Roland Garros or Aus Open?

[Dr Awkward]

Youtube "hits" are not scientific but are global and democratic and undoubtedly help us to see the relative importance of things. You can't dismiss the US Open figures because it has a large population....it is in part the population which gives it its status. The Biggest event in the richest country with the biggest ( first world ) population is always going to be important.

Google hits, youtube hits, facebook likes ( Fed 9,500,000 Nadal 8,500,000 neither of whom are American the rest nowhere ) and the like are very informative modern ways of assessing how a person or event impacts. They are widely analysed by marketeers etc. in the way TV ratings are.

In the slams its Wimbledon and US Open followed by the other two.

In golf slams its 3+1 witht he USPGA the baby. All the above mentioned comparison asssessing tools will say so.

I'm sure if you take some sort of commercial measue like revenue or youtube hits or something the US Open would feature highly.

But you are completely ignoring the important prestige and history factors for which the French Open has the US covered. I've been to both of these grand slams and the aura around roland garros is something unmatched by Flushing Meadows. There is something extra in France that the players and spectators feel.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I'm sure if you take some sort of commercial measue like revenue or youtube hits or something the US Open would feature highly.

But you are completely ignoring the important prestige and history factors for which the French Open has the US covered. I've been to both of these grand slams and the aura around roland garros is something unmatched by Flushing Meadows. There is something extra in France that the players and spectators feel.

Youtube hits are not just a commercial measure. They are a workable measure of global popularity. Manchester united will score higher than Manchester city. The Yankees will score higher than the Mets, etc etc. It is a measure of "cultural weight"

I am not dismissing Roland Garros. I'm simply pointing out that the US open is a bigger event. You mention History and prestige. RG has both but US Open has more. It is older and has a more impressive winners roster. Name the twenty greatest players in history. More will have won the US then the French.

US Open is older, with a better winning roster, more youtube responses, more google responses, a bigger TV audience etc. On almost every measurable criterion the US Open is ahed of Roland Garros.

This does not mean it is better. In some ways it is. In some it isn't. However it is almost unarguably bigger.

 

[crowsfan2004]

GT, you know SFA.US open is the worst amongst players.I was in US open this year and due to scheduling and the weather conditions (cyclonic winds) many many players spoke lowly about USO.I spoke to Stanislas Wawrinka and he said its his least favourite slam and he is not alone.Many players are disgruntled the way they are treated.

 

[gaelictiogar]

GT, you know SFA.US open is the worst amongst players.I was in US open this year and due to scheduling and the weather conditions (cyclonic winds) many many players spoke lowly about USO.I spoke to Stanislas Wawrinka and he said its his least favourite slam and he is not alone.Many players are disgruntled the way they are treated.

Many golfers dislike playing at Augusta because it doesn't suit their game. Equally many especially US golfers dislike the Open being played on links which don't suit their games.

By almost universal consent The Masters and the British Open are the two top golfing events in the world.

Scheduling IS a problem at Flushing Meadows and players DO moan and of course any player or fan is entitled to a subjective preference for the Aus Open or French Open. However the event he prefers when compared to the US Open will

1. Attract a smaller TV audience
2. Have a shorter history
3. Have a less "deep" roster of top 20 alltime great winners
4. Achiever fewer google searches.
5. Attract fewer youtube uploadings

In fact will be smaller in most measurable comparisons and will thus be objectively smaller.

 

[crowsfan2004]

I am talking to you from a players perspective. Ask ATP pros about their favourite grand slam, none of them will tell you its US open.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Many golfers dislike playing at Augusta because it doesn't suit their game. Equally many especially US golfers dislike the Open being played on links which don't suit their games.

By almost universal consent The Masters and the British Open are the two top golfing events in the world.

Scheduling IS a problem at Flushing Meadows and players DO moan and of course any player or fan is entitled to a subjective preference for the Aus Open or French Open. However the event he prefers when compared to the US Open will

1. Attract a smaller TV audience
2. Have a shorter history
3. Have a less "deep" roster of top 20 alltime great winners
4. Achiever fewer google searches.
5. Attract fewer youtube uploadings

In fact will be smaller in most measurable comparisons and will thus be objectively smaller.

So are you of the opinion that bigger is better? I guess that's the American way, and its probably also why they built that shit of a centre court. The tournament is at the mercy of tv stations, thus we see ridiculous scheduling. My biggest gripe is the lack of final set tiebreaks, it pretty much rips the tournament the chance of having truly epic matches. Not to say you can't get them otherwise, but imagine the Wimby 08 final finishing with a tiebreak.

I can see where you're coming from in a sense, if no one cares about the tournament, then what's the point in having it, so of course having more interest is a great thing. If you for instance conduct your research on French Google your results might be different.

Anyway these discussions are getting ridiculous.

 

[gaelictiogar]

So are you of the opinion that bigger is better? I guess that's the American way, and its probably also why they built that shit of a centre court. The tournament is at the mercy of tv stations, thus we see ridiculous scheduling. My biggest gripe is the lack of final set tiebreaks, it pretty much rips the tournament the chance of having truly epic matches. Not to say you can't get them otherwise, but imagine the Wimby 08 final finishing with a tiebreak.

I can see where you're coming from in a sense, if no one cares about the tournament, then what's the point in having it, so of course having more interest is a great thing. If you for instance conduct your research on French Google your results might be different.

Anyway these discussions are getting ridiculous.

Bigger is NOT necessarilly better but it IS bigger and size is one of the essential aspects of a major sports event. Is the Melbourne Cup better than the Caulfield Cup? I don't know - everyone can have his opinion - but it sure is bigger and more people care about who wins it hence the bigger TV audience, more google searches etc etc. You see my point?

The OP posed the question which do players and fans most like. Players may well dislike the US Open - with good reason - but any player who likes the buzz will love it. Connors and McEnroe fed off its energy. As for fans almost all the evidence we have suggests more care about the US Open than the other two.....at least care enough to register that care on the web.


On the French google point that is interesting. US open tennis scores nearly twice as much as internationaux de france and is miles ahead of Aus Open. Not definitive but it is what it is.

The criticisms of hte US Open are all legitimate but I'm talking about the underlying lasting eternal importance of the event. Nighttime clashes in a raucous Big Apple are part of what tennis is.

 

[crowsfan2004]

So GT, soccer is the best sport in the world and Aussie Rules is the worst?

 

[Dr Awkward]

The bottom line is that if you asked players which grand slam they would rather win, most would answer the French Open over the US Open. If you asked spectators which one they would rather watch, most would say FO.

 

[gaelictiogar]

The bottom line is that if you asked players which grand slam they would rather win, most would answer the French Open over the US Open. If you asked spectators which one they would rather watch, most would say FO.

Forgive me for being direct Doc but you are almost unarguably wrong about the fans. Demonstrably wrong. The evidence is that more tennis fans globally watch the US. upload vids of the US, google search the US. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the US has more fan appeal. The numbers don't lie.

Players might ( might ) prefer to "play" the French. Whether they would prefer to "win" it is another matter.

 

[crowsfan2004]

Dumb argument GT...is NFL > AFL? NFL has 100x times more viewership than AFL in neutral countries. How about NRL vs Union? you can argue till the cows come home, but statistics can be flawed.Based on your argument Wayne Campbell > Chris Judd..he had far more possies than Chris Judd on an average basis.

Even going by your logic, US Open is still not ahead of F.O

Here is the proof
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Men-s-French-Open-Draws-Highest-TV-Ratings-In-12-Y.aspx

According to NBC sports, Nadal’s 7-5, 7-6 (3), 5-7, 6-1 victory against Federer earned a 2.6 rating and a 7 share. In 1999, Andre Agassi defeated Andrei Medvedev in a five-set thriller that drew a 4.0 and a 12 share, according to the Associated Press.

And US open:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-13/sports/30150144_1_wet-weather-rain-delays-tvs

Novak Djokovic’s four-set win over Rafael Nadal on Monday on CBS earned an overnight rating of 2.6 and a 6 share. That’s up 18 percent from a 2.2/6 for the start of last year’s final between the same players. The end of that match moved to ESPN2 because of rain delays.

Which goes to show this years F.O final was rated above this years USO final

 

[gaelictiogar]

Crwsfan of course certain match ups in usually lesser watched events will draw bigger audiences. EG Black Caviar running in a run of the Mill G2 race probably rates higher than many G1 races.

All I'm doing is providing a little statistical analysis to the discussion. It seems everyone has a downer on the US Open...history and stats say that infact many tennis fans are interested in it.

NFL does have a bigger audience thatn AFL. That doesn't prove it has a better game but DOES prove more people are interested.

Soccer was mentioned earlier in the thread. Is it better than Aus footy I was asked. Well who am I to say objectively but the relity is that globally more people choose it as their game than any other so it is the fans choice globally. These are not quality judgments. They are statements about wht people are interested in watching based on evidence.

 

[Sepoy]

Well, clay court specialists no longer exist. Clay court tennis is becoming a lost art form in that respect. The slowing of the courts all around the world mean that if you can play on clay, you can play on anything.

Classic grass court tennis is dead for the same reason. Slowing courts. Why come to the net when the player on the other side can go home, make a coffee and still come back with enough time to hit an approach shot straight back past you?

The Australian Open was ridiculously slow. I know Djokovic defended well and the conditions were cool, but it's absurd that Federer, one of the best and most stylish players to ever play the game, could barely hit through the court.

sorry but you have no idea

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

sorry but you have no idea

I was exaggerating a tad in reference to clay court tennis and specialists, but the courts around the world have been homogenized. That's a fact. The difference in speed between the surfaces are closer together than ever before. The leap from clay to grass or hard court is much smaller than previous eras.

 

[Butcher32]

Crwsfan of course certain match ups in usually lesser watched events will draw bigger audiences. EG Black Caviar running in a run of the Mill G2 race probably rates higher than many G1 races.

All I'm doing is providing a little statistical analysis to the discussion. It seems everyone has a downer on the US Open...history and stats say that infact many tennis fans are interested in it.

NFL does have a bigger audience thatn AFL. That doesn't prove it has a better game but DOES prove more people are interested.

Soccer was mentioned earlier in the thread. Is it better than Aus footy I was asked. Well who am I to say objectively but the relity is that globally more people choose it as their game than any other so it is the fans choice globally. These are not quality judgments. They are statements about wht people are interested in watching based on evidence.

that is what he was asking.More does not equate to better.Viewership can be jacked up for plenty of reasons.I refuse to accept NFL is better than AFL for example.The actual gametime in an NFL match is 12 minutes, the rest are all fluff.More people interested means nothing really.You must investigate why NFL is bigger than AFL before saying its more popular.They have more money, plus its US of A.

Correct me if i am wrong the entire French Open this year was rated higher than US open this year at 2.1 vs 2.0 according to NBC and CBS polls.

 

[gaelictiogar]

that is what he was asking.More does not equate to better.Viewership can be jacked up for plenty of reasons.I refuse to accept NFL is better than AFL for example.The actual gametime in an NFL match is 12 minutes, the rest are all fluff.More people interested means nothing really.You must investigate why NFL is bigger than AFL before saying its more popular.They have more money, plus its US of A.

Correct me if i am wrong the entire French Open this year was rated higher than US open this year at 2.1 vs 2.0 according to NBC and CBS polls.

The OP asked what event "players and fans" prefer.

I can't speak for players but fans preference can be gathered from the stats I have pointed to. All I'm saying is that the majority of stats we have indicate more tennis fans prefer to access info on and watch clips of the US Open. I'm not making value judgments. I'm addressing the question posed and saying that it seems from most evidence that most fans woud say the US.

Last years FO may well have shaded it on CBS etc but if so that would be a blip. I'm not dismissing anyones preference for Paris or melbourne. All I'm saying is that it appears more fans value accessing the US Open online and on TV ( usually )

 

[Butcher32]

The OP asked what event "players and fans" prefer.

I can't speak for players but fans preference can be gathered from the stats I have pointed to. All I'm saying is that the majority of stats we have indicate more tennis fans prefer to access info on and watch clips of the US Open. I'm not making value judgments. I'm addressing the question posed and saying that it seems from most evidence that most fans woud say the US.

Last years FO may well have shaded it on CBS etc but if so that would be a blip. I'm not dismissing anyones preference for Paris or melbourne. All I'm saying is that it appears more fans value accessing the US Open online and on TV ( usually )

French Open 2010 ratings (entire tournament CBS polls) :1.9

Wimbledon 2010: 2.2

US Open 2010: 1.9

Australian Open : 1.7


2010 was a terrible year for tennis ratings anyway,The wimbledon 2010 final had a rating of 1.6

But there is no evidence to suggest that French Open is the least viewed tennis grandslam atleast in the US.

Whenever Rafa plays Roger, the ratings move up.We need more Federer Nadal matchups in 2012. Tennis ratings been dropping since 2009

 

[gaelictiogar]

French Open 2010 ratings (entire tournament CBS polls) :1.9

Wimbledon 2010: 2.2

US Open 2010: 1.9

Australian Open : 1.7


2010 was a terrible year for tennis ratings anyway,The wimbledon 2010 final had a rating of 1.6

But there is no evidence to suggest that French Open is the least viewed tennis grandslam atleast in the US.

Whenever Rafa plays Roger, the ratings move up.We need more Federer Nadal matchups in 2012. Tennis ratings been dropping since 2009

The fact is that tennis has become addicted to the "Fedal" rivalry. To the general sporting public even the biggest events drift along until hey its Roger V Rafa ( 20,000,000 facebook likes between them many millions ahead of anyone else) and suddenly its an breakout "event".

This is a problem as you say.

 

[Butcher32]

Come on GT, I am putting real stats out there which shows no evidence of F.O being the worst slam out there.I can show you that worst rated GS finals in the last 6 years was Roger-Roddick in 2005 at 1.6, Berych Nadal also the same at 1.6.Both Wimbledon finals. Surprise surprise....not

 

[Dirty Bird]

Personnaly I go

1. Australian open - whole first week on fox. See the classics between like 50 vs 100 or something like that. Someone just needs to teach 7 to show night sessions live......

2. French open - great long enthralling rallies.

3. Wimbledon - gimmicky all white shit. Take a day off mid tournoment. And so soon after the french just makes tennis too much, get bored about the game at this time. Will ignore watching it till the final. Also because it seems the favourote always wins the damn matches so it's too predictable

4. Us open - shit time slot, stupid 5th set tiebreakers.

 

[Butcher32]

Personally for me it is

1.Wimbledon - simply the best

2.F.O

3. A.O The weather! fair enough, its tough to play at 40 friggen degrees.I call it the slam for retirements

4. U.S.O -Joke of a tournament. No roof, cyclone season, 5th set tiebreak, ridiculous scheduling

 

[gaelictiogar]

Come on GT, I am putting real stats out there which shows no evidence of F.O being the worst slam out there.I can show you that worst rated GS finals in the last 6 years was Roger-Roddick in 2005 at 1.6, Berych Nadal also the same at 1.6.Both Wimbledon finals. Surprise surprise....not

Both unattractive match ups in that the result is a foregone conclusion.

Match ups have an impact independent of the event. EG a Richmond V Collingwood GF would rate higher than a Richmond V Bulldogs. Same event different match up. A Brisbane Broncos V St George Dragons NRL GF woud rival the AFL but a Penrith V Canberra would disappear.

If Tiger Woods, Mickelson, Mcilroy and Tom Watson went into the last round of the USPGA level it woud rate up with the two Opens.

 

[Butcher32]

yeah but even Nadal vs Puerta scored 1.7 compared to Roger and Andys 1.6. You cannot say Nadal vs Puerta was a ripper matchup can you? as i said there is no evidence to suggest that F.O is the worst of all slams, evidence points F.O to be 3rd best at the very worst and 2nd best in general.

 

[Peter maxwell]

1. Wimbledon 2. French 3. US 4. Australian - sad but probably true