The French Open: Who Cares? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The French Open: Who Cares?

Jaffas85
06-09-2006, 09:44 AM
The following article is from an Australian newspaper, "The Sydney Morning Herald" and is about how French Open champions go on to have little to no success in the other Grand Slams (especially Wimbledon) thereby asserting that the French Open is pretty much the most worthless slam and its results and players the most forgettable because of how different its inconsistent its results are when looking at who the top players are and how they play at the other, more mainstream Grand Slams.

Article: "The French Open - Who Cares?":

http://blogs.smh.com.au/sport/archives/2006/06/the_french_open_1.html


What do you all think?

Personally, I think the French Open is the least important of the grand slams because it's played on Clay meaning that many of the world's best players can't produce their best or most consistent results, ie. Federer. And also, its out of step when compared to how the other grand slams are and its results are not considered very important in terms of how a player will go in other grand slams. It's a bit of an anamolie.

Action Jackson
06-09-2006, 09:46 AM
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Such quality.

~EMiLiTA~
06-09-2006, 09:49 AM
pathetic, biased Australian journalism at its best

BlackSilver
06-09-2006, 09:52 AM
Sometimes I think that the administrators should shut down new registrations

Ferrero Forever
06-09-2006, 09:54 AM
Well done Sydney Herald. Got to love the way Australia views tennis

FSRteam
06-09-2006, 09:55 AM
The following article is from an Australian newspaper, "The Sydney Morning Herald" and is about how French Open champions go on to have little to no success in the other Grand Slams (especially Wimbledon) thereby asserting that the French Open is pretty much the most worthless slam and its results and players the most forgettable because of how different its inconsistent its results are when looking at who the top players are and how they play at the other, more mainstream Grand Slams.

Article: "The French Open - Who Cares?":

http://blogs.smh.com.au/sport/archives/2006/06/the_french_open_1.html


What do you all think?

Personally, I think the French Open is the least important of the grand slams because it's played on Clay meaning that many of the world's best players can't produce their best or most consistent results, ie. Federer. And also, its out of step when compared to how the other grand slams are and its results are not considered very important in terms of how a player will go in other grand slams. It's a bit of an anamolie.

In europe and in south america most people would say it is the most important of the gd chelem, I guess! People are almost all brought up on the clay ine the summer time at least and they all watch RG on tv. Wmby is the most traditional one and prestigious but almost nobody plays on it. For instance, I think that there's no grass court in Switzerland in my knowledge!

I know that in australia there are plenty though...

Tom_Bombadil
06-09-2006, 09:55 AM
It's not FO fault that it's the only clay grand slam you know? Till recently US Open was also on clay. I would love to see what it would be the ATP circuit if we'd have two clay grand slams.

From my point of view, I'd never call such a tournament an anomaly. It's a different kind of game, but it's still tennis and I love the toughness of the clay game.

By the way, the Wimbledon winners are a very good indicative of the bright players on the circuit. Hahahah. Look at past winners and finalists and look at what they done after winning Wimbledon.

~EMiLiTA~
06-09-2006, 09:56 AM
Well done Sydney Herald. Got to love the way Australia views tennis

exactly...and then they wonder why there are hardly any up and coming players in this country. The sport has no exposure here and what exposure it does get, comes in the form of these pathetically bigotted news articles

scoobs
06-09-2006, 09:57 AM
Well I think there is a point in there though I don't agree with how it's been expressed.

It is true that French Open champions have rarely had the best of it elsewhere and it's also true that other Slam winners haven't had the best of it in Paris - I always thought it a shame that the Paris crowds never really got to see the best of Pete Sampras at their home slam, for instance.

I think the surfaces diverged too much in the 1990s - grass was too fast and clay was too slow and the disparities were so wide that they were almost different sports - it's amazing Agassi managed a career slam in this period.

It's good to see semi-finalists at Roland this year who have proven records on other surfaces too.

FSRteam
06-09-2006, 09:58 AM
It's not FO fault that it's the only clay grand slam you know? Till recently US Open was also on clay. I would love to see what it would be the ATP circuit if we'd have two clay grand slams.

From my point of view, I'd never call such a tournament an anomaly. It's a different kind of game, but it's still tennis and I love the toughness of the clay game.

By the way, the Wimbledon winners are a very good indicative of the bright players on the circuit. Hahahah. Look at past winners and finalists and look at what he done after winning Wimbledon.

Such as sampras for instance!?!

Right, was a really bad player who didn't achieve much beside winning wimby! :rolleyes:

lucindia
06-09-2006, 10:01 AM
That's the most interesting, cuz if it was on hard too, doing the big slam would not not be as difficult, as special!
The players who win the 4 major have to be good on every surfaces, i think that it's fair!

supersexynadal
06-09-2006, 10:04 AM
ummmm.....Well what if i saw who cares about wimbledon because players also dont produce the same results. Tennis would be darn boring is all the tour was played on hard and grass. And we wouldnt get to see some players show their potential on their fav surfaces

Tom_Bombadil
06-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Such as sampras for instance!?!

Right, was a really bad player who didn't achieve much beside winning wimby! :rolleyes:

Platypus is a mammalian too. You're right: here's your prize. :angel:

I also can say: Bjorg. :rolleyes:

oz_boz
06-09-2006, 10:09 AM
Federer's clay success and Nadal's coming on hardcourts are proof enough that that Sydney paper are writing pure bullshit. Maybe the guy who wrote it is still mad that AO is traditionally considered the least important slam. If they wrote it after RG 2004 or even -05, it'd have made a tiny bit of sense, but now it's just plain ridiculous.

fadou
06-09-2006, 10:26 AM
i'm sorry but this stephen doesn't know anything on tennis
these 4 turnements (ao,fo,uso,wimbly) are the best tennis turnements on 4 differents surfaces and there are at the same level.
but each turnement has the own characteristics, own originality

Halba
06-09-2006, 10:28 AM
It carries equal weight w.r.t other grand slams? Why less or why more? SAME importance

*Ljubica*
06-09-2006, 10:31 AM
What a ridiculous article :rolleyes:

supersexynadal
06-09-2006, 10:32 AM
This article is a result of someone overanalyzing and wanting to be different.SAD

scarecrows
06-09-2006, 10:52 AM
just bollocks

BlueSwan
06-09-2006, 11:12 AM
The least prestigious slam has always been the Australian Open. Up until the mid-90's, it was still a tournament many top players simply skipped. It has definitely grown in stature since then, but still ranks at the bottom of the slams.

Wimbledon is traditionally the most prestigious tournament, but is as much, if not more, of an anomaly as Roland Garros. Only a select few players are usually in with a chance of winning wimbledon. During the last few years wimbledon has become slower, allowing for non-serve and volleyers to have a shot at the title, but in the 90's the tournament was pretty predictable.

Roland Garros is probably the most prestigious tournament in southern Europe and southern America. On the other hand, the Nortern Americans don't seem to give a damn about it. It is the most gruelling tennis tournament there is, which gives it special meaning, although it is true that specialists have dominated the tournament since the 90's.

The US Open is probably the tournament where the top ranked players produce their best results. Not so strange since it's on hard courts, which is the dominant surface on the ATP tour, AND its played during a time of the year when players are supposed to be in peak form - unlike the Australian Open, where many players often seem out of shape.

So basically, Wimbledon is the most prestigious, the best player of the year is likely to be the US open champion, the fittest player of the year is likely to be the Rolland Garros champion and just about anyone might end up as the Aussie Open champion.

connectolove
06-09-2006, 11:32 AM
Apparently not even the French care bc there is almost a no show in the semifinal with Federer & Nalbandian.

FSRteam
06-09-2006, 11:37 AM
Platypus is a mammalian too. You're right: here's your prize. :angel:

I also can say: Bjorg. :rolleyes:

And a couple of others that it'd take me too long to add to the list... :rolleyes:

Guybrush
06-09-2006, 11:40 AM
It's not FO fault that it's the only clay grand slam you know? Till recently US Open was also on clay. I would love to see what it would be the ATP circuit if we'd have two clay grand slams.

No thanks. One is too much! http://www.forum.hr/images/smilies/kava.gif

FSRteam
06-09-2006, 11:45 AM
No thanks. One is too much! http://www.forum.hr/images/smilies/kava.gif

:haha: :haha: :haha:

marifline
06-09-2006, 11:54 AM
BlueSwan I totally agree with you. In France, for people who don't know much about tennis , well tennis=Roland Garros.

Experimentee
06-09-2006, 12:03 PM
The game needs the French Open, as it is unique and you need to play a different kind of tennis to win. Otherwise all the Slams would be pretty much the same.

This is a really stupid article but sadly thats what a lot of people think in Australia. Thats why the media doesnt care about clay court tennis and we dont get any free to air coverage of RG. If Hewitt or another Aussie won the French on the other hand, everyone would care :rolleyes:

TheMightyFed
06-09-2006, 12:17 PM
Stupid article, he got trashed in the readers' comments by the way, the guy looks ridiculous on his own blog !

Kat!
06-09-2006, 02:29 PM
Biggest load of crap written. This guy has no creditibility when he mentions State of Origin alongside Roland Garros :rolleyes:

betterthanhenman
06-09-2006, 02:35 PM
In the time I can remember...

Players that won the French...Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, Muster, Courier, Ferrero, Nadal etc etc. That is quite an impressive list of names. (Am too young to actually remember Borg winning it, but you know what I mean :) )

Players that tried and couldn't win there...Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Sampras etc etc. Another impressive list of names.

Some people win the French and they will not be considered greats of the game. The same can be said of Wimbledon, which when not dominated by Federer and Sampras, has winners like Kajicek and as much as I liked him, Goran.

Every Slam tests different attributes and skills. Ultimately, French and Wimbledon for me are the top two by some distance still.

Scotso
06-09-2006, 02:36 PM
Dump clay on Wimbledon. Then we'll have some real tennis. :D

Rogiman
06-09-2006, 02:44 PM
If Federer wins on sunday I won't mind him taking a break between Miami and Halle for the rest of his career, win as many Wimbledons as he wants and take a pass on this load of crap called clay season :)

Conita
06-09-2006, 03:11 PM
Personally, I think the French Open is the least important of the grand slams because it's played on Clay meaning that many of the world's best players can't produce their best or most consistent results, ie. Federer. And also, its out of step when compared to how the other grand slams are and its results are not considered very important in terms of how a player will go in other grand slams. It's a bit of an anamolie.

mm i disagree with u.
First of all, all 4 GS are just as important as eachother, they test different abilities for different players! clay is the probably the toughess surface, this has been said by many many players including Federer.
this in my eyes is reason enough to make RG a very interesting slam and very challenging!
secondly i think the worlds best at the momet Fed, Nadal and Nalbi do produce their best tennis, because they can show a range of different abilities that in hard or grass courts cannot/may not be preformed as well.
i think all GS are amazing because all 4 of them bring different things into th game different aspects of the players are shown. this creates more competion in tennis and therefore is more exiting i mean how boring would it be to have only one surface! then players wouldnt be able to show the versitality of the game they may provide.

and as far as the article goes for me its just like the us people not caring about football (soccer) only because their players arent good at it doesnt mean the sport/surface is boring.

iloveupeterpan
06-09-2006, 05:15 PM
I care Roland Garros most..........
This article sucks

tangerine_dream
06-09-2006, 05:21 PM
The article may be biased but it also states a truth: most RG champions are one-hit wonders who don't do much else.

I do, however, believe that Nadal will help change this perception because I don't believe that Rafa is a one-hit wonder and he has proven that he can win big titles off the clay as well. And if Roger wins RG then that will blow away the one-hit wonder notion too. For a while, at least.

Plus: I love articles that piss off the clay elitists. That's always a good thing. :dance:

*Viva Chile*
06-09-2006, 05:23 PM
this article really sucks, but I understand coming from Australia where don't like tennis on clay.

Roland Garros is the most important Grand Slam tournament after Wimbledon in my opinion, and the Australian Open always has been "the little brother" of the 4 grand slams always, many comentarists said that too. Personally I think each grand slam tourney is unique and all of them have their own good things ;)

joeb_uk
06-09-2006, 05:33 PM
Sure it isnt wimbledon? Where you have only a few players who are actually capable of playing top level tennis on the surface? Look at the quality of opposition on surfaces like clay, and even hardcourt. It doesnt even come close to the poor standard and quality of opposition grass. I would sure call that the most meaningless.