Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[Fiero425]

In an era where not all the top players considered it obligatory to play all 4 Slams, the USO was the tournament the elite played. The depth of top players who could win a Slam in Lendl’s day was IMO the deepest of the Open Era. From a span of Borg, Johnny Mac & Connors through Becker, Wilander & Edberg, etc.

Lendl reached a jaw dropping eight consecutive USO finals, unmatched in nearly 100 years. (Tilden accomplished this feat by 1925)

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

 

[Jelenafan]

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

True though IIRC more skipped Wimbledon (the clay court specialists) or the French Open (HC players) in that era, and the AO wasn’t really top tier.

 

[shawnbm]

True though IIRC more skipped Wimbledon (the clay court specialists) or the French Open (HC players) in that era, and the AO wasn’t really top tier.

^ This

 

[El Dude]

A

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

Hmm. I'm not ancient of days like yourself so don't remember the USO from the decade I was born, but it is worth noting that of all the Slams, the US Open had the highest percentage of top 10 players for most of the decade. Just about all of the top players showed up. Of course by "trash" you seem to be implying something more qualitative, but in terms of depth of competition, it had an edge over even Wimbledon during most of the 70s and even into the 80s.

And of course it is well-known that the AO was basically a glorified ATP 500 through most of the 70s and into the early 80s. In the first few years, especially 1969-71, there was still a good number of top players who attended, probably because it was still within the end days of Australian dominance. Plus, Arthur Ashe usually played there. But after the great Australians were out, it got really bad.

In one year, 1976, not a single year-end top 10 player participated. That was the year Mark Edmondson won, beating a post-prime Newcombe in the final, as well as a 41 year old Ken Rosewall in the SF. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, 13 of the 14 weakest Slams of the Open Era were the Australian Opens of the 70s and early 80s. There was one weak WImbledon (1973) sprinkled in there, and then starting with #15 you get some Roland Garros events from early on, when a lot of non clay specialists would skip it.

The AO started picking up a bit in 1983-85 when Wilander went, Edberg emerged, and even McEnroe finally joined them, but was still more of a weakish Masters equivalent. Then the skipped year in 1986, and when it returned it was a bonafide Slam - if fourth among near equals really through the 90s and until Big Four Era.

Anyhow, it is one of the things that is good about this era: All of the Slams are of basically equal merit, with only minor oscillations due to player injury. Wimbledon will always have the patina of the first, but really the differences are more specific to the court. I do wish there was a bit less surface homogeneity, though, but there's still enough of a difference to make things interesting and to have clay and fast court specialists. So we could see a Hurkacz sneak out of a Wimbledon trophy, or even someone like Sebastian Baez win Roland Garros with a lucky draw.

 

[Fiero425]

A

Hmm. I'm not ancient of days like yourself so don't remember the USO from the decade I was born, but it is worth noting that of all the Slams, the US Open had the highest percentage of top 10 players for most of the decade. Just about all of the top players showed up. Of course by "trash" you seem to be implying something more qualitative, but in terms of depth of competition, it had an edge over even Wimbledon during most of the 70s and even into the 80s.

And of course it is well-known that the AO was basically a glorified ATP 500 through most of the 70s and into the early 80s. In the first few years, especially 1969-71, there was still a good number of top players who attended, probably because it was still within the end days of Australian dominance. Plus, Arthur Ashe usually played there. But after the great Australians were out, it got really bad.

In one year, 1976, not a single year-end top 10 player participated. That was the year Mark Edmondson won, beating a post-prime Newcombe in the final, as well as a 41 year old Ken Rosewall in the SF. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, 13 of the 14 weakest Slams of the Open Era were the Australian Opens of the 70s and early 80s. There was one weak WImbledon (1973) sprinkled in there, and then starting with #15 you get some Roland Garros events from early on, when a lot of non clay specialists would skip it.

The AO started picking up a bit in 1983-85 when Wilander went, Edberg emerged, and even McEnroe finally joined them, but was still more of a weakish Masters equivalent. Then the skipped year in 1986, and when it returned it was a bonafide Slam - if fourth among near equals really through the 90s and until Big Four Era.

Anyhow, it is one of the things that is good about this era: All of the Slams are of basically equal merit, with only minor oscillations due to player injury. Wimbledon will always have the patina of the first, but really the differences are more specific to the court. I do wish there was a bit less surface homogeneity, though, but there's still enough of a difference to make things interesting and to have clay and fast court specialists. So we could see a Hurkacz sneak out of a Wimbledon trophy, or even someone like Sebastian Baez win Roland Garros with a lucky draw.

Ivan Lendl's in the mix bringing AO into prominance making SF's & Finals on grass; finally winning a couple on HC in '89 & '90! Edberg gave Lendl the most heartburn; esp. at Wimbledon! Like Novak, he had losses to a few people in Majors like Wilander, Becker, & Edberg, but overall owned them w/ winning records all over the place H2H! He had a very respectable career & results, labeled the villain in the piece! It didn't help that he actually wore black early on in '80!