Relative Value of different Grand Slams

[El Dude]

You guessed it: I'm coming up with yet another ranking system (I find it relaxing and fun and fit it in during spare moments working on Real Life stuff ). I'll share the system later, but what I'm trying to determine is *current* relative value of the four Grand Slams. I realize that the Slams are more even than ever, but it still seems that there's a pecking order:

Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open

If we all agree that there is still a pecking order, what is the relative value of each? For instance, if they are worth 100 points total, averaging 25 points each, how much are the different Slams worth in terms of historical importance, prestige, player desirability, competitiveness, etc? Is it something like 30 for Wimbledon, 27 for the US Open, 23 for Roland Garros, and 20 for the Australian Open? Or is it more or less spread out than that?

For the sake of the ranking system I'm probably just going to keep them equal in value - less controversial that way! - but I was curious what people thought.

 

[brokenshoelace]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

 

[El Dude]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

And the Australian is the least, right? I was sure on those two things, but not so sure on the French and US. I know that the US used to be more prestigious, but not sure if that is no longer the case.

So if Wimbledon is 30 and AO is 20, how would you rate the USO and FO?

 

[DarthFed]

They all count the same. That's not to say that certain or even most players don't prefer one of the slams over the rest but at the end it is the same achievement in the modern game because everybody plays all the slams, everybody badly wants to do their best at every slam, etc. There's no doubt that Roger values Wimbledon above the rest but the other slams all count the same when rating him as a player and the same goes for everyone else.

In judging them awhile back that's where you might think of a different valuation system because so many players used to skip AO. It goes without saying that whoever won the Aussie in 1975 did not have the same achievement as players winning it today.

 

[Federberg]

I think in this current day and age they have equal importance. I've heard some players say that in terms of prestige Wimbledon has the edge, but in terms of achievement/depth of competition the US Open is the one. I can certainly understand why some might say that, but the truth is that for the last 10 - 15 years they're pretty much equal. If you're talking history then clearly Wimbledon and the US Open have had (and maintained) their prestige throughout the eras

 

[Federberg]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

 

[Kieran]

In all my life, the US Open has never been considered senior to the French. It was Ahab's whale for Borg the way Wimbo was Lendl and the French was for the Americans, but these things were never decided that one was more prestigious than the other. The Australian has become equal with the other slams since the eighties...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

Well, I'm getting that from the fact that I've lived in Canada, Europe, and the Middle East, and only in North America does the US Open get more coverage. You have to keep in mind time differences. The FO is much more accessible and takes place at far more reasonable hours for Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and a decent portion of Asia, so people find it easier to watch.

In Europe in particular, the FO gets FAR more coverage. Eurosport is a pretty good indication of that fact.

The idea that the US Open is more prestigious is mainly North America-centered. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, but it's important not to generalize.

The point about homogeneity is irrelevant. Your casual tennis fans are not going to watch the FO and go: "oh, the surface is not that different." They'll still look at it and see red clay (and it's still massively different to other surfaces, no matter how many times people bring up homogenization. Otherwise, a certain clay king would not be so unbeatable), and that really helps in terms of differentiation.

 

[tented]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

Therefore some think less of it? Or it's somehow downgraded in some people's view? If that's the case, then what about Wimbledon? Isn't that a specialized surface? Yet isn't it thought of more highly than the others?

 

[Federberg]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

Therefore some think less of it? Or it's somehow downgraded in some people's view? If that's the case, then what about Wimbledon? Isn't that a specialized surface? Yet isn't it thought of more highly than the others?

Not saying I agreed with that view. I was merely reporting what I've heard. My essential point is that Wimbledon and the US Open have historically had the most consistently high quality entrants. For years the Australian Open was marginalised, and some players in past years skipped the French Open. As things stand now, all of these tournaments have equal prestige, perhaps with a slight nod to Wimbledon..

 

[Jools]

I'm not sure where you get that from to be honest. I've lived in a few different places, I have never had the impression that the FO is ever in front of the US Open. If anything some people claim it's a specialised surface. Of course that's all redundant in this age of homogeneity

I'm pretty sure in South America you would've had a different impression. From what I've seen, Roland Garros (nobody calls it French Open there) is usually thought to be as important as Wimbledon - if not more so. Of course that has a lot to do with the long tradition of clay-court tennis in those parts and with players like Guillermo Vilas and Guga Kuerten.

And speaking of coverage, in Germany Wimbledon is the only slam that doesn't get any coverage on free TV, hasn't since 2008. So unless you pay for Sky, which few people do, or know how to find streams it's basically like Wimbledon doesn't exist.
But it's still the most popular slam here, I'd say, thanks to Boris Becker.

 

[Kieran]

Interestingly, top players have skipped Wimbledon, but it isn't held against The Championships. More than prolly ever skipped the French. These things can be geographical, and also, they can be as much to do with romance and tradition. Wimbledon and France hold as special a place as the US Open, niche tourneys though they probably are. And Oz has been as special as these for decades now...

 

[shawnbm]

Wimbledon is preeminent beyond any question. From when I started playing and watching in the Seventies, New York was certainly the next most important during the Connors-Borg-McEnroe eras. All the top players played in each of those, while the French became the major that mainly Europeans played as it was the oldest and most venerable of the clay tour, which was almost exclusively in Europe and still is. I submit that if Borg had not won six French titles and then also won SW19 the French would still be viewed as more provincial than New York. I don't say that because I am in USA, but the list of winners of the French going back into the Sixties and continuing up until all started playing it in the mid to late Eighties is filled with many Europeans who never won much elsewhere with the exception of Borg. The list of winners in London and New York, on the other hand, is a veritable who's who of tennis history. Maybe it was the television era and money that came from North American markets, maybe it was because tennis was born on grass and New York and London were such ancient and always important events on the original surface? I don't know, but the French just did not capture as much attention and seemed to be the championship of the stereotypical grinders that won very little off the red stuff during the rest of the year. Like I said before, Bjorn Borg seemed to almost single-handedly lift Paris up to the level of the other two. It may not be what folks think now, but Paris was seen as the third most significant major ahead of Australia up until after Borg started folks talking about it more.

 

[shawnbm]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

I don't know how anyone can know which event gets more coverage, but I do agree that NOW the French is equal in importance to New York to most tennis folks. That has evolved over the last twenty years and made more emphatic in the last decade, but I don't personally believe it was so back before then. I also imagine that now that clay court style tennis (baseline rallying) has become more prominent and taught by more coaches as serve and volley has died out, for the most part, more and more people now appreciate clay court tennis and Roland Garros, in particular. With the advent of Tennis Channel, each of the four majors gets equally compelling major coverage.

 

[Tennis Miller]

For what it's worth, in the last 15 years or so, the French and the Australian have probably had the most 1 slam wonder winners. I don't know how that cuts one way or the other in the discussion, but maybe it has some bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
TM

 

[brokenshoelace]

US Open ahead of the FO in the pecking order? Not for anyone who lives outside of the US. The FO gets more coverage.

I think the only clear thing is that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the bunch.

I don't know how anyone can know which event gets more coverage

Internet coverage, dedicated programming, television coverage, newspapers, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

For what it's worth, in the last 15 years or so, the French and the Australian have probably had the most 1 slam wonder winners. I don't know how that cuts one way or the other in the discussion, but maybe it has some bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
TM

Well, in the past 10 years, Nadal has won the FO 9 times and Federer once. That automatically narrows down the list of one slam wonders. Then you have Guga winning it twice in the past 15 years too (I know he won it 3 times, but I think one of them was over 15 years ago).

The AO has generally been the most unpredictable slam, results wise, but it has seen some stability since Federer's rise.

 

[Federberg]

For what it's worth, in the last 15 years or so, the French and the Australian have probably had the most 1 slam wonder winners. I don't know how that cuts one way or the other in the discussion, but maybe it has some bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
TM

Lol! In the last decade the French has had the fewest one slam wonders! :laydownlaughing

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

two thoughts:
- yes, Wimby has a special smell and aura.
- the idea of asserting different values work for me, though. mostly because it's inconsistent with your general approach, ElDude: there's no base whatsoever to make this even remotely quantifiable. audience numbers etc. don't matter, price money doesn't either.

back in the day, you could maybe work on the participation - ie which slams are the most/least likely to be skipped by top players. goes back to close to noone playing Oz back in the day (even though that also had to do with its place in the calendar, it does diminish the value of W's there, if people didn't face the best competition). then again, not sure what it really says if, say, a Slam Winner and (former) world #1 skips Wimbledon because he can't play on grass (*coughTomMustercough*)

 

[El Dude]

I agree, johnsteinbeck, that it isn't really or truly quantifiable. That said, I think you could do something like take a poll of players, coaches, writers, and fans--or maybe separate polls--and ask "Which Slams are most important and prestigious now?" I think two things would result from such a poll:

1) It would depend upon where and who you were polling as you're going to get different results in France as you are in the US (and of course we won't even touch the fan-bias).

2) That said, I think the weight would be towards Wimbledon as having--as you put it, js, "a special smell and aura" to it. The FO and USO are roughly equal, and the AO is a tad behind.

Obviously a Slam is a Slam, at least for the last 25-30 years. But I'm guessing that, at the end of the day, if you asked every player which title they'd most like to have, Wimbledon would get the most votes and AO the least.