You have the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and United States Open and the Grand Slam Cup.?

Question

Do you envisage the day when they will increase the number of Grand Slams taking it to seven mayor tournaments in either or both Argentina and China.

Answer 1

Tradition will keep the tradtional Grand Slam without any changes. Prize money can elevate a tournament to draw quality fields, but the GS events will always be the focal point for the season.

Answer 2

Personally, I don't think there needs to be more than 4 Grand Slam Tournaments. That would water down the meaning of the Grand Slams.

That said, I do get tired of Wimbledon taking advantage of it's "tradition" as being the worlds most important tennis tournament.

1. Their website sucked. If you wanted live scores, that was the last place to go. The websites of the French, US, and Australian Opens are much, much better than the Wimbledon site.

2. The rain and roof. Yeah, they're getting a roof next summer, but they've waited too long to do this. It's absurd that Nadal, and so many other players had to play back to back to back days just because Wimbledon was too stubborn to put a roof over the court. For Gods sake, it rains all the time in London.

The organizers of Wimbledon act like people who have a monopoly. They have no incentive to change, or make improvements to make things better.

Answer 3

jeebus teeter!! Hear! Hear!
I wish the blokes who think they run Wimbledon could hear you.
How about one Grand Slam tournament in each continent?
1.- Roland Garros(Europe)
2.- U.S. Open(N.America)
3.- Australia
4.- Argentina(S.America)
5.- Seoul or Kuala Lumpoor(compromise between China
and Japan)ASIA
6.-Africa (Morocco or S.Africa)

That makes 6 so each of the 3 surfaces could have 2 slams.
France and Argentina..clay
U.S. and Australia... grass
Africa and Asia...hard court
We can all leave the English their precious Wimbledon where they can play lawn croquet,sip tea and nibble at strawberries....while the rest of the world plays tennis!