Australian Open Final : Bryans beat. Haase/Sijsling 6-3 6-4 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Australian Open Final : Bryans beat. Haase/Sijsling 6-3 6-4

Pratik
01-26-2013, 01:04 PM
They make it look so easy. A few good exchanges but is was a really disappointing final. Lasted only 53 minutes.

Haase/Sijsling started off well by breaking Bob in the first game. A couple of good lob winners from Haase in that. After that it was a one way street. No real signs of nerves from the Dutch. Bryans were just the much better team.

84th title.
Record 13th major. :worship:
They sure love it here. 6th Australian Open title(in the last 8) in their 9th final(in the last 10)

Chirag
01-26-2013, 01:05 PM
Nice result for the twins . Break the record and get their 6th AO :worship:

Yves.
01-26-2013, 01:06 PM
Very one sided final. The Bryans were alot better in almost every aspect.
Some very bad communication between Haase and Sijsling.

CooCooCachoo
01-26-2013, 01:25 PM
Can't stand to see this team win matches :sobbing:

nole_no1
01-26-2013, 01:28 PM
One of the easiest GS finals for the twins. Easier than the scoreline says

Yves.
01-26-2013, 01:39 PM
Can't stand to see this team win matches :sobbing:

The Bryans? Why, they played really well today. Haase and Sijsling were playing baaaad.

ProdigyEng
01-26-2013, 01:42 PM
NID. Bryan twins are the GOATs of doubles Tennis.

Chris Kuerten
01-26-2013, 01:53 PM
Shamefully, I have to admit I slept through it.

Yves.
01-26-2013, 02:08 PM
Shamefully, I have to admit I slept through it.

Are you kidding me? The match started at 13.00!!!!! What the hell did you do last night xD

Jimnik
01-26-2013, 02:41 PM
GOATwins too good again. :worship:

That's their 6th AO and 13th slam. But I really want one more RG title before they start declining.

Caesar1844
01-26-2013, 02:41 PM
The Bryans? Why, they played really well today. Haase and Sijsling were playing baaaad.
They deserve the win, but I hate seeing it if only because the Bryans personify everything that has gone wrong with doubles in the last 10 years.

Modern doubles = all tactics, no skill.

Pratik
01-26-2013, 02:44 PM
Very one sided final. The Bryans were alot better in almost every aspect.
Some very bad communication between Haase and Sijsling.

The Bryans? Why, they played really well today. Haase and Sijsling were playing baaaad.

Not really. The Dutch were not that bad. Bryans were just much better. Sijsling was good on the BH wing today. Haase was lobbing really well(Bob did not even get a chance for his tweener:p). Both of them were passing reasonably well. That I remember of the miscommunication just happened at a couple of points. Of course one of them was at a break back opportunity at the second set which cost them.

One of the easiest GS finals for the twins. Easier than the scoreline says

Their last GS final was a lot easier.

Chris Kuerten
01-26-2013, 02:57 PM
Are you kidding me? The match started at 13.00!!!!! What the hell did you do last night xDI shouldn't have gone out, lol.

Pratik
01-26-2013, 02:58 PM
They deserve the win, but I hate seeing it if only because the Bryans personify everything that has gone wrong with doubles in the last 10 years.

Modern doubles = all tactics, no skill.

There is just so much wrong with this post.

Firstly, no skill in modern doubles! Volleying is not a skill? What about passing? Serve? I can go on. And tactics are not important?

When baseline rallies are becoming more and more popular in doubles tennis, the Bryans personify one of the key aspects of good old doubles tennis. Volleying. Both of them have insanely good reflexes and they volley really well. The are probably the only team that regularly stays at the net(as in both of them at the net at the same time). And this is coming from someone who is not really a Bryans fan.

Jimnik
01-26-2013, 03:00 PM
^ Took the words right out of my mouth.

Caesar1844
01-26-2013, 03:09 PM
There is just so much wrong with this post.

Firstly, no skill in modern doubles! Volleying is not a skill? What about passing? Serve? I can go on. And tactics are not important?

When baseline rallies are becoming more and more popular in doubles tennis, the Bryans personify one of the key aspects of good old doubles tennis. Volleying. Both of them have insanely good reflexes and they volley really well. The are probably the only team that regularly stays at the net(as in both of them at the net at the same time). And this is coming from someone who is not really a Bryans fan.
You are comparing them to other doubles teams of today, who are pretty much universally hack singles players.

The Bryans' tennis skills are total garbage. Compare them to even the teams of the late 90s and their serves have no sting, their volleys are wooden, and their groundstrokes are terrible. Their passing shots look good because they are playing other hack players, who in the modern mould have no sense of spatial awareness at the net or skills in placing approach shots. There is a reason they spent 8 years on tour before capturing their first Slam, and a decade before they started winning regularly. They had to wait for all the best remaining teams of the 90s to either retire or break up.

That people actually regard them as the GOAT doubles team is to spit on the legacy of genuinely great teams like McEnroe/Fleming and the Woodies. What a sad, pathetic state the tour is in these days.

Björki
01-26-2013, 03:51 PM
well done twins :worship:

born_on_clay
01-26-2013, 04:11 PM
congrats for Bryans for writing history :hatoff:

Jimnik
01-26-2013, 04:51 PM
You are comparing them to other doubles teams of today, who are pretty much universally hack singles players.

The Bryans' tennis skills are total garbage. Compare them to even the teams of the late 90s and their serves have no sting, their volleys are wooden, and their groundstrokes are terrible. Their passing shots look good because they are playing other hack players, who in the modern mould have no sense of spatial awareness at the net or skills in placing approach shots. There is a reason they spent 8 years on tour before capturing their first Slam, and a decade before they started winning regularly. They had to wait for all the best remaining teams of the 90s to either retire or break up.

That people actually regard them as the GOAT doubles team is to spit on the legacy of genuinely great teams like McEnroe/Fleming and the Woodies. What a sad, pathetic state the tour is in these days.
What a sad pathetic post.

I was a big fan of the Woodies back in the 90s but no way would I try to claim their all round skills were stronger than the Bryans. Between them they achieved about as much in singles as Bjorkman and Mirnyi. The fact they didn't commit 100% to doubles like the Bryans doesn't make them more talented.

Bob Bryan's all round game is extremely strong. He serves regularly > 130mph and can hit all four corners. If he'd continued his singles career he certainly could have made top 20, maybe even a Wimbledon SF like Woodbridge and Bjorkman (both had easy draws but it doesn't matter).

This "mug era" argument is a desperate last resort for nostalgiatards and dinosaurs.

CooCooCachoo
01-26-2013, 07:00 PM
What a sad pathetic post.

I was a big fan of the Woodies back in the 90s but no way would I try to claim their all round skills were stronger than the Bryans. Between them they achieved about as much in singles as Bjorkman and Mirnyi. The fact they didn't commit 100% to doubles like the Bryans doesn't make them more talented.

Bob Bryan's all round game is extremely strong. He serves regularly > 130mph and can hit all four corners. If he'd continued his singles career he certainly could have made top 20, maybe even a Wimbledon SF like Woodbridge and Bjorkman (both had easy draws but it doesn't matter).

This "mug era" argument is a desperate last resort for nostalgiatards and dinosaurs.

There is just no way. He is inferior from the baseline, much less so than Woodbridge and especially Björkman were. Honestly, if the Bryans had had more success in singles, they would have tried harder and longer to balance the two. I don't know of any player who could play at the same level in singles and doubles and that chose to specialize in doubles because they wanted to (i.e. not for reasons of fitness). Completely fallacious point.

I agree with the overall tenor of your post though.

CooCooCachoo
01-26-2013, 07:01 PM
The Bryans? Why, they played really well today. Haase and Sijsling were playing baaaad.

I don't doubt that they deserved to win the match, or even the tournament. They are a fantastic team and the most consistent team on tour. But I just hate their on-court attitude so much. I find them repugnant.

Cricketics
01-26-2013, 08:06 PM
It's just perfect. I mean look at that. Perfect Left and Right hand combination of a doubles team to annoy any opponent. CLASS I SAY. To hell with all who hate Bryans. Suck it up guys, they are the world's best team ever. Their record speaks for itself.

Caesar1844
01-26-2013, 10:31 PM
I was a big fan of the Woodies back in the 90s but no way would I try to claim their all round skills were stronger than the Bryans. Between them they achieved about as much in singles as Bjorkman and Mirnyi. The fact they didn't commit 100% to doubles like the Bryans doesn't make them more talented.
lolwut? Mirnyi has one singles title, a couple of other finals, and a QF at the USO. Woodforde and Woodbridge have 4 and 2 titles respectively, twice as many finals as Mirnyi (including a Masters for Woodbridge), and a Slam SF each. Not even close.

Bjorkman was by far the best singles player of the four, for sure, but he was of the Woodies generation - not the Bryans. He was mid 30s and a long way past his best by the time they were dominating.

Bob Bryan's all round game is extremely strong. He serves regularly > 130mph and can hit all four corners. If he'd continued his singles career he certainly could have made top 20, maybe even a Wimbledon SF like Woodbridge and Bjorkman (both had easy draws but it doesn't matter).
:rolls:

This "mug era" argument is a desperate last resort for nostalgiatards and dinosaurs.
Are you serious? Take a look at the Slam winners in the 90s / early 00s. Names like Edberg, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Korda - genuine quality players who knew their way around a doubles court and took the game seriously. Are you really claiming the field is just as strong now, as when you had world number ones and grand slam champions competing?

I remember seeing Old Man Woodbrige and Jonas "Father Time" Bjorkman play the Bryans back in 04 or 05, just before Woodbridge retired. The Brians would have been in their mid-to-late 20s, absolute prime of their tennis abilities, and skills-wise the pensioners played them off the court. It was embarrassing how much better their strokes were.

Don't get me wrong. I have much respect for what the Bryans have done for tactical doubles. I used to study them religiously when I played seriously. They know themselves, each other and their opponents better than anyone out there, and are meticulous at designing plays to capitalise on their strengths and target their opponents' weaknesses. Seriously, nobody does it better. They know the game and they have made the absolute most of their abilities.

But FMD - they are awful, awful tennis players. They extremely are lucky that with the slowing of the courts and the changes to the singles game, talented tennis players no longer have any reason to learn doubles skills or take doubles seriously.

It just makes me sad that the beautiful art of doubles is now dominated by a couple of robots.

KarlyM
01-26-2013, 10:48 PM
Congrats Bob & Mike! :worship:

deyaT87
01-26-2013, 11:49 PM
Well done Bryans :worship:
Easily final for them

Pratik
01-29-2013, 04:01 PM
You are comparing them to other doubles teams of today, who are pretty much universally hack singles players.

The Bryans' tennis skills are total garbage. Compare them to even the teams of the late 90s and their serves have no sting, their volleys are wooden, and their groundstrokes are terrible. Their passing shots look good because they are playing other hack players, who in the modern mould have no sense of spatial awareness at the net or skills in placing approach shots. There is a reason they spent 8 years on tour before capturing their first Slam, and a decade before they started winning regularly. They had to wait for all the best remaining teams of the 90s to either retire or break up.

That people actually regard them as the GOAT doubles team is to spit on the legacy of genuinely great teams like McEnroe/Fleming and the Woodies. What a sad, pathetic state the tour is in these days.

Are you serious? Take a look at the Slam winners in the 90s / early 00s. Names like Edberg, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Korda - genuine quality players who knew their way around a doubles court and took the game seriously. Are you really claiming the field is just as strong now, as when you had world number ones and grand slam champions competing?

I remember seeing Old Man Woodbrige and Jonas "Father Time" Bjorkman play the Bryans back in 04 or 05, just before Woodbridge retired. The Brians would have been in their mid-to-late 20s, absolute prime of their tennis abilities, and skills-wise the pensioners played them off the court. It was embarrassing how much better their strokes were.

Don't get me wrong. I have much respect for what the Bryans have done for tactical doubles. I used to study them religiously when I played seriously. They know themselves, each other and their opponents better than anyone out there, and are meticulous at designing plays to capitalise on their strengths and target their opponents' weaknesses. Seriously, nobody does it better. They know the game and they have made the absolute most of their abilities.

But FMD - they are awful, awful tennis players. They extremely are lucky that with the slowing of the courts and the changes to the singles game, talented tennis players no longer have any reason to learn doubles skills or take doubles seriously.

It just makes me sad that the beautiful art of doubles is now dominated by a couple of robots.

I was away for the past few days, so could not reply to your posts. I said the same thing in the modern rackets thread. I think you have a problem with modern tennis. You are the very definition of a nostalgiatard. Your problem is with both singles and doubles today, and of course the slower courts. Your frustration manifests itself in terms of hate towards the players who are doing well in these slower conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if your sentiments towards Nadal and/or Djokovic are the same as towards the Bryans. You may respect them, but you despise them.

You can not accept the fact the skill required for singles and doubles tennis is no longer the same. That is why there are very few top singles players who play doubles and vice-versa(Obviously, less money is doubles is also a huge factor). When singles play was not baseline-dominated, you used to see more singles players succeed in doubles. Todays baseline dominated power play/defensive play is not very well suited for doubles. Hence, top singles players don't do so well in doubles. You should probably check the doubles performances of some of the top singles players today. Further check what happened when Djokovic and Murray; and Djokovic and Nadal teamed up together. Yes Nadal does have some good results in doubles, but that is with a doubles specialist Lopez. Also, just because someone does not have the singles game today, it does not make them "awful tennis players" with "garbage tennis skills".

The definition of tennis 'skill' has changed over the years. You cannot compare players 15-20 apart in terms of skill and/or talent. This is valid for both singles and doubles. I agree that it is likely that the Bryans may not have done well 20 years ago. Same point could arguably be made about one or more of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. What you fail to realise is that that very same argument could be used to claim that the top players from 15/20/30 years ago would not do well today.

If you just can't stand what tennis has become today, stop watching tennis. Nobody is forcing you.

Pratik
01-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Just realised another record that the Bryans reached. This is the 9th year in a row that they have won a GS, which equals the all time record(for both an individual player and a team).

Caesar1844
01-29-2013, 06:33 PM
The definition of tennis 'skill' has changed over the years. You cannot compare players 15-20 apart in terms of skill and/or talent. This is valid for both singles and doubles. I agree that it is likely that the Bryans may not have done well 20 years ago. Same point could arguably be made about one or more of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray.
False equivalency. The top singles players wouldn't succeed 20 years ago because the nature of singles has fundamentally changed. They play a completely different style of tennis, technically speaking, to what the dominant singles players 20 years ago did.

Doubles, on the other hand, has changed very little in terms of the basics. It is still all about serving, volleying, and attacking the net. Technically speaking, the Bryans play a very similar style of tennis to the doubles players of the 90s. They would have got schooled not because they play a different type of tennis, but simply because they are all-round inferior players.

If you just can't stand what tennis has become today, stop watching tennis. Nobody is forcing you.
I still like tennis. I just don't like people pretending that fourth-rate hacks like the Bryans have any place in GOAT discussions about doubles.

fabiogiuri
01-31-2013, 03:32 PM
flavio cipolla for me is a good player, if he was a little higher he could be in the first ten