AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
Because doubles is an art form of the sport and shouldn't be allowed to be lost.
Get rid of doubles altogether says Mac
- Thread starter chippy17
- Start date
Because doubles is an art form of the sport and shouldn't be allowed to be lost.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Doubles is a completely different sport with different equipment.
In the previous era, a lot of the top singles players did doubles because their singles game was already built around net play, and they had rackets that suited that kind of game.
No way on earth that Nadal (and most other top singles guys) could be a successful doubles player with his head heavy sledge hammer that is built for baseline bashing.
I suppose they could find another frame that they'd use for doubles, but regularly swapping between 2 completely different rackets may be counter-productive.
What they should do is simply pay the doubles players much less, to reflect the money they bring in. But then we could have the same argument about women's tennis.
In the previous era, a lot of the top singles players did doubles because their singles game was already built around net play, and they had rackets that suited that kind of game.
No way on earth that Nadal (and most other top singles guys) could be a successful doubles player with his head heavy sledge hammer that is built for baseline bashing.
I suppose they could find another frame that they'd use for doubles, but regularly swapping between 2 completely different rackets may be counter-productive.
What they should do is simply pay the doubles players much less, to reflect the money they bring in. But then we could have the same argument about women's tennis.
Tenez101
Banned
Interesting thought...however, there are some players who simply aren't cut out for singles and/or specialize heavily in doubles. If we simply take the money from doubles and put it in singles, I think the higher-ranked guys (top 200 or so) would still end up getting paid more, and the pay-gradient would only become steeper.
jones101
Hall of Fame
The 2nd week of Wimbledon would just not be the same without the doubles/mixed imo.
More people would watch top 50 players playing doubles than they would 2 sub 100 ranked in singles, especially at slam level.
Mac does this each year though it seems, spouts out another controversial statement, keeps his name floating out there. Its the offseason afterall.
More people would watch top 50 players playing doubles than they would 2 sub 100 ranked in singles, especially at slam level.
Mac does this each year though it seems, spouts out another controversial statement, keeps his name floating out there. Its the offseason afterall.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Moreso, the trouble with going down the supply and demand path is that it would also suggest getting rid of most women's tennis, at least the televising of it.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I say, introduce triples.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
I'd be on board with that. Have you watched women's tennis lately?
LuckyR
Legend
A couple of things:
1- Compensation is not related to the number of fans in the stands at tournaments
2-There have been second round doubles matches that have been SRO for the match BEFORE, just to make sure fans got a seat for the following doubles match, I am talking Indian Wells. Of course Nadal/Lopez vs Bryans (09) was one and Roddick/Fish (10) was another.
As to Johnny Mac, I predict this proposal will happen right after his older proposal to give faults for tossing for and not hitting the serve
1- Compensation is not related to the number of fans in the stands at tournaments
2-There have been second round doubles matches that have been SRO for the match BEFORE, just to make sure fans got a seat for the following doubles match, I am talking Indian Wells. Of course Nadal/Lopez vs Bryans (09) was one and Roddick/Fish (10) was another.
As to Johnny Mac, I predict this proposal will happen right after his older proposal to give faults for tossing for and not hitting the serve
Crisstti
Legend
You are aware that Nadal has won several masters in doubles, right?. And that's without taking it seriously. Couldn't be a successful doubles player?, please.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
He would have easily surpassed McEnroe as the greatest doubles player of all time and reached the sort of specialist heights that you only see in the likes of badminton doubles.
LuckyR
Legend
Well, actually Marc carried him for most of those matches.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
I wish he said this around the time that a slam was taking place. He would be given all the forum in the world to expand on his comments.
Hopefully someone brings this up around the start of the AO, assuming Jmac makes the trip down for commentary
Hopefully someone brings this up around the start of the AO, assuming Jmac makes the trip down for commentary
prostaff_fan
Rookie
LOL...Once in a while I see some rec players on public courts with 4 or 5 of them on each side of the net playing moonball tennis. Nobody even moves a feet from their position to make a shot
dominikk1985
Legend
I don't really think johnny cares about 100 ranked players. He actually does love doubles and I think it is more of a response of defiance like saying "dubs is cool but if we are not doing it right and only let bums win titles we might just as well let it die completely".
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Don't hold your breathe. Mac is suppose to be a smart guy. He got into Stanford, so no shortage of brain power. But I think he's off base here. Does anyone really believe doubles is taking food off the plates of journeyman players? Double has been be the way guys were able to stay on tour. Expect for the Bryan Brothers, what men's players set out to be a doubles specialist?
Mac said off the wall stuff to get people talking about what "he" said. This same guy that was hyping Donald Young; so I tend to be a little leary of what he's trying to sell.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Byran enjoyed that free master class
Gotta love the way Sampras casually disposed of him
Last edited by a moderator:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
JMac is exactly right. Someone's got to say it. The fact that singles players can just team up with each other on an ad hoc basis and win tournaments, says it all. Rafa and Roger have both won doubles tournaments with the Bryans in the draw. Roger and Wawa even won the Olympic gold with the Bryans, the doubles GOAT, in the mix. Verdasco and his partner won the WTF, and they've hardly played together.
No regular doubles player would simply enter a singles tournament and win it beating even the top 70 in singles, let alone the very top players.
No regular doubles player would simply enter a singles tournament and win it beating even the top 70 in singles, let alone the very top players.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Just answer one question:
Why would anyone good enough to play singles only elect to play doubles with the great big gap in sponsorship, profile and prize money between the two genres?
Serena and Venus are sisters, they are very successful doubles players and right up there in singles as well. The Bryan Bros could have done the same if they were good enough to play singles.
roberttennis54
Semi-Pro
A stupid idea, which would only hurt tennis in the long run. Even if it's true that Doubles gives a chance for less talented players, it's a way of keeping people in the game and giving youngsters a fall back up option.
I half agree. I'm sure they would have played singles as well if they could have been regular top 50 players, but it's always going to be easier for the women to do both, because they only play best of three in singles and doubles. At Wimbledon, mens doubles is best of five, so it could end up a very demanding fortnight.
Concentrating on doubles means the Bryans can be sure of more prestige, and they are probably earning more than enough and have a better quality of life as a result, especially being a bit older.
I suspect there is a lot in this. I remember him commentating on the doubles during last year's Olympics, and he seemed quite sad that the top singles players didn't play more doubles. He was also keen to point out that the top singles players would be top doubles players if they played it regularly.
I wonder if it'd be ever done...
The problem really is that the really good singles players cannot afford to play doubles, from a physical point of view and timewise. Maybe if they got rid of doubles they could have some tournament as a doubles tournament only, with points going to the ranking and all
I like the idea of a master's tournament in which the top singles qualifiers would simply play doubles (the usual doubles teams would not be eligible unless they also rank highly in singles) — they'd just need to find a partner from the available pool. I love seeing weird doubles combos. But in most cases the singles matches mean they're not televised, even on Tennis Channel.
But if you had a tournament just of doubles then it would 1.) Allow us to watch some of these matches on TV. 2.) Build interesting relationships between players and allow for some drama. 3.) Give the players a bit of a breather since the singles schedule is so demanding, yet allows fans to see them in what some could see as glorified practice sessions.'
I think Fed and Nadal would make a good combo. Imagine those two just going for forehands, and their court coverage and Rafa's baseline retrieving with Fed's net play. The problem is they would need to practice first. That was the problem with the Rafa-Novak pairing in which they went out embarrassingly in the first round. Fed was smart enough to turn Rafa down on that, knowing they'd likely suffer a similar fate.
Last edited:
They played singles throughout their development but from the age of 8,their parents refused to have one beat the other, so they would default every time they'd play one another, taking turns in wining matches. They basically abandoned singles in 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30brothers-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Just because experts can't predict the future, doesn't mean they aren't smart.
Nobody can predict the future not even the best scientists.
Follow the money
At the end of the day, whether the singles guys are better players or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The only thing that really matters is who is watching.
When it comes to which event to promote and put on television, what matters is which audience will spend the most money with the sponsors.
While the younger guys are probably better players - the older, "club" players likely have more disposable income.
Since the prize money is significantly less for doubles, sponsorship should cost less. And if (a big if) the audience has more money to spend with the sponsors, per capita, than a purely singles audience, a case could be made that doubles is a better investment for the sponsors than singles.
At the end of the day, whether the singles guys are better players or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The only thing that really matters is who is watching.
When it comes to which event to promote and put on television, what matters is which audience will spend the most money with the sponsors.
While the younger guys are probably better players - the older, "club" players likely have more disposable income.
Since the prize money is significantly less for doubles, sponsorship should cost less. And if (a big if) the audience has more money to spend with the sponsors, per capita, than a purely singles audience, a case could be made that doubles is a better investment for the sponsors than singles.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
slowing of surfaces may be killing doubles.
With all the surfaces being slower at the Grand slams and many of the
big tournaments, singles is becoming more of a grinding, baseline type of
game. I think this probably discourages the top singles players from
playing doubles.
It's made tennis a bit too homogeneous. Imagine the Olympics running
competitions eliminating all the various distances and only keeping the
longest distance running event. In a sense, that's what the ATP has
become.
With all the surfaces being slower at the Grand slams and many of the
big tournaments, singles is becoming more of a grinding, baseline type of
game. I think this probably discourages the top singles players from
playing doubles.
It's made tennis a bit too homogeneous. Imagine the Olympics running
competitions eliminating all the various distances and only keeping the
longest distance running event. In a sense, that's what the ATP has
become.
nethawkwenatchee
Professional
I'm a bid Mac fan but this is bull. I with what he says about many great singles players who never make it into the limelight (because they aren't lucky enough to get financial support, wildcards into points producing events, ETC.) but his assertion about poor volleying is bull. Some of the current players (Paes, Stepanek, Bryans, ETC.) have most amazing technique. There hand eye skills are off the charts and they also transition to the net as well or better than any of the singles greats. I'm an American and I love you Mac but pull you're head out of you're arse!
kiki
Banned
I don´t catch up most tennis action nowadsy but the state of doubles must be rather pathetic if one of the greatest ever doubles players ( and who played doubles because he genuinely loved it) takes this stance.
Unless he is doing drugs again, which I wouldn´t be surprised at all if he did.
Unless he is doing drugs again, which I wouldn´t be surprised at all if he did.
rh310
Hall of Fame
LOL...Once in a while I see some rec players on public courts with 4 or 5 of them on each side of the net playing moonball tennis. Nobody even moves a feet from their position to make a shot
Tennis Volleyball
rh310
Hall of Fame
Please. He got into Stanford on a sports scholarship, just like the baseball, football, basketball, etc. players do.
I used to think he might be smart until I saw his reaction to a scientific description of why a tennis ball moves through the air faster when it is warm than when it's cold (e.g., because of the increased density of air molecules when it is cold versus warm).
He didn't understand it, and just laughed and smugly made fun of the explanation like some sort of Insane Clown Posse juggalo / rube / general purpose idiot.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Well, I think that is the result of decades of not using his brain. When he was younger, his father proudly recollected that John was a very good student and athlete.
Last edited:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
When I was at high school and uni, I was a maths genius, winning prizes, competitions etc. Yesterday when I was adding up the game scores of our tennis match, I was having difficulty haha. Haven't worked with numbers for years.
AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
No reason women couldn't go best of five. Women are better endurance athletes than men anyway. More bodyfat reserves.
But it makes more sense to do away with best of five for the men too.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
Jmac? the jmac who won a bunch of titles in doubles? lol
Incognito
Legend
True. I don't see Fedal beating the Bryans to be honest.. Maybe they can win 1 match out of 10..
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
There is one still, one which is salient whether they could do it or not. They tour realises that few people wants to prolong the agony of the matches by making them even longer.
Some events, but very few. Men otherwise are far better endurance athletes than women. Bodyfat stores is but only a tiny component of endurance in terms of the sort of endurance events that are most common (ironman etc).
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
meh, I have changed my opinion since yesterday after getting schooled by many posters on here. I'm actually confident in saying Fedal would probably defeat the Bros if they took doubles seriously. I remember during the 2005 DC tie between the US and Croatia, everyone was so certain that the Bryans would score for the US over Ancic and Ljubicic and they ended up getting beaten pretty comprehensively by Ancic/Ljubicic. Similarly, after losing to Federer at the olympics in 2008, the Bryan Brothers said that it wouldn't take much effort for Federer to become a doubles specialist.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
seriously?
AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
sundaypunch
Hall of Fame
Yes, his stellar academics and dedication as a student got him into Stanford. It had nothing to do with being one of the top junior tennis players in the world.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
You cannot be serious! You cannot be serious, man! Marc is for ever grateful to Rafa was improving his doubles ranking. Are you blind or something?
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Singles players usually enter doubles tournaments as unseeded players so they have to play the best doubles players from the early rounds and still end up winning the titles.
Just imagine if everyone was seeded according to their singles rankings for doubles matches, not many doubles players would ever get beyond the early rounds.
Just imagine if everyone was seeded according to their singles rankings for doubles matches, not many doubles players would ever get beyond the early rounds.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Bob bryan could have been top 10 in singles if he wanted to
andymaratkimi
Rookie
Double needs get some change to attract people.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, I wanted to be a millionaire but I didn't feel like it.
surfvland
Semi-Pro
Disagree. I think that if Fedal or any of the top ten for that matter played doubles together week in week out, the Bryans would win 1 in 10.
.
surfvland
Semi-Pro
I'm sure the Bryans are already millionaires. They worked the doubles circuit to the tee.
Similar threads
