PDA

View Full Version : Bryan brothers vs prime McEnroe/Fleming


mcenroefan
07-05-2012, 07:10 PM
With the Bryan Brothers roaring to all sorts of records, and the desire to throw out a thread that didn't include Fed, Nadal, or Nole, I ask this question:

Would the Bryan Brothers thrash a prime McEnroe/Fleming?

TeflonTom
07-05-2012, 07:43 PM
**** no. they would get their asses handed to em

more interestin question is woodies v mcenroe/fleming. even then, reckon mac n flem prolly got the wood on the ozzies. no pun intended

doubles is 2nd rate tennis played by 3rd rate players these days. real shame cos its a beautiful form o the sport

mcenroefan
07-05-2012, 07:46 PM
**** no. they would get their asses handed to em

more interestin question is woodies v mcenroe/fleming. even then, reckon mac n flem prolly got the wood on the ozzies. no pun intended

doubles is 2nd rate tennis played by 3rd rate players these days. real shame cos its a beautiful form o the sport

One positive of the Olympics might be that some of the singles stars will play serious doubles. Tasty if they did.

I agree about doubles being a wonderful form of the sport. Would love to see some Fed, Nole, Nadal, Murray doubles action.

kishnabe
07-05-2012, 07:49 PM
I would say non-prime McEnroe/Fleming would thrash Peak Bryan Brothers.

Bryan Bros though good are overrated. They win in a era based on guys who can't win in Singles and have to go Doubles to win.

In McEnroe...era the doubles players were good singles players as well. There were tougher teams to play too.

floridatennisdude
07-05-2012, 07:53 PM
It would be a helluva matchup. 5 setter with tiebreaks and a mental duel til the end. Would love to be able to know, but never will know who would win. 2 of the best pairs ever!

TeflonTom
07-05-2012, 07:55 PM
One positive of the Olympics might be that some of the singles stars will play serious doubles. Tasty if they did.

I agree about doubles being a wonderful form of the sport. Would love to see some Fed, Nole, Nadal, Murray doubles action.
trouble is that most top players dont train doubles skills any more coz (a) they never play n (b) singles is all about baseline

nadz and muzz are okay doubles players but really not that great compared to singles talent. nole is really, really bad - volleys r rubbish but the worst part is he has nfi bout strategy n positioning n stuff. he would be the weak player on most pro doubles courts

fed is probably the best dubs player of top singles guys, cos he plays a lot in dc and also when he was younger cos he was a late bloomer. hewitt was the last world no 1 to actually take doubles seriously though

last yr, davis cup wg playoffs, australia v switzerland was good doubles. fed/wawrinka v hewitt/guccione on proper fast grass in australia

TeflonTom
07-05-2012, 08:13 PM
I would say non-prime McEnroe/Fleming would thrash Peak Bryan Brothers.

Bryan Bros though good are overrated. They win in a era based on guys who can't win in Singles and have to go Doubles to win.

In McEnroe...era the doubles players were good singles players as well. There were tougher teams to play too.
yeah. up til 80s, dubs was just another form of the game played by the best tennis players.

even in the 90s, you still had a lot of good singles guys playing regularly on the doubles tour n not just in the slams. very top guys like Sampras, Agassi, etc. ignored doubles but lots of guys in top 30 still played dubs seriously while they were top players. u look at latter rounds of slam dubs tournaments n u see names like rafter, kafelnikov, edberg, bjorkman, etc. Even dubs specialists had singles pedigree. woodies made a wimby semifinal each n were both ranked top 20 at one point in their careers. Much tougher comps

think most damning evidence against bryans is how badly they got their asses kicked round the tour in first half of 00s by most of the previous generation. u had an ancient bjorkman n woodbridge given em bagels in slams when the bryans were in their mid 20s

didnt start winning slams regular til 2005/06 when most of the previous gen dubs teams who had been good singles players retired.

reckon they woulda got demolished by the dubs fields in the mid 90s, let alone what teams like mcenroe/fleming n edberg/jarryd woulda done to em in their prime

nereis
07-05-2012, 08:26 PM
Not even close.

McEnroe was a viable tour doubles player paired with just about anyone into his late 30s.

Defcon
07-05-2012, 10:00 PM
You could give them a set handicap and they'd still lose every single time.

I reckon Mac today has a net game as good as anyone today once he's at net.

TheRed
07-05-2012, 10:21 PM
The Bryan brothers are a very solid doubles team but that's pretty much it. They play percentage doubles, generally hitting up the middle but they tend to be a little predictable and don't really have that extra gear. When they play a team that is playing very well, a team that has 1, if not 2 very good doubles players that play solid with just a bit of unpredictability and creativity, the brothers get outmaneuvered.
Mac and Fleming are in another class. They really know how to play. They had creativity and flair without being wild.

borg number one
07-05-2012, 10:27 PM
McEnroe and Fleming would have a clear advantage I think. Fleming was a great doubles player too. Sometimes people overlook how dominating he could be at the net and on serve. Fleming was a big guy, who had a great overhead and he could do some damage with his groundstrokes as well. McEnroe is simply one of the greatest doubles players of all time and he had a great doubles partner in Peter Fleming. I remember watching them play some indoor matches during which they would just be all over the net and McEnroe would be crossing at the net a lot during points and just volleying up a storm. The Bryan Brothers are also a great team, but I think McEnroe-Fleming would trouble them greatly.

timnz
07-05-2012, 10:40 PM
If the McEnroe/Fleming were so great, why did they only barely beat Newcombe/Stolle at the US Open open when the latter were in their 40's?

baseliner
07-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Mcenroe/Fleming(or anyone else) in straight sets. Mcenroe and anyone else were the best doubles team at his peak

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 10:08 AM
bryans out of wimby in 4 to an unseeded pair

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-06-2012, 10:21 AM
trouble is that most top players dont train doubles skills any more coz (a) they never play n (b) singles is all about baseline



^ The key reason most of modern men's tennis is a show of uninspired disasters aka baseline obsessed players utterly ignorant of (truly) playing the entire court.

Jet Rink
07-06-2012, 10:36 AM
Mac/Fleming. Saw them live many times back in the day and their variety and tactics are far superior to anything going down these days.

Wilander Fan
07-06-2012, 01:33 PM
Not many people talk about how much doubles has fallen off the radar. I actually used to follow doubles teams and look forward to matches like Jarryd/Edberg vs Mac/Flemming etc. One reason for this is that there are only 4 stars. The other is that its become a boring power game. Doubles would be much more interesting if you could designate duties such as one guy is always the server and one guy is always the returner.

InspectorRacquet
07-06-2012, 01:38 PM
I would say non-prime McEnroe/Fleming would thrash Peak Bryan Brothers.

Bryan Bros though good are overrated. They win in a era based on guys who can't win in Singles and have to go Doubles to win.

In McEnroe...era the doubles players were good singles players as well. There were tougher teams to play too.

That's mostly got to do with the current era being a baseline game. MacEnroe's time was a serve-and-volley era, and because the singles and doubles players both volleyed, singles players won doubles titles and vice versa.

Would the Bryan brothers do well in the MacEnroe era or vice versa? Who knows. But I think the Bryan Bros would eek out a win if they were to play in their primes.

mtr1
07-06-2012, 02:50 PM
I'd take McEnroe/Fleming. Bryans might stand a chance on clay, but it would be a comfortable win for M/F anywhere else.

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 06:31 PM
That's mostly got to do with the current era being a baseline game. MacEnroe's time was a serve-and-volley era, and because the singles and doubles players both volleyed, singles players won doubles titles and vice versa.
hmm a little bit. but also has a lot 2 do with the increased amt of money available 2 top players from singles

eg sampras, krajicek were top s&v players in 90s n coulda been good dubs players, but pretty much ignored it because they made plenty of money from singles. dubs just interfered with their singles schedule

hewitt n fed r both v good dubs players who like the game but neither have played it regularly on tour when theyve been top players. just too hard to manage it when u makin it deep into singles draws.

Would the Bryan brothers do well in the MacEnroe era or vice versa? Who knows. But I think the Bryan Bros would eek out a win if they were to play in their primes.
no way brah. how old r u? u obv dont remember how manhandled those guys were during their first 10 yrs on tour.

from 1995 to 2001 they were useless, totally irrelevant. 2001 to 2003 they were second tier, winnin some minor titles, crashin out early in slams. 2003 to 2005 they started to become competitive 4 some of the big titles n 2006-now they have dominated.

they r best doubles combo of this generation no doubt, but when they were in their late 20s they were strugglin to beat ancient n semi-retired woodbridge, bjorkman, ullyett etc. they r just not that great

Wuppy
07-06-2012, 07:18 PM
Only a natural net player like Mac will be any good at doubles. These days most youth are trained at the baseline. Mac couldn't help but come to the net. He loved it, felt natural there, etc.

Ronaldo
07-06-2012, 07:21 PM
Prime Bryan Bros vs Current BB?

TMF
11-17-2014, 10:53 AM
They just won their 4th YEC at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals and also end the year #1.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/11/46/London-Finale-Doubles-Final.aspx

There's no double players in the past that have dominated the sport like the B. brothers. What scary is their career are not finished yet !

Rock Strongo
11-17-2014, 11:46 AM
You could put McEnroe together with basically any player and you'd have a good doubles team.

gavna
11-17-2014, 03:58 PM
They just won their 4th YEC at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals and also end the year #1.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/11/46/London-Finale-Doubles-Final.aspx

There's no double players in the past that have dominated the sport like the B. brothers. What scary is their career are not finished yet !

Hmmmmmm...........Fleming/McEnroe win 7 WTFs/Masters in a row from 78-84. Smith/Lutz also bagged 2 and were dominant for almost 14 yrs. I love the Bryan's and they've evening the great teams BUT Fleming/McEnroe would have smoked them more often than not.

coloskier
11-17-2014, 05:51 PM
You could give them a set handicap and they'd still lose every single time.

I reckon Mac today has a net game as good as anyone today once he's at net.

If you watched the exho yesterday you'd see the Mac still has some of the fastest hands at the net.

tennisaddict
11-17-2014, 06:09 PM
You could put McEnroe together with basically any player and you'd have a good doubles team.

While I know McEnroe is legendary in doubles, I would like the opinions of people who have played a high level as to the gaps between McEnroe and the Bryans.

Sometimes I feel this is like a case of us not wanting to let go of the past and somewhat similar to thinking Laver will smoke Federer and Nadal.

The achievements of Bryans for like 15 years now is scary good.

West Coast Ace
11-17-2014, 06:27 PM
You could put McEnroe together with basically any player and you'd have a good doubles team.Yep. In the day the joke was: "Who's the best doubles team? JMac and whoever he's playing with." Even Peter Fleming admitted it.

I respect the Bryan brothers and what they've done. They are great with the fans and great ambassadors for the tour. And they're playing who their told to so the whole 'era' thing is out of their hands. Bob has a great lefty serve (and probably could have had a Llodra like singles career if he wanted to dump Mike). And both have good net skills. But there's no disputing that neither can return serve to save their #ss. So they would lose to JM/PF.

tennisaddict
11-17-2014, 06:30 PM
Yep. In the day the joke was: "Who's the best doubles team? JMac and whoever he's playing with." Even Peter Fleming admitted it.

I respect the Bryan brothers and what they've done. They are great with the fans and great ambassadors for the tour. And they're playing who their told to so the whole 'era' thing is out of their hands. Bob has a great lefty serve (and probably could have had a Llodra like singles career if he wanted to dump Mike). And both have good net skills. But there's no disputing that neither can return serve to save their #ss. So they would lose to JM/PF.

In the same way, JM's serve was nothing to gloat about.

In today's game , with the no ad and super tie break, you need a great serve to get ahead. Would they have had success in that format with a strong net game alone ?

Gut Check
11-17-2014, 07:12 PM
In the same way, JM's serve was nothing to gloat about.

Such a limited view. Mac's serve in of itself was far from a great standalone weapon, but he knew how to use that serve and what qualities it did possess as a piece of the attacking game's puzzle, in both singles and dubs, like few others that have ever played. His ability to construct offensive opportunities out of what wasn't a great serve, and even more limited abilities as a traditional groundstroker, was uncanny.

tennisaddict
11-17-2014, 07:14 PM
Such a limited view. Mac's serve in of itself was far from a great standalone weapon, but he knew how to use that serve and what qualities it did possess as a piece of the attacking game's puzzle, in both singles and dubs, like few others that have ever played.

I do realize he had excellent placement but when people say he would dominate today's doubles, you wonder how much of the slow serve would have been a handicap.

West Coast Ace
11-17-2014, 07:18 PM
In the same way, JM's serve was nothing to gloat about. Are you serious? His serve, with his back turn, was almost unreadable. If you want to extrapolate a 22 yr old Mac with today's sticks and strings, his serve would be a handful.

Gut Check
11-17-2014, 07:20 PM
I do realize he had excellent placement but when people say he would dominate today's doubles, you wonder how much of the slow serve would have been a handicap.

Point taken, but understand that Mac's serve wasn't even that big from a pure velocity perspective even in his prime, and yet he still managed to fashion an overall game approach of which the serve was an important component, that was literally untouchable at times even against some of the legends of the game.

We all know that singles is a different ball of was now with string and racket tech, but in doubles I don't think his slightly slower delivery would be as big a hindrance as you make it out to be.

snowpuppy
11-17-2014, 08:40 PM
I know that the talent pool of doubles player is pretty dry, but to say the bryans can't hold a candle to the old champs of doubles is a bit ridiculous. While I can agree that perhaps there was a different class of shot making before, you can't say today's is inferior. It is simply a different game. Today's doubles you don't have all the time you would in the wooden racquet days. The guys you face aren't armed with modern strings making baseline play actually some what viable. Much like changes resulting in the current landscape in the singles game (death of s&v, decline in single hand backhand) the doubles game should be carrying the same changes leading to a more "efficient" modern day doubles with more short burst of athletic plays rather than too much touch and angles.