was AO 1970 really that bad?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by FedericRoma83, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    According to Wiki a panel of the SID ranked the top-10 players of 1969 as follows:
    1) Laver, 2) Roche, 3) Newcombe, 4) Okker, 5) Ashe, 6) Rosewall, 7) Gonzales, 8. Drysdale, 9) Gimeno, Stolle (tied)

    The AO was played in Janaury and it was entered by Roche, Newcombe, Okker, and Ashe. That means it missed only one of those who were the top-5 players at the time of the event. I know that the 5th seeded was Stan Smith (at the time not a top-10 yet), and I also know that Rosewall was a potential no. 1, as he demonstrated later in that season, but that doesn't change the fact that the tournament was entered by those who in that moment were the world no. 2, 3, 4, and 5.
    I'm starting to think that maybe AO '70 doesn't deserve its fake-Major status.

    What's your opinion?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
    #1
  2. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    When stated like that I guess in isolation the AO of that year was not so bad, but it was probably still the poorer cousins of the other slams.

    I've always said it, the AO truely came of age in 1995, when the 2 biggest names of that era, Agassi and Sampras (not just the 2 best players, but the biggest names) contested the final.
     
    #2
  3. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    AO was already significant enough to be called a true major from 83 onwards ( had wilander , mac , lendl etc ) .....
     
    #3
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    1995? Ah no

    The biggest names in the sport were playing it in the 1980s - lendl, edberg, wilander etc . The 1995 date and players you mention as biggest names is completely arbitrary. By the way sampras was playing it since at least 1990. Agassi didn't play it because of a silly choice on his part. A choice now he probably regrets because it turned out to be his best slam.
     
    #4
  5. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    nice, three answers, no one in-topic.. :D
     
    #5
  6. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    1995 is important cause tournament gave, for the first time, same points as other 3 Majors
     
    #6
  7. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Still no answers about AO 1970... :( ?
     
    #7
  8. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yea I know that the AO started to gain recognition in 1983 with Lendl and Wilander etc, and then even moreso with Becker and Edber etc, but once Agassi came down for the event, and he met Sampras in the final, then in my own mind the event truely became great. Agassi would, for whatever reason, bypass the AO year after year. In 1994 he was scheduled to play in it but pulled out at the last minute which was a huge disappointment. But when he actually stepped on Melbourne soil in 1995, then for me, that's when I could say to myself "gee the AO really is a big deal".
     
    #8
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    1971 was the best Ao of the decade, I guess.1975 was pretty good, too.
     
    #9
  10. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    No, the 1975 edition was terrible. Apart from Connors and Newk, the third seeded was no. 26 on the chart at the time.
    It had a great final, the most famous AO match of the 70s, but the rest of the tournament was just lame.

    Still nobody says something about the 1970 edition? :?
     
    #10
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Why?

    The other top players like sampras had been playing it for years, not sure why the addition of agassi made it a much bigger and better event.
     
    #11
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Why?

    The other top players like sampras had been playing it for years, not sure why the addition of agassi alone made it a much bigger and better event.
     
    #12
  13. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Back on topic

    Okay the reason the AO for 1970 is depreciated, is because it is compared to the sydney dunlop open about a month later. This had most of the top players from the AO but also it had players who weren't allowed to play the AO like rod laver. Hence much deeper field. Some termed the sydney event at the time, I believe, as the 'real AO'
     
    #13
  14. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,912
    re-read post #6.

    I've been telling you that fact for years & you just seem to ignore it every time the AO is discussed, which is strange since you seem obsessed with 'points' when dealing with the importance of current events(Olympics, WTF, etc)

    do you really think the 1st year the ATP awarded equal points to the AO is insignificant in determining its importance?

    Yes, the tournament was big in, say, 1990. But not nearly as big as it is today(check how many top 30/50/100 players didn't play it that year, that sort of attendance would be unthinkable today. its not all about the top 4 or 5players. And I believe the attendance of the top 50 was better in '95 than '90 as well)

    and in '83/'84 top players were being paid appearance fees to play. again, it was a big event then but not nearly on the same level of the other 3 majors.
     
    #14
  15. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,545
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    do you have the numbers ?
    (i don't have anymore the formula for the bonus points so i can't easily remove them !)
    but wasn't it a bit the same for all the slams ? (to a different extent, of course)
    i mean... lots of players were skipping wimbledon too, for instance.

    it would be interesting to have a chart with the evolutions, with time, of the % attendance (for direct entries) for each slam...
     
    #15
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The Roche/Newcombe semi was arguably the best match of the decade in the AO.

    Did Ashe enter it?

    I didnĀ“t know much about 1970.Ashe won it easily and Dick Crealy was one of those minor aussie players that had big time with the depleted fields of the AO ( Dent,Warwick,Marks and so on)
     
    #16
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    While the Melbourne event gained respect again from 1983 on, I still consider WCT Finals and Masters superior tournaments until 1988 or so.
     
    #17

Share This Page