Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Gorilla, Feb 19, 2007.
I'm going to say ivo karlovic and max mirnyi would be a damn near unbeatable team.
But they would have to rely on winning a lot of tiebreaks. Doubles is about serves AND returns.
John McEnroe and anybody else
That was a team quite frequently.
No, Anybody Else didn't play much
Damn it you got there before I could say it lol :smile:
If Roger Federer teamed up with Pete Sampras today, I think they would be quite successful in double competitions.
As far as I know J. McEnroe and Edberg never teamed up, but they would have been unstoppable: the American having the best forehand volley in the game, the Swede with the best backhand volley. Both first-class singles and doubles players alike.
Korda and Federer.
Martina (Navratilova) & Martina (Hingis).
Could possibly still have a crack at a GS or two now, esp. at W.
I don't think they've ever played together, and given some of Hingis's views expressed at various times (the mauresmo man comments for example), wouldn't surprise me if they might not get on too well).
Apparently not if they played the Rochus brothers. Oliver owns Ivo.
You forget that mcenroe was a lefty, so his forehand is on the same side as edberg's backhand.
That's a slam dunk. And who is going to return for the two 'Towering Infernals' ? It's not exactly their forte,is it? How much thought went into this "dream doubles team"? And did it involve a hat and a bunch of small pieces of paper with names on it? It would seem so.
not really, they can both put the ball back in play, and it is strategically advantagous to volley in doubles.
That would be interesting.
More practically speaking though, maybe Pete and one of the Bryan brothers.
Really? It's strategically advantagous to volley in doubles? Are you sure? Aren't you afraid to be giving away this revolutionary information for nothing? This stuff is gold! Pure gold! What an insight,professor! I saw Karlovic play sunday against Murray and he couldn't put his backhand in play in the ocean if he was standing on the beach. How much doubles do you play? Judging by your "wisdom" I would say none if you believe merely "getting the ball in play" makes for an unbeatable doubles team. The return is MORE valuable than the serve in doubles and it is essential to do a lot more with it than just getting the ball "in play". Now that you've been schooled I will let your gratuitous insult slide. We all know what monkeys throw when they are upset...don't we?
Murray and Mcenroe
Saw them play together at New Haven, 1992. was pretty exciting to see.
you've just embarrassed yourself and you don't even realise it!
Makes it even funnier
Federer and Safin (won one title)
Ah, really? That's fantastic.
McEnroe & Federer
Doubles is more than just strokes.
The woodies would school McEnroe+Edberg, Federer+Sampras, and pretty much every freaky combo you could come up with.
I agree doubles is more than just strokes, but equaly I'm not sure what about Fed + Sampras (ego aside) that makes you think they wouldn't be an amazing doubles team. Thinking on it, even ego wouldn't be an issue, they're both so focussed win-machines that I find it hard to believe they wouldn't beat the woodies, as good as the woodies were...
I disagree. The Woodies were a great team because they knew how to work together, but neither was an especially high-class player on his own. They played in an era when doubles was in serious decline, when most of the best players did not care about the doubles game. Many earlier teams (Newcombe and Roche, Sedgman and McGregor, etc.) were probably even more formidable. I suspect McEnroe and Edberg could have been just as impressive, had they teamed up consistently.
I recall the team of Becker/Stich won the '92 Olympics Gold medal & they hardly played doubles the rest of the year. Ljubicic/Ancic beat the Bryans in DC 2 years ago. In the 70s/80s most of the best doubles teams were teams consisting of singles players. Doubles specialists of today would not be possible if so many top singles players didn't shun doubles.
that said, the woodies were both top 20 singles players at some point, so they wouldn't be pushovers vs teams consisting of singles stars, like the bryans would likely be.
I was at a Davis Cup match between the Woodies & Sampras/Martin. For a set & a half the Americans were just blowing them away, was pretty much all Sampras. Woodies won in 4 & said it was the best win of their careers(& they had won 5 wimbledons in a row at the time), so I think they know some singles stars would be formidable opponents on a doubles court.
Perhaps you could show me where my analysis is off. You seem to be the authority on tennis so I would appreciate your special input,if you have time to comment.
no, I think I'll carry on laughing from the sidelines on this one my friend
So you don't know what you are talking about....again(genocide,ancient land claims,rowing machines,ice age temperatures, and now doubles and probably all of tennis as well). I think that's a wise move on your part. Better to reamain silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Have a nice evening.
I will ty
A Lincoln I Presume?
Still enjoying yourself? I am. What a wonderful dysfunctional show you are. Thanks for making my evening so enjoyable
alwaysatnet isn't a ****** because he/she disagreed with you. You aren't all-knowing. I could say a lot more than this, but frankly, you're not worth my time.
Your answer reminds me that AnnaK won 11 of her 16 doubles titles (and both her OZ doubles titles) with Hingis.
To a knuckle dragging Neanderthal calling someone a ****** constitutes a reasoned arguement. Well, it certainly is easier than actually having to think.
Becker/Stich was very much like Vilas/Clerc. They could play, but they hated each other.
By the end of their career together the Woodies weren't exactly the best of chums either. Woodforde called Woodbridge an immature spoiled little brat(I would have to agree based on some of his whining antics). A good doubles team is like a marriage between the partners. Sometimes there are irreconcilable differences.
I remember you!
You tried to pick a fight with me before but couldn't stick it and ran away like a little girl.
I'm going to take you post with a pinch of salt my friend
There is no way that Fed and Sampras would beat the Woddies in doubles. Neither Fed or Sampras has a disinguished doubles career. Doubles is different from singles. You can't just stick to 2 of the great singles players on the court and expect to have a great team. Both Federer and Sampras have very unstaggering doubles records. Sampras lost more doubles matches then he won, and Federer's record is far from convincing. The Woddies both won doubles GS with other players (other than each other). The Woddies new each other inside out and won all the majors at least once together, 11 GS together in total. These 2 dominated doubles like noone has ever done in the men's game. I don't think that Sampras and Federer could even beat the Bryans to be honest. Such is the specilism in doubles these days.
If we are talking about "doubles team" the Woddies have the best numbers in history.
Doubles is a different league and in the last years only a few player were good both in singles and doubles: Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Santoro...
McEnroe and Federer
I appreciate teams like the Woodies and the Bryan twins, but I cannot shake the feeling that many of the best singles players could be superior doubles players if they gave a damn about it. Long ago, all the top singles players were also involved in doubles, making the doubles game far more competitive. I have to think the top teams of the past (Sedgman/McGregor, Newcombe/Roche, etc.) were greater than the Woodies or Bryans or any other team of the 'doubles specialist' era.
Your "feelings" mean nothing. The Woodies have the statistics to back up their legacy (the Bryans are nothing compared to the Woodies). You can't say that singles players would have suceeded at doubles, thats like saying Lendl would have been the GOAT if he won his GS finals, or Sampras would have won the FO if he had tried. The only great singles player who is truely comparably to the Woodies in doubles in McEnroe.
With all respect, your feelings are subjective. The numbers show that the Woodies were better than any other doubles team. You can't compare them with Newcombe/Roche because they played in differents eras. Can you compare Federer with Laver? I don't think so. I would like to see all the top singles players playing doubles, but the big money is in singles.
Frank Sedgman won the true GRAND SLAM in doubles!
Newcombe, Emerson, Rosewall, Hoad, Budge ...
Need I go on?
Of course my feelings are subjective. They wouldn't be feelings otherwise. But the doubles field today is clearly weak, b/c the best players simply don't give a crap about it. In the past, this was not the case. Therefore I conclude that the best doubles teams of the past were probably greater than today's best teams ... they certainly faced much higher class opposition.
Once again my friend, how you can compare two differents eras? A doubles player today practices 100% doubles. It's a full dedication game. It has to make a difference to the singles player who also plays doubles and, eventually practices doubles. The last player who reached No. 1 in both singles and doubles was Kafelnikov and it was for a few weeks. Nowadays playing doubles is an speciality. Almost a different league.
I will commit an insolence, I would say that Borkman/Mirnyi could beat those tennis legends that you are talking about.
You don't think the class of the players themselves has ANYTHING to do with it?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
"Class" is an intangible, but I do agree that it has anything to do with it.
There is something in we are totally agree: we are Becker fans
Separate names with a comma.