Woodies vs Bryans

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
The Bryans because they are awesome.

Seriously I have no idea I wasn't watching tennis when the Woodies played.
 

TonyB

Hall of Fame
Considering the accomplishments of the Woodies back in their prime and comparing them to the Bryans' accomplishments today, I'd have to put my money on the Woodies. They were quite dominant in their day. There's no real reason to think that the Bryans would really beat them on a regular basis, since none of the other teams of that era seemed to be able to do it.

Besides, the Bryans aren't even dominant NOW. Plenty of teams are beating them lately in every big tournament. I'm not sure how many titles they've won this year, but it isn't nearly as many as they've lost.
 

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
Besides, the Bryans aren't even dominant NOW. Plenty of teams are beating them lately in every big tournament. I'm not sure how many titles they've won this year, but it isn't nearly as many as they've lost.
The Bryans won their only title of 2008 so far at Cincinnati. It has been a year of close but no title at one tourney after another.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
On hard and grass, it's not even close, the Woodies would wipe the floor with the Bryans more often than not.
On clay, the Bryans have had slightly more success on the surface than the Woodies did, but I reckon they would be pretty evenly matched
 

AndrewD

Legend
Just look at how much trouble the Bryans had when playing against Woodbridge, irrespective of who he was playing against. The Bryans would have their greatest chance in a best out of 3 sets match but, over 5 sets, their lack of variety, weaker returns and general inflexibility would tell against them.

Ultimately, the Bryans are an excellent pair and brilliantly drilled. However, they lack the genuine class of a team like Woodbridge-Woodforde, Woodbridge-Bjorkman, McEnroe-Fleming, Hewitt-McMillan or other of the games greatest pairs. They're more media friendly than any of those teams but, they're just not as good.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
i think i would be cool to seel players from old days to use our racquets and from our days to use woddies
Dude they do that. There was an exhibition match between Tommy Haas and Marat Safin last year and both used wood racquets. Also the players on the senior tour like Borg and McEnroe (who both used wood) play with the graphite racquets.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
The Woodies all the way. They were better individually, check their singles ranking, and better as a team.
 
the bryans have won more but the woodies competed during a better doubles era.

in the 90s still some of the top players played in doubles (like kafelnikov, edberg, korda, rosset) while now almost all top doubles players are specialists who have peaked around 70-120 in singles at best).
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
Wow, i'm surprised most here pick the Woodies over the Bryans..I love the Woodies and their textbook volleys and placements. But IMHO the Bryans would beat the Woodies 8 out of 10 times..The sheer power of their serves and returns would kill the Woodies..The Bryans are able to play on top of the net because of their power and put balls away..The Woodies relied on longer rallies, defense, lobs, more old school etc..The Bryans can play old school plus new school power.
 

magnut

Hall of Fame
hard to say....doubles is a totally different game now. they used to play best out of five through the entire draw at the majors.
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
The Bryans are serving bombs 130's and higher..The Woodies spun their serves (i'm guessing around 100-110 as i did see them play several times in person). They would try to then hit a deep first volley and go from there. Returning:the Woodies tried to get their slice/flat returns down to the feet of their opponents: neither hit with much topspin.
..If they played against the Bryans that strategy would be difficult..
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
The Bryans are serving bombs 130's and higher..The Woodies spun their serves (i'm guessing around 100-110 as i did see them play several times in person). They would try to then hit a deep first volley and go from there. Returning:the Woodies tried to get their slice/flat returns down to the feet of their opponents: neither hit with much topspin.
..If they played against the Bryans that strategy would be difficult..
the thread is from 08 which explains why people chose the woodies over the bryans.
in 2014, the OP´s question is a historical one, since the woodies are no longer active.so it´s more about achievements and how they respectively handled their opposition, how hard that opposition was, etc
i like your description on how doubles changed over the last decade or so.
i don´t think the woodies could handle the power of todays doubles(not a popular opinion in this forum, i´m sure)
even the bryans find it increasingly hard imo to deal with the power of doubles teams like sock/pospisil
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
the thread is from 08 which explains why people chose the woodies over the bryans.
in 2014, the OP´s question is a historical one, since the woodies are no longer active.so it´s more about achievements and how they respectively handled their opposition, how hard that opposition was, etc
i like your description on how doubles changed over the last decade or so.
i don´t think the woodies could handle the power of todays doubles(not a popular opinion in this forum, i´m sure)
even the bryans find it increasingly hard imo to deal with the power of doubles teams like sock/pospisil
Thanks i didn't realize this started in 2008..Yes power really took over men's doubles so it's rarely as entertaining as it used to be..I think allowing one serve would help...I prefer women's doubles much better for longer rallies.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Thanks i didn't realize this started in 2008..Yes power really took over men's doubles so it's rarely as entertaining as it used to be..I think allowing one serve would help...I prefer women's doubles much better for longer rallies.
same here. women´s doubles has really improved imo over the last years.
on the men´s side the woodies were more enjoyable to watch than todays doubles.
i go as far back as hewitt/mcmillan, whom i saw play in 77 for the first time. their almost blind understanding of what the other was doing at all times was magical. it doesn´t get any better.
on the other side, the power and athleticism of today is awesome as well. particularly if you sit courtside and realize how fast the game has become
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
same here. women´s doubles has really improved imo over the last years.
on the men´s side the woodies were more enjoyable to watch than todays doubles.
i go as far back as hewitt/mcmillan, whom i saw play in 77 for the first time. their almost blind understanding of what the other was doing at all times was magical. it doesn´t get any better.
on the other side, the power and athleticism of today is awesome as well. particularly if you sit courtside and realize how fast the game has become
Yes i saw Hewitt McMillan who were great..In 1974 i saw Ramirez Gottfried play the Armitraj brothers on grass and the rallies were outstanding.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Yes i saw Hewitt McMillan who were great..In 1974 i saw Ramirez Gottfried play the Armitraj brothers on grass and the rallies were outstanding.
Ramirez and Vijay are two of the players i would have most wanted to see play(other than on youtube)
 

jrs

Professional
I think the current players would beat former players. Because they are better athletes, better training, better everything.
 

vegasgt3

Rookie
I've played both the Bryan's and Mark Woodforde. Don't forget Mark Woodforde was a top 15 singles player! Super talented guy, unbelievable lefty serve and smart player. The Bryan's have better chemistry though for sure.
My vote is the Woodies, but I think Fleming McEnroe were the best I ever saw.
 

TheRed

Professional
Just look at how much trouble the Bryans had when playing against Woodbridge, irrespective of who he was playing against. The Bryans would have their greatest chance in a best out of 3 sets match but, over 5 sets, their lack of variety, weaker returns and general inflexibility would tell against them.

Ultimately, the Bryans are an excellent pair and brilliantly drilled. However, they lack the genuine class of a team like Woodbridge-Woodforde, Woodbridge-Bjorkman, McEnroe-Fleming, Hewitt-McMillan or other of the games greatest pairs. They're more media friendly than any of those teams but, they're just not as good.
This. For high level experienced doubles players, the Bryans are highly efficient and fundamentally sound doubles players but they lack the extra gear like those other great doubles teams. They play in a league short of talent now so their fundamentals take them pretty far but the Bryan brothers don't have the touch and creativity the separated the great doubles teams from the rest of the pack
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
This. For high level experienced doubles players, the Bryans are highly efficient and fundamentally sound doubles players AGREE FULLY
but they lack the extra gear like those other great doubles teams. DISAGREE, WHAT EXTRA GEAR COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE OR NEED? They play in a league short of talent now HOW ARE TODAY'S DOUBLES PLAYERS SHORT OF TALENT WHEN THAT'S WHAT THEY SPECIALIZE IN? so their fundamentals take them pretty far LIKE MORE GRANDSLAMS AND TOURNAMENTS IN HISTORY AND STILL GOING STRONG but the Bryan brothers don't have the touch and creativity the separated the great doubles teams from the rest of the pack
TOUCH AND CREATIVITY? HOW ABOUT SERVING 130MPH WITH LASERLIKE PINPOINT RETURNS THAT SEPERATE THEM FROM THE PACK AND ANY OTHER TEAMS FROM THE PAST. AND WHEN NEEDED THE BRYANS CAN LOB, PLAY DEFENSE AND HIT TOUCH WITH THE BEST OF THEM..THE DAYS OF SPINNING IN THE FIRST SERVE AND PUSHING THE FIRST VOLLEY DEEP AND WORKING THE POINT ARE OVER. I LOVE THE WOODIES BUT THE BRYANS BEAT THEM 9 OUT OF TEN TIMES.
 
Last edited:

comeback

Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
Just look at how much trouble the Bryans had when playing against Woodbridge, WHEN? irrespective of who he was playing against. The Bryans would have their greatest chance in a best out of 3 sets match but, over 5 sets, their lack of variety DISAGREE, weaker returns DISAGREE and general inflexibility DISAGREE would tell against them.

Ultimately, the Bryans are an excellent pair and brilliantly drilled. However, they lack the genuine class WHAT GENUINE LACK OF CLASS? of a team like Woodbridge-Woodforde, Woodbridge-Bjorkman, McEnroe-Fleming, Hewitt-McMillan or other of the games greatest pairs. They're more media friendly than any of those teams but, they're just not as good. DISAGREE, THE BRYANS BEAT ALL THESE TEAMS 90% OF THE TIME WITH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
big controversy on this forum is about comparing generations:)
a doubles like Hoad/Rosewall for example might be considered greater than the Bryans,
but they wouldn´t be able to beat them in an actual match
the interesting thing about woodies vs bryans is, that they are not so
much apart in age. Woodbridge was born in 1971, the Bryans in 1978.
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
big controversy on this forum is about comparing generations:)
a doubles like Hoad/Rosewall for example might be considered greater than the Bryans,
but they wouldn´t be able to beat them in an actual match
the interesting thing about woodies vs bryans is, that they are not so
much apart in age. Woodbridge was born in 1971, the Bryans in 1978.
yeah only 7 years. Woodbridge mostly sliced his backand had a little topspin on his forehand and placed his serve strategically. Also both Woodbridge and Woodforde in their era were better singles players than the Bryans .
In an actual match the Woodies or any past great team would have a very difficult time with the Bryans..Maybe one of the record experts here can measure the Grand Slam wins and total tournaments etc..But i think the Bryans records might be better than previous eras teams.. Having said that i am old school and i love the older generation doubles more.
 
Last edited:

Gizo

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure if this has been posted somewhere else on the forum, but with the Bryan brothers finally winning their first Shanghai title on Sunday, they have now won every big doubles title that there is to win; all 4 grand slams, the YEC, the Olympic gold medal, the Davis Cup, and all 10 masters series events available to them, including Hamburg before it was downgraded.

It's interesting that with them being Californian, it took them until 2013 to finally win their home event at Indian Wells, but they won it again this year. Also in Canada it's funny how they've had such a great record in Toronto winning the event 4 times there, but have struggled in Montreal never winning it there and only reaching one final. They won Madrid twice when it was held indoors, and another 3 times since it moved to its current clay court facility.

They held all 4 grand slams simultaneously after winning Wimbledon in 2013, but couldn't complete the calendar grand slam and lost in the US Open semis.
 
The Woodies benefited from the early retirement of their arch rivals, the Dutch team Eltingh-Haarhuis who I recall reading even had a winning record vs them (14-13 or something like that). Especialy when Eltingh-Haarhuis had perhaps their best year ever in 98, and seemingly were only getting better at that point despite being at the top (usually #1 or #2) since 93, but Jacco wanted to spend more time with family.

The Bryans did not benefit from the early unexpected retirement of a rival team. Thus I pick the Bryans. It is also more remarkable what they were able to do when they are such weak singles players, unlike the Woodies who were quite good singles players. So in the context of the top players almost all skipping out on doubles, it might be they didn't even have many special doubles skills, but were simply the best singles players regularly playing doubles. The same would apply to Eltingh/Haarhuis. All of Paul, Jacco, Todd, and Mark were solid top 30 singles players and probably the only ones regularly playing doubles, so arguably didn't demonstrate anything special to help them dominate dominates. The Bryans meanwhile beat a ton of teams with players with far greater cumulative singles strength.
 
Just look at how much trouble the Bryans had when playing against Woodbridge, irrespective of who he was playing against. The Bryans would have their greatest chance in a best out of 3 sets match but, over 5 sets, their lack of variety, weaker returns and general inflexibility would tell against them.

Ultimately, the Bryans are an excellent pair and brilliantly drilled. However, they lack the genuine class of a team like Woodbridge-Woodforde, Woodbridge-Bjorkman, McEnroe-Fleming, Hewitt-McMillan or other of the games greatest pairs. They're more media friendly than any of those teams but, they're just not as good.
Woodbridge-Woodforde did not face an all time great of that caliber either. The best team they faced were Eltingh-Haarhuis, as I already mentioned they had lots of trouble beating them, only winning half of their career matches, and always having a super tough winning whenever they did. Then that team retired early, truly leaving them with nobody.

If Eltingh-Haarhuis who are not as good as the Bryans have a tied head to head I suspect the Bryans would have a winning one.
 

droliver

Professional
Gotta go with the Bryans.

Not as well rounded in many areas as the Woodies and others in the way you'd look at a singles player, but they absolutely overwhelm with their aggressiveness and teamwork. They've really elevated the level and style of play that dominates the game. Also to consider is their unprecedented consistency, a testament I think to their coach and former top 10 doubles player, Dave Macpherson, who gets them ready to play every week.
 
Bryans are better. The Woodies even had lots of trouble with Eltingh & Haarhuis when they played, and have a losing H2H with them. Had Jacco Eltingh not retired early the two teams would probably have about the same # of slams, which makes it obvious they aren't at the level of the Bryans.
 
Top