McEnroe and "true" grand slam total

[Moose Malloy]

Australian Open finals:
1972 Rosewall Anderson
1973 Newcombe Parun
1974 Connors Dent
1975 Newcombe Connors
1976 Edmondson Newcombe
1977 Tanner Vilas
1977 Gerulaitis Lloyd
1978 Vilas Marks
1979 Vilas Sadri
1980 Teacher Warwick
1981 Kriek Denton
1982 Kriek Denton

1971 Dallas WCT F - Rosewall d. Laver 64 16 76 76
1972 Dallas WCT F - Rosewall d. Laver 46 60 63 67 76
1973 Dallas WCT F - Smith d. Ashe 63 63 46 64
1974 Dallas WCT F - Newcombe d. Borg 46 63 63 62
1975 Dallas WCT F - Ashe d. Borg 36 64 64 60
1976 Dallas WCT F - Borg d. Vilas 16 61 75 61
1977 Dallas WCT F - Connors d. Stockton 67 61 64 63
1978 Dallas WCT F - Gerulaitis d. Dibbs 63 62 61
1979 Dallas WCT F - McEnroe d. Borg 75 46 62 76
1980 Dallas WCT F - Connors d. McEnroe 26 76 61 62

[urban]

The importance of tournaments has shifted over the years.In the first years of open era, the traditional champs besides the GS tournaments were the Italian, German (both clay)and South African champs (hard). I am going here along the lines of the World of Tennis annuals edited by John Barrett and Lance Tingay. Biggest tournaments beside were the Pacific Southwest at LA (hard), the Philadephia indoor, the Wembley indoor and some events played at MSG, NY. In the early 70s the promoter-struggle between the WCT group (Lamar Hunt) and the ITF (Philippe Chartier) escaleted, resulting in banns and boycotts of the European and Australian majors, especially French, Melbourne, but also partly Wimbledon. 1971 the WCT played a 20 tournaments series over the year (including Australian and Italian Open), with a playoff at Dallas. Later since 73 the WCT reduced its schedule to the first 5 months of each year. To opposite this move, the ITF had established a Grand Prix series, with a Masters as a round robin playoff. This struggles - the WTT factor came also into play -generated a constant shifting of impotance of certain tournaments, and a unclear situation in ranking.Between 1970 and 73 there was no clear- cut Nr.1, and even Connors in 1974 profitated, in avoiding the difficult WCT series, and coming always fresh to the majors. Australia was hurt by the change of date to Christmas time, which conficted also with the US indoor circuit at begin January.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Even though, I am only 22, I recognize that up until about the late-1980s, the Australian Open and French Open were considered nowhere near the prestige of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Consequently, great players in the last 20 years who have been successful at the Australian Open (notably Wilander, Edberg, Agassi, and Lendl) and French Open (notably Wilander and Lendl) have had their grand slam totals inflated.

Wholly innacurate. When Wilander won his first Australian Open it signalled a re-emergence of the tournament, a re-emergence which coincided with the best players in the world being from Europe, not the United States. 1984 was the last hurrah for both McEnroe and Connors. After that, they were supplanted by the likes of Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Also, take note that in 1983, when Wilander won his first Australian Open, he beat McEnroe in the semi-finals. If the tournament was so lacking in prestige at that stage (1976/77-1982 it certainly was a third-class field) what was McEnroe doing there? Probably, going on your thinking, trying to inflate his total of major wins. Unfortunately, he ran into Wilander who, subsequently, beat Ivan Lendl in the final. Not what anyone would call an 'easy win', was it?

Historically, prior to the emergence of Connors and Borg, the Australian Open had more prestige than the US event. Why? Quite simply because the best players in the world were Australian. However, with the emergence of Connors, Borg and, later, McEnroe (plus the larger number of top ranked Americans) the Australian Open became, naturally, less important to them. It couldn't draw on national ties to pull in the best players and it couldn't offer the financial rewards so it faded. When the tide turned and the European players began to emerge in the early 80's the Aus Open became relevant again.

Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily down-play the accomplishments of men such as Wilander, Lendl, Edberg and Becker why not go the whole hog and say that McEnroe, Connors and Sampras inflated their totals by winning so many events on home soil?

[AAAA]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Wholly innacurate. When Wilander won his first Australian Open it signalled a re-emergence of the tournament, a re-emergence which coincided with the best players in the world being from Europe, not the United States. 1984 was the last hurrah for both McEnroe and Connors. After that, they were supplanted by the likes of Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Also, take note that in 1983, when Wilander won his first Australian Open, he beat McEnroe in the semi-finals. If the tournament was so lacking in prestige at that stage (1976/77-1982 it certainly was a third-class field) what was McEnroe doing there? Probably, going on your thinking, trying to inflate his total of major wins. Unfortunately, he ran into Wilander who, subsequently, beat Ivan Lendl in the final. Not what anyone would call an 'easy win', was it?

Historically, prior to the emergence of Connors and Borg, the Australian Open had more prestige than the US event. Why? Quite simply because the best players in the world were Australian. However, with the emergence of Connors, Borg and, later, McEnroe (plus the larger number of top ranked Americans) the Australian Open became, naturally, less important to them. It couldn't draw on national ties to pull in the best players and it couldn't offer the financial rewards so it faded. When the tide turned and the European players began to emerge in the early 80's the Aus Open became relevant again.

Seriously, if you're going to arbitrarily down-play the accomplishments of men such as Wilander, Lendl, Edberg and Becker why not go the whole hog and say that McEnroe, Connors and Sampras inflated their totals by winning so many events on home soil?

The Winner and losing finalists from 1983-1993

1983 Wilander Lendl
1984 Wilander Curren
1985 Edberg Wilander
1987 Edberg Cash
1988 Wilander Cash
1989 Lendl Mecir
1990 Lendl Edberg
1991 Becker Lendl
1992 Courier Edberg
1993 Courier Edberg

[AAAA]

the above list is for the Aus Open final.

[Eviscerator]

Simple answer---No

[Captain Haddock]

I sometimes think of this. Mac has 7 GS titles. He should have won the French in 84 (anyone who saw that match will remember how Lendl was outclassed during the first 3 sets), and Wimbledon in 80 and 82 (losses to Borg and Connors in 5-setters). Yes, I know that the "should have won" argument is subjective, and that he lost those matches, but Mac was clearly unlucky in these three finals, where he was the better player. That brings us to 10 GS. Let's assume he would have won the Australian (on grass) as many times as he won the US Open, and we're at 14 (all between 79 and 84).
I can't make the same argument for Mac post-85. Tatum, cocaine, and the advent of the modern game with modern racquets were too much for one volatile Mac to deal with. I still say that if players had to return to wood racquets tomorrow, Mac would be back in the top 10 right out of bed at 48 years old. Imagine Nadal with a Maxply Fort?
I know, I know, this is just nostalgia from an old man...

[AndrewD]

Here's a comparison of the final 8 players from the French Open, Australian Open and US Open in the years 1983-1993 (the quarter-finalists are in brackets).

You can see that, apart from Connors absence at the Aus Open, they ALL compare favourably (some years a stronger final eight, some years a less auspicious one). Anyone suggesting that players at the Aus or French had it easy is suffering from a bad case of sour grapes (especially if that person played both events enough times to win at least one of them).

1983 AO: Wilander (W), Lendl (RU), McEnroe, Mayotte, (Masur, Kriek, Teltscher, Smid)
1983 USO: Connors (W), Lendl (RU), Arias, Scanlon (Dickson, Teltscher, Noah, Wilander)
FO 1983: Noah (W), Wilander (RU), Higueras, Roger-Vasselin ( Connors, Lendl, Vilas, McEnroe)

AO 1984: Wilander (W), Curren (RU), Kriek, Testerman (Edberg, Cash, Becker, Davis)
USO 1984: McEnroe (W), Lendl (RU), Cash, Connors ( Mayer, Lloyd, Wilander, Gomez)
FO 1984: Lendl (W), McEnroe (RU), Connors, Wilander ( Gomez, Noah, Sundstrom, Arias)

AO 1985: Edberg (W), Wilander (RU), Lendl, Zivojinovic (Lloyd, Schapers, Kriek, McEnroe)
USO 1985: Lendl (W), McEnroe (RU), Connors, Wilander (Noah, Gunthardt, Jarryd, Nystrom)
FO 1985: Wilander (W), Lendl (RU), Connors, McEnroe (Jaite, Edberg, Leconte, Nystrom)

AO 1987: Edberg (W), Cash (RU), Masur, Lendl (Evernden, Mecir, Noah, Jarryd)
USO 1987: Lendl (W), Wilander (RU), Edberg, Connors (McEnroe, Gilbert, Mecir, Krishnan)
FO 1987: Lendl (W), Wilander (RU), Becker, Mecir (Connors, Noah, Novacek, Gomez)

AO 1988: Wilander (W), Cash (RU), Lendl, Edberg (Chesnokov, Jarryd, Schapers, Witsken)
USO 1988: Wilander (W), Lendl (RU), Cahill, Agassi (Sanchez, Krickstein, Connors, Rostagno)
FO 1988: Wilander (W), Leconte (RU), Agassi, Svensson (Perez-Roldan, E Sanchez, Chesnokov, Lendl

AO 1989: Lendl (W), Mecir (RU), Muster, Gunnarsson (McEnroe, Edberg, Svensson, Ivanisevic)
USO 1989: Becker (W), Lendl (RU), Krickstein, Agassi (Noah, Berger, Connors, Mayotte)
FO 1989: Chang (W), Edberg (RU), Becker, Chesnokov ( Berger, Mancini, Wilander, Agenor)

AO 1990: Lendl (W), Edberg (RU), Wilander, Noah (Becker, Wheaton, Pernfors, Cherkasov)
USO 1990: Sampras (W), Agassi (RU), Becker, McEnroe (Krickstein, Lendl, Cherkasov, Wheaton)
FO 1990: Gomez (W), Agassi (RU), Muster, Svensson ( Leconte, Chang, Champion, Ivanisevic)

AO 1991: Becker (W), Lendl (RU), P.McEnroe, Edberg (Forget, Caratti, Prpic, Yzaga)
USO 1991: Edberg (W), Courier (RU), Lendl, Connors (Sanchez, Stich, Sampras, Haarhuis)
FO 1991: Courier (W), Agassi (RU), Stich, Becker ( Chang, Hlasek, Davin, Edberg)

AO 1992: Courier (W), Edberg (RU), Krajicek, Ferreira, (Lendl, McEnroe, Stich, Mansdorf)
USO 1992: Edberg (W), Sampras (RU), Courier, Chang, (Lendl, Ferreira, Volkov, Agassi)
FO 1992: Courier (W), Korda (RU), Leconte, Agassi ( Cherkasov, Kulti, Sampras, Ivanisevic)

AO 1993: Courier (W), Edberg (RU), Sampras, Stich (Bergstrom, Steven, Forget, Korda
USO 1993: Sampras (W), Pioline (RU), Volkov, Masur (Chang, Muster, Larsson, Medvedev)
FO 1993: Bruguera (W), Courier (RU), Medvedev, Krajicek ( Prpic, Novacek, Edberg, Sampras)

FO 1986: Lendl (W), Pernfors (RU), Leconte, Kriek ( Chesnokov, Becker, Vilas, Gomez)
USO 1986: Lendl (W), Mecir (RU), Becker, Edberg (Leconte, Wilkison, Srejber, Nystrom)

[Captain Haddock]

The 1978 - 1983 period would be more indicative of the field at the Australian Open in Mac's prime. It is clear that the AO was an important event in the 60s, and that it made a lot of progress from the mid-eighties on, to the point of being equal to the 3 other slams. But there was a window in the 70s and early eighties when great players (Borg, Connors, McEnroe) simply did not play that event. When players like Vilas get to the final of an event on grass, it indicates that the field was weak. Check Vilas' record at Wimbledon for comparison.

[urban]

Quite right, Fabrice. But one note: Vilas did indeed win the Masters 74 at Kooyong on grass, in a field with Newcombe (ok wasn't in the best of form, but won AO some weeks later over Connors), Borg and others, and beat Nastase in a quality 5 set final.

[AndrewD]

Fabrice,

During the years 78-81, the Aus Open had a very poor field. However, Mac did play the event in 83 and 85 for no result. Regardless, if he had played the Aus Open during his 'best of' years (not counting 83 and 85) and had won the event, I don't think anyone would have suggested it was a less than deserved win. As a result, neither Vilas nor Kriek (the former with a 5-6 record against Mac, the latter with a 5-12 record) deserve less credit for having won.

It is interesting to note that in McEnroe's 1983 Wimbledon win he beat Chris Lewis in the final, Lendl in the semi (remember, that was Lendl circa 83 on grass), Sandy Mayer, Bill Scanlon, Brad Gilbert, Florian Segarceanu and Drew Gitlin. Johan Kriek, in his 1981 Aus Open win beat Steve Denton, Mark Edmondson, Tim Mayotte, Chris Lewis, Tomas Hogstedt and Drew Gitlin (lost one of the rounds, sorry).

Now, player for player those two fields (not counting the winner) stack up well, except for Lendl. When it comes to grass-court tennis they're almost identical although you could argue that Denton, Mayotte and Edmondson were tougher opponents than Segarceanu, Gilbert and Mayer.

As I've mentioned before, Australian grass is wholly dissimilar to English grass. The bounce is higher and there isn't the same desperate need to play from the net (it is the percentage play but it isn't the only option). That higher bounce helped Vilas enormously although he did train like a spartan in order to make the adjustment. Kriek, similarly, had a better record at the Aus Open and US Open because of that feature.

[SgtJohn]

Hi everyone,

I actually think that this problem you discuss (which events were the most important at a given time) is the main reason why it's so hard to write an all-times list of the best players (and why the plain Grand Slam total-based list is a ridiculous way to do so)...

As for the Aus. Open, given the geographical and time of the year factors, it could only be a great event when:
a: there were great Aussie players.
b: Australia won the Davis cup, because then another team (usually the US) would challenge them in Australia, and then stay to play the tournament.
That was the case at diverse times, the 1910's (Brookes & Wilding Era), and mainly from the 50's to the late 60's.
I agree it became a great tournament, almost equal to the other GS with Wilander's victories. I'm pretty young and doesn't remember this era, but reading the articles from this period, I have the feeling that Edberg's win in 1985 was considered almost as big a breakthrough as Becker's at Wimby the same year.

The French, on the other hand was always a big tournament, from 1926 on...Maybe it wasn't very prestigious indeed for american players for cultural reasons, but for the great clay-courters it definitely was more important. Rosewall won the French pro (a clear copy of Roland Garros for the pro tour in the 60's) on clay 6 times and was considered one of the best players of this time, even if he was often beaten on gras at the US pro and Wembley by Gonzales or Laver. An inaccurate look at the firt Roland Garros Open fields could draw a wrong picture, because from 1970 to 1973, the field was totally depleted due to conflicts between the WCT and the ITF, evoked earlier...Basically, during these years, there were only 2 Grand Slams, Wimbledon and the US...After this brief period, RG became a big tournament again when Nastase, No1 in the world won it in 1973, and when Borg, supreme on clay, started to become an all-court player... At Mac's time, RG was clearly a VERY significant tournament.

Coming to the WCT Finals...After the creation of the ATP in late 1972 and thus the end of the conflict between WCT, WTT, NTL and ITF, Dallas was never as big as it had been. In today's standard, it was a bit like Key Biscane: the biggest non-Grand Slam tournament. In 1970-1972 it was very important, as well as the whole WCT tour, for one very good reason: the prize money was so much bigger... Players are human, and even if they're sensitive to the prestige of the Grand slams, they prepare better for the bigger-prized events, and that's why even the Wimby and US results cannot be considered as significant in these years as after that.
Look at 1970, a year when John Newcombe was named No1 in the World... He won Wimbledon and 3 tournaments. Rosewall was Wimbledon runner-up, won the US and 5 tournaments. Laver was miserable in Slams, losing in the 4th r of both Wimbledon and the US...but he won 13 tournaments (that is almost all the WCT tournaments), and dominated everybody, being 3-0 against Rosewall, and 5-0 against Roche...Who was the best? And can you think of a player this hot performing so poorly in Slams, not reaching even a QF? That should tell something about the preparation at this time...


I hope this wasn't too boring, I just like a little tennis history talk from time to time thats 'all
Bye!

Jonathan

PS: Fabrice, I like your " Mac should have won this and that" theory...The Borg should have win at least 3 US Open and 3 australian if he had played them and would have 17 slams...
Plus, "if" some things were fair, for example, Mac would never have his celebrated 4-years-in-a-row-as-number-1, because in 82 he won nothing, though Connors made the Wimbledon-US double, and Lendl won 12 tournaments and was US runner-up...Mac should be No3 in 82!!!

[Captain Haddock]

Yes, I know my argument is flawed. In truth, I still haven't gotten over Mac's loss at the 84 French Open. I still cringe when I think about it. But we all play tennis and we all know that a loss is a loss. I still think that Mac would have won a few AO titles had he made the trip down there in his prime (apart from 83). Regarding the other post by Colpo about Mac being the best, I would agree, although I am aware here again that this is not an objective assessment. No-one has enthralled me as a spectator more than Mac during his best years. I saw him anihilate Lendl at the 84 Brussels indoor (I had front-row seats) and was amazed at the imagination, the skill, the genius of Mac's game at the time. But I was 18, and I realize that, at that age, you perceive things with more intensity and you are more passionate about everything. Even though I still buy and enjoy music today, nothing will ever match the level of emotion I felt listening to music in those days. Stroke for stroke, Federer is clearly the best.

[SgtJohn]

Well, I haven't gotten over Fed's loss at this year's French anyway, but I guess that's OK because I'm not 18 either . Actually I was 18 in 2002, a time when there wasn't any truly great player at (or near) his peak, I'm afraid...

Still, I watched lots of Mac's games, even if I wasn't even born when most of them took place, and I agree he was a really "artistic" player too, I think there are some shots in his arsenal that even Roger couldn't master, though Federer is probably the best overall... It must have been heartbreaking to see Mac being replaced at No1 by Lendl in 85, I think Lendl was very good too, but not nearly as gifted...

Jonathan

[Grimjack]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Here's a comparison of the final 8 players from the French Open, Australian Open and US Open in the years 1983-1993 (the quarter-finalists are in brackets)...

FO 1983: Noah (W), Wilander (RU), Higueras, Roger-Vasselin ( Connors, Lendl, Vilas, McEnroe)

If there was ever a GS where the fix was in even more than with Sampras's last USO, this is pretty clearly it.

[Q&M son]

Originally Posted by SgtJohn

Hi everyone,

I actually think that this problem you discuss (which events were the most important at a given time) is the main reason why it's so hard to write an all-times list of the best players (and why the plain Grand Slam total-based list is a ridiculous way to do so)...

As for the Aus. Open, given the geographical and time of the year factors, it could only be a great event when:
a: there were great Aussie players.
b: Australia won the Davis cup, because then another team (usually the US) would challenge them in Australia, and then stay to play the tournament.
That was the case at diverse times, the 1910's (Brookes & Wilding Era), and mainly from the 50's to the late 60's.
I agree it became a great tournament, almost equal to the other GS with Wilander's victories. I'm pretty young and doesn't remember this era, but reading the articles from this period, I have the feeling that Edberg's win in 1985 was considered almost as big a breakthrough as Becker's at Wimby the same year.

The French, on the other hand was always a big tournament, from 1926 on...Maybe it wasn't very prestigious indeed for american players for cultural reasons, but for the great clay-courters it definitely was more important. Rosewall won the French pro (a clear copy of Roland Garros for the pro tour in the 60's) on clay 6 times and was considered one of the best players of this time, even if he was often beaten on gras at the US pro and Wembley by Gonzales or Laver. An inaccurate look at the firt Roland Garros Open fields could draw a wrong picture, because from 1970 to 1973, the field was totally depleted due to conflicts between the WCT and the ITF, evoked earlier...Basically, during these years, there were only 2 Grand Slams, Wimbledon and the US...After this brief period, RG became a big tournament again when Nastase, No1 in the world won it in 1973, and when Borg, supreme on clay, started to become an all-court player... At Mac's time, RG was clearly a VERY significant tournament.

Coming to the WCT Finals...After the creation of the ATP in late 1972 and thus the end of the conflict between WCT, WTT, NTL and ITF, Dallas was never as big as it had been. In today's standard, it was a bit like Key Biscane: the biggest non-Grand Slam tournament. In 1970-1972 it was very important, as well as the whole WCT tour, for one very good reason: the prize money was so much bigger... Players are human, and even if they're sensitive to the prestige of the Grand slams, they prepare better for the bigger-prized events, and that's why even the Wimby and US results cannot be considered as significant in these years as after that.
Look at 1970, a year when John Newcombe was named No1 in the World... He won Wimbledon and 3 tournaments. Rosewall was Wimbledon runner-up, won the US and 5 tournaments. Laver was miserable in Slams, losing in the 4th r of both Wimbledon and the US...but he won 13 tournaments (that is almost all the WCT tournaments), and dominated everybody, being 3-0 against Rosewall, and 5-0 against Roche...Who was the best? And can you think of a player this hot performing so poorly in Slams, not reaching even a QF? That should tell something about the preparation at this time...


I hope this wasn't too boring, I just like a little tennis history talk from time to time thats 'all
Bye!

Jonathan

PS: Fabrice, I like your " Mac should have won this and that" theory...The Borg should have win at least 3 US Open and 3 australian if he had played them and would have 17 slams...
Plus, "if" some things were fair, for example, Mac would never have his celebrated 4-years-in-a-row-as-number-1, because in 82 he won nothing, though Connors made the Wimbledon-US double, and Lendl won 12 tournaments and was US runner-up...Mac should be No3 in 82!!!

Great post Jonathan, fully agree.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by SgtJohn

Hi everyone,

I actually think that this problem you discuss (which events were the most important at a given time) is the main reason why it's so hard to write an all-times list of the best players (and why the plain Grand Slam total-based list is a ridiculous way to do so)...

As for the Aus. Open, given the geographical and time of the year factors, it could only be a great event when:
a: there were great Aussie players.
b: Australia won the Davis cup, because then another team (usually the US) would challenge them in Australia, and then stay to play the tournament.
That was the case at diverse times, the 1910's (Brookes & Wilding Era), and mainly from the 50's to the late 60's.
I agree it became a great tournament, almost equal to the other GS with Wilander's victories. I'm pretty young and doesn't remember this era, but reading the articles from this period, I have the feeling that Edberg's win in 1985 was considered almost as big a breakthrough as Becker's at Wimby the same year.

The French, on the other hand was always a big tournament, from 1926 on...Maybe it wasn't very prestigious indeed for american players for cultural reasons, but for the great clay-courters it definitely was more important. Rosewall won the French pro (a clear copy of Roland Garros for the pro tour in the 60's) on clay 6 times and was considered one of the best players of this time, even if he was often beaten on gras at the US pro and Wembley by Gonzales or Laver. An inaccurate look at the firt Roland Garros Open fields could draw a wrong picture, because from 1970 to 1973, the field was totally depleted due to conflicts between the WCT and the ITF, evoked earlier...Basically, during these years, there were only 2 Grand Slams, Wimbledon and the US...After this brief period, RG became a big tournament again when Nastase, No1 in the world won it in 1973, and when Borg, supreme on clay, started to become an all-court player... At Mac's time, RG was clearly a VERY significant tournament.

Coming to the WCT Finals...After the creation of the ATP in late 1972 and thus the end of the conflict between WCT, WTT, NTL and ITF, Dallas was never as big as it had been. In today's standard, it was a bit like Key Biscane: the biggest non-Grand Slam tournament. In 1970-1972 it was very important, as well as the whole WCT tour, for one very good reason: the prize money was so much bigger... Players are human, and even if they're sensitive to the prestige of the Grand slams, they prepare better for the bigger-prized events, and that's why even the Wimby and US results cannot be considered as significant in these years as after that.
Look at 1970, a year when John Newcombe was named No1 in the World... He won Wimbledon and 3 tournaments. Rosewall was Wimbledon runner-up, won the US and 5 tournaments. Laver was miserable in Slams, losing in the 4th r of both Wimbledon and the US...but he won 13 tournaments (that is almost all the WCT tournaments), and dominated everybody, being 3-0 against Rosewall, and 5-0 against Roche...Who was the best? And can you think of a player this hot performing so poorly in Slams, not reaching even a QF? That should tell something about the preparation at this time...


I hope this wasn't too boring, I just like a little tennis history talk from time to time thats 'all
Bye!

Jonathan

PS: Fabrice, I like your " Mac should have won this and that" theory...The Borg should have win at least 3 US Open and 3 australian if he had played them and would have 17 slams...
Plus, "if" some things were fair, for example, Mac would never have his celebrated 4-years-in-a-row-as-number-1, because in 82 he won nothing, though Connors made the Wimbledon-US double, and Lendl won 12 tournaments and was US runner-up...Mac should be No3 in 82!!!

Good post. In looking at the 4 GS tournaments during the Open era (things are too complicated before 196, I agree that in the 70s the Australian clearly did not attract as strong a field. But it wasn't a "third rate" event as someone posted. The Australian championships were a prestigious event since much earlier, and the term "grand slam" where the Australian was included was first used in the 1930s.

I disagree with the repeated attempts to minimize the importance of the FO in the 70s. Aside from the WTC/ITF disputes early on, it was a strong tournament from 1973 onwards. I do not consider it less important or less prestigious than the US Open since then. It has the additional virtue of being faithful to one of the two original natural surfaces for the sport, and representative of the world championship in that surface. The US open changed surfaces at least twice during the 70s.

I also agree that McEnroe's number one ranking in 1982 is just one of those theological tennis mysteries that doesn't make the least bit of sense, similar to Connors number one ranking in 1977. McEnroe was clearly number 3 in 1982. And not even a close number 3, as both Connors and Lendl obviously had much better results than him than year. All you have to do is look at the record. And by the way Lendl won 15 (not 12) titles + 5 runner up appearances. And he beat McEnroe all 4 times they met that year.

The explanation that the WCT tournaments didn't count that year is ridiculous. Why wouldn't they count?
On the other hand, when it comes to explaining the lowly status of of the AO and the FO we inevitably see WCT Dallas brought up as much more important.
None of this makes any sense.

[jeffreyneave]

The aussie open regained its prominence when Wilander beat Mcenroe and Lendl in 1983. It was waek in the early 80s when Kriek won. In the 70s it varied. In 1970 it had good field (roche, necombe qashe, okker smith taylor and ralston -top grass court players)

In 1971 it was full grand slam with all wct players (laver, rosewall etc)
In '72 fairy weak (only Newcombe, metrevli and Rosewall from top 20)
In '73 same field as '72

In '74 not much depth, but had 3 best players of 74 (connors, newcombe, borg)

'75 no depth but 3 great grass court players newcombe, connors and Roche

'76 weak field - no top 10 from 1976

'77 Tanner beat roche, rosewall and vilas (all very good players and in the top 20 in 1977)

'77 dec Gerulaitis wins from reasonable field (includes dent, tanner, alexander ,roche and rosewall all rated players in '77)

'78 and '79 vilas wins from fairly weak field, but he is a quality player on aussie grass given his Maters wins in '74

Laver's 13 wins were not all on the wct circuit; 7 were open to ITF players (philaelphia, South Africa, Queens, Dunlop sydney open, South orange, PSW and Wemlby London) ; that's why he beat the top itf players(richey, nastase, ashe and Smith) as well The 1970 circuit was a mixed one with Laver and Rosewall both qualifying for the ITF masters even though they played plenty of restricted events for WCT player as well. Laver beat Rosewall 5-0; Newcombe 3-0.


jeffrey

[Q&M son]

Thanks for info jeffrey.

Regards.

Lucio.

[TennisExpert]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

The aussie open regained its prominence when Wilander beat Mcenroe and Lendl in 1983. It was waek in the early 80s when Kriek won. In the 70s it varied. In 1970 it had good field (roche, necombe qashe, okker smith taylor and ralston -top grass court players)

In 1971 it was full grand slam with all wct players (laver, rosewall etc)
In '72 fairy weak (only Newcombe, metrevli and Rosewall from top 20)
In '73 same field as '72

In '74 not much depth, but had 3 best players of 74 (connors, newcombe, borg)

'75 no depth but 3 great grass court players newcombe, connors and Roche

'76 weak field - no top 10 from 1976

'77 Tanner beat roche, rosewall and vilas (all very good players and in the top 20 in 1977)

'77 dec Gerulaitis wins from reasonable field (includes dent, tanner, alexander ,roche and rosewall all rated players in '77)

'78 and '79 vilas wins from fairly weak field, but he is a quality player on aussie grass given his Maters wins in '74

Laver's 13 wins were not all on the wct circuit; 7 were open to ITF players (philaelphia, South Africa, Queens, Dunlop sydney open, South orange, PSW and Wemlby London) ; that's why he beat the top itf players(richey, nastase, ashe and Smith) as well The 1970 circuit was a mixed one with Laver and Rosewall both qualifying for the ITF masters even though they played plenty of restricted events for WCT player as well. Laver beat Rosewall 5-0; Newcombe 3-0.


jeffrey

Good choices