PDA

View Full Version : Opinion on doubles


egn
01-12-2009, 03:00 PM
So a statement was made in another thread about nadal winning a doubles slam..and this lead me to speculate. Are any of the top tier doubles players that good. If Federer and Wawrinka could waltz into the Olympics with little to no doubles experience and take out the Bryan Brothers who are considered one of the top tier doubles teams do you think it is possible? Then again this was also the olympics, but then they are American and take a lot of pride in medals. Its just players have proved they can dominate both, McEnroe, Hingis, Williams, Navratilova, Court, Laver, Rosewell, Emerson, Edberg...the list goes on. But when all of these players showed up to play doubles they showed they could beat the "doubles specialist". Yes teams like the Woodies I will admit and Gigi Fernandez/Natasha Zvereva were truly great doubles teams..but I think it is all possible for two power singles players to dominate doubles. I mean if Federer and Nadal teamed up to play doubles, and willingly worked with each other do you think they would be easily stopped? If in 2006 that happened would they be stopped? It's just why can singles players waltz into doubles and easily take home a title within a few tournaments but doubles players get wrecked in singles. A top doubles player is skilled from both the baseline and net? So what is stopping it? I know more singles players will not play doubles, because of the ammount of pressure it puts on them, but heck I aint impressed with these double specialist. If the Williams Sisters can just walk into a grandslam and half *** their way to a wimbledon's double title...sorry I just am not impressed.

So after all that do you guys feel if top tier singles players played doubles they would reap success? Who would best be suited for this?

tacou
01-12-2009, 03:32 PM
I made a similar comment in the Nadal thread and about a year ago when Gasquet/Tsonga beat the Bryan's for the Sydney title.

I don't know enough about doubles to be sure, but I'm pretty sure they just aren't as good as the singles players, period.

I don't think it's any kids dream to be a doubles specialist, unless they realize they ONLY have a serve or ONLY have a net game. All that separates them from the singles is they know the doubles game a little better, and it truly is a different game than singles.

But you've given great examples of times where singles players decide to play doubles and usually have no trouble what so ever against the "specialists."

marc45
01-12-2009, 03:34 PM
yes, and pretty much anybody in the top 50, even 100....the losses of the bryans to the swiss (again in dc?) and nestor and z to the spaniards have hurt doubs reputation, there's no doubt about that...did i read that nestor was really upset?

egn
01-12-2009, 03:39 PM
it just seems the reason they dominate doubles is because the really good players don't focus on it. I also believe that is why doubles i not popular all the talent is in singles.

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 03:40 PM
In theory, top team players could dominate doubles. Easily. Why not? If top tier, they are great tennis players to start with and then they are so much younger.

The average age among top 10 is something like 24. The average age among top 10 doubles specialists is about 33. The #1 players Zimonjic is 32 and Nestor 36. Bryan brothers are 30. In fact, Ram is the only player in top 10 who is below 30. He is 28.

Then there is the factor of money. I can't find the career earnings list on the new ATP site, but last year Nestor earned about 800,000. Bryans never earned over a million. That may be a lot of money, but its also one slam or a couple of masters for the singles players.

But Nadal is a fine doubles player. 5 titles and a 63% winning percentage. He is now ranked 80, which is his best in a couple of years, but his very best was 26. Right now only 4 of the players who are in 50 singles are also in 50 doubles. Thats Robredo (#34), Lopez (Feliciano #40), Tursunov (44) and Verdasco (45).

Thats probably too many number but its late at night and I am just hanging around.

icazares
01-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Agreed. Doubles is a different level of play. It's way below singles. I remember a tennis comentator saying not long ago that doubles it's a category for semi-retired players.

marc45
01-12-2009, 04:21 PM
In theory, top team players could dominate doubles. Easily. Why not? If top tier, they are great tennis players to start with and then they are so much younger.

The average age among top 10 is something like 24. The average age among top 10 doubles specialists is about 33. The #1 players Zimonjic is 32 and Nestor 36. Bryan brothers are 30. In fact, Ram is the only player in top 10 who is below 30. He is 28.

Then there is the factor of money. I can't find the career earnings list on the new ATP site, but last year Nestor earned about 800,000. Bryans never earned over a million. That may be a lot of money, but its also one slam or a couple of masters for the singles players.

But Nadal is a fine doubles player. 5 titles and a 63% winning percentage. He is now ranked 80, which is his best in a couple of years, but his very best was 26. Right now only 4 of the players who are in 50 singles are also in 50 doubles. Thats Robredo (#34), Lopez (Feliciano #40), Tursunov (44) and Verdasco (45).

Thats probably too many number but its late at night and I am just hanging around.
no, good research

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 04:22 PM
Doubles is a different kind of a game. Its played differently and even the court is different. The best doubles players today, other than say Bjorkman, were never big singles players.

But I think if the prize money were increased, it would draw more of the top players, particularly the younger ones. The style of the game would probably change also.

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 04:23 PM
no, good research

Thanks; the pat on the back feels good.

tacou
01-12-2009, 04:33 PM
feel the love

cujays
01-12-2009, 04:42 PM
its a different game
doubles is pretty much serve and volleyers
that kind of game doesnt anymore

tacou
01-12-2009, 04:48 PM
its a different game
doubles is pretty much serve and volleyers
that kind of game doesnt anymore

we know it's a different game, but we're saying whenever the singles guys play they usually win, so how good are the dubz guys?

rubberduckies
01-12-2009, 05:45 PM
we know it's a different game, but we're saying whenever the singles guys play they usually win, so how good are the dubz guys?

Well, hold on a second. The singles players do not usually win when they play doubles. They usually play doubles to help adjust to a surface switch such as when the clay court season starts. They usually walk away empty handed and are often beaten in the first round.

Top singles players are far better at the game of tennis. Top doubles players have advantages in teamwork, strategy, and experience. Usually, the best doubles teams have been able to beat Nadal and beat Federer.

Nadal_Freak
01-12-2009, 05:47 PM
edit. 10 char

tacou
01-12-2009, 05:54 PM
Well, hold on a second. The singles players do not usually win when they play doubles. They usually play doubles to help adjust to a surface switch such as when the clay court season starts. They usually walk away empty handed and are often beaten in the first round.

Top singles players are far better at the game of tennis. Top doubles players have advantages in teamwork, strategy, and experience. Usually, the best doubles teams have been able to beat Nadal and beat Federer.

well several examples have been listed (most notable the williams sisters lazily walking away with a Wimbledon trophy) where top singles players pair up and make the doubles players look foolish.

I don't think it's trolling, either, I mean Nadal is a singles player and with a very low-ranked singles partner he beat the best doubles team in the world.

Tsonga/Gasquet did the same, Federer won the gold medal... etc.

I know WHY singles players usually play doubles, and I doubt they try very hard most of the time, but these examples have got to make you think, no?

marc45
01-12-2009, 05:55 PM
Well, hold on a second. The singles players do not usually win when they play doubles. They usually play doubles to help adjust to a surface switch such as when the clay court season starts. They usually walk away empty handed and are often beaten in the first round.

Top singles players are far better at the game of tennis. Top doubles players have advantages in teamwork, strategy, and experience. Usually, the best doubles teams have been able to beat Nadal and beat Federer.

but fed and nadal together?....anyone ever fantasize what would have happened if sampras and agassi teamed together, sampras and becker?

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Haha Nadal wins doubles and now doubles is questioned. It is too predictable with the trolls these days.

Oh, come on! Don't be so defensive. Not everything is critical of the god Nadal.

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 06:08 PM
Well, hold on a second. The singles players do not usually win when they play doubles. They usually play doubles to help adjust to a surface switch such as when the clay court season starts. They usually walk away empty handed and are often beaten in the first round.

Top singles players are far better at the game of tennis. Top doubles players have advantages in teamwork, strategy, and experience. Usually, the best doubles teams have been able to beat Nadal and beat Federer.

Not quite. Nadal and Federer are an exception to the rule. Their record in doubles is something like 60% wins. Top notch singles players who were also great doubles players, like McEnroe and Bjorkman, are somewhere near 70% on their wins. Other "singles" players have a negative score. E.g. more losses than wins.

Leublu tennis
01-12-2009, 06:12 PM
well several examples have been listed (most notable the williams sisters lazily walking away with a Wimbledon trophy) where top singles players pair up and make the doubles players look foolish.


I don't follow WTA but do they have the equivalent of the doubles specialists of the ATP? Perhaps there is no serious challenge to two good WTA singles players playing doubles. Don't know. Just asking.

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 06:15 PM
but fed and nadal together?....anyone ever fantasize what would have happened if sampras and agassi teamed together, sampras and becker?
Did you know that in the past Nadal has asked Fed to play doubles and Fed refused? Maybe he should ask again.

NickC
01-12-2009, 06:24 PM
but fed and nadal together?....anyone ever fantasize what would have happened if sampras and agassi teamed together, sampras and becker?

Fed and Nads wouldn't work well together. Conflicting styles of play. If you look at successful doubles teams, the team are usually consisting of two players that have similar styles, such as the Bryan brothers. Albeit one returns better, while the other has a slightly bigger serve, their games are fairly identical. Federer is an attacking player, while Nads defends and moonballs. How are those styles compatible when the whole point of doubles is to attack the net and gain control over it?

Nadal_Freak
01-12-2009, 06:26 PM
Fed and Nads wouldn't work well together. Conflicting styles of play. If you look at successful doubles teams, the team are usually consisting of two players that have similar styles, such as the Bryan brothers. Albeit one returns better, while the other has a slightly bigger serve, their games are fairly identical. Federer is an attacking player, while Nads defends and moonballs. How are those styles compatible when the whole point of doubles is to attack the net and gain control over it?
Nadal defends and moonballs? Lmao. He does more then that. If you face them, you would either hit to Nadal's forehand or Fed's forehand or hit in the middle of the court. Talk about a nightmare duo. Fed's serve and Nadal's volleys and Nadal's and Fed's passing shots. They would be awesome imo.

tacou
01-12-2009, 06:35 PM
Fed and Nads wouldn't work well together. Conflicting styles of play. If you look at successful doubles teams, the team are usually consisting of two players that have similar styles, such as the Bryan brothers. Albeit one returns better, while the other has a slightly bigger serve, their games are fairly identical. Federer is an attacking player, while Nads defends and moonballs. How are those styles compatible when the whole point of doubles is to attack the net and gain control over it?

Nadal obviously doesn't play that way in doubles as he's won several titles (and I don't think he plays that way period).

I believe it was 07 Madrid, Nadal asked Federer to play with him but Federer was already paired with Wawrinka. maybe one day...

egn
01-12-2009, 06:35 PM
Haha Nadal wins doubles and now doubles is questioned. It is too predictable with the trolls these days.

Your the only troll you are so quick to think people are jumping on Nadal. First of all NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT NADAL. Now with that said if you read past NADAL you would see Federer was also mentioned and his doubles win was questioned...hmmm but it appears if you see Nadal a little alarm goes off.

Fed and Nadal would probably be banned from playing doubles together lol. In honest opinion.

Put Fed at the net and Nadal at the baseline and if you can actually score a point its like wow. Nadal at baseline will make an error every like ten shots and Fed used to be a huge SV which he is starting to go back to as you can see in his Andy Murray match at Doha..so his volleys and Nadal's baseline not going to be easy.

Then to make things worse you switch it and Nadal is good at a volley when he needs to be and then you have Fed passing shots and killer serves. Hell Nadal's reach at th enet would be lethal..

You would have to aim for perfect winners through tiny little gaps...Nadal and Fed together I bet could win at least 8 slams in the doubles game today.

tacou
01-12-2009, 06:36 PM
Did you know that in the past Nadal has asked Fed to play doubles and Fed refused? Maybe he should ask again.

did not see that, I just posted about it... as I read, Fed did not refuse but already had a partner.

NickC
01-12-2009, 06:36 PM
Nadal defends and moonballs? Lmao. He does more then that. If you face them, you would either hit to Nadal's forehand or Fed's forehand or hit in the middle of the court. Talk about a nightmare duo. Fed's serve and Nadal's volleys and Nadal's and Fed's passing shots. They would be awesome imo.

Yes Nadal defends and moonballs. Ever seen him play, or did you hop on the bandwagon after he won Wimbledon? My guess is the latter. I've seen him play live multiple times, (a few times up REALLY close) and that's all he does. I'm not saying that he doesn't hit a big ball, or hit hard, because he does both. But his style of play is basically moonball and defend, and wait for the opponent to make the mistake. Watch him play on clay, or watch videos from before he was somebody (watch how he played the first time he played Federer, 2004 in Miami, and other matches before that; basically before he started winning majors), and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'd hit to the middle of the court. Nadal volleys well.....for a claycourter. Passing shots are much harder in doubles, as most players have long reach, and having two players who, together, have a wingspan of almost the entire court (and have better volleys than most singles players), it becomes slightly difficult to pass them.

rubberduckies
01-12-2009, 06:55 PM
did not see that, I just posted about it... as I read, Fed did not refuse but already had a partner.

Fed was already playing with Yves Allegro.

marc45
01-12-2009, 07:02 PM
Did you know that in the past Nadal has asked Fed to play doubles and Fed refused? Maybe he should ask again.

i think i did hear this, and it's a shame, but i guess fed wants some distance for competitive reasons...these two do a little kabuki dance with this stuff, rafa always deferring, fed complimentary but keeping a little knife edge out....what would everyone think about a doubles only tournament at some point in the calendar year?....yes, you have the bryans, nestor and z, and maybe some other regular doubs teams, but also fed and murray (since he doesn't want to play with rafa) rafa and joker, roddick and blake (vs. the bryans would be neat) young guys gulbis and cilic, and just for kicks nalbandian and del potro, wink)

tacou
01-12-2009, 07:04 PM
^^ yes yes that was it, my mistake with wawrinka

marc45
01-12-2009, 07:04 PM
did not see that, I just posted about it... as I read, Fed did not refuse but already had a partner. then there's still hope!

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 07:05 PM
Yes Nadal defends and moonballs. Ever seen him play, or did you hop on the bandwagon after he won Wimbledon? My guess is the latter. I've seen him play live multiple times, (a few times up REALLY close) and that's all he does. I'm not saying that he doesn't hit a big ball, or hit hard, because he does both. But his style of play is basically moonball and defend, and wait for the opponent to make the mistake. Watch him play on clay, or watch videos from before he was somebody (watch how he played the first time he played Federer, 2004 in Miami, and other matches before that; basically before he started winning majors), and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'd hit to the middle of the court. Nadal volleys well.....for a claycourter. Passing shots are much harder in doubles, as most players have long reach, and having two players who, together, have a wingspan of almost the entire court (and have better volleys than most singles players), it becomes slightly difficult to pass them.
Of course Nadal moonballed his way to the top :roll: (I didn't know they let the inmates use the internet in mental institutions :???:)

Beasty54
01-12-2009, 07:34 PM
Agreed. Doubles is a different level of play. It's way below singles. I remember a tennis comentator saying not long ago that doubles it's a category for semi-retired players.



Well its not as demanding on your body. Points are shorter, matches fast, etc, etc.

veroniquem
01-12-2009, 08:19 PM
i think i did hear this, and it's a shame, but i guess fed wants some distance for competitive reasons...these two do a little kabuki dance with this stuff, rafa always deferring, fed complimentary but keeping a little knife edge out....what would everyone think about a doubles only tournament at some point in the calendar year?....yes, you have the bryans, nestor and z, and maybe some other regular doubs teams, but also fed and murray (since he doesn't want to play with rafa) rafa and joker, roddick and blake (vs. the bryans would be neat) young guys gulbis and cilic, and just for kicks nalbandian and del potro, wink)
I don't think he refused because he didn't want to, I think he had already made other plans.

NickC
01-12-2009, 09:19 PM
Of course Nadal moonballed his way to the top :roll: (I didn't know they let the inmates use the internet in mental institutions :???:)

Ever seen him play, especially in his earlier years as a pro? (I didn't know that there was internet access on the short bus?)

RCizzle65
01-12-2009, 10:35 PM
I thought I saw an article awhile back on here saying he'd be interested in playing doubles with Nadal or Roddick

hoahuyen
01-12-2009, 10:56 PM
Haha Nadal wins doubles and now doubles is questioned. It is too predictable with the trolls these days.

Go away Freak, you always ruin a good thread.

VictorS.
01-12-2009, 11:34 PM
I think it would be really cool to see Nadal & Federer on the same side of the court. Or even Murray and Djokovic.

NickC
01-13-2009, 09:21 AM
Haha Nadal wins doubles and now doubles is questioned. It is too predictable with the trolls these days.

Pot-kettle logic.

origmarm
01-13-2009, 09:31 AM
Go away Freak, you always ruin a good thread.

It's beginning to get irritating isn't it. It's impossible to have an objective discussion about anything without it turning into a Nadal hater fest. Even doubles for god's sake! It's like trying to have a discussion with Louis Farrakhan except about tennis in this case.

TonyB
01-14-2009, 05:33 PM
I just wanted to make one comment on this thread. The fact that the Swiss team and Spaniards beat some of the top doubles teams doesn't mean as much as you might think. Doubles is a difficult game that requires good strategies to be effective. When you're playing opponents with different styles of play who play in "unexpected" ways, it's tough to get a rhythm going and it's tough to develop a strategy on the fly to beat them. Throw in some no-ad scoring in a 3-setter and anything can happen.

We used to play this one team that was solid on return of serve, but lobbed just about everything else back to within a foot or so of the baseline. It was frustrating and tough to play against. They really kept us on our heels because after a while we never knew when the lobs were coming. We lost the first 3 matches to them horribly. However, once we figured out their game and learned how to force them into positions that were advantageous to us, we now win maybe 80% of the matches. Yes, I realize we're not professionals, but even the pros have a certain expectation when they're playing a match and it can get just as unsettling to play people who don't do things "by the book." It might take more than a few sets to figure out the new opponents' game. Unfortunately, in the Olympics you just don't have that opportunity. You play a few matches and hardly ever see your potential opponents play so that you can study their game. Plus, add to that the fact that Federer and Nadal were #1 and #2 in the world, and things get a lot tougher.

I would be careful of drawing too many conclusions about how "easy" doubles is just because Nestor/Zim and the Bryans lost a match to non-doubles specialists, particularly when we're talking about extremely skilled players like Fed and Nadal.

Nadal_Freak
01-14-2009, 06:04 PM
Btw the talent in Doubles was never as high as singles but you still got to make a lot of changes in your game to have success in doubles. Nadal and Federer have done that. They would be brilliant together but Fed's bruised ego caused from Nadal in singles probably is a factor on why they aren't playing together.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 06:34 PM
Of course Nadal moonballed his way to the top :roll: (I didn't know they let the inmates use the internet in mental institutions :???:)



Uh, how do you think Bjorn Borg won so many FOs?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE



I'm pretty sure that looks something similar to what Nadal does.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 06:37 PM
Btw the talent in Doubles was never as high as singles but you still got to make a lot of changes in your game to have success in doubles. Nadal and Federer have done that. They would be brilliant together but Fed's bruised ego caused from Nadal in singles probably is a factor on why they aren't playing together.


NADAL NADAL NADAL NADAL. Is that all you know? Do you even think for yourself? Wow.

Nadal_Freak
01-14-2009, 06:40 PM
NADAL NADAL NADAL NADAL. Is that all you know? Do you even think for yourself? Wow.
The topic mentions Nadal and Federer. I mentioned both of them again to respond to the OP. Btw I'm sorry I overreacted to the OP's thread. I shouldn't have gotten so defensive about it.

veroniquem
01-14-2009, 07:02 PM
Uh, how do you think Bjorn Borg won so many FOs?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE



I'm pretty sure that looks something similar to what Nadal does.
Wow it's so funny to watch these old matches, it looks like they're playing in slow motion! Nadal is more powerful, faster and varies his shots more. When I see these videos, I find it amusing how the game has changed, Borg would get killed by Nadal if he played like that today!

edberg505
01-14-2009, 07:19 PM
Btw the talent in Doubles was never as high as singles but you still got to make a lot of changes in your game to have success in doubles. Nadal and Federer have done that. They would be brilliant together but Fed's bruised ego caused from Nadal in singles probably is a factor on why they aren't playing together.

LOL, how do you figure that? Wow, you guys really hate Federer don't you?

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Wow it's so funny to watch these old matches, it looks like they're playing in slow motion! Nadal is more powerful, faster and varies his shots more. When I see these videos, I find it amusing how the game has changed, Borg would get killed by Nadal if he played like that today!



Bjorn Borg is a far superior athlete than Nadal is. If Bjorn Borg grew up with today's racquets, I'm pretty sure he'd beatdown Nadal all over the court. I don't think you watched enough tennis to know that Bjorn Borg was a genetic freak, literally. He is probably the fastest player, ever, to play the game. He was one of the strongest. He could run days on end, and outlast anyone, even Ivan Lendl (who was well known for his conditioning).


So no, Bjorn Borg wouldn't lose to Nadal, not on even grounds. Give Nadal a wood racquet and Bjorn Borg would beat him so bad it wouldn't even be funny.

edberg505
01-14-2009, 07:30 PM
Your the only troll you are so quick to think people are jumping on Nadal. First of all NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT NADAL. Now with that said if you read past NADAL you would see Federer was also mentioned and his doubles win was questioned...hmmm but it appears if you see Nadal a little alarm goes off.

Fed and Nadal would probably be banned from playing doubles together lol. In honest opinion.

Put Fed at the net and Nadal at the baseline and if you can actually score a point its like wow. Nadal at baseline will make an error every like ten shots and Fed used to be a huge SV which he is starting to go back to as you can see in his Andy Murray match at Doha..so his volleys and Nadal's baseline not going to be easy.

Then to make things worse you switch it and Nadal is good at a volley when he needs to be and then you have Fed passing shots and killer serves. Hell Nadal's reach at th enet would be lethal..

You would have to aim for perfect winners through tiny little gaps...Nadal and Fed together I bet could win at least 8 slams in the doubles game today.

Not really, a good doubles team would almost surely exploit them. Especially when Nadal is serving as he doesn't serve and volley. The one up and one back is almost always a losing proposition when the other team is serving and volleying.

veroniquem
01-14-2009, 08:20 PM
Bjorn Borg is a far superior athlete than Nadal is. If Bjorn Borg grew up with today's racquets, I'm pretty sure he'd beatdown Nadal all over the court. I don't think you watched enough tennis to know that Bjorn Borg was a genetic freak, literally. He is probably the fastest player, ever, to play the game. He was one of the strongest. He could run days on end, and outlast anyone, even Ivan Lendl (who was well known for his conditioning).


So no, Bjorn Borg wouldn't lose to Nadal, not on even grounds. Give Nadal a wood racquet and Bjorn Borg would beat him so bad it wouldn't even be funny.
I know Borg was amazing but the racquets have changed so much, and I think the athletic abilities of the players in general have evolved too. If Borg was playing with today's technology, he would have adapted to it and I have no doubt very successfully but Borg of yesteryear would have no chance vs contemporary freak of nature Nadal.

TonyB
01-15-2009, 02:27 AM
Notice how Nadal_Freak completely turned this entire thread into a discussion about Nadal?

What a waste.

Nadal_Freak
01-15-2009, 04:54 AM
Notice how Nadal_Freak completely turned this entire thread into a discussion about Nadal?

What a waste.
Once again read the OP. This thread is about Nadal and Federer winning in doubles despite much practice to prove that doubles isn't that great these days. Definitely nothing was wasted in what I said.

egn
01-15-2009, 05:12 AM
I just wanted to make one comment on this thread. The fact that the Swiss team and Spaniards beat some of the top doubles teams doesn't mean as much as you might think. Doubles is a difficult game that requires good strategies to be effective. When you're playing opponents with different styles of play who play in "unexpected" ways, it's tough to get a rhythm going and it's tough to develop a strategy on the fly to beat them. Throw in some no-ad scoring in a 3-setter and anything can happen.

We used to play this one team that was solid on return of serve, but lobbed just about everything else back to within a foot or so of the baseline. It was frustrating and tough to play against. They really kept us on our heels because after a while we never knew when the lobs were coming. We lost the first 3 matches to them horribly. However, once we figured out their game and learned how to force them into positions that were advantageous to us, we now win maybe 80% of the matches. Yes, I realize we're not professionals, but even the pros have a certain expectation when they're playing a match and it can get just as unsettling to play people who don't do things "by the book." It might take more than a few sets to figure out the new opponents' game. Unfortunately, in the Olympics you just don't have that opportunity. You play a few matches and hardly ever see your potential opponents play so that you can study their game. Plus, add to that the fact that Federer and Nadal were #1 and #2 in the world, and things get a lot tougher.

I would be careful of drawing too many conclusions about how "easy" doubles is just because Nestor/Zim and the Bryans lost a match to non-doubles specialists, particularly when we're talking about extremely skilled players like Fed and Nadal.

Its not about doubles being easy, its about the fact that doubles specialist do not seem to be so much better the game than the non doubles specialist. If Federer lost to Bob or Mike Bryan in a match the world would flip out, but it also seems not that much of a shock when a top doubles team goes down to teams made up of top singles players.

Also i think Fed and Nadal could dominated doubles with a bit of practice, but I still think if they did it raw they could easily be a top 10 doubles team. The ammount of consistent good doubles players is sparatic.

Blade0324
01-15-2009, 08:11 AM
Basically doubles players are pro's that are not quite good enough to play singles on the ATP. THus if they want to have a career in tennis they must adapt and become "doubles specialists" or start teaching. Not much room for anything else. So basically doubles specialists are nothing more than teams of players that would all be outside the top 150-200 at best if they played singles. That is why top singles players can beat them.