11+ GS Titles Club Ultimate Doubles Match

[hoodjem]

Pretty exclusive club, this. We'll leave Emmo out so that he can be the umpire. Sorry to Mac, Connors, Agassi, and everyone else. You can watch but you can't play. You gotta have at least 11 GS singles titles to qualify.

Imagine a doubles match with everyone in their prime. (Please ignore that we will need a time machine to do this.) Give everyone 90 sq. in. graphite-wood hybrid racquets with Lux and VS gut, or if they insist something more modern.

On one doubles team is Laver and Federer. They seem to like and respect each other, and both could be called all-court players. Fed takes the deuce court and Laver--the lefty--covers the add court.

On the other team is Sampras and Borg. Both righties, but complementary abilities: Sampras as the great server and volleyer, and Borg as the fastest baseliner and most precise passer who ever swung a stick.

Who're you pulling for?

[DashaandSafin]

Pretty exclusive club...might as well call it a (small) meeting. I mean, how many possibilities can you come up with....

[hoodjem]

Yes, very exclusive. Only GOATs can apply.

[boredone3456]

if you made it mixed doubles and threw court evert and navratilova in the there partnering some of the guys i think it would be more interesting...least to me anyway. based on those teams i pick borg and sampras only because fed has no real experience in doubles and I think it would be rough for him...just my opinion though

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

if you made it mixed doubles and threw court evert and navratilova in the there partnering some of the guys i think it would be more interesting...least to me anyway. based on those teams i pick borg and sampras only because fed has no real experience in doubles and I think it would be rough for him...just my opinion though

Add Graf to the mix so there could be 4 mixed double teams in a round robin format. The 4 best ever men partnering the 4 best ever women.

I'd go with:

Federer-Navratilova
Sampras-Evert
Laver-Court
Borg-Graf

[kabob]

Uh, do you play much doubles? If you combine a righty with a lefty, you'd set them up opposite from what you posted i.e. forehands in the middle. Look at the Bryan brothers for a great example.

[Leelord337]

After a tiebreak in the 3rd set i would have to go with sampras/borg because they have more of that invincible ora.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Yes, very exclusive. Only GOATs can apply.

Perhaps not GOAT's, but the ones whose careers either didn't start until after Open tennis began or who had enough time to win in the Open and amateur eras.

How about making it 10 and then you could include Bill Tilden?

[hoodjem]

I love Rosewall (best BH slice ever), no disrepect intended. But you have to win 11 singles titles to play.

(Admittedly, I made up an excuse to leave Emmo out, because five did not work, and these were the four most popular players. No disrepect intended, he did win win 12, irrespective of the era.)

Mixed doubles would make it more fun. Of course the earlier players might have an advantage in doubles, because they actually played it a lot and thus knew how to play doubles. (But I didn't want to make this an exercise on the best doubles players.)

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

Add Graf to the mix so there could be 4 mixed double teams in a round robin format. The 4 best ever men partnering the 4 best ever women.

I'd go with:

Federer-Navratilova
Sampras-Evert
Laver-Court
Borg-Graf

I like those teams..dunno why I didn't add graf myself...mental lapse...of those 4 teams I'd pick laver and court, they would complement each other best I think

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Of course, if you don't want to do that you could just do the sensible/intelligent thing and deal with the fact that Emerson legitimately won 11 majors.

Andrew,
I don't think there is a "sensible/intelligent thing," because people on this site like to endlessly debate the validity or "worth" of Emmo's titles. Because he played near the end of the amateur/pro divide, many here discount his 12 GS singles titles, as he didn't play against people like Laver or Rosewall. One can of worms.

"Of course if Rosewall had been allowed to play, think how many he would have won, easily 11" . . . another can of worms. (I have no insects wandering inside my rectum.)

Let's avoid the contention and have fun with this.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

I like those teams..dunno why I didn't add graf myself...mental lapse...of those 4 teams I'd pick laver and court, they would complement each other best I think

I picked those teams because Navratilova's doubles prowess would offset Federer's lack of doubles play and I think their styles would compliment one another, Sampras' powerful serve would offset Evert's which is the weakest serve of the four women and her excellent return of serve/passing shots/lobs would serve their team well, Laver and Court would compliment one another the best out of all the teams and Borg and Graf are the two quickest players ever in the game and I think they would do well together.

[CEvertFan]

But if it's just the guys playing then I'd have to go with Laver/Federer.

[hoodjem]

Yea, I'd pick Laver-Federer too. Love the court coverage and range of shot-making possible. Though Borg was pretty decent at the net, as in his Wimbledon matches where he came in a lot. And Sampras did have very good groundstrokes. I just think Rocket-Fed could do more, anytime, everywhere. (Particularly Laver, who I believe had the most complete game of all time.)

Mixed doubles would be amazing. I'd pick any team with Navratilova; she was amazing at the net. One of the great S&V players of all time--men or women. (IMHO)

[superman1]

I have no idea what Borg or Laver's doubles career looked like, but I think the stars of that match would be Laver and Sampras. Sampras' serve would keep him and Borg in it, but I'd go for Laver/Federer.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by superman1

but I think the stars of that match would be Laver . . .

SM, Why do you say this?

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

"Of course if Rosewall had been allowed to play, think how many he would have won, easily 11" . . . another can of worms.

Let's avoid the contention and have fun with this.

You're right, my apologies and I'll wipe my other post. I do get a bit touchy about Emmo (as with some of the other older Aussie players) as there are a few on this board who seem to go out of their way to denigrate his career.

My personal opinion is; Rosewall majors = 22 + 1 Grand Slam if his career hadn't been interrupted. Always have contended that 14 was only the Open record and needs a very large asterisk next to it.

As to your topic: If Borg and Sampras played Laver-Federer 100 times in doubles I'd expect the latter to win 75-85% of them. None of them were great doubles players. Laver, like Federer now, didn't respect the percentages enough and won on sheer talent (according to his peers). Sampras had the big serve and solid volleys but was easily exploited by a top doubles pair (as the Woodies showed) on his return of serve (couldn't pull the return cross-court in the forehand court, only go down the line). Borg's volleys were bloody awful but his returns were excellent and he had a very big serve but, he didn't like to play doubles and rarely tried.

To be very honest, I think you'd get a much better match if you put Graf-Court up against Navratilova-Evert. Then you've at least got two players who rank with the very best doubles players of all time.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

You're right, my apologies and I'll wipe my other post. I do get a bit touchy about Emmo (as with some of the other older Aussie players) as there are a few on this board who seem to go out of their way to denigrate his career.

My personal opinion is; Rosewall majors = 22 + 1 Grand Slam if his career hadn't been interrupted. Always have contended that 14 was only the Open record and needs a very large asterisk next to it.

As to your topic: If Borg and Sampras played Laver-Federer 100 times in doubles I'd expect the latter to win 75-85% of them. None of them were great doubles players. Laver, like Federer now, didn't respect the percentages enough and won on sheer talent (according to his peers). Sampras had the big serve and solid volleys but was easily exploited by a top doubles pair (as the Woodies showed) on his return of serve (couldn't pull the return cross-court in the forehand court, only go down the line). Borg's volleys were bloody awful but his returns were excellent and he had a very big serve but, he didn't like to play doubles and rarely tried.

To be very honest, I think you'd get a much better match if you put Graf-Court up against Navratilova-Evert. Then you've at least got two players who rank with the very best doubles players of all time.

In that case I'd pick Navratilova/Evert, as they actually played doubles together in the 70s and wound up winning two Slam titles (the 1975 French Open and 1976 Wimbledon doubles championships). The only reason they stopped playing doubles together was because their singles rivalry was beginning to heat up and they both didn't want to give the other too many insights into their games.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

You're right, my apologies and I'll wipe my other post. I do get a bit touchy about Emmo (as with some of the other older Aussie players) as there are a few on this board who seem to go out of their way to denigrate his career.

I too believe that Emmo is under-respected. Many here denigrate the AO itself of the 70-80s.

Originally Posted by AndrewD

My personal opinion is; Rosewall majors = 22 + 1 Grand Slam if his career hadn't been interrupted. Always have contended that 14 was only the Open record and needs a very large asterisk next to it.

I have an inkling of what you might mean, but I think you should elucidate this. Please elaborate on the asterisk.

Originally Posted by AndrewD

If Borg-Sampras played Laver-Federer 100 times in doubles I'd expect the latter to win 75-85% of them. None of them were great doubles players.

Absolutely true, but I would be interested to see the pure talent itself.

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Borg's volleys were bloody awful but his returns were excellent and he had a very big serve but, he didn't like to play doubles and rarely tried.

I agree mostly. I would never say Borg's volleys were "bloody awful." I actually think, in some Wimby matches, they are surprisingly deft. But you are correct to say that his returns were some of the best in all of tennis. His serve was indeed quite big--after he changed his left foot position.

Originally Posted by AndrewD

To be very honest, I think you'd get a much better match if you put Graf-Court up against Navratilova-Evert. Then you've at least got two players who rank with the very best doubles players of all time.

Do you mean Court and Navratilova?

[NLBwell]

OK, I'll take Emmo and let him pick someone else from the spectators - he picks McEnroe and beats whomever wins the first match easily (which I think would be Laver-Federer).