Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   When is AO a full, equal Major? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=297000)

hoodjem 11-08-2009 07:21 AM

When is AO a full, equal Major?
 
By what year do you treat the Australian Open as a fully fledged, major slam tournament, that is equal to Wimbledon or the US Open or the French Open.

Sgt. John's Feb 2009 list suggests that it did not have this status until 1990.
Here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...05#post3098705

(Indeed, he does award the FO this same status until 1978.)

pc1 11-08-2009 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4088738)
By what year do you treat the Australian Open as a fully fledged, major slam tournament, that is equal to Wimbledon or the US Open or the French Open.

Sgt. John's Feb 2009 list suggests that it did not have this status until 1990.
Here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...05#post3098705

(Indeed, he does award the FO this same status until 1978.)

Hoodjem,

I just wrote a post that while I understand why St. John did it and he is to be admired for it, I disagree with it because it's very hard to put a lesser number on a major. There's a lot of problems doing this.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...295675&page=12

CyBorg 11-08-2009 12:52 PM

I don't believe SgtJohn claims that the 0.5 value for the Australian is entirely accurate. Rather the value is abstract, approximate - meant to give a rough idea.

It is easy to dismiss this on the grounds that the number allotted is not objectively representative - we know that it is not. However I believe that this is a useful framework that aids in thinking about these events.

In language we constantly use abstraction - for example, I may say that the human body consists of the head, the torso, the arms and the legs. Someone may interrupt me and say that I am wrong for ignoring other parts of the body, such as the eyes, nose, feet and internal organs. But sometimes we cannot list everything and need to rely on a more simple model to grasp complexity in some basic way.

Similarly here, the Australian is in no objective way worth half of Wimbledon. But it is hard to argue that it is worth as much either, and it is also not a good idea to ignore it altogether. In order to avoid unnecessarily complex numbers (0.75 and other varieties) it is probably the best idea to simply allot '0.5', without any pretention of total accuracy.

pc1 11-08-2009 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 4089504)
I don't believe SgtJohn claims that the 0.5 value for the Australian is entirely accurate. Rather the value is abstract, approximate - meant to give a rough idea.

It is easy to dismiss this on the grounds that the number allotted is not objectively representative - we know that it is not. However I believe that this is a useful framework that aids in thinking about these events.

In language we constantly use abstraction - for example, I may say that the human body consists of the head, the torso, the arms and the legs. Someone may interrupt me and say that I am wrong for ignoring other parts of the body, such as the eyes, nose, feet and internal organs. But sometimes we cannot list everything and need to rely on a more simple model to grasp complexity in some basic way.

Similarly here, the Australian is in no objective way worth half of Wimbledon. But it is hard to argue that it is worth as much either, and it is also not a good idea to ignore it altogether. In order to avoid unnecessarily complex numbers (0.75 and other varieties) it is probably the best idea to simply allot '0.5', without any pretention of total accuracy.

I guess I can go with that, with reservations. I do like the idea, don't get me wrong. I am concerned with the execution of the idea which can go wrong in many ways.

The great thing about today's tournaments is that they do assign values to tournaments so you can get a better idea of how a player does during the year and in the future for his or her career.

BTURNER 11-08-2009 01:17 PM

Odd. During the eras of Australian dominance on the men's tour. It would be strange to say with Frasier Laver, Rosewall, Roche etc it was a poorly attended event by quality men!

timnz 11-08-2009 02:24 PM

The years it was a lesser event & when it became strong
 
Basically if you read the various posts on it - the opinion seems to be as follows:

1/ From 1972 to 1982 it didn't have most of the top players - hence it was a lesser event

2/ 1970 only - very few top players attended.

Basically, it was a top event in 1969 & 1971 - having deep fields. Then in 1983 the top players started to come back again - had Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe etc at that event.

In my opinion 1990 is an arbitrary division.

From 1983 it was a great event again. In 1988 it went to hard court and a new stadium. There was no difference in the quality of the field in the field comparing the late 1980's to 1990 and beyond.

1968 it was still an amateur event.

So in Summary - strong event from 1983 onwards, but also 1969 & 1971 it had true Grand Slam status.

1968 prior it was certainly a strong amateur event with the likes of Emerson, laver, rosewall, hoad winning it.

By the way, check out pc1's excellent comments about the Australian Open in 1983 - just recently posted post number 235. It really puts it into context:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...295675&page=12

boredone3456 11-08-2009 04:10 PM

Its hard to put an exact year on it, how do we define full equal major? Is it purely having the "top players" show up and play, having very in depth draws, or what. If you went by the entire top player argument as many do well I really couldn't see it as equal much before 1990...maybe like 1988 if you want to stretch it.

As for the late 60's and early 70's, it was seen as a big event because many great players at the time were australian and of course they played their home event, it was sorted of helped by the coincidence of some of the great being from there. In terms of worldwide equality though, I wouldn't say it was equal much before 1990.

jimbo333 11-08-2009 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 4089690)

From 1983 it was a great event again.

So in Summary - strong event from 1983 onwards

No, I don't agree.

Lots of players still didn't go in the mid 80's!

As far as I remember for example, Connors and McEnroe didn't play in 84!

Connors didn't play it in the 80's at all (only in 74 and 75).

Winners or Errors 11-08-2009 06:11 PM

When it was moved from the end of the year to the beginning, it became a "real" major. Even if the fields were deeper before then, it wasn't played by everyone every year, because many players simply skipped it. I don't remember exactly, but wasn't the last December tournament in the late 80s?

timnz 11-09-2009 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo333 (Post 4089960)
No, I don't agree.

Lots of players still didn't go in the mid 80's!

As far as I remember for example, Connors and McEnroe didn't play in 84!

Connors didn't play it in the 80's at all (only in 74 and 75).

Just because selected players didn't play in certain years it doesn't completely devalue an event. For instance Connors didn't play the French Open from 1974 through to 1978 - no one is taking the French Open in those years off the list of Grand Slam events for those years. McEnroe played in 1983 the Australian Open.

If you follow the Australian Open in those years - you saw great players playing it in the mid to late 80's Edberg, Cash, Lendl, Wilander, Mecir, Becker etc.

jimbo333 11-09-2009 03:03 PM

The question was when is AO a full equal major, and in my opinion the players didn't consider it a full equal major until the late 80's, early 90's!

Mid 80's no!

timnz 11-09-2009 04:06 PM

Well certainly by 1988
 
I remember that it was a big deal when Wilander won in 1988, and I remember how excited Lendl was in winning it in 1989. There didn't seem to be any deeper field in 1990 than in those years. Lendl, Wilander, Edberg were all around in the mid-80's playing it too.

AndrewD 11-10-2009 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4088738)
By what year do you treat the Australian Open as a fully fledged, major slam tournament, that is equal to Wimbledon or the US Open or the French Open.

Sgt. John's Feb 2009 list suggests that it did not have this status until 1990.
Here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...05#post3098705

(Indeed, he does award the FO this same status until 1978.)

Accepting that suggestion is a sign of your gullibility and stupidity.

You can suggest that from 75 to 82 the Australian Open didn't attract players commensurate with what we perceive to be the status of a major. However, from 83 (when Wilander, McEnroe and Lendl played) onwards the only way you can denigrate it is if you're either riddled with bias or are clinically stupid.

Prior to 75, you can't sensibly suggest that the Australian wasn't an equal partner. The biggest problem it faced, in attracting international players, was the distance. HOWEVER, given that Australian players dominated international tennis from the 50's through to the early 70's it wasn't important to attract anyone other than locals.

End of the day, this is a tired discussion. The sad thing is that you guys dont seem to have the capacity or desire to logically examine the history. You base your entire argument on one 'fact' and run with it - the hallmark of the uniformed.

Do yourselves a favour and look at the players McEnroe beat to win Wimbledon in 83, then look at the players Connors beat to win the US Open in 83 and then look at the players Wilander beat to win the Australian that same year. If you come away thinking that Wilander had the easiest road to the final, you just shouldn't be allowed to discuss the game in public.

jimbo333 11-10-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewD (Post 4095004)

Do yourselves a favour and look at the players McEnroe beat to win Wimbledon in 83, then look at the players Connors beat to win the US Open in 83 and then look at the players Wilander beat to win the Australian that same year. If you come away thinking that Wilander had the easiest road to the final, you just shouldn't be allowed to discuss the game in public.

You can't just look at who they beat to get to final, surely you have to look at the whole draw. And the discussion is about when is AO a full equal major?

And many people think late 80's. It was certainly growing from early 80's but it was at a real low in late 70's and took time to recover?

I'm not an expert but that's what I've read, I may be very wrong!

pc1 11-10-2009 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo333 (Post 4095066)
You can't just look at who they beat to get to final, surely you have to look at the whole draw. And the discussion is about when is AO a full equal major?

And many people think late 80's. It was certainly growing from early 80's but it was at a real low in late 70's and took time to recover?

I'm not an expert but that's what I've read, I may be very wrong!

Jimbo333,

Here a link to a post I had concerning the 1983 Australian and who Wilander had to defeat to win it.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=235

jimbo333 11-10-2009 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1 (Post 4095136)
Jimbo333,

Here a link to a post I had concerning the 1983 Australian and who Wilander had to defeat to win it.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=235

Yes I read that in the other thread, and like I said you can't judge a tournament just on who the champion beats you have to look at the whole draw!

In my opinion and it looks like this Sgt.John chap, the AO was at a real low in late 70's and even though it improved fast in the early 80's, it still took a few years for everyone in the tennis world to consider it a full equal major with Wimbledon, French and US Open!

And arguably it's still now seen as the lesser of the 3 in many peoples eyes, unfairly certainly!

pc1 11-10-2009 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo333 (Post 4095167)
Yes I read that in the other thread, and like I said you can't judge a tournament just on who the champion beats you have to look at the whole draw!

In my opinion and it looks like this Sgt.John chap, the AO was at a real low in late 70's and even though it improved fast in the early 80's, it still took a few years for everyone in the tennis world to consider it a full equal major with Wimbledon, French and US Open!

And arguably it's still now seen as the lesser of the 3 in many peoples eyes, unfairly certainly!

The Australian is a great tournament nowadays and while I don't know exactly where it stands among the majors, it certainly draws fields that are as strong as any major. I love watching the Australian on television as much as any majors, more than some.

jimbo333 11-11-2009 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1 (Post 4095456)
The Australian is a great tournament nowadays and while I don't know exactly where it stands among the majors, it certainly draws fields that are as strong as any major. I love watching the Australian on television as much as any majors, more than some.

It certainly is a great tournament and always has the best weather:)

I'd really love to go. I'm planning to go to Australia in just over a years time, and am planning to go when the Australian Open is on. It will be an expensive trip (flight mainly), as I know people out there so will have somewhere to stay. I've never been to Australia before so am looking forward to it, even though it's over a year away (it will be my next holiday).


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse