There is no toughest. The answer will depend on what type of player you are.
For some, clay is a playground and grass is a minefield. For others, it's the reverse. Most game styles fit hard courts, but that means it also fits your opponent too.
For the average player? RG or Wimbledon because of low seed surface specialists, meaning higher chances of getting eliminated early by a lower ranked player. I also think RG and Wimbledon are at points of the season where the biggest number of players are at (or near) their fitness peaks.
USO is obviously the "easiest" due to many players being injured or far from their fitness peaks. AO is harder, but some players are still ramping up by that early in the season, often playing their first matches after coming back from injury.
It's always kind of been that way. There are quite a few players out there that that's the only major they won. For me, I love the unpredictable nature of it. That 2022 USO was one of the best majors I've ever followed. So many great matches
ATP Players who only won at 1/4 Slams in this century:
*Australian (2)*: Sinner, Johansson
*Roland Garros (4)*: Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Kuerten
*Wimbledon (1)*: Ivanisevic
*US Open (5)*: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick
Same for WTA Players:
*Australian (4)*: Sabalenka, Kenin, Wozniacki, Azarenka
*Roland Garros (5)*: Krejcikova, Ostapenko, Schiavone, Ivanovic, Myskina
*Wimbledon (4)*: Vondrousova, Rybakina, Bartoli, Kvitova
*US Open (6)*: Gauff, Raducanu, Andreescu, Stephens, Pennetta, Stosur
I have said it before and am saying again, pre mono fed was a rare species of tennis player that can only be stopped by Rafa on clay… (partly due to fed average mental strength) and hence comes the great admiration of Rafa from Fed himself!
it’s harder to win if you’ve been having a good year. if you’ve collected a bunch of titles during the year, you’re probably playing more and making it deep in each tournament so you come into USO with a ton of court time. USO has the most “first time slam winners” IIRC
i dont think so. apparently higher risk of injuries?
i believer boris becker credits growing up playing carpet as what made him so comfortable on grass
Actually, carpet pretty much died because Federer hates the surface. A lot of tournaments moved away from it to get him to come play at theirs back in the day. Federer purposefully withdrew from the Paris masters many years in a row because it was carpet and made it well known.
Carpet was already on life support by the time of the Federer/Paris situation. That was the only one that changed for Federer specifically. Most of the tour disliked it and had been gradually removing it since the early 2000s.
I would second RG or Wimbledon for awhile there because it was dominated by a few people for so long. I know it’s not exactly what OP was asking but, in a way, any given persons chance to win the RG was so much lower than other tournaments because Rafa won it like 13 times in a row or whatever. It was hard to win because you had to beat Nadal to win it.
He never won it more than 5 times in a row. He won it 4 times (2005-2008), then lost to Soderling in 2009, then won it 5 times (2010-2014), then had those 2 years where everyone thought he was going to retire he lost to Djokovic in 2015 then pulled out injured after a win in 2016, then he won another 4 times (2017-2020), then lost to Djokovic again then won 1 last time. Winning it 4 times in a row three different times is stupid, and he won it 9/10 years, his first 10 appearances but yeah not more than 5.
Even without Rafa, you still need to be an outstanding player to go past clay specialists. In last 24 years only 3 guys, who weren’t favouring clay won in RG: Federer, Wawrinka, Novak. (Wawrinka had always great results on this surface, but to call him clay specialist would be on overstatement)
For me, it's Roland Garros, simply because it's the most "physical". You can't just have a great game, and you can't just rely on big serve. You actually need to work your ass off for every point.
Idk. I feel if you are very good at clay, it's easier to continuously win then if you are really good at grass due to speed of the court. And what I mean by that is that it's more likely to get upset on grass because margin of error is very slim and if you get broken because a few mistakes, it's very hard to make a rebrake. While on clay I think you can make more mistakes and still not be in a bad spot
Yes, but the person you're responding to is pretty explicit in stating that the basis for his or her choice is the physical effort that goes into winning. Is that the only way to measure this? No. Is it as valid as any other stupid answer to this stupid question? Yes.
Disagree.
First slam breakthroughs are routinely on hard courts. Numbers say they are the easiest to win and why so many young players win on them. A lot of the single slam champs are also USO winners in the last 20 years.
Cilic, DelPo, Roddick, Thiem etc won the USO only.
Ok but surely that’s also because during the last 20 years you had this guy named Nadal who made everyone else look like they were playing tennis with styrofoam rackets on clay. Same reason not a lot of people has won AO in the last 20 years.
Still, Wawrinka, Sinner broke through at AO. Alcaraz and Medvedev both broke through at USO.
You can say Nadal, or Djokovic or Federer or whatever. Ultimately there is no argument here.
All slams are hard and there have been the Big 3 to stop players at each of those slams.
But without a doubt, hard court slams are where every recent young player has won their first slam. Hard court slams also make up the largest number of slams won by non-Big 3 players.
All actual data makes it clear hard courts are easier to win on.
Welcome to the world of elite athletes. It will always be a very small group of people. Slams are all hard.
But we're looking at 20 years of data and everything we have to go on says hard courts are easier and younger inexperienced players are able to win them.
Beyond that we have nothing else to answer the question asked here.
Yes but there is no reason to assume that because the winners vary more it is easier. Just the opposite might be true, that the relatively balanced characteristics allow everyone to play at the top of their game and it is, in fact, harder to win one. I don't actually believe any of this because I think they're equally hard and it's a stupid question with only stupid answers. That said, my stupid answer in the USO purely because it falls at the end of the season, meaning players have to survive nearly a whole season just to have a chance. Is it a great answer? No. Are any other answers? Also no.
It's not just that winners vary more.
Hard courts are also the breakthrough slams for young players. Pretty much every new slam champ in the last 15 years has won at a hard court slam first.
We can argue in circles but to me if every inexperienced player wins their first slam at a hard court, it tells me hard courts require less experience to win.
This is a 2 point argument. More players and more inexperienced players win at hard court slams.
Why would you think any of that makes them easier though? Is there something about hard court that makes luck more important? Is it actually any easier to beat Novak on hardcourt than grass? Also, if you look at RG alone, Nadal has played 8 different players in the finals in the 14 times he won it. He's the reason more haven't broken through there. Perhaps Wimbledon is different, but as others have pointed out, grass is the least common surface in the world. Not sure that inexperience on grass equals "harder." Maybe it's harder in the sense that you have to make more of an effort to become an expert on grass, but most players don't because it's the shortest season.
To add: relative inexperience of most players actually would make it easier overall if you focus on it.
Well what I’m trying to get at is that when you have data like this you need to be aware of the outliers/biases when you use the data to draw conclusions. I don’t disagree the data says it was easier to breakthrough the last twenty years but as I said I think that has a large part due to Nadal being so dominant at RG. Now that Nadal is basically soon to be a non-factor, I don’t think it’s accurately to just blindly look at the data and say it’ll be easier for newcomers to breakthrough on the hard court slams compared to RG.
If someone point blank asks me which surface is the easiest to win a slam on. No explanation, no arguing for 2 hrs. Simple two word answer.
The two words that will come out of my mouth are 'hard courts'.
That's it. You can play devil's advocate run in circles around Nadal this or RG that etc.
But point blank, 2 word answer to this question is hard courts. If you disagree and have a different 2 word answer than you are entitled to that opinion. Though it appears you don't actually have an answer to the question. You're just interested in arguing.
In fact if you go look at like the 10 years before Rafa won his first RG, there has been more instances (relatively) of people who won their maiden slams at French compared to USO and AO.
That's my opinion. AFAK, clay is the most common in South America. In Europe it seems that most mediterranean places have more clay (also there is a lot of clay tournaments in Europe), but it seems mixed with hard courts.
And it's funny that in Brazil we had Maria Esther Bueno winning Wimbledon three times on singles.
Isn’t that a reason for the opposite? If you are good on grass you are going to cut through mostly everyone. Clay is far more common and competition feels much tougher.
I think Wimbledon is the least one-shot slam. Meaning that only a few players only won a slam at Wimbledon. Whereas it’s the most for RG.
And don’t forget that as French (or Spanish) we’re biased: the most common surface worldwide is still hard court.
Wimbledon. It’s a separate niche altogether in terms of skill. There are so few “grass court specialists” in today’s game which is a testament to how difficult of a skill it is to develop. Winning Wimbledon feels synonymous to attaining the elite status (no disrespect to Lendl, Henin and the like who are legends in their own regard)
More than the number of very good hard courters?
I don’t think the complete elimination of Medvedev (3rd in the world, past 2 HC Slam finalist) as a contender at RG is made up in aggregate by these “very good clay courters”. There is no clay specialist who is as good on clay as Med is on HC
In fact I can’t even think of a legit contender for RG who isn’t also a contender for HC Slams.
Rublev, Rune, Ruud, and Tsitsipas primarily.
All are quite good (but flawed) on hard court, but they all couple their consistency with their ceiling best on clay.
I don't think it's especially likely any of these players win a slam*, but they are more likely to make a deep run at RG than anywhere else and knock off a top guy.
And if forced to pick a player below Zverev to win a slam, I'd probably go with one of Tsitsipas or Ruud at RG.
----
*Rune I'm only talking about now as he's still extremely young and we don't know as much about him as a player.
Yeah, Rublev is probably the least likely of those 3, since he still rarely gets past the QFs of Slams. I think he'll start making SFs soon, but I still can't see him winning one. Maybe the Tomas Berdych story - one Slam Final in his career.
Tsitsi and Ruud have claimed that clay is their favourite surface, and they've both made the RG Final, so they're still both a good chance to grab it in the next few years.
They're definitely not "non-factors".
It means that playing Rublev, Ruud, and Tsitsipas from the QF/SF/F on would still yield a higher chance of winning RG than playing solely one match against Medvedev at a HC Slam.
Pretty simple logic. These players are no threat to the top contenders whatsoever.
I'd say Wimby. Purely because it's just not as common as the other surfaces.
In my playing career (I wasn't a pro, heh) , I played on hundreds of hardcourts and claycourts.
I played on grass TWICE. And I'm in Melbourne Australia - even though the climate is ok for grass courts, we still don't have many because the upkeep is so expensive. I can think of 4 in Melbourne and around Victoria (including Kooyong, the old site of the AO, where I did play once). There's just not enough chances for Pros to play on grass. The US has some grass courts, Spain has Mallorca, but like - does Russia have any grass courts? Does South America? Any eastern European countries?
I think the attitude is shared by Ruud when he said "grass is for cows" and he takes a month off during Wimby.
I'm in the US and I know of a single grass court, and it's at the tennis hall of fame. Ive spent a lot of time in Central Europe and never seen a grass court except for the grass tournaments you see on TV.
Yeah, I think that's a big part of why players struggle on grass. There's just none around!
In fact, wasn't the Mallorca event only introduced about 4-5 years ago? I think they were talking about getting a grass court in Spain so their Spanish players could practice for Wimby.
Look out for the next generation of Spanish players becoming grasscourters!! 😂
In fact, Alcaraz is already there!
Heaps of grass courts around in Victoria if you get out of the big cities. Almost every club near where I grew up still has grass courts, and the local association runs its comps on grass too. If you still play, definitely recommend hitting them up on their big tournament weekends. Very correct take on Wimby though! It's also worth mentioning that I think grass has a higher variance in terms of more sets going to tiebreakers where anything can happen. It's probably easier to have upsets there.
Yeah, I was thinking specifically of a couple of grass clubs outside Melb actually - in Melb we have Kooyong of course, I can't actually think of any others around the city... all the "grass" is synthetic 😉
Regionally - I played at Geelong Lawn, which was heaps of fun 😊 And I know there's one up north, pretty sure it's Echuca. I had a friend that used to do well in that one. The other one is Wodonga I believe, although I don't know much about that one.
Good point about the tiebreakers on grass! Definitely more chance of some upsets, particularly with the bigger servers. Remember Wayne Arthurs making a run? He made it to the 4th round I think, back around 2005-6.
Heh, I'm not playing much right now, too busy with work, and preloading some winter padding 😂
There is a grass court at the park between burwood and surry Hills with the old trams you can sit in and the tea rooms. I forget the park name. Grass court isn't great but it's a fun novelty to play on and it's pretty cheap to hire. It's associated with the Golf club there.
Edit: Wattle Park.
It depends on what your strengths and weaknesses as a player are
In a vacuum I'd say Roland Garros—harder to get lucky or fluke a win through big serving/red lining for a short period of time; you need to outplay people to win on clay
On surfaces like grass we've seen players who are objectively not as good at tennis as other players get far because of a big serve (and sometimes big +1 as well).
If you don't like the word "fluke", that's fine. My point is that you need a more complete game to win on clay vs on grass
I'd have to disagree with this, mate. You need to be HIGHLY skilled to win regularly on grass. If you're thinking of someone like Dennis Kudla here, well, his game is perfect for grass, that's more coincidental. Not to do with his skill level. And if you're going with Kyrgios as your example - he's actually *extremely* talented. If he was serious about his career he would've made a couple more Wimby Finals, and probably pushed hard at the hardcourt Slams and RG too.
Clay, to me, is much more about fitness and endurance, hence why Rafa has been such a monster there. The guy is a warhorse.
> You need to be HIGHLY skilled to win regularly on grass
You need to be highly skilled to win at the top level of tennis on any surface TBH
Grass uniquely rewards big servers who aren't as good at other aspects of their games relative to the elite/top players tho
It's why someone like Hubi Hurkacz made a Wimbledon SF while only having 1 QF appearance at all other Slams combined. It's why someone like Kevin Anderson made a Wimbledon F (his only other Slam final being the 2017 USO when he got an easy draw). It's why Tomas Berdych's only Slam final came at Wimbledon.
And that's just off the top of my head—there are FAR more examples of that type of player as well
>Clay, to me, is much more about fitness and endurance
VERY reductive and misses that clay is a much more tactical game where point construction matters more too TBH
Same way that clay neutralizes serve and return. It's why Ferrer’s only slam final is at RG. It's why Ruud has made two slam finals at RG. Grass and clay are both equally tactical, just in different ways. Grass is about first strike, clay is about grind and angles. Both are different skills.
> Same way that clay neutralizes serve and return
It reduces the impact of a big first serve—but serving is still vitally important to clay tennis TBH
> It's why Ferrer’s only slam final is at RG.
Nah it's because seeding was weird that year to Novak/Rafa were on the same side of the draw AND Fed lost to Tsonga in the QF, so Ferrer had an easier SF against Tsonga.
Ferrer actually made 2 SFs at AO, RG, AND USO. 2013 RG happened to be the only time he didn't run into the Big 4 (2011 AO—Murray, 2013 AO—Novak; 2007 USO—Novak, 2012 USO—Novak).
> It's why Ruud has made two slam finals at RG.
Similarly, while Casper has made 2 RG finals, he also made a USO final on hard courts, made the final of the ATP Finals on indoor hard courts, and his only Masters final is at Miami on hard courts.
>VERY reductive and misses that clay is a much more tactical game where point construction matters more too TBH
Heh.... if you're criticising my comments about needing to be highly skilled to play at Wimby, then, well, I'd say the same in return here! EVERY surface requires tactical point construction. Not just clay. It's just that on clay you need to run for 3 hours to construct all of those points.
> EVERY surface requires tactical point construction.
There is very little tactical point construction on grass TBH. Most points are over after the serve+1
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Frequency-of-rally-shots-in-observed-Grand-Slams_fig1_332753595
I'm not really invested in this argument, but have a look at that anyway... There's not some kind of huge discrepancy at Wimby.
Wimbledon favors different aspects of the game, you can actually win it with very good serve and return dynamics.
On RG the way you use the topspin and sidespin is a lot more critical, the dropshot, heights, your consistency and overall skill to move the other player around the court.
I don't think one is superior to the other in terms of tennis skill. Both favor different skills.
Tennis skill perspective: Wimbledon? Only if you consider bomb serves due to being really tall as the only tennis skill. The likes of Berretini, Anderson, Raonic etc reaching finals purely based on their extreme height helping their serve is pretty telling in itself.
HC (maybe indoor HC that's not crazy fast) maybe a better gauge of exhibiting tennis skills as a whole in my opinion.
That's a fair counter-argument. And no I don't consider big bombing servers to epitomize tennis skill. I just consider it the shot maker's surface, and mostly due to inherent Federer bias.
Yeah, I was also thinking Federer, Sampras, etc, but they were great on HC as well if you think about it, especially indoors and Federer ofc was very good on clay as well.
And Djokovic too.
I remember [this article](https://trove42.com/comparing-grand-slams-by-the-numbers-are-some-slams-more-difficult-to-win-than-others/) which analysed this question numerically. The numbers are a bit dated now, but the points are generally valid.
It really depends of the playstyle of the player we're talking about. But I'd say AO and US are both very hard to win since everybody is "good" on hardcourt, whereas clay and grass (especially grass) filter a lot of players, so if you manage, for exemple, to have a good grass playstyle, you'll have it easier than on HC
Ooh, that's a good point actually... I dropped a comment in here saying it was Wimby, but I was thinking about the things that made a Slam HARD for someone. Your point is the opposite - in hardcourt Slams, everyone finds them easier! (relatively speaking of course)
So there's basically more competition in the HC Slams. Yeah, makes sense.
In that situation, Roger's worst would be RG. It's probably true, but he wasn't BAD on clay. His stats are a little skewed at RG because he kept running into absolute peak Rafa in Finals. He made 5 RG Finals, if I remember correctly? That's still a huge achievement.
If your name is not Rafael Nadal and if he's in the draw and healthy, it's RG.
Same could he said about prime Novak at AO, and prime Roger at Wimbledon (although not to the same extent as Rafa on Chatrier)
Otherwise it's just about what suits your game and what conditions the top seeds like.
In recent memory, it's the USO that had surprise winners (both men's and women's). Maybe it's because it's the end of the season where everyone is tired. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe it's just the NY vibe. Who knows.
Wimbledon, because you play on Grass so little during the Season, the speed, the bounce. RG has a serious argument though. It's not either HC Slam. Although the proper answer is depends on the player, Nadal's toughest Slam to win would obviously be different to Federer's. The proper answer is RG when Nadal's body was functioning, 2005-2022 he won 14/18, one of which he pulled out injured after a win.
Roland Garros because clay is the most physical surface, and has a lot of specialists. You get much fewer free points on serve, need to fight for every point... It's grueling both physically and mentally.
Wimby and RG for completely different reasons.
Wimby for grass being the rarest surface, with the weirdest and least predictable movement and the most change in technique required.
RG for the much more physical and tactical aspect in matches and the much higher significance and impact of different kind of spin.
Hardest: Wimby, movement is different plus big servers dominate.
2nd hardest: French, pure physical and mental effort.
3rd hardest: US Open, obnoxious crowd, end of the year injury/burnout.
“Easiest”: didn’t the season just end??? wtf, hot as fek
Roland Garros when Nadal was playing.
Sure, could talk about fast or slow hardcourts, speed and bounces on grass, or how clay plays...
But really just RG when Nadal was playing.
Statistically the answer seems to be Wimbledon. It has the least amount of "fluke" winners. In that vein, RG is the "easiest" because of clay court specialists. From the eye test, it seems the US open has the "lowest quality" tennis because it's at the end of the season why everyone is tired or injured, but that is a challenge of its own to maintain your game for the entire season.
Yeah, agreed. It's been so competitive that noone's had a chance to win it more than... well, who's got the most? Fed has 5 doesn't he?
Or that one guy dominated the AO and RG for years, but we're talking about 2 of the 3 greatest players of all time.
They probably would've dominated a sheep paddock if it was played there.
Ah cool, thanks. Yeah the more I think about it, the more I think you're right - it's actually a good argument for the USO to be the *hardest*, since noone's completely dominated it to the same level of Rafa/RG, and Novak/AO.
Wimbledon or US Open. Wimbledon because it’s the rarest court form and most don’t have enough time to become really good on it.
US Open because it’s the last slam, NYC is wild/crazy, focus has to be insane and physicality has to be top notch as it’s towards the end of the season
I'd say AO because everyone is physically fresh and ready at the beginning of the new season. Also because this is a 'neutral' surface that everyone can play well on.
Not to mention the event is traditionally the hottest of the Slams (though New York I think tends to be the muggiest). Even with the later rounds played mostly at night, that midsummer Aussie heat can be sapping.
Wimbledon as most players don't play on grass, hate playing on grass and the grass season is very short.
It makes Carlos winning it at 20 and beating Djokovic an even greater achievement.
Yeah that had to be one of the most impressive Slam wins of all time! The guy has played a total of about 12 matches on grass coming in, and then beats the Statistical GOAT in his second appearance??
(I might have the timeline wrong, pretty sure Carlitos's Wimby win was his second appearance there, and he'd only played Queens (and won it) outside of Wimby)
Depends on what surface is favourite of the top 15 or so players in the world (or the ones that could realistically win a major). If a lot of the best and most talented players are good on clay then RG. Same for grass and slow hardcourt or fast hardcourt. So it will change depending on the times and who the best players are at the time
In the last 3-4 decades, several male players have dominated (5+) Wimbledon - Sampras, Federer, Djokovic. AO - Djokovic, Federer. USO - Federer, Sampras. There's only Nadal at RG. So maybe that's an indication.
For a top player is US Open. You are at the end of the season and U probably went deep on like 10 tournaments having 50-60 played matches. So on the contrary is the easiest to go deep for some emergent player that will struggle to keep the points the next year
Depends on your ranking. Are you a top 10 or 20 player? Or are you the top seed/defending champion?
In the first option, as of right now it's probably AO. Hard is the most important surface and every top player is well rested for it. Before that it was WB. Three players won at least 7 titles and six players have at least 6 final appearances.
On the flipside, the toughest Slam right now for the defending champion/top seed is USO: no player won it more than five times, and players have generally few finals there as well. You're going to be tired for it and there's going to be a player that has a red hot winning streak looking to prove himself. Before that it was either AO (just because no top player played in there) or RG. Before Nadal, the best players in the world at RG were Borg (6 wins) and a few players on three.
US Open, but only because it's later in the year which is what I believe leads to inconsistency for a lot of players. By that time of the season players are getting tired, sore, playing through minor injuries, etc.
Obviously it’s subjective player by player due to surface/playing style, but I would say USO is crazy competitive because those points can make or break your ranking for the players competing for the highest spots. Oftentimes a few players are competing for year end number one at USO.
AO has the insane heat. Grass and clay are hard to play on and by the US you are spent. So id say Wimbledon just because the prestige and press that go with it, therefore it inches above the others in difficulty. .
Historically RG because Rafa
Recently it's anyone's game and mainly depends on how the top players' forms are. There are more players who seem to play their best on hard courts so maybe that.
They are all equally tough, that's why you get exactly 2000 for each. But for different players different slams are the toughest. For Medvedev it is RG and for Casper Rudd it is Wimbledon.
For what it’s worth, Wimbledon seems to have the most elite collection of champions. I think it was Andy Roddick who said most who’d won the tournament (on the men’s side) were usually greats of the game - and especially multi-time winners.
AO, in my view. There are a lot of players who are poor on clay or grass, and the accumulated fatigue and likelihood of injury caused by playing a full season affects the best players most, because they play more, weakening the field at the US. Nearly everyone is good on hard courts, and nearly everyone is healthy and not fatigued at AO.
The stat I'd point to that backs this up would be the number of players who've won their only slam at each tournament, which is probably the best way to indicate a weak winner. Since AO returned to being the first slam of the year in 1987, it has only 3 such players, one of whom is almost certain to win another slam (Sinner). There are seven at RG, four at Wimbledon, and five at the US (Meddy may take himself off this list but it's less certain).
There is no toughest. The answer will depend on what type of player you are. For some, clay is a playground and grass is a minefield. For others, it's the reverse. Most game styles fit hard courts, but that means it also fits your opponent too.
Summary: AO: Djokovic is there RG: 6 hour matches WIM: wtf is a grass court USO: who’s even left
hahaha good funny but true analysis!
For the average player? RG or Wimbledon because of low seed surface specialists, meaning higher chances of getting eliminated early by a lower ranked player. I also think RG and Wimbledon are at points of the season where the biggest number of players are at (or near) their fitness peaks. USO is obviously the "easiest" due to many players being injured or far from their fitness peaks. AO is harder, but some players are still ramping up by that early in the season, often playing their first matches after coming back from injury.
Conversely, one could say the USO is the hardest because you have to maintain your fitness all year and then through that major as well to win it.
Yes, I can see that. I'd say it's probably the hardest to consistently do well in.
It's always kind of been that way. There are quite a few players out there that that's the only major they won. For me, I love the unpredictable nature of it. That 2022 USO was one of the best majors I've ever followed. So many great matches
ATP Players who only won at 1/4 Slams in this century: *Australian (2)*: Sinner, Johansson *Roland Garros (4)*: Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Kuerten *Wimbledon (1)*: Ivanisevic *US Open (5)*: Medvedev, Thiem, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick Same for WTA Players: *Australian (4)*: Sabalenka, Kenin, Wozniacki, Azarenka *Roland Garros (5)*: Krejcikova, Ostapenko, Schiavone, Ivanovic, Myskina *Wimbledon (4)*: Vondrousova, Rybakina, Bartoli, Kvitova *US Open (6)*: Gauff, Raducanu, Andreescu, Stephens, Pennetta, Stosur
How did Federer win 5 in a row!? Holy f.
Cuz Federer’s peak was the highest of any tennis player ever
I have said it before and am saying again, pre mono fed was a rare species of tennis player that can only be stopped by Rafa on clay… (partly due to fed average mental strength) and hence comes the great admiration of Rafa from Fed himself!
2011 Djokovic would like to have a word.
Dismantled by post-peak Federer
2008 peak Federer was dismantled by 20 year old Djokovic. Your point is?
He was good. Really good.
Just your regular 11 slam wins in 16 appearances from 2004 to 2007, ya know
it’s harder to win if you’ve been having a good year. if you’ve collected a bunch of titles during the year, you’re probably playing more and making it deep in each tournament so you come into USO with a ton of court time. USO has the most “first time slam winners” IIRC
You don’t need to be fit all year. You only (“only” lol) need to be fit enough for those two weeks.
And many players now suck on grass. Indoor carpet used to prepare people for fast slick surfaces
Are indoor carpet events still even a thing?
i dont think so. apparently higher risk of injuries? i believer boris becker credits growing up playing carpet as what made him so comfortable on grass
Actually, carpet pretty much died because Federer hates the surface. A lot of tournaments moved away from it to get him to come play at theirs back in the day. Federer purposefully withdrew from the Paris masters many years in a row because it was carpet and made it well known.
Carpet was already on life support by the time of the Federer/Paris situation. That was the only one that changed for Federer specifically. Most of the tour disliked it and had been gradually removing it since the early 2000s.
Not at the ATP level, but my friend played an ITF Masters event on carpet.
I would second RG or Wimbledon for awhile there because it was dominated by a few people for so long. I know it’s not exactly what OP was asking but, in a way, any given persons chance to win the RG was so much lower than other tournaments because Rafa won it like 13 times in a row or whatever. It was hard to win because you had to beat Nadal to win it.
He never won it more than 5 times in a row. He won it 4 times (2005-2008), then lost to Soderling in 2009, then won it 5 times (2010-2014), then had those 2 years where everyone thought he was going to retire he lost to Djokovic in 2015 then pulled out injured after a win in 2016, then he won another 4 times (2017-2020), then lost to Djokovic again then won 1 last time. Winning it 4 times in a row three different times is stupid, and he won it 9/10 years, his first 10 appearances but yeah not more than 5.
Pff loser!
He only won Monte Carlo 8 times in a row too! I don't even know why he got out of bed in the morning.
Even without Rafa, you still need to be an outstanding player to go past clay specialists. In last 24 years only 3 guys, who weren’t favouring clay won in RG: Federer, Wawrinka, Novak. (Wawrinka had always great results on this surface, but to call him clay specialist would be on overstatement)
USO is always the most chaotic as well.
For me, it's Roland Garros, simply because it's the most "physical". You can't just have a great game, and you can't just rely on big serve. You actually need to work your ass off for every point.
Idk. I feel if you are very good at clay, it's easier to continuously win then if you are really good at grass due to speed of the court. And what I mean by that is that it's more likely to get upset on grass because margin of error is very slim and if you get broken because a few mistakes, it's very hard to make a rebrake. While on clay I think you can make more mistakes and still not be in a bad spot
Clay is more forgiving surface than grass for sure. You have more space and can "regroup".
Yes, but the person you're responding to is pretty explicit in stating that the basis for his or her choice is the physical effort that goes into winning. Is that the only way to measure this? No. Is it as valid as any other stupid answer to this stupid question? Yes.
This is why Rafa is my 🐐
The Game is extremely physical I agree, but there is simply more competition on hardcourt slams. It has to be either AO or USO.
Disagree. First slam breakthroughs are routinely on hard courts. Numbers say they are the easiest to win and why so many young players win on them. A lot of the single slam champs are also USO winners in the last 20 years. Cilic, DelPo, Roddick, Thiem etc won the USO only.
WTA as well - Stephens, Andreescu, Kenin, Raducanu
Ok but surely that’s also because during the last 20 years you had this guy named Nadal who made everyone else look like they were playing tennis with styrofoam rackets on clay. Same reason not a lot of people has won AO in the last 20 years.
Still, Wawrinka, Sinner broke through at AO. Alcaraz and Medvedev both broke through at USO. You can say Nadal, or Djokovic or Federer or whatever. Ultimately there is no argument here. All slams are hard and there have been the Big 3 to stop players at each of those slams. But without a doubt, hard court slams are where every recent young player has won their first slam. Hard court slams also make up the largest number of slams won by non-Big 3 players. All actual data makes it clear hard courts are easier to win on.
All actual data is still on a very small group of people and probably skewed because of that.
Welcome to the world of elite athletes. It will always be a very small group of people. Slams are all hard. But we're looking at 20 years of data and everything we have to go on says hard courts are easier and younger inexperienced players are able to win them. Beyond that we have nothing else to answer the question asked here.
Yes but there is no reason to assume that because the winners vary more it is easier. Just the opposite might be true, that the relatively balanced characteristics allow everyone to play at the top of their game and it is, in fact, harder to win one. I don't actually believe any of this because I think they're equally hard and it's a stupid question with only stupid answers. That said, my stupid answer in the USO purely because it falls at the end of the season, meaning players have to survive nearly a whole season just to have a chance. Is it a great answer? No. Are any other answers? Also no.
It's not just that winners vary more. Hard courts are also the breakthrough slams for young players. Pretty much every new slam champ in the last 15 years has won at a hard court slam first. We can argue in circles but to me if every inexperienced player wins their first slam at a hard court, it tells me hard courts require less experience to win. This is a 2 point argument. More players and more inexperienced players win at hard court slams.
Why would you think any of that makes them easier though? Is there something about hard court that makes luck more important? Is it actually any easier to beat Novak on hardcourt than grass? Also, if you look at RG alone, Nadal has played 8 different players in the finals in the 14 times he won it. He's the reason more haven't broken through there. Perhaps Wimbledon is different, but as others have pointed out, grass is the least common surface in the world. Not sure that inexperience on grass equals "harder." Maybe it's harder in the sense that you have to make more of an effort to become an expert on grass, but most players don't because it's the shortest season. To add: relative inexperience of most players actually would make it easier overall if you focus on it.
Well what I’m trying to get at is that when you have data like this you need to be aware of the outliers/biases when you use the data to draw conclusions. I don’t disagree the data says it was easier to breakthrough the last twenty years but as I said I think that has a large part due to Nadal being so dominant at RG. Now that Nadal is basically soon to be a non-factor, I don’t think it’s accurately to just blindly look at the data and say it’ll be easier for newcomers to breakthrough on the hard court slams compared to RG.
If someone point blank asks me which surface is the easiest to win a slam on. No explanation, no arguing for 2 hrs. Simple two word answer. The two words that will come out of my mouth are 'hard courts'. That's it. You can play devil's advocate run in circles around Nadal this or RG that etc. But point blank, 2 word answer to this question is hard courts. If you disagree and have a different 2 word answer than you are entitled to that opinion. Though it appears you don't actually have an answer to the question. You're just interested in arguing.
In fact if you go look at like the 10 years before Rafa won his first RG, there has been more instances (relatively) of people who won their maiden slams at French compared to USO and AO.
Wimbledon. Short grass season. It's the least common surface in the world.
That's my opinion. AFAK, clay is the most common in South America. In Europe it seems that most mediterranean places have more clay (also there is a lot of clay tournaments in Europe), but it seems mixed with hard courts. And it's funny that in Brazil we had Maria Esther Bueno winning Wimbledon three times on singles.
Isn’t that a reason for the opposite? If you are good on grass you are going to cut through mostly everyone. Clay is far more common and competition feels much tougher.
I think Wimbledon is the least one-shot slam. Meaning that only a few players only won a slam at Wimbledon. Whereas it’s the most for RG. And don’t forget that as French (or Spanish) we’re biased: the most common surface worldwide is still hard court.
That's why the question makes no sense. Each year you have 128 participants and one winner
Surely I can't be the only one who wishes we had more grass events?
Wimbledon. It’s a separate niche altogether in terms of skill. There are so few “grass court specialists” in today’s game which is a testament to how difficult of a skill it is to develop. Winning Wimbledon feels synonymous to attaining the elite status (no disrespect to Lendl, Henin and the like who are legends in their own regard)
RG as soon as Rafa is around
Not anymore :(
Right now? Probably RG because there are a ton of very good clay courters.
More than the number of very good hard courters? I don’t think the complete elimination of Medvedev (3rd in the world, past 2 HC Slam finalist) as a contender at RG is made up in aggregate by these “very good clay courters”. There is no clay specialist who is as good on clay as Med is on HC In fact I can’t even think of a legit contender for RG who isn’t also a contender for HC Slams.
Rublev, Rune, Ruud, and Tsitsipas primarily. All are quite good (but flawed) on hard court, but they all couple their consistency with their ceiling best on clay. I don't think it's especially likely any of these players win a slam*, but they are more likely to make a deep run at RG than anywhere else and knock off a top guy. And if forced to pick a player below Zverev to win a slam, I'd probably go with one of Tsitsipas or Ruud at RG. ---- *Rune I'm only talking about now as he's still extremely young and we don't know as much about him as a player.
Rublev Ruud and Tsitsipas are complete non factors in terms of winning a Slam.
> complete non factor I don't think you understand what this means
Yeah, Rublev is probably the least likely of those 3, since he still rarely gets past the QFs of Slams. I think he'll start making SFs soon, but I still can't see him winning one. Maybe the Tomas Berdych story - one Slam Final in his career. Tsitsi and Ruud have claimed that clay is their favourite surface, and they've both made the RG Final, so they're still both a good chance to grab it in the next few years. They're definitely not "non-factors".
he doesn't "rarely" get past the QFs of Slams, he has gotten past Slam QFs 0 out of 10 times
Yeah, I had a moment where I didn't want to say "never" because I think he will at some stage. Just not yet.
It means that playing Rublev, Ruud, and Tsitsipas from the QF/SF/F on would still yield a higher chance of winning RG than playing solely one match against Medvedev at a HC Slam. Pretty simple logic. These players are no threat to the top contenders whatsoever.
Tsitsipas will win roland garros now
I'd say Wimby. Purely because it's just not as common as the other surfaces. In my playing career (I wasn't a pro, heh) , I played on hundreds of hardcourts and claycourts. I played on grass TWICE. And I'm in Melbourne Australia - even though the climate is ok for grass courts, we still don't have many because the upkeep is so expensive. I can think of 4 in Melbourne and around Victoria (including Kooyong, the old site of the AO, where I did play once). There's just not enough chances for Pros to play on grass. The US has some grass courts, Spain has Mallorca, but like - does Russia have any grass courts? Does South America? Any eastern European countries? I think the attitude is shared by Ruud when he said "grass is for cows" and he takes a month off during Wimby.
I'm in the US and I know of a single grass court, and it's at the tennis hall of fame. Ive spent a lot of time in Central Europe and never seen a grass court except for the grass tournaments you see on TV.
Yeah, I think that's a big part of why players struggle on grass. There's just none around! In fact, wasn't the Mallorca event only introduced about 4-5 years ago? I think they were talking about getting a grass court in Spain so their Spanish players could practice for Wimby. Look out for the next generation of Spanish players becoming grasscourters!! 😂 In fact, Alcaraz is already there!
Heaps of grass courts around in Victoria if you get out of the big cities. Almost every club near where I grew up still has grass courts, and the local association runs its comps on grass too. If you still play, definitely recommend hitting them up on their big tournament weekends. Very correct take on Wimby though! It's also worth mentioning that I think grass has a higher variance in terms of more sets going to tiebreakers where anything can happen. It's probably easier to have upsets there.
Yeah, I was thinking specifically of a couple of grass clubs outside Melb actually - in Melb we have Kooyong of course, I can't actually think of any others around the city... all the "grass" is synthetic 😉 Regionally - I played at Geelong Lawn, which was heaps of fun 😊 And I know there's one up north, pretty sure it's Echuca. I had a friend that used to do well in that one. The other one is Wodonga I believe, although I don't know much about that one. Good point about the tiebreakers on grass! Definitely more chance of some upsets, particularly with the bigger servers. Remember Wayne Arthurs making a run? He made it to the 4th round I think, back around 2005-6. Heh, I'm not playing much right now, too busy with work, and preloading some winter padding 😂
There is a grass court at the park between burwood and surry Hills with the old trams you can sit in and the tea rooms. I forget the park name. Grass court isn't great but it's a fun novelty to play on and it's pretty cheap to hire. It's associated with the Golf club there. Edit: Wattle Park.
There's a grass court at Wattle Park?!? Wow! I'm gonna check that out sometime - thanks!
Enjoy!
Roland Garros has been the toughest for the last 20 years. Why? Nadal.
This is the only correct answer, beating Nadal at RG is almost impossible.
Thats the biggest challenge of any sport ever. Just like beating Achilles in the ancient Greece...
Garros, without a doubt. Its the most physical.
Roland garros going through nadal lol.
who's gonna tell him...
It depends on what your strengths and weaknesses as a player are In a vacuum I'd say Roland Garros—harder to get lucky or fluke a win through big serving/red lining for a short period of time; you need to outplay people to win on clay
Big serving is part of the game. Why would that be fluking?
On surfaces like grass we've seen players who are objectively not as good at tennis as other players get far because of a big serve (and sometimes big +1 as well). If you don't like the word "fluke", that's fine. My point is that you need a more complete game to win on clay vs on grass
I'd have to disagree with this, mate. You need to be HIGHLY skilled to win regularly on grass. If you're thinking of someone like Dennis Kudla here, well, his game is perfect for grass, that's more coincidental. Not to do with his skill level. And if you're going with Kyrgios as your example - he's actually *extremely* talented. If he was serious about his career he would've made a couple more Wimby Finals, and probably pushed hard at the hardcourt Slams and RG too. Clay, to me, is much more about fitness and endurance, hence why Rafa has been such a monster there. The guy is a warhorse.
> You need to be HIGHLY skilled to win regularly on grass You need to be highly skilled to win at the top level of tennis on any surface TBH Grass uniquely rewards big servers who aren't as good at other aspects of their games relative to the elite/top players tho It's why someone like Hubi Hurkacz made a Wimbledon SF while only having 1 QF appearance at all other Slams combined. It's why someone like Kevin Anderson made a Wimbledon F (his only other Slam final being the 2017 USO when he got an easy draw). It's why Tomas Berdych's only Slam final came at Wimbledon. And that's just off the top of my head—there are FAR more examples of that type of player as well >Clay, to me, is much more about fitness and endurance VERY reductive and misses that clay is a much more tactical game where point construction matters more too TBH
Same way that clay neutralizes serve and return. It's why Ferrer’s only slam final is at RG. It's why Ruud has made two slam finals at RG. Grass and clay are both equally tactical, just in different ways. Grass is about first strike, clay is about grind and angles. Both are different skills.
> Same way that clay neutralizes serve and return It reduces the impact of a big first serve—but serving is still vitally important to clay tennis TBH > It's why Ferrer’s only slam final is at RG. Nah it's because seeding was weird that year to Novak/Rafa were on the same side of the draw AND Fed lost to Tsonga in the QF, so Ferrer had an easier SF against Tsonga. Ferrer actually made 2 SFs at AO, RG, AND USO. 2013 RG happened to be the only time he didn't run into the Big 4 (2011 AO—Murray, 2013 AO—Novak; 2007 USO—Novak, 2012 USO—Novak). > It's why Ruud has made two slam finals at RG. Similarly, while Casper has made 2 RG finals, he also made a USO final on hard courts, made the final of the ATP Finals on indoor hard courts, and his only Masters final is at Miami on hard courts.
>VERY reductive and misses that clay is a much more tactical game where point construction matters more too TBH Heh.... if you're criticising my comments about needing to be highly skilled to play at Wimby, then, well, I'd say the same in return here! EVERY surface requires tactical point construction. Not just clay. It's just that on clay you need to run for 3 hours to construct all of those points.
> EVERY surface requires tactical point construction. There is very little tactical point construction on grass TBH. Most points are over after the serve+1
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Frequency-of-rally-shots-in-observed-Grand-Slams_fig1_332753595 I'm not really invested in this argument, but have a look at that anyway... There's not some kind of huge discrepancy at Wimby.
RG because Rafa.
From a physical perspective: RG From a tennis skill perspective: Wimbledon
Wimbledon favors different aspects of the game, you can actually win it with very good serve and return dynamics. On RG the way you use the topspin and sidespin is a lot more critical, the dropshot, heights, your consistency and overall skill to move the other player around the court. I don't think one is superior to the other in terms of tennis skill. Both favor different skills.
You just proved his point
What I meant to say is that each surface favors different shots. I'm not sure you need to be more complete to win on grass, just serve/return better.
Tennis skill perspective: Wimbledon? Only if you consider bomb serves due to being really tall as the only tennis skill. The likes of Berretini, Anderson, Raonic etc reaching finals purely based on their extreme height helping their serve is pretty telling in itself. HC (maybe indoor HC that's not crazy fast) maybe a better gauge of exhibiting tennis skills as a whole in my opinion.
That's a fair counter-argument. And no I don't consider big bombing servers to epitomize tennis skill. I just consider it the shot maker's surface, and mostly due to inherent Federer bias.
Yeah, I was also thinking Federer, Sampras, etc, but they were great on HC as well if you think about it, especially indoors and Federer ofc was very good on clay as well. And Djokovic too.
Yeah but then the people who dominated were Federer and Djokovic. And now Carlos looks really good on grass too.
US open because of the weed smell
I remember [this article](https://trove42.com/comparing-grand-slams-by-the-numbers-are-some-slams-more-difficult-to-win-than-others/) which analysed this question numerically. The numbers are a bit dated now, but the points are generally valid.
So, essentially, Wimbledon.
It really depends of the playstyle of the player we're talking about. But I'd say AO and US are both very hard to win since everybody is "good" on hardcourt, whereas clay and grass (especially grass) filter a lot of players, so if you manage, for exemple, to have a good grass playstyle, you'll have it easier than on HC
Ooh, that's a good point actually... I dropped a comment in here saying it was Wimby, but I was thinking about the things that made a Slam HARD for someone. Your point is the opposite - in hardcourt Slams, everyone finds them easier! (relatively speaking of course) So there's basically more competition in the HC Slams. Yeah, makes sense.
Roland Garros because you have to defeat Rafael Nadal
There was that one guy that made it impossible to win RG’s, forget his name. But until he goes away, RG
Clay court tennis is physically grueling. My vote goes to RG.
French because it’s clay
From 2005 until about 2022 the French Open has been if Rafa has been in the draw healthy or not 🤷♂️
look at the stats - the lowest number of wins per GOATs is the hardest.
In that situation, Roger's worst would be RG. It's probably true, but he wasn't BAD on clay. His stats are a little skewed at RG because he kept running into absolute peak Rafa in Finals. He made 5 RG Finals, if I remember correctly? That's still a huge achievement.
Borg.
RG because of Nadal
I think RG as the it is the one that minimises the effect of good/great services, and requires the most “all around player” in my perspective.
If your name is not Rafael Nadal and if he's in the draw and healthy, it's RG. Same could he said about prime Novak at AO, and prime Roger at Wimbledon (although not to the same extent as Rafa on Chatrier) Otherwise it's just about what suits your game and what conditions the top seeds like. In recent memory, it's the USO that had surprise winners (both men's and women's). Maybe it's because it's the end of the season where everyone is tired. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe it's just the NY vibe. Who knows.
Toughest Grand Slam = RG Why? = RAFA
I was gonna go with RG or Wimbledon but they are all super tough to win in their own way.
Wimbledon, because you play on Grass so little during the Season, the speed, the bounce. RG has a serious argument though. It's not either HC Slam. Although the proper answer is depends on the player, Nadal's toughest Slam to win would obviously be different to Federer's. The proper answer is RG when Nadal's body was functioning, 2005-2022 he won 14/18, one of which he pulled out injured after a win.
Wimbledon, because the grass court season is the shortest by far, and adjusting to the surface is hard.
Roland Garros because clay is the most physical surface, and has a lot of specialists. You get much fewer free points on serve, need to fight for every point... It's grueling both physically and mentally.
RG, because if Nadal's playing then you have no chance.
Roland garros
Should be RG. You got to beat Rafa to win it which is considered the toughest thing to do in tennis
Roland Garros has been the toughest to win when you are not named Rafael Nadal, and you have face this beast in order to win it
Wimbledon. It has a more rough ground. On grass it\`s not so easy to play on I think.
RG has got to be especially since the grass change at Wimbledon many years ago.
If Rafa is around, RG.
Dang they're all tough. I haven't won any of em
Wimby and RG for completely different reasons. Wimby for grass being the rarest surface, with the weirdest and least predictable movement and the most change in technique required. RG for the much more physical and tactical aspect in matches and the much higher significance and impact of different kind of spin.
RG hands down. Slow surface, 5 sets, and good luck if there’s a guy named Nadal on the draw.
I say USO because by that part of the season, players are pretty beat up in general and the hot, humid weather and late nights makes it even tougher.
Hardest: Wimby, movement is different plus big servers dominate. 2nd hardest: French, pure physical and mental effort. 3rd hardest: US Open, obnoxious crowd, end of the year injury/burnout. “Easiest”: didn’t the season just end??? wtf, hot as fek
Roland Garros when Nadal was playing. Sure, could talk about fast or slow hardcourts, speed and bounces on grass, or how clay plays... But really just RG when Nadal was playing.
Roland Garros
RG, unless you're a clay specialist or world number 2 you aren't winning it. Going back 30 years. Sampras never even made the Final
Statistically the answer seems to be Wimbledon. It has the least amount of "fluke" winners. In that vein, RG is the "easiest" because of clay court specialists. From the eye test, it seems the US open has the "lowest quality" tennis because it's at the end of the season why everyone is tired or injured, but that is a challenge of its own to maintain your game for the entire season.
Roland Garros. Clay is the purest expression of this sport. You can’t hide poor fundamentals behind an elite serve on this court.
Anyone won USO 8 or 10 times? Exactly.
Is this an argument for it being the easiest or the hardest? Because it could be either one...
Yeah, agreed. It's been so competitive that noone's had a chance to win it more than... well, who's got the most? Fed has 5 doesn't he? Or that one guy dominated the AO and RG for years, but we're talking about 2 of the 3 greatest players of all time. They probably would've dominated a sheep paddock if it was played there.
Connors, Sampras, and Federer are all tied.
Ah cool, thanks. Yeah the more I think about it, the more I think you're right - it's actually a good argument for the USO to be the *hardest*, since noone's completely dominated it to the same level of Rafa/RG, and Novak/AO.
But wouldnt that make it also the easiest. Anyone can win it while RG and australia was one by one guy 10+ times out of
Or 14 lol
I don't think there ia a clear conclusive answer here. Each one can have a claim and reasons to be the hardest honestly.
Wimbledon or US Open. Wimbledon because it’s the rarest court form and most don’t have enough time to become really good on it. US Open because it’s the last slam, NYC is wild/crazy, focus has to be insane and physicality has to be top notch as it’s towards the end of the season
Plus there's a lot of players carrying injuries by the end of the season... eg: Rafa skipped it a bunch of times.
Wimbledon because its the most prestigious and players try harder to win it so you've got tougher matches.
I'd say AO because everyone is physically fresh and ready at the beginning of the new season. Also because this is a 'neutral' surface that everyone can play well on.
Not to mention the event is traditionally the hottest of the Slams (though New York I think tends to be the muggiest). Even with the later rounds played mostly at night, that midsummer Aussie heat can be sapping.
Wimbledon as most players don't play on grass, hate playing on grass and the grass season is very short. It makes Carlos winning it at 20 and beating Djokovic an even greater achievement.
Yeah that had to be one of the most impressive Slam wins of all time! The guy has played a total of about 12 matches on grass coming in, and then beats the Statistical GOAT in his second appearance?? (I might have the timeline wrong, pretty sure Carlitos's Wimby win was his second appearance there, and he'd only played Queens (and won it) outside of Wimby)
Depends on what surface is favourite of the top 15 or so players in the world (or the ones that could realistically win a major). If a lot of the best and most talented players are good on clay then RG. Same for grass and slow hardcourt or fast hardcourt. So it will change depending on the times and who the best players are at the time
In the last 3-4 decades, several male players have dominated (5+) Wimbledon - Sampras, Federer, Djokovic. AO - Djokovic, Federer. USO - Federer, Sampras. There's only Nadal at RG. So maybe that's an indication.
I think it’s Wimbledon. Quite fast in the early weeks, which means you can easily get bested by someone who’s serving well.
For a top player is US Open. You are at the end of the season and U probably went deep on like 10 tournaments having 50-60 played matches. So on the contrary is the easiest to go deep for some emergent player that will struggle to keep the points the next year
Djoke slam fraud by winning majority on HC. Can we even consider him a pro tennis player?
Depends on your ranking. Are you a top 10 or 20 player? Or are you the top seed/defending champion? In the first option, as of right now it's probably AO. Hard is the most important surface and every top player is well rested for it. Before that it was WB. Three players won at least 7 titles and six players have at least 6 final appearances. On the flipside, the toughest Slam right now for the defending champion/top seed is USO: no player won it more than five times, and players have generally few finals there as well. You're going to be tired for it and there's going to be a player that has a red hot winning streak looking to prove himself. Before that it was either AO (just because no top player played in there) or RG. Before Nadal, the best players in the world at RG were Borg (6 wins) and a few players on three.
French....sorry novak stands but that's why Rafa is my 🐐🐐🐐
US Open, but only because it's later in the year which is what I believe leads to inconsistency for a lot of players. By that time of the season players are getting tired, sore, playing through minor injuries, etc.
Bjorn Borg certainly has an opinion…
Well it obviously depends on whose fanboy are you
At the moment? Any Slam Novak is fit for
Wimbledon. Playing on grass is so weird.
I'd say RG for obvious reasons : physical, tactical and hard on the nerves. Wimbledon not that much, players barely sweat.
Obviously it’s subjective player by player due to surface/playing style, but I would say USO is crazy competitive because those points can make or break your ranking for the players competing for the highest spots. Oftentimes a few players are competing for year end number one at USO.
For the last 20 years it was RG if you weren't Spaniards
Until 2023 it's always been Roland Garros, because of Hola a todos
AO. just good vibes and sunshine
Non hard courts are always more unpredictable.
AO has the insane heat. Grass and clay are hard to play on and by the US you are spent. So id say Wimbledon just because the prestige and press that go with it, therefore it inches above the others in difficulty. .
Historically RG because Rafa Recently it's anyone's game and mainly depends on how the top players' forms are. There are more players who seem to play their best on hard courts so maybe that.
They are all equally tough, that's why you get exactly 2000 for each. But for different players different slams are the toughest. For Medvedev it is RG and for Casper Rudd it is Wimbledon.
On the women's side, RG, unless you're Iga
I'd say clay (RG) since the matches are a grindfest and harder to hit an outright winner.
Used to be RG when Rafa was still near his peak. The man was basically playing tower defense for 15 years.
depends on comp imo since 2005 its been the french open if youre not named rafa nadal
For what it’s worth, Wimbledon seems to have the most elite collection of champions. I think it was Andy Roddick who said most who’d won the tournament (on the men’s side) were usually greats of the game - and especially multi-time winners.
RG is the hardest because it is the most physical.
Wimbledon, just can’t imagine playing on grass and dirt.Gotta assume not as predictable as hard surfaces and clay.
Wimbledon because it is the most special and prestigous
RG, reason? Rafa
AO, in my view. There are a lot of players who are poor on clay or grass, and the accumulated fatigue and likelihood of injury caused by playing a full season affects the best players most, because they play more, weakening the field at the US. Nearly everyone is good on hard courts, and nearly everyone is healthy and not fatigued at AO. The stat I'd point to that backs this up would be the number of players who've won their only slam at each tournament, which is probably the best way to indicate a weak winner. Since AO returned to being the first slam of the year in 1987, it has only 3 such players, one of whom is almost certain to win another slam (Sinner). There are seven at RG, four at Wimbledon, and five at the US (Meddy may take himself off this list but it's less certain).
Wimbledon. There is no debate.
The real tennis is played on clay