I have no problem to watch standing. I watched Grosjean vs Volandri match in Aussie Open for over 3 hours guess from the beginning to the end, totally standing under a very burning sun, and still enjoyed it. The problem of RG is even you choose to stand, because of the structure of some courts, maybe you still can not see anything or just a corner of the court, and a lot of courts are too congested even in the roads connecting court to court. And a match on clay means a lot more long rallies, so you could have to wait for long time if you leave the court and want to be back again. However, i still love RG, but maybe will prefer Wimbly more after I visit there .I do understand what you are saying, and Wimbledon is very crowded and this can get very frustrated if you have noobs claiming seats and spots at matches that you really want to see or causing congestion, but I somewhat prefer it over Roland Garros. At least at Wimbledon there is almost always a way to see the match of your favourites, even if you arrive late because you were watching another match you are interested in. The downside is that you often have to watch standing. At RG, the courts are often so packed that you need to queue a long time to get into the courts, and you'd better arrive very early, preferably during the previous match, just to clinch a seat. Not only does this mean that the crowd is often not really into the match you are watching - they just want it to get over with so they can see their match of choice - but it also means that you yourself are forced to watch something that you'd not pay money for to see. I also think the crowd at RG is generally a lot ruder.
So I have to jump to Wimbledon's defense
Oh and yeah, the overnight queuing was so much fun this year, but I actually dozed off the following day :lol: