BIG Changes Ahead [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

BIG Changes Ahead

ae wowww
06-23-2005, 08:14 PM
I think this was only confirmed today-and some of you may already know it, but Jim was telling me that after the US Open, doubles will have No-Ad scoring! Sets will be first to 5, not 6 - with a tiebreak at 4-4.
This is as result of the ATP Directors feeling they get nothing back from dubs-they pay for food, massages, cars etc for doubles players, who provide no income from ticket sales.
They put forward this proposal, and the player reps - are predominantly singles, so they agreed with it-there are 10 on the council, and only 3 are doubles specialists.
This will SERIOUSLY affect doubles specialists. In about 2/3 years, they hope to have instead of doubles rankings, one ranking race-50% made by dubs, 50% by singles. Singles rankings will of course still exist, but this means doubles players will not survive... :sad:
Draws will consist of singles players-although perhaps there will be a few spots reserved for teams such as Bryan/Bryan and Bjorkman/Mirnyi.

I really hope this doesn't work out, and some how everything stays as it is... Jim says he will probably retire at the end of this year-not necessarily as a result of this, but it's a factor. This is okay for him, but think of guys currently on tour ages 23/24 etc... What a joke.

joeb_uk
06-23-2005, 08:18 PM
Well this news is no surprise to me, it always comes down to the money :sad: But it is very bad news :eek:

Every time i do go to a tournament, hardly anyone seems to stay for the doubles (so what they are saying is true). I mean the photographers go home as well, and there is hardly anyone left in the stadium.

ae wowww
06-23-2005, 08:21 PM
You're right JB, they don't. I don't know why... It's a bloody joke. This system better not last.

Clara Bow
06-23-2005, 08:21 PM
Every time i do go to a tournament, hardly anyone seems to stay for the doubles (so what they are saying is true). I mean the photographers go home as well, and there is hardly anyone left in the stadium.


I know, you look on tv for the five seconds you get doubles finals/semis even during grand slams and the crowd was sparser than it was for the Montreal Expos during the 2003 season.

I don't understand why people don't stick around though- I love watching doubles, find it very entertaining and quick. Oh well, to each their own I guess.

joeb_uk
06-23-2005, 08:24 PM
I know, you look on tv for the five seconds you get doubles finals/semis even during grand slams and the crowd was sparser than it was for the Montreal Expos during the 2003 season.

I don't understand why people don't stick around though- I love watching doubles, find it very entertaining and quick. Oh well, to each their own I guess.
I know this wouldnt happen, but do you feel more people would watch doubles if the matches were scheduled first? instead of last :shrug:

Although, you would then probably get people turning up late after the doubles has finished (what do you think?)

Trivial
06-23-2005, 08:30 PM
I know this wouldnt happen, but do you feel more people would watch doubles if the matches were scheduled first? instead of last

Yeah that sounds like a really sensible idea but it probably wont be considered, which is a shame. I think that it might work, some might still try and avoid the matches by turning up later, but overall spectator numbers would increase.

Clara Bow
06-23-2005, 08:33 PM
I know this wouldnt happen, but do you feel more people would watch doubles if the matches were scheduled first? instead of last

Although, you would then probably get people turning up late after the doubles has finished (what do you think?)

I think that is a good idea. Didn't they do that at the French this year for the ladies since the king was there.

I do think that it would be slim, slim pickings at the start of the doubles matches, but by the end, it would likely be pretty full. More full than the one rear end for every 20+ seats that you see nowadays.

Seleshfan
06-23-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, I've never been a fan of doubles. I've said this before, I think of doubles as a place for 2nd rate tennis players. With that said, I kind of feel bad for them. Can't you just see it now, the Bryan brothers standing outside stadiums with signs reading "hungry, playing singles for food" or worse yet, taking their chest bump routine to the streets for donations. And poor Navratilova, she'll be forced into her 3rd and final retirement.

mitalidas
06-23-2005, 08:39 PM
Never been a fan of doubles. Would only watch if some predominantly singles player (and some great teams, like Federe+safin v/s roddick+nadal) would play

But I can imagine if they start with t his, then its veering towards extinction :(

LaTenista
06-23-2005, 08:53 PM
Well this news is no surprise to me, it always comes down to the money :sad: But it is very bad news :eek:

Every time i do go to a tournament, hardly anyone seems to stay for the doubles (so what they are saying is true). I mean the photographers go home as well, and there is hardly anyone left in the stadium.

First and foremost, doubles is exciting - I play every week and it's a lot of fun.
I think what turns off people who don't play is that they don't understand how different (and quicker points) the game becomes when you talk about singles vs doubles.

Second, world number 3 Nadal (soon to be #2) loves to play doubles and he's such a media darling I'm sure he could help the crowd dilemma. Did anyone else notice that during the Nadal/Lopez doubles match the court was standing room (and sitting on walls/fences) only?

At Cincinnati for the last two years at least the doubles final has been played before the singles and the stadium has been about half full during the doubles. The doubles players always mention how great it to play in front a (their words, not mine) big crowd in the speeches afterwards.

I also think more doubles on TV (hint TTC) would result in more people wanting to go to live doubles matches. Also, at Cincinnati doubles players are never featured on the draw sheets each day.

mboyle1988
06-23-2005, 09:05 PM
I heard that the Bryan Bros were really popular stateside. I haven't been to a tournament in a few years, though, so I would not be able to confirm this. That format thing is scary. That means tennis might be headed towards that format. That would be a sad, sad day...

Fee
06-23-2005, 09:19 PM
Thanks Drew. When this info broke during RG, or whenever it was a few weeks ago, I was hoping that it wasn't true and that the Players would be able to kill it. Tournament directors kind of dug themselves into this hole. They use such a huge portion of their budgets for appearance fees. They should consider dropping those fees 5% and maybe they would still be able to afford the prize money and hotel rooms for doubles players. I agree with the idea of playing doubles finals before singles finals. In the tournaments where I've heard they do that, it usually does mean a bigger crowd for the Doubles players.

Shame to see the slow death of doubles on the tour. Some of the coolest and most friendly players I have met in the last few years are doubles players (especially the Aussies).

Carlita
06-23-2005, 09:22 PM
That sucks!!! I love doubles!!! Have seen some brilliant matches!!!


Please don't change......:sad:

Scotso
06-23-2005, 09:30 PM
I like doubles more than singles.

This is really really sad for me. It will be the death of doubles.

Hopefully some of the big names can campaign and change the minds of these idiots.

And to the person that said doubles is for 2nd rate players... puhleeze. The talents required are totally different. Just shows how little you know about tennis.

ae wowww
06-23-2005, 09:31 PM
mitalidas and seleshfan - you are huge dickheads. WHY don't you like doubles-explain?? Actually don't bother, no-one gives a fuck.

Deboogle!.
06-23-2005, 09:33 PM
Wow. this is bad, and stupid. Just whoa.

Fumus
06-23-2005, 09:35 PM
I don't think it will happen though. ;)

ae wowww
06-23-2005, 09:42 PM
I don't think it will happen though. ;)
You too, are a huge prick. All that bullshit in the Andrew Murray thread-you huge fag. Stop shaving your chest.

You don't think it'll happen? It already has.

Scotso
06-23-2005, 09:44 PM
You too, are a huge prick. All that bullshit in the Andrew Murray thread-you huge fag. Stop shaving your chest.

You don't think it'll happen? It already has.

What's with the homophobic comments? Is that really necessary?

njnetswill
06-23-2005, 09:51 PM
Doubles would be more popular if more of the top players played doubles. Of course, this isn't always practical.

KarstenBraasch#1
06-23-2005, 09:53 PM
I doubt that this is true. I can't believe any player would agree on that.

joeb_uk
06-23-2005, 10:01 PM
I doubt that this is true. I can't believe any player would agree on that.
They dont have to agree on it, as ae woww said:
This is as result of the ATP Directors

so in other words, its what the directors agree on. What the players agree means fuck all by the sound of it

Auburn
06-23-2005, 10:19 PM
Why do singles specialists have authority over doubles specialists about the future of doubles tennis is beyond me :( I think that bringing up costs is an excuse since ATP has done nothing to promote doubles tennis compared to singles. So its their fault that they did not profit and some players retiring because of this is just sad.
I think this is the worst news I've heard today :sad: .

Fee
06-24-2005, 12:02 AM
I think the original post should have read 'ATP TOURNAMENT Directors' not just directors. The TD's have been complaining about Doubles for years, and they were the ones who got the draws cut down to 16 and the prize money reduced. Funny, any time the Bryans play in the US, they are ALL OVER the promotional materials, so they must be considered a draw. And, doubles players always seem to be the ones who do the extra events, like Kids' Day and stuff like that.

Drew, what's up with the language? Just because some people disagree with your point of view, doesn't make them bad people. I understand that you are not happy with this info, neither am I, but you don't need to get harsh on the posters in this thread. Sounds like you are preparing to move to the states and run for office :D.

Via
06-24-2005, 12:39 AM
top players aren't playing doubles any more, unlike 20 years ago ;) the ones left playing doubles become doubles specialists, and everyone knows they are 'lesser' players (as far as singles play is concerned). if the atp really wants to change this, they can make up ranking points from some doubles results... like they try to force players to turn up at TMS tournaments.... and when you get top players pairing up to maximise their doubles points then there's no way the doubles format will go downhill. there just isn't the willpower at the organisational level to save and promote doubles, it just has been a slow demise. socially - every tennis player plays doubles.

Regenbogen
06-24-2005, 12:46 AM
the whole thing is just insane. and it's gonna keep getting worse. maybe if they gave doubles more media coverage it would get more popular, but it seems they'd rather show a 3 day old singles match than a live doubles one. idiotic.

NYCtennisfan
06-24-2005, 12:47 AM
Doubles are fun to play and fun to watch but there is little following of the doubles game to get big crowds to show up. I'm surprised that this hasn't happened earlier. Wimbledon is still the only place that plays best 3 out of 5 from the beginning for doubles.

NYCtennisfan
06-24-2005, 12:48 AM
top players aren't playing doubles any more, unlike 20 years ago the ones left playing doubles become doubles specialists, and everyone knows they are 'lesser' players (as far as singles play is concerned). if the atp really wants to change this, they can make up ranking points from some doubles results... like they try to force players to turn up at TMS tournaments.... and when you get top players pairing up to maximise their doubles points then there's no way the doubles format will go downhill. there just isn't the willpower at the organisational level to save and promote doubles, it just has been a slow demise. socially - every tennis player plays doubles.

Yep. Used to be that the two greatest players in the world were also the great doubles players in McEnroe and Navratilova.

Seleshfan
06-24-2005, 01:23 AM
And to the person that said doubles is for 2nd rate players... puhleeze. The talents required are totally different. Just shows how little you know about tennis.

I wrote that doubles is for 2nd rate players, and I agree with you, the talent requirements are different, in singles you actually have to have talent. Whereas doubles you can be a mediocre player *cough, Nestor, cough, Knowles* and be a top doubles player.

Seleshfan
06-24-2005, 01:25 AM
mitalidas and seleshfan - you are huge dickheads. WHY don't you like doubles-explain?? Actually don't bother, no-one gives a fuck.

Wow. A dickhead. There is only one suitable response to something like that: I know you are but what am I?

mitalidas
06-24-2005, 01:28 AM
mitalidas and seleshfan - you are huge dickheads. WHY don't you like doubles-explain?? Actually don't bother, no-one gives a fuck.

Its a personal preference. Just like why the fuck do you like doubles. explain. acutally, shut up fuck head. :hug:

Seleshfan
06-24-2005, 01:30 AM
Its a personal preference. Just like why the fuck do you like doubles. explain. acutally, shut up fuck head. :hug:

:haha:

joseluismb
06-24-2005, 01:30 AM
I'll give my opinioin.

I personally don't like doubles, and sometimes get bored when I'm watching a doubles match. But this is riddiculous.

You just can't make that to doubles... it will affect tennis itself amazingly. Totally unfair... I hope it doesn't work out or that people get more into doubles and so more money comes out from ticket sales.

megadeth
06-24-2005, 01:50 AM
it's the ATP's fault as well. you look at their website and you can tell that 90% of the hype they're creating is to promote the game singles-wise.

doubles may be fun to play, but i'm all for singles. it's more fun being out there on your own and just depending on yourself...

uNIVERSE mAN
06-24-2005, 02:20 AM
who cares about doubles, I hate it. It should be scrapped altogether.

Chris Seahorse
06-24-2005, 02:31 AM
:mad: This news makes me sick. If the players decided to strike on this issue they would have my complete support. The ATP look like they are trying to destroy tennis. I am very bummed. :mad:

TennisLurker
06-24-2005, 02:39 AM
Doubles is not popular because top players no longer play doubles, not because of bad marketing.

LaTenista
06-24-2005, 03:25 AM
who cares about doubles, I hate it. It should be scrapped altogether.

Why do you hate doubles?

Come on, even Fed just won a doubles title two weeks ago so I don't really think top players not playing doubles is the problem.

Personally I think it would be cool for Indian Wells & Miami (I know I am leaving out other combined events - sorry) to have mixed doubles - even if it just an exhibition match and not a real draw to promote doubles in general. Imagine the sort of publicity if Nadal & Sharapova teamed up against Agassi & Graf.

El Legenda
06-24-2005, 03:32 AM
ATP is a business, like any other sport, main focus is to make money, for the game and the players, and double is not getting the job done, to pay for it self. Just like a normal job, if your not selling enough product to pay for your salary and make the company money. you get fired. :)

LaTenista
06-24-2005, 04:21 AM
ATP is a business, like any other sport, main focus is to make money, for the game and the players, and double is not getting the job done, to pay for it self. Just like a normal job, if your not selling enough product to pay for your salary and make the company money. you get fired. :)

While I agree with you in theory, I disagree that this is the doubles players fault. Both the ATP and the tournaments do not promote doubles properly so which gets canned: the ATP or the tournament directors? I had a conversation with Mike Bryan about this once, can't remember who he told me to talk to about doubles being neglected :scratch:

Yonge
06-24-2005, 06:36 AM
Ugh, this hurts! I'm a hardcore doubles fan and I can't believe the ATP will go out of their way to do this to doubles. They can reduce the prize money or make smaller draws, sure, but to alter the way the game has been played??? That is just plain disrespectful to players, fans, and the sport itself. Shame!

Please, people, sign the doubles petition if you haven't already done so.
http://www.petitiononline.com/Tennis/petition.html

Ferrero Forever
06-24-2005, 10:05 AM
I signed it, I don't want to see it changed. I'm not a fan of doubles, but I do like the occasional match between doubles specialists (for instance I love watching the bryan brothers play) or I like to watch my favourite singles players, just to see them. I might sound like an idiot, but I really don't understand what they're gonna do to the game. Would someone mind explaining it to me in simpler terms (god I sound like a baby here, but I just don't get it, how I understand the new rules sounds absurd.)

Carlita
06-24-2005, 10:23 AM
Signed! :yeah: and I emailed the link to my tennispals!!

Björki
06-24-2005, 10:32 AM
Signed! :yeah: and I emailed the link to my tennispals!!
:yeah:

CooCooCachoo
06-24-2005, 11:01 AM
I wrote that doubles is for 2nd rate players, and I agree with you, the talent requirements are different, in singles you actually have to have talent. Whereas doubles you can be a mediocre player *cough, Nestor, cough, Knowles* and be a top doubles player.

Your ignorance really is stunning.

So, you are saying Roger Federer has no talent? Cause when he was still playing doubles, he was one of the best players around. He and Max Mirnyi were a killer team. Are you also saying that Mirnyi, Jonas Björkman, Todd Woodbridge, John McEnroe, Paul Haarhuis, Jacco Eltingh, Mark Woodforde, Tom Okker, Peter McNamara and so on and so on have no talent? Because they were all great in doubles and all reasonable to very good singles players.

Moreover, have you ever seen players such as Nicolas Escudé, Igor Andreev, Marat Safin, Thomas Johansson, Nikolay Davydenko and Dominik Hrbaty in doubles? I have. And they cannot play doubles well at all, but they are great singles players. This goes to illustrate that completely different skills are required for singles and doubles, just as you need different skills to excel on grass or on clay.

To move on to the more important part of the thread: the actual ideas of the ATP.

Joe, you said that the players don't have to agree with this. This is wrong. As Andrew wrote, the player representatives within the player's council agreed with it. This not only shows that singles players show absolutely no loyalty to the doubles players (which surprises me, cause they ought to know how hard it is to play competitive doubles on a really high level), but it also shows that doubles players are underappreciated even within the player's council.

The plans are absolutely absurd. But they might not be final. A few years ago there was talk about a super tie-break being held in doubles, for pretty much the same reasons if I am not mistaken. They tested this in Rotterdam and eventually decided not ti implement the new system. Super tie-breaks are really not that interesting and take away the excitement of a third set.

I am really hoping that the new plans won't work either. The people who run men's tennis, be it tournament directors or ATP officials and managers, have been on a crusade to destroy doubles tennis. Less prize money, smaller draws, reserving spots for teams consisting of singles players (and let me tell you that watching Nicolas Escudé & Marat Safin take on John van Lottum & Raemon Sluiter is not good for the heart) and now completely altering the game. It is completely idiotic and, if in fact implemented, these changes will seriously negatively affect my interest in tennis.

I consider doubles the true art of the game that is tennis - the doubles game brings much more excitement and requires way more skills than singles. Hardhitters like Krajicek and Philippoussis can reach the final of a Grand Slam event, but they never were good doubles players when they tried. Pure power does not get you anywhere in doubles and that makes it so special in a positive way.

It is also extremely hypocritical of the ATP and of tournament directors, because legend's matches are often held to promote a tournament and in many of those cases, it is about doubles matches. Take a Mansour Bahrami, for instance. He draws great crowds and brings in the money.

Spread the love for doubles and indeed sign the petition, because doubles tennis can and may not become extinct:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Tennis/petition.html

joeb_uk
06-24-2005, 11:04 AM
Joe, you said that the players don't have to agree with this. This is wrong. As Andrew wrote, the player representatives within the player's council agreed with it. This not only shows that singles players show absolutely no loyalty to the doubles players (which surprises me, cause they ought to know how hard it is to play competitive doubles on a really high level), but it also shows that doubles players are underappreciated even within the player's council.


AS andrew said though, its made up of singles players (so the doubles players arent really getting a chance).

CooCooCachoo
06-24-2005, 11:08 AM
AS andrew said though, its made up of singles players (so the doubles players arent really getting a chance).

Yes, but that is not the way you put it in your comment. Players do have a say and if you take a look at how the player's council is made up you will see that many of these singles players quite often play doubles:

- Rainer Schüttler
- Albert Costa
- Younes El Aynaoui
- Luis Horna
- Ivan Ljubicic
- Raemon Sluiter
- Guillermo Cañas
- Michael Kohlmann
- Mark Knowles
- David Adams

Aleksa's Laydee
06-24-2005, 11:39 AM
Omg this is terrible...its gonna ruin doubles :eek: :mad:

Seleshfan
06-24-2005, 06:57 PM
Your ignorance really is stunning.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. (Assuming they're not on a giant sign that falls on me)

So, you are saying Roger Federer has no talent? Cause when he was still playing doubles, he was one of the best players around. He and Max Mirnyi were a killer team.
Totally absurd. I specifically said that being a singles player requires talent, last I looked Federer is the top singles player, hence he must have talent. The fact that he played doubles doesn't mean he has no talent, just means that he probably wiped the court with the less talented schmoes that specialize in doubles. And judging from your comment that he was part of a "killer team," I'm guessing that is correct.

Are you also saying that Mirnyi, Jonas Björkman, Todd Woodbridge, John McEnroe, Paul Haarhuis, Jacco Eltingh, Mark Woodforde, Tom Okker, Peter McNamara and so on and so on have no talent? Because they were all great in doubles and all reasonable to very good singles players.

I never claimed that they have absolutely zero talent. I think it requires talent to hit a ball over the net. I'm saying relative to the talent of successful singles players, successful doubles players are inferior players. For players who were successful in singles e.g., McEnroe, it is no surprise that they dominate in doubles also, why? Say it with me, "because they have more talent."

Moreover, have you ever seen players such as Nicolas Escudé, Igor Andreev, Marat Safin, Thomas Johansson, Nikolay Davydenko and Dominik Hrbaty in doubles? I have. And they cannot play doubles well at all, but they are great singles players. This goes to illustrate that completely different skills are required for singles and doubles, just as you need different skills to excel on grass or on clay.

Wow, you really give some good examples of outrageously talented singles players here. Combined they've won how many singles slams, 3? Impressive. How many slams has Escude won? Andreev? Hrbaty? Davydenko? Johansson was a fluke Grand Slam winner only because his opponent, Safin who you also mention has the incredible talent, but not the consistency. I have no doubt that if Safin actually gave a shit about doubles, he could team with any other top 10 player and defeat the number one doubles team. Hell Ljubicic teamed with who, to defeat the Bryan brothers? Please.

Shabazza
06-24-2005, 07:25 PM
Why do singles specialists have authority over doubles specialists about the future of doubles tennis is beyond me :( I think that bringing up costs is an excuse since ATP has done nothing to promote doubles tennis compared to singles. So its their fault that they did not profit and some players retiring because of this is just sad.
I think this is the worst news I've heard today :sad: .
You're speaking my mind here :sad:

*Ljubica*
06-24-2005, 08:05 PM
I know this wouldnt happen, but do you feel more people would watch doubles if the matches were scheduled first? instead of last :shrug:

Although, you would then probably get people turning up late after the doubles has finished (what do you think?)

I remember this was tried at RG a few years ago - I was there on the second Monday (Mens' 4th round), and they put on a doubles' match before the 2 scheduled singles matches. Trouble was, the damned match went on so long, followed by a 5 set singles match (JCF v Gaudio), that the second singles match involving Marat was played in semi-darkness and many people had to leave to catch trains, buses etc. I can assure you people were NOT happy to have to wait all day to see the second singles' match and then maybe have to leave before the end. And obviously if that second match had gone to 5 sets it would have to have been suspended overnight which would have put the players involved at a disadvantage in later rounds, which is not acceptable in a Grand Slam in my opinion. I do sympathise with the doubles' guys point of view on this, though personally I am not a doubles fan at all so it has little impact on my personal tennis viewing. And before someone asks me why I don't like doubles - guess it's because I'm not a fan of the serve and volley style of tennis that still predomniates in doubles - I just find it boring - sorry - just my personal opinion.

CooCooCachoo
06-24-2005, 08:33 PM
I have no doubt that if Safin actually gave a shit about doubles, he could team with any other top 10 player and defeat the number one doubles team.

:tape:

Sorry, but you are not to be taken seriously if you say such things.

joeb_uk
06-24-2005, 08:39 PM
I remember this was tried at RG a few years ago - I was there on the second Monday (Mens' 4th round), and they put on a doubles' match before the 2 scheduled singles matches. Trouble was, the damned match went on so long, followed by a 5 set singles match (JCF v Gaudio), that the second singles match involving Marat was played in semi-darkness and many people had to leave to catch trains, buses etc. I can assure you people were NOT happy to have to wait all day to see the second singles' match and then maybe have to leave before the end. And obviously if that second match had gone to 5 sets it would have to have been suspended overnight which would have put the players involved at a disadvantage in later rounds, which is not acceptable in a Grand Slam in my opinion. I do sympathise with the doubles' guys point of view on this, though personally I am not a doubles fan at all so it has little impact on my personal tennis viewing. And before someone asks me why I don't like doubles - guess it's because I'm not a fan of the serve and volley style of tennis that still predomniates in doubles - I just find it boring - sorry - just my personal opinion.


My feelings too, i try to avoid doubles at tournaments (would rather watch a singles match over any doubles). I usually only watch doubles if there are no singles matches left. But i feel what happening is a little unfair too. At queens i watched abit of doubles to be honest, enjoyed some of it too :D :)

Although during the whole week at eastbourne, i didnt watch any doubles at all and i went for the 8 days (but i suppose thats because i had a pass and wasnt paying to see the tennis, so it wasnt as if i was lessening the value for money).

Cervantes
06-24-2005, 08:45 PM
I'm not really into doubles myself, I only watch doubles occasionally (mostly at Wimbledon, late in the evening), but I don't want to see the game changed. Classic matches with 9-7 in the final set is what tennis is all about, and games with 6 breakpoints and 4 gamepoints help create the excitement. Changing the game will take those things away.

Surely tournament directors need to make a profit (or at least break-even) with their tournaments, but they should take the good with the bad. Yeah they have to pay for hotels and prize money for doubles players, but that's just the way it is. Besides sometimes a doubles match with some local favorites can provide some good entertainment. And it helps fill up the program, because just one singles match for an evening session doesn't really look like much now does it?

About the whole singles vs doubles and talent discussion, we all know tennis is about the singles. I can understand some people like doubles more, but the fact is the majority of people view tennis as a one on one sport and that's the way it'll always be. Singles tennis just has so much more to offer than doubles. And to be fair most double players are mediocre single players with limited talent who've made the most out of their careers by forming a good, solid doubles team.

Haarhuis and Elthingh are a good example: reasonable singles players, but nothing special. They formed a partnership and started to focus on double. They didn't have a superserve, the best returns or the best volleys, but they knew exactly what the other would do and how to cover the court together. These things are trainable. If Safin and Roddick (two really poor doubles players as far as I'm concerned) would focus on doubles (and not play any singles matches) for a whole year starting today they could win Wimbledon 2006, I have no doubt about it.

CooCooCachoo
06-24-2005, 08:48 PM
About the whole singles vs doubles and talent discussion, we all know tennis is about the singles. I can understand some people like doubles more, but the fact is the majority of people view tennis as a one on one sport and that's the way it'll always be. Singles tennis just has so much more to offer than doubles. And to be fair most double players are mediocre single players with limited talent who've made the most out of their careers by forming a good, solid doubles team.

Haarhuis and Elthingh are a good example: reasonable singles players, but nothing special. They formed a partnership and started to focus on double. They didn't have a superserve, the best returns or the best volleys, but they knew exactly what the other would do and how to cover the court together. These things are trainable. If Safin and Roddick (two really poor doubles players as far as I'm concerned) would focus on doubles (and not play any singles matches) for a whole year starting today they could win Wimbledon 2006, I have no doubt about it.

Yes, many top doubles players are mediocre or poor singles players, and some are very good singles players. And many top singles players are mediocre or poor doubles players, and some are very good doubles players. That is logical too.

Marat Safin is an absolute disaster in doubles. I love how you put his name and the verb focus in one sentence too. Safin will never be able to win a big tournament in doubles, because he lacks the skills for doubles tennis.

superpinkone37
06-24-2005, 09:08 PM
Ugh. It always comes down to money, doesnt it?

I personally love doubles. At IW, I always find a doubles match to watch, and since they are often on the very small courts, you can watch people like Gonzalez and Melzer, while sitting practically ON the court. Its a much quicker game, but it is fun to watch. We'll see how this new format works out :shrug:

Cervantes
06-24-2005, 10:12 PM
Yes, many top doubles players are mediocre or poor singles players, and some are very good singles players. And many top singles players are mediocre or poor doubles players, and some are very good doubles players. That is logical too.

Marat Safin is an absolute disaster in doubles. I love how you put his name and the verb focus in one sentence too. Safin will never be able to win a big tournament in doubles, because he lacks the skills for doubles tennis.

Safin and focus in one sentence is funny indeed, I didn't even think of that :)

But I'm wondering what skills Safin lacks for doubling? Serve? Return? Volley? Surely he doesn't have great reflexes, but he can make up for that with his other weapons. And don't forget he'd have a year to practise.

Via
06-25-2005, 02:02 AM
you have to watch a good doubles match right on courtside to really appreciate the game. years ago i had watched woodforde/woodbridge from only a few feet away, and believe me i was absolutely stunned :eek: by their reflexes at the net... and the speed and ferocity of the ball in those exchanges... it was superhuman! of course doubles tennis is more than just volleying at the net, but it's one of the most entertaining aspect of tennis. singles tennis does not required that much volleying and reflexes to win.

so don't tell me you don't like doubles if you have never watched it that close ;)

as for the players council... i'm shocked that this bunch of players have passed such changes to doubles. some people must have been very convincing talking them into it.

Leo
06-25-2005, 05:02 AM
What a shame. :sad: I hope this is just an experimentation and that they revert to regular scoring/ranking for doubles after they see how much it fails. Remember they corrected the "super tiebreak to 10 in place of the final set" rule in mixed doubles after trying that out a few years ago (2001?). Don't kill doubles!

YoursTruly
06-25-2005, 06:20 AM
Well, I've never been a fan of doubles. I've said this before, I think of doubles as a place for 2nd rate tennis players. With that said, I kind of feel bad for them. Can't you just see it now, the Bryan brothers standing outside stadiums with signs reading "hungry, playing singles for food" or worse yet, taking their chest bump routine to the streets for donations. And poor Navratilova, she'll be forced into her 3rd and final retirement.

This is very well said and it's both funny but so sad at the same time.

Seleshfan
06-25-2005, 03:16 PM
:tape:

Sorry, but you are not to be taken seriously if you say such things.

Well, you can hardly be taken seriously if you believe that all the top doubles specialists, abandon the money, prestige and the glory of singles, for the love of doubles, whose tv coverage and popularity ranks lower than Bass Fishing. :confused: Do you really think Mark Knowles would specialize in doubles if he thought he could win the Wimbledon singles title?

Experimentee
06-26-2005, 05:18 PM
This is crap, I hope it will not happen, and if it does, it wont last long.
Top players will play more doubles if there arent ridiculous things like best of 5 doubles matches at Wimbledon. They should just make it best of 3 for every round and a TB in the 3rd set, then more singles players will play doubles. Having no AD just ruins the game.

star
06-26-2005, 05:38 PM
To me, the fun thing about doubles is to see top players on the court having fun. I'm not that intersted in the doubles specialist teams. Knowles and Nester; Bryan Brothers; etc.

People who buy tickets and attend tournaments are the ones who have over the years decided that doubles isn't a draw for them. Doubles will draw big crowds when a top player plays doubles (Lindsay for example, and Hingis for another) but when it's doubles specialists playing the crowds are sparse. The ones that go are pretty rabid though. :lol: