Not a single WTF doubles thread, which is sad.

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
Well, I'm starting one on the last day of the tournament.

There are some amazing doubles teams in this tournament, and after watching Rojer-Tecau dismantle the Bryans yesterday (for the first time in 7 tries) and tuning in today to watch them win the tournament, I have to say I've watched some very high quality doubles this week.

With a lead in the second set, hopefully Rojer-Tecau will close it out. They've been impressive all year. They deserve the championship and #1 ranking.

Why, when so many of us play doubles, do we not watch it played when it's on? Why is no one interested in discussing it?
 

Starfury

Hall of Fame
Because ATP/WTA don't want us to watch doubles. Only way to explain why even on their own platform TennisTV the matches are rarely broadcast.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
And they won it in straights. Watching them play the Bryans yesterday, I'm not surprised. Just beautiful tennis. Interesting that both teams involved in the final line up in Australian formation on every serve. That tactic really seems to handcuff returners and I bet it'd work well in league play, as no one I've played against in 4.5 leagues uses it. Also interesting to see that the first volley from the server is almost never an attempt at a put away, just a play to an awkward position to set up the next shot.

Well, for those of us who enjoy it, I think the WTF was a treat this year.
 

MasterZeb

Hall of Fame
Yep. I went to to evening session and saw bopanna and mergea dismantle the Bryan brothers. High class tennis. Don't usually find doubles interesting, but that match was incredible
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Doubles can get pretty complicated to explain to the general public, and it's a little bit harder to point out why players are good, etc. That said, doubles are awesome and should get more prize money, coverage and all that. It should definitely be more than an option for players who can't make it in singles.

Maybe a joint ranking where doubles are taken into account as well as singles?
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
That'd be cool, Red Rick. Maybe we'd see some more John McEnroes if we had a dual ranking. Of course, there are a few guys who play both regularly now, like Sock and Fognini.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Very happy for Tecau in particular. Talent and diligence has brought him to lofty heights in the decade since I met and strung for him at Futures level.

Funny anecdote...when I asked him if he preferred his nattie gut prestretched he responded, "Why would I want you to ruin my string?":D
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Well, I'm starting one on the last day of the tournament.

There are some amazing doubles teams in this tournament, and after watching Rojer-Tecau dismantle the Bryans yesterday (for the first time in 7 tries) and tuning in today to watch them win the tournament, I have to say I've watched some very high quality doubles this week.

With a lead in the second set, hopefully Rojer-Tecau will close it out. They've been impressive all year. They deserve the championship and #1 ranking.

Why, when so many of us play doubles, do we not watch it played when it's on? Why is no one interested in discussing it?
Too much interesting singles to watch for me. Glad you're doing this thread.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
It's a shame: I find the doubles on both tours really good to watch.
was especially pleased that Hingis had such success this year - talent will out.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
People were posting about doubles here and there. I know I was. I loved watching Murray/Peers play and am very sad that they have split (thanks to Murray). Hopefully Peers has a great 2016 with whoever he partners while Murray fails with Soares
 
Doubles tennis is too tactical to be discussed on a tennis board.

It also doesn't cater to the ego as much as the singles.

But there are many of us that enjoy it.

:cool:
True. It is tougher for forum participants to become fanboys of a dubs specialist or team. Much less likely the conversation spills into regular life, even at a tennis club/center.
Highly unlikely it graces espn.
GOAT talk for dubsmen? nah. Lack of coverage? Yeah.

On many good teams, personalities even eachother out, so even if a player has a specific character, the other one mitigates it. So they are all pretty professional, fairly bland, and basically happy to be there.

No one team is seen as arrogant. No beast team. No team is the robo-duo we love to hate. No team is the poster team, except maybe the twins. No team is rich beyond belief. No team is seen as a waste of talent.

Nobody at a cocktail party wants to talk about how the woodies would have trashed herbert and mahut, and newk/roche would dominate the Bryan twins.

I have decided to be a butorac fanboy. Or maybe become a rabid matkowski fan around here. Yeah, just get all negative on others, and spew all kinds of vitriol about how he is the real GOAT and how whatever he won is the real slam. John peers will reach nine titles this year! Screw you man, nobody tops nestor! Zimo forever....ajde!

It is dubs, we all love it. We all play it. We all cruise by a great, live dubs match at a pro tournament or a college match. We all love it in davis cup! But somehow it got cheapened. Probably because the big names in baseline tennis decided they had to become singles specialists, and the all-court/attackers had to follow suit.

Lendl, Borg, Connors, and Agassi get a lot of credit for transforming the game. in some ways, the decline of the doubles game is a sad by-product.

Lots of moving parts...some say....not enough money is devoted to dubs....too much money to sustain the dubs specialists, dubs socialism...keep dubs alive on life support, not enough marketing efforts...marginalize it, kill it, change scoring.
 
Last edited:

Seth

Legend
I'm hoping Farah/Cabal find their form in 2016. They're a fun pair to watch.

I would really like to see ESPN3 cover a little more doubles. From what I've seen, ESPN3's Masters 100 doubles coverage only includes the final. 500-level doesn't have any. You have to wait until the Majors to see any semblance of consistent coverage.

What's really disappointing is when ESPN3 is showing 2-3 courts of coverage but just shows shots of the walking areas around a stadium because they don't have cameras operating for the doubles. I understand it's more work for the commentators, but I don't need commentators. Just throw a couple of cameras on them while they play.
 
^good.
I am with you on skipping commentary. Or put a local coach or teaching pro on the mic. no real need for graphics, either. Happy as long as we can hear the sound of the ball and see the scoreboard in the corner at times.
 

fuzz nation

G.O.A.T.
I've never heard anybody in the broadcasting world say anything intelligent about the reasons for covering this or that. Sometimes the excuse gets floated that nobody watches doubles, so it doesn't get coverage. A pal of mine heard it again only a few years ago at a USPTA conference where Pat McEnroe was a speaker. I think this is a pathetic chicken-or-the-egg argument that is unfortunately backward. Many of us happy tennis nerds certainly agree that IF it's put out there for us, we'll watch it.

Gotta say I actually like the possibility of seeing some matches without the blathering idiots on the mics.
 

Seth

Legend
I've never heard anybody in the broadcasting world say anything intelligent about the reasons for covering this or that. Sometimes the excuse gets floated that nobody watches doubles, so it doesn't get coverage. A pal of mine heard it again only a few years ago at a USPTA conference where Pat McEnroe was a speaker. I think this is a pathetic chicken-or-the-egg argument that is unfortunately backward. Many of us happy tennis nerds certainly agree that IF it's put out there for us, we'll watch it.

Gotta say I actually like the possibility of seeing some matches without the blathering idiots on the mics.
It's like ESPN/TC think that if a match is being shown, SOMEONE has to be on the mic. What we end up getting is the likes of Murphy Jensen and Jeff Tarango.

After 15 years of rabidly watching tennis, I've learned to tune a lot of the commentators out. That said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if Robbie Koenig, Nick Lester, and Jason Goodall called every match. Those guys are doing God's work.
 

MarcusInKensington

Hall of Fame
Doubles is really poor at the moment. Inferior players (compared to singles), and the scoring system is a total mess too.

Unless the top players start taking it seriously again it's in danger of dying out.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure that the qualifications for being a great singles player are the same as those for being a great doubles player. How many great singles players, in the days when everyone played both, were also great doubles players? It is a different skill set. Baseline grinding isn't a doubles skill.
 

fuzz nation

G.O.A.T.
Doubles is really poor at the moment. Inferior players (compared to singles), and the scoring system is a total mess too.

Unless the top players start taking it seriously again it's in danger of dying out.
Yep, I have a pretty cynical view toward the current scoring. I DON'T believe for a second that this is actually aimed at getting more singles players involved. Remember that these players are competing for their lunch money. Offer more prize dollars and the doubles draws will change in a big hurry. Doubles specialists have to fight over monetary table scraps while the stronger (singles) players can make a lot more for their time and effort in the singles realm.

This scoring system gets the doubles matches over with in a rather tidy time frame, but it's also painfully watered down as I see it. I believe there needs to be an athletic element to superlative doubles, but this system only requires that a team wins one set and a match tiebreak to take the match. Way too easy for the more dominant team overall to lose a match off only a handful of gorky points.

Did anybody catch that stat after the epic match between the Bryans and Murray/Peers? Total points won: Bryans - 92, Murray/Peers - 91... Ugh!!
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I stopped watching doubles once McEnroe-Fleming hung it up.

No regrets not watching whoever came thereafter.

The last interesting doubles team was Edberg-Jarryd or Jarryd-Fitzgerald.
 

ultradr

Legend
And they won it in straights. Watching them play the Bryans yesterday, I'm not surprised. Just beautiful tennis. Interesting that both teams involved in the final line up in Australian formation on every serve. That tactic really seems to handcuff returners and I bet it'd work well in league play, as no one I've played against in 4.5 leagues uses it. Also interesting to see that the first volley from the server is almost never an attempt at a put away, just a play to an awkward position to set up the next shot.
that's what i noticed too. i almost feel like it was a return of classic double players...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
People were posting about doubles here and there. I know I was. I loved watching Murray/Peers play and am very sad that they have split (thanks to Murray). Hopefully Peers has a great 2016 with whoever he partners while Murray fails with Soares
Seems like doubles partners are always splitting up and re-grouping though (with the exception of the Bryans). I was a bit surprised that Soares split up with Peya. As for Jamie M, he's had a number of different partners over the years and never seems to settle with one for more than a year or two. He seems to change them more often than Andy does coaches!
 
Top