Which is the hardest Grand Slam to win?

Saw this posted on the old 606, and thought it would be good to get a poll going to garner peoples opinions.

Please vote but also post any reasonings you have below.

For me, the French Open is the one that is the hardest to win, although I think this has changed over the years.

Before the power game really became evident, Wimbledon would have got my vote. Look at Lendl - could cope on all of the other surfaces.

However, as players have changed, the French seems to be the hardest surface for people to adapt to.

It all depends on a player and their style of tennis. For example, for Nadal the FO was the easiest and the USO the hardest to win, but for Federer quite the opposite.

However, I chose to vote for Wimbledon, because, the grass season being the shortest, the players have the least time to prepare for it.

The FO is very difficult for any player who hasn't got that much clay experience to win, so in that respect, it is the hardest.

But as an equaliser, with no grass court specialists as such, Wimbledon for me is the most difficult.
The surface is hard to master for the whole of a tournament, because it will change its characteristics subtlety over two weeks.
It also depends on the weather to some degree and how that effects the flight of the ball and the feel of the court.

But in reality, any slam is difficult to win so they are all the hardest.

<sittingonthefencewhistlingmatchoftheday>

Jubbahey wrote:

But in reality, any slam is difficult to win so they are all the hardest.

Haha.......I was going to say 'all of them'......especially if you're Andy Murray lol.

Solerina

I have gone for the French open, but only if your not Rafael Nadal . I think its so difficult to come up against players who specialise on the clay court that it is a massive disadvantage

All depends on your game. You could argue the dominace of Nadal on clay makes that tournament the hardest to win as federer seems to be fading a little on grass.

Since Wimbledon decided to slow down their courts and use
heavier balls the whole excitement has gone out of the window!

No more Serve/Volley. No More net exchanges. Just
BORING base-line tennis a la EVERYWHERE .

Where is the contrast in tennis styles ????

GONE (And never called me mother

yummymummy wrote:Since Wimbledon decided to slow down their courts and use
heavier balls the whole excitement has gone out of the window!

No more Serve/Volley. No More net exchanges. Just
BORING base-line tennis a la EVERYWHERE .

Where is the contrast in tennis styles ????

GONE (And never called me mother

Blimey yummy!

I read a post of yours earlier today, on 606, where you said something about not knowing a lot about tennis.........well you know a lot more than me..........base line tennis.....net exchanges........I'm very impressed lol.

Solerina

Non of the Slams are easy but Wimbledon is possibly the hardest.

Probably because apart from it and Queens there is little else for the players to acclimatise their game too on grass.

Green wrote:It all depends on a player and their style of tennis. For example, for Nadal the FO was the easiest and the USO the hardest to win, but for Federer quite the opposite.

However, I chose to vote for Wimbledon, because, the grass season being the shortest, the players have the least time to prepare for it.

Agreed. I think this is the only real differentiation. As everyone else has said, different players are going to find different slams easier/harder to win than others, but it must be difficult for anyone to adapt to a season that lasts all of 5 minutes.

Its funny that my opinion is different than everyone else's I think without question the US open is the hardest slam to win. The men play a five set match on saturday and then have to come back and play the final on Sunday. The second guy to finish, often late at night is hugely disadvantaged.

Additionally, most of the tour plays well on a good hardcourt. The clay specialists have and advantage on clay the fast court players on grass. The Australian is a fairer surface, but because it happens early in the year many of the big name players are still not in the groove and at times you get some more upsets and whacky results.

Plus the New York crowd is a tough crowd to play in front of, frankly one of the worst if not the worst crowd in tennis. They are hypernationalistic and yell out routinely right before the service motion because they think that is amusing.

I voted USO simply because players do not seem to win it several times in succession. i.e. FO. Rafa/Borg.... Wimbledon Borg/Fed.
They are obviously all difficult and know that Wimby is the most coveted
But USO comes at the end of a long season and played, as socal says, in front of an awful crowd where money seems to be the first consideration over the welfare of the players.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I voted USO simply because players do not seem to win it several times in succession. i.e. FO. Rafa/Borg.... Wimbledon Borg/Fed.

Federer won US Open in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Oh well then you can say you proved me wrong

socal wrote:Plus the New York crowd is a tough crowd to play in front of, frankly one of the worst if not the worst crowd in tennis. They are hypernationalistic and yell out routinely right before the service motion because they think that is amusing

Yeah, but then the Parisian crowd is just as bad too. Hingis vs Graf, Nadal vs Grosjean e.t.c.

They readily disrupt a match, and that's just plain old annoying.

I voted for Wimby before reading the above posts by you tennis experts, and my reasoning is muted, so I'm still voting Wimby just because i can

Wimby is only one of two grass court matches still in existance
the other being the Gerry Weber tourny in Halle.

Such a shame that the grass surface is so under-rated these
days. Oh for the good old days of Borg, Sampras, McEnroe.
Edberg etc. that was tennis at its best !!!!!

Well, they're all difficult. To maintain fitness, level, concentration, the elements, the scheduling over a two week period and 7 matches against a huge field is hard. That's why only the very elite ever do it.

I suppose I think its between The French and Wimbledon, simply because nearly 10 months of the season is played on hardcourts and the players can gain a lot of experience on the surface. Not so on clay and grass because the seasons are so much shorter, with grass effectively being a warm up tournie and then bang - you're in it. I suppose with them also being more 'natural' surfaces, that makes it difficult too.

So I'll plump for Wimbledon, because there's barely an opportunity to learn and hone your game to play on it. And just a last note on the players. Each one of them has a surface where they are less comfortable, so if they do manage to win a Slam on it, that's marvellous.

yummymummy wrote:Wimby is only one of two grass court matches still in existance
the other being the Gerry Weber tourny in Halle.

Such a shame that the grass surface is so under-rated these
days. Oh for the good old days of Borg, Sampras, McEnroe.
Edberg etc. that was tennis at its best !!!!!

What about Queens

TITN, I agree about paris, they are just like the New york crowd, and I rate them as by far and away the two worst crowds in tennis. But at least you have a day's rest in between finals. And yes the matches are longer on clay, but your body doesn't take the same pounding on a clay court when compared to a hardcourt. The clay is soft and has give, when I play on a hardcourt I get sore feet, to the point that I can't walk well the next morning. On a clay court I can play 3 hours with little to no soreness.

Plus more of the tour is a threat to win a hardcourt grandslam. Take for example the US open, legitimately Nadal, Fed, Djoko, Del Po, and Murray, possibly Sod could win that event. Wimbeldon Fed, Nadal, and Maybe Djoko. French open basically only Nadal, if he is healthy there really are no other legitimate contenders.

sportslover wrote:

yummymummy wrote:Wimby is only one of two grass court matches still in existance
the other being the Gerry Weber tourny in Halle.

Such a shame that the grass surface is so under-rated these
days. Oh for the good old days of Borg, Sampras, McEnroe.
Edberg etc. that was tennis at its best !!!!!

What about Queens

It's all in your mind.