ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Federer: 17 Slams, 82 tournaments, 6 WTF, 23 Masters 1000
Bryans: 16 Slams, 102 tournaments, 3 WTF, 32 Masters 1000
Discuss!
Bryans: 16 Slams, 102 tournaments, 3 WTF, 32 Masters 1000
Discuss!
Who's more accomplished: Federer in singles or Bryans in doubles?
- Thread starter ScentOfDefeat
- Start date
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Which Bryan are we comparing against ?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Just the team. That's why I asked how successful they were comparatively in their respective fields.
HtownTennis
New User
Federer, and it's not close. The best tennis players in the world, in general, don't play doubles. Bryan's titles have been won against inferior competition compared to what Federer competes against. End of discussion.
I have to agree with this
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Why do you say that? Other than the fact you're a Federer fan. Give me your reasons for reaching that conclusion.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The best tennis players in the world in singles, you mean. How do you go about calculating inferior competition in doubles as compared to singles? You can't do that unless your criteria is "who plays better in singles?". But that's using one category to diminish the other, it's not serious debate.
There's no end to these discussions, unfortunately. Never has the entire world been absolutely submitted to a single consensus - and that is a good thing.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Is this a Trick question ???????? LOL
Dude, Singles is what matters in ATP tour. Doubles is a appetizer and afterthought. Doubles may disappear from the tour all together. Bryans if they played singles, they would be lucky to be ranked in top 100.
Dude, Singles is what matters in ATP tour. Doubles is a appetizer and afterthought. Doubles may disappear from the tour all together. Bryans if they played singles, they would be lucky to be ranked in top 100.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
i'm not sure you've got a single reply that understood the question.
what team held the previous record for major victories, and how many majors clear from them are the bryans now? the woodies maybe?
roger's 3 majors clear of the next guys, has a few outrageous streaks.
how long have the bryans been the #1 team?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I asked comparatively, in proportion. Who's stronger, a human being or an ant? A human being can crush an ant, but an ant can lift up to 5000x their body weight. I can't believe I need to explain proportion and comparison.
It seems to me that they've both been equally successful in their own fields.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Finally a decent reply. Sheesh.
HtownTennis
New User
Basically, the eye test. I watched Isner and Querry take the Bryan bros to a third set tiebreak. And they focus on singles. Imagine if they (and the rest of the top 50-100 players in the world) practiced nothing but doubles. I believe that the top singles players are more talented tennis players than the top doubles players. And this talent would win out if all else were equal (i.e. practice time and dedication to doubles). Have you ever watched Federer play doubles? He is incredible.
I'm not saying I think the Bryan bros wouldn't be competitive, but add the top singles players to the doubles pool, and tell me if you honestly believe the Bryans would still have that impressive resume. Now add all the doubles players to the singles pool, and tell me if you think it would impact Federer's resume. This is why Federer's accomplishments are so much greater.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
ac·com·plished
əˈkämpliSHt/
adjective
adjective: accomplished
highly trained or skilled.
əˈkämpliSHt/
adjective
adjective: accomplished
highly trained or skilled.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Fitness level for example. In doubles you are two players who covers either side of the court while when you are alone you have to cover the whole court by yourself. This is an important factor.
What else is that you can't compare doubles to singles. People don't even recognize the doubles.
As I said, not even half of their accomplishments is worth what federer, or any singles player has. Its 20 times much more work to make something of yourself in professional singles tennis.
Some of the GS champions in the doubles can't make it more than, lets say, 2 rounds in GS singles. Now why is that?
So much quality difference. Accomplishents there contra singles is not comparable.
It was an over statement by me that bryans accomplishments is not even half of feds accomplishments in singles.
Last edited:
tacou
G.O.A.T.
Jeez what's with these replies? I mean, Rog in his prime could prob beat the Bryans in a handicap match. But saying "singles is harder than doubles" is completely irrelevant, as is the fact that singles is more popular.
The Bryans are the greatest doubles team of all time, which can't be argued. In terms of majors Fed leads the singles tour, but obviously we wouldn't have a GOAT debate come up 6x per day if he were the consensus #1.
That said, I've got to give the edge to Roger. the Bryan's better numbers in masters and overall tourneys, to me, shows that they could have more majors than they do.
Both reached/won first major final in 2003, with the Bryans reaching a second final and having already been to three semis and three QFs, while Rog had just two SFs.
The Bryans have won two majors in a year twice, and three majors once. Roger has won two majors twice and three majors three times.
The Bryans have had one slamless year since 2003. Roger has had two.
Every way you look at it the Bryans seems to do more/peak for longer (makes sense for doubles) but Roger's dominance was greater and his overall numbers at majors are more impressive.
That said, it seems like Rog has one last miracle run in him at best, while the Bryans could easily win 5 more.
The Bryans are the greatest doubles team of all time, which can't be argued. In terms of majors Fed leads the singles tour, but obviously we wouldn't have a GOAT debate come up 6x per day if he were the consensus #1.
That said, I've got to give the edge to Roger. the Bryan's better numbers in masters and overall tourneys, to me, shows that they could have more majors than they do.
Both reached/won first major final in 2003, with the Bryans reaching a second final and having already been to three semis and three QFs, while Rog had just two SFs.
The Bryans have won two majors in a year twice, and three majors once. Roger has won two majors twice and three majors three times.
The Bryans have had one slamless year since 2003. Roger has had two.
Every way you look at it the Bryans seems to do more/peak for longer (makes sense for doubles) but Roger's dominance was greater and his overall numbers at majors are more impressive.
That said, it seems like Rog has one last miracle run in him at best, while the Bryans could easily win 5 more.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
What's wrong with that? Comparing tennis today to the 1970s and even 90s is just as different as comparing singles and doubles.
Both the Bryans and Fed have had four chances every year to win majors at the same four events, comparable ranking system, world tour finals, masters, etc.
There is plenty to look at and compare, nevermind the fact that their numbers are extremely similar across the board
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Again, I understand the points being made here. Federer is obviously a superior tennis player if you compare him to the Bryans. And it's obvious that singles players can be competitive or even better than doubles players when they play doubles. But to answer the question I'm asking you'll have to accept that I'm looking for who achieved more in their respective field. The fact that it's basically the same sport but played differently gives us an advantage: we can compare achievements (something you can't do when when comparing, say, basketball and golf) while still admitting that high ranked singles players are usually better than doubles players.
That's all.
That's all.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. So many GOAT debates going on in these threads and we can't even compare singles achievements with doubles achievements?
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, yeah, that is also absolutely meaningless, so this doesn't exactly help your case.
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
I think people do understand your question.
If we translate their logic to your example, it is basically like saying this:
Federer = ant
Bryans = human
The ant lifted 1700 pounds.
The human lifted 1600 pounds.
The ant is stronger because it is tougher for it to lift the same weight as the human, but it actually lifted more.
This is just the way those posters chose to compare/measure accomplishments, first equating to the same value based on difficulty and then comparing. This is similar in logic to converting money to the same currency before comparing.
You may choose to compare the strength of the two by comparing them to their relative species. ie) ant's 1700 vs the next strongest ant's strength, and then the strongest human vs the next strongest human's strength. But that is your way of measuring.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Yes, it's still a work in progress, which makes it even more interesting.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
It just means that you can make any kind of comparison as long as you state the criteria. And the criteria here is obviously not "who's a better tennis player, Federer or the Bryan brothers?" It's who accomplished more in their own field.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I'm not complaining. I'm just noticing that your contribution to the thread is based on the idea that singles is harder than doubles and Federer is a better player than the Bryans. I agree with that but it has nothing to do with the question I asked.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Yes, this is what I'm doing. I used the ant example to explain relativity, because in absolute terms it's obvious to anyone that Federer is a better tennis player.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
ac·com·plished adjective
: very skillful : having or showing the skill of an expert
: very successful : having done or achieved many good or important things
HtownTennis
New User
Let me make an exaggeration, for effect. Let's say that three grown men enter in an annual 3 on 3 basketball tournament with 5th graders. Let's say that the three men win the title 10 years in a row. And then you ask who has accomplished more in their careers, the men with 10 championships or Michael Jordan with only 6 championships?
Obviously this is an exaggeration, but the same concept applies to your question. Federer has won his titles against the very best singles players that tennis has to offer. Not to downgrade the Bryans' titles, but I don't think you can say the same thing about theirs.
This is a pretty simple concept to understand. If you refuse to accept it, or if you don't believe the top singles players would win GS doubles tournaments, then that's your opinion. But I don't think it would be a very popular one.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Guys, we all know that Federer is more skilled. The best thing to do here is just answer the question to create a good debate. Don't talk about competition or how much harder singles is to win at. Just answer the damn question.
That said, going on straight accomplishments I'd say Federer, but by a narrow margin. The Bryan's also have 397+ weeks at #1 and 9 YE #1's.
And of course Federer has 5 YE #1's and 302 weeks at #1 with 237 of those being consecutive (not sure what the Bryan's number is here).
But right now, Federer has one more slam and 3 more YEC. Also keep in mind that the only slam title the Bryan's ever defended was the AO in 06 and 07.
Federer, on the other hand has done this many times at the AO, Wimbledon and the USO.
And speaking of Wimbledon, Federer has 7 of these while the Bryan's have 3 in comparison, and don't forget that Wimbledon is the only slam where doubles players actually have to play 5 sets with AD scoring. The only slam they've won less is RG with 2 of those.
Based on all this, as I said, I give it to Federer, but not by much. It is very close and understandable if someone says the Bryan's.
That said, going on straight accomplishments I'd say Federer, but by a narrow margin. The Bryan's also have 397+ weeks at #1 and 9 YE #1's.
And of course Federer has 5 YE #1's and 302 weeks at #1 with 237 of those being consecutive (not sure what the Bryan's number is here).
But right now, Federer has one more slam and 3 more YEC. Also keep in mind that the only slam title the Bryan's ever defended was the AO in 06 and 07.
Federer, on the other hand has done this many times at the AO, Wimbledon and the USO.
And speaking of Wimbledon, Federer has 7 of these while the Bryan's have 3 in comparison, and don't forget that Wimbledon is the only slam where doubles players actually have to play 5 sets with AD scoring. The only slam they've won less is RG with 2 of those.
Based on all this, as I said, I give it to Federer, but not by much. It is very close and understandable if someone says the Bryan's.
Last edited:
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I never said top singles players couldn't win doubles Slams, quite the contrary. If you look carefully at all my interventions in this thread I always state that Federer is the superior player. But he didn't make a career in doubles. The Bryans made a career in doubles. And the Bryans had to play against the best teams that made a career in doubles. Nestor and Zimonjic are hardly comparable to 5th graders in relation to the Bryan brothers. The Bryans have won their doubles titles against the best doubles teams.
If Federer wanted to have a career like McEnroe's and extend his dominance to doubles, he could have. Esther Vergeer did. But of course, using your logic, Federer's accomplishment in his field is also more impressive than Esther's in hers because he could beat her 100 times out of 100 by only serving and returning the ball once.
HtownTennis
New User
Serious question: how can you ignore competition when talking accomplishments in a sport where accomplishments depend not only on your own skill but also the skill of your opponents?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Very interesting analysis. Thank you. And as another poster rightly pointed out, they're all still playing, which makes it even more exciting. And they're all still capable of adding to their records.
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
In terms of a comparison that treats singles and doubles as different sports, then I agree with your approach.
However, as the pool of players for both sports are same (all tennis players), I personally think that a combination of both approaches would be most representative, assuming that the assumption about the best tennis players in the world not playing doubles consistently is true.
This is different than say, comparing, Federer to Tiger Woods, where comparing to their peers within their respective sports is the best approach, because both compete in a tour where the best players in the world participate.
In the case of Federer vs. Bryans, if the assumption noted earlier is true, then one could make the case that doubles players aren't competing against the best players in the world, and thus have inflated achievements. It is similar to "weak era" argument often used, which is true, if the assumption that the "weak era" does exist. ie) If the top 1000 singles players retired today, and the #1001 ranked player(today) wins the next 30 slams, his achievements are still not as good as Federer's 17 slams.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
Sure it does..it's a tennis discussion board and we're talking about a current singles player and a current doubles team who have achieved very similar stats. This topic is extremely easy to discuss. I also find the GOAT talk "meaningless" but this subject is a bit more interesting to me, not sure why everyone else is having such a hard time.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Can't the Bryans be that much better than their opponents, like Federer was during that 2003-2007 streak? I mean, how can you measure the difference between Federer and his opposition and compare it to the difference between the Bryans and their opposition? Of course, the Bryans have absolutely ridiculous records (like 9x year end #1) but so does Federer (his semifinal streak, defending loads of Slam titles, etc). All I ask is an opinion based on comparing the numbers, because they're palpable, and not a subjective opinion about the level of opposition, because it will always favor the player you prefer.
Both are goat in their sport in single and double, no question, but you can't compare single to double. Also competition in single is much more tougher since there are more players compete in single.
Algo
Hall of Fame
Ben Rothenberg @BenRothenberg 4m4 minutes ago Greenwich, London
Bryans are beyond dominant. In last 28 months (since August 2012), they've won:
All four Slams,
All nine Masters,
Olympics,
WTFs.
Apples to apples. Doubles to doubles, singles to singles.
I'd have to pick the Bryans, by a very, very narrow margin though.
Bryans are beyond dominant. In last 28 months (since August 2012), they've won:
All four Slams,
All nine Masters,
Olympics,
WTFs.
Apples to apples. Doubles to doubles, singles to singles.
I'd have to pick the Bryans, by a very, very narrow margin though.
HtownTennis
New User
I respect your opinion to treat singles and doubles like separate sports, in which case feel free to compare accomplishments. I don't share this opinion, because I believe the accomplishments should be based on the competition level of all tennis players. I think I've made this clear.
And no, that is not what I have said. I said it was an exaggeration twice, why you're taking it literally I have no idea. I have no problem comparing Esther's accomplishments to other female wheelchair players, taking into account singles and doubles titles based on her level of competition with respect to all female wheelchair players.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Well, that's all I'm doing in respect to doubles. If doubles can be so easily dominated by singles players, if it is indeed "the same sport", then you can't possibly diminish the doubles players for not having the top singles players as regular opponents because they have chosen to dedicate themselves to singles. If it was thought of as the same sport, everyone would play both singles and doubles, and I suspect we wouldn't have the same champions in either singles or doubles.
It's only because more attention is given to singles that the best players are usually singles players. If we could imagine an ATP tour where playing singles and doubles was compulsory we would see a different breed of player. The fact that singles and doubles sometimes overlaps is just an exception, because the way tennis has been organized they might as well be considered different sports.
HtownTennis
New User
Replace with more prize money. If doubles paid more than singles, you can bet that ATP doubles would be the highest quality tennis in the world. I have no idea about women's wheelchair tennis, and if the best players play both singles and doubles. But, I know this is not the case in the ATP, so that is why I view their accomplishments differently.
Federer in men's singles tennis, Serena in both women's singles and doubles, the Bryan brothers in men's doubles. They all have amazing accomplishments and feats of dominance in those respective fields.
I suppose Federer does have the distinction of beating the Bryan brothers in doubles 3 different times with 3 different partners. That includes the victory with Wawrinka in the semi-finals of the Beijing Olympics, which is arguably the most important tournament in the doubles game ahead of any the majors.
The only time Federer faced either brother in singles was his straight sets win over Bob Bryan in the 2nd round at Marseille in 2001.
I suppose Federer does have the distinction of beating the Bryan brothers in doubles 3 different times with 3 different partners. That includes the victory with Wawrinka in the semi-finals of the Beijing Olympics, which is arguably the most important tournament in the doubles game ahead of any the majors.
The only time Federer faced either brother in singles was his straight sets win over Bob Bryan in the 2nd round at Marseille in 2001.
Algo
Hall of Fame
Us wheelchair players want to play as much as we possibly can everytime we have a tournament, so we sign to both categories.
It's still a mostly amateur sport and I probably could say that I speak for most if I say that the only reason we play it is because we love the sport and because doing sports is good for us (and everyone, but probably specially us) in so many levels.
It's still like that at the higher level. But I'm less than a journeyman :lol:
