When did the Aussie Open become relevant?

[FedFan_2009]

It seems that for most players and pundits AO always ranks 4th in prestige factor, but for at least the last 20+ years all the top players prepare and play in it with equal enthusiasm. I think if Borg wanted to pad his slam count he should have played in 3-4 Aussie Opens. Also Agassi only started playing it in 1995.

 

[JeMar]

Players began to make the trek more often when it moved from Kooyong. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it used to be the lot closer to Christmas.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Ok, so in 1987 it moved to Melbourne and the surface switched from grass to Rebound Ace. Also first-class facilities, field of 128, more money, etc... So the real question is how can we compare players before 1987 with after when the Aussie Open looms large on the resumes of Sampras, Agassi, Federer, but not for Borg/McEnroe?

 

[Nadal_Freak]

It became important when Agassi started spounging a whole bunch of slams there to pad his stats.

 

[TacoBellBorderBowl1946]

around the 90s i believe

 

[JeMar]

Ok, so in 1987 it moved to Melbourne and the surface switched from grass to Rebound Ace. Also first-class facilities, field of 128, more money, etc... So the real question is how can we compare players before 1987 with after when the Aussie Open looms large on the resumes of Sampras, Agassi, Federer, but not for Borg/McEnroe?

Nobody forced them not to come?

 

[wilkinru]

The same we compare everything else.

Wooden racquets, crappy strings, inconsistant balls, faster/slower courts, grass in NY.

We basically just see who is winning at the time and call them pretty good

I think Fed's 20 or so semi-final showings proves he is a pretty good player. I also think Nadal's 2008/early 2009 shows he was a pretty good player - but for a shorter duration (maybe!).

 

[sanchino]

Agassi didn't spounge.....he beat tough fields....including Sampras i a final

 

[FedFan_2009]

Basically it seems there is no point in comparing across even mini-eras since the game has changed SO much just in the last 20 years!

 

[DunlopDood]

best Slam of the 4, best matches are always played at the AO every year!

 

[FedFan_2009]

best Slam of the 4, best matches are always played at the AO every year!

Only in the last 15 years. Only when Agassi showed up and gave his Papal blessing, did it become a legit slam.

 

[フェデラー]

best Slam of the 4, best matches are always played at the AO every year!

yea because 08, 07 wimbledon were boring.

 

[MarcRosset1992]

After such amazing champions as Korda and Johansson won it. Really showed what it took to win it. Also, Agassi had to overcome a massive draw to win it in 2003; even had to beat a guy inside the top 50! Guys like Clement and Schuettler will forever agonize that they were so close to achieving, erh, something.

In short: it is too far, too hot and too soon after X-mas. There is no obvious solution to sort it out

 

[TennisFan481]

After such amazing champions as Korda and Johansson won it. Really showed what it took to win it. Also, Agassi had to overcome a massive draw to win it in 2003; even had to beat a guy inside the top 50! Guys like Clement and Schuettler will forever agonize that they were so close to achieving, erh, something.

In short: it is too far, too hot and too soon after X-mas. There is no obvious solution to sort it out

Federer, Safin, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal...

Seems to have meant something the last several years.

 

[MarcRosset1992]

Federer, Safin, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal...

Seems to have meant something the last several years.

got better recently, but you still have freakshows like Baghdatis showing up and making a run

 

[TennisandMusic]

Federer, Safin, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal...

Seems to have meant something the last several years.

Well that's a good point...and I think partially an answer to the question. It really only seems to be "relevant" in this decade. I don't remember it being that big of a deal in the 90's. And forget about it before that.

 

[merovingian]

got better recently, but you still have freakshows like Baghdatis showing up and making a run

Pathetic point. You never heard of Chris Lewis? Kevin Curren? It's not like the Australian Open has a mortgage on ordinary players going deep.

 

[rod99]

It became important when Agassi started spounging a whole bunch of slams there to pad his stats.

an absolutely clueless post.

 

[Guru]

The Australian open has had some really good matches

Safin-Federer, Murray-Nadal, Verdasco-Nadal and Federer-Nadal
You won't see many better matches than the ones i just listed.

 

[rod99]

during the 1990s, i'd wager to say more top players skipped the french open and wimbledon (surface dislikes) than the austrailian. the aussie open became relevant when the top players all started going down there, which is around 1988 when it moved from kooyang.

 

[フェデラー]

kooyang.... sounds korean.

 

[oy vey]

Federer, Safin, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal...

Seems to have meant something the last several years.

yes, and losing it this year made Roger a bit upset.

 

[FedFan_2009]

yes, and losing it this year made Roger a bit upset.

Hater, get off this board.

 

[lawrence]

crowd at AO > any other slam crowd
imo ;p

 

[Arafel]

Probably around the mid 90s for the men. I can remember in the late 70s early 80s nobody paid attention to it. The women started going earlier for some reason, and Chris and Martina played several good finals down there. But the men still weren't all going until the early 90s. I remember a lot of people were stunned when McEnroe went in 83. In fact, until the early 90s, there were several tournaments that were considered more important, including Dallas, Wembley, and the NY Masters.

 

[paterson]

After such amazing champions as Korda and Johansson won it. Really showed what it took to win it. Also, Agassi had to overcome a massive draw to win it in 2003; even had to beat a guy inside the top 50! Guys like Clement and Schuettler will forever agonize that they were so close to achieving, erh, something.

In short: it is too far, too hot and too soon after X-mas. There is no obvious solution to sort it out

Pat Cash, Stich, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek are 1 slam wonders who won Wimbledon.

Wimbledon is too soon after the long clay season.

 

[timnz]

Since 1983 - Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander entered

From 1972-1981 except for Connors twice and Newcombe and Vilas making appearances it had a relatively weak field.

But then for a change in 1983 - you had Wilander, McEnroe, Lendl etc show up. Since then it has had a strong field.

1983, 1984, 1985 - All December on grass - good fields.

No Australian Open in 1986

1987 - Lendl, Cash, Edberg etc. all there.

1988 - On hard court for first time- had all the top players.

 

[jean pierre]

There's only one winner who was really not a great player : Teacher. But even in 70's, the winners are big champions : Connors, Newcombe, Tanner, Vilas, Gerulaitis, an even Kriek (semi-finalist at the French and the US Open). Aussie was always a big tournament, even if Borg didn't go

 

[MarcRosset1992]

There are four reasons why, unless someone has a very clever new idea, the AO, altough undoubtedly a fabulous tournament, will always be viewed as the poor cousin among slams:

- The geography: it is too far for a tour that today and for the foreseeable future is totally dominated by European players;
- The climate: playing in temperatures that regularly soar above 40C/110F does not promote quality tennis, and also seriously affect attendance;
- Scheduling: it is too early in the year, for the players on the one side but also for crowds. Australia is a minuscule domestic market compared to the US or Europe, so needs non-domestic attendance.
- Lack of surface identity: The grass may be obsolete, and by second week's Wednesday unplayable/dangerous, but it ensures Wimbledon's unicity. The same applies to clay at the French. The AO is just the second hard-court event and neither Rebound Ace nor PlexiCush are different enough from Deco/Astro to offer real variety

As I said, no obvious solution. Thoughts?

 

[delphi17]

There are four reasons why, unless someone has a very clever new idea, the AO, altough undoubtedly a fabulous tournament, will always be viewed as the poor cousin among slams:

- The geography: it is too far for a tour that today and for the foreseeable future is totally dominated by European players;
- The climate: playing in temperatures that regularly soar above 40C/110F does not promote quality tennis, and also seriously affect attendance;
- Scheduling: it is too early in the year, for the players on the one side but also for crowds. Australia is a minuscule domestic market compared to the US or Europe, so needs non-domestic attendance.
- Lack of surface identity: The grass may be obsolete, and by second week's Wednesday unplayable/dangerous, but it ensures Wimbledon's unicity. The same applies to clay at the French. The AO is just the second hard-court event and neither Rebound Ace nor PlexiCush are different enough from Deco/Astro to offer real variety

As I said, no obvious solution. Thoughts?

being the first slam of the year..
people are going to watch it , like it or not
and no , its not a poor cousin of other grand slams...
all grand slam is as important as each other..
ask federer.

 

[paterson]

Attendance figures of the Grand Slams
2009 Australian Open: 603,160
2009 Roland Garros: 424,340
2008 Wimbledon: 475,812
2008 US Open: 720,000

The Australian Open is the 2nd among the slams in spectator attendance. The Aussies support the slam.

Rebound Ace, (the old AO surface) was a totally different surface than what is used at the USO. The AO court was slower and bounced higher compared to DecoTurf. Baseliners like Agassi and Courier had more sucess on Rebound Ace and serve-and-volley players like Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras had more success at the USO/DecoTurf.

Today, all the top players play the AO. I'd put it on par with the US Open.

 

[MarcRosset1992]

Attendance figures of the Grand Slams
2009 Australian Open: 603,160
2009 Roland Garros: 424,340
2008 Wimbledon: 475,812
2008 US Open: 720,000

The Australian Open is the 2nd among the slams in spectator attendance.

Rebound Ace, (the old AO surface) was a totally different surface than what is used at the USO. The AO court was slower and bounced higher compared to DecoTurf. Baseliners like Agassi and Courier had more sucess on Rebound Ace and serve-and-volley players like Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras had more success at the USO/DecoTurf.

Today, all the top players play the AO. I'd put it on par with the US Open.

Happy to admit mistake on attendance. Gaving said that RG and Wimb are totally constrained by the size of the respective venues. RG especially has been bursting for years, and could pack 3x the current number of spectators if given the opportunity to expand (supposed to happen in 2012).

On the surface, I only agree somewhat. The issue being that Deco at the USO is relayed every year and changes quite markedly year-on-year. Sometimes they don't relay the practice courts and that causes some issues. Having said that Deco and Rebound are not that different. PlexiCush plays a lot like Deco.

On the issue of the AO being on par with USO, that is pipedream

 

[David_86]

Wilander beat both Lendl and McEnroe to win Australian Open in 83. Even though the tournament wasn't rated as highly as it is now, that's a great tennis achievement by any standards.

 

[Gizo]

From 1969-1975 the tournament was a big deal, aided by the fact that many of the best players in the world at the time were Australian.
From 1976-1982 it was an incredibly weak tournament. As well as being a significantly less prestigious event than the other 3 slams, the Masters, the WCT finals in Dallas, and a few other tournament were also regarded as more important as well.
From 1983-1987 it was still a less important tournament than the other 3 slams and it still had smaller draw sizes, but it made a noticeable revival and plenty of top players attended.
Since 1988 when it relocated from Kooyong to Melbourne and expanded its draw sizes to 128 players, it has been on a par with the other 3 slams.

I personally think that it is the most enjoyable slam nowadays, as it generally has the best quality matches throughout the 2 weeks (I'm not just talking about the final and semi-finals). Also it has easily the best atmosphere/crowds.

 

[roysid]

It has so many disadvantages, the schedule, the climate and the location. Only in mid-nineties all top players started attending. Before that Agassi and Chang regularly skipped it.

But even then, top players were not at absolute best at Aussie. Graf skipped it many times. Sampras was rarely at his best here.

But now, on the men's side it has become really important. Mainly because of the slam count which was not so important earlier. Borg may think, hey if I traveled to Aussie that would mean 5 more to add to my 11.

But yeh.. in terms of facilities, crowd and atmosphere it may be the best now. Though u can never cut off schedule, location and heat.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

crowd at AO > any other slam crowd
imo ;p

I like Wimby crowd better, although AO is second favorite to me.

 

[paterson]

From 1969-1975 the tournament was a big deal, aided by the fact that many of the best players in the world at the time were Australian.
From 1976-1982 it was an incredibly weak tournament. As well as being a significantly less prestigious event than the other 3 slams, the Masters, the WCT finals in Dallas, and a few other tournament were also regarded as more important as well.
From 1983-1987 it was still a less important tournament than the other 3 slams and it still had smaller draw sizes, but it made a noticeable revival and plenty of top players attended.
Since 1988 when it relocated from Kooyong to Melbourne and expanded its draw sizes to 128 players, it has been on a par with the other 3 slams.

I personally think that it is the most enjoyable slam nowadays, as it generally has the best quality matches throughout the 2 weeks (I'm not just talking about the final and semi-finals). Also it has easily the best atmosphere/crowds.

Spot on analysis. Agree 100%

Besides the AO, many top players skipped the French Open in mid-70's. Jimmy Connors, the top men's player in the world, skipped French from 1974-1978. Even Borg didn't play in 1977. I would have to downgrade the value of winning the French during this time, much like Australia from 1976-1982.