PDA

View Full Version : Is the Australian Open less prestigious than the other 3 Slams?


chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:02 PM
You always hear people argueing about which Slam is the most important, but there are usually about equal arguments for Wimbledon, Roland Garros and USOpen. I think its fair to say that whichever one you might prefer, these 3 events are pretty close to equal in importance.

However, the Australian Open for my opinion is clearly the fourth Slam. Nothing against Australia because they put on a super event for a small country, but I think they are the odd one out, they offer less prize money and the tournament is held in a strange part of the year. The AO has come a long way from 20 years ago when it was clearly second class event and a Slam in name only, but I don't think they have quite yet reaching the same status of the "Big Three".

All opinions welcome on this.

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Yes. especially because they keep changing the court surface and barred laptops from entry.

Petersmiler
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Australia is a small country?

Anyway, all four slams are equal. Unless of course your fave has won more than one of it and then it's the most prestigious!

goldenlox
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:06 PM
BY FAR the least prizemoney of the 4 majors.

sfselesfan
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Yes. The tournament has historically been less important, and was for a long time not even considered a "major" tournament. Even when it became a "slam" tournament it was a pathetic tournament. It was at the end of the year and a lot of the top players skipped it. At present, the tournament has become much more important, but it doesn't have the history that the other tournaments have. Placing it at the beginning of the year was a great idea that helped a lot. Also, changing it from a grass court was another good idea. From what I've read, grass courts in Australia are bug and fly infested.

SF

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Australia is a small country?




comparing to USA, Britain and France, Australia is by far the smallest country by population.

Willam
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:11 PM
No

My least favorite is Wimbledon but i love the Us Open! :)

Rik.
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:13 PM
No

My least favorite is Wimbledon but i love the Us Open! :)

My favourite is Wimbledon and my least fave is the US Open. :lol:

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:14 PM
they should give it a unique surface like green clay and indoor carpet or rebound ace AND STICK WITH IT AND STOP CHANGING IT ALL THE TIME IF YOU GET INJURED ITS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PREPARED AT THE TOP OF THE SEASON

Michael!
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:14 PM
YES!
No history, nothing special :(
but I like it....:)

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Is the Australian Open less prestigious than the other 3 Grand Slams?
Yes - the 3 summer Slams are more prestigious than AO
No - a Slam is a Slam

Technically, the AO is a Summer Slam, and Roland Garros is a late Spring Slam. :P

The Daviator
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:21 PM
It's a Slam, and it's extremely important, but I think most players would rather win one of the other 3 before winning the AO, and if I was a player I'd feel the same way, so yes it's less prestigious, but at the same time no-one would say no to an Aussie Open title :p

Willam
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:22 PM
I wouldnt mind winning any of those 4 slams so cmon bitches!!

orangesky
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:22 PM
wimbledon, then the US open and then the french. that's what most of the players say in interviews - unless they're american

Pasta-Na
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:33 PM
well, the answer is yes.

if u want ur shoes to get muddy, go FO :rocker2:

if u want ur chicken to have something to chew on, go Wim :bounce:

Meghanns Journey
Nov 26th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Australia is a small country?

LOL! I was thinking the same thing. It only takes an hour to drive from Cairns to Perth, right? :haha:

mashamaniac
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:05 PM
i don't see why many ppl love wimbledon rather than AO,FO,USO?? well yeah wimbledon is the most oldest tennis event but not the best! i believe AO is a much better slam which is really underrated IMO!!

mashamaniac
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:11 PM
well i believe AO > FO > USO > W!!!

John.
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:15 PM
AO has worked hard to become what it is today.

Although the history of the event is poor, now, it ranks along side the other 3

bie
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:18 PM
I think Wimbledon, FO, UO and AO are slams and therefore equal.
And the players want to win all of them. :)

DemWilliamsGulls
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:20 PM
A slam is a slam to me...but the Australian isnt my favorite. My favorites are the U.S. Open and Wimbledon. Wimbledon is the most prestigious out of all IMO...but the US Open has more excitement, energy and fashion as well.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:48 PM
W>uso>fo>ao

sfselesfan
Nov 26th, 2007, 05:56 PM
W > RG > USO > AO

or arguably,

W > RG = USO > AO

SF

vadin124
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:04 PM
when people talk about players accomplishments they say they have won, for example, 23 grand slams...not that they won 6 Wimbledons or 12 US Opens...

personally, out of all four of the slams this season, the one which i enjoyed most of all was the Australian Open, and Justine and Venus didn't even show up...

my order of slams would be:
1 Wimbledon > Australian Open >>>> French Open >>>>>>> US Open

Max565
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:05 PM
W > RG > USO > AO

or arguably,

W > RG = USO > AO

SF

Yup, I agree. ;)

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:06 PM
W > RG > USO > AO

or arguably,

W > RG = USO > AO

SF


This is not the thread topic, because we can debate forever which Slam is the most important, but since you started with this, in my view there are good arguments for all of the "Big 3" Slams being the most important.

There are the traditionalists who say it's Wimbledon. Others disagree and say that being played on an out-of-date surface (grass) makes Wimbledon relatively less important, and therefore USO or Roland Garros is now the most important Slam. RG because it's the first on the "Big 3" calendar, its played on the dominant surface of Europe which is the world's most important region for tennis. USO because it's in New York and gets the last word on the season. Which one is the most important Slam from the "Big 3" is an arguement that nobody is going to win.

Pasta-Na
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:08 PM
LOL! I was thinking the same thing. It only takes an hour to drive from Cairns to Perth, right? :haha:

:lol:

Expat
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:08 PM
w>us>ao>fo
based according to style and court
not history

bie
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:09 PM
I think every country finds their own slam the most important.

Wayn77
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Nope ....

All Slams are equally prestigious.

The facilities and organisation at Melbourne are first-class.

Super Dave
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:18 PM
To me, they're all equal in importance. My favorites however, in order are:

1. Wimbledon - loved it since the mid-'70s
2. Australian - I just love the atmosphere and the "new season" feel to it; I look forward to it more than the US
3. US Open
4. French

propi
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Yep, it is, but at least it doesn't have brilliant things as final set tie break or 3 days first round :tape::tape:
IMO Roland Garros and Wimbledon are on the top, US and Aus.

sfselesfan
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:24 PM
This is not the thread topic, because we can debate forever which Slam is the most important, but since you started with this, in my view there are good arguments for all of the "Big 3" Slams being the most important.

There are the traditionalists who say it's Wimbledon. Others disagree and say that being played on an out-of-date surface (grass) makes Wimbledon relatively less important, and therefore USO or Roland Garros is now the most important Slam. RG because it's the first on the "Big 3" calendar, its played on the dominant surface of Europe which is the world's most important region for tennis. USO because it's in New York and gets the last word on the season. Which one is the most important Slam from the "Big 3" is an arguement that nobody is going to win.

Time for the coveted...

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/bullshit.jpg

Take your head out of the sand...the jury is in. Wimbledon >>> the other slams. Simply a fact.

SF

Meghanns Journey
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Time for the coveted...

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/bullshit.jpg

Take your head out of the sand...the jury is in. Wimbledon >>> the other slams. Simply a fact.

SF

Let's be even more honest:

Wimbledon = Special Event

AO, RG, USO = Real tennis

MJ

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:47 PM
Time for the coveted...

Take your head out of the sand...the jury is in. Wimbledon >>> the other slams. Simply a fact.

SF


It's not a fact, it's your opinion.

If you wanted to give an arguement to support your opinion, I'd be ready to listen. But you haven't given any arguement for why you think this is so. Probably because you haven't got one.

@Sweet Cleopatra
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:51 PM
the huge difference of time of AO is a factor but AO will help us not reading this threads ,
help us God and give us patience till it begins ,,,

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Nope ....

All Slams are equally prestigious.

.


this is an arguement that I don't support. Tell that "all slams are equally prestigious" to Bjorn Borg and John McEnrone and Connors and Chrissy Evert, the greatest players of their era who didnt even bother to play the AO. You can make a case for AO being equal now, but it certainly was not so in the past.

Meghanns Journey
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:57 PM
this is an arguement that I don't support. Tell that "all slams are equally prestigious" to Bjorn Borg and John McEnrone and Connors and Chrissy Evert, the greatest players of their era who didnt even bother to play the AO. You can make a case for AO being equal now, but it certainly was not so in the past.

Just because they didn't play it doesn't mean the AO isn't prestigious. That's like saying that Paris is only famous because of the Eiffel Tower.

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Just because they didn't play it doesn't mean the AO isn't prestigious. That's like saying that Paris is only famous because of the Eiffel Tower.


it's not like saying that. But, since you have proved in many threads that you have a severely distorted idea about logic, I'm not going to waste my time to argue with you. You never even tried to answer after I shot you down in your thread about the Capriati Age Rule, you just ran away and hid.

Wayn77
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:08 PM
this is an arguement that I don't support. Tell that "all slams are equally prestigious" to Bjorn Borg and John McEnrone and Connors and Chrissy Evert, the greatest players of their era who didnt even bother to play the AO. You can make a case for AO being equal now, but it certainly was not so in the past.

That was then.

Without being disparaging to those great players of the past - it was all a long time ago.

We and the world, have moved on since then.

The AO is the first Slam of the year, and it rocks - hard.

Tennisation
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I think surface has a lot to do with with the perception of prestigious grand slam. The majority of tournaments are played on hard courts, then comes clay courts, then the most rare being grass. So to speak, people tend to rank W & FO 1 & 2 respectively just because they're not hard courts. The prestige of a grand slam should not be based on surface alone, but multifactorial. Sure grass is pretty rare, but who's to say wimbledon organizers are better than AO organizers? Some could argue that it's harder to win on clay & grass and not everone's game is suited for them, therefore making them more prestigious. At the same time, everyone is competitive on hardcourts, doesn't that make the competition that much harder? Hence it is an unfair comparison to AO & UO.

Matt01
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:21 PM
Ao = Rg = W = Uso

sfselesfan
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:42 PM
this is an arguement that I don't support. Tell that "all slams are equally prestigious" to Bjorn Borg and John McEnrone and Connors and Chrissy Evert, the greatest players of their era who didnt even bother to play the AO. You can make a case for AO being equal now, but it certainly was not so in the past.

I see no reason to state the obvious any further. Read a little tennis history and you won't need a lesson.

SF

serenus_2k8
Nov 26th, 2007, 08:13 PM
Hell if I could win the AO i wouldnt be complaining :lol:

I prefer Wimb (of course) coz I'm British so its special and we get amazing coverage all day for 2 weeks whereas AO is impossible to watch so its my least fave.

RG is my 2nd fave and then AO!

debopero
Nov 26th, 2007, 08:17 PM
yeah
but it's still a slam

chuvack
Nov 26th, 2007, 08:23 PM
I see no reason to state the obvious any further. Read a little tennis history and you won't need a lesson.

SF


again, you merely state your opinion, while failing to state any facts to support it.

the problem with your view is, tennis is not all about history. It's also about today. And that's why Wimbledon has gradually lost its place as the most important Slam.

Tennisstar86
Nov 26th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Yes it is the least... mainly because its the one most skipped..... Heck many players never even went to AO.....

die_wahrheit
Nov 26th, 2007, 09:07 PM
No, Aussie Open are equal to the other two Slams.

Only Wimbledon stands apart at the top.

Or does anybody talk about the 2nd most prestigious tournament in the World? no.
there's no number 2.

NeeemZ
Nov 26th, 2007, 09:09 PM
To me, they're all equal in importance. My favorites however, in order are:

1. Wimbledon - loved it since the mid-'70s
2. Australian - I just love the atmosphere and the "new season" feel to it; I look forward to it more than the US
3. US Open
4. French

That's exactly it. The atmosphere at the Aus Open is second to none, in my opinion. I regard it more as the people's Grand Slam.

slydevil6142
Nov 26th, 2007, 09:11 PM
again, you merely state your opinion, while failing to state any facts to support it.

the problem with your view is, tennis is not all about history. It's also about today. And that's why Wimbledon has gradually lost its place as the most important Slam.

How can it not be about History when talking about how prestigiuos an event is?.... I love the OZ but the fact remains that up until the mid 90's top players were still skipping out on it. It is a wonderful event and has in recent times been just as big and exciting as the other slams however you cant simply ignore 30 plus years of tennis history thats what builts prestige thats why we care about tennis and results is the history that goes along with it. Maybe in 20 years when people have forgotten that noone went to OZ it can finally get a fair argument to being equal to the other "3"

die_wahrheit
Nov 26th, 2007, 09:12 PM
the problem with your view is, tennis is not all about history. It's also about today. And that's why Wimbledon has gradually lost its place as the most important Slam.

Stay serious, Wimbledon even gained prestige becaus the most important person in todays' tennis routinely declares it as no 1 without any request.

Tennace
Nov 26th, 2007, 09:15 PM
The AO one of my favorite slams if I had to put them in order. It looks like it has a great atmosphere and great matches. As much as I want to say they are all equal, I think if you ask the player which one they want to win, the AO would be mentioned least. I like it a lot, but I just think that it is the slam that is farthest in time and distance from the others so that has some affect.

Dave.
Nov 26th, 2007, 10:20 PM
I think they put on the best event by far of the four Slams. I always love watching the Australian Open and it's exciting right at the start of the year. They normally have very high quality tennis and I like the night and day sessions. They have a huge amount of coverage and normally attract huge amounts of people from around the world. In my opinion, they put on the best tournament of the four.

However, in terms of prestige and their place in tennis history, it seems they are quite a bit behind the others. This is because they have only really been a Slam for 20 years. Before that, few big names turned up and it was a poorly ran event. Events such as Rome were even bigger than the Australian Open in those days.

RVD
Nov 26th, 2007, 10:37 PM
Let's see... :scratch:
If a slam equals a music genre, I'd use the following rating...

AO = Country/Bluegrass :lol:

FO = Rave or House

Wimbledon = Symphany/Classical

USO = R&B and Rock&Roll
:wavey:

miffedmax
Nov 26th, 2007, 10:39 PM
In some people's eyes, the Aussie Open never recovered from the '70s and '80s when it really did degenerate into a joke.

However, in recent years I think it's come back and become every bit the equal of the others.

jenny161185
Nov 26th, 2007, 10:42 PM
i think of it as equal as the others definately, as nearly everyone has pointed out theres something special about Wimbledon, the grass, the tradition,ENGLAND!!! AND most of all Sue Barker ;)

Dan23
Nov 26th, 2007, 10:46 PM
they should give it a unique surface like green clay and indoor carpet or rebound ace AND STICK WITH IT AND STOP CHANGING IT ALL THE TIME IF YOU GET INJURED ITS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PREPARED AT THE TOP OF THE SEASONThe surface has now changed twice in 102 years or so. :scratch:


You always hear people argueing about which Slam is the most important, but there are usually about equal arguments for Wimbledon, Roland Garros and USOpen. I think its fair to say that whichever one you might prefer, these 3 events are pretty close to equal in importance.

However, the Australian Open for my opinion is clearly the fourth Slam. Nothing against Australia because they put on a super event for a small country, but I think they are the odd one out, they offer less prize money and the tournament is held in a strange part of the year. The AO has come a long way from 20 years ago when it was clearly second class event and a Slam in name only, but I don't think they have quite yet reaching the same status of the "Big Three".

All opinions welcome on this.Strange time of year? How is January any more strange than June or September?
Believe it or not January is part of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. You could argue that RG and Wimbledon are too close together. There are 12 months in the year so whats wrong with spreading the slams out?


This is not the thread topic, because we can debate forever which Slam is the most important, but since you started with this, in my view there are good arguments for all of the "Big 3" Slams being the most important.

There are the traditionalists who say it's Wimbledon. Others disagree and say that being played on an out-of-date surface (grass) makes Wimbledon relatively less important, and therefore USO or Roland Garros is now the most important Slam. RG because it's the first on the "Big 3" calendar, its played on the dominant surface of Europe which is the world's most important region for tennis. USO because it's in New York and gets the last word on the season. Which one is the most important Slam from the "Big 3" is an arguement that nobody is going to win.'The Big Three' is your creation. All slams have equal value to a tennis player when it comes to their record. The prestige factor is something outside of the actual game....when it comes to putting prestige into the event Wimbledon is the only one thats different. What surface a player enjoys playing on will also come into it.


the huge difference of time of AO is a factor but AO will help us not reading this threads ,
help us God and give us patience till it begins ,,,There are time issues for any tournament, anywhere in the world :shrug:

Lunaris
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:00 PM
That was true 25+ years ago when top players were avoiding AO like devil crucifix mainly due to its place in calendar, even some Australian players. I guess some people still have this in their mind and it might affect their opinion on AO. But since 83-84 top players have started to play the tournament regularly. Nowadays there is no question about its Grandslam status.
BTW. Wimbledon tops the other Slams without question.

edit:
However, the Australian Open for my opinion is clearly the fourth Slam. Nothing against Australia because they put on a super event for a small country, but I think they are the odd one out, they offer less prize money and the tournament is held in a strange part of the year. The AO has come a long way from 20 years ago when it was clearly second class event and a Slam in name only, but I don't think they have quite yet reaching the same status of the "Big Three".
Prize money isn't a factor, not at Grandslams. Players are motivated and want to do well mainly because of the fact that it is GS, not because of prize money. Tennis fans don't care about prize money either.
Strange part of the year... that depends on everyone's personal point of view. I personally think it's fine, don't know about the players. Although the heat in summer is too much sometimes.
Maybe in some people's minds the AO has yet to reach the same status as the other three Slams. That's the same reason why many people including myself still consider Wimbledon the most important.

Harvs
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:02 PM
obviously the two "most important" slams to most players are wimbledon and roland garros...

but really, a slam is a slam:)

iWill
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:03 PM
this is an arguement that I don't support. Tell that "all slams are equally prestigious" to Bjorn Borg and John McEnrone and Connors and Chrissy Evert, the greatest players of their era who didnt even bother to play the AO. You can make a case for AO being equal now, but it certainly was not so in the past.

I totally agree with your statement. To me at least, its hard to put the Australian Open on the same level as the other 3 because it lacks the history that those slams have. HOWEVER, If you just look at the last 20-25 years it can be held at the same esteem as the others. Looking back on this generations career a player that wins multiple Australian Opens will be seen as a great player but lookin back on previous generations it isn't a factor IMO.

My personal order of perstige is:

1.Wimbledon-most tradition and history and grass tennis is exciting to watch no matter who is playing)
2. French Open-barely ahead of the USO cuz the USO has been around longer but this is the hardest slam to win hand down)
3. USO-tournament has a lot of history and many great players have broken through at the USO throughout its history.
4. Australian Open- least prestigious cuz someone had to be last :shrug:

Andy.
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:26 PM
Who cares about History it has the best fascilities and service for the players. And the other good thing is our stadiums are always filled right from the first morning match unlike RG and the US Open.

IceHock
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I love the australian open, with the roof over rold laver arena, theres always tennis no matter what, no rain delays. the fans seem to be out and about the most there with the serbs and the croats, its an all around great atmosphere.

hurricanejeanne
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:34 PM
In some people's eyes, the Aussie Open never recovered from the '70s and '80s when it really did degenerate into a joke.

However, in recent years I think it's come back and become every bit the equal of the others.

I completely agree. For the last 15 years or so the Australian Open is equal to the other slams now.

LindsayRulz
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Nop - a Slam is a Slam :)

And I can't see any other tournament replace the AO.

Harvs
Nov 26th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Who cares about History it has the best fascilities and service for the players. And the other good thing is our stadiums are always filled right from the first morning match unlike RG and the US Open.

soooo true true true lol

Tennisstar86
Nov 27th, 2007, 12:28 AM
...;12041840']Who cares about History it has the best fascilities and service for the players. And the other good thing is our stadiums are always filled right from the first morning match unlike RG and the US Open.

soooo true true true lol

maybe thats because your facilities cant hold as many people....:lol:

AO attendence records....
Recent attendances
2007 - 554,858 [1]
2006 - 550,550 [2]
2005 - 543,873 [3]
2004 - 521,691 [4]

US attendence records....
2002 628,738
2003 615,456
2004 631,870
2005 659,538
2006 640,000

AO best isnt even close to US worst... I havent looked up FO, but i assume its the same....

I love the talk about "our atmosphere is better blah blah" have you been to all 4 slams? How do you knows whose atmosphere is better....

CJ07
Nov 27th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Wimbledon > Us Open/French Open > Australian Open

The middle one just depends on where you're from. But I promise you, ask an Aussie whether they'd rather win OZ or Wimbledon, they'll pick the ladder in a heartbeat.

Harvs
Nov 27th, 2007, 01:44 AM
[QUOTE='...[Harvs]...;12041840']

maybe thats because your facilities cant hold as many people....:lol:

AO attendence records....
Recent attendances
2007 - 554,858 [1]
2006 - 550,550 [2]
2005 - 543,873 [3]
2004 - 521,691 [4]

US attendence records....
2002 628,738
2003 615,456
2004 631,870
2005 659,538
2006 640,000

AO best isnt even close to US worst... I havent looked up FO, but i assume its the same....

I love the talk about "our atmosphere is better blah blah" have you been to all 4 slams? How do you knows whose atmosphere is better....


dont take it as a personal attack jsut cause ur american. usa has a LOT more people than australia anyways.

Harvs
Nov 27th, 2007, 01:45 AM
Wimbledon > Us Open/French Open > Australian Open

The middle one just depends on where you're from. But I promise you, ask an Aussie whether they'd rather win OZ or Wimbledon, they'll pick the ladder in a heartbeat.

ask pretty much anyone from any country and they would say wimbledon.:)

aussie_fan
Nov 27th, 2007, 01:46 AM
It's a silly arguement, it depends where you are from. For an Australian, it would be Wimbledon followed closely by the oz open then the us open and last is roland garros. In other countries it will be different. Any player would wan to win a grand slam.

Tennisstar86
Nov 27th, 2007, 01:58 AM
...;12042049'][QUOTE=Tennisstar86;12041924]


dont take it as a personal attack jsut cause ur american. usa has a LOT more people than australia anyways.

personal attack? lol not taking it personal maybe you're taking it a little personal as the thread is all about how weak you're countries tourny is....

Us may have more people.... but its not like we all live next to new york and the stadium like you do in Austrailia.....

MrSerenaWilliams
Nov 27th, 2007, 02:05 AM
Yes, because it's not a surface-exclusive slam like the other 3.

...but, it's one of my faves.

mm1147
Nov 27th, 2007, 02:08 AM
less prestigious? i don't think so australian open is the most exciting grandslam of the 3
i'm sorry to say this but french open is the most boring grandslam
i think they should change the centre court in french open because its so unattractive

Dan23
Nov 27th, 2007, 02:21 AM
personal attack? lol not taking it personal maybe you're taking it a little personal as the thread is all about how weak you're countries tourny is....

Us may have more people.... but its not like we all live next to new york and the stadium like you do in Austrailia.....
What? :confused:
Australia's population is extremely spread out and only the people in Melbourne (3-4 million) are anywhere near the stadium. Theres only 90,000 difference in those figures anyway which isnt much over 14-17 days.

Mikey.
Nov 27th, 2007, 02:40 AM
[QUOTE='...[Harvs]...;12041840']

maybe thats because your facilities cant hold as many people....:lol:

AO attendence records....
Recent attendances
2007 - 554,858 [1]
2006 - 550,550 [2]
2005 - 543,873 [3]
2004 - 521,691 [4]

US attendence records....
2002 628,738
2003 615,456
2004 631,870
2005 659,538
2006 640,000

AO best isnt even close to US worst... I havent looked up FO, but i assume its the same....

I love the talk about "our atmosphere is better blah blah" have you been to all 4 slams? How do you knows whose atmosphere is better....

That includes attendance by ground passes as well right? Maybe more people are actually able to attend during the event with a ground pass at the USO than the AO, which could greatly add to those statistics. Also I'm pretty sure the USO stadiums hold more seats than the AO. So yeah obviously the attendance numbers will be higher for the USO.

CJ07
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:33 AM
...;12042050']ask pretty much anyone from any country and they would say wimbledon.:)
exactly

No Name Face
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:45 AM
kind of but at the end of the day it won't really matter. wimbledon and RG to a lesser extent are more important but hell if you win AO titles, it counts on your slam record, so who cares?

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:47 AM
maybe thats because your facilities cant hold as many people....:lol:

AO attendence records....
Recent attendances
2007 - 554,858 [1]
2006 - 550,550 [2]
2005 - 543,873 [3]
2004 - 521,691 [4]

US attendence records....
2002 628,738
2003 615,456
2004 631,870
2005 659,538
2006 640,000

AO best isnt even close to US worst... I havent looked up FO, but i assume its the same....



Yeah - we don't have a centra court that can hold 100,000 people per session, and you need 10x zoom binoculars if you are in the back row to see who's playing. :p

I've been to 3 slams, and I think Ao is best of the 3 I have been to - I'll get back to you when I've been to the USO too. :p

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:49 AM
Oh and as for the prestige - well yeah, obviously the Australian Open sucks - it's the worst of all Grand Slams, and all the players hate it. :rolleyes:
























(yes, that was sarcasm). :angel:

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:50 AM
Wimbledon > Us Open/French Open > Australian Open

The middle one just depends on where you're from. But I promise you, ask an Aussie whether they'd rather win OZ or Wimbledon, they'll pick the ladder in a heartbeat.

a. I think you mean "latter", not ladder
and b. I'd pick AO! I'm an Aussie and proud and I freaking hate playing on grass! :p So uhh I just prooved your statement wrong.

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:52 AM
It's a silly arguement, it depends where you are from. For an Australian, it would be Wimbledon followed closely by the oz open then the us open and last is roland garros. In other countries it will be different. Any player would wan to win a grand slam.

Sorry - but speak for yourself. I'm an Aussie, and that is NOT how my top 4 would go!

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:53 AM
personal attack? lol not taking it personal maybe you're taking it a little personal as the thread is all about how weak you're countries tourny is....

Us may have more people.... but its not like we all live next to new york and the stadium like you do in Austrailia.....

:unsure: Yes, the whole population of Australia live right next door to RLA. Looked at a map recently? :p

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 03:55 AM
Yes, because it's not a surface-exclusive slam like the other 3.

...but, it's one of my faves.

umm explain to me how the other three are all surface exclusive but the AO is not? :scratch: AO obviously has a very similar surface to USO - but either they are ALL surface exclusive, or AO & USO share the same surface, therefore not making the other THREE surface exclusive, but only 2 others are surface exclusive (Wimby/FO)! :p

Tennisstar86
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:09 AM
umm explain to me how the other three are all surface exclusive but the AO is not? :scratch: AO obviously has a very similar surface to USO - but either they are ALL surface exclusive, or AO & USO share the same surface, therefore not making the other THREE surface exclusive, but only 2 others are surface exclusive (Wimby/FO)! :p

US Open was a GS before AO.... which is why "hard court" is its surface... AO was different with the Rebound Ace but now they're just adapting more of the US court......

Mikey.
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:17 AM
But the USO has also changed its surface a few times. :help: From memory I think I remember it being on grass first til the 70's, then changed to green clay for a couple of years, then changed to its present surface DecoTurf. So why is everyone complaining about the AO changing surface so of often? :confused:

mckyle.
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:19 AM
The old money people will say so, but I don't think it is.

Sam L
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Starting from around mid-80s Australian Open became on par with the other slams but not before.

Dani12
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:27 AM
Depends who you are, if you were an Australian you would probably want to win it more then the french and and us open. Just like any patriotic person.\

EDIT: We have rooves which equals coolness :D

Keadz
Nov 27th, 2007, 04:38 AM
personal attack? lol not taking it personal maybe you're taking it a little personal as the thread is all about how weak you're countries tourny is....

Us may have more people.... but its not like we all live next to new york and the stadium like you do in Australia

New York city- 8 million people
Melbourne city- 60,745

New York (with suburbia) 19 million
Melbourne (with suburbia) 4 million

Australias population- 21 million
Americas pupulation- 300,000 million

I would say that you have a couple million more people living near your stadium!

Dan23
Nov 27th, 2007, 05:25 AM
US Open was a GS before AO.... which is why "hard court" is its surface... AO was different with the Rebound Ace but now they're just adapting more of the US court......:o


But the USO has also changed its surface a few times. :help: From memory I think I remember it being on grass first til the 70's, then changed to green clay for a couple of years, then changed to its present surface DecoTurf. So why is everyone complaining about the AO changing surface so of often? :confused:;)


:lol: someone needs to check their facts

mckyle.
Nov 27th, 2007, 05:35 AM
Only 21 million people in Australia? I think I want to move there. Maybe then everyone wouldn't be in my business :o

switz
Nov 27th, 2007, 05:40 AM
each slam has it's own pros and cons. of course the Australian Open lacks the romantic history of the others but let's not forget the way Australia dominated tennis for many of the years prior to the 1980s when many didn't travel. The Australian Open was still an extremely competitive tournament when you consider the likes of Laver, Emerson, Hoad, Roache, Rosewell, Newcombe, Court etc were competing.

I think parts of the world can view the Australian Open negatively because they think their timezone is the normal one and don't have an understanding of the concept of exchange rates. the Australian is consistently voted as the most player and fan friendly and it's crowd and tv audiences + sponsorship dollars have increased significantly for many consecutive years.

yep it's number 4 on the prestige factor. but tennis has been trying to change it's image as a county club sport for many years now and the level of prestige is becoming less and less important for a lot of people in my opinion. i think more than ever a slam is a slam is the eyes of most players on tour as well (unless it's your home slam of course or you've got a particular link with a certain slam).

mckyle.
Nov 27th, 2007, 05:44 AM
I personally love the Aus Open because of it's weird time:

1) French Open, wake up at 4 AM, and now ESPN only gets a few hours of coverage per day
2) Wimbledon, wake up at 6 AM, usually raining so I wake up for nothing :o
3) US Open, in school during the day coverage, only get to watch evening matches + weekend

But for the Australian Open, coverage starts around 6 PM and I usually watch it all night. Plus the players are in their best state at this slam.

Renalicious
Nov 27th, 2007, 06:28 AM
Australia a small country? LOL. Do you mean continent?

Anyway, in a way, yes, the AO is less 'prestigious' than Wimbledon and the US. However, I think the FO is almost in the same league as the AO. I dunno why, I just feel like it is. I dont think the players would mind which one they win though, a slam is a slam.

Miranda
Nov 27th, 2007, 07:44 AM
yes, for me, the most prestigous is and always will be wimby :cool:

svetaisthebest
Nov 27th, 2007, 07:48 AM
All slams are equally prestigious .

ZeroSOFInfinity
Nov 27th, 2007, 07:54 AM
All the 4 Slams are prestigious events. If the AO is less prestigious, it should be called a Tier I event instead.

Mikey.
Nov 27th, 2007, 08:53 AM
All the 4 Slams are prestigious events. If the AO is less prestigious, it should be called a Tier I event instead.

OH MY GOSH ARE U SERIOUS?! :confused: Even though some people think of the AO as a 'less prestigious' event, it should in no way be reduced to a Tier 1. That's just ridiculous! The AO is the slam for the rest of the world other than the US and Europe. Mainly for the Asia pacific. It deserves to be grandslam in its own right.

LudwigDvorak
Nov 27th, 2007, 09:01 AM
I guess this isn't surprising coming from me, but I always wanted a slam in Russia, or maybe Asia (since all of the WTA's $ is going there anyway). I don't like the Australian Open at all, but it doesn't deserve to just get written off. Most people really enjoy the event, it seems.

DutchieGirl
Nov 27th, 2007, 09:36 AM
US Open was a GS before AO.... which is why "hard court" is its surface... AO was different with the Rebound Ace but now they're just adapting more of the US court......

So - then USO is no longer unique if it has the same surface? And just coz the courts might be the same colour doesn't mean it's the same surface! And rebound ace isn't the same as other hard courts either. So either all 4 are unique, or 2 are and the other 2 are the same - whichever way you want it, but you can't have 3 unique... it doesn't work.

kaghat
Nov 27th, 2007, 10:49 AM
We talk about surface and we forget to talk about competition. Don't forget dat in all GS there is the same quality of good players, the same rounds, the same stress... It's true that some surfaces are more difficult than others but to win is the most difficult... http://www.parlonstennis.com/files/images/20070128/1185830828_tmp_sgraf_jhenin.jpg

darice
Nov 27th, 2007, 10:58 AM
no a slam is a slam and also some of the players have said that oz is their fav slam.

Tennisstar86
Nov 28th, 2007, 08:34 PM
So - then USO is no longer unique if it has the same surface? And just coz the courts might be the same colour doesn't mean it's the same surface! And rebound ace isn't the same as other hard courts either. So either all 4 are unique, or 2 are and the other 2 are the same - whichever way you want it, but you can't have 3 unique... it doesn't work.

i was replying to those saying us and AO "share" hard court because both are a hard court... and yes rebound Ace is defferent that decor Turf; however, in case you didnt get the memo. Rebound Ace is no more.... and they are changing to a surface like the US. Basically i think the point was AO isnt "unique" because its basically a hard court tournament just like the US except it came second....

Harvs
Nov 28th, 2007, 08:37 PM
i was replying to those saying us and AO "share" hard court because both are a hard court... and yes rebound Ace is defferent that decor Turf; however, in case you didnt get the memo. Rebound Ace is no more.... and they are changing to a surface like the US. Basically i think the point was AO isnt "unique" because its basically a hard court tournament just like the US except it came second....

plexicushion is still a different surface to the us open hard courts. they may be similar, but they are still different surfaces. therefore... 4 unique slams

stickwitju(ju)
Nov 28th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Ask Mary and Momo which one of their two Slams means more to them!

:banana:

DutchieGirl
Nov 28th, 2007, 09:36 PM
i was replying to those saying us and AO "share" hard court because both are a hard court... and yes rebound Ace is defferent that decor Turf; however, in case you didnt get the memo. Rebound Ace is no more.... and they are changing to a surface like the US. Basically i think the point was AO isnt "unique" because its basically a hard court tournament just like the US except it came second....

uhh yes I "got the memo" seeing as I'm Aussie and live in Melbourne. :rolleyes: But you quoted my post and I was talking to someone who said that THREE of the Grand Slams have unique courts - which I was pointing out can't be true. Either 4 are all unique, or 2 are unique and 2 are the same - got it?

Lunaris
Nov 29th, 2007, 12:17 AM
Both USO and AO started on grass so whether US Open switched to hardcourt 10 years before Australian Open did is not particularly relevant. In 1975 when US Open changed to clay courts you could say they were imitating RG. blah blah :rolleyes:
This whole talk about "unique surfaces" is quite silly to be honest. The only important thing is that this change of surface should benefit the players and therefore also the spectators because it will prevent irregular bounces and other irregularities in behaviour of the surface which was the main problem with RA.

Tennisstar86
Nov 29th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Ask Mary and Momo which one of their two Slams means more to them!

:banana:

where i think most would cherish wimbledon more than AO... its quite clear that Momo would cherish her wimby title as her AO is tainted... thanks to Justine....

debopero
Nov 29th, 2007, 03:06 AM
wimbledon, then the US open and then the french. that's what most of the players say in interviews - unless they're american

Even then they still say Wimbledon.

polishprodigy
Nov 29th, 2007, 03:07 AM
I think sometimes the AO is not considered as prestigious, as people think that the slam has the chance for an "unexpected winner" due to the fact that people may be "rusty" at the start of the year whereas at the US Open, people are fine on hard courts.

Vincey!
Nov 29th, 2007, 03:09 AM
I think that AO and USO are less prestigious than Wimby and RG :shrug:...I don't really know why, but they just seem more traditionnal and harder to win

DutchieGirl
Nov 29th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I think sometimes the AO is not considered as prestigious, as people think that the slam has the chance for an "unexpected winner" due to the fact that people may be "rusty" at the start of the year whereas at the US Open, people are fine on hard courts.

umm - what's that got to do with prestige?

The Kaz
Nov 29th, 2007, 07:42 AM
Australian Open is the slam of the future :yeah:
Wimbledon is the slam of the past :o

French Open and US Open are just there...really...nothing special ;)

Mikey.
Nov 29th, 2007, 07:51 AM
Australian Open is the slam of the future :yeah:
Wimbledon is the slam of the past :o

French Open and US Open are just there...really...nothing special ;)

Agreed! :worship:

guyinsf
Nov 29th, 2007, 08:20 AM
I think that all grand slams should be thought of as equal but yes I have always felt that the AO is the least important from the consensus.

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 29th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Australia is a small country?

Anyway, all four slams are equal. Unless of course your fave has won more than one of it and then it's the most prestigious!

Serena has more AO's than anything but I still think Wimby is by far the most prestigious of all

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 29th, 2007, 11:45 AM
It's a Slam, and it's extremely important, but I think most players would rather win one of the other 3 before winning the AO, and if I was a player I'd feel the same way, so yes it's less prestigious, but at the same time no-one would say no to an Aussie Open title :p

agreed :)

Paul.be
Nov 29th, 2007, 12:12 PM
Not at all

In my opinion the US Open is the least prestigious.
It's more big business than sports: The empty corporate boxes, the merchandising, the advertising, the emphasis on the prize money at the trophy ceremony, ...
It lacks class: the music during the change-overs, the hamburger-eating crowd, the people constant moving around in the stands, ...

But I'm just an old fashioned European.

Princeza
Nov 29th, 2007, 08:10 PM
AO is great except that we can't sleep for 2 weeks :sobbing:

shrOOf
Nov 29th, 2007, 08:22 PM
No. AO rulz.

stickwitju(ju)
Nov 29th, 2007, 09:51 PM
where i think most would cherish wimbledon more than AO... its quite clear that Momo would cherish her wimby title as her AO is tainted... thanks to Justine....

A couple more points played and Justine could've been out for all of '06. Momo's gain was Justine's as well.

:boxing:

OsloErik
Nov 29th, 2007, 10:31 PM
It's interesting, people always talk about it being the least prestigious, but you'd have to go back to Barbara Jordan to find a one slam wonder at the Aussie. Everyone who's one it since the 80's is a prominent figure of tennis history. The only winners with less than five slams total are Mandlikova, Capriati, Davenport, Pierce, and Mauresmo.

jujufreak
Nov 29th, 2007, 10:37 PM
No

DutchieGirl
Nov 30th, 2007, 10:20 AM
AO is great except that we can't sleep for 2 weeks :sobbing:

And now you know how the Aussies feel for all 3 other GSs! :p

williams.i.am
Nov 30th, 2007, 10:45 AM
You always hear people argueing about which Slam is the most important, but there are usually about equal arguments for Wimbledon, Roland Garros and USOpen. I think its fair to say that whichever one you might prefer, these 3 events are pretty close to equal in importance.

However, the Australian Open for my opinion is clearly the fourth Slam. Nothing against Australia because they put on a super event for a small country, but I think they are the odd one out, they offer less prize money and the tournament is held in a strange part of the year. The AO has come a long way from 20 years ago when it was clearly second class event and a Slam in name only, but I don't think they have quite yet reaching the same status of the "Big Three".

All opinions welcome on this.

i feel u but the thing is that if a player win the other 3 and not the aus open then peeps up in here are gonna hate on that player cuz they didn't win the aus open. then all of sudden the aus open is important! :rolleyes: seein that only about 10 girls can actually win a f*ckin a slam then HELL YEAH the aus open is important. c'mon now.

Langers
Nov 30th, 2007, 11:14 AM
Yes. especially because they keep changing the court surface and barred laptops from entry.
"Keep changing"? :lol: :rolleyes:

Mikey.
Nov 30th, 2007, 11:26 AM
LOL! Are people still going on about the changing surface thing? We already established that the USO has changed its surface more times in recent decades than the AO!

Tennisstar86
Nov 30th, 2007, 02:24 PM
LOL! Are people still going on about the changing surface thing? We already established that the USO has changed its surface more times in recent decades than the AO!

thats cause the AO hasnt existed that long.....:confused:

Mikey.
Nov 30th, 2007, 02:27 PM
thats cause the AO hasnt existed that long.....:confused:

Ahhhh that has nothing to do with it! :lol: The USO changed surface twice during the 70's from grass to green clay, then from green clay to DecoTurf. The AO changed once in the 80's from grass to Rebound Ace.

Tennisstar86
Nov 30th, 2007, 02:28 PM
A couple more points played and Justine could've been out for all of '06. Momo's gain was Justine's as well.

:boxing:

lol.... i love how fans seems to know their fav body.... yes two more points and justine would have been out for all of 06':rolleyes:

instead playing 2 fewer points and she just took her usual weeks break and played dubai healthy as ever....(where she won no less, without dropping a set) :help:

but yeah.... she was just too injured to finish that *** beating...

Asmus
Nov 30th, 2007, 05:32 PM
1. Wimbledon: It's the most historic, the birthplace of tennis, and the one all of the greats want most. It's the one Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal both dreamed of winning, and even American players seem to prefer it to the US Open (ie, Sampras, Roddick, the Williams sisters); I would say that Australians probably share that sentiment as well although French players prefer the French. It has been the most consistent as it has never changed its surface or venue and players have never skipped it in favour of World Team Tennis. However, it is played on grass, which is considered to be a dying surface, although this has been improved over the last few years with the surface being slowed down.

2. US Open: It's also historic, although it has changed surfaces a few times, from grass to clay to hardcourt, as well as venues, from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows. Its current surface is hardcourt, which is considered to be the most equal. However, the stadium is universally loathed and considered to be among the worst of all sports, the surface is much faster than normal hardcourt and less equal than the Australian surface, and the emphasis on TV means that players have to play back-to-back days at the end of the tournament as opposed to other slams, which greatly reduces the quality of finals in particular. Many players also dislike the noisy atmosphere and the long commute from the hotels. It's the least fan-friendly slam with high prices and lots of empty courtside seats.

3. Roland Garros: Its historic appeal is almost on par with Wimbledon, but being played on clay reduces its prestige when a large number of players don't play as well on it or take it very seriously. Over the last couple of decades it has been largely dominated by Spanish and South American players who generally don't do nearly as well at the other majors. Also, and perhaps most damning, it was skipped by most of the top players in favour of World Team Tennis in the 1970's.

4. Australian Open: So. You have London, Paris, New York and... Melbourne? The Australian Open has produced some of the best tennis of all the slams over the last couple of decades, in no small part because of its surface (despite the criticism) which has been the most equal (and my bet is that they will go for a slower hardcourt). It is also known as the friendliest, most relaxed and fan-friendly slam. Its retractable roof means that there are no rain delays which is better for TV viewers as well. This is the slam I personally want to go to the most, and its prestige will no doubt increase over time. It is preparing itself more than any other for the 21st century, even marketing itself as "the grand slam of Asia-Pacific." However, this is the newest slam with none of the same history as the other majors, it was skipped by most top players in the 70's and 80's, it's changed its surface, timeslot and is still disadvantaged by its current position on the calendar by being right at the beginning of the year which means that it is still skipped by top players more than any other slam. Its position on the globe will also always hurt it, as live matches occur late in the night for most people in the world.

serenus_2k8
Nov 30th, 2007, 05:50 PM
1. Wimbledon: It's the most historic, the birthplace of tennis, and the one all of the greats want most. It's the one Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal both dreamed of winning, and even American players seem to prefer it to the US Open (ie, Sampras, Roddick, the Williams sisters); I would say that Australians probably share that sentiment as well although French players prefer the French. It has been the most consistent as it has never changed its surface or venue and players have never skipped it in favour of World Team Tennis. However, it is played on grass, which is considered to be a dying surface, although this has been improved over the last few years with the surface being slowed down.

2. US Open: It's also historic, although it has changed surfaces a few times, from grass to clay to hardcourt, as well as venues, from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows. Its current surface is hardcourt, which is considered to be the most equal. However, the stadium is universally loathed and considered to be among the worst of all sports, the surface is much faster than normal hardcourt and less equal than the Australian surface, and the emphasis on TV means that players have to play back-to-back days at the end of the tournament as opposed to other slams, which greatly reduces the quality of finals in particular. Many players also dislike the noisy atmosphere and the long commute from the hotels. It's the least fan-friendly slam with high prices and lots of empty courtside seats.

3. Roland Garros: Its historic appeal is almost on par with Wimbledon, but being played on clay reduces its prestige when a large number of players don't play as well on it or take it very seriously. Over the last couple of decades it has been largely dominated by Spanish and South American players who generally don't do nearly as well at the other majors. Also, and perhaps most damning, it was skipped by most of the top players in favour of World Team Tennis in the 1970's.

4. Australian Open: So. You have London, Paris, New York and... Melbourne? The Australian Open has produced some of the best tennis of all the slams over the last couple of decades, in no small part because of its surface (despite the criticism) which has been the most equal (and my bet is that they will go for a slower hardcourt). It is also known as the friendliest, most relaxed and fan-friendly slam. However, this is the newest slam with none of the same history as the other majors, it was skipped by most top players in the 70's and 80's, it's changed its surface, timeslot and is still disadvantaged by its current position on the calendar by being right at the beginning of the year which means that it is still skipped by top players more than any other slam.

I agree. All Grand Slams are great wins but obviously not all players would like them the same!

AO just seems so out of it compared to the others, and I think a lot more other locations would seem more suitable. As its been said, the majority of the world has to cope with crazy time difference as well so in my opinion its not as enjoyable because I cant watch the majority of it live.

All that said - it still rocks, I would never say no to some grand slam action!

wally1
Nov 30th, 2007, 06:14 PM
3. Roland Garros: Its historic appeal is almost on par with WimbledonI'm not sure I could quite agree with this. The French Championships only became an international event in 1925. Wimbledon began in 1877. That year's event was basically THE first organisd tennis tournament.

serenus_2k8
Nov 30th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Oh i overlooked that - ur right wally, Wimbledon wins on history hands down vs the other slams!

jonny84
Nov 30th, 2007, 06:58 PM
It is still a grand slam though - and any WTA/ATP player would want to win it because of its Grand Slam status.

It probably suffers from the least prize money and the fact that its at the start of the season.

DutchieGirl
Nov 30th, 2007, 08:37 PM
4. Australian Open: So. You have London, Paris, New York and... Melbourne? The Australian Open has produced some of the best tennis of all the slams over the last couple of decades, in no small part because of its surface (despite the criticism) which has been the most equal (and my bet is that they will go for a slower hardcourt). It is also known as the friendliest, most relaxed and fan-friendly slam. Its retractable roof means that there are no rain delays which is better for TV viewers as well. This is the slam I personally want to go to the most, and its prestige will no doubt increase over time. It is preparing itself more than any other for the 21st century, even marketing itself as "the grand slam of Asia-Pacific." However, this is the newest slam with none of the same history as the other majors, it was skipped by most top players in the 70's and 80's, it's changed its surface, timeslot and is still disadvantaged by its current position on the calendar by being right at the beginning of the year which means that it is still skipped by top players more than any other slam. Its position on the globe will also always hurt it, as live matches occur late in the night for most people in the world.

Changing the AO from the end of the year to the start of the year has helped it no end, not hindered it. And as people have been saying in here, since the 80s it's not had many of the top players skipping it at all. Also, it's position in the globe has absolutely NO bearing on the tourney, as the number of people actually attending is still very high, and keeps rising each year. And yes, it makes it hard for "most people" on the other side of the world (northern hemisphere), but it doesn't actually make it a bad timeslot for "most PEOPLE in the world" - did you take a look at how many people are in the southern hemisphere lately (who have a similar time zone to AO)? ;) And so what, you think that we should have all 4 GSs in the northern hemisphere because supposedly they would then be in a better time slot for live viewing for "most people" in the world? :lol: (Perhaps if you look at the population of China for example, and see that they are only 3 hours behind us, therefore it's not such a bad time for them to watch - along with the rest of Asia). :p

Marco Fernandes
Nov 30th, 2007, 09:03 PM
No way ! Actually i really love it... the heat ... =P
But my favourite is Wimbledon and then the AO and Us open ... =)

Volcana
Nov 30th, 2007, 09:35 PM
It still isn't Wimby, but nothing is. However, there's also a matter of what part of the world you're in. As this whole 'Grand Slam of the Pacific' thing takes hold, I think it's importance to the Chinese will only grow as well, and they'll be an increasingly important part of the tennis universe.

Lunaris
Dec 1st, 2007, 02:46 AM
Changing the AO from the end of the year to the start of the year has helped it no end, not hindered it. And as people have been saying in here, since the 80s it's not had many of the top players skipping it at all. Also, it's position in the globe has absolutely NO bearing on the tourney, as the number of people actually attending is still very high, and keeps rising each year. And yes, it makes it hard for "most people" on the other side of the world (northern hemisphere), but it doesn't actually make it a bad timeslot for "most PEOPLE in the world" - did you take a look at how many people are in the southern hemisphere lately (who have a similar time zone to AO)? ;) And so what, you think that we should have all 4 GSs in the northern hemisphere because supposedly they would then be in a better time slot for live viewing for "most people" in the world? :lol: (Perhaps if you look at the population of China for example, and see that they are only 3 hours behind us, therefore it's not such a bad time for them to watch - along with the rest of Asia). :p
:eek:

What has northern and southern hemisphere to do with time zones?

DutchieGirl
Dec 1st, 2007, 04:06 AM
:eek:

What has northern and southern hemisphere to do with time zones?

hmm good point nothing much - I was obviously half asleep when talking about that, although if you look at the countries is the norhtern hemisphere (USA/all of Europe) they tend to be shitty times behind us in the southern hemisphere, and so that's what I was thinking about when I was talking about the hemispheres. :lol:

Asmus
Dec 1st, 2007, 05:46 AM
Changing the AO from the end of the year to the start of the year has helped it no end, not hindered it. And as people have been saying in here, since the 80s it's not had many of the top players skipping it at all. Also, it's position in the globe has absolutely NO bearing on the tourney, as the number of people actually attending is still very high, and keeps rising each year. And yes, it makes it hard for "most people" on the other side of the world (northern hemisphere), but it doesn't actually make it a bad timeslot for "most PEOPLE in the world" - did you take a look at how many people are in the southern hemisphere lately (who have a similar time zone to AO)? ;) And so what, you think that we should have all 4 GSs in the northern hemisphere because supposedly they would then be in a better time slot for live viewing for "most people" in the world? :lol: (Perhaps if you look at the population of China for example, and see that they are only 3 hours behind us, therefore it's not such a bad time for them to watch - along with the rest of Asia). :p

Funny you mention that--I actually lived in China for a year and loved being able to watch it live at normal hours. As China's prominence grows, so will the AO's. Now, however, the bulk of tennis fans are still concentrated in Europe and the Americas (South America is in the southern hemisphere but is pretty similar to North American time). Also, the move from the end to the start has helped it undoubtedly, but it is still at an inconvenient time of the year, and players place the highest priority on being healthy from May until September. While there aren't many players who intentionally skip it, there is a higher amount of withdrawals for this reason (ie, Henin this year, Nadal last year).

Talula
Dec 1st, 2007, 12:45 PM
I think the Australian has become very prestigious and even more prestigious than the French - simply because it is more competitive with more of the big names standing a chance of winning it. RG, with one court wonder Nadal, is boring.

hwanmig
Dec 1st, 2007, 12:55 PM
I think the Australian has become very prestigious and even more prestigious than the French - simply because it is more competitive with more of the big names standing a chance of winning it. RG, with one court wonder Nadal, is boring.

Right:o says who again?. Maybe you've forgotten that RG is a very close second to Wimbledon.

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2007, 01:23 PM
AO introduced some joke through stopping matches because of the heat.
Won't help it's status.

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2007, 01:28 PM
With the heat thing in mind and the knowlegde that the o³ hole will become bigger and bigger it's doubtful that the Australian championships will exist as an outdoor event in 20, 30 years.