smart_player
Rookie
Hypothetically, both pairs being in their prime, who wouldwin and why?
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.
I'd go for the Woodies. There should be a poll with this thread.
i think i would be cool to seel players from old days to use our racquets and from our days to use woddies
i think i would be cool to seel players from old days to use our racquets and from our days to use woddies
i think i would be cool to seel players from old days to use our racquets and from our days to use woddies
Hmmm.The Bryans can play old school plus new school power.
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in 2014, the OP´s question is a historical one, since the woodies are no longer active.so it´s more about achievements and how they respectively handled their opposition, how hard that opposition was, etc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
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
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.
Hypothetically, both pairs being in their prime, who wouldwin and why?
I think the current players would beat former players. Because they are better athletes, better training, better everything.
what changes in training do you see over the last 10 years or so?
Here is Daniel Nestor's answer to your question:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Form-And-Fitness/2014/Nestor-Keeping-Up.aspx
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.
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.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
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 .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.
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.
That average "good day" must mean 1 day out of 100Newk and Rochey on an average good days would spank them
That average "good day" must mean 1 day out of 100