What made the Bryan Brothers so good?

[smalahove]

I don't understand the simplistic assumption that, to be a top doubles player you must be a top singles player. Doubles is a different game and requires a different skill set than singles. Heavy topspin drives which are the go-to shot with most singles players are less effective in doubles and, often enough, are the wrong shot to use. A shallow, dipping topspin drive might be a good tactic against a doubles player attempting to rush the net but it is not the right shot for a player at the net because it is is easier to effectively volley than a flat drive. While the top singles players like Djokovic and Nadal are solid volleyers, they are less comfortable taking the net than is required for doubles. In spite of the statistic that a singles player at the net wins about 2/3rds of the points there, top singles players prefer to stay at the baseline when they could safely take the net.

The #1 singles player, Djokovic, has one demonstrable weakness: his overhead. No top doubles play could afford such a weakness. A top doubles player MUST have a great half-volley. This shot is much less important for a singles play, particularly if he can just take the ball on the rise. But mostly, a great doubles player must develop an instinctive ability to adjust his court position in relation to where his partner is and where the likely incoming ball will be. Court positioning is simpler in singles because you don't have that partner coordination issue even though you don't have to cover as much territory as in singles.

Certainly being a top singles player in no way disqualifies someone from achieving similar success in doubles. The financial and status rewards are greater in singles so that's where the players go who can cut it in that version of the sport.

In addition, the best doubles team often have players with complementing skill sets, such as leftie/rightie, great returner/great close combat net, aso. And compared to a team comprising of mainly singles players, the best doubles teams work together as a team, at a much, much higher level. This can be seen as: much more dynamic movement around the service line and at net (singles players most often stand pretty still), much more coordinated movement (they move together around the net, change places aso, at a very high speed) whereas singles players often move slow. Thirdly, their actual tactics are much more refined. Singles players often resort to hammering balls or perhaps singles play type of shots.

 

[mental midget]

This. The Bryans had one major advantage over most - they played together forever basically and developed a rarely seen chemistry in pairings, the sort that takes a good pairing and makes them consistently great. Most other pairings changed every few years with only a few exceptions. The pairings which jumped to prominence otherwise were typically solid doubles players who paired up with a singles player. They usually quickly overtook most doubles combos, highlighting some shortcomings in the games of doubles-only pairings.

this has got to be the main reason. other reasons as people have mentioned:
- dad was a coach
- they're super professional and really threw themselves into being the best
- both have great hands whether that's through genetics or repetition or whatever

 

[Bobby Jr]

I don't think it is too simplistic though. Top singles players not playing doubles saw the dominance of doubles specialist come about.

Singles players are fundamentally superior players typically in every stroke-making and physical respect except for volleying. Their serves are typically better, and their returns and ground games vastly better off both wings with few exceptions. Lots of players with such overall skills have clutzy hands so never become great volleyers but in doubles most of the volleying isn't about special volleying magic of the Edberg/Rafter/Cash ilk, rather just having quick hands and good positioning.

You're right, doubles is a very different game, but the difference isn't so big that singles players can't shine really quickly in doubles even with just OK doubles partners. We've seen this time and time again in recent years as mid-level singles player play doubles - they highlight the general shortcomings in doubles specialists' general level pretty quickly.

Jack Sock, Ryan Harrison, Fabio Fognini, Feliciano Lopez, and a pairing like Herbert/Mahut, have won majors quickly with new partners in recent years. Literally the more singles players play doubles, the less career doubles specialists seem to win. And it'll keep happening as guys of a singles level like Dodig, Pospisil start to play more doubles.

Top doubles specialists are fantastic players but the likes of the Bryans, Murray etc have huge gaps in their games they've managed to mitigate and which most other doubles specialists can't punish them for. Put them against Sock or Fognini or Nadal etc and those holes become apparent - as we've seen.

I don't understand the simplistic assumption that, to be a top doubles player you must be a top singles player.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bobby Jr]

this has got to be the main reason. other reasons as people have mentioned:
- dad was a coach
- they're super professional and really threw themselves into being the best
- both have great hands whether that's through genetics or repetition or whatever

Oh yeah, there's those things too. Their dedication to being a team is the big one imo. There's lots of guys who, if they didn't have to worry about singles (fitness, play, practice) could massively improve their volleys in short order. Few would get to be quite as good at them but they would be so much better elsewhere it could cancel it out somewhat. Quality of serving and returns are a big one especially.

 

[6august]

 

[Deleted member 769694]

They are brothers, im sure they have said much worse to each other than "cover the alley". Brothers can do that to each other.

Other partners maybe sensitive, gotta be able to take it in doubles and team sports.

 

[smalahove]

I don't think it is too simplistic though. Top singles players not playing doubles saw the dominance of doubles specialist come about.

Singles players are fundamentally superior players typically in every stroke-making and physical respect except for volleying. Their serves are typically better, and their returns and ground games vastly better off both wings with few exceptions. Lots of players with such overall skills have clutzy hands so never become great volleyers but in doubles most of the volleying isn't about special volleying magic of the Edberg/Rafter/Cash ilk, rather just having quick hands and good positioning.

Jack Sock, Ryan Harrison, Fabio Fognini, Feliciano Lopez, and a pairing like Herbert/Mahut, have won majors quickly with new partners in recent years. Literally the more singles players play doubles, the less career doubles specialists seem to win. And it'll keep happening as guys of a singles level like Dodig, Pospisil start to play more doubles.

In doubles, volley is where it's at. You win matches by closing in on the net.

You need to have a great serve.
You need to have a great return.
You need to be able to make great pickup volleys.
You need to have great reactions skills when closing the net.

Among the top 20 in singles (prob top 50 as well), only Fed matches the best doubles specialists in the last two categories (pickup volleys and closing the net). Tsitsipas seems ok as well, but not at that level. In singles, you don't need that level of skills around the net, because you can use the whole court, whereas in doubles your placement needs to be perfect. In singles, you don't need to fend of a 100+ mph FH directed at your body, hit from the service line, when standing at the net. The single player uses the empty space (and has that instinct), whereas in doubles, when two players defend the net, the open space they leave is the sharp angle, which is the low percentage shot.

The single players you mention all have epic touch and/or volley skills (not sure about Harrison though). Feli Lopez' great assets when playing doubles is his leftie serve out wide on the ad side, and his S&V skills. Sock has great hands, volley skills and huge FH. Fognini has epic hands (doesn't move well at the net though). Herbert/Mahut are specialists. Dodig is prob one of the best players on tour at the net.

 

[1stVolley]

....
Jack Sock, Ryan Harrison, Fabio Fognini, Feliciano Lopez, and a pairing like Herbert/Mahut, have won majors quickly with new partners in recent years. Literally the more singles players play doubles, the less career doubles specialists seem to win. And it'll keep happening as guys of a singles level like Dodig, Pospisil start to play more doubles.

Top doubles specialists are fantastic players but the likes of the Bryans, Murray etc have huge gaps in their games they've managed to mitigate and which most other doubles specialists can't punish them for. Put them against Sock or Fognini or Nadal etc and those holes become apparent - as we've seen.

[/QUOTE]
Looking more closely at your claims about top singles players being great doubles players: not a single top 10 doubles player came even close to a .500 career winning percentage in singles except for 2 guys who played a single match and won.
Jack Sock played doubles as far back as high school where he won a state championship in that sport. Ryan Harrison has an 88-81 doubles record, modestly good. Lopez is 245-287 in doubles; Fognini is 170-178 in doubles. I don't think these guys really substantiate your claim.

The "huge gaps" you mention in the Bryans are apparently in singles; certainly not in doubles. This substantiates my point about the different skill sets.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Jack Sock ...Ryan Harrison ...Lopez ... Fognini ..I don't think these guys really substantiate your claim.

You seem to have skipped past a core point. They all won doubles majors slaying doubles specialists. Their career records in doubles is besides the point - when they focused on doubles for more than a few months in a row they quickly achieved the top accomplishments. Playing here and there of course they'll never post consistently good numbers like a full-time pair will - but their peak level potential is often higher with a fraction of the routine and experience of doubles specialists.

 

[1stVolley]

You seem to have skipped past a core point. They all won doubles majors slaying doubles specialists. Their career records in doubles is besides the point - when they focused on doubles for more than a few months in a row they quickly achieved the top accomplishments. Playing here and there of course they'll never post consistently good numbers like a full-time pair will - but their peak level potential is often higher with a fraction of the routine and experience of doubles specialists.

Unless documentation is forthcoming showing whether the doubles records I mentioned confirms your assumption that these were all scattered events and not during a period(s) of consistent doubles activity, I don't think you can prove your point using these folks. However, as I detail later in this post, Fognini, Harrison and Lopez all were competing in doubles tournaments early in their careers, which I take to mean none of them were doubles novices who immediately sprang into dominance amid all those doubles specialists.

I didn't assert that no singles player couldn't do well at doubles without first becoming a doubles specialist. I doubt that many could but this may be a moot point because not many singles players attempt to do this and achieve quick success without prior doubles experience.

As far as winning doubles majors slaying doubles specialists, Fognini won 4 Masters 250 and 1 Slam out of 14 tournaments Wikipedia listed. But he was competing in doubles since 2008, so he was no doubles novice. Harrison won 3 ATP 250 tournaments and 1 slam, the earliest being in 2001 (early in his career), so he was no doubles novice; Lopez won 5 titles--1 slam and 2 each of 250 and 500 level tournaments. This goes back to early in his career (2001) indicating that he was no novice doubles player either.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nowhere anywhere have I said or implied any of those players were novices. The fact you took that from my post suggests a lack of reading comprehension skills and/or bad-faith arguing here.

Unless documentation is forthcoming showing whether the doubles records I mentioned confirms your assumption that these were all scattered events and not during a period(s) of consistent doubles activity, I don't think you can prove your point using these folks. However, as I detail later in this post, Fognini, Harrison and Lopez all were competing in doubles tournaments early in their careers, which I take to mean none of them were doubles novices who immediately sprang into dominance amid all those doubles specialists.

I didn't assert that no singles player couldn't do well at doubles without first becoming a doubles specialist. I doubt that many could but this may be a moot point because not many singles players attempt to do this and achieve quick success without prior doubles experience.

As far as winning doubles majors slaying doubles specialists, Fognini won 4 Masters 250 and 1 Slam out of 14 tournaments Wikipedia listed. But he was competing in doubles since 2008, so he was no doubles novice. Harrison won 3 ATP 250 tournaments and 1 slam, the earliest being in 2001 (early in his career), so he was no doubles novice; Lopez won 5 titles--1 slam and 2 each of 250 and 500 level tournaments. This goes back to early in his career (2001) indicating that he was no novice doubles player either.

 

[ttwarrior1]

always thought they played with more power then alot of other doubles teams

 

[smalahove]

Great video that shows how specialists are that much better than singles players. The only reason top singles players can sometimes upset specialists is the same reason lefties pose trouble to the rest of the field in singles: it's a rare occurrence for the majority, and it takes time and practice to adjust. But there's not doubt that the way specialists play doubles is a far better percentage wise strategy than how singles players play doubles.

Just look at the quality of:

- the pickup volleys
- overheads and put-away volleys
- overall placement, and spin, height and pace choice
- coordinated movement
- anticipation

 

[Jaitock1991]

Apart from the obvious fact that the doubles tour is considerably less competitive than it could be due to the fact that the vast majority of players now specialize in singles and primarily only use doubles as a means to improve their net skills for the singles, I think that them being brothers and specializing only on the doubles gave them a unique level of intuitive understanding and chemistry that their opponents(sometimes more skilled objectively) simply could not match. Their team work was on another level compared to their competitors.

 

[clayqueen]

Hi all,

Was just wondering what attributes made the Bryan Brothers so good throughout their career?

I feel like there is constant discussion about what makes a certain singles player so good or what they excel/lack in, but in regards to doubles, I don't see any of that discussion or nuance. I never really followed doubles, but I always try to watch when I get the chance and I would really like to see what people think allows doubles teams to succeed.

Thanks!

The others were so bad. Before the calendar became so cramped, the best singles players used to play GS doubles regularly; McEnroe was #1 in singles and doubles simultaneously. Players like the Bryan Bros wouldn't have had a look in in those days.

 

[Bobby Jr]

That video is entertaining for sure but a whole lot of it (I only got 4 mins in) are points which would have been ended in a split second by a top singles player by vastly better ground strokes or overheads. Did you really watch the points and see how many of them were so long not because of great play but rather an inability to end them brutally with a cannonball like literally any top 20 player could do? That was half the comedy of the compilation - hald were points which should have ended but for bumbling play.

Notwithstanding - in the first few minutes of the vid much, if not most, of the best play was done by singles players who play doubles part-time. Go figure.

I am not denying there are mad skills in doubles specialists but they are primarily about knowing the patterns and coordinating well as a team.

Great video that shows how specialists are that much better than singles players....

Just look at the quality of:

- the pickup volleys
- overheads and put-away volleys
- overall placement, and spin, height and pace choice
- coordinated movement
- anticipation

 

[smalahove]

Notwithstanding - in the first few minutes of the vid much, if not most, of the best play was done by singles players who play doubles part-time. Go figure.

Then we’re seeing completely different things; a lot of the highlighted singles players doubles were from Laver Cup where they face other singles players, and it shows. Much more crude and simple play.

I am not denying there are mad skills in doubles specialists but they are primarily about knowing the patterns and coordinating well as a team.

I don’t disagree, and that’s exactly why can’t be great at both as you have to prioritize which patterns, shot training and team play to ingrain. You can not be excellent at both.

 

[smalahove]

The others were so bad. Before the calendar became so cramped, the best singles players used to play GS doubles regularly; McEnroe was #1 in singles and doubles simultaneously. Players like the Bryan Bros wouldn't have had a look in in those days.

go watch the footage i posted of McEnroe and Flemming, and you’ll see how ludicrous that statement is.

 

[clayqueen]

go watch the footage i posted of McEnroe and Flemming, and you’ll see how ludicrous that statement is.

I don't have to watch footage of McEnroe and Fleming I saw them live at Wimbledon and many times on TV playing at Wimbledon.

 

[smalahove]

I don't have to watch footage of McEnroe and Fleming I saw them live at Wimbledon and many times on TV playing at Wimbledon.

McEnroe + Fleming in '84 would probably have been bagel'ed by 42 year old Bryan bros., 2020 version.
The net players in '84 are hardly moving, and most of the time they're standing with straight legs. They'd be crushed by any of today's college team.
Now, if you're insinuating that had Fleming and McEnroe grown up in around the millennium, they'd be the dominant team? Perhaps, but that's just a speculation. Comparing the two actual teams at the height of their career, leaves absolutely no doubt on who'd win. The Bryans and by a landslide.

 

[clayqueen]

McEnroe + Fleming in '84 would probably have been bagel'ed by 42 year old Bryan bros., 2020 version.
The net players in '84 are hardly moving, and most of the time they're standing with straight legs. They'd be crushed by any of today's college team.
Now, if you're insinuating that had Fleming and McEnroe grown up in around the millennium, they'd be the dominant team? Perhaps, but that's just a speculation. Comparing the two actual teams at the height of their career, leaves absolutely no doubt on who'd win. The Bryans and by a landslide.

John McEnroe makes controversial call for doubles tennis to be ditched from the major tournaments
Four-time Wimbledon doubles champion says the standard of players in team format is poor and the money would be better spent on struggling singles players

By Simon Briggs
10:30PM GMT 05 Dec 2013

Doubles tennis must be in a bad way if John McEnroe, whose alliance with Peter Fleming brought him four Wimbledon titles, is calling for it to be scrapped from major tournaments.

Having flown into London this week for the Statoil Masters - an annual veterans’ event staged at the Royal Albert Hall - McEnroe was in feisty form on Thursday as he questioned what the team format is bringing to professional tennis.

“Why we are even playing doubles at this point is a mystery to me,” said McEnroe. “I love doubles but I don’t even recognise what this is. If there was a volleying contest from the service line, most of these guys couldn’t . . .” He stopped and sighed. “They play an inch from the net. It is like wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

“If you cut out doubles and gave that money to singles players ranked between 200 and 1,000, maybe that would do something for the game. Then some other guy who never really had the chance to play ends up becoming No 100 in the world instead of quitting when he’s No 400.

“Most doubles players, I hate to say, are the slow guys who were not quick enough to play singles.” The most successful male Americans of the moment - financially at any rate - are the Floridian twins Bob and Mike Bryan, whose 344 consecutive weeks at the top of the rankings is a record for any pairing.

Yet when McEnroe was asked whether the Bryans could have made it as singles players, he did not dissemble. “No,” he replied. “What do you think they are playing doubles for? I like them and single-handledly they’ve tried to keep doubles going. There is something cool to watch these twins.

“But sometimes I hear people saying they are the greatest doubles players of all time. I’m like ‘Excuse me?’ If you put Federer and Nadal together, I am taking them.”

John McEnroe makes controversial call for doubles tennis to be ditched from the major tournaments

Four-time Wimbledon doubles champion says the standard of players in team format is poor and the money would be better spent on struggling singles players

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[clayqueen]

I agree with McEnroe. The top singles players and the top doubles players were the same in his day, playing with wooden racquets. If current top singles players had the space in their calendar to include doubles at slams and Masters, hardly any of the current doubles players would win any titles.

 

[Enga]

The Bryan brothers were always working towards being the perfect doubles team from the very beginning. There's no use comparing singles to doubles, they may as well be completely different sports. The answer is simple: theyre the perfect team. All the sour grapes comes from the fact that lone wolf singles players who occasionally find a decent pairing will never compare to a born and bred doubles duo.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Then we’re seeing completely different things; a lot of the highlighted singles players doubles were from Laver Cup where they face other singles players, and it shows. Much more crude and simple play.

Literally the first 4 minutes of rallys are as I said - entertaining because opportunities to end them were bungled so they went on.

I don’t disagree, and that’s exactly why can’t be great at both as you have to prioritize which patterns, shot training and team play to ingrain. You can not be excellent at both.

I think a talented player willing to give an inch on his singles career could be a top doubles player at the same time as being a top singles player. The thing that would get boring is the effort-to-reward ratio in doubles.

 

[clayqueen]

Top singles players who form ad hoc pairing overnight go on to win the titles many times. Fed/Wawa beat the Bryan Bros on their way to Gold in OG 2008 and Rafa/ Marc also beat top doubles players to win Gold in 2016 when Rafa was injured and only turned to be the flag bearer for Spain.

 

[Winners or Errors]

I agree with McEnroe. The top singles players and the top doubles players were the same in his day, playing with wooden racquets. If current top singles players had the space in their calendar to include doubles at slams and Masters, hardly any of the current doubles players would win any titles.

I don't know. If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the top guys were playing doubles, the list of winners is full of guys who were not exactly household names in singles. It's hard to judge. Also, McEnroe saying what he said, given his partnership with Fleming (never a great singles player), just inflates Mac's legacy... something Mac is never averse to doing. ;-)

 

[clayqueen]

Why has the thread of Federer being a boring player disappeared?

 

[Moose Malloy]

McEnroe + Fleming in '84 would probably have been bagel'ed by 42 year old Bryan bros., 2020 version.
The net players in '84 are hardly moving, and most of the time they're standing with straight legs. They'd be crushed by any of today's college team.
Now, if you're insinuating that had Fleming and McEnroe grown up in around the millennium, they'd be the dominant team? Perhaps, but that's just a speculation. Comparing the two actual teams at the height of their career, leaves absolutely no doubt on who'd win. The Bryans and by a landslide.

Did you know 47 year old Mac won a doubles title with Bjorkman in 2006? I doubt he was better at doubles in 2006 than 1984. And I doubt the Bryans would agree with you.

 

[smalahove]

Did you know 47 year old Mac won a doubles title with Bjorkman in 2006? I doubt he was better at doubles in 2006 than 1984. And I doubt the Bryans would agree with you.

Jonas Björkman is an ATG doubles specialist, that was ranked #1 in doubles in '01 and '05.

This is the final you're referring to, and 1) it's pretty obvious Björkman is the reason the team-up was competitive and 2) this is still far behind today's doubles when it comes to movement and tactics. Not even close.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I don't know. If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the top guys were playing doubles, the list of winners is full of guys who were not exactly household names in singles. It's hard to judge. Also, McEnroe saying what he said, given his partnership with Fleming (never a great singles player), just inflates Mac's legacy... something Mac is never averse to doing. ;-)

Don't know what it takes to be a household name in singles, but these major winners/finalists in doubles in the 80s were a considerably better at singles than the Bryans and most of the specialists today. Most were top 10/20/30 in singles. If a tennis fan in the 80s really thought Jarryd or Fitzgerald were doubles specialists, they probably didn't follow tennis outside of grand slam singles finals or something.

Edberg
Wilander
Noah
Gomez
Cash
Curren
Leconte
Forget
Denton
Jarryd
Zivojinovic
Nystrom
Sanchez
Woodforde
McNamara
McNamee
Smid
Fitzgerald
Seguso
Casal
Gunthardt
Amaya
Gullikson

At bare minimum you'd be hard pressed to find a major in the 80s where all players from say the QF onward in a doubles majors weren't all at least entered in the singles draw as well. While at this year's AO, it looks like only 3 of the 16 players in the doubles QF played singles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Doubles