Greatest doubles team of all time?

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Since this week is the 70th anniversary of Sedgman & McGregor's unique men's doubles CYGS, I thought I'd throw this out there. Hopefully there's enough interest here to stimulate at least a little conversation. I've only put in the most obvious choices, but feel free to nominate Budge & Mako, Bromwich & Quist, the Doherty twins, etc.

There's also a parallel conversation, where you create your hypothetical dream team from across history. Newcombe and McEnroe? Emerson and Sedgman? Federer and Nadal?

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Fleming and McEnroe. As Peter Fleming famously said, the best doubles team was McEnroe playing with anyone.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Fleming and McEnroe. As Peter Fleming famously said, the best doubles team was McEnroe playing with anyone.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement that the Dream Team pairing would be McEnroe plus one. But could we do better than Fleming? (No offence to him; he was a great player and an equally great TV analyst who is criminally underused).

I'd love to see both Newcombe and Emerson alongside JMac. I think most people would give the nod to Newcombe, but from what I know of Emmo, his skillset complements the Superbrat perfectly (great forecourt player, great success on clay).

 

[stapletonj]

Flach and Seguso, if for no other reasons than the mullet on Flach and the cool Reebok shirts

 

[big ted]

the bryan brothers have the best career, no?
mac/fleming won 7GS titles but it was only W and USO..
BB won all of them.. i know AO wasnt a factor back then,
but mac/flem never won a FO either

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think that the Bryans (with 16) and the Hoad/Rosewall combo (with 16) have won the most major doubles titles.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

the bryan brothers have the best career, no?
mac/fleming won 7GS titles but it was only W and USO..

The Bryan Brothers are certainly the most successful. I'd argue that, like most modern players, they've simply lasted longer than players of old, which helps their cause immensely when it comes to racking up big numbers. During their slam-winning years from 2003-14 they won 16 in 43 attempts, with an 86.8% match win rate. McEnroe and Fleming won their 7 in 12 attempts, with a 91.3% match win rate.

BB won all of them.. i know AO wasnt a factor back then,
but mac/flem never won a FO either

JMac and Fleming never played together at Roland Garros, and only once in Australia in 1983. Like many players of that era, it was basically a two-slam tour for them as a partnership.

There's also the elephant in the room: how good is the talent pool in doubles nowadays, compared to the 1970s and 1980s? Could the Bryan Brothers replicate their stellar career totals if the top tennis talent didn't concentrate on singles?

 

[Jason Swerve]

The better question for you would be, which player won the Grand Slam (or some might refer to it as the "Calendar Grand Slam") with different partners at each venue? There's only one person in history who accomplished that feat at 17 years of age.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The Bryan Brothers are certainly the most successful. I'd argue that, like most modern players, they've simply lasted longer than players of old, which helps their cause immensely when it comes to racking up big numbers. During their slam-winning years from 2003-14 they won 16 in 43 attempts, with an 86.8% match win rate. McEnroe and Fleming won their 7 in 12 attempts, with a 91.3% match win rate.



JMac and Fleming never played together at Roland Garros, and only once in Australia in 1983. Like many players of that era, it was basically a two-slam tour for them as a partnership.

There's also the elephant in the room: how good is the talent pool in doubles nowadays, compared to the 1970s and 1980s? Could the Bryan Brothers replicate their stellar career totals if the top tennis talent didn't concentrate on singles?

Could they win in the older era where the top singles players dominated the doubles competition? No.

Part of that was the fact that the old pro tours, even after open tennis arrived, could not carry doubles specialists, every player had to pull their weight in singles.

 

[Larry Duff]

Part of that was the fact that the old pro tours, even after open tennis arrived, could not carry doubles specialists, every player had to pull their weight in singles.

Hewitt/McMillan maybe?

 

[Ace of Aces]

It depends on how you define greatest. If you mean peak level then the Bryan Bros may not have even been the best team Mike was a part of.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

The better question for you would be, which player won the Grand Slam (or some might refer to it as the "Calendar Grand Slam") with different partners at each venue? There's only one person in history who accomplished that feat at 17 years of age.

That sounds like Hingis. Kratzmann managed a career slam in boys' doubles (which is the only way any man's doing it at that age), but only with two partners.

Having said that, it looks like "career slam with a different partner each time" wasn't done until she was 18, unless I'm mistaken? Sukova at Wimbledon '96, Zvereva at AO '97, Novotna at US '98, Kournikova at FO '99?

Could they win in the older era where the top singles players dominated the doubles competition? No.

Part of that was the fact that the old pro tours, even after open tennis arrived, could not carry doubles specialists, every player had to pull their weight in singles.

True. That was Ken McGregor's undoing, for starters. Terrific partner for Sedgman, but repeatedly pummelled in his singles matches against the best pros. Whitewashed by Gonzales, I think?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hewitt/McMillan maybe?

They were both good singles players, Hewitt won a fair number of tournaments in singles.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That sounds like Hingis. Kratzmann managed a career slam in boys' doubles (which is the only way any man's doing it at that age), but only with two partners.

Having said that, it looks like "career slam with a different partner each time" wasn't done until she was 18, unless I'm mistaken? Sukova at Wimbledon '96, Zvereva at AO '97, Novotna at US '98, Kournikova at FO '99?




True. That was Ken McGregor's undoing, for starters. Terrific partner for Sedgman, but repeatedly pummelled in his singles matches against the best pros. Whitewashed by Gonzales, I think?

Well, there was only a small space in the pro league for anything but the greatest singles players. In the larger amateur circuit, McGregor won an Aussie singles title over Sedgman in the 1952 final, and was runner-up at Wimbledon in 1951. Not bad. McGregor was tough in Davis Cup singles.
But the Australian amateur team did not carry players who could not play decent singles. Rose and Hartwig were great doubles players, but had to play decent singles as well.

 

[Shaolin]

Sock + McEnroe if it could ever happen.

 

[thrust]

I think that the Bryans (with 16) and the Hoad/Rosewall combo (with 16) have won the most major doubles titles.

I assume you are including the pro tour for Hoad/Rosewall? Otherwise, they did not win 16 official slams. I would rank Newcombe/Roche over the Bryans, in that they were also great singles players who would have dominated the Bryans in doubles, especially if the Bryans also played singled. Today's doubles is not nearly as hard as it was back then, as the scoring makes today's matches shorter.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I assume you are including the pro tour for Hoad/Rosewall? Otherwise, they did not win 16 official slams. I would rank Newcombe/Roche over the Bryans, in that they were also great singles players who would have dominated the Bryans in doubles, especially if the Bryans also played singled. Today's doubles is not nearly as hard as it was back then, as the scoring makes today's matches shorter.

Yes, I would include the pro circuit, which was a major circuit. Certainly had tougher doubles teams competing than what we see today.

 

[thrust]

Yes, I would include the pro circuit, which was a major circuit. Certainly had tougher doubles teams competing than what we see today.

I AGREE!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think the Woodies are worth mentioning.
Certainly the best doubles team by far when I was growing up.
And the righty/lefty combo was really tough to beat.
Both very decent singles players too.
I enjoyed their rivalries with the likes of Palmer/Reneberg and Eltingh/Haarhuis.

 

[Jason Swerve]

That sounds like Hingis. Kratzmann managed a career slam in boys' doubles (which is the only way any man's doing it at that age), but only with two partners.

Having said that, it looks like "career slam with a different partner each time" wasn't done until she was 18, unless I'm mistaken? Sukova at Wimbledon '96, Zvereva at AO '97, Novotna at US '98, Kournikova at FO '99?




True. That was Ken McGregor's undoing, for starters. Terrific partner for Sedgman, but repeatedly pummelled in his singles matches against the best pros. Whitewashed by Gonzales, I think?

Yes, that was phrased poorly on my part. No other doubles player has won their Grand Slam with more than a single partner. Her first win was with an arbitrary player she called on a whim when her primary partner didn't register in time.

 

[spottishwood]

Mac/fleming vs Bryan/Bryan. Who wins?

 

[onehandbh]

Mac/fleming vs Bryan/Bryan. Who wins?

Ram / Salisbury vs Brian Bros. Who wins?

 

[WYK]

The Bryan Brothers are certainly the most successful. I'd argue that, like most modern players, they've simply lasted longer than players of old, which helps their cause immensely when it comes to racking up big numbers. During their slam-winning years from 2003-14 they won 16 in 43 attempts, with an 86.8% match win rate. McEnroe and Fleming won their 7 in 12 attempts, with a 91.3% match win rate.



JMac and Fleming never played together at Roland Garros, and only once in Australia in 1983. Like many players of that era, it was basically a two-slam tour for them as a partnership.

There's also the elephant in the room: how good is the talent pool in doubles nowadays, compared to the 1970s and 1980s? Could the Bryan Brothers replicate their stellar career totals if the top tennis talent didn't concentrate on singles?

I think it's the opposite. The Bryan bros win % could mean better competition. Doubles players now are more specialised than in the past. Just watch doubles now vs then. After all, the Bryan bros beat a lot of top athletes who weren't often doubles players. Win % is one way to rank, the other is over all wins and time at #1 which the Bryans dominated at. After all, when you rank dominance, you sort of have to look at these stats.

I would also suggest we not ignore Navratilova and Shriver. 20 Grand Slams - 11 in a Row. 10 year end finals in a row. The definition of dominance.

 

[chrischris]

Hewitt/McMillan maybe?

Fantastic doubles team.

 

[chrischris]

Friedman /Marx would have been interesting or Chomsky /Rand