The Australian Empire : 1950-1975

[kiki]

Australia had produced some big players, such as Crawford,Patterson,Wilding and Brookes, before WWII and would produce some major winners such as Edmondson, Cash,Rafter and Hewitt ( the least australian of all) after 1976.

But Harry Hopman founded an empire , from 1950 till 1975 that has produced, at least in the males fields, MORE than half of the so called all timers.It is simply and plainly unbelievable, for a countru whose population is less than one tenth of the USA, the other so called traditional powerhorse.

Bromwich,Sedgman,Mc Gregor and Rose started it and the peak was reached when Hoad,Rosewall,Cooper,Anderson and next Fraser,Emerson,Laver and Stolle dominated, or better said, completely owned the world, with Tony Roche and Joh n Newcombe being the last great names of this legendary dinasty.

I doubt there has ever been such a dominant nation in any sport, at least with such a relatively small population...any discussions about that?

 

[Phoenix1983]

I thought Wilding was from New Zealand?

Otherwise, it is indeed extraordinary how many greats Australia produced in former decades. Then again, they have punched way above their weight, relative to their population size, in many sports (cricket, rugby, swimming, athletics etc.)

 

[Mustard]

Wilding played for Australasia in Davis Cup.

Australia's churning out of tennis talent for so long was just incredible, especially in the period from the 1930s with Crawford, McGrath, Bromwich, Quist, all the way up to the mid 1970s. It's all dried up since then, though, aside from a few great talents like Cash, Rafter, Philippoussis and Hewitt.

Just some Australian male players during the period of Australian prominence:

Jack Crawford
Vivian McGrath
John Bromwich
Adrian Quist
Dinny Pails
Frank Sedgman
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Mal Anderson
Ashley Cooper
Roy Emerson
Rod Laver
Neale Fraser
Fred Stolle
Tony Roche
John Newcombe
John Cooper
Mark Edmondson

 

[hoodjem]

How many Davis Cup titles from 1950 to 1975?

I count 16 for Australia (and 8 for the US).

 

[BobbyOne]

Wilding played for Australasia in Davis Cup.

Australia's churning out of tennis talent for so long was just incredible, especially in the period from the 1930s with Crawford, McGrath, Bromwich, Quist, all the way up to the mid 1970s. It's all dried up since then, though, aside from a few great talents like Cash, Rafter, Philippoussis and Hewitt.

Just some Australian male players during the period of Australian prominence:

Jack Crawford
Vivian McGrath
John Bromwich
Adrian Quist
Dinny Pails
Frank Sedgman
Ken Rosewall
Lew Hoad
Mal Anderson
Ashley Cooper
Roy Emerson
Rod Laver
Neale Fraser
Fred Stolle
Tony Roche
John Newcombe
John Cooper
Mark Edmondson

Mustard, Great list. I would add Bob Hewitt, Mulligan, Ken Fletcher, Alexander, Phil Dent, Case, Masters.

 

[kiki]

I thought Wilding was from New Zealand?

Otherwise, it is indeed extraordinary how many greats Australia produced in former decades. Then again, they have punched way above their weight, relative to their population size, in many sports (cricket, rugby, swimming, athletics etc.)

You are right

Uruguay in soccer and Jamaica in athletics are other examples
Oh and Cuba in baseball and boxing and also athletics

 

[kiki]

Mustard, Great list. I would add Bob Hewitt, Mulligan, Ken Fletcher, Alexander, Phil Dent, Case, Masters.

Bowrey? Crealy? Warwick? Marks?

 

[kiki]

Even if producing a Court or a Goolagong, their female production is not that good
Other excelent women from Down Under were Reid,Hard,Durr,Fromholtz,Turnbull and niwadays Stosur
Why their female production has not been as good as male productivity?

 

[Dan Lobb]

You are right

Uruguay in soccer and Jamaica in athletics are other examples
Oh and Cuba in baseball and boxing and also athletics

Canada in ice hockey and curling.

There are no Olympics for piano yet.

 

[Phoenix1983]

You are right

Uruguay in soccer and Jamaica in athletics are other examples
Oh and Cuba in baseball and boxing and also athletics

Yeah, I was going to say Jamaica in athletics (specifically, sprinting).

The Netherlands in soccer as well.

 

[Gizo]

Per capita the only country that rivals Australia's success is Sweden. I agree that their sustained success for numerous decades was incredible.

Australia have declined in a lot of sports nowadays, also in cricket, rugby union, swimming and cycling (those last two massively hindering their olympic medal count) and maybe some others. In 1999 they won the cricket world cup, the rugby world cup and Davis Cup (with the final on clay in France) and were a major swimming powerhouse challenging the USA. The period around the 2000 Sydney Olympics was a golden age for Australian sport.

Maybe since then funding has been cut in a lot of sports, the once revolutionary Australian Institute of Sport is no longer so great, and many of their best coaches have been poached by other countries. Maybe the huge success of the AFL where there are serious big bucks on offer, is has also affected the popularity of the other, more international sports, there.

Uruguay's football success is the most amazing to me. A country of 3.3 million people doing so well in by far the biggest and most popular sport in the world is amazing. They continually produce talented players that join big clubs in Europe.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Uruguay's football success is the most amazing to me. A country of 3.3 million people doing so well in by far the biggest and most popular sport in the world is amazing. They continually produce talented players that join big clubs in Europe.

Uruguay are nowhere near as strong as they were in the early years of the World Cup though (I know they reached the semis last time around but that was a rare peak in recent times).

I would say the Netherlands rival, if not better them, for the number of outstanding players produced per capita.

Back in the day, Hungary were another small nation who produced many outstanding footballers.

 

[kiki]

Per capita the only country that rivals Australia's success is Sweden. I agree that their sustained success for numerous decades was incredible.

Australia have declined in a lot of sports nowadays, also in cricket, rugby union, swimming and cycling (those last two massively hindering their olympic medal count) and maybe some others. In 1999 they won the cricket world cup, the rugby world cup and Davis Cup (with the final on clay in France) and were a major swimming powerhouse challenging the USA. The period around the 2000 Sydney Olympics was a golden age for Australian sport.

Maybe since then funding has been cut in a lot of sports, the once revolutionary Australian Institute of Sport is no longer so great, and many of their best coaches have been poached by other countries. Maybe the huge success of the AFL where there are serious big bucks on offer, is has also affected the popularity of the other, more international sports, there.

Uruguay's football success is the most amazing to me. A country of 3.3 million people doing so well in by far the biggest and most popular sport in the world is amazing. They continually produce talented players that join big clubs in Europe.

So true
I heard AFL drains young athletic talent much like NFL or NBA in US
But US has 300 million people so they can still find talent in the highly competitive college level while Oz has barely 25 million ( many assian with scarce ability) and cannot simply replace it
Uruguay wins at WC and OG plus several America Cup and at club' s level is possibly the nicest cinderella tale among sports
It is long away but a new generation takes over
And other small countries with inmense sport talent are Hungary and the main former Yugoslav countries
The Yugoslavians, back in the 70,80 and early 90 were so inmensely competitive specially at Team Sports that it was really Unreal
By veryyy far the best in many team sports and the greatest basketball team outside the NBA top teams or all stars

 

[Gizo]

Uruguay are nowhere near as strong as they were in the early years of the World Cup though (I know they reached the semis last time around but that was a rare peak in recent times).

I would say the Netherlands rival, if not better them, for the number of outstanding players produced per capita.

Back in the day, Hungary were another small nation who produced many outstanding footballers.

Uruguay have still had a lot of footballing success across the decades since their glory from the 20s to the 50s. Their 1954 team that lost in the semis to Hungary in one of the greatest ever WC matches may have even been better than their 1950 Maracanazo team.

They've won the most Copa America titles in history, ahead of Argentina and Brazil, including titles in 1967, 1983 (beating Brazil in the final), 1987 (beating Maradona and Argentina away from home in the quarter-finals), 1995 (beating Brazil in the final) and 2011. They reached reached WC semis in 1970 losing to Pele's Brazil and 2010, and the knockout stages a few more times. Also Penarol and Nacional each won multiple Copa Libertadores titles from the 60s to the 80s at the expense of richer Brazilian and Argentinian teams.

Also bear in mind that South America/CONMEBOL has by far the most difficult World Cup qualification out of every region. There are no minnow teams unlike Europe where each qualification group tends to have about 2 of them (Venezuela have improved massively in recent times and Ecuador also improved a lot by the turn of the century), and away games in such hostile environments. Uruguay is the smallest country in CONMEBOL (Argentina has more registered footballers than their entire male population), so they're doing amazingly well just to qualify this often for the WC, let alone make an impact when they get there.

The Netherlands has approximately 5 times more people than Uruguay, and a significantly wealthier football federation (the KNVB have spent a lot of money of state of the art youth academies and such). Not their success isn't also impressive relative to their size though.

Across all sports, the Balkan countries, Serbia (7 million people), Croatia (4.5 million people) and Slovenia (2 million people) are probably the best countries in the world per capita.

 

[kiki]

Uruguay have still had a lot of footballing success across the decades since their glory from the 20s to the 50s. Their 1954 team that lost in the semis to Hungary in one of the greatest ever WC matches may have even been better than their 1950 Maracanazo team.

They've won the most Copa America titles in history, ahead of Argentina and Brazil, including titles in 1967, 1983 (beating Brazil in the final), 1987 (beating Maradona and Argentina away from home in the quarter-finals), 1995 (beating Brazil in the final) and 2011. They reached reached WC semis in 1970 losing to Pele's Brazil and 2010, and the knockout stages a few more times. Also Penarol and Nacional each won multiple Copa Libertadores titles from the 60s to the 80s at the expense of richer Brazilian and Argentinian teams.

Also bear in mind that South America/CONMEBOL has by far the most difficult World Cup qualification out of every region. There are no minnow teams unlike Europe where each qualification group tends to have about 2 of them (Venezuela have improved massively in recent times and Ecuador also improved a lot by the turn of the century), and away games in such hostile environments. Uruguay is the smallest country in CONMEBOL (Argentina has more registered footballers than their entire male population), so they're doing amazingly well just to qualify this often for the WC, let alone make an impact when they get there.

The Netherlands has approximately 5 times more people than Uruguay, and a significantly wealthier football federation (the KNVB have spent a lot of money of state of the art youth academies and such). Not their success isn't also impressive relative to their size though.

Across all sports, the Balkan countries, Serbia (7 million people), Croatia (4.5 million people) and Slovenia (2 million people) are probably the best countries in the world per capita.

Uruguay also won Mundialito, the biggest unofficial tournament ever in 1981
They had that Garra Charrua that everybody respected and their duels with Brasil and Argentina, at club or national team level are the most exciting and also dangerous in the spory, all sports included
By far the best success p capita in football
Just like Oz in tennis, Hungary in aquatic sports, Jamauca in track&fields and the Yugoslavs in basketball, handball or Cuba in baseball

 

[Gizo]

Uruguay also won Mundialito, the biggest unofficial tournament ever in 1981
They had that Garra Charrua that everybody respected and their duels with Brasil and Argentina, at club or national team level are the most exciting and also dangerous in the spory, all sports included
By far the best success p capita in football
Just like Oz in tennis, Hungary in aquatic sports, Jamauca in track&fields and the Yugoslavs in basketball, handball or Cuba in baseball

Ah yes I forgot about the Mundialito. England rejected the invitation, but the Netherlands took their place instead. I'm English and that rejection was historically typical of our attitude towards international events like these. Heck in 1955 Chelsea weren't allowed to play in the first ever European Cup tournament, and we often treat the U20 World Cup as a burden when other countries take it seriously.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Uruguay have still had a lot of footballing success across the decades since their glory from the 20s to the 50s. Their 1954 team that lost in the semis to Hungary in one of the greatest ever WC matches may have even been better than their 1950 Maracanazo team.

They've won the most Copa America titles in history, ahead of Argentina and Brazil, including titles in 1967, 1983 (beating Brazil in the final), 1987 (beating Maradona and Argentina away from home in the quarter-finals), 1995 (beating Brazil in the final) and 2011. They reached reached WC semis in 1970 losing to Pele's Brazil and 2010, and the knockout stages a few more times. Also Penarol and Nacional each won multiple Copa Libertadores titles from the 60s to the 80s at the expense of richer Brazilian and Argentinian teams.

Also bear in mind that South America/CONMEBOL has by far the most difficult World Cup qualification out of every region. There are no minnow teams unlike Europe where each qualification group tends to have about 2 of them (Venezuela have improved massively in recent times and Ecuador also improved a lot by the turn of the century), and away games in such hostile environments. Uruguay is the smallest country in CONMEBOL (Argentina has more registered footballers than their entire male population), so they're doing amazingly well just to qualify this often for the WC, let alone make an impact when they get there.

The Netherlands has approximately 5 times more people than Uruguay, and a significantly wealthier football federation (the KNVB have spent a lot of money of state of the art youth academies and such). Not their success isn't also impressive relative to their size though.

I still disagree, sorry. They won two World Cups really early on (1930 and 1950), but have they ever been among the favourites in modern times? Their 2010 run was a bit of a fluke (let's not even mention Suarez's handball which denied Ghana a victory in the quarter-final).

In modern times, at every leading major tournament, the favourites have been Brazil/Germany/Italy/Argentina then France/Spain/Netherlands/England.

I'm not going to list all the great Dutch players/teams from the 1970s onwards because it would take too long, but we can start with the fact that Cruyff is a GOAT candidate, Van Basten a GOAT-striker candidate, the 1974 team a GOAT national team candidate, and Ajax of the 1970s a GOAT club team candidate (and Dutchmen played a large part in a few other GOAT club team candidates like Milan in the 80s/90s and many great Barcelona teams).

I don't recall Uruguay having anywhere near the same standing in the sport.

Across all sports, the Balkan countries, Serbia (7 million people), Croatia (4.5 million people) and Slovenia (2 million people) are probably the best countries in the world per capita.

This could well be true.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Ah yes I forgot about the Mundialito. England rejected the invitation, but the Netherlands took their place instead. I'm English and that rejection was historically typical of our attitude towards international events like these. Heck in 1955 Chelsea weren't allowed to play in the first ever European Cup tournament, and we often treat the U20 World Cup as a burden when other countries take it seriously.

Other countries?
What "country" represents England at the World Cup?
England is NOT a country!

If common sense had prevailed, which it did not, the winning World Cup team for 1970 would have looked like this:

Goal: Banks

Defence: Moore Gemmell O'Neill Cooper

Midfield: Law B. Charlton Peters

Forwards: Johnstone Hurst Best

Substitutes: Ball Murdoch Mullery

One of the greatest teams ever, better than 1970 Brazil.

 

[kiki]

Other countries?
What "country" represents England at the World Cup?
England is NOT a country!

If common sense had prevailed, which it did not, the winning World Cup team for 1970 would have looked like this:

Goal: Banks

Defence: Moore Gemmell O'Neill Cooper

Midfield: Law B. Charlton Peters

Forwards: Johnstone Hurst Best

Substitutes: Ball Murdoch Mullery

One of the greatest teams ever, better than 1970 Brazil.

better than 79 Forrest?

 

[Gizo]

I still disagree, sorry. They won two World Cups really early on (1930 and 1950), but have they ever been among the favourites in modern times? Their 2010 run was a bit of a fluke (let's not even mention Suarez's handball which denied Ghana a victory in the quarter-final).

In modern times, at every leading major tournament, the favourites have been Brazil/Germany/Italy/Argentina then France/Spain/Netherlands/England.

I'm not going to list all the great Dutch players/teams from the 1970s onwards because it would take too long, but we can start with the fact that Cruyff is a GOAT candidate, Van Basten a GOAT-striker candidate, the 1974 team a GOAT national team candidate, and Ajax of the 1970s a GOAT club team candidate (and Dutchmen played a large part in a few other GOAT club team candidates like Milan in the 80s/90s and many great Barcelona teams).

I don't recall Uruguay having anywhere near the same standing in the sport.

Uruguay had a huge standing in the sport from the 20s when they twice won the Olympics when it was the defacto World Cup until the mid 50s. That still counts as much as modern times do. Beating Brazil in Brazil in front of 200,000 people to win the WC tops anything that the Dutch have ever achieved IMO, and beating Argentina with all their WC winners from the previous year in Argentina, en-route to winning a Copa America title is also up there.

The year after reaching their last WC semi, they won their 15th Copa America title, so that was obviously a strong period for them. Don't forget at the WC, they topped a very tough group with Mexico, South Africa and France. Also in their QF, everyone mentions Suarez's handball. But what about Adiyiah diving to win the free-kick for Ghana which the incident orginated from? He cheated as much as Suarez did. And earlier in extra-time Uruguay had a blatant penalty turned down when Paintsil fouled Abreu.

Similarly you could say Holland shouldn't have even qualified for the 1974 WC where they weaved their magic in the first place. In their final qualifying match vs. Belgium in Amsterdam, they needed a draw while Belgium needed a win. Belgium had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside in the 89th minute, despite the scorer being played onside by 3 Dutch players. The game finished 0-0 and Holland undeservedly made it.

Also Holland achieved nothing of note before the 70s. Uruguay have achieved something significant in terms a strong WC run or a Copa America title in pretty much every single decade apart from the 00s (when they lost two Copa America semis to Brazil on penalties). So in footballing history they have actually been very consistent despite their tiny population.

According to the FIFA website, the Netherlands has over 1.1 million registered football players. Uruguay has under 42,000. I think that puts things into perspective. A country with 42,000 registered footballers reaching a WC semi and winning their continental title in recent years alone, tops pretty much every other country's football achievements relative to their resources IMO. This tiny country, not even among the 130 most populous in the world, has produced fantastic players like Juan Schiaffino (also a legend in Italy), Enzo Francescoli, Obdulio Varela, Alvaro Recoba, Ruben Sosa and many more.

 

[Gizo]

Other countries?
What "country" represents England at the World Cup?
England is NOT a country!

If common sense had prevailed, which it did not, the winning World Cup team for 1970 would have looked like this:

Goal: Banks

Defence: Moore Gemmell O'Neill Cooper

Midfield: Law B. Charlton Peters

Forwards: Johnstone Hurst Best

Substitutes: Ball Murdoch Mullery

One of the greatest teams ever, better than 1970 Brazil.

Ok you got me, I should have said other 'teams'. Our ambivalence and even arrogance towards youth tournaments is annoying though.

You're right that England actually had more talent at their disposal going into the 1970 WC than the 1966 WC which they won (of course the prolific Jimmy Greaves had to miss that tournament). That was similar to Uruguay being stronger in 1954 than 1950, but running into the amazing Hungary team.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Ok you got me, I should have said other 'teams'. Our ambivalence and even arrogance towards youth tournaments is annoying though.

You're right that England actually had more talent at their disposal going into the 1970 WC than the 1966 WC which they won (of course the prolific Jimmy Greaves had to miss that tournament). That was similar to Uruguay being stronger in 1954 than 1950, but running into the amazing Hungary team.

If they had put together a Britain team in 1970, the front line of Jimmy Johnstone, Geoff Hurst and George Best would have been the greatest ever.

 

[kiki]

If they had put together a Britain team in 1970, the front line of Jimmy Johnstone, Geoff Hurst and George Best would have been the greatest ever.

Keegan,Woodcook (Mariner),Dalglish (Francis)

 

[Dan Lobb]

Keegan,Woodcook (Mariner),Dalglish (Francis)

Similar, but I still think that the 1970 trio has more talent.

 

[kiki]

What about Fairclough? Trevor Mortimer? Latchford? Bell? How would they rate

 

[kiki]

This ain' t bad:
Clemence
Neal Hughes Thompson Hansen
Mc Dermott Callaghan Kennedy
Fairclough Heighway Dalglish

And this one is better:

Shilton
Anderson Lloyd Burns Mills
Gray Birtles Bowyer
Francis Woodcock Robertson

Ian Paisley vs Brian Clough

 

[MAXXply]

It was remarked by a former Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, that the reason the Australian people excelled in most sporting endeavours was simply because we were lucky in life's lottery to have been born and raised in a place that had cheap and abundant food and fresh produce of the highest quality. This, he said, was a simple foundation of our sporting success, in that it literally nourished a country to victory in most of the sports which Australians dedicated themselves to.

There are the other social and cultural aspects too, but basically according to Hawkie, we were good because we were well fed and strong. Although to see "Muscles" Rosewall, you wouldn't have thought it

 

[kiki]

It was remarked by a former Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, that the reason the Australian people excelled in most sporting endeavours was simply because we were lucky in life's lottery to have been born and raised in a place that had cheap and abundant food and fresh produce of the highest quality. This, he said, was a simple foundation of our sporting success, in that it literally nourished a country to victory in most of the sports which Australians dedicated themselves to.

There are the other social and cultural aspects too, but basically according to Hawkie, we were good because we were well fed and strong. Although to see "Muscles" Rosewall, you wouldn't have thought it

To which I' d add that having 1 young woman per 7 men certainly leaves a lot of time for every 6 young men to do something else and, definitely, improves the competitiveness:-o

 

[kiki]

BTW, the hottest chicks I have seen come from:
1/Gold Medal: Ukraina and Russia ( big rivalry)
2/Silver medal: Down under ( kiwis included)
3/ Bronze medal: a hot Springbok and a hot from either Panama and Venezuela
Some czech, french, italian and brazilian could challenge this status quo

Sorry for my lousy joke
It was just fitting

 

[Sander001]

I've always found Finland's achievements in motorsports remarkable. For that small nation they've produced 10 World Champions, while Britain, the center of international motorsports, has only produced 12.
Don't know what's in the ice water up there but Jesus.

 

[Nadal_Power]

58 out of 88 Majors won in 22 years, but from 1974. everything stopped

 

[Mustard]

58 out of 88 Majors won in 22 years, but from 1974. everything stopped

1976 really. In 1975, Newcombe won the Australian Open by beating Connors, in a highly anticipated match between the then best 2 players in the world. In 1976, Edmondson upset both Rosewall and Newcombe to win the Australian Open. Then it all dried up for the Aussies after decades of producing a ridiculous number of players.

 

[BobbyOne]

Even if producing a Court or a Goolagong, their female production is not that good
Other excelent women from Down Under were Reid,Hard,Durr,Fromholtz,Turnbull and niwadays Stosur
Why their female production has not been as good as male productivity?

kiki, Hard was from the USA and Durr was from France.

 

[hoodjem]

I believe that Hopman quit coaching the Aussie Davis Cup team in 1969.

When did Hopman move to the US? (He coached Gerulaitis and McEnroe.)

 

[borg number one]

"Australian Empire" is a good way to put it Kiki! That was an amazing run. Harry Hopman is easily one of the most influential figures in the history of tennis. I don't readily buy the argument that fewer players translates into less competition either, but that's a different topic somewhat. I once counted majors won by country from way back in about 1900 till around 2010 or so and the U.S.A. actually has compiled the most majors of any one country if I'm not mistaken, with perhaps Australia at number two. Yet, it is very interesting to note the population differences. It's another example of how just sheer numbers never guarantee more success in tennis. It's much more nuanced than that.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_singles_champions_by_country

Australia

Norman Brookes - (3) 1907 Wimbledon
Gerald Patterson - (3) 1919 Wimbledon
Margaret Molesworth - (2) 1922 Australian Championships
Sylvia Lance - (1) 1924 Australian Championships
Daphne Akhurst - (5) 1925 Australian Championships
Esna Boyd - (1) 1927 Australian Championships
Jack Crawford - (5) 1931 Australian Championships
Coral McInnes - (2) 1931 Australian Championships
Joan Hartigan - (3) 1933 Australian Championships
Nancye Wynne - (6) 1937 Australian Championships
Emily Hood - (1) 1939 Australian Championships
Frank Sedgman - (5) 1949 Australian Championships
Thelma Coyne - (2) 1952 Australian Championships
Ken Rosewall - (8) 1953 Australian Championships
Beryl Penrose - (1) 1955 Australian Championships
Lew Hoad - (4) 1956 Australian Championships
Mary Carter - (2) 1956 Australian Championships
Ashley Cooper - (4) 1957 Australian Championships
Neale Fraser - (3) 1959 US Championships
Margaret Court - (24) 1960 Australian Championships
Rodney Laver - (11) 1960 Australian Championships
Roy Emerson - (12) 1961 Australian Championships
Lesley Turner - (2) 1963 French Championships
Fred Stolle - (2) 1965 French Open
John Newcombe - (7) 1967 Wimbledon
Evonne Goolagong - (7) 1971 French Open
Mark Edmondson - (1) 1976 Australian Open
Kerry Melville - (1) 1977 Australian Open
Christine O'Neil - (1) 1978 Australian Open
Patrick Cash - (1) 1987 Wimbledon
Patrick Rafter - (2) 1997 US Open
Lleyton Hewitt - (2) 2001 US Open
Samantha Stosur - (1) 2011 US Open

 

[kiki]

kiki, Hard was from the USA and Durr was from France.

FDoris Hart was american but I think Darlene Hard was an aussie
In the 60 Australia lost two excelent players who naturalised Southafrican (Bob Hewitt, no relationship with Lleyton) and Mnot arty Mulligan. Mulligan went to Italy after reaching the 1962 Wimbledon final and became Martino Mulligano.Pietrangeli, Mulligan and Sirola: what a great DC team
The aussies had sooo many great players that they could lose two world first class players and not suffer a single bit
They also had excellent second stringers like Owen Davidson and Ken Fletcher
Simply unbelievable for a Country which hardly reached 18 million people in the 60
Similar to Holland in football

 

[kiki]

"Australian Empire" is a good way to put it Kiki! That was an amazing run. Harry Hopman is easily one of the most influential figures in the history of tennis. I don't readily by the argument that fewer players translates into less competition either, but that's a different topic somewhat. I once counted majors won by country from way back in about 1900 till around 2010 or so and the U.S.A. actually has compiled the most majors of any one country if I'm not mistaken, with perhaps Australia at number two. Yet, it is very interesting to note the population differences. It's another example of ,how just sheer numbers never guarantee more success in tennis. It's much more nuanced than that.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_singles_champions_by_country

Great list
Besides those great champions they had other slammers such as Vivian Mc Grath in the 30,John Bromwich and Adrian Quist in the 40 as well as Mervin Rose in the 50

As I mentioned to Bobbyone earlier, their depth was so bruttal for a small population that they could allow themshelves losing Hewitt to SAF and Mulligan to Italy and would not suffer a single inch
Matbe it was not the Australian Umpire but the Australian Tiranny
And if you add doubles it is still a bigger gap!!!

 

[timnz]

Not!!

Australia had produced some big players, such as Crawford,Patterson,Wilding and Brookes, before WWII and would produce some major winners such as Edmondson, Cash,Rafter and Hewitt ( the least australian of all) after 1976.

But Harry Hopman founded an empire , from 1950 till 1975 that has produced, at least in the males fields, MORE than half of the so called all timers.It is simply and plainly unbelievable, for a countru whose population is less than one tenth of the USA, the other so called traditional powerhorse.

Bromwich,Sedgman,Mc Gregor and Rose started it and the peak was reached when Hoad,Rosewall,Cooper,Anderson and next Fraser,Emerson,Laver and Stolle dominated, or better said, completely owned the world, with Tony Roche and Joh n Newcombe being the last great names of this legendary dinasty.

I doubt there has ever been such a dominant nation in any sport, at least with such a relatively small population...any discussions about that?

Wilding was definitely NOT an Australian! (Nothing against Australians but lets get the mans country right). Remember New Zealand is as far away from Australia as England is from Russia.

 

[BobbyOne]

FDoris Hart was american but I think Darlene Hard was an aussie
In the 60 Australia lost two excelent players who naturalised Southafrican (Bob Hewitt, no relationship with Lleyton) and Mnot arty Mulligan. Mulligan went to Italy after reaching the 1962 Wimbledon final and became Martino Mulligano.Pietrangeli, Mulligan and Sirola: what a great DC team
The aussies had sooo many great players that they could lose two world first class players and not suffer a single bit
They also had excellent second stringers like Owen Davidson and Ken Fletcher
Simply unbelievable for a Country which hardly reached 18 million people in the 60
Similar to Holland in football

Darlene Hard was American.

 

[BobbyOne]

Great list
Besides those great champions they had other slammers such as Vivian Mc Grath in the 30,John Bromwich and Adrian Quist in the 40 as well as Mervin Rose in the 50

As I mentioned to Bobbyone earlier, their depth was so bruttal for a small population that they could allow themshelves losing Hewitt to SAF and Mulligan to Italy and would not suffer a single inch
Matbe it was not the Australian Umpire but the Australian Tiranny
And if you add doubles it is still a bigger gap!!!

kiki, Also Ken Fletcher went to Hongkong.

 

[urban]

Bobby is right, Darlene Hard is American. She played however mixed doubles with Australians, including Rod Laver, with whom she won two Wimbledon mixed. I think, Rosewall played mixed with American Margaret Du Pont and won the US Champs with her in 1956, ditto Neale Fraser.

 

[kiki]

Wilding was definitely NOT an Australian! (Nothing against Australians but lets get the mans country right). Remember New Zealand is as far away from Australia as England is from Russia.

I know.NZ has the old kiwi pride and two ther excellent players, Parun and Lewis.Parun the best of the two.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby is right, Darlene Hard is American. She played however mixed doubles with Australians, including Rod Laver, with whom she won two Wimbledon mixed. I think, Rosewall played mixed with American Margaret Du Pont and won the US Champs with her in 1956, ditto Neale Fraser.

urban, Yes, Rosewall-duPont won US 1956.

There are official plaques of the champions at the US Open area. Curiously in Rosewall's plaque there is written that Rosewall won the US Doubles in 1959 instead of 1969. Nobody has corrected that since years...

 

[BobbyOne]

I know.NZ has the old kiwi pride and two ther excellent players, Parun and Lewis.Parun the best of the two.

I would add Brian Fairlie. He finished 6th in group B of the 1973 WCT series.

 

[kiki]

Talking about NZ modern era champions, of course most people remembers the 1983 Wimbledon tournament when Lewis made it to the final.He also lost a tour final to Mc Enroe, at Cincinnati in 1981, but he didn´t do much better elsewhere.Having been the world´s best or second best junior in the middle 70´s, we certainly expected a bit more of him.

I want to give credit to the other guy, Onny parun.he reallly was what we can call a classical grass courter of the 1970´s.He made the AO final in 1973 ( 10 yrs before Lewis achievement) and lost in 4 sets to John Newcombe.He reached the Wimbledon quarters in 1971 and 1972.Great DC player, he was considered to be one of the guys who could resist more tournaments per year.Curiously, he had a permanent problem with his neck.He used to pull a sort of string tied around his neck to correct it.

 

[rossi46]

I still disagree, sorry. They won two World Cups really early on (1930 and 1950), but have they ever been among the favourites in modern times? Their 2010 run was a bit of a fluke (let's not even mention Suarez's handball which denied Ghana a victory in the quarter-final).

In modern times, at every leading major tournament, the favourites have been Brazil/Germany/Italy/Argentina then France/Spain/Netherlands/England.

I'm not going to list all the great Dutch players/teams from the 1970s onwards because it would take too long, but we can start with the fact that Cruyff is a GOAT candidate, Van Basten a GOAT-striker candidate, the 1974 team a GOAT national team candidate, and Ajax of the 1970s a GOAT club team candidate (and Dutchmen played a large part in a few other GOAT club team candidates like Milan in the 80s/90s and many great Barcelona teams).

I don't recall Uruguay having anywhere near the same standing in the sport.



This could well be true.

Yeah the major difference is that Uruguay have won the World Cup twice, doesn't matter when it happened. The Netherlands are complete chokers, everybody in the football world knows that. Cryuff and Van Basten were top players but weren't great enough to get their country across the line in World Cups.

And Uruguay were great in the 2010 World Cup, you don't get to the semi finals of a World Cup by chance, you have to be doing something right.

Suarez did what any other player playing for their country should do. How is that cheating ?? He paid the price for it, they are the rules of the game.

 

[Gizo]

Yeah the major difference is that Uruguay have won the World Cup twice, doesn't matter when it happened. The Netherlands are complete chokers, everybody in the football world knows that. Cryuff and Van Basten were top players but weren't great enough to get their country across the line in World Cups.

And Uruguay were great in the 2010 World Cup, you don't get to the semi finals of a World Cup by chance, you have to be doing something right.

Suarez did what any other player playing for their country should do. How is that cheating ?? He paid the price for it, they are the rules of the game.

Yes I never blamed Suarez at all for that incident. It was probably instinctive, and I would have done the same thing. In fact if I was a coach, I wouldn't want a player on my team, who wouldn't do the same thing to try to keep my country alive in the WC.

And as I said before in one of my previous posts, it's funny that everyone goes on about the handball by Suarez, but doesn't mention the ridiculous dive by Dominic Adiyiah to win the freekick in the first place. No team deserves to be eliminated from a WC from a freekick won by cheating. The dive is shown from about 7:10 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5lHN4spMZyg#t=431

I remember in the UK, the commentators were so biased in favour of Ghana that day ignoring that dive, and were saying that as Africa's only remaining representatives in the tournament surely we must all us viewers must be rooting for them. So patronising.

 

[High street sw19]

Yes I never blamed Suarez at all for that incident. It was probably instinctive, and I would have done the same thing. In fact if I was a coach, I wouldn't want a player on my team, who wouldn't do the same thing to try to keep my country alive in the WC.

And as I said before in one of my previous posts, it's funny that everyone goes on about the handball by Suarez, but doesn't mention the ridiculous dive by Dominic Adiyiah to win the freekick in the first place. No team deserves to be eliminated from a WC from a freekick won by cheating. The dive is shown from about 7:10 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5lHN4spMZyg#t=431

I remember in the UK, the commentators were so biased in favour of Ghana that day ignoring that dive, and were saying that as Africa's only remaining representatives in the tournament surely we must all us viewers must be rooting for them. So patronising.

Dude this is a tennis thread take your foot-ee-ball somewhere else laddy !

 

[rossi46]

Yes I never blamed Suarez at all for that incident. It was probably instinctive, and I would have done the same thing. In fact if I was a coach, I wouldn't want a player on my team, who wouldn't do the same thing to try to keep my country alive in the WC.

And as I said before in one of my previous posts, it's funny that everyone goes on about the handball by Suarez, but doesn't mention the ridiculous dive by Dominic Adiyiah to win the freekick in the first place. No team deserves to be eliminated from a WC from a freekick won by cheating. The dive is shown from about 7:10 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5lHN4spMZyg#t=431

I remember in the UK, the commentators were so biased in favour of Ghana that day ignoring that dive, and were saying that as Africa's only remaining representatives in the tournament surely we must all us viewers must be rooting for them. So patronising.

Maradona's hand still plagues the English that's why.

Diving, handballs, fouls behind play, it's all cheating but that's why you have referees. If you can get away with it then so be it, it will always even out in the end. Remember referees make horrid decisions that can impact the outcome of matches.

 

[High street sw19]

Maradona's hand still plagues the English that's why.

Diving, handballs, fouls behind play, it's all cheating but that's why you have referees. If you can get away with it then so be it, it will always even out in the end. Remember referees make horrid decisions that can impact the outcome of matches.

Dude this is a tennis thread take your foot-ee-ball somewhere else laddy !