question from the board: why the slams are specifically held in aus, france, us & eng [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

question from the board: why the slams are specifically held in aus, france, us & eng

TheSwissMaster
04-17-2008, 07:09 PM
only. why not in anyother country like spain, russia, etc.
On what basis are these slams given to above countries. like in other sports, world cups are held
in different countries every four years on basis of bids or some other criteria, so whats the criteria in tennis, why are they
held in only the above stated countries.


now i know it is a difficult question, but there are a lot of knowledgeable fans in here, so someone might know.

as i said in my previous thread that the russians and spanish are doing so well in tennis, either
on the women side or the mens side, that they do deserve a slam.

australians are left far behind, Hewitt being their only hope,
is finihed, and i dont see any future star coming from there as of now and infact even the americans are struggling but ofcourse they draw huge amount of money/coverage so they can be let go for the time being.

Tzar
04-17-2008, 07:22 PM
only. why not in anyother country like spain, russia, etc.
On what basis are these slams given to above countries. like in other sports, world cups are held
in different countries every four years on basis of bids or some other criteria, so whats the criteria in tennis, why are they
held in only the above stated countries.


now i know it is a difficult question, but there are a lot of knowledgeable fans in here, so someone might know.

as i said in my previous thread that the russians and spanish are doing so well in tennis, either
on the women side or the mens side, that they do deserve a slam.

australians are left far behind, Hewitt being their only hope,
is finihed, and i dont see any future star coming from there as of now and infact even the americans are struggling but ofcourse they draw huge amount of money/coverage so they can be let go for the time being.

so what?

it means next GS should be in serbia too?

Albop
04-17-2008, 07:23 PM
great thread

Jaap
04-17-2008, 07:24 PM
Stick to Cricket and Kabaddi.

Action Jackson
04-17-2008, 07:27 PM
It's a relative of Just Cause.

JustJames
04-17-2008, 07:29 PM
Maybe the countries of the Slams aren't the tennis powers today but when the slams were formed the four countries would have been tennis' leading lights.

And it is in no way comparable to the World Cup.. The Davis Cup is tennis' closest equivalent.

~*BGT*~
04-17-2008, 07:36 PM
Because the first GS were held in those countries. They're not gonna ever move Wimbledon to Switzerland just because Federer rules there. :shrug:

TheSwissMaster
04-17-2008, 07:58 PM
[QUOTE=Jaap;6894767]Stick to Cricket and Kabaddi.[/QUOTE

grand pa have a sleep, goodnight

kalisita
04-17-2008, 08:00 PM
Pretty much for the same reason 90% of things are done in tennis-Tradition.

jazar
04-17-2008, 08:02 PM
back in the 1870's britain was a powerhouse in the world of tennis

leng jai
04-17-2008, 10:05 PM
Its because of racism.

OSmeone
04-17-2008, 10:15 PM
Those four countries were the first 4 to win the Davis Cup, no-one else won it until 1974; that sort of demonstrates why their national championships became pre-eminent over the others, particularly the German and Italian ones.

Snowwy
04-17-2008, 10:22 PM
Its because of racism.

:haha:

FluffyYellowBall
04-17-2008, 10:47 PM
Those four countries were the first 4 to win the Davis Cup, no-one else won it until 1974; that sort of demonstrates why their national championships became pre-eminent over the others, particularly the German and Italian ones.
never knew.

They are also likely tourist destinations?? I wonder if they would have a slam in Serbia for example if it were one of the 1st countries to win Davis Cup.

chris.chan92
04-18-2008, 12:04 AM
It is a huge issue. The tennis powerhouses are ever changing i.e. Australian tennis is in great decline. However, I think tradition should prevail. It should be kept the same.

Timbo
04-18-2008, 12:06 AM
Yeah, let's have one in Dubai so that no spectators turn up until the semi-finals. The four Grand Slams as they currently are have history, that's what makes them special. Switching one to China, Russia or Tanzania would just reduce them to another run-of-the-mill big money event.

Plus, organizing a Grand Slam is a massive job...think of how many players, matches and officials are needed. There aren't many cities that can handle one. A lot of small events are terribly organized as they are.

The only reasons some countries are pushing for a GS are financial...they rake in millions, even billions.

Guigr
04-18-2008, 12:06 AM
Economic power helps these country maintain the Slam where they are. Australia has the smallest economy of the 4 and its struggling to keep its GC.

FiBeR
04-18-2008, 12:09 AM
it happens to be a historical thing

England-France were :boxing: in one of world's oldest rivalry..

french claim to have invented tennis, british claim that too..

Australia was in the end of the world (english speaking world, england = tennis back when there in the 19th century and early 20th) and a brit colony, as well as USA who is a great english speaking nation, and well..you know USA.. :rolls: if you know what i mean

so it made sense to have them where they are when they were invented and held for first time :) and tradition set them on stone :p

Aloimeh
04-18-2008, 12:17 AM
Also, another point re: Russia/Switzerland/Germany/Sweden/Serbia/Spain/whatever-country-was/is-doing-well-in-tennis. The four slam countries are generally politically more stable than other candidate countries. Germany and Eastern Europe (Russia, and Serbia) were wrecked in both world wars, Eastern Europe has always been politically instable, Spain and Italy were fascist under Franco and Mussolini, etc. The only very stable countries on that list would be Switzerland and Sweden.

Timbo
04-18-2008, 01:04 AM
Also, another point re: Russia/Switzerland/Germany/Sweden/Serbia/Spain/whatever-country-was/is-doing-well-in-tennis. The four slam countries are generally politically more stable than other candidate countries. Germany and Eastern Europe (Russia, and Serbia) were wrecked in both world wars, Eastern Europe has always been politically instable, Spain and Italy were fascist under Franco and Mussolini, etc. The only very stable countries on that list would be Switzerland and Sweden.

Yup...tennis was also considered a bourgeois sport which is why it was ignored by a lot of countries with Communist leanings for the first part of the 20th Century. Countries like Russia only tolerated sports like football cos they were thought to have the right "team" work ethic.

xelena
04-18-2008, 01:10 AM
I think that in paris and london they're getting sick of spending huge amounts of money on care for clay and grass.. appearantly the material is expensive, the salaries as well also municipality is involved and is giving funds .. and on top of that IT RAINS for days during the slam..
so spanish ,germans you can start bidding ;);)

Haute
04-18-2008, 01:40 AM
Also, another point re: Russia/Switzerland/Germany/Sweden/Serbia/Spain/whatever-country-was/is-doing-well-in-tennis. The four slam countries are generally politically more stable than other candidate countries. Germany and Eastern Europe (Russia, and Serbia) were wrecked in both world wars, Eastern Europe has always been politically instable, Spain and Italy were fascist under Franco and Mussolini, etc. The only very stable countries on that list would be Switzerland and Sweden.

Since that's been brought up, where any of the Slams held during WWI and WWII?

Merton
04-18-2008, 01:46 AM
:wavey: Mr. Tiriac.

The answer is that those tennis federations have built a unique reputation capital that does not exist for other countries. Even if the US, say, has no US players at the top-20 five years from now there is no doubt that the US Open in 2013 will be the premium event on hard courts. If you move a slam to, say, Serbia, there is a lot of doubt about the event 10 years from now if there are no Serb players at the top of the game.

Timbo
04-18-2008, 02:06 AM
I think that in paris and london they're getting sick of spending huge amounts of money on care for clay and grass.. appearantly the material is expensive, the salaries as well also municipality is involved and is giving funds .. and on top of that IT RAINS for days during the slam..
so spanish ,germans you can start bidding ;);)

The roof will be up on centre court at Wimby next year. They'd still make a profit if the whole event was rained out and cancelled anyway.

TheSwissMaster
04-18-2008, 04:47 AM
so what?

it means next GS should be in serbia too?

no actually i just assumed in the last para that this might be the case for holding slams in the stated countries but then ofcourse if it were to be the case then wimb wouldnt be held in eng and same goes for the french. when was the last time any of their players won a slam.

so i know that assumption is/might be wrong, there must be some other reasons and many members here have given some of them but i dont know which one is true.

and ofcourse talking about serbia, i dont think theyve got enough resources to hold a slam which is ofcourse the primary thing

JimmyV
04-18-2008, 04:59 AM
I've heard next year Wimbledon is being moved to Bosnia.

This thread rocks by the way.

leng jai
04-18-2008, 05:04 AM
We can allocate the WTA slams to other countries, I don't mind.

Saumon
04-18-2008, 06:46 AM
We can allocate the WTA slams to other countries, I don't mind.

Now that's a good idea. :D

Action Jackson
04-18-2008, 07:17 AM
We can allocate the WTA slams to other countries, I don't mind.

They should play the end of season champs in Greenland outdoors for the WTA.

Stensland
04-18-2008, 07:25 AM
first come, first served. as simple as that.

when tennis grew up, the four countries who host these days' slams were the powerhouses, so it makes sense that they keep the big traditional tournaments. it wouldn't make sense to relocate a slam to developing nations anyways since those countries probably wouldn't be able to make as much money as the developed ones and will fail to come up with the prize money needed.

Apemant
04-18-2008, 08:09 AM
Its because of racism.

I'm sure you in fact meant racism mixed up with sexism together with religious bigotry.

:devil:

Aloimeh
04-18-2008, 08:14 AM
I'm sure you in fact meant racism mixed up with sexism together with religious bigotry.

:devil:

Heteronormative patriarchal colonialist scum! :)