Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by robow7, Jan 28, 2013.
John Bromwich and Adrian Quist have to be up there.
Bryan Bros. couldn't even beat Fed-Wawrinka (who had how much experience playing in doubles?). Gimme Mac-Fleming
The Allman brothers?
LOL, another players during the 1930s. No way they are in the same league as the modern B Brothers, who's set the standard by winning a record 16 slams. Have some respect for them.
TMF, You don't know that Bromwich-Quist lost several years to WW2.
if only the BB's (Bosom Buddies) played singles, and at a high level, they could be compared to the real greats.
as it is they are only doubles players, not tennis players.
they're still great at the twin tennis thing, no doubt.
One can argue that certain great singles players of the past eras might have been great doubles players since the styles of play, S & V, were so similar between the two games, but to hear that today's great singles players would automatically make great doubles players is ludicrous since the two game's required skills have diverged so much recently. Nadal would not be a great doubles player as he stands today, though he has an excellent service return. Could he become a great doubles player, who knows? but it would not coincide with his present greatness in grinding it out and long groundstroke exchanges. Also remember, we're talking about team play here and with the Bryans you get a synergistic improvement vs. either one by themselves. I'm sure we can put together a greater doubles team on paper like Mac and someone else but over time, those two great doubles players might not accomplish as much as the Bryans, for the same reasons that you can't simply take greatest musicians and put together the greatest band. As the Bryans continue to rack up records, it seems hard to keep them out of the top few. My take anyway.
Bryan Brothers and Woodies would take any of the other teams over an entire season. Mac/Fleming might have been able to take a few matches from either.
Okker. More titles than McEnroe, with more partners.
Sorry but you don't get any credit for not playing. And there's no way of knowing the outcome if they actually play.
TMF, It yet has to be considered.
Sorry but I consider imaginary events has no value.
TMF, That's your fault.
I'd likely agree with this.....i mean i do.
Only reason I put Mac up there is that he was ALSO tops in singles.
A trump card so to speak.
But if you omit that, which is reasonable (most don't do the "double" successfully anymore) than yeah, the aforementioned take it.
Don't the Williams sisters rather destroy your argument? It seems to me that they play(ed) only part-time, yet had some pretty good results. It seems to me they prove that even today the very best singles players are better than the regular doubles teams.
In fact, on the men's side, I think you asked when, if ever, the Bryant Brothers could be considered the greatest ever. I think the answer, sadly, has to be never. Or at least not until doubles changes from the Mickey Mouse version it has become with the changes in the rules, and the lack of participation of the very best players on a regular basis. I say sadly because I regret the changes that have been made to doubles. I think there is nothing more exciting in tennis than a fast mens doubles net rally. Regrettably the days when the best players entered doubles and took it seriously have long gone.
I have no doubt the Bryant Brothers are very, very, good. But the best? Sadly - no.
^^^^ what rules changes are you speaking of?
i'm not very informed on such matters, just curious.
"In 2006, ATP Doubles embraced exciting new changes, including an innovative new scoring format featuring a Match Tie-break (first to 10 points, win by two) in place of a decisive third set, and no-ad games (sudden death at Deuce)."
They thought it would make the game more exciting, to counter-act the loss in interest in doubles.
Not surprise that the Bryans Brothers are grossly underrated in here because he's a modern player. Oh wait...this a The Laver Forum.
TMF, Two players are ONE modern player? Interesting.
Women's doubles technique does in fact more often mirror the women's singles game, not so in men's tennis. Often they will serve and stay back, rarely in the men's game.
I got this info from another forum...
If the Bryan Brothers win the USO they will be the first double players to win the Calendar Grand Slam since 1951.
They are the highest on the list for double goat, but if they win the USO, are they an undisputed double goat ?
well you know who won the 51 slam?
Sedgman and Mc Gregor
Nros are the best nowadays and probably the only modern team able to make the top 10 ever
But there are not great doubs players and teams anymore
They are a modern version of amateur slam king Roy Emerson: lack of great competition inflstes record and sorry, but they are SOOO FAAR from being GOAT
weak competition can only goes against the past generation, not the present. No double players have reached the standard of the Bryan Brothers.
Geez Off my hat I could think of 10 or 15 teams who would teach them a lot of doubs
If Bryants are doubs best, then Emerson is singles best
No logic at all
Whi plays doubs now? The funny Polands, old fart untalented Myrni, Nestor and Zimonjic Lol lol and more lol. Good old fart Bjorkman?
It is a walk cat for Bryants
It is even worse than current WTA
Given them playing in this era, none of them would have achieved close to what the Bryan Brothers have so far. Keep in mind it isn't all about talent, power and athleticism, but it's about chemistry and team works that no double player can match the B Brothers.
Just wait until The Tennis Channel come out with the top 100 double goat. I'm very confident that the unbiased experts will have the Bryan Brothers at #1.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh
I was exactly talking about smarts, tactics and chemistry
I have seen them and live and they are ok, but the opposition isarce so weak and scarce it inflates them so much
Top 20 ever? could be
Top 10? Dream on, Dream on
you need to get serious.
doubles of now is far inferior to what it was in the past when top players actually cared about doubles and played frequently.
This is objective, not subjective.
There were also good only doubles players and I would put them at that level
Let' s say, to give s good example, John Fitzgerald, Heinz Gunthartdt, Hank Pfister or Ross Case
So if we assumed Nadal, Nole Fed all join in to play double the B. Brothers wouldn't be that great? Not all great single can be great double player. Can Fed and Wawrinka co-exist and win slam? Who knows, but that's just an assumption. You also need to pick the right partner that works well as a team, that's what the twin brothers(Bryan) have that the other pro players doesn't have.
no, not every great single player can be great double players, but many of them can - as has been shown in the past plenty of decades ........
etc etc .
very few top players take doubles seriously these days ......it was already going down by the 90s and has gone down further now ....
kiki, I would say that the players you mention were also pretty good in singles.
TMF, You are so funny. Good one.:lol:
Gunthardt had some success but he quickly concentrated on doubs.The others were middle class journeymen in singles.Never achieved anything mentionable.
Thanks. I want BobbyOne and kiki to be happy since the Tennis Channel is so informative to them.
The BB's win the GOAT dubbs of "tennis twins who never played with anyone else, maybe mixed...also don't compete in singles".
weren't even allowed to play each other in a draw as juniors, one had to default. (yes, singles...)
great dubs team, nonetheless.
Martina is the single greatest dubs player ever.
You mean that pool of " experts" who placed Gonzales around 25 or so?
Yes, their credibility is astonishing.
kiki, Fitzgerald won 9 tournaments, Pfister 4 and Case 7, among them the 1974 San Francisco event with a final win against Ashe (Connors was in the draw).
Mighty Federer, Yes, the Tennis Channel's people "informed" me that even prominent experts can make insane ranking lists...
That's stupid. Fitzgerald beat Lendl when he was #1 in the world, got to 25 in singles, made the 4th round of Wimbledon three times and won 2 Davis Cups. THAT IS HIGHLY MENTIONABLE.
Fitzgerald was no world beater but to say he "never achieved anything mentionable" isn't just a load of crap it's also totally ignorant.
Pfister got to the 4th round of Wimbledon three times, the semis at the Aus three times (although the fields were weak) and had a career high ranking of 19.
Again, he was no world beater but if you think what he achieved isn't worth mentioning then you're a total moron.
Um, doubles is a completely different game. Those guys you mentioned ARE the best at it and very good at what they do. Would it make you feel better if you threw big names like Djokovic, Nadal and Federer into the doubles mix? Because the Bryans would give guys like that even more of a beatdown than they would inflict on the skilled, doubles veterans you listed.
Read my post
I said doubles was played by some greats but also great specialust
Those you mention would do bad in doubs
Hewitt&Mc Millan would wipe the floor with say Borg and Connors
Case FH volley is among the best seen
But even if they had some good singles players, they basically focused on doubles at some point
Amaya&Pfister won RG and reached US final
Case&Masters won Wimbledon
Gunthartd&Balasz won WTF and RG
Fitzie won many majors with different partners
Take it easy Mr Korea
I liked all of them and am well aware of their singles record
You forgot to mention Gunthartd won Rotterdam b both G Mayer and Lendl and won Springfield against Solomon becoming lowest ranked player to win a GP
I just meant their biggest success came in doubs but never meant to belittle their singles
By middle class I place players with similar records as them: good but not great
Separate names with a comma.