Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by BigBUBBA, Jun 19, 2007.
Does anyone know...
Why Bjorn Borg never played in the Ozzie Open?
He played one year before he started winning slams.
In general, most big name players didn't play the Australian Open because of scheduling in December. It was scheduled too close to Christmas time, after the Masters, and at the end of the tennis season. The tourney wasn't really considered a major in relative terms.
I'm glad it was move to January. It made it more of a tourney to begin the tennis season, and big name tennis players had to play it if they were going for a grand slam.
I don't think it was just about the Decemeber start, but that certainly didn't help. The AO was held in January from '72 to '77 & it still had weak fields those years, even some top Aussie players skipped it some of those years.
It wasn't just Borg that regularly skipped it those years, but most of the top 10/20.
Prize money may have been a factor, there were many WCT events that offered a lot more $ than the AO back then & there were big events(like Philadelphia) on that tour held in January, so players may have decided it was more important to be fresh for those. And when the AO switched to December, the Masters was held in January, & that was a very big event at the time, top players wanted to be ready for it.
Here were the top 10 seeds the 1977 AO(held in January)
Their year end rankings for '76 are in parentheses.
1. Vilas (6)
2. Tanner (11)
3. Ashe (12)
4. Rosewall (13)
5. Edmondson (35)
6. Ruffels (27)
7. Stockton (15)
8. Crealy (38
9. Dent (37)
10. Case (45)
amazing, a slam with only one top 10 player entered. and where players ranked in the 30s get top 10 seeds. The draws for the rest of AOs held between 1972-1982 are similarly weak.
I think it's time you came clean and told us why it is that, whenever a thread emerges regarding the Australian Open, you insist on misrepresenting or just completely omitting the truth.
The draw sizes at the Australian Open in the open era:
1969-1971 - 48 players
1972 - 50 players
1973 - 56 players
1974-1981 - 64 players
1982-1987 - 96 players
1988-Present - 128 players
While the tournament did make a recovery from 1983-1987 after it struggled immensely from 1976-1982, in my opinion, it only moved on a par with the other 3 grand slams in 1988, when it was expanded to an 128 man event.
As I recall MacEnroe skipped several AO's as well. I guess they all did.
I provided the atp rankings of the top 10 seeds at the time of the '77 AO, how is that misrepresenting anything?
would you like me to do the same for the AOs played between '72-'82?
another example-the 1975 AO had Connors vs Newcombe in the final, the 1 & 2 players at the time. That makes it seem like it probably had a great field that year, but not when you look further. Connors & Newcombe were the only top 20 players entered in that event! I'm not sure how anyone could conclude this was a 'strong' field despite the finalists.
Even Laver didn't play it from '72-'75 & he was top 10 during that time(and he did play Philadelphia, a 128 player draw, only a few weeks later those years) Rosewall missed it in '74 & '75. The WCT circuit started in January, it seems likely that that was a factor in why so many top players skipped AO those years.
I'm sorry if this is a sorespot for you, but all I'm doing is stating facts(& providing a conclusion based on those facts) The AO is now a great slam, probably the slam that has consistently provided a higher quality of play than the other slams since 1988, but unfortunately it did have some dark times, which can't be denied.
It seems that your nationality clouds your opinion on most issues regarding the AO & Australian players, which is shame, since you are one of the most knowledgable posters around(your comments in the '4 most important tournaments each year' thread are particularly telling, talk about 'misrepresenting')
if the AO was as great a tournament as you claim it to be, why was its draw so much smaller than all the other slams played between '72-'82? Isn't a 128 player draw partly what makes a major a major?
Has the draw of 48 players in 69' been mentioned in the "Laver Is Not Great" thread? Interesting to know. It was also enlightening to find out that three of the four slams he won were on grass.
(Not really sitting on either side of the fence on that arguement however.)
I think it was because he was never able to master hardcourts and after always losing at the US open he wasnt in the mood to lose at another slam on hard courts.
I was just kidden..ofcourse, I dont know the reason
Yeah he and a lot of top players from the 70's and 80's complain about their grand slam totals because they skipped so many French and Australian Opens. I have little sympathy for them though. A slam is a slam. And it's their own fault for choosing WTT over the French and not taking care of business down under.
It doesn't bother me so much that people skipped the events. After all, some players probably were more refreshed for Wimbledon, the US Open and the big summer events because of taking time off. But please don't complain about something no one made you do.
Separate names with a comma.