PDA

View Full Version : The HYPE: Winning The French or Winning Wimbledon??


Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:11 PM
So i was thinking,
If you Win the French you got the press sewn up for about 3 1/2 Weeks. If you win Wimbledon, you are the one until September.
So what's the biggest Hype Paris or London?
People soon forget about the French Winners with Wimbledon so close behind.

Pureracket
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:12 PM
People never forget Wimbledon.

Uranium
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:13 PM
What about the hype going into the French though, there's a longer time there to see the contenders play and judge who will win and play well. But Wimbledon has a short pre-hype.
I think Wimbledon has the bigger hype.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:17 PM
People never forget Wimbledon.

It can take a long time till we have one who can win both like Nadal did.
Hingis had trouble with Paris and Henin with London.
Venus and Maria will probably never win RG and Ana has a hard time to ever win Wimbledon.

Geisha
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Wimbledon, by far.

If Sharapova won the 2004 French Open nobody would be talking about it. But, people STILL talk about her Wimbledon win.

Expat
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:19 PM
its only 1 slam after all
its individual prestige that counts
so i guess a edge to wimbledon outside of continental europe and south america and the french open otherwise

Uranium
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:20 PM
It can take a long time till we have one who can win both like Nadal did.
Hingis had trouble with Paris and Henin with London.
Venus and Maria will probably never win RG and Ana has a hard time to ever win Wimbledon.

Serena?

Geisha
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Serena?

Bullet bullet!!

The Kaz
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Serena?

She's forgotten already :lol:

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:30 PM
its only 1 slam after all
its individual prestige that counts
so i guess a edge to wimbledon outside of continental europe and south america and the french open otherwise

Well i am talking about Player Hype period. A Roland Garros winner is in the Lime Light for about 3 weeks and soon there after all Tennis Talk turns to SW 19 and it's winners.

kiwifan
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:32 PM
You can't be serious?

Wimbledon is forever, legendary. :bowdown:

The French means you were the best on clay that year. :lol:

Expat
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Well i am talking about Player Hype period. A Roland Garros winner is in the Lime Light for about 3 weeks and soon there after all Tennis Talk turns to SW 19 and it's winners.
theres a long runup to the FO in the form of a long clay season
so the anticipation is higher to counteract the gap b/w french and wimbledon
grass has no season with none of the top players playing any tournaments before and after wimbledon on grass

wimbledon has history but the vast majority of players hardly play on grass before hitting the professional circuit
i believe nadal played on grass the first time directly in the MD of wimbledon

so its a matter of perception in a player/ viewer eyes
in america wimbledon is bigger
in europe FO is bigger because its seen as the culmination of their part of the season

Serenita
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Wimby

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:02 PM
theres a long runup to the FO in the form of a long clay season
so the anticipation is higher to counteract the gap b/w french and wimbledon
grass has no season with none of the top players playing any tournaments before and after wimbledon on grass

wimbledon has history but the vast majority of players hardly play on grass before hitting the professional circuit
i believe nadal played on grass the first time directly in the MD of wimbledon

so its a matter of perception in a player/ viewer eyes
in america wimbledon is bigger
in europe FO is bigger because its seen as the culmination of their part of the season
Interesting,
I wouldn't dare tell a person living in the UK that Roland Garros is the European Culmination of Tennis. To be perfectly honest most South Americans may thing Roland Garros is.
I agree with one poster who said in the US, Wimbledon or WimbleTON(as fairweather fans in the US call it) is big.
I see Wimbledon like this, it is the Superbowl of all the Majors, it's the Olympics of it's Sport, World Series of Tennis.
If I Ranked them in terms of Prestige and what the players MOST want to win:
1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Oz

Slutati
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Wimbledon, i don't even get why :(

ce
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Wimbledon :shrug:
how can you compare

Lunaris
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:06 PM
both back to back

CanIGetAWhat
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:10 PM
People never forget Wimbledon.That's true. Wimbledon's the most prestigious tournament.

Ted Robinson and Tracy Austin, not once, but repeatedly reminds us of Maria Sharapova's accomplishment every year, even though it happened four years ago.

vadin124
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:12 PM
theres a long runup to the FO in the form of a long clay season
so the anticipation is higher to counteract the gap b/w french and wimbledon
grass has no season with none of the top players playing any tournaments before and after wimbledon on grass

wimbledon has history but the vast majority of players hardly play on grass before hitting the professional circuit
i believe nadal played on grass the first time directly in the MD of wimbledon

so its a matter of perception in a player/ viewer eyes
in america wimbledon is bigger
in europe FO is bigger because its seen as the culmination of their part of the season

haha come to England and say that...alot of people haven't even heard of the French Open

but Wimbledon, EVERYONE, even people who care nothing about sport yet along tennis, has heard of...it's a fact you can't deny

I can't explain it, it's just the way it is.

People have forgotten about Anastasia Myskina and her FO title in 04...but no one forgets you if you're a Wimbledon champion, it's an instant route to stardom

Destiny
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:18 PM
Wimbledon is everlasting stardom:hearts:

Tennisation
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:19 PM
definitely Wimbledon, Sharapova winning her first Wimbeldon was much more hyped than Ana winning her first French Open, but that could be due to Sharapova's more well known apponents especially beating Serena in the final. I am reluctant to use the word "quality" apponents because I don't want to take anything away from Safina because she was a quality apponent, but she's not that well known.

Expat
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:20 PM
haha come to England and say that...alot of people haven't even heard of the French Open

but Wimbledon, EVERYONE, even people who care nothing about sport yet along tennis, has heard of...it's a fact you can't deny

I can't explain it, it's just the way it is.

People have forgotten about Anastasia Myskina and her FO title in 04...but no one forgets you if you're a Wimbledon champion, it's an instant route to stardom
sorry continental europe

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:22 PM
haha come to England and say that...alot of people haven't even heard of the French Open

but Wimbledon, EVERYONE, even people who care nothing about sport yet along tennis, has heard of...it's a fact you can't deny

I can't explain it, it's just the way it is.

People have forgotten about Anastasia Myskina and her FO title in 04...but no one forgets you if you're a Wimbledon champion, it's an instant route to stardom

My sentiments exactly, and Poor Iva Majoli. It's just the way it is. I would love for my fav win them all, however, The honor and prestige of the big W is grand and others pale in comparison.
Even as a fan walking the grounds you feel a sense of Awe. Every year it feels the same.

Lunaris
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:23 PM
sorry continental europe
Not really. ;)

Zehri98
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:24 PM
In my humble opinion it would have to be Wimbledon, which makes me really sad coz Mary never won there (it all comes back to her, lol).

To many people who are not avid tennis followers, Wimbledon is seen as the world championship of tennis. I've so often heard people call Federer or Venus the world champion simply because they have seen them win Wimbledon. The media hype surrounding Wimbledon, therefore, has a huge part to play in the importance placed upon the tournament.

For example, some time after Davenport won Wimbledon she was asked how different the win was in comparison to winning the US Open and her reply was that it was immensly different because of the huge disparity in the recognition given to the Wimbledon win in comparrison to the US Open by the media, including the American press.

Forget the history of the tournament, most of the players and fans don't know jack about the history of Wimbledon other than its really old, in my opinion if the media eat it up, so will the public and converseley so will the players. But what the heck, I love it too! Bring on June 2009!

Expat
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:25 PM
Not really. ;)
is it
from all the european posters here i seem to get the impression that they prefer clay
i.e spanish , germans , italians, french , belgians

anyone with a decent history of tennis tournaments and tradition

of course i cant generalize to include everyone

vadin124
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:29 PM
is it
from all the european posters here i seem to get the impression that they prefer clay
i.e spanish , germans , italians, french , belgians

anyone with a decent history of tennis tournaments and tradition

of course i cant generalize to include everyone

what I would like to know is which slam is better known in America, the US Open or Wimbledon, and which is more prestigious?

Lunaris
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:34 PM
is it
from all the european posters here i seem to get the impression that they prefer clay
i.e spanish , germans , italians, french , belgians

anyone with a decent history of tennis tournaments and tradition

of course i cant generalize to include everyone
Opinions of WTAWorld posters in general aren't the best indication of how things work in the real world.

Zehri98
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:36 PM
is it
from all the european posters here i seem to get the impression that they prefer clay
i.e spanish , germans , italians, french , belgians

anyone with a decent history of tennis tournaments and tradition

of course i cant generalize to include everyone

Afraid not, history and tradition aside, Wimbledon is the one main tournament for most players and most fans anywhere in the world, heck, even Rafa - 4 time French Open Champion said that this was his favourite tournament growing up and he'd never even played on grass till he got there!

Why is that? Because of the undiluted television and press coverage of the tournament, shown every year in pretty much every country. The media controls the world and tennis is not immune, their messages imbed themselves in our sub-conscious and our psyche, what they say is great must be great, what we see is what we want etc etc. Wimbledon is there chosen tournament and so it is ours. Simple. ;)

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:38 PM
Wimbledon BY FAR!

Maria would not have had to career she has had if she won at RG or say AO. (commercial career)

kwilliams
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:41 PM
Wimbledon was the only tennis I saw each year for a long, long time. Wimbledon is the shit, the be all and end all.

:worship: Wimbledon :worship:

Zehri98
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Wimbledon was the only tennis I saw each year for a long, long time. Wimbledon is the shit, the be all and end all.

My point exactly. I presume you saw it on TV when you were younger and therefore its importance remains with you. Media! Me too, I also love the shit (as you so eloquently put it, lol)! :bounce:

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:48 PM
what I would like to know is which slam is better known in America, the US Open or Wimbledon, and which is more prestigious?
Even here in the US, Wimbledon outgunns them all. But the US Open is a CLOSE Second. well a Distant Second. LOL:lol:
Oz is on when most Americans are sleep and the French doesn't get as mcuh Hype

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 06:59 PM
I don't know if it is because Guga won it 3 times, but in Brazil the French Open is by far the most famous y covered slam. Wimbledon is second, closely followed by the US Open. The Australian Open is the less known slam.

I actually counted the seconds the TV news dedicated to the mens final at Wimbledon, and seriously, it was no more than 30 seconds. And then as a side news they said that the womans champion was Venus Williams (without images). That of course took them less than 10 seconds. I was in awe, since the Wimbledon finals this year were actually very significative. And when Henin retired they actually produced a whole report on her career and multiple French Open wins. And both Ana's and Rafa's wins at the French this year were documented with images in the news.

I think it is like this in South America as a whole, though. Maybe because clay courts are much more popular than any other. :shrug:

Vlover
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Nadal's Wimbledon win is a clear indication. His "stock" increased drastically with his Wimbledon win rather than his 4 FO. Most people aren't even aware that the French is a major title.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:06 PM
Serena?

I know she has done it and she was the last one. If she didn't do it in 2002, then she probably would still miss that title.
But who's the next that can do it?

slamchamp
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:08 PM
Nadal's Wimbledon win is a clear indication. His "stock" increased drastically with his Wimbledon win rather than his 4 FO. Most people aren't even aware that the French is a major title.lol that's not true, at least here in southamerica the french open is the most prestigious GS, and I'm sure if federer had won the FO it would have had the same effect than nadal winning W

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:25 PM
I don't know if it is because Guga won it 3 times, but in Brazil the French Open is by far the most famous y covered slam. Wimbledon is second, closely followed by the US Open. The Australian Open is the less known slam.

I actually counted the seconds the TV news dedicated to the mens final at Wimbledon, and seriously, it was no more than 30 seconds. And then as a side news they said that the womans champion was Venus Williams (without images). That of course took them less than 10 seconds. I was in awe, since the Wimbledon finals this year were actually very significative. And when Henin retired they actually produced a whole report on her career and multiple French Open wins. And both Ana's and Rafa's wins at the French this year were documented with images in the news.

I think it is like this in South America as a whole, though. Maybe because clay courts are much more popular than any other. :shrug:
Well here in the US, when Venus won Wimbledon, SportsCenter did a whole leading and top story on her. ESPN News ran their press conference.
When Nadal won, it was mayhem. All the leading stories were on his epic win with Federer. So that goes to show how prestigious this tournament is.
We love it here in the US, proabably b/c of the US Success on the surface as well.

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Well here in the US, when Venus won Wimbledon, SportsCenter did a whole leading and top story on her. ESPN News ran their press conference.
When Nadal won, it was mayhem. All the leading stories were on his epic win with Federer. So that goes to show how prestigious this tournament is.
We love it here in the US, proabably b/c of the US Success on the surface as well.

Yes, I mean, I was actually surprised by the lack of presence in the news of the Wimbledon finals, because I thought both were very significative. Williams sisters back in a slam final, the best match of all time (as it's being regarded) mens final. And almost no news about it at all. And The French was very well documented here. So I guess the relevance of each slam depends on the place. I think I am going to have to agree with some opinion I read here (forgot the name of the poster now), but I guess in the US, UK and maybe Australia, Wimbledon is the most prestigious. And for the rest of the world is the French.

I actually remember watching a Sharapova interview on David Letterman, and he dismissed the French Open quite openly. I guess the american media feels like that as a whole. Sharapova said there aren't many clay courts in the US, maybe that is a factor.

ys
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Link in my signature tells it all.. :lol:

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:47 PM
I don't really care if the majority of people in Uzbekistan think that AO is the biggest slam and that Uzbekistan daily printed a full page spread on the AO final, in the tennis world it is Wimbledon.

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Thinking about the OP original question, I believe Wimbledon produces more hype in the tennis world. And people talk about it for more time.

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Well you speak to the legions of talented Spanish, Italian and Latin-American players. Sweating it out on courts, dreaming of making it. They all share the same ambition - winning the French.

That's the thing really. That is why some may think that RG is as prestigious as Wimby. More and more players are growing up with the surface and obviously they would want to win at the most prestigious tournament on clay.

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:06 PM
If Venus stopped hogging it on the womens side we would be seeing it's impact.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:09 PM
Wimbledon was the only tennis I saw each year for a long, long time. Wimbledon is the shit, the be all and end all.

:worship: Wimbledon :worship:


Exactly. Apart from all the pretige/history, Wimbledon is the non-tennis fan's event. Even if you don't follow tennis, you still will watch Wimbledon when it's on. That is when tennis is "in season". There is alot more media coverage on Wimbledon and that's why the Wimbledon champion is the one remembered. I'm sure most of the general non-tennis public will still know more about Sharapova from winning 4 years ago, than Ivanovic who just won the French.

BUT all the slams are equal in terms of achievement. If Venus had won 5 French Opens instead of 5 Wimbledons, she would still be as great as she is now. That's where some people have a misconception. The achievement of winning them is the same, and the players try just as hard to win at all the slams otherwise they wouldn't be pro.

serenus_2k8
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Exactly. Apart from all the pretige/history, Wimbledon is the non-tennis fan's event. Even if you don't follow tennis, you still will watch Wimbledon when it's on. That is when tennis is "in season". There is alot more media coverage on Wimbledon and that's why the Wimbledon champion is the one remembered. I'm sure most of the general non-tennis public will still know more about Sharapova from winning 4 years ago, than Ivanovic who just won the French.

BUT all the slams are equal in terms of achievement. If Venus had won 5 French Opens instead of 5 Wimbledons, she would still be as great as she is now. That's where some people have a misconception. The achievement of winning them is the same, and the players try just as hard to win at all the slams otherwise they wouldn't be pro.

I kinda disagree. A lot of players I dont think have the same drive to win RG because they dont think they will ever be as good as a clay specialist but Wimbledon seems to play more to players strengths and hence a lot of players have more drive to win.

Therefore I think Wimbledon is slightly more of an achievement, then US Open because its last slam of the year, then French, then AO.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:25 PM
I kinda disagree. A lot of players I dont think have the same drive to win RG because they dont think they will ever be as good as a clay specialist but Wimbledon seems to play more to players strengths and hence a lot of players have more drive to win.

Therefore I think Wimbledon is slightly more of an achievement, then US Open because its last slam of the year, then French, then AO.

There are more players who prefer clay than grass so by that logic more people would have more drive to win the French than Wimbledon. Only a few players are truly at home on grass. Plus the French is the most physically demanding to win.

A grand slam title is a grand slam title. Maybe not everyone goes into a slam expecting to win it because it's not their best surface, but since there is so much effort put into playing in a slam (or any tournament for that matter), nobody is going out there with less than 100% drive to win a match. If they are, they need to retire.

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:29 PM
I kinda disagree. A lot of players I dont think have the same drive to win RG because they dont think they will ever be as good as a clay specialist but Wimbledon seems to play more to players strengths and hence a lot of players have more drive to win.

Therefore I think Wimbledon is slightly more of an achievement, then US Open because its last slam of the year, then French, then AO.

I don't really agree that Wimbledon plays more to players strengths. In my opinion the grass is a especial surface as much as clay, with it's particular bounce and the kind of movement a player has to have in order to do well. In fact many spanish and latin american players in the past used to withdraw from Wimbledon because they tought they coundn't do well anyway.

Take Venus for example. I think she is so above other players on grass, that you can actually think she is the closest you can get to a grass specialist. Like Henin could be a clay specialist. I'm taking this examples because both are great champions in every surface and by no means I want to say that they are only specialists in one o the other.

I think players might have more drive to win Wimbledon because of its tradition, historic relevance to tennis.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:35 PM
As south american that I am , Roland Garros

Expat
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:37 PM
I don't really care if the majority of people in Uzbekistan think that AO is the biggest slam and that Uzbekistan daily printed a full page spread on the AO final, in the tennis world it is Wimbledon.
not necessarily
before wimbledon slowed down the courts
a lot of the ATP players were openly boycotting or threatening to boycott wimbledon

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:40 PM
Nadal's Wimbledon win is a clear indication. His "stock" increased drastically with his Wimbledon win rather than his 4 FO. Most people aren't even aware that the French is a major title.

Cos Rafa never won Wimbledon before :shrug:

If Frauderer won the French Open his stock would increase drastically , much more than winning Wimbledon again

It's a matter of what they both have not won in the past

frontier
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:48 PM
Wimbledon is the grand daddy of all slams ,there is pomp and tradition ,when you win you have joined an elite club.Look at all the atention Nadal is getting after winning Wimbledon .Wimbledon is classy,the fans make it a classy event,RG is all about vulgar fans and that diminishes its value......Wimby is da bomb!!!!:wavey:

John.
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Wimbledon is the tennis tournament

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:59 PM
not necessarily
before wimbledon slowed down the courts
a lot of the ATP players were openly boycotting or threatening to boycott wimbledon

Well those punkass bitches can go and hug the clay.

Those sort of players are the reason for RG anywayz so Kudos to them. But didn't dent Wimbledon's armour then and it didn't now.

By a lot how much are we talkin?

serenus_2k8
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:00 PM
I don't really agree that Wimbledon plays more to players strengths. In my opinion the grass is a especial surface as much as clay, with it's particular bounce and the kind of movement a player has to have in order to do well. In fact many spanish and latin american players in the past used to withdraw from Wimbledon because they tought they coundn't do well anyway.

Take Venus for example. I think she is so above other players on grass, that you can actually think she is the closest you can get to a grass specialist. Like Henin could be a clay specialist. I'm taking this examples because both are great champions in every surface and by no means I want to say that they are only specialists in one o the other.

I think players might have more drive to win Wimbledon because of its tradition, historic relevance to tennis.


Well I think what I mean is that people expect the big names to go all the way ie. Maria, Ana and WS, and people know its gonna take a pretty spectacular performance to take one of them out, whereas in RG Venus isnt a contender, Maria isn't really anthing special and Serena is sorta in the same boat where people can see them doing both well and awful.

Foot_Fault
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:05 PM
We forget the fact that, Wimbledon comes so quickly after the French, it becomes a distant memory for the Champion who is very well STILL on a high.

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:05 PM
Well I think what I mean is that people expect the big names to go all the way ie. Maria, Ana and WS, and people know its gonna take a pretty spectacular performance to take one of them out, whereas in RG Venus isnt a contender, Maria isn't really anthing special and Serena is sorta in the same boat where people can see them doing both well and awful.

Oh! Ok.. I think I understand you better now. But I still think that it is that way because the top players, except for Ana, aren't very fond of clay. It could very well be the other way around, and top players could be not fond of grass. I believe both clay and grass are very special surfaces and for that the most dificult ones.

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:12 PM
We forget the fact that, Wimbledon comes so quickly after the French, it becomes a distant memory for the Champion who is very well STILL on a high.

That is very true. I think that is one of the main reasons it is so difficult to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back. Not only because of the different surfaces, but also because the winner of the french is usually so much on a high after a big win that to regroup, refocus and regain the intensity that is necesary to win Wimbledon is a very dificult task. It takes a lot of effort and the amazing ability to be completely focused. I really have a lot of respect for whoever manages to do it.

And who wins the French ends up being a distant memory, even considering the fact that it was not much more than a month ago. I think after every big tournment its only normal to think about its winners, even if there was another big tournment just 2 weeks before that. Recent events are sometimes more important in the world of sports..

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Well I think what I mean is that people expect the big names to go all the way ie. Maria, Ana and WS, and people know its gonna take a pretty spectacular performance to take one of them out, whereas in RG Venus isnt a contender, Maria isn't really anthing special and Serena is sorta in the same boat where people can see them doing both well and awful.

The only spectacular performance Venus had to produce this year was in the final. Ivanovic, Jankovic, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Safina all prefer claycourts. I think right now, Serena and Venus are the only true great grasscourter. Sharapova won it before, but I'm not convinced she really knows how to play on it. I think she'd pick a fast hardcourt over a grasscourt. Therefore, at the moment, there is more competition in Paris. Even before Paris, Serena was forecast by many as the title favourite (she won 3 titles the previous month including 1 on clay) but she lost early.

Marshmallow
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:47 PM
Wimbledon is the tennis tournament

Wimbledon was the only tennis I saw each year for a long, long time. Wimbledon is the shit, the be all and end all.

:worship: Wimbledon :worship:

:worship:

Wimbledon is THEE tournament in tennis, and arguably the most prestigious prize. RG is nice and all, but not quite the same IMO.

Venus :bowdown: [Rafa :rocker2:]

gaviotabr
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:57 PM
I was thinking about dave's post and remembered a couple of interviews I read in Tennis Magazine and how the players have their favorites slams. Rafa said many times already that Wimbledon is his favorite. Ana said hers is the Australian Open. Sveta and Dementieva said that their dream is to win the French Open. Venus has always said that Wimbledon is THE tournment for her.

Here from an interview with Ana:

Q. Hi Ana, what's your favorite surface and which Slam would you most like to win? -- Kathleen

I like all the surfaces and I’ve had good results on each. Maybe if I had to choose just one it would be clay, but it’s so hard to choose just one. Concerning Grand Slams, I would have to choose the Australian Open, but I would take any of them!

And here from an interview with Kuznetsova:

Q. What are your biggest dreams in tennis? - Anon.

Becoming No. 1, Olympic medal, the French Open.

VeeJJ
Jul 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Wimbledon hands down.

RenaSlam.
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:17 AM
Wimbledon.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:33 AM
I was thinking about dave's post and remembered a couple of interviews I read in Tennis Magazine and how the players have their favorites slams. Rafa said many times already that Wimbledon is his favorite. Ana said hers is the Australian Open. Sveta and Dementieva said that their dream is to win the French Open. Venus has always said that Wimbledon is THE tournment for her.

Here from an interview with Ana:

Q. Hi Ana, what's your favorite surface and which Slam would you most like to win? -- Kathleen

I like all the surfaces and I’ve had good results on each. Maybe if I had to choose just one it would be clay, but it’s so hard to choose just one. Concerning Grand Slams, I would have to choose the Australian Open, but I would take any of them!

And here from an interview with Kuznetsova:

Q. What are your biggest dreams in tennis? - Anon.

Becoming No. 1, Olympic medal, the French Open.

Ana chooses the Australian because it's like a second home for her.
Sveta chooses French because she will never win Wimbledon and clay is her best surface.
Same for Elena, her best chance is the French(or USO)
these players want to win them for other reasons than it's the most presticious slam so I want to win it.:rolleyes:

ys
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:56 AM
Cos Rafa never won Wimbledon before :shrug:


Rafa was saying it long before he won his first French.. that he wants Wimbledon above anything else, that W is his dream.. I mean, what else would your expect, idiots don't make it to the status of legends..

moby
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:57 AM
Ana chooses the Australian because it's like a second home for her.
Sveta chooses French because she will never win Wimbledon and clay is her best surface.
Same for Elena, her best chance is the French(or USO)
these players want to win them for other reasons than it's the most presticious slam so I want to win it.:rolleyes:That's just ridiculous. Elena has only gotten past the QF of RG once. Her best chance is the USO. How would you know why Sveta chooses RG? By that token, we can say that the Americans, Australians and Brits ignore RG because their players have sucked on clay for years and have little chance of winning RG. Oh wait, there's probably truth in that. :tape: Ana's choice is strange though. :lol:

It's clearly a continental Europe/South America vs rest of the world thing. In most of continental Europe/South America, RG is the most prestigious slam. The automatic assumption that Anglocentricism is the way to go is an assumption made predominantly by those from English-speaking countries.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:00 AM
That's just ridiculous. Elena has only gotten past the QF of RG once. Her best chance is the USO. How would you know why Sveta chooses RG? Ana's choice is strange though. :lol:

It's clearly a continental Europe/South America vs rest of the world thing. In most of continental Europe/South America, RG is the most prestigious slam. The automatic assumption that Anglocentricism is the way to go is an assumption made predominantly by those from English-speaking countries.

I said French or USO;)
Ana has said that Australia is like her second home;)

moby
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:04 AM
I said French or USO;)I mean to say, if she were going by "best chance", it wouldn't even be close. USO would be the only answer for her. :p

I understand she's a little bit of a Francophile though. ;)

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:06 AM
I mean to say, if she were going by "best chance", it wouldn't even be close. USO would be the only answer for her. :p

I understand she's a little bit of a Francophile though. ;)

I know her best results are at USO, I predict a Venus-Elena final this year, but i feel if she gets a really kind draw at the French she could easily take it.

Miranda
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:12 AM
wimbledon was the only tourney which we could watch live (from quarter final to final) ever since 1980's, and in my opinion, its the greateset of all slams, just simply ask the greats: Lendi/Pete/Navtrilova ...... :cool:

Karsten Braasch
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:13 AM
I know her best results are at USO, I predict a Venus-Elena final this year, but i feel if she gets a really kind draw at the French she could easily take it.

Nah.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:26 AM
Nah.

oo, you know it's true:p

BTW, what players are you a fan of?

Karsten Braasch
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:27 AM
oo, you know it's true:p

BTW, what players are you a fan of?

I like Kirlenko, maybe Golovin...a few other ones ;)

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:28 AM
I like Kirlenko, maybe Golovin...a few other ones ;)

oo ok:)

Slutati
Jul 11th, 2008, 04:29 AM
I like Kirlenko, maybe Golovin...a few other ones ;)
:bounce:;)

acetoace
Jul 11th, 2008, 05:56 AM
That is very true. I think that is one of the main reasons it is so difficult to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back. Not only because of the different surfaces, but also because the winner of the french is usually so much on a high after a big win that to regroup, refocus and regain the intensity that is necesary to win Wimbledon is a very dificult task. It takes a lot of effort and the amazing ability to be completely focused. I really have a lot of respect for whoever manages to do it.

And who wins the French ends up being a distant memory, even considering the fact that it was not much more than a month ago. I think after every big tournment its only normal to think about its winners, even if there was another big tournment just 2 weeks before that. Recent events are sometimes more important in the world of sports..




Serena accomplished that in 2002 winning the FO, WB & USO.

young_gunner913
Jul 11th, 2008, 05:59 AM
Wimbledon, no second thoughts about it.

Cakeisgood
Jul 11th, 2008, 06:32 AM
Poor Oz. No respect.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:28 AM
So i was thinking,
If you Win the French you got the press sewn up for about 3 1/2 Weeks. If you win Wimbledon, you are the one until September.
So what's the biggest Hype Paris or London?
People soon forget about the French Winners with Wimbledon so close behind.

Hype? I think your definition of hype and mine must be very different. Any attention either the Roland Garros winner or the Wimbledon winner receive is definately not hype in my book.

Jeff
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:44 AM
Definitely Wimbledon. How many surprise winners do we see at Wimbledon? Well, not as many as other slams...typically the best players win Wimbledon. The French is a slam that many of the greats don't have on their resume, but it is considered a "specialist" court by many. I guess the same could be said about Wimbledon, too, but there is so much history behind Wimbledon. I think most players would be more excited to win Wimbledon than the French, and I think the same is true even for the ones that claim to dislike Wimbledon.

gaviotabr
Jul 11th, 2008, 11:49 AM
Serena accomplished that in 2002 winning the FO, WB & USO.

I Know! But you have to agree with me that its something very few people can do. I have a lot of respect for Serena.

gaviotabr
Jul 11th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Ana chooses the Australian because it's like a second home for her.
Sveta chooses French because she will never win Wimbledon and clay is her best surface.
Same for Elena, her best chance is the French(or USO)
these players want to win them for other reasons than it's the most presticious slam so I want to win it.:rolleyes:

I never ment to say that the players want to win this or that slam because it is the most prestigious. What I meant was that each player may have a favorite slam that he/she always dreamt of wining, and it doesn't have to be the most prestigious one.

Foot_Fault
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:27 PM
I never ment to say that the players want to win this or that slam because it is the most prestigious. What I meant was that each player may have a favorite slam that he/she always dreamt of wining, and it doesn't have to be the most prestigious one.
I have to respectfully disagree. From the players perspective this is what i hear:
Austrailian Open - Great Slam b/c of the laid back feel, and little pressure. Most players say it don't even feel like a slam.

French Open - A specialist tournament (somewhat). Grueling Slam, horrible crowd, always a suprise Quarter, Semi or Finalist.

Wimbledon - The dream tournmanent of many. Because of the tradition, history and prestige, Players want to win this one the most.

US Open- Fun and intense. Great Slam, crazy fans, great matches and the glitz of the city is cool.

So Wimbledon is the one to Win. The one they all want. Many are Called but Few are Choosen.

Foot_Fault
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:32 PM
From Venus Williams
Wimbledon-Venus eyes ultimate prize of more Olympic gold
By Sonia Oxley
LONDON, July 6 (Reuters) - Venus Williams (http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/players/87/;_ylt=Am5Z49JjDwKZYth095LJ2popv7YF) would never swap one of her five beloved Wimbledon singles titles for a different grand slam trophy but she said on Sunday that Olympic gold medals were an even bigger prize. Venus, who beat her sister Serena 7-5 6-4 on Saturday to claim her seventh grand slam title, said she was relishing the chance to add to her two Olympic golds (2000 singles and doubles) at August’s Beijing Games.
“I love the Olympics. To add to my medals is just, it would be amazing. I know I’ve got to work for it,” she told two invited reporters.
“It’s probably bigger than a slam, I think so, definitely. And you know how much I love Wimbledon, it’s bigger than Wimbledon.”
Williams has never won the French or Australian Open singles titles but said they would not be mean as much to her as Wimbledon’s Venus Rosewater Dish.
“At the end of the day, people remember the Wimbledon, I mean the French Open and the Australian are unbelievable slams but they can get a little lost on the wayside,” the 28-year-old American said.
“Wimbledon will never get lost.”
She said her fifth Wimbledon title was important because it brought her closer to the achievements of players such as Martina Navratilova (http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/players/214/;_ylt=AhzdrSa7Ak3.kx15_SypMoUpv7YF) (nine) and Steffi Graf (seven).
“This one is obviously really historic for me because I’m getting closer to being in the company of other great players. That was really the whole deal of it for me this year,” she said.
She and Serena collected the doubles title just hours after their singles encounter but Venus said her younger sister did not see that as making up for her earlier defeat.
“A loss is still a loss,” she said. “But we really wanted the doubles title, it’s huge, it’s Wimbledon. Two years from now we’ll see it was another notch on our grand slam belts.”
Venus said she hoped to build on the victory and perhaps one day return to the number one ranking
“I don’t think I can change too much about my game,” she said when asked what she needed to improve to become number one. “Hey, got to win matches, no secret on that one.” (Editing by Clare Lovell)

So , Trust me the Players Know.:)

Andrew Laeddis
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:50 PM
The french shouldnt be hyped at all. It has brought us some of the worst finals ever (both WTA and ATP). Part of the reason that Wimbledon is hyped more is because of its winners. The FO has more fluke/one slam wonder winners who only do at well at Roland Garros especially on the mens side.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:58 PM
When the 140 in the world (Ivanisevic) can win Wimbledon having an awful pair of seasons behind , that doesn´t speak very well about Wimbledon and the competition on the surface

eugreene2
Jul 11th, 2008, 08:04 PM
Yea, this thread is a no-brainer. Wimbledon all the way. If I were a pro tennis player, Wimbledon would be #1 on my choice to win followed by US Open. If I won 10 or more of just those 2 slams and no Aussie or French Opens, I would be cool.

As far as hype, forget about it. People can tell you off the top of their head that Navrat won 9, Graf won 7, Sampras won 7, Borg won 5, etc. You don't hear anyone reciting these same type of numbers for Paris. Wimbledon is what's remembered ... well, unless it's the Hingis crying incident. I'll never forget that moment lol.

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2008, 09:48 PM
I have to respectfully disagree. From the players perspective this is what i hear:
Austrailian Open - Great Slam b/c of the laid back feel, and little pressure. Most players say it don't even feel like a slam.

French Open - A specialist tournament (somewhat). Grueling Slam, horrible crowd, always a suprise Quarter, Semi or Finalist.

Wimbledon - The dream tournmanent of many. Because of the tradition, history and prestige, Players want to win this one the most.

US Open- Fun and intense. Great Slam, crazy fans, great matches and the glitz of the city is cool.

So Wimbledon is the one to Win. The one they all want. Many are Called but Few are Choosen.


You forget to mention all the Spanish and South American (clay court) players who often skip Wimbledon. Certainly they are not that eager to win Wimbledon :p

serenus_2k8
Jul 11th, 2008, 09:57 PM
You forget to mention all the Spanish and South American (clay court) players who often skip Wimbledon. Certainly they are not that eager to win Wimbledon :p

But who is really interested in them? The best players will play it and want to win it. Nadal is living proof that its possible :)

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2008, 10:00 PM
But who is really interested in them?


People like me? :p

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 11th, 2008, 10:02 PM
But who is really interested in them?

Me

Spanish tennis ruls :rocker2:

serenus_2k8
Jul 11th, 2008, 10:02 PM
People like me? :p

Ok, name a few of these players for me?