Doubles GOAT ?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's your opinion. I don't believ none of them would have won 13 slams in today's era.

TMF, You astonish me more and more. You now even believe that doubles competition now is greater than in older decades when there were many strong duos! I can't stand you...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, You astonish me more and more. You now even believe that doubles competition now is greater than in older decades when there were many strong duos! I can't stand you...

Well you better get use to it, because many people believe the B. Brothers are the best double player.



From **********.net, here's the list of the top 10 all time best doubles duos:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver: 21 Grand Slams, winning every major at least four times and a calendar slam in 1984, achieved during a 109-match winning streak.

2. Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan: The American twins are well on their way to becoming the greatest team ever with a record 73 titles to their name, including 11 Grand Slams.

3. Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde: The Aussie duo set the bar for the Bryan brothers during the 1990s. Their record of six Wimbledon wins looks safe for now.

4. John McEnroe and Peter Fleming: McEnroe was the doubles world No.1 for a record 270 weeks, winning 57 of his 71 titles with fellow American Pete ‘Flembo’ Fleming.

5. Venus Williams and Serena Williams: As dominant in doubles as they have proven to be in singles. They have won all twelve Grand Slam finals they have reached.

6. Martina Hingis and Jana Novotna: In 1998 Hingis claimed all four doubles Grand Slams, capturing Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open alongside the Czech.

7. John Newcombe and Tony Roche: The Aussies ruled the roost in the 60s and 70s, capturing an amazing 12 Grand Slam victories, including five Wimbledons.

8. Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes: The ‘Indian Express’ landed three Grand Slams before their professional relationship broke down. They have since reunited.

9. Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva: The American-Belarussian team were one of the most entertaining – and eye-catching – pairs around. They won 14 majors.

10. Luke Jensen and Murphy Jensen: Not the most prolific in history (just one Slam – the 1993 French Open), but ambidextrous Luke and Murphy were great value

http://www.**********.net/news/on-to...y-doubles-duos

[robow7]

Originally Posted by kiki

But in the past, the aussies all played doubles and since they were also the best in singles that s why many great doubles players happened to be top singles too

One other major reason why so many pre-Open and early Open era singles players were very good at dubs was the fact that the games were more similar then, most players served and vollyed in singles and of course that was and is the staple of doubles. Contrast that with today when none of the top singles players serve and volley much and you can understand why they would not excel at dubs, though there are exceptions.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by robow7

One other major reason why so many pre-Open and early Open era singles players were very good at dubs was the fact that the games were more similar then, most players served and vollyed in singles and of course that was and is the staple of doubles. Contrast that with today when none of the top singles players serve and volley much and you can understand why they would not excel at dubs, though there are exceptions.

True enough. But the trend started for doubles specialists I guess around the mid 1970's or so for the top singles players not to play doubles to rest for the singles. I think that hurt the quality of talent playing double. I would tend to think that everything being equal the top singles players, assuming they have more talent should also do better than in doubles than doubles specialists. Of course it's not necessarily true because it depends on the chemistry of the team. A Newcombe and Roche, with great chemistry and a perfect doubles style may do better than doubles specialists because they have greater weapons and talent. Hard to match the excellent serves of both combined with their super volleying.

I have no doubt if the top players today played more doubles the volleying standard today would go way up. John McEnroe used the doubles as an alternative to practice.

[robow7]

Yea, the older era of players were forced to play both singles and doubles because the money wasn't so big back then and they needed the income. Once the money got so big, many said "screw the dubs" as they do today.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually the thought occurs to me that it wouldn't be that bad to have the players commit to a certain amount of doubles tournaments. It probably would have the volleying skills of some of the players today. John McEnroe used doubles instead of practicing.

Well for a player like Nadal that's going to be hard because he's struggling just to compete in single. He doesn't have anything left to compete in double. Nole had a great run from starting 2011 by winning 5 slams. Had he chose to play double and put as much effort to win slam in double, that could possibly cost him winning in single. It's not that easy.

EDIT: I know the Williams Sisters play double, but they don't play that much in single unlike the top tier players in the ATP, and the WTA isn't as brutal as the ATP.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Well for a player like Nadal that's going to be hard because he's struggling just to compete in single. He doesn't have anything left to compete in double. Nole had a great run from starting 2011 by winning 5 slams. Had he chose to play double and put as much effort to win slam in double, that could possibly cost him winning in single. It's not that easy.

EDIT: I know the Williams Sisters play double, but they don't play that much in single unlike the top tier players in the ATP, and the WTA isn't as brutal as the ATP.

It was a suggestion. I'm not asking for many doubles tournaments played.

Funny how you mention it is not easy since the past players often played a large schedule of doubles as well as singles. Just wanted to point that out.

Someone should research who plays the most singles and doubles nowadays. I would be curious to find out the answer.

Just checked Andy Murray and in 2011 he was number 68 in doubles.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Well you better get use to it, because many people believe the B. Brothers are the best double player.



From **********.net, here's the list of the top 10 all time best doubles duos:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver: 21 Grand Slams, winning every major at least four times and a calendar slam in 1984, achieved during a 109-match winning streak.

2. Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan: The American twins are well on their way to becoming the greatest team ever with a record 73 titles to their name, including 11 Grand Slams.


3. Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde: The Aussie duo set the bar for the Bryan brothers during the 1990s. Their record of six Wimbledon wins looks safe for now.

4. John McEnroe and Peter Fleming: McEnroe was the doubles world No.1 for a record 270 weeks, winning 57 of his 71 titles with fellow American Pete ‘Flembo’ Fleming.

5. Venus Williams and Serena Williams: As dominant in doubles as they have proven to be in singles. They have won all twelve Grand Slam finals they have reached.

6. Martina Hingis and Jana Novotna: In 1998 Hingis claimed all four doubles Grand Slams, capturing Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open alongside the Czech.

7. John Newcombe and Tony Roche: The Aussies ruled the roost in the 60s and 70s, capturing an amazing 12 Grand Slam victories, including five Wimbledons.

8. Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes: The ‘Indian Express’ landed three Grand Slams before their professional relationship broke down. They have since reunited.

9. Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva: The American-Belarussian team were one of the most entertaining – and eye-catching – pairs around. They won 14 majors.

10. Luke Jensen and Murphy Jensen: Not the most prolific in history (just one Slam – the 1993 French Open), but ambidextrous Luke and Murphy were great value

http://www.**********.net/news/on-to...y-doubles-duos

TMF, At least among the tt posters you will hardly find anybody who ranks the Bryans as the best doubles of all time.

You are probably unique in believing that the current doubles competition is tougher than that of the Newcombe/Roche time...

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, At least among the tt posters you will hardly find anybody who ranks the Bryans as the best doubles of all time.

You are probably unique in believing that the current doubles competition is tougher than that of the Newcombe/Roche time...

Everything, and I mean everything, TMF says is designed to in some way inflate the achievements of Federer. Thus his assertion that the level of play in the game today (singles and doubles) is higher than it has ever been before.

While his argument may be reasonable enough for singles (although I know many here doubt that), it's certainly not true in doubles. Previous eras when many of the top stars also competed in doubles were much stronger than now. The Bryan brothers are great ambassadors for doubles but simply winning the most Open Era majors against weak competition does not make them doubles GOATs.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Everything, and I mean everything, TMF says is designed to in some way inflate the achievements of Federer. Thus his assertion that the level of play in the game today (singles and doubles) is higher than it has ever been before.

Of course. What amazes me is how someone can love a player so much? Well to each his or her own.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Everything, and I mean everything, TMF says is designed to in some way inflate the achievements of Federer. Thus his assertion that the level of play in the game today (singles and doubles) is higher than it has ever been before.

While his argument may be reasonable enough for singles (although I know many here doubt that), it's certainly not true in doubles. Previous eras when many of the top stars also competed in doubles were much stronger than now. The Bryan brothers are great ambassadors for doubles but simply winning the most Open Era majors against weak competition does not make them doubles GOATs.

Phoenix1983, what you're saying is if Fed paired with Wawrinka or Nadal paired with Lopez they would be a better/more accomplished than the B Brothers just because they are a great single players. I don't think so. Winning 13 slam doubles a lot. Nole, Nadal and Murray haven't won 13 slam in singles, so how do ones believe they would do even better than the B. Brothers is beyond comprehension. I'm a huge Fed fans and I agree he wouldn't be better than them.

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course. What amazes me is how someone can love a player so much? Well to each his or her own.

I'm not a fan of the B Brothers but I'm only a few in here who respect their achievements instead of disparaging them. Hell, he broke JMac for most weeks #1, which you believe he's one of the great doubles. Why not give same praises for the Brothers ??

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Everything, and I mean everything, TMF says is designed to in some way inflate the achievements of Federer. Thus his assertion that the level of play in the game today (singles and doubles) is higher than it has ever been before.

While his argument may be reasonable enough for singles (although I know many here doubt that), it's certainly not true in doubles. Previous eras when many of the top stars also competed in doubles were much stronger than now. The Bryan brothers are great ambassadors for doubles but simply winning the most Open Era majors against weak competition does not make them doubles GOATs.

Phoenix,

I'm positively surprised and very glad about your newest post. Thanks that you agree at least regarding doubles competition once and now.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Phoenix1983, what you're saying is if Fed paired with Wawrinka or Nadal paired with Lopez they would be a better/more accomplished than the B Brothers just because they are a great single players. I don't think so. Winning 13 slam doubles a lot. Nole, Nadal and Murray haven't won 13 slam in singles, so how do ones believe they would do even better than the B. Brothers is beyond comprehension. I'm a huge Fed fans and I agree he would be better than them.




I'm not a fan of the B Brothers but I'm only a few in here who respect their achievements instead of disparaging them. Hell, he broke JMac for most weeks #1, which you believe he's one of the great doubles. Why not give same praises for the Brothers ??

TMF,

Joining Federer with Wawrinka is not the same as pairing Newcombe and Roche or Laver and Emerson. The top duos then consisted of TWO great players.

I have read many strange opinions on tt (and perhaps other posters and readers have read some strange statements of mine) but your claim that doubles competition is tougher now than in older times, could rank as the most embarrassing in this forum.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TMF

Well you better get use to it, because many people believe the B. Brothers are the best double player.



From **********.net, here's the list of the top 10 all time best doubles duos:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver: 21 Grand Slams, winning every major at least four times and a calendar slam in 1984, achieved during a 109-match winning streak.

2. Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan: The American twins are well on their way to becoming the greatest team ever with a record 73 titles to their name, including 11 Grand Slams.

3. Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde: The Aussie duo set the bar for the Bryan brothers during the 1990s. Their record of six Wimbledon wins looks safe for now.

4. John McEnroe and Peter Fleming: McEnroe was the doubles world No.1 for a record 270 weeks, winning 57 of his 71 titles with fellow American Pete ‘Flembo’ Fleming.

5. Venus Williams and Serena Williams: As dominant in doubles as they have proven to be in singles. They have won all twelve Grand Slam finals they have reached.

6. Martina Hingis and Jana Novotna: In 1998 Hingis claimed all four doubles Grand Slams, capturing Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open alongside the Czech.

7. John Newcombe and Tony Roche: The Aussies ruled the roost in the 60s and 70s, capturing an amazing 12 Grand Slam victories, including five Wimbledons.

8. Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes: The ‘Indian Express’ landed three Grand Slams before their professional relationship broke down. They have since reunited.

9. Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva: The American-Belarussian team were one of the most entertaining – and eye-catching – pairs around. They won 14 majors.

10. Luke Jensen and Murphy Jensen: Not the most prolific in history (just one Slam – the 1993 French Open), but ambidextrous Luke and Murphy were great value

http://www.**********.net/news/on-to...y-doubles-duos

Strange list.
Where is Hewitt/McMillan, who dismantled McEnroe/Fleming when they were practically seniors.
Sedgman/McGregor, the Grand Slammers?
Hoad/Rosewall, who won 15 major titles (MORE than the Bryans) against TOUGHER competition than the Bryans have faced.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course. What amazes me is how someone can love a player so much? Well to each his or her own.

Funny, where was that shock when a fellow historian was arguing that Federer isn't top 10 in the list based on peak play and longevity or when another historian was claiming Nadal is Fed's equal indoors? Don't be a hypocrite.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Funny, where was that shock when a fellow historian was arguing that Federer isn't top 10 in the list based on peak play and longevity or when another historian was claiming Nadal is Fed's equal indoors? Don't be a hypocrite.

First of all Zagor, I can't always comment on everything. I frankly don't know what you're writing about. I was expressing an opinion of someone admiring a player so much and how I don't understand it. I also wrote to each his own. How is that being a hypocrite?

And as I've written here numerous times, I'm not a historian nor do I claim to be but the connotations of that here are obviously very negative. I don't know why because we are discussing past players here and by definition we all and that includes you are discussing history.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

First of all Zagor, I can't always comment on everything. I frankly don't know what you're writing about. I was expressing an opinion of someone admiring a player so much and how I don't understand it. I also wrote to each his own. How is that being a hypocrite?

All zagor is getting at is that you often overlook some of the things you find fault with depending on if they are a "historian" (someone who calls themselves an expert) or not. Don't get me wrong, you are a great poster, especially when you consider many others, but that is why it is such a letdown when you don't say anything or even (the worst thing) act as an enabler, giving encouraging words to a poster who is consistently using poor reasoning. No one should be rude, but there is no need to coddle everyone.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Strange list.
Where is Hewitt/McMillan, who dismantled McEnroe/Fleming when they were practically seniors.
Sedgman/McGregor, the Grand Slammers?
Hoad/Rosewall, who won 15 major titles (MORE than the Bryans) against TOUGHER competition than the Bryans have faced.

Perhaps the competition was tougher in doubles, but there is no way to prove it to the extent that someone isn't allowed to have a different opinion. The only embarrassing thing is to think you know something for sure that can't be shown to be true. Take note that you also removed a small portion of your post, which made it sound much more self-righteous.

Also, it is funny that you are going to use Hoad's achievements in order to claim he is the best doubles player, yet you ignore such achievements when we are talking about singles.

[robow7]

So a different question or angle, what must the Bryan Bros. achieve to be considered the greatest doubles TEAM of all time? How many majors, how many tourney wins, how many weeks or years at no. 1, or is it even attainable since they play in this era? Seems awfully unfair if there is no way that they can ever achieve that status no matter what their accomplishments.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by robow7

So a different question or angle, what must the Bryan Bros. achieve to be considered the greatest doubles TEAM of all time? How many majors, how many tourney wins, how many weeks or years at no. 1, or is it even attainable since they play in this era? Seems awfully unfair if there is no way that they can ever achieve that status no matter what their accomplishments.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Give this man a prize!

There is no way to win in this regard (at least on this forum). Too many wins and it is a weak era, not enough wins and you fail to meet the necessary requirements.

Take solace in the fact that given enough time, all the stubborn people who cling to their own eras will go away, one way or another, and records from those eras will be more objectively viewed.

It is too bad that nothing but the grim reaper can cure human ignorance.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix,

I'm positively surprised and very glad about your newest post. Thanks that you agree at least regarding doubles competition once and now.

I think it's obvious that the standard of doubles has declined from the days when the great singles players were regularly competing. Many of the greats up to McEnroe's era honed their skills in the doubles and brought great talent to the table. Now we have a few specialist teams like the Bryans and a lot of mediocrities.

Just because I disagree with you re: Rosewall doesn't mean I find all your statements incorrect.