Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Of course and never claimed otherwise. But it's not footwork that Paes lacks but groundies and strength generally.Which certainly aren't the likes of Zimonjic, Paes, Bopanna and co.
Of course and never claimed otherwise. But it's not footwork that Paes lacks but groundies and strength generally.Which certainly aren't the likes of Zimonjic, Paes, Bopanna and co.
Well, he was in top 100 singles 20 years ago. You got to have good groundstrokes and fitness to get there.Of course and never claimed otherwise. But it's not footwork that Paes lacks but groundies and strength generally.
I really don't know what your point here is, but Paes was much younger 20 years ago and even then, top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.Well, he was in top 100 singles 20 years ago. You got to have good groundstrokes and fitness to get there.
So when you watch guys let’s say top 80 to 100 play tennis you don’t feel amazed? They amaze me big time every year when I go to Australian Open.top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.
First, top 100 is amazing, at least for me. More so if one is able to stay there. Second, he was no.1 and constantly in top 10 doubles then. But as years went by, his singles ranking plummeted while he was still on top of his doubles game.I really don't know what your point here is, but Paes was much younger 20 years ago and even then, top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.
Oh please, we were talking about top singles players and he was never one. Don't insult my intelligence, I know top 100 is amazing in absolute terms. That's not what we were talking about and you know it.First, top 100 is amazing, at least for me. More so if one is able to stay there. Second, he was no.1 and constantly in top 10 doubles then. But as years went by, his singles ranking plummeted while he was still on top of his doubles game.
You said only top singles players can win in doubles. In reality, it's the ones who are not good enough for singles who become best doubles players and are winning tournaments.Oh please, we were talking about top singles players and he was never one. Don't insult my intelligence, I know top 100 is amazing in absolute terms. That's not what we were talking about and you know it.
No, I said the singles players who cross over and do well in doubles tend to be the top ones. Do you think Yuki Bhambri would do well in doubles, I mean, anything comparable to Paes? No way, Paes was a great doubles player who chanced his arm in singles with limited success. You intentionally ignore this fact to misconstrue me. If that is what you propose to do, I am done with this discussion.You said only top singles players can win in doubles.
I really don't know what your point here is, but Paes was much younger 20 years ago and even then, top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.
Thats wrong. Single players have different skill sets. Its not those can't play single play double. Double is a DIFFERENT game.You said only top singles players can win in doubles. In reality, it's the ones who are not good enough for singles who become best doubles players and are winning tournaments.
That's not what I said at all. I meant relatively amazing (compared to top 10 players). Paes would hand me a golden set, period.Top 100 is not amazing! Wow, I've just gotta see some vids of your singles game.
Feel free to ignore me. I dropped into the middle of this sub-thread and have no idea how the discussion got to this point.
At the slams, 60% of points (in singles) are of 1-3 shots. So yeah, coaches totally wasting players' time teaching them footwork. But wait, isn't footwork unteachable and only naturally acquired um maybe by watching the Marvel films that Marty hates?
Of course and never claimed otherwise. But it's not footwork that Paes lacks but groundies and strength generally.
...top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles
Thats wrong. Single players have different skill sets. Its not those can't play single play double. Double is a DIFFERENT game.
First, give me a reference of where you got this statistic. "60% of points (in singles) are of 1-3 shots". Or, you're just talking out of your arrsse.
Second, even IF that statistic is true, so what in relation to recreational dubs? Even at pro level, dubs are pratically NOT tiring, ie some pros after singles match go into dubs. Recreational doubles are even more relaxing. Doubles is the last game that anyone at any ages can still play. Rec dubs is whatever players make of it. To suggest it takes more more footwork or more challenging footwork than singles is just dumb.
He said double footwork is different, he didn't say anything about the game overall. You learn how to read and argue.Then you are more like in agreement with Born_to_slice than disagreement, who suggests doubles is different. "I'd say doubles footwork is different." (Born)
Or you're just so crazy with hatred and trolling that you just disagree blindly. So much for education!
Nobody can say what "game overall" means. That's a vague concept.He said double footwork is different, he didn't say anything about the game overall. You learn how to read and argue.
Born said double footwork is different. You extrapolate what he said to: double is different. Is this clear enough???Nobody can say what "game overall" means. That's a vague concept.
We usually only can refer to something by its specific parts. That's a more concrete concept. Footwork, moving is a huge part of doubles, no?
This statement: "If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. " can be up for disccussion. And very likely i will agree with you to some extent.Footwork being a huge part of dubs. If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. Geez, learn logics.
All those great doubles players had their singles career dreams at one point. IMO, ones who are realistic concentrate on doubles because they know they're not good enough for singles. And yes it's a different game, but it doesn't require more footwork. Footwork is different and can be quite intense in small percentage of points. Greatest difference is teamwork though.Thats wrong. Single players have different skill sets. Its not those can't play single play double. Double is a DIFFERENT game.
I want to believe you on this. But do you have the credentials to make such statements about the world of pro tennis players? Did the Bryan brothers dream about a single career dream back then???All those great doubles players had their singles career dreams at one point.
When I play double, i move just as much as single. Maybe you are playing differently in double?
Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?Footwork being a huge part of dubs. If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. Geez, learn logics.
The thing is that nothing is quite absolute in life. We all need to be more flexible and tolerant about difference of opinions.@ptuanminh
Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?
Exactly. Dude acts like I discovered some new animal species or something. Done with his thread. I guess OP values practice in being annoyingly obdurate and argumentative much more than tennis.I suggest you watch some Craig O'Shannessy.
J
This thread has certainly gone off on a tangent.
Here's a question for the singles vs doubles argument:
Pair Medvedev and Djokovic as a doubles team. Give them a year to practice playing together. How would they go against the top doubles teams?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Yeah i get kinda bored arguing with ptua. Time to move on.@ptuanminh
Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?
@user9262 yeah no more arguing. I will be in LA area in 2 weeks. Maybe we can hit a bit????
Bryans are bad example, since they're twins. Still, I checked Mike's rankings history and he did try to be competitive in singles for several years, getting as high as top 300. I guess other bro did too, but I'm lazy to check.I want to believe you on this. But do you have the credentials to make such statements about the world of pro tennis players? Did the Bryan brothers dream about a single career dream back then???
I doubt you know.
Can I also say, those single players concentrate on single because they know they are not good at double????
When I play double, i move just as much as single. Maybe you are playing differently in double?
Low level doubles and high level doubles are completely different games.
I've seen low level, polite doubles. One (way) up, one (way) back, guard the alley, chop cross court and hit mid court lobs where the partners just switch sides and continue the theme, etc.
Contrast that to a battle to see who can control the net by taking balls early and forcing their way in, knowing they will make that low first volley and are rock solid overhead.
Singles, not so much. Lots of spin from the back of the court, just rally until the other makes an unforced error or leaves the court open. Modern professional singles and low level singles are much the same.
yah. i am working on my schedule. will send you a message.Yeah, let's move on, bud.
Really, you wanna hit? We'll see if things line up.
Seriously, my "concern" is my sub 4.0 with atrocious movements won't make it worthwhile for anyone, especially travelers. But, ok we'll see.
Low level doubles and high level doubles are completely different games.
Modern professional singles and low level singles are much the same.
There are no constant lob fests at the 4.5 level doubles I've watched.