Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   was AO 1970 really that bad? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=450832)

FedericRoma83 01-14-2013 12:39 AM

was AO 1970 really that bad?
 
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?

Blocker 01-14-2013 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83 (Post 7118374)
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?

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.

abmk 01-14-2013 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blocker (Post 7118386)
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.

AO was already significant enough to be called a true major from 83 onwards ( had wilander , mac , lendl etc ) .....

timnz 01-14-2013 02:24 AM

1995? Ah no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blocker (Post 7118386)
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.

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.

FedericRoma83 01-14-2013 03:03 AM

nice, three answers, no one in-topic.. :D

Nadal_Power 01-14-2013 03:15 AM

1995 is important cause tournament gave, for the first time, same points as other 3 Majors

FedericRoma83 01-14-2013 04:01 PM

Still no answers about AO 1970... :( ?

Blocker 01-15-2013 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abmk (Post 7118434)
AO was already significant enough to be called a true major from 83 onwards ( had wilander , mac , lendl etc ) .....

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".

kiki 01-15-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83 (Post 7120269)
Still no answers about AO 1970... :( ?

1971 was the best Ao of the decade, I guess.1975 was pretty good, too.

FedericRoma83 01-16-2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiki (Post 7123340)
1971 was the best Ao of the decade, I guess.1975 was pretty good, too.

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? :?

timnz 01-16-2013 02:16 AM

Why?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blocker (Post 7121534)
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".

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.

timnz 01-16-2013 02:17 AM

Why?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blocker (Post 7121534)
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".

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.

timnz 01-16-2013 02:20 AM

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'

Moose Malloy 01-16-2013 08:12 AM

Quote:

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.
re-read post #6.

Quote:

1995 is important cause tournament gave, for the first time, same points as other 3 Majors
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.

vive le beau jeu ! 01-16-2013 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy (Post 7125643)
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 have the numbers ?
(i don't have anymore the formula for the bonus points so i can't easily remove them !)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy (Post 7125643)
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)

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...

kiki 01-16-2013 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83 (Post 7124936)
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? :?

The Roche/Newcombe semi was arguably the best match of the decade in the AO.

Did Ashe enter it?

I didnīt 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)

kiki 01-16-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy (Post 7125643)
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.

While the Melbourne event gained respect again from 1983 on, I still consider WCT Finals and Masters superior tournaments until 1988 or so.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 PM.

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