Wimbledon; no more prestigious than the other majors?

[metsman]

Losing to any of them is no shame and they both got unlucky. I do think Roddick is the better pure grass courter but Lendl was a far superior player in general, and Roddick wasn't going as deep in that tournament as often as Lendl did. I also think it's the other way around and Lendl had it tougher as far as competition. From '83-'90, Lendl played McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Cash and Edberg, and lost to the eventual champion 5 times. So Lendl had to try to overcome 4 Wimbledon greats instead of just one like in Roddick's case. Therefore, I still lean towards Lendl in this case.

yeah but the one in Roddick's case was the greatest ever (certainly on the conditions Roddick played him on) so that makes up for Lendl's increased diversity of competition. And the fact that Roddick did push him hard twice out of 4 meetings, and played at a decent level for 3 of the 4, also makes up for Roddick not playing any other grass ATG (he did beat future 2x champ Murray for whatever that's worth).

Obviously Lendl is the far superior player, but we are talking strictly grass.

 

[Sudacafan]

Random thoughts:

Playing tennis on grass is an anomaly nowadays.
Grass is the only surface that can grow through time.
Grass is for cows - Guillermo Vilas (1974)

 

[MasterZeb]

That's the case In very other slam though about the home players getting better treatment, especially the French. My guess would be that the media would probably give the same attention to the French players that we do to British. Plus we've had one of the best players in the world for the past decade so you can understand the attention be gts from the casual fan. But yes, I agree it's sometimes mind numbing.

It is still the case that for most British people, tennis is all about Wimbledon. I get really frustrated when discussing tennis with fellow Brits, that they are ignorant about who's won the AO, USO or the FO because they only watch tennis during the Wimbledon fortnight during which we are bombarded with hyperbole about Andy Murray, morning, noon and night. I get really fed up with the British players hugging the show courts irrespective of their ranking which doesn't give any exposure to many good players from overseas if they are not called Nadal or Djokovic. Of course, no need to mention Federer, because he is a sitting tenant on CC.

As I haven't been to any other slams abroad, I don't know if they are as partisan as Wimbledon, but as a Brit I am embarrassed at how unwelcome foreign players must feel when they are, by and large, ignored at Wimbledon. This applies to the men and women. For the entire 2 weeks, ALL the media talk about are Murray, Edmund, Watson and Konta..........non stop. Consequently, a lot of great players are unknown in the UK.

 

[Sudacafan]

I will try to help in this discussion to get things straightened:
Prestigious are tournaments generally won by Federer, as Wimbledon, Halle, Cincinnati, etc.
Non prestigious are those generally won by Nadal, as Roland Garros, Montecarlo, Barcelona. This can also be said about some specific years of tournaments as US Open 2017 as well.
Hope it is clear now, and needless arguments come to an end.

 

[pame]

No... If he had won a single Wimbledon, he would not maintain the same fire for that tourney from the next year(as he was done with winning one tourney that eluded him) , may be he would have tried but not with 100% effort. But that was not the case at French open and USO, he kept on trying to win multiple times there

Oh I didn't realise you were on such intimate terms with him that he confided in you what would have happened had he won Wimbledon. Mea culpa.

 

[BVSlam]

At this point, I think they're all pretty much equal. Why wouldn't they? All four slams have 128 players, the same fields, same points. The one that's apparently seen as the least prestigious, the Australian Open, is actually one of the tougher ones to win due to players being fresh and ready and the generally good quality of play coming from it. Of course, what Wimbledon has that the others don't, aside from history, is the fact that grass is barely played on. That makes it a fairly unique tournament, as it's the only big grass court tournament left (which has been the case for a long, long time). Clay still plays a big role on tour, even though it's definitely less common than hard courts.

Other than that, the difference in prestige is an old view that I don't feel works anymore. The "specialist" era is kind of over: while players can still prefer certain surfaces, there are fewer players now who are absolutely hopeless on certain surfaces. Especially at the top, where players have developed more all-round games to succeed on any surface. And, of course, in some cases the term "prestige" is used to differentiate the validity of slam wins by top players among fans. As much as I love Federer and his 8 Wimbledon titles, saying Nadal's 10 RG titles are worth less than that because it's Roland Garros is ridiculous. Or Djokovic's 5 out 6 AO titles between 2011-2016, which was also downplayed because it's "only the Australian Open, that new slam with no history". They're all amazing accomplishments.

 

[aditya123]

delete

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Other than that, the difference in prestige is an old view that I don't feel works anymore. The "specialist" era is kind of over: while players can still prefer certain surfaces, there are fewer players now who are absolutely hopeless on certain surfaces. Especially at the top, where players have developed more all-round games to succeed on any surface.

Really?

 

[zagor]

It's still probably the big one but for me personally, it lost a lot of its former magic. I mean look at this year, Fed the supposed throwback of a player won it because he essentially controlled the baseline, he has more margin on his shots compared to the field (sans Nadal and Novak). That's not grasscourt tennis for me.

 

[George Turner]

It's still probably the big one but for me personally, it lost a lot of its former magic. I mean look at this year, Fed the supposed throwback of a player won it because he essentially controlled the baseline, he has more margin on his shots compared to the field (sans Nadal and Novak). That's not grasscourt tennis for me.

This years Wimbledon was a lackluster tournament, same as US Open was. Some Nadal fans can't admit the latter same as some Fed fans can't admit the former I am still very happy Federer won his eighth, plus his first without dropping a set

Federer is a throwback player but he's had to adjust to modern conditions. In 90's conditions he'd be a classic serve and volleyer, and a very good one. Would not be quite as good at the baseline but better at Volleying, possibly Edbergs equal in that department. He's adapted his game based on the reality of what's required today.

In contrast Djokovic would play the same way regardless, like Agassi he has no talent for volleying. Having the talent to adjust your game helps define greatness

 

[BHud]

Horse carts have much more history than Lamborghini, but do I have to tell you which one is more prestigious ?

This overselling of an obsolete tournament on an obsolete surface should stop. It's not long before this surface will be discontinued and records achieved on surface would be looked the way look at pre-open era records.

Your avatar says it all...

 

[abmk]

What does Djokovic in USO 2013 have to do with this particular match even if he did collapse mentally? He was never in the position to be up two sets to love like in Roddick's case. It was one rather simple volley on his serve for that 2nd set and he missed it by 10 feet, not to mention he was up 6-2 in that tiebreak. He folded mentally there. That is nothing like USO 2013.

no, not 2 sets to love, but he was in a good position to be up 2 sets to one in the USO 2013 final.
djokovic folded much worse in the 4th set by crumbling completely.
Roddick recovered after losing that 2nd set. He took the 3rd set to a TB. An actual recovery from losing a set from a winnable position

Lendl was outplayed in that match and also got unlucky because a rain delay happened at 3-0 in the third when he was up two breaks. Becker got to talk to his coach and came back out fired up and made that set closer, and eventually won it in 5. Before that delay, Becker looked lost out there. So between the rain delay and bad calls, Lendl did become quite edgy. Lendl did have chokes early in his career where he lost his first 4 GS finals but he was able to turn that around eventually, and was a much stronger player mentally than Roddick.

talk was about the 5th set and Lendl having a mental letdown. This wasn't early in his career, this was in 89.
86 - couldn't raise his level enough to get a set vs Becker
87 - same vs Cash
90 - peaked at Queens, but got straight-setted by peak Edberg at Wimbledon.

Lendl was a stronger player mentally than Roddick, but much stronger, no way.
Like I said "Funny talking about Lendl probably taking a chance like that. He wouldn't have come as close as Roddick did at all in the 1st place, plus Lendl had his share of chokes/mental letdowns."

Irrelevant to talk about whose form is greater than the other and too subjective really, and we can only go by who they had to play in their time. Having to overcome 4 Wimbledon greats is just tougher than trying to do it against 1 Wimbledon great, who had finally been beaten the year before and wasn't playing at his best level. You choose Roddick as the one player in the last couple of decades who should have won there and I choose Lendl. That's it really.

not necessarily if that 1 wimbledon great is there playing really well every single time.

Its like to chosing to face 1 Nadal at RG (from 2005-08,10) vs facing Courier, Bruguera,Muster in the 90s (91-95)

I have no problem with you choosing Lendl over Roddick on grass , but you over-rating Lendl on grass quite a bit IMO. Also his competition with respect to Roddick.

 

[cc0509]

Wimbledon has always been and always will be the most prestigious slam, the slam ALL players aspire to win above all others. A person who says otherwise must not be aware of tennis history or must have a different agenda.

 

[Zetty]

I always thought Wimbledon and the French were the most prestigious, because Federer couldn't win the French and because Nadal had trouble winning Wimbledon. The drama gave it that extra prestige. After they won those respective slams I didn't much see a difference between the four.

 

[70後]

Call it Wimbledon Fundamentalism.

It goes as a pair with Roger Fundamental Feligion.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes more prestigious they got white, yes.

 

[PrinceMoron]

Green is the color of envy

 

[tenisdecente]

Wimbledon is by fat the most prestigious and the pinnacle of tennis, even here in South America, and above all, it has the tradition which has been lost a lot in the recent years - the white uniforms for example

 

[fedtennisphan]

It's no different than when Fedheads downplay clay but then are eager to say Fed is the second greatest clay player whenever they want to argue it. You're one of those people for sure.

I have never downplayed clay or claimed that Federer was the second greatest clay player. I don’t need Federer to be or downplay clay as a fan because he won the FO much to the chagrin of haters.

 

[fedtennisphan]

It's no different than when Fedheads downplay clay but then are eager to say Fed is the second greatest clay player whenever they want to argue it. You're one of those people for sure.

I have never downplayed clay or claimed that Federer was the second greatest clay player. I don’t need Federer to be or downplay clay as a fan

 

[PMChambers]

Wimbledon is by fat the most prestigious and the pinnacle of tennis, even here in South America, and above all, it has the tradition which has been lost a lot in the recent years - the white uniforms for example

Uncertain your age but having watched Wimbledon from the 70s it definitely has not followed tradition. They use that as a meme for conservative and historic glorification. It's is a good sales and marketing ploy. Wimbledon was not all white through the open era, it was mainly white. The balls where once white.

 

[tenisdecente]

Uncertain your age but having watched Wimbledon from the 70s it definitely has not followed tradition. They use that as a meme for conservative and historic glorification. It's is a good sales and marketing ploy. Wimbledon was not all white through the open era, it was mainly white. The balls where once white.

They should be still white!

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Lendl was obsessed with Wimb, what are you talking about?

I bet Lendl now wishes he wasn't.
He could have had 4 or 5 French Opens if not for his doomed obsession with Wimbledon.
It was all hyped up from the media that Lendl could not win Wimbledon, and was hence not a complete player.
Lendl listened to that too much.

 

[Mainad]

I bet Lendl now wishes he wasn't.
He could have had 4 or 5 French Opens if not for his doomed obsession with Wimbledon.
It was all hyped up from the media that Lendl could not win Wimbledon, and was hence not a complete player.
Lendl listened to that too much.

Maybe but I think he was just naturally ambitious to win all 4 Slams. It annoyed him that he couldn't crack Wimbledon and so he tried his best to do so famously building a replica of Centre Court in his back garden for him to practice on. He did have some success on grass eventually winning back to back titles at Queen's (1989-90 beating Becker in the 2nd final) but never could improve on his back to back losing finals at Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 735320]

Utter snobbish garbage! Is the problem with the "second rate American's Actress" that she is half Black or American?

Maybe being on USA cable show and not inn major films or the star of a television show

 

[Spencer Gore]

Wimbledon is obviously the most prestigious tournament. Always will be; It is the home of the game.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I think the answer is that Wimbledon is both the most prestigious major as well as the most overrated.

I have no data to back this up, but I'd bet that if you polled every player in the top 200 as to which major they'd prefer to win if they could only have one, I'd bet a plurality would choose Wimbledon (maybe even a majority) and very few would choose the Australian. You also can't discount the traditions at Wimbledon -- sport today LOVES to constantly tinker with and change things, but people appreciate the traditional and I'm certain that the traditions at Wimbledon add to its prestige and appeal. I think one of the things working against the US Open is how much it constantly changes.

The other important factor to note is that winning on grass and clay represents the ultimate in surface diversity, and remains the toughest double to win, so from a career perspective winning at W and RG is hugely important, and the fact that there are two hc majors cuts against their relative prestige a bit.

That, of course, doesn't mean that Wimbledon isn't a little overrated. As many have mentioned, grass is all but a dead surface today, so it seems odd that people are so fixated on a surface that nobody trains on, nobody grows up on, and very few players ever get to even play on. If grass were more ubiquitous, I think Wimbledon's importance would mirror its prestige.

 

[Mainad]

I think the answer is that Wimbledon is both the most prestigious major as well as the most overrated.

I have no data to back this up, but I'd bet that if you polled every player in the top 200 as to which major they'd prefer to win if they could only have one, I'd bet a plurality would choose Wimbledon (maybe even a majority) and very few would choose the Australian. You also can't discount the traditions at Wimbledon -- sport today LOVES to constantly tinker with and change things, but people appreciate the traditional and I'm certain that the traditions at Wimbledon add to its prestige and appeal. I think one of the things working against the US Open is how much it constantly changes.

The other important factor to note is that winning on grass and clay represents the ultimate in surface diversity, and remains the toughest double to win, so from a career perspective winning at W and RG is hugely important, and the fact that there are two hc majors cuts against their relative prestige a bit.

That, of course, doesn't mean that Wimbledon isn't a little overrated. As many have mentioned, grass is all but a dead surface today, so it seems odd that people are so fixated on a surface that nobody trains on, nobody grows up on, and very few players ever get to even play on. If grass were more ubiquitous, I think Wimbledon's importance would mirror its prestige.

Of course, all tennis tournaments were grass to begin with except for Roland Garros. It was they who decided to change whilst Wimbledon simply remained true to its origins. Its grass surface is the most important part of the traditions that make it so popular. If it ever changed the surface, its prestige and popularity would plummet IMO. It simply wouldn't be 'Wimbledon' anymore!

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Of course, all tennis tournaments were grass to begin with except for Roland Garros. It was they who decided to change whilst Wimbledon simply remained true to its origins. Its grass surface is the most important part of the traditions that make it so popular. If it ever changed the surface, its prestige and popularity would plummet IMO. It simply wouldn't be 'Wimbledon' anymore!

I 100% agree with you, but I think the complete lack of grass play day-to-day around the world renders Wimbledon a touch overrated. I wish there were more grass court tennis played in general, but I understand the financial limitations.

 

[Mainad]

I 100% agree with you, but I think the complete lack of grass play day-to-day around the world renders Wimbledon a touch overrated. I wish there were more grass court tennis played in general, but I understand the financial limitations.

Well, I guess it's a bit of a Hobson's choice for you: does grass give Wimbledon its prestige or render it overrated?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Well, I guess it's a bit of a Hobson's choice for you: does grass give Wimbledon its prestige or render it overrated?

It's both, obviously

It would be less overrated as a tournament on the pro level if there were more grass court play.

 

[Mainad]

It's both, obviously

It would be less overrated as a tournament on the pro level if there were more grass court play.

But to press my point, its prestige would suffer greatly if it switched to any other surface. Only THEN it might be considered overrated!

 

[Mainad]

Grass is for cows - Guillermo Vilas (1974)

Was that before or after he won the YEC on grass that same year?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Was that before or after he won the YEC on grass that same year?

I think it was actually Manuel Santana who first uttered that famous quote...

before winning Wimbledon in 1966

 

[Spencer Gore]

I think it was actually Manuel Santana who first uttered that famous quote...

before winning Wimbledon in 1966

I always thought it was Santana, too.

 

[Mainad]

I think it was actually Manuel Santana who first uttered that famous quote...

before winning Wimbledon in 1966

Santana is the 1st to come up with that memorable put-down (as far as I'm aware) but various other players have quoted it since (ie. certain clay and hardcourt specialists). Ironically, another Spaniard, Conchita Martinez also uttered it before winning her only Slam title....at Wimbledon!!

 

[Sudacafan]

Was that before or after he won the YEC on grass that same year?

Those were the words Vilas said when he was presented that trophy in the YEC in Melbourne in 1974, but he put it politely like saying "Before this tournament, I thought grass was for cows".
Vilas never did great in grass in general and in Wimbledon though, as he did not get past quarterfinals in 75 and 76 (his best results there), then it seems he gave up until he went to play the Australian Opens he won in 78 and 79 (and the first one of 77 in which he was runner up), but I believe he went there to vulture slams, as the field was not competitive at the AOs of that time.

 

[Thomas195]

Federer is a throwback player but he's had to adjust to modern conditions. In 90's conditions he'd be a classic serve and volleyer, and a very good one. Would not be quite as good at the baseline but better at Volleying, possibly Edbergs equal in that department. He's adapted his game based on the reality of what's required today.

Disagree. Federer never actually grew up as a serve and volleyer. He played from the baseline most of the time when serving even from 1999-2000. He played like a pure baseliner in Wimbledon 2000 match against Kafelnikov. His game outside grass has never really changed. The same cannot be said about Sampras/Edberg/Becker. Pete served and volleyed in 1990 USO as much as Federer in Wimbledon 2003 (who stayed back on second serves).

His development would be similar to players like Pioline rather than Sampras.

Would not be quite as good at the baseline but better at Volleying, possibly Edbergs equal in that department

His serves would be between Edberg and Sampras, but his volleys, although look flashy, would not be as good as Sampras (so no Edberg equal). He was much less of a natural net player than Sampras and Becker, not to mention Edberg. OTOH, he would have a solid baseline game, since he would have camped at the baseline outside grass.

He would be remembered as an all-court player similar to Pioline or Todd Martin (although at a higher level) rather than a S&V player.

 

[MeatTornado]

Disagree. Federer never actually grew up as a serve and volleyer. He played from the baseline most of the time when serving even from 1999-2000. He played like a pure baseliner in Wimbledon 2000 match against Kafelnikov. His game outside grass has never really changed. The same cannot be said about Sampras/Edberg/Becker. Pete served and volleyed in 1990 USO as much as Federer in Wimbledon 2003 (who stayed back on second serves).

His development would be similar to players like Pioline rather than Sampras.



His serves would be between Edberg and Sampras, but his volleys, although look flashy, would not be as good as Sampras (so no Edberg equal). He was much less of a natural net player than Sampras and Becker, not to mention Edberg. OTOH, he would have a solid baseline game, since he would have camped at the baseline outside grass.

He would be remembered as an all-court player similar to Pioline or Todd Martin (although at a higher level) rather than a S&V player.

Oh man I had this whole big argument ready to disprove what you said until I finally realized you wrote "His game outside grass has never really changed." Not sure how I missed the word "outside" at first haha. I was looking up all these old Wimbledon stats because I knew his grass game must've changed quite a lot. I'm an idiot, and after reading more thoroughly I completely agree with everything you said.

But fwiw, if you look at his S&V stats at Wimbledon over the years, it turns into quite an interesting bell curve.