What is your opinion? The Bryans have won just about everything but doubles teams in the past played against the best tennis players. Top ten single players played doubles also. How would the Bryans had fared if Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic had played doubles also. Case in point is Verdasco's results and how his power affected the Bryans.
Are the Bryans overrated?
- Thread starter KOFS
- Start date
I will say that if all top singles players focused on doubles instead, they would not be the greatest doubles team of all time. I don't think top players ever focused on doubles. Players like McEnroe did play a lot of doubles, but their focus was on singles.
So, in an alternate universe where tennis singles is no longer played and everyone must play doubles, then the Bryans are overrated.
So, in an alternate universe where tennis singles is no longer played and everyone must play doubles, then the Bryans are overrated.
It's really hard to predict how they would have done if they were dedicated doubles players. Federer and Wawrinka of course beat the Bryans at the 2008 Olympics in the finals, and easily won over Paes and Bhupathi before that match. But those were one-time matches in a not-so-important event.
darrinbaker00
Professional
That's because the money wasn't as big as it is now. If Stan Smith were a top-10 singles player today, he would not be a full-time doubles player.
I'll be honest, I'm not too familar with tennis prior to the open era and am not very familiar with those players. Did the top players such as Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Tilden focus on singles or equally on singles and doubles?
Not that I'm better than them but as a long time competitive doubles player and coach, I find them very fundamentally strong but lack that extra gear when other teams get hot. They happen to play in an era where not only are the most talented players not playing, most don't even play doubles correctly.
Kalin
Legend
Well, to answer the question we need to know how they are rated.
I personally never rate doubles players very high when comparing them to singles players so in my book they're definitely not overrated.
For those who consider them some kind of tennis GOATs- yes, they are.
I like to play doubles as a social event but for decades it has been the ugly stepchild of professional tennis. AK and Hingis gave it some spunk and credibility and Leander Paes is a joy to watch; apart from that it is pretty dismal..
I personally never rate doubles players very high when comparing them to singles players so in my book they're definitely not overrated.
For those who consider them some kind of tennis GOATs- yes, they are.
I like to play doubles as a social event but for decades it has been the ugly stepchild of professional tennis. AK and Hingis gave it some spunk and credibility and Leander Paes is a joy to watch; apart from that it is pretty dismal..
andymaratkimi
Rookie
There is no stable double team compare to them,but Bryans still can be beaten.
BHud
Hall of Fame
Name another top flight singles player other than JMac who consistently won titles in doubles...never in the open era (and yes I know the phsical demands of the sport prohibit participation in both at the highest level). And in evaluating GOAT, etc., nobody ever mentions his accomplishments on the doubles court?
But still...why does everyone rush to say that Fed/Nads/Cvac/Muzza would be great doubles players? Their volleys aren't even close to being as effective as Leander Paes', even at 40 years old. Not to say that they wouldn't have become great had they played a little more dubs, but the doubles game is predicated on three shots: serve, return of serve, and volley. In looking at the big four, each one of them has a hole in their games when it comes to doubles play. The BBs don't.
As doubles has always been a competely different game played by a different set of players, I believe the BBs are certainly doubles GOATs.
But still...why does everyone rush to say that Fed/Nads/Cvac/Muzza would be great doubles players? Their volleys aren't even close to being as effective as Leander Paes', even at 40 years old. Not to say that they wouldn't have become great had they played a little more dubs, but the doubles game is predicated on three shots: serve, return of serve, and volley. In looking at the big four, each one of them has a hole in their games when it comes to doubles play. The BBs don't.
As doubles has always been a competely different game played by a different set of players, I believe the BBs are certainly doubles GOATs.
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
The Bryans are not overrated, but with some qualification.
The only players who dedicate fully to doubles are players who are not good enough for singles, in the sense that they prefer achieving more in a lesser sport than dedicating their life to the greatest modality of tennis, albeit with less achievements. I am sure prize money winnings also factors into the equation.
A doubles player can get away with serious shortcomings in their game and still be successful. In order to be successful in singles you need to be a complete, all court player.
So kudos to the Bryans, they are the best team ever in male doubles tennis. It's just that doubles tennis can't really be compared with singles tennis.
The only players who dedicate fully to doubles are players who are not good enough for singles, in the sense that they prefer achieving more in a lesser sport than dedicating their life to the greatest modality of tennis, albeit with less achievements. I am sure prize money winnings also factors into the equation.
A doubles player can get away with serious shortcomings in their game and still be successful. In order to be successful in singles you need to be a complete, all court player.
So kudos to the Bryans, they are the best team ever in male doubles tennis. It's just that doubles tennis can't really be compared with singles tennis.
dominikk1985
Legend
posts like that can only come by a non player or fat 3.0 hack. I wonder if you guys have ever played competitive tennis. I'm sorry if that is insulting but I think non players or weekend hacks should not act like they understand tennis.
you can be a fan, but leave judgement of tennis to guys who have actually played the game.
no person who has played at 4.5+ would ever make such a statement.
doubles players are slightly inferior but still any top10 dubs player easily has top100 talent. even paes was ranked as high as 73 and likely would have been 50-60 had he concentrated on singles. do you realize how good you have to be to be even a top200 player?
dominikk1985
Legend
the woodies also were a lot better singles players.
career high singles rating:
bob:116
mike: 246
woodforde: 19
woodbridge: 19 (what a coincidence
)
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
You need to relax a bit, and you shouldn't get so emotional over what somebody says on the internet, especially when no offense was intended.
I was just stating the obvious, and you corroborated it yourself with your statements. Paes would have never reached the same ranking in singles as he did in doubles. Same for the Bryan brothers. Of course you need to be able to play tennis well. To me comparing doubles and singles in tennis is like comparing the Premier League or La Liga with the Austrian or Portuguese football leagues. Or like comparing the WTA with the ATP.
Now, all I'm doing is stating the obvious. No, I don't play tennis competitively, just recreationally. And I am not fat. You are way too emotional though. Maybe you should take synchronized swimming or something.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
basically this. the top singles players are simply much better tennis players than the bryan brothers. they would probably tell you the same thing.
this is not to say they wouldn't get their share of wins, they are a great team. but if federer, murray, nadal, etc. paired up to play dubs they'd take the bryans out way more often than not.
You can't compare today's tennis to the 80s. It's too competitive and you either pursue as a single or a double player, but not both. If Federer or Nadal play full time double, they would have accomplished much less in single. Same with the B Brothers, if they played full time single, their double achievements would drastically be reduced.
Gustavo Kuerten
Rookie
lol doubles
Put two random top 100 singles players together and they will become a top 5 doubles couple.
Put two random top 100 singles players together and they will become a top 5 doubles couple.
Not quite, most top doubles players could be or have been top 100 singles players and excel at the important shots in doubles.
cknobman
Legend
I 100% agree.
True the poster responded a little harsh maybe but his point is still valid.
Anyone questioning the skill level of an ATP doubles player, much less the most successful doubles team of all time, has very little insight into what it takes to play the game.
The Bryans are in no way overrated. Sure the singles guys have more complete games (because they have to in order to succeed) but to assume the are more talented is ignorant.
Doubles player focus their training for different aspects of the game. It is very difficult to be successful at both singles and double (concurrently) because of a. strain on body, b. the stark difference in the way you play the game.
I am no pro but even at the recreational competitive level you still see and understand the difference between doubles and singles.
cknobman
Legend
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
We get it, you are a doubles player. But seriously, anybody can see that doubles tennis is just one step below singles. You can only be good at the net and be a successful doubles tennis player. For singles you need to dominate all facets of the game.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Incorrect, I am awful at doubles and hate playing it. My greatest strength in tennis is my movement, which is neutralized by doubles. My greatest weakness is my net game.
I would agree. Doubles is not just singles in half the court. The issue with the Bryan brothers is that skillwise, and I mean doubles skills, they are not up to the level of the woodies or johnny mac + fleming. The Bryans are average returners, above average servers and very good volleyers but frankly, both woodies were better than them in returning and volleying. Mac is an extreme example in how he had much better touch and creativity around the net compared to the Bryans. Although the Bryans would succeed in any era, but especially this era, because they are fundmentally flawless in doubles, i.e. hit up the middle mostly, move in tandem, cover each other well, etc.
Gustavo Kuerten
Rookie
The big majority of players tried to make it in singles first and failed horribly, not getting past Challenger level.
Career highs:
Bob & Mike: 116 & 246
Marrero: 143
Soares: 221
Peya: 92
Melo: 273
Paes: 73
The rest of the top 10 is complemented by players who care more about singles. And these are the absolute best in doubles, imagine how weak the rest is. Even Fognini is 30th for crying out loud, he tanks half his singles matches, imagine how seriously he takes doubles. And his game isn't even suited for it, lmao.
Doubles is kind of the time-filler in tournaments. The tournament sells day or night session tickets and then announces that you can watch the doubles match free of cost as a bonus before or after your assigned session. It gives a warm fuzzy feeling that there is some tennis going on even though most visitors are wandering around the grounds. It also provides more viewing of pros on the practice courts because doubles players add to the total number of players. It is like the eco-friendly coffee mug selling booth in the fair which has to be there and looks good but no one really buys those mugs.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Have to be pretty cynical - or a US hater - to even consider they might be overrated. They really know how to play doubles; their movement and strategy is first rate.
Forehand Of Doom
Banned
Masterful double meaning there.
I maintain my previous point that most top doubles could be or have been top 100 singles players and I don't think your post disproves that. The rankings you showed are mostly reasonably close to the top 100 (and some already were top 100), and I think that if those players dedicated their careers to singles could have made some improvements and many would be able to make the top 100.
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
I think that outside of Serena Williams, The Bryan Brothers are the only real players that can be counted on from the U.S to accomplish anything right now. They are the real deal. Anytime someone is winning a lot the question is how would they do against the guys of the 40's and 50's or singles players. I think they'd handle Fed or Nadal for the most part.
That's not to say that they would never lose to them but singles and doubles are two totally different games especially with the doubles playing 3rd set breakers(I think they did that to entice singles players to play doubles).
That's not to say that they would never lose to them but singles and doubles are two totally different games especially with the doubles playing 3rd set breakers(I think they did that to entice singles players to play doubles).
I love the Bryan Bros and they are great for the game, but if you've seen doubles history, they are behind Newcombe
Roche, Woodies, Fleming Mac, probably 4th.
If they don't serve at a high percentage, they are done for. They also fill the middle of the court and an accurate baseliner can pick them apart (ala Verdasco) up the line. Boom. No answer.
Roche, Woodies, Fleming Mac, probably 4th.
If they don't serve at a high percentage, they are done for. They also fill the middle of the court and an accurate baseliner can pick them apart (ala Verdasco) up the line. Boom. No answer.
Similar threads
