US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by VinB » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:48:53


He is also only the third player to take the

Quote:
> title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> McEnroe.)

back to lala land
 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by mimu » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:10:19

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

Quote:

>Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
>Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
>most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
>birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
>Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
>title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
>McEnroe.)

>So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
>to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

Sounds like BS to me, considering the FO's on clay, disadvantageous to
both the best servers and the best returners compared to the rest of
the field, making for much longer points, games, sets and matches.

And then there's the AO's heat, makin' it sorta like the USO replayed
in Hell . . . .

--
Why isn't The Tennis Channel on Adelphia?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Frank Fontain » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:57:53

Each slam has it's challenges.  

Australian - Heat, right after Turkey dinner and the off season.
Wimbledon - bad bounces, weather, short grass court season, advantage
to the better servers.
French - neutralizes the server, difficult to get footing for non-clay
court players, physically demanding and mentally fatiguing.
US Open - the fans, american tennis coverage :), etc....

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

Quote:

>Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
>Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
>most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
>birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
>Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
>title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
>McEnroe.)

>So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
>to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?


 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by JH » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:55:10

Quote:

> Each slam has it's challenges.

> Australian - Heat, right after Turkey dinner and the off season.
> Wimbledon - bad bounces, weather, short grass court season, advantage
> to the better servers.
> French - neutralizes the server, difficult to get footing for non-clay
> court players, physically demanding and mentally fatiguing.
> US Open - the fans, american tennis coverage :), etc....
> --- and the weather, and the lack of fairness from the organizer's.

JH
 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Rand » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:01:15

Quote:

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

> >Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
> >Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
> >most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
> >birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
> >Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
> >title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> >McEnroe.)

> >So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
> >to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

Nah. FO has gotta be the most difficult to win. The points are longer,
it's also hot and appears to be harder to repeat. It's my favorite to
watch for sure even though it's not as prestigious as Wimb.

R

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by wen.. » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:09:48


Quote:

> Sounds like BS to me, considering the FO's on clay, disadvantageous to
> both the best servers and the best returners compared to the rest of
> the field, making for much longer points, games, sets and matches.

The FO is the most physically draining in the sense of the long, grueling
matches, but...

Quote:

> And then there's the AO's heat, makin' it sorta like the USO replayed
> in Hell . . . .

Much drier heat, though.  Plus, they can close the roof in extreme
conditions.

The thing that makes the US Open tough is first of all that most players
can play well on the surface; the humidity in NYC is a killer (not the
heat per se -- where else do you hear about so many players being put on
drips to rehydrate?); and the scheduling that has the players on court at
midnight one day and 11am two days later, plus the back-to-back semis and
finals; the NOISE.

wg

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Michael Lockhar » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:10:54


Quote:
> Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
> Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
> most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
> birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
> Grand Slam tournaments.

That is a matter of opinion but arguable.

Quote:
> He is also only the third player to take the
> title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> McEnroe.)

What do you mean?  Roddick played the US Open in 2000, 2001, and 2002.  He
lost in the first round in 2000 and 2001.  So he most definitely did *not*
win the title on his first appearance there.  Similarly, Pete didn't win in
his first appearance.

If you mean he won the title in his first final there, that's interesting,
but it's also not true that he's only the third player to do so.  In fact,
he's the third player in the last three years to win the title in his first
final appearance.  Off the top of my head, Pete, Safin, Hewitt, and Johnny
Mac also won in their first final.

Quote:
> So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
> to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

Personally, I think the FO (blech) is the "hardest" to win.  On the other
hand, I think the FO title is the worst indicator of overall tennis ability.
Of course, some would call me biased.

Michael

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by H Holbroo » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:30:17

Quote:

> The thing that makes the US Open tough is first of all that most players
> can play well on the surface;

So true.  The "great equalizer".

Quote:
> the humidity in NYC is a killer (not the
> heat per se -- where else do you hear about so many players being put on
> drips to rehydrate?);

The thing about NYC weather during the open is that it is so variable.  The
two weeks mark the change from summer to fall.  You can have the scorching
heat (and this year it wasn't particularly humid) the first week, the rain
and cool air the second.  Many of the players who've had intravenous
re-hydration played during the cool hours of the evening, so it doesn't seem
like the weather was much of a factor for them.

Quote:
> and the scheduling that has the players on court at
> midnight one day and 11am two days later,

There may have been two players on the court past 11PM this year, but it's
not a regularly occurring event for 99% of the players on a year to year
basis.  They no longer start a match if it's past 9:45.  And, generally,
players' matches are spaced as far apart as possible.  With this year's
rain, they were bunched up, but if it weren't for the night activity, the
Open would still be going on.

Quote:
> plus the back-to-back semis and
> finals;

I don't think there is any reason not to expect the women to play back to
back best of three set matches.   For the men, I agree that back to back
best of fives for the semis and finals is more like "Survivor" than
"Tennis", but when the question of revenue comes up with the schedulers,
men's matches on Sat and Sun are more lucrative than Fri and Sun.  If the
semifinalists haven't played on Friday (the way it's drawn up) it's not such
a problem as it might have been this year.

Quote:
> the NOISE.

Old wives tale.  Since the early 90's (when they started diverting the air
traffic) there's no more noise at the US Open than anywhere else.  The new
grounds has also eliminated noise and distraction from most of the outer
courts, too, shielding them from spectator movement.  Wimbledon may be the
cathedral for tennis, but Flushing is definitely a high end Unitarian
church.
Quote:

> wg

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Whispe » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:43:43


Quote:

> He is also only the third player to take the
> > title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> > McEnroe.)

> back to lala land

3rd appearance....?
 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Whispe » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:50:08


Quote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

> >Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
> >Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
> >most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
> >birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
> >Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
> >title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> >McEnroe.)

> >So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
> >to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

> Sounds like BS to me, considering the FO's on clay, disadvantageous to
> both the best servers and the best returners compared to the rest of
> the field, making for much longer points, games, sets and matches.

Verkerk...?

Quote:

> And then there's the AO's heat, makin' it sorta like the USO replayed
> in Hell . . . .

Not sure which is toughest, but what matters is prestige (W,U,F,A in that
order)...........
 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Frank Fontain » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:39:13

Your prestige order is incorrect, but i won't hold that against you ..
W,F,U,A



Quote:



>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

>> >Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
>> >Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
>> >most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
>> >birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
>> >Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
>> >title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
>> >McEnroe.)

>> >So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
>> >to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

>> Sounds like BS to me, considering the FO's on clay, disadvantageous to
>> both the best servers and the best returners compared to the rest of
>> the field, making for much longer points, games, sets and matches.

>Verkerk...?

>> And then there's the AO's heat, makin' it sorta like the USO replayed
>> in Hell . . . .

>Not sure which is toughest, but what matters is prestige (W,U,F,A in that
>order)...........

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Raj Kota » Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:37:18

Quote:

> Your prestige order is incorrect, but i won't hold that against you ..
> W,F,U,A

My prestige order is F, U, W, A.
 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by Rand » Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:14:20

I gotta agree... W,F,U,A is the prestige order.
R
---
Quote:

> Your prestige order is incorrect, but i won't hold that against you ..
> W,F,U,A





> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:32:11 GMT, "K. Fan"

> >> >Shifting through the dozens of news reports on Roddick's first Grand
> >> >Slam win today, a number of reporters mentioned that the US Open win was
> >> >most important to Roddick not only because he was taken there on his 9th
> >> >birthday but also because it is considered to be the toughest of the
> >> >Grand Slam tournaments. He is also only the third player to take the
> >> >title on his first appearance there (the other two being Sampras and
> >> >McEnroe.)

> >> >So, can someone tell me: what makes the US Open supposedly more tougher
> >> >to win than Wimbeldon, or the FO, or the AO?

> >> Sounds like BS to me, considering the FO's on clay, disadvantageous to
> >> both the best servers and the best returners compared to the rest of
> >> the field, making for much longer points, games, sets and matches.

> >Verkerk...?

> >> And then there's the AO's heat, makin' it sorta like the USO replayed
> >> in Hell . . . .

> >Not sure which is toughest, but what matters is prestige (W,U,F,A in that
> >order)...........

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by wen.. » Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:26:40


Quote:

> > the NOISE.

> Old wives tale.

Try listening to the background during the broadcasts.  There is a *lot*
more ambient noise at the OPen than at any of the other three.

wg

 
 
 

US Open: tougher to win than other tourneys?

Post by H Holbroo » Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:07:05

Quote:



> > > the NOISE.

> > Old wives tale.

> Try listening to the background during the broadcasts.  There is a *lot*
> more ambient noise at the OPen than at any of the other three.

I've done far better than that, having attended the three most important
slams, each more than once.  It USED to be the case that the jet noise and
the open sided outer courts made the US Open a noisy affair.  But that's
all gone now.  The US Open is no noisier than the others these days.

Perhaps, from a tv spectator's view, the US Open is noisier because the
CBS/USA Networks microphones are higher quality than the BBC's and Antenne
2's?