Ahem. The Blues Brothers cannot even sing well.
John Bromwich and Adrian Quist have to be up there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^^^^ what rules changes are you speaking of?
i'm not very informed on such matters, just curious.
Not surprise that the Bryans Brothers are grossly underrated in here because he's a modern player. Oh wait...this a The Laver Forum.
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.
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.
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.
you need to get serious.
doubles of now is far inferior to what was in the past when top players actually cared about doubles and played frequently.
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.
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.
Nailed
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
TMF, You are so funny. Good one.:lol: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.
kiki, I would say that the players you mention were also pretty good in singles.
TMF, You are so funny. Good one.:lol:
Hilarious!!
Thanks. I want BobbyOne and kiki to be happy since the Tennis Channel is so informative to them.
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.
Gunthardt had some success but he quickly concentrated on doubs.The others were middle class journeymen in singles.Never achieved anything mentionable.
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
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.
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).
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.
Agree Dan, TWDoubles is a different game today, a game for specialists.
The top singles players give it a pass, and save their energy for the singles titles.
Put Hoad and Rosewall together (they only played a few seasons together, yet won more important titles than the Bryans), or Newcombe and Roche, and they would wipe the court with the Bryans.
Doubles is a different game today, a game for specialists.
The top singles players give it a pass, and save their energy for the singles titles.
Put Hoad and Rosewall together (they only played a few seasons together, yet won more important titles than the Bryans), or Newcombe and Roche, and they would wipe the court with the Bryans.
Agree Dan, TW
It all depends on how you define a "major" title....It’s all debatable but I will say that Newcombe and Roche were a heck of a team and I don’t know if you can say Hoad and Rosewall won more than Newcombe and Roche.
About 20 years ago I spoke to Stan Smith at the U.S. Open and I asked who he was going to play doubles with in the senior doubles. He said probably Bob Lutz. I made a little wisecrack and I said “Gee, I guess you’re going to have to get used to each other style!” I’m not sure if he knew that I was joking.I Haven’t read the whole thread, but, Smith and Lutz were an all-time great doubles team in my view.
Doubles GOAT? John Bromwich has to be up there.
No they had Conzales at 35 and Hoad at 32 what a joke. TWYou mean that pool of " experts" who placed Gonzales around 25 or so?
Yes, their credibility is astonishing.