including tennis, is about exploiting match-up advantages and also neutralizing where you may have a disadvantage. Sports strategy really centers around this, and who can assert their style of play when there are contrasting styles. I guess the only natural match-up advantage in the history of tennis was Rafa's crosscourt topspin forehand to Roger's single-winged backhand. I said that it was silly (you may substitute "ludicrous" or lame" if you prefer) as it was a totally gratuitous point that just added another weak, shopworn Fed talking point.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Apart from his actual results, Wawa's peak play on HC is arguably higher than on clay, or at least he was able to bring it more often in his matches.
You may want to disregard both actual results, and indirect/subjective estimate of his peak level, but I will still go with those.
Speculations are an interesting thing, but not when they are not supported by anything.
FYI, Del Potro has 5 losses from the Big 3 at RG, and 4 losses from the big 3 at Wimbledon, so your speculation that if it wasn't for the big 3, Del Potro would have had "3 WB titles", should be put in some context.
You statement "Del Potro was not winning RG against Schwartzman (hehe) or Thiem" is indicative of how your judgement is completely clouded by the agenda you pursue.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Yes. I think Borg only played once AO - before he really became BORG - and when he was only 17, possibly just turned 18? With Mac, that French really stung (up 2 sets to none - and versus Lendl, who he never got along with, so circumstances also play a part.)
Today, I think "prestige-wise", all 4 are pretty much regarded evenly, with a little history on the side of Wimbledon, followed by RG.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
But let’s face it, the USO has really slipped in relevancy and status in the last 15 years. The AO has gained tremendously in status and prestige and the players love playing there. But there is no question that until fairly recently, the U.S. Open was leagues higher in prestige then the AO.
Pheasant
Legend
Top slams, with 100 being top score.
1. Wimbledon 100. The Brits invented this sport. Most of the players would want to win this one first. The USO and AO were also played on grass. This event is clearly the best.
2 French Open 90. Playing on clay goes way back. This is easily #2.
3. USO. 75. This event has covered 3 different surfaces. So much for tradition. And the hard court has even been changed.
4. AO. 60 pts. Many great players skipped this event until the the last couple of decades. This is clearly dead last.
1. Wimbledon 100. The Brits invented this sport. Most of the players would want to win this one first. The USO and AO were also played on grass. This event is clearly the best.
2 French Open 90. Playing on clay goes way back. This is easily #2.
3. USO. 75. This event has covered 3 different surfaces. So much for tradition. And the hard court has even been changed.
4. AO. 60 pts. Many great players skipped this event until the the last couple of decades. This is clearly dead last.
O
OhYes
Guest
Yes, if you check out what people were saying in 2015/2016 it was boring. Also when Sampras was winning I was bored and stoped watching tennis. When Federer came, that thing just gained new heights, with Nadal too.
O
OhYes
Guest
That's why it is biggest upset in tennis to this day.
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
He was so healthy.. remember how good he was at Wimbledon that year?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, there are match up advantages.
Good that you admit to that.
Let me repeat that point, so that it is pretty clear what your statement about Nadal's competition means: Nadal's main competition at RG up until RG 2012 was a player with significant match up disadvantage.
To show how your posts are trolling to the max, I will note that I didn't mention Federer's name in my post, as my post was focused on presenting the facts around Nadal's competition, and not to put Federer in any particular light. That is what you did, and with a clear purpose too (unfortunately, that is talk for the weak-minded, you are not impressing me at all).
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Don't fret.
You are talking about the same player that missed Wimbledon 2009 partly because of his parent's divorce.
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
Don't fret.
You are talking about the same player that missed Wimbledon 2009 partly because of his parent's divorce.
Regardless he was battling knee tendinitis around the time.
O
OhYes
Guest
No I don't.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
Yep.
The injuries get much more serious when one loses.
Yep and completely dismissing it without knowing for certain is why this forum is labeled as a joke by the rest of the Internet.
You don't think Federer losing at Wimbledon to a player outside the top 50 is a bigger upset?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I don't think that this forum is perceived as a joke, and also, amongst the bigger tennis forums this one enjoys a better reputation than MTF, which would be another more popular tennis forum (at least English speaking).
Which are the other forums that enjoy better reputation (consider only big forums)?
Nadal moved perfectly well in the Soderling match.
O
OhYes
Guest
2013 ? Not that big. Especially since Fed wasn't that dominant on grass as Rafa on clay, bcs he was 30 something, and bcs he started losing early on regular basis after that.
MCallanan
Semi-Pro
The man was battling knee problems. It may not have been evident to a layman’s perspective but it is what it is.
Similar threads
