Singles Players Playing Doubles [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Singles Players Playing Doubles

cobalt60
02-20-2006, 01:51 PM
I know the ATP was banking on some singles players playing doubles thus trying to get more spectators for the doubles game. But those singles players have no impetus to play really. Personally having JMac return and winning is a better promotional gimmick. So WHY would a top singles player even bother to consider playing doubles? :shrug: What could even entice them? And what should/could the ATP do? Apologies in advance if this has been done before but something I heard has made me question.

$$$,practice, prestige of a crown?

BTW those who hate doubles please don't even bother with the snide remarks. Thanks in advance;)

federated
02-20-2006, 02:11 PM
I think the Johnny Mac case is the way to go. If they could get former top players/guys on the legends tour to play doubles, that would be a good draw. Right now, they'll only get the high-mid range singles players in doubles--the verdasco's, lopez's and murray's--which won't necessarily mean much to ticket sales.

I'd love to see Wilander or Courier or Goran or Borg or Becker. I'm not sure if these guys ever played much doubles, though.

cobalt60
02-20-2006, 02:16 PM
I think the Johnny Mac case is the way to go. If they could get former top players/guys on the legends tour to play doubles, that would be a good draw. Right now, they'll only get the high-mid range singles players in doubles--the verdasco's, lopez's and murray's--which won't necessarily mean much to ticket sales.

I'd love to see Wilander or Courier or Goran or Borg or Becker. I'm not sure if these guys ever played much doubles, though.
I agree with you. I can't help but think money is an issue though. I have heard that those senior players above want a great amount of cash to just show up but then when you see the sparse crowds in the stands on the senior tour one thinks there has to be a better way.
I also feel that the ATP needs to market the commodities that they have. Many of the top doubles teams are nice and funny and if coached;) could be good PR spokesman for their game. I see the Byran Bros are doing that here in the states but there are other teams as approachable and nice. Interesting to see what happens.
I do know for a fact that many of the lower ranked tennis players play for the money involved and not just the practice. I can't believe that the money would be that much to justify playing but :shrug: guess they must need/want it. Bills to pay;)

belco
02-20-2006, 02:16 PM
top players never usually play doubles...

its sad :(

JustmeUK
02-20-2006, 02:16 PM
I don't think there's very much they could do to make it more attractive for the top players. The top singles players will probably argue they play too much anyway (probably true given the number of players who have had a break for injury/mental fatigue). Financially they are already doing well enough. Will playing doubles make them better singles players? They may be an argument for that but the flip side is the greater time on court with attendant increased fatigue/injury.

If the GS events can't attract the top singles players to play doubles then I really don't see the smaller events being able to do so. I think the days of playing both are over now. There's only ever been two players who made number 1 in singles and doubles - McEnroe who was at the top of both at round about the same time and Edberg who reached the no 1 ranking in doubles first and then concentrated on singles from the middle towards the end of his career.

cobalt60
02-20-2006, 02:22 PM
I don't think there's very much they could do to make it more attractive for the top players. The top singles players will probably argue they play too much anyway (probably true given the number of players who have had a break for injury/mental fatigue). Financially they are already doing well enough. Will playing doubles make them better singles players? They may be an argument for that but the flip side is the greater time on court with attendant increased fatigue/injury.

If the GS events can't attract the top singles players to play doubles then I really don't see the smaller events being able to do so. I think the days of playing both are over now. There's only ever been two players who made number 1 in singles and doubles - McEnroe who was at the top of both at round about the same time and Edberg who reached the no 1 ranking in doubles first and then concentrated on singles from the middle towards the end of his career.
I totally agree which is why I never quite understood the original ATP viewpoint on this. I like the fact that the ATP is promoting the doubles game better but as above I wish they would promote the doubles players who are specialists and leave it at that.
BTW liked your nontennis thread ;)

gusman890
02-20-2006, 02:38 PM
i think when ever massu and gonzo are in the same event, most of the time they play doubles together. and thats inculding GS too. and gonzo is almost in the top 10.

cobalt60
02-20-2006, 03:30 PM
i think when ever massu and gonzo are in the same event, most of the time they play doubles together. and thats inculding GS too. and gonzo is almost in the top 10.
Not always and this year we will see. I know last year they played together more often before Davis Cup to get practice.

ae wowww
02-20-2006, 04:51 PM
coby, awesome comments :D Some interesting stuff!

helen phillips
02-21-2006, 03:27 AM
I totally agree which is why I never quite understood the original ATP viewpoint on this. I like the fact that the ATP is promoting the doubles game better but as above I wish they would promote the doubles players who are specialists and leave it at that.
BTW liked your nontennis thread ;)

Th issue of Doubles "Specialists" is where I really disagree. This term which is over used to describe almost every player who had more success in doubles than singles. Doubles "specialists" as I understand it are players who play doubles almost exclusively. Thus Paul Haarhuis, Byron Black, Jiri Novak, Max Mirny and Jonas Bjorkman while excellent doubles players are not "specialists". What they are is excellent examples of how Doubles can and is supposed to support and facilitate singles by distributing $ to more mid level players to facilitate their development and success playing singles.

Doubles is not so fat and or lazy guys can become millionaires. The ATP does not owe the "specialists" a living. Initially more players participated in doubles because singles money was not sufficient. As purses grew it became less necessary though some top guys continued to play: Wilander (made two slam finals in 86, winning Wimbledon), Kafelnikov, Feirrera etc. The guys at all levels continued to suport it it because by supporting lower ranked singles players you were still enhancing the quality of the primary product: singles. Yes doubles could and should be contributing to the depth of the singles game.

The ATP should be instituting rules where if your not playing a minimum of 12 singles event at your level you are not eligible to play doubles: in other words if you want to cash in buy a lottery ticket don't play doubles. Their should be exemptions for length of participaton (say after 7 seasons you can play in ATP doubles events without playing in singles) and for infirmity (Jacco Elting stopped playing singles fairly early because of knee problems so a player in his situation with the appropriate medical support would be allowed to play without entering singles).

However if you are an able bodied former NCAA singles champ who is too lazy to play single or finds that singles cuts into the profit margin from playing doubles too bad: play or go home.

Doubles "specialists" don't need to be promoted they are a blight on the game that needs to be eradicated. Does anybody really miss Rick Leach or his ilk?

cobalt60
02-21-2006, 12:04 PM
Th issue of Doubles "Specialists" is where I really disagree. This term which is over used to describe almost every player who had more success in doubles than singles. Doubles "specialists" as I understand it are players who play doubles almost exclusively. Thus Paul Haarhuis, Byron Black, Jiri Novak, Max Mirny and Jonas Bjorkman while excellent doubles players are not "specialists". What they are is excellent examples of how Doubles can and is supposed to support and facilitate singles by distributing $ to more mid level players to facilitate their development and success playing singles.

Doubles is not so fat and or lazy guys can become millionaires. The ATP does not owe the "specialists" a living. Initially more players participated in doubles because singles money was not sufficient. As purses grew it became less necessary though some top guys continued to play: Wilander (made two slam finals in 86, winning Wimbledon), Kafelnikov, Feirrera etc. The guys at all levels continued to suport it it because by supporting lower ranked singles players you were still enhancing the quality of the primary product: singles. Yes doubles could and should be contributing to the depth of the singles game.

The ATP should be instituting rules where if your not playing a minimum of 12 singles event at your level you are not eligible to play doubles: in other words if you want to cash in buy a lottery ticket don't play doubles. Their should be exemptions for length of participaton (say after 7 seasons you can play in ATP doubles events without playing in singles) and for infirmity (Jacco Elting stopped playing singles fairly early because of knee problems so a player in his situation with the appropriate medical support would be allowed to play without entering singles).

However if you are an able bodied former NCAA singles champ who is too lazy to play single or finds that singles cuts into the profit margin from playing doubles too bad: play or go home.

Doubles "specialists" don't need to be promoted they are a blight on the game that needs to be eradicated. Does anybody really miss Rick Leach or his ilk?
Point taken and as for Rick Leach no I don't miss him at all. Quite the contrary. But I feel that there are indeed specialists now who choose not to play singles ie: Bryan Bros, Ram/Erlich ; I miss Woodbridge etc. And I find doubles fun and exciting to watch and I happen to like being entertained.

Angle Queen
02-21-2006, 12:25 PM
I think the real issue for the top guys is too much playing time.

A real incentive...and this is purely off the top of my head...is to make the doubles "points" equivalent of singles (if it doesn't/isn't already that way) AND let their doubles results/points count towards their singles ranking. Hmmm...a doubles win at a GS would/could add 200 points to their totals. Sweet. That'd be a nice way to close the gap.

Nice thread topic, Sue! Enjoy Vegas!!!!

helen phillips
02-22-2006, 01:23 AM
Point taken and as for Rick Leach no I don't miss him at all. Quite the contrary. But I feel that there are indeed specialists now who choose not to play singles ie: Bryan Bros, Ram/Erlich ; I miss Woodbridge etc. And I find doubles fun and exciting to watch and I happen to like being entertained.

It was a lot of typing so I had to work up a real head of steam. I'm not a big doubles fan (indeed I'm allergic to the net) so I don't appreciate it in the same way you do. I do think it is an important part of the pro game and I hope it doesn't get lost.

El Legenda
02-22-2006, 01:25 AM
i know for fact, only reason Ljubicic and Ancic play dubs is to get ready for Davis Cup dubs, you'll notice, around davis cup time, they'll play dubs couple weeks before the tie,

cobalt60
02-22-2006, 01:26 AM
It was a lot of typing so I had to work up a real head of steam. I'm not a big doubles fan (indeed I'm allergic to the net) so I don't appreciate it in the same way you do. I do think it is an important part of the pro game and I hope it doesn't get lost.
:lol: Actually your honesty is appreciated. And no one says you have to have the opinion of the thread starter;) Thanks for posting though. It makes it more interesting to have more points of view. And you have a lot of insight into the game given how you have been involved in it. So thanks again.

Phunkadelicious
02-22-2006, 01:32 AM
...I happen to like being entertained.
My dear Sue... we are a dying breed!

cobalt60
02-22-2006, 01:41 AM
My dear Sue... we are a dying breed!
:lol: Well Brian I know you are one in a million dear heart;)