Why isn't doubles more popular than singles?

[TTMR]

At the Rec level, I would say 2/3 matches I see at the park are doubles. If there are only two people on the court, most of the time the two are just hitting around rather than match playing. I'm often forced to play doubles even if I'd prefer to play singles because it's what everyone else does.

So why is it at the pro level nobody cares about doubles? Is it not conducive to TV? That seems wrong to me since the matches go by a lot faster in doubles than singles and the match times are more consistent. Furthermore, team sports are generally more popular than individual sports. In doubles it would be possible to create team names and whatnot. Yet, I can't even tell you who won doubles grand slams in 2019 and I have never watched a doubles match from beginning to end.

Why this division between what's popular recreationally and what's popular professionally?

 

[Standaa]

At the Rec level, I would say 2/3 matches I see at the park are doubles. If there are only two people on the court, most of the time the two are just hitting around rather than match playing. I'm often forced to play doubles even if I'd prefer to play singles because it's what everyone else does.

that must be one exceptional park

because singles are more common even at the rec level

 

[sredna42]

that must be one exceptional park

because singles are more common even at the rec level

No way. They.push doublescas they can get more use out of the courts = more $, plus its easier on the body.

High level doubles is friggin awesome. That wimby final was incredible, the ATP are making a big mistake not pushing and promoting doubles more imo

 

[ollinger]

At the Rec level, I would say 2/3 matches I see at the park are doubles

that must be one exceptional park

Definitely more doubles played than singles; had a patient who worked at USTA headquarters (about 6 miles from my office, in White Plains NY) who said the data clearly show this. You do see a fair amount of singles in parks (where cost may not be an issue), but at indoor facilities and outdoor clubs, I see far more doubles being played.

 

[Lew II]

I find it much easier to arrange a singles match. 2 people vs 4.

 

[reaper]

No way. They.push doublescas they can get more use out of the courts = more $, plus its easier on the body.

High level doubles is friggin awesome. That wimby final was incredible, the ATP are making a big mistake not pushing and promoting doubles more imo

It's amazing that the ATP put so much prizemoney into doubles, then seem to try and keep it a secret. It must be running at a loss when the entertainment value is much higher than many singles matches.

 

[PeteD]

The money is doing everything they can to slow down the game of tennis. Doubles doesn't slow down well.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Never cared for watching doubles but it's fun to play once in a blue moon. Here where I live almost only old people play it.

 

[Standaa]

No way. They.push doublescas they can get more use out of the courts = more $, plus its easier on the body.

High level doubles is friggin awesome. That wimby final was incredible, the ATP are making a big mistake not pushing and promoting doubles more imo

don’t think so. It’s much much easier for a recreational guy to arrange a singles match (like @Lew II said), not to mention in doubles you also need to find people who play on a similar level for an even match (much harder to find 4 of these people) and usually you want your partner to be someone you know and your styles to match up.

I play in this big tennis center with up to 20 courts and the ratio is like one doubles match to 10 singles.

plus I don’t understand why the OP wonders why aren’t doubles more popular when he himself admits to not following the doubles tour.

 

[Red Rick]

It's actually an interesting question.

I think it's a positive feedback loop from more media attention for singles players >better players will focus on singles>more media attention for singles>top players abandoning doubles

I think doubles was more popular when top players played both. When players started specialising, all the attention went to singles players.

Doubles can easily be more entertaining than singles matches, but I guess it lacks the star power, signature shots, and predictability that you like from a game.

 

[Luke Yonex]

At the Rec level, I would say 2/3 matches I see at the park are doubles. If there are only two people on the court, most of the time the two are just hitting around rather than match playing. I'm often forced to play doubles even if I'd prefer to play singles because it's what everyone else does.

So why is it at the pro level nobody cares about doubles? Is it not conducive to TV? That seems wrong to me since the matches go by a lot faster in doubles than singles and the match times are more consistent. Furthermore, team sports are generally more popular than individual sports. In doubles it would be possible to create team names and whatnot. Yet, I can't even tell you who won doubles grand slams in 2019 and I have never watched a doubles match from beginning to end.

Why this division between what's popular recreationally and what's popular professionally?

Because in singles Its a persons individual skill, In doubles one player may carry another so its not a individual skill. People want to know who is the best of the best you cant do this in doubles, Simple

 

[TTMR]

Because in singles Its a persons individual skill, In doubles one player may carry another so its not a individual skill. People want to know who is the best of the best you cant do this in doubles, Simple

But that's true in team sports as well. Very often star players carry teams of average players. I don't think it would be too hard to figure out statistically who is the better half of a doubles tennis pair.

By your logic, we should just have one on one basketball matches with Kawhi Leonard versus LeBron James, for instance.

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

Doubles just doesn't "look" as dynamic on TV as singles.

But at the rec level people like it since pusher tactics are easily countered.

 

[Luke Yonex]

But that's true in team sports as well. Very often star players carry teams of average players. I don't think it would be too hard to figure out statistically who is the better half of a doubles tennis pair.

By your logic, we should just have one on one basketball matches with Kawhi Leonard versus LeBron James, for instance.

No that's your logic not mine, My logic says some sports are suited to teams rugby , soccer etc (more appealing) and some to an individual skills (tennis, boxing, golf etc) . Simple

 

[BeatlesFan]

The lack of star power among the doubles teams. When McEnroe-Fleming or Edberg-Jarryd played doubles, there was tons of interest.

 

[TTMR]

No way. They.push doublescas they can get more use out of the courts = more $, plus its easier on the body.

High level doubles is friggin awesome. That wimby final was incredible, the ATP are making a big mistake not pushing and promoting doubles more imo

I tried to find decent highlights of the doubles final on YouTube. Either nobody made any or Wimbledon forces YouTube to take down highlights. What's the point of this? They don't upload their own. Is it to decrease interest in tennis to make the game more exclusive? I've don't get it.

 

[mbm0912]

It's like watching the WNBA.

 

[Stilljonesing]

I find it much easier to arrange a singles match. 2 people vs 4.

I think most people also don't like standing at the net as many people drill the ball at them 100+ MPH. You aren't going to die from getting hit but there are many places on your body that would make for a bad time. I never cared for that aspect and never liked the lines as well as how confusing it could get as to who's ball it was. If you like tennis you pretty much are already attracted more to the individual sport of it.

 

[Shaolin]

It's not marketable.

Doubles teams change every other day. Random dubs specialists with no singles rankings.

Easy to market Nadal vs Federer. Not easy to market Tecau/Rojer vs Klassen/M. Venus.

I agree that pro dubs is underrated though and really fun to watch. Anyone going to a professional event should try to see at least one dubs match.

 

[sredna42]

Doubles is great fun as long as everyone has an idea of the basics, so you can get some good natured tactical to and fro going on. But doubles really sucks when you get one of those guys who only wants to play because
1. He's too unfit for singles
2. He wants to really the exploit the extreme wide serve cause it makes him feel like a hero when it works, by serving from a stupid position that exposes his net man
3. He needs a scapegoat to blame for any loss to protect his ego

I've almost come to blows with one or two of these types.

 

[r2473]

At the Rec level, I would say 2/3 matches I see at the park are doubles. If there are only two people on the court, most of the time the two are just hitting around rather than match playing. I'm often forced to play doubles even if I'd prefer to play singles because it's what everyone else does.

So why is it at the pro level nobody cares about doubles? Is it not conducive to TV? That seems wrong to me since the matches go by a lot faster in doubles than singles and the match times are more consistent. Furthermore, team sports are generally more popular than individual sports. In doubles it would be possible to create team names and whatnot. Yet, I can't even tell you who won doubles grand slams in 2019 and I have never watched a doubles match from beginning to end.

Why this division between what's popular recreationally and what's popular professionally?

Pretty simple. Because the top players in the world don’t play doubles. Doubles is very popular at IW when Federer or Nadal are playing.

Same reason why the stands are empty when two “unknown “ players are playing. The level is of course amazing, but 99% of people would rather watch Federer crush a first round pigeon 2&2

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Why isn't Badminton more popular than Tennis? LOL
Why my neighbour's car is faster than mine?
Why did Avengers Endgame beat Avatar at the box office...

 

[BeatlesFan]

It's like watching the WNBA.

Not if you watched McEnroe-Fleming, the greatest doubles team ever, and exciting too.

 

[TTMR]

Pretty simple. Because the top players in the world don’t play doubles. Doubles is very popular at IW when Federer or Nadal are playing.

Same reason why the stands are empty when two “unknown “ players are playing. The level is of course amazing, but 99% of people would rather watch Federer crush a first round pigeon 2&2

Why aren't the doubles guys considered the top players in the world rather than Federer and Nadal?

 

[Blade0324]

Doubles is far more common in rec tennis than singles. At least in the US. Other than league matches and some tournaments there is almost never anyone playing singles on courts it's about 80% doubles. Virtually everyone I know that plays tennis go watch doubles and almost no singles when they attend pro events. I'm actually very surprised doubles is not leading the way. And no I'm not old!

 

[Tennisbg]

We play around 95% singles. Doubles rarely.

 

[weelie]

Why isn't decathlon the most watched athletics event?

Singles makes for warriors. Doubles is a social event.

In the under-50 crowd singles is where it is at here. Might be different in the US.

 

[thehustler]

Why aren't the doubles guys considered the top players in the world rather than Federer and Nadal?

I think it's because tennis is considered (or at least I consider it) an individual sport first. Take the top doubles guys and throw them in singles and I doubt they do as well. Very rarely do you get a Johnny Mac who was #1 in both. Singles is where the action is at, where the money and prestige is at as well. Could anybody (without googling) name the last 10 doubles champs at Wimby? How about singles? Doubles and singles are entirely different games. I played in a doubles meetup group for the last 3 weeks, and I did ok, but when I finally played singles I excelled. I got to cover the whole court, didn't have to worry if my partner missed or anything like that. In my current group we play mainly singles, even if there's 4 of us. We'll play singles on 2 courts and if we have time we'll get a second set in with someone else. Doubles would be only if all courts were in use and thankfully they never are.

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

Athletic activities are a celebration of youth, and singles puts that on display to a much greater extent.

 

[dblsplayer]

In SoCal, doubles is quite popular; even USTA leagues favor doubles. Yes, of course there are singles players as well. Always amazed at the large crowds for doubles at B&P Indian Wells vs other televised tournaments including slams. I have been on court two many times when it was completely full for doubles matches (8,000 seats), of course at IW a lot of the bigger names play both singles and doubles.

 

[jm1980]

Why did Avengers Endgame beat Avatar at the box office...

One of the main reasons why Avatar held the record for as long as it did was the devalued US dollar in 2009.

If we used the 2009 exchange rates for Endgame, it would have reached $3.5 billion instead of $2.8 billion

 

[Cashman]

I am sure doubles would be extremely popular if you were able to get the best players playing, and gave it equal exposure to singles. Unfortunately the nature of modern professional tennis is that you can't rise to the very top of either singles or doubles whilst playing the other discipline to a high level - so the best players have to choose.

When it comes down to a strict head-to-head, singles will always be a better financial deal for tournaments and top players because:

• Singles matches tend to last longer, increasing the potential of television revenue
• Singles tends to have more expansive shotmaking, which appeals more to casual fans who don't necessarily appreciate tactics
• Tournaments make more money when they're paying 2 players instead of 4 per match
• Players make more when they aren't splitting prizemoney with a teammate
• Easier for singles players to build an individual brand/profile for endorsements
• Singles players aren't reliant on a teammate's fitness/form/schedule to earn a living

You could get a lot more good singles players on the doubles tour by dramatically increasing doubles prizemoney, which is disgraceful. Cabal and Farah each earned about a tenth of what Djokovic did for winning Wimbledon - heck, you make almost as much by losing in Q2 of singles as you do for making the doubles 4R (or the mixed SF). But the return on investment would be pretty questionable when you consider how much it would cost, and the fact that most fans are perfectly happy watching singles.

These days, professional doubles is mostly just a way to give marginal players some extra work and keep them on the tour. It's sad for people who enjoy the discipline, but I don't see it changing.

 

[Crisstti]

Some good answers here

 

[MajesticMoose]

Singles takes more skill.

 

[Deleted member 766172]

The cream of the crop play singles. It is the path to glory at the professional level. Also, when you are that good, I'm guessing you don't really want to have to rely on your partner not messing things up. I would also guess that, for the same reason, many of the pros that play doubles now started out playing singles until they could no longer hang with the competition. Doubles is probably more popular recreationally because those who are playing it are either out of shape (I am also out of shape, so not trying to offend) or doing so for its social benefits.

 

[sureshs]

Too many people on the court.

 

[darkhorse]

I've often wondered this, and I think it has a lot to do with how doubles looks on TV, especially right now on the men's side. Most points are very short and the server dominates, which turns the casual fan away. If you have a good understanding of tennis strategy it becomes more enjoyable but it can still be a bit boring when the same pattern is used every point (serve-weak return-put away).

 

[Dartagnan64]

Only tennis players understand doubles. Singles is easier to understand for a lay person and casual tennis fan.

When I go to the first week of Indian Wells, there are tons of 50+ tennis players watching all the doubles matches while the early singles matches are half full. Since most older tennis players play doubles they can relate to the doubles matches more. But a younger singles player or casual fan will not get the strategy, positioning, etc that sets up the points. They'll just see a lot of chatting and quick points which are not as much fun for them.

 

[SaintPetros]

Doubles is great fun as long as everyone has an idea of the basics, so you can get some good natured tactical to and fro going on. But doubles really sucks when you get one of those guys who only wants to play because
1. He's too unfit for singles
2. He wants to really the exploit the extreme wide serve cause it makes him feel like a hero when it works, by serving from a stupid position that exposes his net man
3. He needs a scapegoat to blame for any loss to protect his ego

I've almost come to blows with one or two of these types.

I was gonna say, I could feel some serious investment in this post lol

 

[Standaa]

One of the main reasons why Avatar held the record for as long as it did was the devalued US dollar in 2009.

If we used the 2009 exchange rates for Endgame, it would have reached $3.5 billion instead of $2.8 billion

why aren’t these stats adjusted for inflation?

 

[jm1980]

why aren’t these stats adjusted for inflation?

It's hard to account for inflation and exchange rates all over the world

 

[JW10S]

So why is it at the pro level nobody cares about doubles?
Why this division between what's popular recreationally and what's popular professionally?

Pro doubles would be more popular if the top singles players played doubles. I've been to tournaments, like Indian Wells, where Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and other top singles players have played doubles and the stands were packed for those matches. But aside from the Bryan brothers most fans would be hard pressed to name any other top teams of doubles specialists. And the reason the top singles players don't put much emphasis on doubles is a simple one--money. Depending on the tournament the doubles players are competing for between a 3rd and a 4th of the amount of money the singles players vie for, mixed doubles even less--and then they have to split that with their partner. This week in Canada the singles champ will win just over $1 million, the doubles champs will split just over $300,000, or @ $150,000 each. So singles gets the most attention from the players themselves and the public.

I've always said though that some entrepreneur should put together an exhibition event where they invite the top singles players and have them pair up for a doubles only event--it would sell out everyday.

 

[tonylg]

I really wanted to watch the Wimbledon doubles final (moreso than the singles) and bought a subscription to Kayo (Australian Fox streaming service) just for that tournament.

It wasn't covered. There were full match replays of the wheelchair tennis, but no doubles except highlights of the Murray/Mother show.

As for those who think the top singles players are the cream of the crop, most have hands of wood and would suck against the likes of Cabal, Farah, Bryans, etc.

 

[tonylg]

Only tennis players understand doubles. Singles is easier to understand for a lay person and casual tennis fan.

When I go to the first week of Indian Wells, there are tons of 50+ tennis players watching all the doubles matches while the early singles matches are half full. Since most older tennis players play doubles they can relate to the doubles matches more. But a younger singles player or casual fan will not get the strategy, positioning, etc that sets up the points. They'll just see a lot of chatting and quick points which are not as much fun for them.

Went to our local 250 tournament earlier this year and took a bunch of people who barely even knew the rules of tennis to finals day. Everyone was riveted to their seats for the doubles final (Koolhof/Daniell v Ram/Salisbury) and bored to death by the Medvedev Nishikori singles final. That included me, who spent the week watching doubles on outside courts while my centre court seat was empty.

The court is the same surface as Melbourne and although I think it plays a little faster up here, the singles is just a boring slogfest from the baseline.

Perhaps it's not Nick Kyrgios that will save tennis, but doubles. Take away people's infatuation with GOATs and it's the more interesting tennis right now.

 

[Sudacafan]

that must be one exceptional park

because singles are more common even at the rec level

I think it depends more on age groups.
Seniors are more prone to doubles.

 

[Blade0324]

I disagree about the age argument. I know many in the 25-35 age range that play 100% doubles and will not even consider playing singles. Our tournament draws are even larger for doubles than they are for singles.

 

[toby55555]

When top singes players enter the crowds are much bigger; your average doubles specialist is completely unknown to most punters so there is no hype surrounding the match. For me there has a to be a Brit involved to get my interest; just watched Joe Salisbury and Ram win a tight match v Martin & Chardy.

 

[toby55555]

I disagree about the age argument. I know many in the 25-35 age range that play 100% doubles and will not even consider playing singles. Our tournament draws are even larger for doubles than they are for singles.

Where I am that is true of busy clubs where it's difficult or not allowed to book courts. I also belong to a quieter club with online booking for all but a couple of social doubles priority evenings and singles is way more popular.