PDA

View Full Version : best doubles team of all time that never was?


The Gorilla
02-19-2007, 01:15 PM
I'm going to say ivo karlovic and max mirnyi would be a damn near unbeatable team.

travlerajm
02-19-2007, 01:16 PM
But they would have to rely on winning a lot of tiebreaks. Doubles is about serves AND returns.

Viper
02-19-2007, 01:18 PM
John McEnroe and anybody else

Grimjack
02-19-2007, 01:38 PM
John McEnroe and anybody else

That was a team quite frequently.

jktennis59
02-19-2007, 07:24 PM
The woodies.

Viper
02-19-2007, 07:36 PM
That was a team quite frequently.

No, Anybody Else didn't play much

Sakumo
02-19-2007, 07:37 PM
John McEnroe and anybody else

Damn it you got there before I could say it lol :smile:

Mick
02-19-2007, 07:42 PM
If Roger Federer teamed up with Pete Sampras today, I think they would be quite successful in double competitions.

BeckerFan
02-19-2007, 08:38 PM
As far as I know J. McEnroe and Edberg never teamed up, but they would have been unstoppable: the American having the best forehand volley in the game, the Swede with the best backhand volley. Both first-class singles and doubles players alike.

35ft6
02-20-2007, 04:39 AM
Korda and Federer.

OrangeOne
02-20-2007, 05:16 AM
Martina (Navratilova) & Martina (Hingis).

Could possibly still have a crack at a GS or two now, esp. at W.

I don't think they've ever played together, and given some of Hingis's views expressed at various times (the mauresmo man comments for example), wouldn't surprise me if they might not get on too well).

Rabbit
02-20-2007, 05:17 AM
I'm going to say ivo karlovic and max mirnyi would be a damn near unbeatable team.

Apparently not if they played the Rochus brothers. Oliver owns Ivo.

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 06:04 AM
As far as I know J. McEnroe and Edberg never teamed up, but they would have been unstoppable: the American having the best forehand volley in the game, the Swede with the best backhand volley. Both first-class singles and doubles players alike.

You forget that mcenroe was a lefty, so his forehand is on the same side as edberg's backhand.

alwaysatnet
02-20-2007, 06:35 AM
Apparently not if they played the Rochus brothers. Oliver owns Ivo.That's a slam dunk. And who is going to return for the two 'Towering Infernals' ? It's not exactly their forte,is it? How much thought went into this "dream doubles team"? And did it involve a hat and a bunch of small pieces of paper with names on it? It would seem so.

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 06:42 AM
not really, they can both put the ball back in play, and it is strategically advantagous to volley in doubles.

******;)

Supernatural_Serve
02-20-2007, 06:45 AM
If Roger Federer teamed up with Pete Sampras today, I think they would be quite successful in double competitions.That would be interesting.

More practically speaking though, maybe Pete and one of the Bryan brothers.

alwaysatnet
02-20-2007, 06:53 AM
not really, they can both put the ball back in play, and it is strategically advantagous to volley in doubles.

******;)
Really? It's strategically advantagous to volley in doubles? Are you sure? Aren't you afraid to be giving away this revolutionary information for nothing? This stuff is gold! Pure gold! What an insight,professor! I saw Karlovic play sunday against Murray and he couldn't put his backhand in play in the ocean if he was standing on the beach. How much doubles do you play? Judging by your "wisdom" I would say none if you believe merely "getting the ball in play" makes for an unbeatable doubles team. The return is MORE valuable than the serve in doubles and it is essential to do a lot more with it than just getting the ball "in play". Now that you've been schooled I will let your gratuitous insult slide. We all know what monkeys throw when they are upset...don't we;)?

jamumafa
02-20-2007, 06:57 AM
Murray and Mcenroe

Moose Malloy
02-20-2007, 01:20 PM
As far as I know J. McEnroe and Edberg never teamed up, but they would have been unstoppable: the American having the best forehand volley in the game, the Swede with the best backhand volley. Both first-class singles and doubles players alike.


Saw them play together at New Haven, 1992. was pretty exciting to see.

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 02:17 PM
Really? It's strategically advantagous to volley in doubles? Are you sure? Aren't you afraid to be giving away this revolutionary information for nothing? This stuff is gold! Pure gold! What an insight,professor! I saw Karlovic play sunday against Murray and he couldn't put his backhand in play in the ocean if he was standing on the beach. How much doubles do you play? Judging by your "wisdom" I would say none if you believe merely "getting the ball in play" makes for an unbeatable doubles team. The return is MORE valuable than the serve in doubles and it is essential to do a lot more with it than just getting the ball "in play". Now that you've been schooled I will let your gratuitous insult slide. We all know what monkeys throw when they are upset...don't we;)?



you've just embarrassed yourself and you don't even realise it!
Makes it even funnier ;)

Gundam
02-20-2007, 02:30 PM
No, Anybody Else didn't play much

Federer and Safin (won one title)

BeckerFan
02-20-2007, 02:34 PM
Saw them play together at New Haven, 1992. was pretty exciting to see.

Ah, really? That's fantastic.

Shaolin
02-20-2007, 02:36 PM
McEnroe & Federer

unjugon
02-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Doubles is more than just strokes.

The woodies would school McEnroe+Edberg, Federer+Sampras, and pretty much every freaky combo you could come up with.

OrangeOne
02-20-2007, 02:44 PM
Doubles is more than just strokes.

The woodies would school McEnroe+Edberg, Federer+Sampras, and pretty much every freaky combo you could come up with.

I agree doubles is more than just strokes, but equaly I'm not sure what about Fed + Sampras (ego aside) that makes you think they wouldn't be an amazing doubles team. Thinking on it, even ego wouldn't be an issue, they're both so focussed win-machines that I find it hard to believe they wouldn't beat the woodies, as good as the woodies were...

BeckerFan
02-20-2007, 02:57 PM
Doubles is more than just strokes.

The woodies would school McEnroe+Edberg, Federer+Sampras, and pretty much every freaky combo you could come up with.

I disagree. The Woodies were a great team because they knew how to work together, but neither was an especially high-class player on his own. They played in an era when doubles was in serious decline, when most of the best players did not care about the doubles game. Many earlier teams (Newcombe and Roche, Sedgman and McGregor, etc.) were probably even more formidable. I suspect McEnroe and Edberg could have been just as impressive, had they teamed up consistently.

Moose Malloy
02-20-2007, 03:11 PM
I agree doubles is more than just strokes, but equaly I'm not sure what about Fed + Sampras (ego aside) that makes you think they wouldn't be an amazing doubles team. Thinking on it, even ego wouldn't be an issue, they're both so focussed win-machines that I find it hard to believe they wouldn't beat the woodies, as good as the woodies were...

I recall the team of Becker/Stich won the '92 Olympics Gold medal & they hardly played doubles the rest of the year. Ljubicic/Ancic beat the Bryans in DC 2 years ago. In the 70s/80s most of the best doubles teams were teams consisting of singles players. Doubles specialists of today would not be possible if so many top singles players didn't shun doubles.
that said, the woodies were both top 20 singles players at some point, so they wouldn't be pushovers vs teams consisting of singles stars, like the bryans would likely be.

I was at a Davis Cup match between the Woodies & Sampras/Martin. For a set & a half the Americans were just blowing them away, was pretty much all Sampras. Woodies won in 4 & said it was the best win of their careers(& they had won 5 wimbledons in a row at the time), so I think they know some singles stars would be formidable opponents on a doubles court.

alwaysatnet
02-20-2007, 05:09 PM
you've just embarrassed yourself and you don't even realise it!
Makes it even funnier ;)
Perhaps you could show me where my analysis is off. You seem to be the authority on tennis so I would appreciate your special input,if you have time to comment.

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 05:10 PM
Perhaps you could show me where my analysis is off. You seem to be the authority on tennis so I would appreciate your special input,if you have time to comment.

no, I think I'll carry on laughing from the sidelines on this one my friend ;)

alwaysatnet
02-20-2007, 05:19 PM
So you don't know what you are talking about....again(genocide,ancient land claims,rowing machines,ice age temperatures, and now doubles and probably all of tennis as well). I think that's a wise move on your part. Better to reamain silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Have a nice evening.

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 05:21 PM
So you don't know what you are talking about....again(genocide,ancient land claims,rowing machines,ice age temperatures, and now doubles and probably all of tennis as well). I think that's a wise move on your part. Better to reamain silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Have a nice evening.

I will ty :) :o :p :D

Verbal_Kint
02-20-2007, 05:39 PM
A Lincoln I Presume?

alwaysatnet
02-20-2007, 09:15 PM
I will ty Still enjoying yourself? I am. What a wonderful dysfunctional show you are. Thanks for making my evening so enjoyable;)

The Grand Slam
02-21-2007, 02:26 AM
******

alwaysatnet isn't a ****** because he/she disagreed with you. You aren't all-knowing. I could say a lot more than this, but frankly, you're not worth my time.

Camilio Pascual
02-21-2007, 05:48 AM
Martina (Navratilova) & Martina (Hingis).
Could possibly still have a crack at a GS or two now, esp. at W.


Bingo!
Your answer reminds me that AnnaK won 11 of her 16 doubles titles (and both her OZ doubles titles) with Hingis.

alwaysatnet
02-21-2007, 07:27 AM
alwaysatnet isn't a ****** because he/she disagreed with you. You aren't all-knowing. I could say a lot more than this, but frankly, you're not worth my time.
To a knuckle dragging Neanderthal calling someone a ****** constitutes a reasoned arguement. Well, it certainly is easier than actually having to think.

Rabbit
02-21-2007, 08:53 AM
I recall the team of Becker/Stich won the '92 Olympics Gold medal & they hardly played doubles the rest of the year.

Becker/Stich was very much like Vilas/Clerc. They could play, but they hated each other. :)

alwaysatnet
02-21-2007, 09:23 AM
By the end of their career together the Woodies weren't exactly the best of chums either. Woodforde called Woodbridge an immature spoiled little brat(I would have to agree based on some of his whining antics). A good doubles team is like a marriage between the partners. Sometimes there are irreconcilable differences.

The Gorilla
02-21-2007, 10:59 AM
alwaysatnet isn't a ****** because he/she disagreed with you. You aren't all-knowing. I could say a lot more than this, but frankly, you're not worth my time.

I remember you!
You tried to pick a fight with me before but couldn't stick it and ran away like a little girl. ;)

I'm going to take you post with a pinch of salt my friend ;)

noeledmonds
02-21-2007, 11:18 AM
I agree doubles is more than just strokes, but equaly I'm not sure what about Fed + Sampras (ego aside) that makes you think they wouldn't be an amazing doubles team. Thinking on it, even ego wouldn't be an issue, they're both so focussed win-machines that I find it hard to believe they wouldn't beat the woodies, as good as the woodies were...

There is no way that Fed and Sampras would beat the Woddies in doubles. Neither Fed or Sampras has a disinguished doubles career. Doubles is different from singles. You can't just stick to 2 of the great singles players on the court and expect to have a great team. Both Federer and Sampras have very unstaggering doubles records. Sampras lost more doubles matches then he won, and Federer's record is far from convincing. The Woddies both won doubles GS with other players (other than each other). The Woddies new each other inside out and won all the majors at least once together, 11 GS together in total. These 2 dominated doubles like noone has ever done in the men's game. I don't think that Sampras and Federer could even beat the Bryans to be honest. Such is the specilism in doubles these days.

jktennis59
02-21-2007, 01:34 PM
There is no way that Fed and Sampras would beat the Woddies in doubles. Neither Fed or Sampras has a disinguished doubles career. Doubles is different from singles. You can't just stick to 2 of the great singles players on the court and expect to have a great team. Both Federer and Sampras have very unstaggering doubles records. Sampras lost more doubles matches then he won, and Federer's record is far from convincing. The Woddies both won doubles GS with other players (other than each other). The Woddies new each other inside out and won all the majors at least once together, 11 GS together in total. These 2 dominated doubles like noone has ever done in the men's game. I don't think that Sampras and Federer could even beat the Bryans to be honest. Such is the specilism in doubles these days.

If we are talking about "doubles team" the Woddies have the best numbers in history.
Doubles is a different league and in the last years only a few player were good both in singles and doubles: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Santoro...

McStud
02-21-2007, 01:37 PM
McEnroe and Federer

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 01:39 PM
I appreciate teams like the Woodies and the Bryan twins, but I cannot shake the feeling that many of the best singles players could be superior doubles players if they gave a damn about it. Long ago, all the top singles players were also involved in doubles, making the doubles game far more competitive. I have to think the top teams of the past (Sedgman/McGregor, Newcombe/Roche, etc.) were greater than the Woodies or Bryans or any other team of the 'doubles specialist' era.

noeledmonds
02-21-2007, 04:35 PM
I appreciate teams like the Woodies and the Bryan twins, but I cannot shake the feeling that many of the best singles players could be superior doubles players if they gave a damn about it. Long ago, all the top singles players were also involved in doubles, making the doubles game far more competitive. I have to think the top teams of the past (Sedgman/McGregor, Newcombe/Roche, etc.) were greater than the Woodies or Bryans or any other team of the 'doubles specialist' era.

Your "feelings" mean nothing. The Woodies have the statistics to back up their legacy (the Bryans are nothing compared to the Woodies). You can't say that singles players would have suceeded at doubles, thats like saying Lendl would have been the GOAT if he won his GS finals, or Sampras would have won the FO if he had tried. The only great singles player who is truely comparably to the Woodies in doubles in McEnroe.

jktennis59
02-21-2007, 06:11 PM
I appreciate teams like the Woodies and the Bryan twins, but I cannot shake the feeling that many of the best singles players could be superior doubles players if they gave a damn about it. Long ago, all the top singles players were also involved in doubles, making the doubles game far more competitive. I have to think the top teams of the past (Sedgman/McGregor, Newcombe/Roche, etc.) were greater than the Woodies or Bryans or any other team of the 'doubles specialist' era.

With all respect, your feelings are subjective. The numbers show that the Woodies were better than any other doubles team. You can't compare them with Newcombe/Roche because they played in differents eras. Can you compare Federer with Laver? I don't think so. I would like to see all the top singles players playing doubles, but the big money is in singles.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 06:19 PM
Your "feelings" mean nothing. The Woodies have the statistics to back up their legacy (the Bryans are nothing compared to the Woodies). You can't say that singles players would have suceeded at doubles, thats like saying Lendl would have been the GOAT if he won his GS finals, or Sampras would have won the FO if he had tried. The only great singles player who is truely comparably to the Woodies in doubles in McEnroe.

Wrong.

Frank Sedgman won the true GRAND SLAM in doubles!

Newcombe, Emerson, Rosewall, Hoad, Budge ...

Need I go on?

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 06:23 PM
With all respect, your feelings are subjective. The numbers show that the Woodies were better than any other doubles team. You can't compare them with Newcombe/Roche because they played in differents eras. Can you compare Federer with Laver? I don't think so. I would like to see all the top singles players playing doubles, but the big money is in singles.

Of course my feelings are subjective. They wouldn't be feelings otherwise. But the doubles field today is clearly weak, b/c the best players simply don't give a crap about it. In the past, this was not the case. Therefore I conclude that the best doubles teams of the past were probably greater than today's best teams ... they certainly faced much higher class opposition.

jktennis59
02-21-2007, 07:11 PM
Therefore I conclude that the best doubles teams of the past were probably greater than today's best teams ... they certainly faced much higher class opposition.

Once again my friend, how you can compare two differents eras? A doubles player today practices 100% doubles. It's a full dedication game. It has to make a difference to the singles player who also plays doubles and, eventually practices doubles. The last player who reached No. 1 in both singles and doubles was Kafelnikov and it was for a few weeks. Nowadays playing doubles is an speciality. Almost a different league.
I will commit an insolence, I would say that Borkman/Mirnyi could beat those tennis legends that you are talking about.

Best regards,

JK

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 07:25 PM
You don't think the class of the players themselves has ANYTHING to do with it?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

jktennis59
02-21-2007, 07:43 PM
You don't think the class of the players themselves has ANYTHING to do with it?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

"Class" is an intangible, but I do agree that it has anything to do with it.

There is something in we are totally agree: we are Becker fans ;)

ta11geese3
02-22-2007, 01:58 AM
But they would have to rely on winning a lot of tiebreaks. Doubles is about serves AND returns.

Last time I checked doubles scores were all 7-6 6-7 7-6 or something @_@

Max G.
02-22-2007, 02:23 AM
The question is a bit of a pointless one. Team dynamics plays a very important role in making a great team - and the only way to see whether the team would "click" is to have them play together, really. That's half of why the Bryans are so amazing - their teamwork, not just their strokes. And I don't think there is any way to judge how the "teamwork" aspect of a particular team would work out if they've never played, especially if you guys are throwing out names of singles players.

noeledmonds
02-22-2007, 09:55 AM
Wrong.

Frank Sedgman won the true GRAND SLAM in doubles!

Newcombe, Emerson, Rosewall, Hoad, Budge ...

Need I go on?

Frank Sedgman was more of a doubles player than a singles player. Sedgman still won 2 less men's doubles GS titles than the Woddies did together (not including men's doubles titles they won with other partners). These titles were also pre-open era. Professionals and amaeturs were not even playing in the same tournaments back then. The other players are all pre-open or early open-era. These players are not comparable simply because tennis is barely comparable. The game has changed so much since then. The physical game of today does not allow for so much singles and doubles. I was privilaged enough to see some early clips of many of these players playing. Have you even seen these players at all?

BeckerFan
02-22-2007, 10:16 AM
The fact that they played pre-Open Era is the REASON 'old timers' like Sedgman won fewer titles than guys like the Woodies. They turned pro at a relatively young age and were thenceforth unable to compete in Grand Slam tournaments. Yes, the game has changed a lot. That doesn't mean we should spit on the ashes of anyone who played with a wood racquet. I don't buy for one second the argument that the 'physical game of today does not allow for so much singles and doubles.' The old timers had it so easy, eh? Where were their fitness experts, trainers and private jets? Today's stars are pampered. So pampered that the best players often refuse to participate in things like doubles, Davis Cup and the Olympics, b/c they're afraid they might hurt themselves. The old timers embraced the grind and got the job done, without an entourage of advisers and medical experts to control their every move.

Yes, I have seen ample footage of all these guys, and I think it is pretty obvious that the doubles game back then was of a much higher caliber. The best players today focus on singles early in their career, and they never even give doubles a serious chance. This opens the field up for comparatively second-class players like the Woodies and the Bryans to win all the Grand Slam doubles titles. It's sad, but it's also the reason most fans don't give a damn about pro doubles.

the new new york
02-22-2007, 12:14 PM
I would pay to see safin and santoro. The would be a good team. Power and finesse all mixed in.

noeledmonds
02-22-2007, 12:40 PM
The fact that they played pre-Open Era is the REASON 'old timers' like Sedgman won fewer titles than guys like the Woodies. They turned pro at a relatively young age and were thenceforth unable to compete in Grand Slam tournaments. Yes, the game has changed a lot. That doesn't mean we should spit on the ashes of anyone who played with a wood racquet. I don't buy for one second the argument that the 'physical game of today does not allow for so much singles and doubles.' The old timers had it so easy, eh? Where were their fitness experts, trainers and private jets? Today's stars are pampered. So pampered that the best players often refuse to participate in things like doubles, Davis Cup and the Olympics, b/c they're afraid they might hurt themselves. The old timers embraced the grind and got the job done, without an entourage of advisers and medical experts to control their every move.

Yes, I have seen ample footage of all these guys, and I think it is pretty obvious that the doubles game back then was of a much higher caliber. The best players today focus on singles early in their career, and they never even give doubles a serious chance. This opens the field up for comparatively second-class players like the Woodies and the Bryans to win all the Grand Slam doubles titles. It's sad, but it's also the reason most fans don't give a damn about pro doubles.

I am not dismissing early players. I have great respect for them and think they are always underated by current tennis fans. I do still belive that physicaly speaking modern players have it harder. Look at the number of injuries today compared to back then, even with all the specilist help. The game back then was not about power at all. Delicate slices and volleys. A beutifull game to watch, but less demanding on the body to play The doubles field is completely seperate today, the Bryans don't even play singles any more. I belive the doubles is better today simply because of the sole focus on doubles by the great doubles players. Being great at singles does not make you a great singles player. Sampras is a classic example with a losing record in doubles (despite sometimes partering great players). Doubles is about a great team, not 2 great induviduals. Any team sport does not work with just great induviduals, they need to work hard together and gel as a team (If you know about football then you will understand that England can never get Lampard and Gerard to play together). I agree it is a real shame that Davis Cup and Olympics don't get the respect they deserve.

Moose Malloy
02-22-2007, 12:43 PM
Frank Sedgman was more of a doubles player than a singles player.


tennis week's alltime tournament of champions included sedgman, & they counted votes from writers/great former champions, etc. and they decided that sedgman was at least one of the 32 best singles players of alltime.

"in his 1979 autobiography Jack Kramer, the long-time tennis promoter and great player himself, included Sedgman in his list of the 21 greatest players of all time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sedgman

you should look at some of the 80s draws of slams, many of the best doubles players were also great singles players:
Edberg, Wilander, Jarryd, Gomez, Nystrom, Noah, Leconte, Cash. Its not a stretch to say that the best singles players of today would do quite well in doubles if they chose to.