PDA

View Full Version : All of a sudden...


fed_is_GOD
08-10-2009, 07:39 PM
First it was djoker who took every one by surprise by playng a doubles matcg along with his brother, then Nadal, and also Murray!!!.. why are these people onto doubles all of a sudden?? did they realise that beating fed records(no.of GS titles) is not possible playing single alone?? or is it for the prize money?? :confused:

Nadal&Nike10
08-10-2009, 07:41 PM
maybe it is more of like a fun practice, thats what robredo say at legg mason after playing with gonzo

fed_is_GOD
08-10-2009, 07:47 PM
maybe it is more of like a fun practice, thats what robredo say at legg mason after playing with gonzo

May be it is...just got curious when all started doing this in a small span of gap between, like a ploy or some thin..

bladepdb
08-10-2009, 07:57 PM
Nadal's been playing doubles long before Djokovic and not sure about Murray but I'm pretty sur ehe's partnered in the past with his brother Jamie Murray who is a doubles player exclusively.

ubermeyer
08-10-2009, 08:58 PM
Nadal's been playing doubles long before Djokovic and not sure about Murray but I'm pretty sur ehe's partnered in the past with his brother Jamie Murray who is a doubles player exclusively.

Jamie Murray used to play singles, but had very limited success (highest ranking 834) so dropped it and focused on doubles only.

Sucks to be overshadowed so much by lil' bro.

Sentinel
08-10-2009, 09:15 PM
Maybe they are moving to doubles, and will revert to singles after Federer retires in 2018.

hehe, just kidding, girls.

ferocious4hand
08-10-2009, 09:32 PM
maybe the ATP's doubles marketing strategy is working. Since they can use their singles ranking to play dubs, why not?

ATP's intention was to get more top single player play doubles

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 09:48 PM
Nadal won a MS title last yr in doubles. Fish and Roddick won IW. Blake and Fish made Wimby SF. Fed has also played doubles on numerous occasions. It isn't as rare as you make it to seem.

tata
08-10-2009, 10:38 PM
Maybe they want to shape up their volleys a bit for USO since it is one of the faster surfaces.

pound cat
08-11-2009, 05:00 AM
Nadal has played doubles for years...he says it's fun, and he loves tennis.

Fedfan1234
08-11-2009, 05:20 AM
Maybe they want to shape up their volleys a bit for USO since it is one of the faster surfaces.
You are right, they want to be better at the net because they are going to need it. It is well known that you have to play a lot of volley's in doubles and that by playing more volley's they most likely will get better over time. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic can still improve here and become even better than they already are.

wyutani
08-11-2009, 05:26 AM
doubles is a gd practice. a gd warm up.

P_Agony
08-11-2009, 05:38 AM
What I don't understand is why Nadal is playing doubles when he is "less than 100%".

jevonclyde
08-11-2009, 06:13 AM
Nadal won a MS title last yr in doubles. Fish and Roddick won IW. Blake and Fish made Wimby SF. Fed has also played doubles on numerous occasions. It isn't as rare as you make it to seem.

I agree with you.

cknobman
08-11-2009, 06:19 AM
It was a good move by the atp to change doubles format. No deuce, champions tie break.

Heck I bet these singles players have trouble staying warm in the doubles match it happens so fast.

ATP doubles is now easier than USTA doubles. USTA has champions tie break but they still play deuce games.

sureshs
08-11-2009, 07:39 AM
The ATP might be putting a little pressure on them to play dubs

Deuce
08-11-2009, 09:33 PM
maybe the ATP's doubles marketing strategy is working. Since they can use their singles ranking to play dubs, why not?

ATP's intention was to get more top single player play doubles

The ATP might be putting a little pressure on them to play dubs
^ Yes - the intention was to get the top singles players to play doubles.
And I'm sure there has been some 'pressuring' involved.

But, because of this, doubles has become little more than a sad novelty act.

It was a good move by the atp to change doubles format. No deuce, champions tie break.

Heck I bet these singles players have trouble staying warm in the doubles match it happens so fast.

ATP doubles is now easier than USTA doubles. USTA has champions tie break but they still play deuce games.
^ It was a terrible move to change the rules. The great majority of the players hate it.
Next time you're at a pro tournament, ask some of the doubles players - and their coaches - what they think of the ridiculous new rules. I have talked with them about it - first when the new rules were proposed, and more recently, after playing with the new rules for a couple of years. And they've always said that they hate the new rules.

The only players who don't mind the ridiculous new doubles rules are guys like Nadal, Djokovic, etc. - who clearly don't take doubles seriously anyway.
The end result is that doubles today is just a novelty act. People would rather watch Nadal play half-hearted 'fun' doubles than watch two REAL doubles teams play a good match.
They are using the top singles guys to market doubles - but they are not marketing real doubles, they are marketing novelty doubles.
And it's a damn shame, because it completely takes all the attention away from the real doubles players.

We're a long, long way from the days of McEnroe & Fleming, Edberg & Jarryd, Curren & Denton, the Gullickson twins... even the 'Woodies'.

I's much rather have ONLY 'doubles specialists' playing REAL doubles than have the 'famous names' playing BS doubles.

Wolland
08-11-2009, 09:38 PM
Djokovic played doubles in Umag just for fun. And he also wanted to give his brother a push. So there's nothing to it.

egn
08-11-2009, 09:40 PM
^ Yes - the intention was to get the top singles players to play doubles.
And I'm sure there has been some 'pressuring' involved.

But, because of this, doubles has become little more than a sad novelty act.


^ It was a terrible move to change the rules. The great majority of the players hate it.
Next time you're at a pro tournament, ask some of the doubles players - and their coaches - what they think of the ridiculous new rules. I have talked with them about it - first when the new rules were proposed, and more recently, after playing with the new rules for a couple of years. And they've always said that they hate the new rules.

The only players who don't mind the ridiculous new doubles rules are guys like Nadal, Djokovic, etc. - who clearly don't take doubles seriously anyway.
The end result is that doubles today is just a novelty act. People would rather watch Nadal play half-hearted 'fun' doubles than watch two REAL doubles teams play a good match.
They are using the top singles guys to market doubles - but they are not marketing real doubles, they are marketing novelty doubles.
And it's a damn shame, because it completely takes all the attention away from the real doubles players.

We're a long, long way from the days of McEnroe & Fleming, Edberg & Jarryd, Curren & Denton, the Gullickson twins... even the 'Woodies'.

I's much rather have ONLY 'doubles specialists' playing REAL doubles than have the 'famous names' playing BS doubles.

The woodies <3 if two people were ever connected on the tennis court it was them. It was almost as if they were one guy cloned and not two different people. That was doubles tennis all right.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 09:40 PM
The only players who don't mind the ridiculous new doubles rules are guys like Nadal, Djokovic, etc. - who clearly don't take doubles seriously anyway.
The end result is that doubles today is just a novelty act. People would rather watch Nadal play half-hearted 'fun' doubles than watch two REAL doubles teams play a good match.
They are using the top singles guys to market doubles - but they are not marketing real doubles, they are marketing novelty doubles.
And it's a damn shame, because it completely takes all the attention away from the real doubles players.

We're a long, long way from the days of McEnroe & Fleming, Edberg & Jarryd, Curren & Denton, the Gullickson twins... even the 'Woodies'.

I's much rather have ONLY 'doubles specialists' playing REAL doubles than have the 'famous names' playing BS doubles.

But what does it say when guys like Fish, Roddick, Nadal, Lopez, Robredo can come in and win MS titles in doubles, Federer and Wawrinka take the Olympics doubles Gold, and Fish and Blake make it to the Wimbledon SF? Are they not playing 'real' doubles? Are they playing half heartedly?

Deuce
08-11-2009, 09:52 PM
But what does it say when guys like Fish, Roddick, Nadal, Lopez, Robredo can come in and win MS titles in doubles, Federer and Wawrinka take the Olympics doubles Gold, and Fish and Blake make it to the Wimbledon SF? Are they not playing 'real' doubles? Are they playing half heartedly?
^ When novelty doubles players are doing well, it says that doubles today is clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

The new rules do not at all favour real doubles players. The idiotic tiebreak instead of a third set is like having a home run contest to decide a game that's tied after 9 innings.
Ridiculous and shameful.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 09:59 PM
^ When novelty doubles players are doing well, it says that doubles today is clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

The new rules do not at all favour real doubles players. The idiotic tiebreak instead of a third set is like having a home run contest to decide a game that's tied after 9 innings.
Ridiculous and shameful.

How is Blake & Fish making a run @ Wimbledon, which used 'regular' rules, and Fed and Stan winning Olympics, beating the #1 team at the time, a 'novelty'? How are these guys 'novelty' players? I think you fail to realize that most talented singles players, not all but most, could just as easily be top 10 doubles players if they applied the time to it, and the fact that they're able to come in and compete w/ top doubles teams isn't an indictment of the rules, but shows how talented guys like Fed, Nadal, Fish especially, Roddick, Blake really are.

Deuce
08-11-2009, 10:07 PM
How is Blake & Fish making a run @ Wimbledon, which used 'regular' rules, and Fed and Stan winning Olympics, beating the #1 team at the time, a 'novelty'? How are these guys 'novelty' players? I think you fail to realize that most talented singles players, not all but most, could just as easily be top 10 doubles players if they applied the time to it, and the fact that they're able to come in and compete w/ top doubles teams isn't an indictment of the rules, but shows how talented guys like Fed, Nadal, Fish especially, Roddick, Blake really are.
I don't think you realize that doubles is an entirely different game than singles. And any honest pro will tell you that.
Do me a favour - next time you're at a pro tournament, go up to one of the real doubles players (like Bhupathi, or Knowles, or Paes, or Nestor, etc.), and tell them that you think that Roddick is a great doubles player.
After they stop laughing, they'll tell you what's what.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:12 PM
I don't think you realize that doubles is an entirely different game than singles. And any honest pro will tell you that.
Do me a favour - next time you're at a pro tournament, go up to one of the real doubles players (like Bhupathi, or Knowles, or Paes, or Nestor, etc.), and tell them that you think that Roddick is a great doubles player.
After they stop laughing, they'll tell you what's what.

I do realize that doubles is a different game...but at the same time, it shouldn't be some grand indictment if guys like Fed, Blake, Fish, are able to have success in the doubles game. Maybe Roddick's a bit of a fluke, but some, not all singles players, but some would also be top 10 doubles players if they applied themselves to it, even you have to see that. I put Fish, Blake, Federer, in this category.

Deuce
08-11-2009, 10:38 PM
I do realize that doubles is a different game...but at the same time, it shouldn't be some grand indictment if guys like Fed, Blake, Fish, are able to have success in the doubles game. Maybe Roddick's a bit of a fluke, but some, not all singles players, but some would also be top 10 doubles players if they applied themselves to it, even you have to see that. I put Fish, Blake, Federer, in this category.
Federer, yes. He's simply got too much natural talent to not be a very good doubles player.
The other two you mention struggle like hell simply to have decent results on a consistent basis in singles. The best they could hope for in doubles - REAL doubles, where they play with real tennis rules - would be similar to their singles results.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:52 PM
Federer, yes. He's simply got too much natural talent to not be a very good doubles player.
The other two you mention struggle like hell simply to have decent results on a consistent basis in singles. The best they could hope for in doubles - REAL doubles, where they play with real tennis rules - would be similar to their singles results.

Mardy Fish has 6 career doubles titles, 2 AO dubs QF, and Wimby SF on his doubles record, and is currently 18th in doubles. You saying he couldn't be better in doubles than he already is if he focused more time on it?

Same w/ Blake, 5 career doubles titles, GS QF and SF in doubles, and was a top ranked doubles player in college.

There are plenty of guys who show their doubles skills in Davis Cup as well. So to say that none of the top singles guys could succeed in 'real' doubles, as you call it...kinda shortsighted.

Deuce
08-11-2009, 11:16 PM
Mardy Fish has 6 career doubles titles, 2 AO dubs QF, and Wimby SF on his doubles record, and is currently 18th in doubles. You saying he couldn't be better in doubles than he already is if he focused more time on it?

Same w/ Blake, 5 career doubles titles, GS QF and SF in doubles, and was a top ranked doubles player in college.

There are plenty of guys who show their doubles skills in Davis Cup as well. So to say that none of the top singles guys could succeed in 'real' doubles, as you call it...kinda shortsighted.
First of all, your username betrays your clear bias.

Secondly - Could Fish be "better in doubles if he focussed more time on it"?
Gee... he has focussed a lot of time on his singles, and hasn't really ever come close to reaching what many thought was his potential. Why would it be any different in doubles?

Third - college tennis ain't the pros. Big difference.

Fourth... I never said that none of the "top singles guys" could ever succeed in real doubles.
What I said is that today, to the top singles guys, doubles is little more than a novelty. And the ridiculous rule changes encourage that.

And, last... Apart from Federer, I can't think of a current top 20 player who is close - or could come close - to the level of doubles that was played in the '80s by guys like McEnroe & Fleming, Edberg & Jarryd, McNamara & MacNamee, etc.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 11:22 PM
Secondly - Could Fish be "better in doubles if he focussed more time on it"?
Gee... he has focussed a lot of time on his singles, and hasn't really ever come close to reaching what many thought was his potential. Why would it be any different in doubles?

But isn't that like saying Nestor, Zimonjic, Bryan Bros, Paes, etc would be top 10 singles players if they focused on it?

I'm just stating that Fish is a good doubles players, very good, and what's to say he wouldn't be better if he applied more time to it? There have been several examples w/ players better than doubles than singles (Santoro, Llodra, Paes, the Woodies) so what's to say Fish couldn't be a top 10 player in doubles if he applied himself, found a solid partner, etc as these players have in the past.

Deuce
08-11-2009, 11:28 PM
But isn't that like saying Nestor, Zimonjic, Bryan Bros, Paes, etc would be top 10 singles players if they focused on it?

I'm just stating that Fish is a good doubles players, very good, and what's to say he wouldn't be better if he applied more time to it? There have been several examples w/ players better than doubles than singles (Santoro, Llodra, Paes, the Woodies) so what's to say Fish couldn't be a top 10 player in doubles if he applied himself, found a solid partner, etc as these players have in the past.
I suppose it's possible.
Maybe he feels too much pressure in singles, and that's why he hasn't come close to achieving what many felt he would achieve in singles.

Or maybe he simply doesn't have the proper psychological approach to succeed in doubles, either, on any sort of consistent basis.

We may never know.

janipyt05
08-12-2009, 12:32 AM
Doubles is a great way to expand on your reflex skills, seeing the ball quickly and a great way to get back into a game after injury or even after a long break and be paid at the same time. Double is over looked but its great that the singles players do play doubles