Why Wimbledon is So Special. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why Wimbledon is So Special.

angiel
03-17-2007, 07:50 PM
Why Wimbledon is So Special

Ron Atkin


For 11 months of the year there is little happening along Church Road, Wimbledon, to indicate that this is the home of the world's biggest tennis tournament. It is a road much favoured by driving instructors and people exercising dogs. Then, in the build-up to, the staging of and the clearing up at the end of The Championships, all changes. Church Road and its immediate environs in the London suburb of SW19 are filled with those whose task it is to present the tennis and those who have come to watch it.

Wimbledon is special in so many ways. It is the only one of the four Grand Slams still to be played on grass and it remains free from subsidy or indeed any outward sign of commercialism. Because of the worldwide upsurge in tennis interest, it becomes annually more difficult to stay ahead of the rest, but Wimbledon manages to do it. As the previous chairman of the All England Club, John Curry, once said, "One of the skills we have is that we're fuddy-duddy. Once people think we're dynamic that's when we have problems."

Curry was only half-joking. In its quiet, understated fashion, Wimbledon is organised and presented with a precision, which makes it magnificently unique. In the bewildering eddies of tennis, the fastest changing of the major sports, Wimbledon has not only stayed majestically afloat but continues to be the pinnacle of tennis ambition and achievement.

The late Arthur Ashe, one of the tournament's great champions, attempted to explain this phenomenon: "Part of the reason that Wimbledon attracts such attention is that it is a bona fide, certified British tradition and British traditions are just a bit more traditional than anyone else's."

Many players built, and continue to build, their whole year round Wimbledon. Think of the planning that went into the achievements of Bjorn Borg, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova and Boris Becker. Think how Pete Sampras' career has always been arrowed towards this one event - with spectacular success - and how Tim Henman annually bears the considerable burden of British expectation.

It is a tournament which has changed for ever the lives of so many of its champions, for winners like John McEnroe and for losers, too, like Goran Ivanisevic, three times the "bridesmaid" as men's singles runner-up.

Another of The Championships' great champions, Jimmy Connors, calls Wimbledon the Olympics of his sport and John Newcombe, that supreme Australian competitor, has observed, "You can find out anything you want to know about a person by putting him or her on Centre Court at Wimbledon."

Much of Wimbledon's eminence comes from the historical fact of having been first in the field, but that eminence needs to be defended with what might be termed modest ferocity. Many are the sporting enterprises, which have learned to their cost that pre-eminence in their particular field of operations is not necessarily an enduring quality.

There are other tennis events which can claim bigger this or that. The US Open, for example, makes much of the fact that it offers the premium prize money. But none has ever offered the prestige that goes with a Wimbledon title. And for all its so-called amateurish attitude, Wimbledon has been brave and hard-nosed when the necessity arose.

The best example of this came when Wimbledon showed the rest of the world the way in 1968, drawing a curtain over the years of "shamateurism" and under-the-counter payments by opening its gates to amateurs and professionals alike in 1968 - the single most important change in the sport's history.

A recent headline in The Times over an article about Wimbledon pointed out: "The Bubble Keeps on Growing." So it does, and the job Wimbledon carries out so well is to ensure that bubble never bursts.

angiel
03-17-2007, 07:52 PM
Eighty Years of Centre Court

Barry Newcombe


The Centre Court at Wimbledon, the most famous tennis arena in the world, reaches its 80th Birthday during the 2002 Championships. The milestone simply adds another story to the house of legends which this unique grass court has become since its opening in 1922. "It is like a cathedral out there," says John Newcombe, three times singles champion.

The countdown to the 80th birthday includes two particularly special years in the life of Wimbledon. In 2000, Pete Sampras of the United States won his seventh singles title in a finish so late on the Centre Court that the light was fading fast as Sampras eventually overhauled his Australian opponent Pat Rafter in four sets.

A year later the men's final was played in its entirety on the third Monday of The Championships before a crowd which had the opportunity to buy tickets on the day. They were rewarded with a magnificent contest between the new champion Goran Ivanisevic, who was a wild card entry into The Championships, and Rafter. Emotions ran high between supporters of the two finalists and there was an astonishing, noisy atmosphere throughout.

Back in 1921, when it became clear that The Championships should be moved from their first home at Worple Road to what is now Church Road in Wimbledon in time for the 1922 tournament, there was an expectant atmosphere as the new headquarters took shape. The Centre Court, like all the others, was surfaced with Cumberland turf and the demand to provide more spectator accommodation than Worple Road meant an initial provision of 9989 seats. There was standing room for 3600 spectators, divided equally on either side of the court, an arrangement which continued until 1990 when seats were introduced on safety grounds.

The attention to detail for the spectator was considerable and carefully thought out. Nearly all spectators would have such a clear view that they would be able to see a tiny piece of paper on the grass, no matter where they were. Potential patrons were reminded that in shooting it was possible to distinguish between differing game birds in flight and none of those moved as fast as a tennis ball. "No sportsman with average eyesight has the slightest difficulty in distinguishing birds at this distance and therefore the general public should be able to see all the niceties of the game," said a memorandum. In addition, no shadow would appear on the court until 7 p.m.

It may seem entirely appropriate to those who have followed Wimbledon's relationship with bad weather over the years that the momentous first day of the Centre Court was affected by rain. Play was due to start at 2.45 pm but the covers stayed on after a wet morning. King George V and Queen Mary appeared briefly but it was 3.30 pm before the King struck a gong three times to signal the opening of the grounds - and 15 minutes later play began. It rained on every day of The Championships and the tournament was completed on the third Wednesday. The champions were Gerald Patterson of Australia and Suzanne Lenglen of France who were the first players to take the titles after the abolition of the Challenge Round.

The King and Queen were regular visitors to the 1922 tournament, thus setting a pattern of Royal visits which has been maintained ever since. All players on Centre Court bow to royalty in the box and Rod Laver, four times champion, describes the feeling: "It was an ordeal. . . . . it's something I worried about. . . . the main thing is not to bend too far because you might fall flat on your face which would be a bad show. "

Attendances proved that Wimbledon's new home was as popular as anticipated and the Centre Court crowds who occupied the three miles of seating, with 21 miles of wooden slats providing "comfortable backs", were the forerunners of the millions of spectators who have followed in their footsteps. It was six times champion Bjorn Borg who said it was not an unusual sight to see four thousand people standing outside the Centre Court waiting for nothing in particular to happen but that kind of congestion is a thing of the past thanks to the various methods to help spectators to move around the grounds. But the chance to see famous players of yesterday and today in and around the Centre Court remains a fascination for many visitors.

Naturally the Centre Court has established many landmarks over the years. In 1931, a player wearing glasses appeared on the Centre Court for the first time and in the same year a lady played without wearing stockings. A male player in shorts first appeared in 1933.

By 1949 the trophies were presented on Centre Court for the first time, the first lady umpire to officiate on the Centre Court was in 1981, and the first lady to take a final was Georgina Clark who umpired the last match in the ladies' centenary championship. A year later some spectators took the chance to swim in one of the passageways under the court after an immense storm produced one and half inches of rain in 20 minutes. Nine years later a temperature of 115F was recorded on the court on the final day of The Championships.

The Centre Court was re-roofed in 1992 and has four support pillars instead of the original 22. It had to take a back seat for a while when the new No. 1 Court was opened in 1997 but there has never been any loss of stature for the famous old place. It has housed tennis of quality, of character, and of style in its unique pathway to becoming the only Grand Slam Championship to still be played on the game's original surface.

jazar
03-17-2007, 08:08 PM
wimbledon is less special now there is equal prize money

thrust
03-17-2007, 08:17 PM
Wimbledon was ALWAYS overrated!

A_Skywalker
03-17-2007, 08:53 PM
For me it is not so special . All 4 GS are equal

ranaldo
03-17-2007, 09:35 PM
I always thought Wimbledon is the only grand slam where lower ranked players are so boring to watch! It's so demanding that if u don't master all the techniques on grass you look sillly on court!
My fave tournies are Roland Garros and the US open.

angiel
03-19-2007, 06:07 PM
I always thought Wimbledon is the only grand slam where lower ranked players are so boring to watch! It's so demanding that if u don't master all the techniques on grass you look sillly on court!
My fave tournies are Roland Garros and the US open.


Nobody look more sillier than the players running around on red clay, not grass court my friend.:mad: :mad: :devil:

R.Federer
03-19-2007, 06:11 PM
Many players built, and continue to build, their whole year round Wimbledon. Think of the planning that went into the achievements of Bjorn Borg, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova and Boris Becker. Think how Pete Sampras' career has always been arrowed towards this one event - with spectacular success - and how Tim Henman annually bears the considerable burden of British expectation.

This is a fallacy. Only players with great odds of being successful might plan their years around Wimbledon, and even then, in what sense? Do a token tune up I guess. How many players who expected to go deep at Wimbledon did not play the French for fear of burnout?

FluffyYellowBall
03-19-2007, 06:13 PM
For me, Wimbledon is not more special than other GS and if i had to rate them, its the least one id like to go to. Its normal. Its just special coz its a surface that we dont see much of this year and its a change for hard courters and esp clay courters. Its just nice to see how players adapt to grass. Nadal recently said that hes more comfortable on grass than hard so that was unexpected

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-19-2007, 06:15 PM
All 4 GS are equal

FedFan
03-19-2007, 06:25 PM
All Grand slams are equal, but Wimbledon ist by far the most prestigious and traditional tournament, where almost every player with a decent chance wants to win at least once in the career. ;)

For further questin ask Mr. Lendl. :p

Jim Courier
03-19-2007, 06:42 PM
Outside of the obvious (grass major, great palmares and history)
-5 sets doubles: the only one outside of DC. It's a shame RG has dumbed down doubles
-no commercials: very relaxing to watch, fits well with the white and green color theme and it is nice that all-permeating ads are denied entry, makes you feel that the place is about tennis and not selling TV rights

My favourite slam with RG, but objectively i should put Wimbledon first.

tennis2tennis
03-19-2007, 06:47 PM
I think wimbeldon is the most famous grand slam, people who don't watch the game tune in on Wimbledon, probably because its the oldest and most presitigous tournament..My best friend is American and she more into Basketball the only time she ever tunes into tennis is when wimbledon is on.


It and the French open are classy in that they never do that really embarressing thing of handing the winner the cheque then telling everyone how much it was for....that's sooooooooo tacky

Agassi Aces
03-19-2007, 06:47 PM
Wimbledon means so much to me in my heart. Ask any great tennis player which slam means the most and its Wimby!!!!

Boris Franz Ecker
03-19-2007, 07:01 PM
All 4 GS are equal

Not in Nadals eyes.
He's a good boy and he knows the truth.

angiel
03-22-2007, 08:36 PM
Wimbledon,,,,,,Wimbledon,,,,Wimbledon,,,,,,Wimbled on,,,,:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :D

supertommyhaas
03-22-2007, 09:45 PM
ao is the best

A_S
03-22-2007, 09:50 PM
Much of Wimbledon's eminence comes from the historical fact of having been first in the field, but that eminence needs to be defended with what might be termed modest ferocity. Many are the sporting enterprises, which have learned to their cost that pre-eminence in their particular field of operations is not necessarily an enduring quality.

on on gods earth does that mean? :rolleyes: anyone else hate people trying too look cleaver in using such flowery language when simpler english would surfice?

FanofFederer
03-22-2007, 09:52 PM
Wimbledon is the greatest tournament of all. Winning Wimbledon wins much more than winning any other tournament. If you win Wimbledon you are truly a great of the game forever and forever, if you win another grand slam you are a good player in history but nothing more.

tennisvideos
03-22-2007, 09:56 PM
Wimbledon is special and has a great tradition and a wondeful history BUT is it the greatest measure of the best player in the world?

NOT ANY MORE ... in fact not since the mid to late 70s!

Why? Since the mid 70s it has really become a novelty event. When most of the grass court tournaments were abolished around that time to make way for hardcourt tournaments the game evolved (not necessarily in a good way) and players adapted accordingly - and quickly. There just isn't enough focus on grass court tournaments to motivate players to volley or use the finer shots like short slices and chips etc these days.

With the decline in grass court play and the changes in racket technology, in a short space of time the sport was inundated with players who stayed predominantly on the baseline and bludgeoned the ball, and grass only suited the small percentage who had a big serve and could volley.

So I can easily understand why Navratilova and Sampras dominated at Wimbledon for so long. There is no doubt they were the premier S&V volleys of their generation, certainly up there with the best ever, and on grass it was relatively easy pickings for them in an era when their main opposition were predominantly baseliners. In previous eras they would have had more top class S&V players to contend with, and it would have made their aspirations much more difficult. Of course they would have both won plenty with their talent.

I do love Wimbledon, but I see it as really just a novelty tournament these days. It is definately not a true world championship. Not when there are only a couple of other tournaments worldwide that are played on the surface. So it is stacked, I mean truly stacked in favour of the one or two players that have the style of game suited to a grass court. Most players these days have no idea how to effectively play on the surface. I do love McEnroe's idea of extending the grass court season to make it more relevant. But it's a shame tennis administrators allowed racket technology to get out of control, and grass courts to be all but extinct - the artistry of the game, and variety of the game has been all but extinguished.

Bottom line ... Wimbledon is special - it is imbued with an incredible atmosphere and a wonderful history, but in our current day when we only have a couple of tournaments played on this specialist surface, it is not a true championship IMHO.

Hugh Jaas
03-22-2007, 10:45 PM
the only reason people "THINK" wimbledon is special is because of the banal 19th century rules that still exist there.

One example is the "white only" uniform rule, i am not surprised that the organisers haven't told Gael monfils/William's sisters to paint their faces white to conform to Wimbledon's ancient rules.

wake up wimbledon/Britain/England you don't rule half of the planet anymore so drop the act.

Conita
03-22-2007, 11:26 PM
i love wimbledon and it is special because of it's tradition and everything, but different slams have a different value over players according to where they come from, back home (chile) wimbledon doesn't have the impact or the importance that Roland Garros has, and for a lot of players their aim is to win RG and not Wimbledon Gaudio and the same applies for players who grew admiring wimbledon ie Federer.
i think all GS are just as valuable, Wimbly just has more tradition that's all

All_Slam_Andre
03-22-2007, 11:38 PM
Since 1988 (when the Australian Open finally got its act together), all 4 grand slams have been on a par with each other. Of course we all have our personal preferences, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are all equally important

CmonAussie
03-22-2007, 11:49 PM
*><*
...
Wimbledon has lost some of it`s prestige in my eyes.

Honestly I get more excited about AO, FO & USO ~ than i do about Wimby!!

Perhaps it`s the all whites, or the knowledge that only a few guys have a chance of winning [actually only 1 can win it now]~> whereas the other 3-Slams seem much more open!!

Wimby crowds are polite but too polite in my opinion~~>> god dammit if you`ve got a favourite then support them with gusto!!

All_Slam_Andre
03-22-2007, 11:52 PM
I personally think that the Australian Open easily has the best crowds out of the 4 slams. The Wimbledon crowd are too tame and polite, the French and US open crowds can sometimes get too raucous (even as an Agassi fan I hated the treated that Baghdatis got in their match last year), while the Australian crowd are very passionate and enthusiastic about their tennis without becoming too intimidating.

Corey Feldman
03-23-2007, 12:14 AM
No matter what clay hacks or anyone else says, Wimbledon is the crown of world tennis, no doubt about it.

Kolya
03-23-2007, 08:10 AM
Wimbledon started it all...

bokehlicious
03-23-2007, 08:57 AM
Wimbledon IS tennis (for non tennis fans)

Ferrero Forever
03-23-2007, 11:31 AM
A little off topic, but before I was really into tennis, Mum asked me 'why don't you go to Wimbledon'. I said to her, how the hell am I going to get there? She said 'I can drive you, it's only in the city'. I said 'Mum, it's in England' 'No it's not, it's in Melbourne.' 'They call it the Australian Open for a reason Mum'

My mum is an idiot.

nobama
03-23-2007, 11:43 AM
Wimbledon IS tennis (for non tennis fans)Yep.

Didn't Nadal say (in 2005 I think) that the slam he really wanted to win was Wimbledon? Fact is Wimbledon has a prestige that the other slams don't and I think it will always be that way.

angiel
03-23-2007, 04:50 PM
i love wimbledon and it is special because of it's tradition and everything, but different slams have a different value over players according to where they come from, back home (chile) wimbledon doesn't have the impact or the importance that Roland Garros has, and for a lot of players their aim is to win RG and not Wimbledon Gaudio and the same applies for players who grew admiring wimbledon ie Federer.
i think all GS are just as valuable, Wimbly just has more tradition that's all



No my friend you are wrong, wimbledon has more impact than the French Open ever will, just by winning it.:worship: :worship:

guga2120
03-23-2007, 05:39 PM
No my friend you are wrong, wimbledon has more impact than the French Open ever will, just by winning it.:worship: :worship:

you must not live in South America or Europe b/c that is wrong, i would say worldwide Roland Garros is the most important, but the poster was right it just depends on where you are.

Boris Franz Ecker
03-23-2007, 08:20 PM
...
Wimbledon has lost some of it`s prestige in my eyes.


Au contraire, it gained prestige since World's best player Federer always repeats how most important it is and World's best claycourter Nadal doesn't hesitate to agree.

Loremaster
03-23-2007, 09:04 PM
Wimbledon is so special because Wimbledon is special :)

angiel
03-24-2007, 08:00 PM
you must not live in South America or Europe b/c that is wrong, i would say worldwide Roland Garros is the most important, but the poster was right it just depends on where you are.


I dont have to live in South America and if you ask anyone in Europe they will tell that Wimbledon is more special than the French Open, take a poll in Europe and see if I am wrong.:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

angiel
03-24-2007, 08:05 PM
Fred Perry Remembered


Mike Donovan


Fred Perry's name is brought up each Wimbledon as Britain searches for a successor to him as the Gentlemen's Champion.

It is 70 years since he completed the first of his three Singles titles the All-England Club. The achievement has cast its shadow over every male player with GB in parenthesis by his name on the draw sheet at the world's greatest tennis tournament.

If today's chief torchbearers of the odyssey, Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski, needed any reminder of Perry's legacy and missed the FJP stamp issued in Gambia in 1990, it is embodied in the gates named after him at the Somerset Road entrance and, more strikingly, the statue by the main Church Road gate in the shadow of Centre Court. The bronze monument to Britain's most successful male tennis player of the 20th century, by David Wynne, depicts him as he was winning Wimbledon in 1934, 1935 and 1936; long-trousered and elegant.

I met Perry in the media and Championship officials canteen as he took a break from his pithy, erudite and frank Wimbledon commentaries for BBC radio, a job he had done every year bar one (when he suffered a blood clot on his lung) since 1947.

He rather liked Wynne's sculpture, telling me: "With the statue and gates with my name, it's all a great thrill. People are now saying ' I'll meet you at the Perry statue'. It's a strange feeling, makes you feel a little queasy. It's a beautifully-done statue. People don't know how I used to be, they only know me as I am now."

He clearly felt good about having something there for future generations to remember him the way he was. Perry said: "The old people will get fewer and fewer as time goes by."

He had positive emotions about Wimbledon. "It's a very nostalgic place. I've had a love affair with Wimbledon ever since I can remember. It stays with you.

"When I was there with the surviving champions celebrating the hundred years of Wimbledon in 1977 I realised I hadn't walked on to Centre Court at Wimbledon with people in it since 1936."

Perry appreciated what the event means to all its champions. "There haven't been any rich players, in the main, who have won Wimbledon. They have been unmonied players who have become rich as a result of winning the title at Wimbledon."

He also knew about Wimbledon uniqueness and enduring popularity: "You can ask players 'are you going to the Australian Open or the French Open?'. You don't ask 'are you going to the British Open?'. You ask ' are you going to Wimbledon?' All tennis players want to play Wimbledon and spectators like to go to it."

But the answer as to why Britain had not produced a male champion since his era eluded him. "Don't ask me why there hasn't been one since, I don't know. Why should it have been me? I don't know, but it happened to me."

Perry was the first player to win all four Grand Slams, a feat only equalled by Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Andre Agassi. He claimed the US Open (three times), the French and Australian Open titles.

But it was his victories at the All-England Club that he cherished above all others. In his autobiography, he said: "Wimbledon has been the scene of my greatest triumphs."

He overcame Australian Jack Crawford 6-3, 6-0, 7-5 to capture his first Wimbledon title before consecutive final victories over German Gottfried von Cramm, 6-2, 6-4, 6-4 and 6-1, 6-1, 6-0. It made him the first Briton since Laurie Doherty in 1904 to complete three consecutive Wimbledon final wins.

His second triumph against Von Cramm took just 40 minutes and was the swiftest final since William Renshaw defeated John Hartley in 1881. His opponent might suitably have been renamed Von Cramm-p that day. In his book, Perry revealed the inside information that helped.

Perry said: "He (a pre-match masseur) told me Von Cramm had been out to practice that morning, had overstretched his muscles before he was sufficiently warmed up and had suffered a groin cramp... he is going to have trouble stretching wide to the right.

"I was always a believer in stamping on my opponent if I got him down, at Wimbledon or anywhere else. I never wanted to give him the chance to get up. If I could have beaten him six-minus-one instead of six-love I would."

The secret behind his successes was the ruthless streak, a running forehand and supreme fitness allied, of course, to ability. The fact he trained with the Arsenal Football Club reflected his approach which he used it to good effect when getting professional tennis rolling on moving to the United States.

His attitude put him at odds with the amateur outlook of his day, but any rebukes were forgotten by him when it came to remembering his Wimbledon era. He had mellowed from the "rebel" - as he was labeled by some elements of the tennis establishment in England - who admitted to being "sometimes a little brash and arrogant about what I regarded as the class-ridden set up there (Wimbledon)"..

In Fred Perry: An Autobiography, he recalled his farewell to the courts as a player before turning professional after helping Britain to their fourth successive Davis Cup victory; the last three being at Wimbledon.

It was against Australia in July, 1936. "As I walked off court, Dan Maskell came out to take my rackets, as he always did. As we went behind the barrier leading to the dressing rooms, I said 'just a minute Dan' and I walked back on to Centre Court and took a final look around at the crowded stands. In that instant Maskell knew I was going to go pro, that I had gone from Wimbledon and the Davis Cup.

"I knew I would never play on Centre Court again because I had been back in England since April and nothing had been done to encourage me to stay in the amateur game. "Those seven Wimbledons had been wonderful, and in spite of everything that had gone on in the past two years, my great love affair with the place had never faltered. To me it was and always will be the greatest tennis venue in the world, and all my memories of Wimbledon are fond ones.

"All the hatchets have been buried now. To its great credit, Wimbledon has been a leader in bringing about change and improvement in the sport."

Perry, who predicted that Pete Sampras would dominate Wimbledon before the American had made his mark at the top level, lived in the real world. But he was always emotional about the lawns that brought him his fame. He passed on three months from his 86th birthday in 1995 but will be forever young thanks to a bronze work of art.

Conita
03-24-2007, 08:07 PM
I dont have to live in South America and if you ask anyone in Europe they will tell that Wimbledon is more special than the French Open, take a poll in Europe and see if I am wrong.:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

take a poll in south america!
people from europe say Wimbledon is more special
people from south america believe its Roland Garros!

Sjengster
03-24-2007, 08:26 PM
One example is the "white only" uniform rule, i am not surprised that the organisers haven't told Gael monfils/William's sisters to paint their faces white to conform to Wimbledon's ancient rules.

I'm not surprised they haven't either.

angiel
03-24-2007, 08:29 PM
take a poll in south america!
people from europe say Wimbledon is more special
people from south america believe its Roland Garros!


Are you so sure the people in South America will say Roland Garros, you might be surprise about that poll my friend, when they say Wimbledon is more special.:wavey: :wavey: :angel:

CyBorg
03-24-2007, 09:06 PM
The quality of the postings here is top notch.

Keep them coming, trolls.

Boris Franz Ecker
03-24-2007, 09:16 PM
take a poll in south america!
people from europe say Wimbledon is more special
people from south america believe its Roland Garros!

This comparison is nonsense.

Think a little about it and you should know why.

FluffyYellowBall
03-24-2007, 09:34 PM
you must not live in South America or Europe b/c that is wrong, i would say worldwide Roland Garros is the most important, but the poster was right it just depends on where you are.

Thats quite true actually. Different value to different people. Difference between special and valuble. I know some people (from egypt) who are ex tennis champs and travel a lot to watch tennis and let me tell u, they would never even watch wimbledon on tv. Thats just how it is. I dont know whats the reason for it rlly. I guess some people (cultures)love an exciting atmosphere like the us open and pant pissing nerve wracking tennis on clay and hard. I like to watch wimbledon on tv but its not as exciting as the french and the uso.

Conita
03-24-2007, 11:58 PM
This comparison is nonsense.

Think a little about it and you should know why.

ok i have nothing against wimbledon all i am saying is that you can't say a GS is better or more valuable than any other simply because that is subjective.
i was born in a south american country where most people don't care at all about wimbledon, but they give a great deal of attention to Roland Garros and it's RG who most players from south america aspire to win.
and before you say anything, i live in the UK now where most people don't really care about RG but they do to Wimledon.
i don't see why that might be nonesense.

yomike
03-25-2007, 08:53 AM
A breakdown of the source of Wimbledon's prestige.

stuffy English aristocrats and traditions from the stone age; bowing to blue blooded jerks sitting in the Royal Box:bs: ,

not a bad idea having an ugly Queen as your patron


I'll bring my A game at Wimbledon = I'm gonna serve ace after ace. I'm not even working to earn my points and people say this is real tennis:silly:

The greatest ever player Pete Sampras won here a record 7 times so if Pete is the greatest ever player then Wimbledon must be the greatest Grand Slam of them all.