Who remembers the Australian Open "back in the day?"

[El Dude]

By "back in the day" I mean in the 80s and before, specifically before the layoff year in 1986. Why, you ask? Well, I did a bit of research because I've never felt comfortable counting the pre-1987 years of the AO as being comparable to other Slams, especially recent Slams. My research very clearly supported this sense; before 1987, the field of competition at the Australian Open was similar to what an ATP 500 is today - not even equal to a Masters. There was always one or two top ten players, rarely more than that.

Anyhow, I'm just curious what the impressions and memories are of those who actually remember the AO before 1987. How was it viewed relative to other Slams and other tournaments? I know it was seen as lesser than the other Slams, but how much lesser? And was it known and understood that the depth of competition was as shallow as my findings imply?

 

[shawnbm]

I do, and I am sure Haelfix, Mog and Kieran may be able to recall those days too. I believe two things served to bring back great interest in the AO--first was changing it from December to January and making it the first major of the year. To me, that is the single greatest reason for its return to glory as a major that all would now play. Now New York is last, but it comes at the end of the hard court season and is so entrenched as a major (and was always so lucrative with endorsements, TV, etc) that it never was in danger of having to worry about players possibly skipping it like many did with the AO, particularly when nobody could win the Grand Slam (furthermore, it was/is so far away for most). Second was changing from grass to a vastly different hard court to the US Open in New York, as it really could not survive being viewed as a lesser SW19. It was always a slower hard court of a different surface and it came at the beginning of the year when players were on an early hard court swing leading up to the Lipton in Miami (back then--since supplemented by Indian Wells), which was big money and considered to be a kind of "fifth" major in many camps. At any rate, it is good all recognize the historicity of the AO and that all happily play in it. It is meet and right so to do.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

By "back in the day" I mean in the 80s and before, specifically before the layoff year in 1986. Why, you ask? Well, I did a bit of research because I've never felt comfortable counting the pre-1987 years of the AO as being comparable to other Slams, especially recent Slams. My research very clearly supported this sense; before 1987, the field of competition at the Australian Open was similar to what an ATP 500 is today - not even equal to a Masters. There was always one or two top ten players, rarely more than that.

Anyhow, I'm just curious what the impressions and memories are of those who actually remember the AO before 1987. How was it viewed relative to other Slams and other tournaments? I know it was seen as lesser than the other Slams, but how much lesser? And was it known and understood that the depth of competition was as shallow as my findings imply?

I have vague memories of of on grass before the transition> I remember Wilander won it with a weak field. The facilities looked like a public park, or worse.

A bunch of players "snuck" in slams at the Aussie...like Mark Edmonson, Johan Kriek, et when no top ten players would make the trip. As a matter of fact, after Jimmy Connors won it in 1974, and lost in the final the next year, he never went back except once I believe. Borg never went, and neither did Mac until he fell out of the top 10.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks both.

Luxilon, just to nitpick - McEnroe played in the 1983 and '85 Australian Opens, years he finished #1 and #2 respectively.

 

[Riotbeard]

I am really enjoying this thread dude! I have nothing to add, but want to read more.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Why were top players not participating in AO before 1986? I was not into tennis
at that time and so I am just asking.

a. It was during Christmas and vacation time. Players wanted to stay home
and enjoy the holidays.

b. Australia was too far away and in those days travel was harder than it is today.

c. Top players felt pity for the weak players and decided to let them win some slams too
(just like Andrea Jager letting Martina win. :snicker)

d. The prize money of 23 cents for the winner was not attractive.

e. All of the above.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Thanks both.

Luxilon, just to nitpick - McEnroe played in the 1983 and '85 Australian Opens, years he finished #1 and #2 respectively.

Thanks for the correction:

Yes, I see Mac lost to Mats in the semis in 83, and to Bobo Zibonovic in the quarters in 85?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I do, and I am sure Haelfix, Mog and Kieran may be able to recall those days too. I believe two things served to bring back great interest in the AO--first was changing it from December to January and making it the first major of the year. To me, that is the single greatest reason for its return to glory as a major that all would now play. Now New York is last, but it comes at the end of the hard court season and is so entrenched as a major (and was always so lucrative with endorsements, TV, etc) that it never was in danger of having to worry about players possibly skipping it like many did with the AO, particularly when nobody could win the Grand Slam (furthermore, it was/is so far away for most). Second was changing from grass to a vastly different hard court to the US Open in New York, as it really could not survive being viewed as a lesser SW19. It was always a slower hard court of a different surface and it came at the beginning of the year when players were on an early hard court swing leading up to the Lipton in Miami (back then--since supplemented by Indian Wells), which was big money and considered to be a kind of "fifth" major in many camps. At any rate, it is good all recognize the historicity of the AO and that all happily play in it. It is meet and right so to do.

I think along with the calendar shift, the change from grass to hard court was crucial. There was no way for most to prepare for it. And players at that time would much rather spend their time indoors making boat loads of money playing exhibition in December.

 

[Kirijax]

By "back in the day" I mean in the 80s and before, specifically before the layoff year in 1986. Why, you ask? Well, I did a bit of research because I've never felt comfortable counting the pre-1987 years of the AO as being comparable to other Slams, especially recent Slams. My research very clearly supported this sense; before 1987, the field of competition at the Australian Open was similar to what an ATP 500 is today - not even equal to a Masters. There was always one or two top ten players, rarely more than that.

Anyhow, I'm just curious what the impressions and memories are of those who actually remember the AO before 1987. How was it viewed relative to other Slams and other tournaments? I know it was seen as lesser than the other Slams, but how much lesser? And was it known and understood that the depth of competition was as shallow as my findings imply?

I have vague memories of of on grass before the transition> I remember Wilander won it with a weak field. The facilities looked like a public park, or worse.

A bunch of players "snuck" in slams at the Aussie...like Mark Edmonson, Johan Kriek, et when no top ten players would make the trip. As a matter of fact, after Jimmy Connors won it in 1974, and lost in the final the next year, he never went back except once I believe. Borg never went, and neither did Mac until he fell out of the top 10.

Wilander beat McEnroe in the semis and Lendl in the finals in '83. Weak field indeed. lol

The tournament took a turn to recovery starting in 1983 when some top players started coming back. Before that Johan Kriek beat Steve Denton in the final two years in a row I think. Before that, Brian Teacher was the winner. I remember those days. It was an odd tournament and played in horrible conditions. No wonder the players decided to stay home for Christmas.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Why were top players not participating in AO before 1986? I was not into tennis
at that time and so I am just asking.

a. It was during Christmas and vacation time. Players wanted to stay home
and enjoy the holidays.

b. Australia was too far away and in those days travel was harder than it is today.

c. Top players felt pity for the weak players and decided to let them win some slams too
(just like Andrea Jager letting Martina win. :snicker

d. The prize money of 23 cents for the winner was not attractive.

e. All of the above.

It was a myth that players stayed home and rested at years end. The top 5 or 10 would play exos
all winter long and make as much in a month as they would all year in prize money.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

By "back in the day" I mean in the 80s and before, specifically before the layoff year in 1986. Why, you ask? Well, I did a bit of research because I've never felt comfortable counting the pre-1987 years of the AO as being comparable to other Slams, especially recent Slams. My research very clearly supported this sense; before 1987, the field of competition at the Australian Open was similar to what an ATP 500 is today - not even equal to a Masters. There was always one or two top ten players, rarely more than that.

Anyhow, I'm just curious what the impressions and memories are of those who actually remember the AO before 1987. How was it viewed relative to other Slams and other tournaments? I know it was seen as lesser than the other Slams, but how much lesser? And was it known and understood that the depth of competition was as shallow as my findings imply?

I have vague memories of of on grass before the transition> I remember Wilander won it with a weak field. The facilities looked like a public park, or worse.

A bunch of players "snuck" in slams at the Aussie...like Mark Edmonson, Johan Kriek, et when no top ten players would make the trip. As a matter of fact, after Jimmy Connors won it in 1974, and lost in the final the next year, he never went back except once I believe. Borg never went, and neither did Mac until he fell out of the top 10.

Wilander beat McEnroe in the semis and Lendl in the finals in '83. Weak field indeed. lol

The tournament took a turn to recovery starting in 1983 when some top players started coming back. Before that Johan Kriek beat Steve Denton in the final two years in a row I think. Before that, Brian Teacher was the winner. I remember those days. It was an odd tournament and played in horrible conditions. No wonder the players decided to stay home for Christmas.

The only real grass court player Mats beat was MAC. At that stage, Lendl had not won a slam.

BTW..appearance money was a huge factor. They did not just magically appear after snubbing it for years.

 

[El Dude]

Wilander beat McEnroe in the semis and Lendl in the finals in '83. Weak field indeed. lol

The tournament took a turn to recovery starting in 1983 when some top players started coming back. Before that Johan Kriek beat Steve Denton in the final two years in a row I think. Before that, Brian Teacher was the winner. I remember those days. It was an odd tournament and played in horrible conditions. No wonder the players decided to stay home for Christmas.

Yes, it made a big jump forward in 1983, but even then you only had a few top players in the mix. While Wilander, Lendl and McEnroe played the '83 AO, those were the only top 10 players. The next seeded player, Eliot Teltscher, was ranked #14 - so you had 10 of the top 13 not there.

It wasn't until 1987 that almost everyone was there. Of the top 10, 6 were there. The 16 seeded players were all in the top 33. Without checking I'm thinking this isn't quite on the level of Wimbledon or the US Open, but it is still a huge difference from 1982 and before.

I'm dabbling with yet another ranking system and I'm thinking of making the AO before 1987, or maybe before 1983, being equal to an Amateur Slam in terms of weighted value - about half the value of an Open Era slam, and a bit less than a Pro Slam, which I see as being similar to today's WTF (only three or four rounds, but mostly against top players).

 

[Fiero425]

The top women started going back to OZ earlier in '80 with Martina, Evert, and Mandlikova winning titles! For a while, it was the usual Martina/Chris show year in and year out from '81-88 with @ least 1 of them in the final, if not both! Poor Lendl started going by the mid 80's, but just couldn't get past Cash and Edberg on grass! He finally got a couple HC titles as we well know in '89 & '90! He went "down under" for 10 straight years and his results after that got worse; along with his seeding by '94! But the tourney was officially back by then and all the top players started going; even McEnroe! :cover - It's still the most likely place for upsets IMO with odd wins by Johansson, Safin, Korda, & Kafelnikov!

 

[Kieran]

I remember! It kinda started its surge in the early 80's, when Mats won a couple. That was an elite player right there, heading to the jungle. Beating Mac and Lendl one year was no mean feat. I think encouraged by this, the Oz organisers switched to make it even more player friendly, and I wonder if a start in February instead of January might benefit the event even more.

But I'd certainly count any wins before 1987 as being valid: we're talking about elite players being in the field, when grass masters like Mac and Edberg are taking part. Perhaps because the grass played different to Wimbo we got different results. Edberg was young when he won Oz, but not yet ready to win Wimbledon. Ozzie grass suited Mats but Wimbledon didn't. Lendl cut his teeth on Oz grass, but it tells in that he still didn't win it, because the field was no pushover. If that version of Lendl played Oz in the seventies, he'd have won it several times...