An alarming French Open stat for the men's tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

An alarming French Open stat for the men's tennis

Sam L (WTAW)
08-04-2005, 10:53 AM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 11:04 AM
Is this above post serious?

The US is not the epicentre of the tennis world and when Courier won it, they didn't care then and the only reason they cared when Agassi won it was because it was the Slam that gave him the career Slam.

Speak for yourself about RG winners not getting recognised, considering that it's a common view that it's the toughest Slam to win and Agassi the guy won all 4 of them has said that.

You're cracking jokes with those reasons stated previously.

ae wowww
08-04-2005, 11:08 AM
You think because 'people' don't recognise French Open winners, the said players don't win again??

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 11:08 AM
Speak for yourself about RG winners not getting recognised
:yeah:

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 11:11 AM
You think because 'people' don't recognise French Open winners, the said players don't win again??

It's not as alarming as claiming that it's damaging men's tennis, to tell you the truth I don't think Costa, Bruguera, Kuerten or Gaudio care less.

Come to think of it even when Wilander won RG, he was still disrepected when he won the other 2 Slams.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 11:16 AM
:yeah:

I forgot it's an alarming stat that Borg was the last guy to win Wimbledon and RG in the same year.

This means that if Fed wins RG, he probably won't win Wimbledon in the same year, that is truly alarming.

Choupi
08-04-2005, 11:17 AM
The title of the thread teases me...I was like "what's up?"...but I have to say I'm kinda disappointed...

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.
You can't be serious! The players you named, not recognized by the crowd...Let me have a laugh. :D Are you really convinced that the French Open is gonna lose significance? Don't forget about the particular attraction it can have among tennis fans who prefer clay as a surface. RG has always had-and will always have!!!- that special atmosphere able to attract so many ppl...no matter who the winner is or could be! I've got 1 question, have you ever been to the French Open? Do you know how it feels? I hope you're not saying what you said only because you think that clay's not worth mentioning and that only the 3 other GS are worthy...

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.
To make it clear, I have nothing against the 2 players you mentioned, but, I doubt that a victory from them at the FO would change anything to its significance or validity...call it whatever you want.

Thoughts?
Thanks for the entertainment... :)

MariaV
08-04-2005, 12:05 PM
Thanks for the entertainment... :)

Ditto.
Entertainment on MTF is always good. :lol:

sigmagirl91
08-04-2005, 12:07 PM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?

Where did you get this drivel? Did you pull this out your rear?

yomike
08-04-2005, 12:11 PM
Get real dude?

its.like.that
08-04-2005, 12:22 PM
I forgot it's an alarming stat that Borg was the last guy to win Wimbledon and RG in the same year.

This means that if Fed wins RG, he probably won't win Wimbledon in the same year, that is truly alarming.

saying that that guy from the landlocked country won't be able to do it.. you don't see Fed as a deserving successor to Bjorn?

yaasmeen
08-04-2005, 12:47 PM
Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

:rolleyes:
i must agree with everyone else...to say that the players that you mentioned "are not recognised by people" is pretty ridiculous. those are all current or former top 10 players!! if "people" are the non-tennis world -- i think the problem becomes one of poor international sports coverage in whatever country you live

and if this is truly your theory -- i think that Nadal will blow your ideas to hell within the next few years...

Paul Banks
08-04-2005, 12:58 PM
:retard:

Whistleway
08-04-2005, 02:25 PM
You all act like there is no truth to what Sam says. Withstanding the leap of logic, he brings quite a point that many here have been telling for a while.

Why FO dirt ballers don't win other slams? As long as Nadal keeps playing till august on clay, this aint gonna change. And it is time to see these FO CHAMPIONS do something on other surfaces as well !!

oneandonlyhsn
08-04-2005, 02:39 PM
You all act like there is no truth to what Sam says. Withstanding the leap of logic, he brings quite a point that many here have been telling for a while.

Why FO dirt ballers don't win other slams? As long as Nadal keeps playing till august on clay, this aint gonna change. And it is time to see these FO CHAMPIONS do something on other surfaces as well !!

I agree with this post, and I hope Rafa or Roger or whoever wins it next wins another slam outside RG.

disturb3d
08-04-2005, 02:46 PM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?
You have a point, Sonny.

Imagine David Nalbino winning the US or french. Which would bring him more publicity? Hard court is more wide-spread than clay, and is recognized to a greater extent in the states.

Roddick, who won a single US Open title. Is more celebrated than Guga, with 3 Garros titles; the greatest player of the late 90's.

Jim Jones
08-04-2005, 02:54 PM
why doesn't Sam L post? Has he backed out with all these negative posts?

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 03:11 PM
I hate the term 'dirt ballers'. It sounds so condescending to me but that's beside the point.

Why do so few clay courters win another slam? Hasn't this been discussed before and doesn't this have to do with the nature of the FO surface demanding a totally different sort of game than the typical approach that would give you good results in the other 3 GS tournaments?

Why not turn around the question? Why do so many American or British or Australian or...tennis players have so much trouble winning the FO?
Does this perhaps result in the need to downplay the FO just because those players have so much trouble winning it?
If Americans or at least a USO champ does not win the FO soon, it will loose its appeal? Is that it? :eek: Come on, get real!

Many Americans may look down on the FO for some reason (do they really? :confused: ) but I doubt that an American who really loves tennis frowns upon the FO (at least, I would hope not).
BUT the world of tennis is more than just the US.
In general, Europeans love clay court tennis as do the South-Americans.
I can assure you that Guga is loved and respected where I live.

Would the profile of FO be enhanced if Roddick wins it? In the US, yes it would because many Americans seems to prefer looking at one of their own winning an important tournament. Living in a very small country, I do not really share the same attitude. If I would focus only on my countrymen alone, I would have few sports events to enjoy (however, it's a natural thing to want to see 'one of your own' doing well. It still happens in my small country: tennis only gets coverage here when Henin-Hardenne or Clijsters play and maybe when Malisse or one of the Rochus brothers have an important match if we're lucky)
I'm sure that it would not mean a big difference to the image of the FO in Europe or in South-America.
Would the profile of FO be enhanced if Federer wins it? Many people would love to see him win it but in Europe, it would not mean such a big difference to the appeal of the FO itself. Why not? Well, because the FO already has a high appeal here and it does not need a Federer or a Roddick to give it a higher profile.

Whistleway
08-04-2005, 03:16 PM
I hate the term 'dirt ballers'.

Sorry. No offense intended.

Choupi
08-04-2005, 03:17 PM
Why not turn around the question? Why do so many American or British or Australian or...tennis players have so much trouble winning the FO?
Does this perhaps result in the need to downplay the FO just because those players have so much trouble winning it?
You stole the words out of my mouth! :yeah:

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 03:18 PM
Sorry. No offense intended.
:)

delsa
08-04-2005, 03:18 PM
You all act like there is no truth to what Sam says. Withstanding the leap of logic, he brings quite a point that many here have been telling for a while.

Why FO dirt ballers don't win other slams? As long as Nadal keeps playing till august on clay, this aint gonna change. And it is time to see these FO CHAMPIONS do something on other surfaces as well !!
I agree with that. I hope too that a Roland-Garros champion will be able to win another Slam and i think we've never been as close to this happening with players like Nadal, Federer, Nalbandian etc...since a long time so don't worry about this...
But RG don't loose any credibility or validity (don't remember what was the word...) because "clay-court" specialists have won it for a long period of time now and because they were not able to do as well on the other Slams on other surfaces...This is because of them not trying to become "versatile" and "specializing" in "clay tennis" not because of RG. RG is meant to be "specialist" and it's even a part of its significance. And it is liked because of this, because it is one of the Slam (if not the Grand Slam tournament...) with the most special characteristics which differenciate it from the other ones tennis wise for sure and atmosphere wise maybe too among many others reasons...It has an enormous (growing) group of faithful fans notably because of this (i think it always won by far when it was asked in polls in MTF which Grand Slam tournament was the posters' favorite if i don't make a mistake...i think i've read that once...)
Believe me (i don't know about the situation in North America though...) Roland-Garros IS recognised by ppl and tennis fans...
And i understand what the poster meant and it's not totally false when he speak about this stat revealing something about the state of men's tennis but it doesn't do any bad to RG at all... And this men's tennis situation has never been closer to be solved because i'm one of those who are dead certain Federer will win it at least once and because there are more and more player being allcourts kind of players...The new generations of players are more ambitious and want to accept to tackle the challenge of excelling on every surfaces...
And you show you're a bit "Anglo-Saxon centered" (i'm sure this word doesn't exist but you get what i mena, don't you?) when you say those RG winners (especially the recent ones ( :eek: )...) aren't recognised... It's far from being true i think...At least not in the part of the World i live in... And, in the contrary, you really believe ppl like Roddick and co are so well known and recognized here (don't put Agassi in here, he's worshiped...) here? Not as much as you believe they are i think... Even if i must admit you've got more ppl knowing them there than ppl in North America knowing about Guga, Costa etc...

Experimentee
08-04-2005, 03:19 PM
He has a point. French Open champions are not recognised in countries that control that media, like US, UK, here in Australia, as much as players who win Wimbledon, even though clay tournaments are more widespread than grass. Thats partly because those who win Wimbledon also win the US Open and Australian Open more often, and so they get more attention because they are capable of winning big on more than one surface. I'd put that down to hardcourts being more similar to grass than clay in terms of speed, so that 3 of the Slams are suited to one type of player, and the other Slam for another type.

Clara Bow
08-04-2005, 03:21 PM
This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

To imply that players don't win more than one FO or the fact that they don't win GS on other surfaces is one thing. It would be good (but not necessary) if a FO winner could win another slam. I would love it if Nadal for instance can win a GS on another surface, and I think he will be able to some day. I was thrilled when Ferrero reached the finals of the USO ,etc.

But I find that to state that because the players are from Spain or Latin America makes them a liability and makes the slam less singificant is rather distasteful and narrow minded since tennis is a global sport. A global sport that is increasing in popularity in Latin America, but I guess those fans there who gave the FO it's highest ratings ever for ESPN Deportes don't count. A global sport where, as other posters from Europe have said, FO champs are well respected. So the slam will only be better if non-native Spanish or Portugese players win? Whatever.... What if any of these Spaniards or Latin Americans won a GS out of the French Open- would you still consider them a liablilty?

Roddick, who won a single US Open title. Is more celebrated than Guga, with 3 Garros titles; the greatest player of the late 90's.

Maybe for the general public in the the US and some other English speaking countries...but I find it hard to believe that everyone in all countries says that Roddick is better than Kuertan was. Particualary in France. ;) Tennis magazine ranked Guga as one of the best 40 players of the Open era. They did not name Roddick as one. (I'm not trying to bash Andy here...I am just saying that some people actually do appreciate Guga.)

amierin
08-04-2005, 03:40 PM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?

I guess the USTA is in the house. The real question is why can't American, British or Aussie men win the FO? IMO the FO is the most credible of the four GS's because the surface demands more than a hard fast serve. It makes physical and mental demands that are apparently not being taught or considered unimportant in some circles. It's easy for the US tennis establishment to ignore the tournaments played on clay by calling the men who play best on that surface "dirt ballers", an eptithet I hate to hear used. Until the USTA and other organizations realize that there are a hell of a lot of tournaments played on clay and the winners of those events are just as skilled and just as deserving of hype as their darlings of the hard courts these threads will be started.
IMO this is part of the not too subtle campaign being waged in the States against the threat Nadal poses. People forget that it was fatigue that cost Nadal his victory against FedEx in Miami. If he comes here and really plays well they know that the one and two spots will be between Nadal and Federer for the next few years. I like Andy but until he proves himself able to think and plan on court he'll never be a number one player. The only other major threat would be a healthy, focused Safin.
This in my opinion is why there are people on all the tennis boards degrading men who play well on clay and implying they are some subspecies as if men who can only play hardcourts aren't as well.

disturb3d
08-04-2005, 03:48 PM
Maybe for the general public in the the US and some other English speaking countries...but I find it hard to believe that everyone in all countries says that Roddick is better than Kuertan was.No one says that Roddick is better. I'm claiming that he's more widely known/appreciated for his achievements than Guga. Who is more deserving.

tangerine_dream
08-04-2005, 03:48 PM
Sam makes a valid point: today's RG dirtballers can't win at other slams. And some wonder why Roland Garros gets no respect? Maybe because their one-surface players also happen to be one-slam wonders.

But many Spanish and South American players have been making a good transition to other surfaces (better than the fastcourt players' transition to clay) so hopefully someone like Ferrero or Nadal can turn the trend around and win big on the hardcourts.

sampaio
08-04-2005, 03:59 PM
Sam makes a valid point: today's RG dirtballers can't win at other slams. And some wonder why Roland Garros gets no respect? Maybe because their one-surface players also happen to be one-slam wonders.




I agree with you :i think there should be more big tournaments on slow surfaces.
Dirtballers can't win at other slams?It's logic since the others slams are ALL on fast surfaces.
Imagine just a second that 3 of the slams were on slow surfaces it would be the volleyers that would have problems!
In my view Ferrero ,Gaudio ,Cori ,Rios etc....were way better than Hewitt...And who won the most number of slams?
I think there is a problem.

BTW excuse my english.

lau
08-04-2005, 04:00 PM
No one says that Roddick is better. I'm claiming that he's more widely known/appreciated for his achievements than Guga. Who is more deserving.
Sorry, that`s not true ;) Maybe you`re talking of american non-tennis fans :scratch:

Merton
08-04-2005, 04:03 PM
The word "statistic" in the thread title is misleading. You cannot make meaningful inferences based on the last 5 years. (6 data points) Looking back 30 years you see FO champions being succesful in other slams, like Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Kafelnikov, Agassi.

For the rest of the argument to have any value, you need to show why these last 6 data points are structurally different from the previous 25 years.

Julio1974
08-04-2005, 04:04 PM
No one says that Roddick is better. I'm claiming that he's more widely known/appreciated for his achievements than Guga. Who is more deserving.

Maybe in Arkansas...

sol
08-04-2005, 04:09 PM
Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.



Thoughts?

Really?:rolleyes:

sol
08-04-2005, 04:12 PM
But many Spanish and South American players have been making a good transition to other surfaces (better than the fastcourt players' transition to clay) so hopefully someone like Ferrero or Nadal can turn the trend around and win big on the hardcourts.

Guga also did a few years ago... even if he's not in good shape now.

Ferrero was runner-up in the USO 2003 as well.

JeNn
08-04-2005, 04:14 PM
The significance of the French Open has always been as the ultimate clay court championship.

It hasn't lost one bit of this significance and won't no matter how many of its champions don't win else where.

amierin
08-04-2005, 04:14 PM
Kuerten is one of the best of the 90's. Rios never lived up to his potential for whatever reasons. You can argue that Ferrero was jobbed out of a US Open win a couple of years ago. He's never really recovered mentally from that IMO.

I agree that the Latin American and Spanish players are making the transition to hard court play and that the Americans, Brits, etc are not even trying. I heard one of the announcers say during the FO that the European and Latin American players are concerned about the undue influence of the USTA on tennis world wide. Of course the subject was quickly dropped.

propi
08-04-2005, 04:14 PM
Funny stuff as usual... RG champions have to be able to play on fast courts, and they do, while others don't have any chance in RG :lol:

revolution
08-04-2005, 04:24 PM
The problem is correct.. certain players play so much on clay (i.e Gaudio) and don't bother on grass and hard courts. That's why so many RG champs don't get recognition.
Kuerten got deserved recognition for 3 RGs and for winning a Masters Cup and TMS on HC.
Gaudio is a GS winner, but I don't think he deserves much credit since he plays only on clay and tries to avoid faster surfaces unless it's paramount to him making the TMC.

The clay courters need to take heed of Nadal's attitude and desire, you can see how he is so determined to succeed at grass and HC, whereas the others simply don't have that attitude. They just care about RG and RG only. Of course it's a worthy slam, and for a European or American it's the hardest Slam to win. It's just a lot of the South Americans treat the tour as if clay is the only surface, and only care about winning clay titles and RG, and fail to turn up at Wimbledon or put effort in at the compulsory HC events.

David Kenzie
08-04-2005, 04:46 PM
I don't believe there is anything "alarming" with this "statistic". Men's tennis has become a surface-specialized sport and the fact that Clay is the surface with the most different characteristics makes the skills needed to win on it also much more different than on the faster surfaces. 3 Grand Slams are played on Grass/Hardcourt. Although they are very defferent surfaces, they still offer the players who rely mainly on their serve a huge advantage. (I'm not saying it's unfair, a good serve needs a lot of skill).

The fact that RG winners have failed to win other slams is no different to the fact that the winners of other slams have failed to win RG.

Chloe le Bopper
08-04-2005, 04:47 PM
What is paramount to Gaudio making the Masters Cup is him maxing out his optionals so that he doesn't need to pick up as many points on his weaker surfaces. He's just done that.

My biggest fear when Gaudio won RG was that he would be satisfied and just roll of the map a year later. I am glad that hasn't happened.

jtipson
08-04-2005, 04:56 PM
The fact that RG winners have failed to win other slams is no different to the fact that the the winners of other slams have failed to win RG.

Exactly. :worship:

Haute
08-04-2005, 05:06 PM
Guga also did a few years ago... even if he's not in good shape now.

Ferrero was runner-up in the USO 2003 as well.



Don't forget semis as the AO 2004 as well, where it took Fed to finally stop him. ;)

revolution
08-04-2005, 05:09 PM
What is paramount to Gaudio making the Masters Cup is him maxing out his optionals so that he doesn't need to pick up as many points on his weaker surfaces. He's just done that.

My biggest fear when Gaudio won RG was that he would be satisfied and just roll of the map a year later. I am glad that hasn't happened.


He has, I mean, he's not going to go for Wimbledon, USO or AO is he? He's satisfied with his RG title, he doesn't need anymore, other than clay events.

nermo
08-04-2005, 05:18 PM
This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.posted by Sam L

why don't u look at it the other way round?? :confused: some famous players who have won other slams failed to make it and win RG...it's an equal fact but no one said that the AO or the Us open lost significance cuz they make players not patient enough to play on clay...the fact there are different kinds of surfaces each , has its characterisitcs and qualifications to play, it takes time and effort to play efficiently on all of them.. but still , each player 'll find one surface easier than the other,it's a simple human nature and a human fact.. ;)
and imho, clay being a hard rock for some players adds more motivation and fun to the game just as other surfaces stand for clay specialists...but none should lose its significance...
and one last opinion, winning a grand slam adds to the player , not to the tournament i think ;)

revolution
08-04-2005, 05:20 PM
I don't believe there is anything "alarming" with this "statistic". Men's tennis has become a surface-specialized sport and the fact that Clay is the surface with the most different characteristics makes the skills needed to win on it also much more different than on the faster surfaces. 3 Grand Slams are played on Grass/Hardcourt. Although they are very defferent surfaces, they still offer the players who rely mainly on their serve a huge advantage. (I'm not saying it's unfair, a good serve needs a lot of skill).

The fact that RG winners have failed to win other slams is no different to the fact that the the winners of other slams have failed to win RG.


Wrong, as you'd much rather win three different GS than one.

lau
08-04-2005, 05:26 PM
He has, I mean, he's not going to go for Wimbledon, USO or AO is he? He's satisfied with his RG title, he doesn't need anymore, other than clay events.
OH!!! Yes, Gaudio should, with 26 years, start training and playing in hard and grass courts where he`ll have a chance for sure... :rolleyes: He should learn from Rafa`s attitude :rolleyes: (who, BTW, is 19 years old :p ) .
And even playing and winning "only" clay court tournies he`s got a chance of playing the year-end MC :p He`ll go to Shangai and lose every set! :bounce: And youīll love it!! :haha: :haha:

revolution
08-04-2005, 05:30 PM
OH!!! Yes, Gaudio should, with 26 years, start training and playing in hard and grass courts where he`ll have a change for sure... :rolleyes: He should learn from Rafa`s attitude :rolleyes: (who, BTW, is 19 years old :p ) .
And even playing and winning "only" clay court tournies he`s got a chance of playing the year-end MC :p He`ll go to Shangai and lose every set! :bounce: And youīll love it!! :haha: :haha:


I don't have anything in particular against Gaudio, I just don't like the way he treats the ATP Tour as if there's only one surface, when there isn't. I mean there's hardly any grass events so where does that leave grass specialists like Karlovic who have only four weeks to get results? Yes, grass is my favourite, but there should be an even chance for clay and grass players to earn their points.

Sjengster
08-04-2005, 05:34 PM
He has, I mean, he's not going to go for Wimbledon, USO or AO is he? He's satisfied with his RG title, he doesn't need anymore, other than clay events.

He wants to have a second shot at the TMC and do better than he did there last year, I'd say that shows he's not satisfied with just winning RG. But you do have to consider the background to every Slam winner when examining their motivation after the win; Gaudio was 44 in the world and 25 years old when he won, not some up and coming top tenner. His dream was to win RG, he achieved it, and he can have no regrets now at the end of his career.

That's the problem with tennis and many other sports, what takes place on the court isn't always ideally suited to marketing purposes. There are going to be one-off Slam champions, it's happened before and it will happen again. You can't realistically expect everyone who wins one to become a dominating force on the tour and start pocketing major trophies, it only happens to a select few. There is no invisible rule that dictates who should and shouldn't win a Grand Slam, and there are no undeserving champions.

Gaudio has certainly become more consistent on his favourite surface following that RG win, though. Everyone looks at his results now and thinks that he's always earned his points this way, but before last year his performances even on clay were remarkably patchy; a QF here, a SF there, a 2nd round loss in a couple of other events, and a ranking in the 20-40 range. Only with a Slam title and consistency on the tour has he gained a place in the Top 10, you can't ask for more than that.

lau
08-04-2005, 05:41 PM
I don't have anything in particular against Gaudio, I just don't like the way he treats the ATP Tour as if there's only one surface, when there isn't. I mean there's hardly any grass events so where does that leave grass specialists like Karlovic who have only four weeks to get results? Yes, grass is my favourite, but there should be an even chance for clay and grass players to earn their points.
You should writte this to all the hard-court players that treat ATP Tour as if clay-court tournaments donīt exist ;)
Personally, I donīt have any problem when players like/play only one surface. It`s their choice and it`s a pleasure watching them playing in their favourite surface. :) But this is just my personal opinion.

where does that leave grass specialists like Karlovic who have only four weeks to get results?
75th in the Entry Ranking? :confused: (just teasing ;) )

revolution
08-04-2005, 05:44 PM
You should writte this to all the hard-court players that treat ATP Tour as if clay-court tournaments donīt exist ;)
Personally, I donīt have any problem when players like/play only one surface. It`s their choice and it`s a pleasure watching them playing in their favourite surface. :) But this is just my personal opinion.


75th in the Entry Ranking? :confused: (just teasing ;) )


The hardcourters (Americans mainly) all played the clay season, as did Marat, Kiefer, Gonzalez, Rusedski.. no hard court player skipped it. Even Karlovic played ;)

Black Adam
08-04-2005, 05:45 PM
Maybe for the general public in the the US and some other English speaking countries...but I find it hard to believe that everyone in all countries says that Roddick is better than Kuertan was. Particualary in France. Tennis magazine ranked Guga as one of the best 40 players of the Open era. They did not name Roddick as one. (I'm not trying to bash Andy here...I am just saying that some people actually do appreciate Guga.)
Watya expect......Roddick is not even half way through his carreer....it's like comparing Sharapova to someone like Graf:p

Black Adam
08-04-2005, 05:48 PM
You are complaining that some Claycourter's stick to clay, skip wimbledon, don't put effort and blabla........but it's also the same thing the other way round.......the aussies, brits and americans aren't that fond of clay and you can hardly say that they put some effort into it.
I bet if there 2 slow surface slams and 2 fast surface slams we wouldn't be even asking this question.

Julio1974
08-04-2005, 05:53 PM
I don't have anything in particular against Gaudio, I just don't like the way he treats the ATP Tour as if there's only one surface, when there isn't. I mean there's hardly any grass events so where does that leave grass specialists like Karlovic who have only four weeks to get results? Yes, grass is my favourite, but there should be an even chance for clay and grass players to earn their points.

Is Karlovic a grass court specialist?? how many times did he reach the second week in wimbledon?

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 06:01 PM
The fact that RG winners have failed to win other slams is no different to the fact that the the winners of other slams have failed to win RG.

Wrong, as you'd much rather win three different GS than one.

No offence Joey, but aren't you missing the point a bit?
Sure, most players would love to win a GS on different surfaces. No question.
The point - at least, the way I see it - is that the reason why the so-called typical clay-courters have problems adjusting to the faster surfaces is the very same reason why the winners of the other slams (faster surfaces) have so much difficulty winning the FO.

The FO requires a separate set of skills, it's physically very tough, takes patience, you need to be able to construct a point stroke by stroke for which you need to master a variety of shots because you need to be able to mix it up, you need creativity and so on. A fast serve won't help you all that much.
It's not easy to win the FO if you're used to skills that work more on faster surfaces but that also works the other way round: it's not easy to win a slam on the other surfaces if you're used to typical clay court tennis.
It's fun to see a player do well on various surfaces but it's not easy to win the FO slam on clay in combination with a slam on one of the other surfaces.


I often wonder if the reason why many Americans don't really appreciate (unfairly IMO) clay court tennis is the same reason why football (or soccer as they call it) has difficulties breaking through in the US.
Clay court tennis is very popular and loved in Europe and South-America, right? Soccer is very popular in the same regions of the world.

Some argue that Roddick gets more respect and recognition than Kuerten with his 3 FO slam victories. Like others have said: go to Europe and South-America and most people will disagree. Roddick gets respect but Kuerten gets :worship: .
I'm guessing that many people in the US won't even know Kuerten whereas Roddick is a household name. True?
Well, in Europe and South-America, Ronaldinho is very close to being a living God. Many people worship him: he's very popular and respected. I'm guessing that most Americans won't recognize that name either.
The other way round also works, though: ask me the names of famous American football players or base ball players and I honestly wouldn't be able to give you one name. I'd need to look it up on the internet.
Name recognition in one part of the world is all relative, no?

*Ljubica*
08-04-2005, 06:01 PM
The hardcourters (Americans mainly) all played the clay season, as did Marat, Kiefer, Gonzalez, Rusedski.. no hard court player skipped it. Even Karlovic played ;)

No they didn't - Roddick and Agassi didn't appear in Monte Carlo - in fact they hardly ever do. And I agree 100% with Castefiore's post a while back - people like Guga and Gaudio may not be as well known or revered in the US as some other players, but they are extremely popular in most other parts of the world - especially in Europe and South America for example.

And as for disturb3d's post that someone would get more publicity from winning the US Open than the French - sorry but that's rubbish in my opinion. Yes of course they would get more publicity in the States, - but the world is more then the USA and I believe that everwhere else would consider the achievement the same and publicise it equally. In fact, if anything, in Europe the French Open winner would also most certainly get more publicity for the simple logistic reasons of TV coverage, time differences etc. It all depends which perspective you are looking at things from.

lau
08-04-2005, 06:05 PM
The hardcourters (Americans mainly) all played the clay season, as did Marat, Kiefer, Gonzalez, Rusedski.. no hard court player skipped it. Even Karlovic played ;)
As I said, I donīt care if they donīt play it. If they want to play 1 surface tournaments, it`s fine for me ;)
I really didnīt watch, or know ALL what happened in the clay season as I was really busy :) , and I donīt know which clay court tournies "hardcourters" played, but Marat and Gonzalez are not exclusively "hardcourters". They can do it pretty well on clay courts and they have claycourt titles! So, I`m not surprised if they play this tournies as they did in the past ;)

alfonsojose
08-04-2005, 06:12 PM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?
:lol: Congrats. You're famous now. Any naked pics of Sam L (L means :lick: , right :drool: )

revolution
08-04-2005, 06:15 PM
No they didn't - Roddick and Agassi didn't appear in Monte Carlo - in fact they hardly ever do. And I agree 100% with Castefiore's post a while back - people like Guga and Gaudio may not be as well known or revered in the US as some other players, but they are extremely popular in most other parts of the world - especially in Europe and South America for example.

And as for disturb3d's post that someone would get more publicity from winning the US Open than the French - sorry but that's rubbish in my opinion. Yes of course they would get more publicity in the States, - but the world is more then the USA and I believe that everwhere else would consider the achievement the same and publicise it equally. In fact, if anything, in Europe the French Open winner would also most certainly get more publicity for the simple logistic reasons of TV coverage, time differences etc. It all depends which perspective you are looking at things from.


The ATP scheduled Houston a week after Monte Carlo, of course the Americans want to play their home event, and would have had to fly there and back. Otherwise, there's no excuses for them to skip it, and they both turned up for Rome, Hamburg and the FO didn't they?

But of course, the clay courters skip the whole of the grass season, but of course they were praised, whilst the Americans were bashed on here for missing just one of the TMS to play Houston and then coming to Europe and playing the rest of the TMS and RG.

DayTripperGH
08-04-2005, 06:18 PM
yeah im sure Nadal isnt noticed by the whole frickin world

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 06:20 PM
And as for disturb3d's post that someone would get more publicity from winning the US Open than the French - sorry but that's rubbish in my opinion. Yes of course they would get more publicity in the States, - but the world is more then the USA and I believe that everwhere else would consider the achievement the same and publicise it equally. In fact, if anything, in Europe the French Open winner would also most certainly get more publicity for the simple logistic reasons of TV coverage, time differences etc. It all depends which perspective you are looking at things from.
:yeah:
Agreed.

Where I live, the French Open gets a lot of attention as does the Wimbledon tournament (but we did get to see the FO final on flemish tv here but not the Wimbly final (luckily, I'm able to watch the BBC) because it clashed with the beginning of the Tour de France and cycling is a bigger sport over here).
The USO and the AO does not really get that much attention on tv here (sadly :sad: ).

*Ljubica*
08-04-2005, 06:23 PM
The ATP scheduled Houston a week after Monte Carlo, of course the Americans want to play their home event, and would have had to fly there and back. Otherwise, there's no excuses for them to skip it, and they both turned up for Rome, Hamburg and the FO didn't they?

But of course, the clay courters skip the whole of the grass season, but of course they were praised, whilst the Americans were bashed on here for missing just one of the TMS to play Houston and then coming to Europe and playing the rest of the TMS and RG.

Which clay courters skipped the whole of the grass court season apart from Gaudio, Guga and Moya who were genuinely injured? Coria was at Wimbledon, so was Puerta, Nalbandian, Ferrero etc. As for playing in home events - well neither Coria nor Nalbandian played Buenos Aires this year because the tournaments in Rotterdam and Marseille were bigger events and more condicive to their career strategies - so playing in a Mickeymouse "home event" is really not that important in relation to a Masters' event - especially when they have so many other "home events".

revolution
08-04-2005, 06:28 PM
Which clay courters skipped the whole of the grass court season apart from Gaudio, Guga and Moya who were genuinely injured? Coria was at Wimbledon, so was Puerta, Nalbandian, Ferrero etc. As for playing in home events - well neither Coria nor Nalbandian played Buenos Aires this year because the tournaments in Rotterdam and Marseille were bigger events and more condicive to their career strategies - so playing in a Mickeymouse "home event" is really not that important in relation to a Masters' event - especially when they have so many other "home events".


Gaudio wasn't injured, as you have to go and see a tourney doctor usually to see if you are fit to play in a tournament. At Bercy last year Nalbandian went to see a doctor and was told he was unfit to play, whereas Agassi flew back to the US and was fined.

Guga was actually on a surfing holiday during SW19, would you believe? :cool: Of course his ranking wasn't good enough to get in anyway.

You're labelling Kuerten and Moya as clay courters, If I had done that, Georgie boy would have ranted at me for all eternity.

*Ljubica*
08-04-2005, 06:35 PM
Gaudio wasn't injured, as you have to go and see a tourney doctor usually to see if you are fit to play in a tournament. At Bercy last year Nalbandian went to see a doctor and was told he was unfit to play, whereas Agassi flew back to the US and was fined.

Guga was actually on a surfing holiday during SW19, would you believe? :cool: Of course his ranking wasn't good enough to get in anyway.

You're labelling Kuerten and Moya as clay courters, If I had done that, Georgie boy would have ranted at me for all eternity.

If the injury is long-standing you do not have to see a Doctor on site at every individual tournament - Gaudio was already injured and had a long-standing medical certificate so he did not have to see the Wimbledon Doctor. The reason David went to Bercy was because his injury occured during his quarter final the week before in Basel. He was advised to pull out by the medical people there and then, but he preferred to play on because he didn't want to let the fans down as he had pulled out from there the year before. Therefore, because he got through to the Final, in Basel he had to present himself to the Paris Doctor to "prove injury" as he had still been playing in another ATP tourney a day before Bercy started.

I didn't know Guga was on a surfing holiday - but he had been injured for such a long time, I can understand him taking his rehabilitation onto the circuit carefully. And I think most of Guga and Moya's fans would admit they are players who prefer clay court surfaces.

revolution
08-04-2005, 06:42 PM
If the injury is long-standing you do not have to see a Doctor on site at every individual tournament - Gaudio was already injured and had a long-standing medical certificate so he did not have to see the Wimbledon Doctor. The reason David went to Bercy was because his injury occured during his quarter final the week before in Basel. He was advised to pull out by the medical people there and then, but he preferred to play on because he didn't want to let the fans down as he had pulled out from there the year before. Therefore, because he got through to the Final, in Basel he had to present himself to the Paris Doctor to "prove injury" as he had still been playing in another ATP tourney a day before Bercy started.

I didn't know Guga was on a surfing holiday - but he had been injured for such a long time, I can understand him taking his rehabilitation onto the circuit carefully. And I think most of Guga and Moya's fans would admit they are players who prefer clay court surfaces.


Ok. As you're 16 years older than I am (as you said), you've been following tennis for longer.

But I just wonder if GWH will let you get away with labelling Moya and Kuerten as clay courters. :p

David Kenzie
08-04-2005, 07:01 PM
But of course, the clay courters skip the whole of the grass season, but of course they were praised, whilst the Americans were bashed on here for missing just one of the TMS to play Houston and then coming to Europe and playing the rest of the TMS and RG.

The "whole of the grass court season" consists of one required tournament. OK it is a huge one, but you can hardly call it a season. Don't get me wrong I don't like it when players who aren't injured skip Wimbledon, but to be fair the so called "clay-courters" did pretty well this year at SW19.

revolution
08-04-2005, 07:05 PM
The "whole of the grass court season" consists of one required tournament. OK it is a huge one, but you can hardly call it a season. Don't get me wrong I don't like it when players who aren't injured skip Wimbledon, but to be fair the so called "clay-courters" did pretty well this year at SW19.

Correct, although you can't call Ferrero, Gonzalez and Coria claycourters or else GWH will come down on you like a ton of bricks. But as you seem to agree with his views, he won't.

David Kenzie
08-04-2005, 07:07 PM
Correct, although you can't call Ferrero, Gonzalez and Coria claycourters or else GWH will come down on you like a ton of bricks. But as you seem to agree with his views, he won't.
That's why is said so called claycourters ;)

*Ljubica*
08-04-2005, 07:14 PM
Ok. As you're 16 years older than I am (as you said), you've been following tennis for longer.

But I just wonder if GWH will let you get away with labelling Moya and Kuerten as clay courters. :p

You'll have to ask him that one :angel:

LoveFifteen
08-04-2005, 07:42 PM
I think we need to distinguish between "true fans" and "casual watchers" of tennis.

"True tennis fans" in the USA do not look down on the French Open. We get up at the crack of dawn & watch it. We know all the players, and we respect the skills required to win on clay courts. We love every Slam event because it's another chance to watch incredible tennis matches on TV.

Also, someone said Americans want one of their own to win. I'm sorry, but every nation does this, not just Americans.

Winston's Human
08-04-2005, 08:21 PM
Why does it matter that there have been many different winners of the French Open?

To me, one of the things that makes the French Open interesting is that their is a certain element of surprise to who will make its later rounds. This year, for the first time, I got to see Mariano Puerta play on television, and I was quite impressed with his heart and desire in a match that many commentators thought would be a blow-out.

As for the lack of success of recent French Champions in other Grand Slams. It does not take much of a tennis mind to understand that the other three slams are more similar surface-wise to each other as opposed to the red clay. It does not diminish the skill, talent and hard-work it takes to win the French Open.

Chloe le Bopper
08-04-2005, 10:03 PM
He has, I mean, he's not going to go for Wimbledon, USO or AO is he? He's satisfied with his RG title, he doesn't need anymore, other than clay events.

He hasn't bounced back to wasting his talents in the 20-40 ranking range, has he? Because that is what I was talking about.

Chloe le Bopper
08-04-2005, 10:05 PM
yeah im sure Nadal isnt noticed by the whole frickin world

:lol: :yeah:

SamL is a Nadal hata and I'm convinced that is what inspired him to start this thread :angel:

Sam L (WTAW)
08-04-2005, 10:17 PM
You know I know that my post will anger a lot of posters because I hurt their favourites etc.. But I was just making an observation and it is out of genuine fear. Somebody mentioned MEDIA and it's true. When people do not recognize who wins, it becomes a specialist slam (or hate to admit it the unimportant tournament).

Thanks to those who thought outside the square and saw my point of view. :)

Sam L (WTAW)
08-04-2005, 10:18 PM
:lol: :yeah:

SamL is a Nadal hata and I'm convinced that is what inspired him to start this thread :angel:
I DO NOT hate him. :lol: I think he's overrated and he's yet to prove on surfaces other than clay, yes. But I don't hate him. :p

Sam L (WTAW)
08-04-2005, 10:22 PM
I think we need to distinguish between "true fans" and "casual watchers" of tennis.

"True tennis fans" in the USA do not look down on the French Open. We get up at the crack of dawn & watch it. We know all the players, and we respect the skills required to win on clay courts. We love every Slam event because it's another chance to watch incredible tennis matches on TV.

Also, someone said Americans want one of their own to win. I'm sorry, but every nation does this, not just Americans.
Well yes, of course! Of course we're not talking about die-hard men's tennis fans because I wouldn't expect this from them. But unfortunately they're not the ones making the ratings happen nor are they the ones responsible for making players known through word-of-mouth etc...

Sorry I used the word significance before. It should be relevance. Imagine, if this keeps up, people will think... French Open? Oh is that the tennis major where some Spanish or South American unknown wins and then disappears for the year until the next year's clay season?

Look at the female French Open champions. Justine won Oz and US too. Serena won Serena Slam which included French Open. It was also Capriati's second slam in a row. It's a very relevant slam.

Castafiore
08-04-2005, 10:31 PM
But I was just making an observation and it is out of genuine fear.Out of genuine fear?
Really? I find this hard to believe judging by the way you wrote your first post here but I don't know you well enough so...OK...:shrug:

Somebody mentioned MEDIA and it's true. When people do not recognize who wins, it becomes a specialist slam (or hate to admit it the unimportant tournament).
Did you read this entire thread, Sam?
People DO recognize the FO winners maybe not everybody but hey...you can't win them all. Here, people pay much more attention to the FO and Wimbledon winners than they do to the USO or AO winners.
Besides, what media are you talking about? The Anglo-saxon press perhaps?

people will think... French Open...Oh is that the tennis major where some Spanish or South American unknown wins and then disappears for the year until the next year's clay season?
Speak for yourself!
People? Who exactly are you referring to? Could you try to be a bit more specific? You haven't read the reactions in this thread, have you?

Thanks to those who thought outside the square and saw my point of view. :)
Could I ask the same of you now?

Chloe le Bopper
08-04-2005, 10:54 PM
You must avoid the media at all costs to avoid reading Rafa praise.

Paul Banks
08-04-2005, 10:58 PM
What I find funny is the word "alarming" in your title :o

If that's the only thing that is "alarming" for men's tennis, I think they'll be fine.

diegogg
08-04-2005, 11:22 PM
RG is the most exciting tournament of the year. the #1. Itīs almost like it changes your life, Iīm sure this tournament is much more popular than Wimbledon or any other Slam here in South America. I do hope Federer wins it though, and that he wins Wimbledon the same year.

Plastic Bertrand
08-05-2005, 08:47 AM
The last time that a French Open champion won another slam other than the French Open was Andre Agassi in 1999.

So since then, all the French Open champions have only been able to win at the French Open.

This is becoming a problem for men's tennis because audiences aren't simply recognizing French Open champs anymore. It's becoming the black sheep of men's grand slams.

This of course started with Pete Sampras and his legacy. He never won there and he was the premier player that the American audiences recognized.

Now, you have players like Kuerten, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal winning the French Open. All Spanish and South American players. And the grand slam could be seen as becoming too specialist and losing its significance.

Roger Federer needs to win the French Open so inject some validity back into it. Or even an Andy Roddick success there would be welcomed too, especially since he is already a US Open champ and is recognized in the States.

Thoughts?

The only thing that is true about that above statement is that Kuerten, Costa and Ferrero have not won another Slam and it is way to early to write off Nadal winning elsewhere.

Any winner of a Slam deserves it and are recognised for their achievements, no matter where they are from by people who appreciate tennis, no matter which Slam it is and as for thinking outside the square, it would be good idea if you took some of your own advice.

skel1983
08-05-2005, 10:07 AM
i can see the guys point in a way but i don't think Federer winning the FO will make it more credible the FO is unique in everyway, i feel real tennis fans love your Gaudio's, costa's and Guga's but if you surveyed the general public say these guys and say Federer-Roddick-Hewitt and asked which of these guys do you recognise, obviously the later three would come out on top, it is nothing to do with the FO, it's the guys who are winning the title are not kicking on in other big tournaments so they are not recognised as much in the media, which is a shame. I think the guy who started the thread should look again at his post, it's not the tournament that is taking as hit, it's the calibre of player who is winning it, the majority of the time it's going to be clay courters who will not do aswell on other surfaces, so they are not going to get as bigger coverage overall as players who do better on all surfaces like Federer and Hewitt

G O
08-05-2005, 10:16 AM
Who cares.

Castafiore
08-05-2005, 10:22 AM
if you surveyed the general public say these guys and say Federer-Roddick-Hewitt and asked which of these guys do you recognise, obviously the later three would come out on top
Again, it really depends on where in this world you would ask that question.

I'm sure that you are right if you would ask this question in the US but you would not get the same answers in every corner of the world.
The tennis world goes beyond the Anglo-Saxon regions, you know.

they are not going to get as bigger coverage overall as players who do better on all surfaces like Federer and Hewitt
Again, it depends on where you live in this world.
In my corner of the world, the FO gets a lot more attention than the USO and the AO. When Guga or Ferrero or Gaudio won the FO, they received a lot more attention in the media here than when Roddick won his slam title.

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 10:50 AM
saying that that guy from the landlocked country won't be able to do it.. you don't see Fed as a deserving successor to Bjorn?

Of course he is capable of doing it and is very much a worthy successor to Björn Borg, but I hope he can do it, though I have my doubts.

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 10:54 AM
He has a point. French Open champions are not recognised in countries that control that media, like US, UK, here in Australia, as much as players who win Wimbledon, even though clay tournaments are more widespread than grass. Thats partly because those who win Wimbledon also win the US Open and Australian Open more often, and so they get more attention because they are capable of winning big on more than one surface. I'd put that down to hardcourts being more similar to grass than clay in terms of speed, so that 3 of the Slams are suited to one type of player, and the other Slam for another type.

Yes, the English language media is the dominant one, 10 out of the 14 major events are on fast surfaces, this leads to the whole denigrating players that play well on clay, as less worthy, then again 3 of the Slams are English speaking countries, so naturally ethnocentrism plays a factor, and they still forget tennis is an international sport.

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 10:58 AM
I don't have anything in particular against Gaudio, I just don't like the way he treats the ATP Tour as if there's only one surface, when there isn't. I mean there's hardly any grass events so where does that leave grass specialists like Karlovic who have only four weeks to get results? Yes, grass is my favourite, but there should be an even chance for clay and grass players to earn their points.

More brilliant stuff as usual. So it's Ok for Nadal to play the same amount of tournaments on hardcourt as Gaudio has, he just happened to win 3 of the big ones on clay and 5 optionals as well.

Do you actually understand why there are less grass tournaments before?

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 11:02 AM
The hardcourters (Americans mainly) all played the clay season, as did Marat, Kiefer, Gonzalez, Rusedski.. no hard court player skipped it. Even Karlovic played ;)

Hahaha. Ok, here it is simple terms. The claycourt season the major part is almost 2 months long from Valencia to RG. The grasscourt season is 4 weeks, reverse the situations then exactly the same thing would happen as to players

As for claycourt specialist, you wouldn't know how to use that term properly. The term "so called" that Gouzo used was clear and obvious reference to people like yourself and the other lazy people that use the term claycourt specialist for all players who play well on clay, but have done well off the surface.

delsa
08-05-2005, 11:32 AM
Well yes, of course! Of course we're not talking about die-hard men's tennis fans because I wouldn't expect this from them. But unfortunately they're not the ones making the ratings happen nor are they the ones responsible for making players known through word-of-mouth etc...
RG TV ratings are high... And the press talks a lot (from little free newspapers, giant billboard ads, to all kind of radios etc...) about it which helps a lot in making the "word-of-mouth" as you say it when the time of RG comes and a bit after...it's some kind of RGmania in the medias here as there must be some kind of USO mania in the US and North America around the time of the USO...

Sorry I used the word significance before. It should be relevance. Imagine, if this keeps up, people will think... French Open? Oh is that the tennis major where some Spanish or South American unknown wins and then disappears for the year until the next year's clay season?
Unknown only in your part of the world generally... It's not true that they "disapear" for the rest of the year (only to "casual watchers" who only follow the Slams if that's what you meant...and not even true if you think of players like Caņas or Nalbandian if you agree to me mentioning those who didn't win it but have come close...). And they don't only play and have results during the clay season for the majority of them, that's untrue or exagerated...
And again, if we turn it the other way round, player like Karlovic and co who "appear" during the grass season and "disapear" during the rest of the year are what you call "unknown" here and if we'd follow your logic...they'd be players who discredit Wimbly's relevance ( :rolleyes: )...


Look at the female French Open champions. Justine won Oz and US too. Serena won Serena Slam which included French Open. It was also Capriati's second slam in a row. It's a very relevant slam.
Don't compare women's and men's tennis... That's uncomparable... Moreover he first is in a bad state (i know it's OT...)

KarstenBraasch#1
08-05-2005, 12:45 PM
Sam L is a women's tennis fan which explains all. :D

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 12:47 PM
Sam L is a women's tennis fan which explains all. :D

A good day to you sir and that above explains all.

*Ljubica*
08-05-2005, 01:02 PM
Again, it really depends on where in this world you would ask that question.

I'm sure that you are right if you would ask this question in the US but you would not get the same answers in every corner of the world.
The tennis world goes beyond the Anglo-Saxon regions, you know.


Again, it depends on where you live in this world.
In my corner of the world, the FO gets a lot more attention than the USO and the AO. When Guga or Ferrero or Gaudio won the FO, they received a lot more attention in the media here than when Roddick won his slam title.

Again I agree with you 100% :yeah: Here in England we get saturation coverage of Wimbledon (obviously) on BBC, and Eurosport shows 12 hours a day from the French Open (and about the same amount overnight from Australia), but you can't see the US Open at all unles you're prepared to pay for Sky Digitial pay TV. In factn unless you're a diehard tennis fan the US Open is virtually ignored here in Europe because of the time difference and unsocial hours of matches for us - so it really does depend on what part of the world you live in and what perspective you're looking from.

As other posters have said - I think Sam should take his/her own advice, and look outside the box at something wider than just their own Anglo-Saxon viewpoint.

Action Jackson
08-05-2005, 01:08 PM
Again, it depends on where you live in this world.
In my corner of the world, the FO gets a lot more attention than the USO and the AO. When Guga or Ferrero or Gaudio won the FO, they received a lot more attention in the media here than when Roddick won his slam title.

Too much common sense used here, the thing is that for some people they seem to think what goes on in their area is truly representative of the whole world.

Where I grew up, it was RG coverage all the way and plenty of the clay events, plus they did Wimbledon and the AO, but not as much for the US Open.

Where I am now, it's RG that doesn't get coverage on the free to air, but the cable network does a much better job of it anyway, that's only available to a minority of the populace.

Leo
08-05-2005, 04:34 PM
It is true that French Open champs aren't recognized in the US but that's the problem with the American audience.

Peoples
08-05-2005, 10:05 PM
You all act like there is no truth to what Sam says. Withstanding the leap of logic, he brings quite a point that many here have been telling for a while.

Why FO dirt ballers don't win other slams? As long as Nadal keeps playing till august on clay, this aint gonna change. And it is time to see these FO CHAMPIONS do something on other surfaces as well !!
Yeah absolutely. French Open is like too different from all the rest. It kind of divides the players into two groups, claycourters and all the rest while only claycourters have a chance winning this and no chance of winning another slam.

LoveFifteen
08-07-2005, 04:50 AM
It is true that French Open champs aren't recognized in the US but that's the problem with the American audience.

I mean, some of it just has to do with the time difference. Only die-hard tennis fans are going to get up at the crack of dawn to watch tennis. For me, matches just aren't that exciting when there not live.

I figure it's the same with the US Open in Europe. The matches are on during inconvenient hours, right?

delsa
08-07-2005, 06:18 AM
I mean, some of it just has to do with the time difference. Only die-hard tennis fans are going to get up at the crack of dawn to watch tennis. For me, matches just aren't that exciting when there not live.

I figure it's the same with the US Open in Europe. The matches are on during inconvenient hours, right?
Yes, they are. True... But please, admit American (generalizing...) tend to despise or don't like clay more than European despise or don't like hardcourt though...