PDA

View Full Version : ATP Singles Players Better Than Top Doubles Teams


Conquistador
10-12-2009, 05:20 PM
So I was watching the tennis channel. And they did this rerun of the Washington D.C. event where Ernests Gulbis and Dimitry Tursunov played the number 1 ranked doubles team in the finals. What an epic, classic match-no doubt. A thriller of a 3 setter. Speculation had it though. Two decent ATP singles players playing with not a whole lot of doubles experience can and often times do beat seasoned all world doubles teams. Its an amazing thing. So take lets say a Jim Blake and an Oliver Rochus--tell them they are paired up and are playing doubles in the US. Open. Im picking blake and rochus -an unseeded team to make it to the finals. There they will play lets say the Byran Brothers. I really do see Blake and Rochus with no comradderie and not a whole lot of practice coming together and beating the Byrans. It just goes to show that raw talent beats teamwork.

viduka0101
10-12-2009, 05:30 PM
So I was watching the atdhe.net. And they did this rerun of the Bank Austria TennisTrophy event(kinda weird since they never and i mean never show reruns on ATDHE) where Daniel Nestor played the number 1 ranked player in the finals. What an epic, classic match-no doubt. A thriller of a 13 setter. Speculation had it though. A decent ATP soubles players playing with not a whole lot of singles experience can and often times do beat seasoned all world singles players. Its an amazing thing. So take lets say a Bob bryan and an Mark Knowles--tell them they are readyup and are playing singles in the US. Open. Im picking bryan and knowles -an unseeded pair to make it to the finals(well thats if they're on the oppositesides of the draw ). There they will play lets say the Del Potro or Federer. I really do see Bryan and Knowles with no comradderie cuz that would be cheating and not a whole lot of practice coming together and beating the Del Potro. It just goes to show that raw muscle beats arrogance.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 05:32 PM
delete....

Carsomyr
10-12-2009, 05:34 PM
Let's take Rochus, obviously the weaker component of this "hilarious" Blake - Rochus duo, and replace him with Mardy Fish, certainly an improvement over Rochus in terms of height and actual ability. Next, let's replace the U.S. Open with Wimbledon, the most prestigious tennis tournament on Earth. Finally, let's trade the Bryan Brothers for Zimonjic and Nestor, more fair competition as they are defending champs at Wimbledon. Now, let's say that this match hypothetically already took place, and Blake/Fish lost - would you look like a clown?

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Let's take Rochus, obviously the weaker component of this "hilarious" Blake - Rochus duo, and replace him with Mardy Fish, certainly an improvement over Rochus in terms of height and actual ability. Next, let's replace the U.S. Open with Wimbledon, the most prestigious tennis tournament on Earth. Finally, let's trade the Bryan Brothers for Zimonjic and Nestor, more fair competition as they are defending champs at Wimbledon. Now, let's say that this match hypothetically already took place, and Blake/Fish lost - would you look like a clown?

:lol: :lol:

Conquistador
10-12-2009, 05:41 PM
Let's take Rochus, obviously the weaker component of this "hilarious" Blake - Rochus duo, and replace him with Mardy Fish, certainly an improvement over Rochus in terms of height and actual ability. Next, let's replace the U.S. Open with Wimbledon, the most prestigious tennis tournament on Earth. Finally, let's trade the Bryan Brothers for Zimonjic and Nestor, more fair competition as they are defending champs at Wimbledon. Now, let's say that this match hypothetically already took place, and Blake/Fish lost - would you look like a clown?

There are also other variables in what you are entertaining. Blake and Fish were both in the gentlemans singles competition that week, so a doubles title was out of focus. Take Blake and Fish with no other commitments that week and their sole focus is on doubles, and they crush. To play singles and then move to doubles especially in a major is very physically demanding.

35ft6
10-12-2009, 05:41 PM
Two decent ATP singles players playing with not a whole lot of doubles experience can and often times do beat seasoned all world doubles teams. Its an amazing thing. So take lets say a Jim Blake and an Oliver Rochus--tell them they are paired up and are playing doubles in the US. Open. Im picking blake and rochus -an unseeded team to make it to the finals. There they will play lets say the Byran Brothers. I really do see Blake and Rochus with no comradderie and not a whole lot of practice coming together and beating the Byrans. It just goes to show that raw talent beats teamwork.I agree with your general premise, but I'm not sure if you constructed the best example. I would take the Bryan Brothers over Blake and Rochus.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 05:44 PM
There are also other variables in what you are entertaining. Blake and Fish were both in the gentlemans singles competition that week, so a doubles title was out of focus. Take Blake and Fish with no other commitments that week and their sole focus is on doubles, and they crush. To play singles and then move to doubles especially in a major is very physically demanding.

Both Blake and Fish went out pretty early...I think 1st and 3rd round respectively. The singles competition wasn't that demanding on them at that point.

Conquistador
10-12-2009, 05:44 PM
I agree with your general premise, but I'm not sure if you constructed the best example. I would take the Bryan Brothers over Blake and Rochus.

What about the big forehand of Blake, how would the bryans stay committed when you have two ATP veterans smacking big forehands around the net. Even the best communication among the top doubles teams are often not enough to overtake two hard hitting shotmakers. Thats a tough grind for the Bryans

Conquistador
10-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Both Blake and Fish went out pretty early...I think 1st and 3rd round respectively. The singles competition wasn't that demanding on them at that point.

It's still Wimbledon. They are trying to win a singles title above all. Winning doubles is like a side dish. If they win it, o well, but thats not what they were there for. It wasnt their focus.

Serendipitous
10-12-2009, 05:51 PM
It's still Wimbledon. They are trying to win a singles title above all. Winning doubles is like a side dish. If they win it, o well, but thats not what they were there for. It wasnt their focus.

Hello there, buddy! :)

Carsomyr
10-12-2009, 05:52 PM
There are also other variables in what you are entertaining. Blake and Fish were both in the gentlemans singles competition that week, so a doubles title was out of focus. Take Blake and Fish with no other commitments that week and their sole focus is on doubles, and they crush. To play singles and then move to doubles especially in a major is very physically demanding.

Blake was knocked out in the first round and Fish made it to round three. I'd say their schedules were pretty open for the rest of the tournament. And "out of focus?" When you have dominant grass players like Federer and Roddick to worry about in singles, I'd be more willing to take my chances in doubles. Also, losing in the singles didn't seem to phase Federer at the Olympics - perhaps if you had used Federer or Nadal who are just really gifted tennis players and could easily dominate either circuit, I could see your point, but to use a guy just flirting with top 20 status and another guy barely hovering in the top 100 is asinine.

This isn't to mention that the "camaraderie factor" between Blake - Fish is much higher (being Davis Cup teammates) than with Blake Rochus.

Conquistador
10-12-2009, 05:56 PM
Blake was knocked out in the first round and Fish made it to round three. I'd say their schedules were pretty open for the rest of the tournament. And "out of focus?" When you have dominant grass players like Federer and Roddick to worry about in singles, I'd be more willing to take my chances in doubles. Also, losing in the singles didn't seem to phase Federer at the Olympics - perhaps if you had used Federer or Nadal who are just really gifted tennis players and could easily dominate either circuit, I could see your point, but to use a guy just flirting with top 20 status and another guy barely hovering in the top 100 is asinine.

This isn't to mention that the "camaraderie factor" between Blake - Fish is much higher (being Davis Cup teammates) than with Blake Rochus.

Thats irrlevant to a point. Lets take a look at an aged Safin and pair him with a young player like Cilic. I would take Safin and Cilic in every draw at every tournament against the worlds best doubles teams. Players like that just outhit you. Players like that have too much talent to beat coordinated teams like the Bryans. Too much talent is overwhelming to those doubles teams.

Serendipitous
10-12-2009, 05:58 PM
Thats irrlevant to a point. Lets take a look at an aged Safin and pair him with a young player like Cilic. I would take Safin and Cilic in every draw at every tournament against the worlds best doubles teams. Players like that just outhit you. Players like that have too much talent to beat coordinated teams like the Bryans. Too much talent is overwhelming to those doubles teams.


:shock::shock::shock::shock:

Carsomyr
10-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Thats irrlevant to a point. Lets take a look at an aged Safin and pair him with a young player like Cilic. I would take Safin and Cilic in every draw at every tournament against the worlds best doubles teams. Players like that just outhit you. Players like that have too much talent to beat coordinated teams like the Bryans. Too much talent is overwhelming to those doubles teams.

pix or it didnt happen

Really, how else am I supposed to argue something stupid like that? I guess Cilic and Safin have more power than probably any doubles team you can find, but what about touch and finesse? There's no way they can volley half as well as the top doubles teams, and volleying is a vital part of doubles. Doubles players also have an inherent understanding of the doubles game and court, what your partner is going to do, etc. These are more important than being able to hit the ball hard.

Well, what else can I expect out of a guy who thinks Gonzalez is a top ten player this decade?

T1000
10-12-2009, 06:07 PM
LOL the big hitter example doesn't work. Robredo and Gonzalez played NEstor and Zimonjic and lost in straights this past USO series, one of the earlier tournaments.

Conquistador
10-12-2009, 06:21 PM
pix or it didnt happen

Really, how else am I supposed to argue something stupid like that? I guess Cilic and Safin have more power than probably any doubles team you can find, but what about touch and finesse? There's no way they can volley half as well as the top doubles teams, and volleying is a vital part of doubles. Doubles players also have an inherent understanding of the doubles game and court, what your partner is going to do, etc. These are more important than being able to hit the ball hard.

Well, what else can I expect out of a guy who thinks Gonzalez is a top ten player this decade?

Wrong Again. ATP Tour players are different animals than modern doubles teams. Case in point.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/1020/ten_g_federer_wawrinka_580.jpg

Carsomyr
10-12-2009, 06:24 PM
Blake was knocked out in the first round and Fish made it to round three. I'd say their schedules were pretty open for the rest of the tournament. And "out of focus?" When you have dominant grass players like Federer and Roddick to worry about in singles, I'd be more willing to take my chances in doubles. Also, losing in the singles didn't seem to phase Federer at the Olympics - perhaps if you had used Federer or Nadal who are just really gifted tennis players and could easily dominate either circuit, I could see your point, but to use a guy just flirting with top 20 status and another guy barely hovering in the top 100 is asinine.

This isn't to mention that the "camaraderie factor" between Blake - Fish is much higher (being Davis Cup teammates) than with Blake Rochus.

Thanks for your thorough reading of my post!

35ft6
10-12-2009, 11:25 PM
Let's take Rochus, obviously the weaker component of this "hilarious" Blake - Rochus duo, and replace him with Mardy Fish, certainly an improvement over Rochus in terms of height and actual ability. Next, let's replace the U.S. Open with Wimbledon, the most prestigious tennis tournament on Earth. Finally, let's trade the Bryan Brothers for Zimonjic and Nestor, more fair competition as they are defending champs at Wimbledon.Blake and Fish lost to Bryan Bros, too, back in June.What about the big forehand of Blake, how would the bryans stay committed when you have two ATP veterans smacking big forehands around the net. Even the best communication among the top doubles teams are often not enough to overtake two hard hitting shotmakers. Thats a tough grind for the BryansBlake and Querry (a bigger hitter than Rochus) lost to Hanley and Kerr last year. Blake lost to Bryan Bros, again with Fish, back in Nov, 2008, and lost to Bryan Bros 1 and 1 partnering with Knowles. Talk about huge forehands, Blake and Malisse lost to Paul Hanely and Ullyett 3 and 1 in August of 2006. In 10 years, Blake is 103-97 overall in doubles with 5 career titles, and he's never beaten the Bryan Bros with any partner.

Again, I agree with the general premise. If all the singles player were motivated and decided to treat doubles seriously, for whatever reason, there would be a huge shift in the rankings. But with that said, doubles is different from singles and Blake isn't going to just hit so hard that these guys can't handle the pace. Doubles doesn't work that way, they pound balls at each other all the time, and most of the guys can hit huge, just not consistently and with the precision needed for a high singles ranking. For the most part the reflexes of the top doubles players are such that they can volley even the biggest forehands.

Gorecki
10-13-2009, 02:04 AM
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/3/36790/1067629-cool_story_bro_super.gif

ubermeyer
10-13-2009, 04:42 PM
So I was watching the tennis channel. And they did this rerun of the Washington D.C. event where Ernests Gulbis and Dimitry Tursunov played the number 1 ranked doubles team in the finals. What an epic, classic match-no doubt. A thriller of a 3 setter. Speculation had it though. Two decent ATP singles players playing with not a whole lot of doubles experience can and often times do beat seasoned all world doubles teams. Its an amazing thing. So take lets say a Jim Blake and an Oliver Rochus--tell them they are paired up and are playing doubles in the US. Open. Im picking blake and rochus -an unseeded team to make it to the finals. There they will play lets say the Byran Brothers. I really do see Blake and Rochus with no comradderie and not a whole lot of practice coming together and beating the Byrans. It just goes to show that raw talent beats teamwork.

First, I thought you left the boards!!!!

2nd... who is Jim blake?

3rd. I agree with you that the top singles players > the top doubles players in doubles. Nadal/Federer doubles would be awesome. Plus, Waw rinka and Federer defeated the Bryans too

Claudius
10-13-2009, 04:45 PM
If you give Federer and Murray a week to train, they'll be the best doubles team in the world.

Conquistador
10-13-2009, 05:16 PM
First, I thought you left the boards!!!!

2nd... who is Jim blake?

3rd. I agree with you that the top singles players > the top doubles players in doubles. Nadal/Federer doubles would be awesome. Plus, Waw rinka and Federer defeated the Bryans too

http://www.jamesblaketennis.com/08%20website/buildimages/sponsor%20images/Dunlop_Blake_Website_Banner.jpg

jamesblakefan#1
10-13-2009, 05:36 PM
http://www.jamesblaketennis.com/08%20website/buildimages/sponsor%20images/Dunlop_Blake_Website_Banner.jpg

Just a hint, Conq, his name is James for a reason. I think he says his dad even hated it when people called him Jim, because his father named him James for a reason. That's his name, not Jim. Just a tip.

Conquistador
10-13-2009, 05:43 PM
Just a hint, Conq, his name is James for a reason. I think he says his dad even hated it when people called him Jim, because his father named him James for a reason. That's his name, not Jim. Just a tip.

It doesnt matter. Im sure Jim doesnt mind because it is a nickname for James.

VivalaVida
10-13-2009, 05:44 PM
Just a hint, Conq, his name is James for a reason. I think he says his dad even hated it when people called him Jim, because his father named him James for a reason. That's his name, not Jim. Just a tip.
JBF, dont bother. Conquistador loves spewing out gems. He once stated that Federer volleys and plays lefty. :lol:

RCizzle65
10-13-2009, 09:28 PM
There are also other variables in what you are entertaining. Blake and Fish were both in the gentlemans singles competition that week, so a doubles title was out of focus. Take Blake and Fish with no other commitments that week and their sole focus is on doubles, and they crush. To play singles and then move to doubles especially in a major is very physically demanding.

Out of focus? I believe they were up two sets to none....

IvanAndreevich
10-13-2009, 09:54 PM
It doesnt matter. Im sure Jim doesnt mind because it is a nickname for James.

If that is so, is ****** the nickname for Conquistador? :neutral: