This question arises from this whiny item I found on Tennis Week's news section:
Doubles Is Missing Ingredient From French Open Feast
Television coverage of the French Open lacks an important ingredient: doubles. We want to see doubles matches. I have just watched a long, boring five-set singles match from the French Open. It was nothing but a slugger match: who can hit the hardest and last the longest.
Why can't we see some good doubles matches on television?
At least in doubles you see the serve-and-volley game, a variety of shots, lots of action, exciting exchanges and teamwork, which is most exciting to watch.
Many of us watching the French Open are USTA League doubles players. Doubles is our game so why aren't we seeing any doubles on television? Five sets of clay-court tennis is too long and boring — that format should only be used in the semis and finals. Three sets is long enough to watch a player in the early rounds — any more than that and it becomes boring.
Sponsors should get smart and promote the doubles teams. The matches are much more exciting to watch and certainly move a lot faster and remember: many of us viewers are USTA doubles players.
I hear it all the time: "More people play doubles than singles, therefore more people are interested in watching doubles." but I'm not buying this argument because the proof is in the pudding: every time I see doubles on TV, the stands are empty, whether it's men's women's or mixed doubles, nooobodeee is watching. If so many people want to see doubles (the writer claims) then how come I never see all of these doubles enthusiasts sitting in the stands?
Remember how empty the stands were during the doubles finals at the USO? If championship finals can't get people watch doubles then why should programmers waste their time and money showing a lot of doubles matches that nobody's going to watch?
Also, what five set match was she referring to that was so boring?