Gustavo Kuerten caused controversy last year with his decision to withdraw from Wimbledon and many saw this as evidence that the tournament's star was on the wane.

French Open champion Albert Costa has now announced he will miss this year's Wimbledon because he is getting married.

Costa is joined by two-time runner-up Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario who has pulled out of Wimbledon with extreme exhaustion.

Defending men's champion Goran Ivanisevic will also miss the tournament as he continues to recover from surgery on a shoulder injury.

Has Wimbledon lost its appeal?

We are 75% of the way to the ideal: one Grand Slam for each of four different surfaces. Clearly, Wimbledon must stay. Perhaps the Australian Open should be converted to carpet? It is ridiculous to hold up any one surface as constituting the litmus test of tennis skill.

For instance, Sampras is mortal on clay and Kuerten is probably mortal on grass (we'll know when he turns up at Wimbledon). In fact, it's refreshing that there's no one play who can dominate on all surfaces. Variety is the spice of life, and tennis is life.
Paul, USA

The problem with wimbledon is not the tournament itself but how it's run. The organizers are fifty years behind the French and the US Open. They still imposed a ridiculous dress code that most of the kids don't find attactive. The other problem I see is that the game has evolved from the early days and grass court tennis is now a rarity not only in clubs but also in the tour. If a tournament wants to withstand the test of time it must reinvent itself and offer something differnet to new generations.

Kids in Europe and South America dream about winning the French, why? well, because they grow up playing on clay, and their idols play on clay. Even in the US one can only play on hard courts or clay courts, grass is only reserved for expensive pockets. Wimbledon must rekindle it's spark as it now shines faintly from a borrowed past.
George, USA

Wimbledom is still a Gram Slam , I still wait for it every year but it has to modernize itself, it is true one thing I enjoy the Roland Garros more in every way
Laura, Dominican Republic

If the courts had a roof, it would be the number 1 tournament to me. Trouble is, they don't. And it's exasperating, to have no idea what matches will be played, which ones won't. This is why, when my friend and I plan on travel trips to Grand Slams, Wimbledon continues to be last on our list. We are there to watch tennis, not to pace the grounds, day after day, with umbrellas.
Summer, USA

Kuerten and Costa won't go because they know they can't win.....one dimensional players. Wimbledon is the only major worth watching. It's got that mystique about it. The truely great players could win on all surfaces...Borg, Connors, Agassi, Laver.....
Owen, Canada

Increase the prize money, improve the facilities, change the dress code and add a roof and Wimbledon will survive. However if the organisers continue with the rain interrupted farce we see each year, the tournament will surely fade into obscurity.
Steven, UK

If you ask a toddler in India who was the Wimbledon winner last year don't be surprised if you get the right answer, but if you ask who is year French Open winner you can be assured that you will get a blank look. This shows that Wimbledon continue to charm us even if it means watching it on TV. It's still the best tournament in the world and we all hope to come and watch it live one day with strawberry and cream smudged all over our face. It's the blend of culture and modernity that makes this tournament so unique. Who cares if some clay court players are missing!
Jam, India

I would enjoy Wimbledon more if I could actually SEE it! It has always been a mystery to me why the other Grand Slams can be seen on channels such as Eurosport, but Wimbledon cannot (online radio coverage is an improvement, but still not the same). Open up the TV rights, create a wider international audience for not only the tennis but the advertising, then raise the prize money for the players, and perhaps the tournament will re-take its place among the greats. Oh, and I agree about needing a roof over the Centre Court at least. Players' tournament schedules just won't allow for rain delays any more.
Kate Wakeman, Greece

The level of competition is just not there any more. There are only ever a handful of players capable of winning either singles crown, which is indicative of the lack of depth in women's tennis and the dominance of the serve in the men's grass court game. Look at the range of different winners in France in recent times and compare it to the predictability of Wimbledon and it becomes clear that the latter is no longer what it once was.
Graham Collett, UK

Wimbledon is still the best tennis tournament in the world as it has the most history and tennis is meant to be played on grass. Players want to win Wimbledon more than any other because it is still the premier tennis tournament in the world. Maybe there could be some changes but it is still the biggest tennis tournament in the world.
Tom Illsley, England

However, it is the players who make a tournament, and Wimbledon cannot rely on this mystique to carry it through the years without accommodating some of the legitimate complaints against it. If some of the best players in the world do not wish to play there, Wimbledon will soon suffer for it.

It does no good and is quite petty to sneer at the absentees and dismiss them as 'clay court specialists', as if that were a bad thing. Remember that some of this grass tournament's greatest titlists - Sampras, McEnroe & Becker, to name a few -- have not only never won the French, but have done badly on clay.
Marie, Philippines

It's a shame that the good clay court players try to avoid Wimbledon; they should want to excel on all surfaces. Agassi has won all the slams and I think this raises him above even Sampras as the greatest player of recent times. Players like Kuerten pail in comparison. Seeding is no excuse, it's fear...They should have to play at least some grass court tennis.
Gaz, UK

No one does it like the English. We might not win but we do put on a good show!
BG Druce, England

Wimbledon certainly is not as exciting as it was in the late seventies and early eighties, when we enjoyed the rivalry between Connors and Borg, Borg and McEnroe, and Evert and Navratilova.

I don't think the women's game has not lost as much appeal as the men's game. The men's game is terribly boring with most of the points being won on serve. Added to this is the perception among the players that the tournament authorities are inflexible and insensitive to their needs.
Rama Velamuri, USA

What rubbish! Wimbledon is THE tennis tournament. Wimbledon has always been the championship that all the top players want to win more than any other, just ask Agassi, Sampras, Ivanisevic, McEnroe (need I list more?).

Players who choose not to play at Wimbledon do so because they are simply not good enough for the surface and they don't want to embarrass themselves. These so called 'players' can stay away for all I care, if they don't want to play at the worlds most prestigious tennis event then we don't want them either.
Lee, UK

Wimbledon is the greatest tennis tournament, it always was and always will be. Note that most of the "top class" players who do not come to Wimbledon are the established clay court players such as Albert Costa and Alex Corretja. Even without these and others who are unfortunate enough to be injured I'm sure that this years Wimbledon will be just as exciting as ever. Come on Tim!
Chris Perryman, England

I enjoy watching Wimbledon more than any other Grand Slam tournament. More drama, more enthusiasm, more history, more class....
Muzamil Saleem, England

Surely the best tournament in the world is the one that attracts all the top ranked players and gives the fairest chance of saying that the winner is the best in their sport. If you say Wimbledon still fits that bill, you cannot be serious.

The fact Tim Henman, a player who can't even get to a quarter-final of any other slam event will once again be a strong contender and who knows may even win is proof enough.

The US Open is a far better test of all court ability. If you like burying your head in the sand, though, carry on thinking it's just a few clay court players not turning up. But the truth is the game has evolved. Changes to rackets, surfaces, fitness levels and the fact few singles players now compete in doubles all work against grass.

Wimbledon has lost its sparkle. There are only two parts to it now - Watching it rain and watching big serves.
Ian, England

Wimbledon hasnt lost it's sparkle. It's just some clay court players have given up without even trying. Last year's tournament, with Goran finally winning, was thrilling. Pete's win in the dark was amazing too.
Mari, USA

Wimbledon is alive and kicking. So a few so called 'stars' have opted to avoid SW19? Big deal, their loss and the fans' gain. That's why these type of players will never be considered to be great; to be great means adapting to all surfaces.

Maybe Wimbledon was more interesting 20 years ago with the likes of Connors, McEnroe, and Borg. But I still queue come rain or shine to see the 'greats' of today, Sampras and Agassi, or tomorrow, Federer. These players still want to win the best tournament in the world.

Wimbledon was the greatest, is the greatest and will always be regarded as the greatest. Just ask Goran, this man sweated blood and risked his career for years to obtain the greatest prize in tennis.
Matt, United Kingdom

Why say Wimbledon had lost its appeal just because a handful of clay court specialists drop out? It is fair to say that the vast majority of professional tennis players would still regard Wimbledon as the biggest tournament. The French Open is a great tournament but grass court specialists don't like it. Wimbledon does have that extra bit of status.
Laura Fyson, UK

Wimbledon lost its sparkle with the retirement of Boris Becker. There can be no other like him. Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan

What's all the fuss about the "clay court hermits" missing Wimbledon all about? The only reason the don't play is because they know they have no chance of having a decent tournament. These guys are prima donnas; they can't accept that one tournament can be bigger than any one player. Let them stay home sipping sangria whilst there ranking tumbles I say!
Mike, Scotland

It's not a question of Wimbledon losing its sparkle. It's a matter of grass court tennis dying. Twenty years ago, two grand slams were played on grass and there were two grass court seasons during the year. Grass court season now consists of two weeks plus Wimbledon.
Mertov, USA

They discussed this question during the recent French Open over here. Guy Forget, who was one of the commentators, suggested that although the French Open was more fashionable and perhaps more popular with the players, Wimbledon was still the Grand Slam that every player wanted to win simply because of the history and what it represents to Tennis in general. I have to agree with him.
Ben Griffin, France

Wimbledon's problems stem from the very short ATP grass court season. This coupled with the weather, (why they did not put a roof on the "new No 1 court remains a mystery!!), has resulted in players concentrating their efforts on the other surfaces where more points can be won.

Let's face it neither spectators or players want to be subjected to Cliff Richard on a wet "rained off" Wednesday, instead of watching the worlds best at their best. The solution seems simple, up the money and the payers will come running back!!
Steve , United States

I love Wimbledon, but even I would have to admit it is not what it once was. In my time players like Borg, McEnroe, Becker and Sampras have lit up the tournament, players who not only excelled on grass, but were at the top of the tennis tree. Looking down the top 20 for this year, there is only really Agassi in that category with a chance of winning, and it is hardly his favourite surface.
Shula, London

Wimbledon is a tradition. When we talk of tennis, Wimbledon comes to mind immediately. No tournament no matter how big, can ever replace it. I feel it's not Wimbledon that has lost its sparkle but the players. There is no consistency among the top players.

Among the present lot, we don't see superstars like Becker, Edberg, Connors or McEnroe who performed consistently year after year at Wimbledon. The only exceptions are Agassi and Sampras and perhaps, this may be the last championship for Sampras. Unless, we have resurgence of natural grass court players, Wimbledon will continue its tradition but it will not be what it used to be.
Joel Bakki, USA

Wimbledon will always be top of the list. So people are declining to play this year - let the prima donnas sit at home and watch the real stars of the circuit play.
Jane, Scotland

Wimbledon hasn't been the same since the glory days of the 50s and 60s when Sedgman, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser, Laver, Emerson, Newcombe, Stolle and Rosewall graced the court and brought home fourteen titles. Alas, those days seem gone forever but, ignoring my bias, it's still the best tournament in tennis.
Daryl, Australia

Wimbledon is still the tournament everyone wants to win. The clay court players just don't bother turning up as they know they have no chance of winning.
Mark, Edinburgh, Scotland

I totally disagree with the notion that Wimbledon is only a "slam bang" tournament. If viewers recall the semi-final between Becker and Agassi in 1995, just count the number of baseline rallies and then think again. Some indoor surfaces are faster than grass by far and have far less rallies than at Wimbledon.
Partha Mishra, India

Sorry but Wimbledon just isn't what it used to be. Can you imagine Costa changing his game to play at Wimbledon in a two week period? Impossible. And also the variable weather we normally see at Wimbledon changes the courts so dramatically. Remember the year Agassi won? Hot, hot, hot - The grass courts became hard and compact just like clay, but in the rain anyone can beat anyone. Look at last year, Goran did not win anything on clay... it's the true champions court.
John, Spain

At Wimbledon itself, why don't the Wimbledon committee modernise their stuffy image by starting play on Centre and Number one courts at 12 noon like all the other courts. They should consider halving prices Monday to Saturday for the two big show courts to allow more enthusiastic fans in, taking up a high percentage of the seats. And they should allow players to wear the normal clothing they wear on court in other tournaments.

Perhaps then will Wimbledon be up to 21st century standards.
David, Scotland

Wimbledon has long lost it's appeal to high class tennis players. The courts are just not suited their style of play. The calibre of grass court play will surely go down as less players will serve and volley as well as put any kind of effort into matches. People say that Wimbledon is Henman's best chance at a grandslam victory because not as many people can play on grass. Isn't that more of a put down to Henman than encouragement?
Daniel N, England

I don't think that these withdrawals constitute anything other than clay court specialists not wanting to play on a surface they don't enjoy. Having said that, I do think that improvements in racket technology allied to a revolution in player fitness regimens, has made grass a surface lacking subtlety. That said, even in Paris now, the top women can smash a winner from the baseline without too much problem.

The old arguments concerning changing court dimensions and/or the height of the net may once again be revisited. After all, they were designed for wooden rackets, gut strings and players wearing long trousers. And in all the technological maelstrom of the past century, those dimensions have never changed. Is that sacred cow now up for revision?
Rhys Jaggar, England

Wimbledon needs to make a number of changes to make it more interesting. More exciting tactical rallies are called for rather than the "bang-boom" tennis that dominates lawn tennis now. Slower balls and other measures are definitely called for!
Mike Smithers, UK

To me Wimbledon is still the Grand Slam event that counts. The French is alright but at this moment the top ranked players are not as skilled as in years gone by and are better on the slower game of clay so of course they will claim the French is better. But Wimbledon with the serve and volley, rallies, Pimms and strawberries and cream is the premier event and rightly so!
Paul Tyler, Cayman Islands

Ivanesevic's win last year was tremendous and great theatre, but expect more wins from lower ranked players at Wimbledon in future. It's still a great tournament for now, but the organisers would be very unwise if they ignore the way that many of the top players now approach it. There is also far too much dominance on the serve now on a grass court, and watching two-stroke rallies all day is about as interesting as Formula 1 has become.
Ron, England

Grass is the home of tennis and still to many (players and spectators alike)the best surface. Whether one prefers the crash, bang, wallop of the serve-volley game to the long rallies of the clay baseline game is a matter of taste or perhaps boredom threshold. If Wimbledon has a problem, it is that the organisers are still 50 years behind the times and think that good tennis is dictated by dress codes, long queues and exorbitant prices.
Andrew Bletchley, UK

Also this tournament is notorious for producing one slam wonders. Who wants to see another Andres Gomez or Carlos Moya?
Uday Kallianpur, United States

I have thoroughly enjoyed this year's French Open and I think the mark of a great player is their ability to perform well on all surfaces. But, there is something special about Wimbledon with more exciting rallies and a faster game. I still regard Wimbledon as the best and most exciting tournament as there is no other tournament like it.
Claire McBride, UK