Suggestion for a separate section for Doubles

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Suggestion for a separate section for Doubles

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

The problem is in ITFs the threads are being clogged up with stories about college players winning the odd doubles match which in my opinion means nothing. Find me a half decent college player as a partner and I'm sure I could win a match. Paolo Maldini etc.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

I like having something in the title to indicate dubs only, but certainly not a separate section.

indiana · Tennis legend

Helen40 wrote:
I like having something in the title to indicate dubs only, but certainly not a separate section.

Yes, for purely doubles threads that is clearly easily done and appreciated by some folk. Essentially though for me in general the other points brought out in earlier discussions that appear to have most folk not wishing separate threads / sections, apart from separate threads for such as Slams, still hold.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

With so many men in the doubles Top 100, should this be revisited?

Its becoming quite hard to follow as the majority of threads are Doubles heavy.

Shhh · Challenger level

There are things confusing on the board, for example my main issue at the moment is the different rankings. That's something we need to just work through over time I accept. I do take your point regarding doubles being more prevalent at the moment, there's no way of knowing how long that will last in the great scheme of things though.

We have a separate section for Andy Murray historically but I don't really feel that was observed as in practise, it made more sense for his results to be in with others when they were playing the same tournaments. I often find it annoying ( as a 1 on a scale of 1 out of 10) when I click on a thread that's been added to, to find someone just adding a smiley face....ie no new news. I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known. That's life though......do we have a rule where you can only add to a post if you have a information based post! Tennis is a multi layer complicated sport, we are all different and have different likes and dislikes, I don't think we will every get a message board that everyone finds perfect at the same time, it's just not possible.

As someone who bookmarks and comes onto the site as "Recent Posts" I would not want to see the amount of posts increased so my vote is still a firm "no".

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I certainly think a 'doubles only' section makes sense in some ways. And for those events where we've only got doubles players, it would be very easy.

But if we've got singles and doubles in the same event (which obviously is the main issue because in the others, SC (or whoever) normally has 'doubles' in the title), then having two versions of each event seems rather overkill.

My fear is mainly as regards the first poster (say, SC) in that:

(1) it's a lot of work to put them all up properly - will she (or anyone else) be happy to do that for both singles AND doubles? I know it's sort of duplication - copy and paste the same title - but it's a faff, all the same, and takes time. I don't think it's very fair and even if SC agreed (she likes doubles), what about when she's not around one week? There's people who pick up the slack for singles - I do sometimes - but I don't think I would bother doing duplicates for doubles.

(2) Given the above, if there's an event with four big singles, and only one doubles, would the person bother? So you'd end up with someone mentioning the doubles result in the singles anyway.

(3) Would it be the same for the women? The argument's not the same (we don't have a mega women's doubles situation at the moment) so we might end up with a board with doubles only for men but not for women which doesn't seem right either.

So, if this were a board that was 'auto-generated', somehow, then I think a separate doubles section makes sense. But given it's essential that the board has all the results (that's what many people are coming on for) and it relies on people's time and effort, I wouldn't make it harder and impose an extra level

PS Unlike Shhh, and backing up the point that we're all different, I actually like having lots of posts, even - maybe especially - the ones that are not information based. When I sit down on the bus, I click on the 'recent posts' and if there's only one new post, I'm, like, 'ahh, shame' whereas when there's 8, I'm like 'yay, something to skim through for the next five minutes'. And even smiley face posts bring back up the result (which I've probably forgotten as it was at least ten minutes ago!) so it reminds me.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Oakland2002 wrote:

biggrin

flamingowings · All-time great

I mean, sometimes you have a singles player playing both singles and doubles. If they lose in R1 in singles but go further in doubles then you are talking about the same player in 2 different places. E.g I think Kyle and Neal are in the IW entry list, so you can have Kyle in men's singles and in a separate but related thread/board. I would find this a bit hard to keep track of and just a bit precious if I'm honest.

I do, however, think that if a doubles section is to be considered, I would not bother splitting men/women up and just have it all under one section, with the tournament threads appropriately titled like the are under the current sections.

I don't find it annoying. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be that the thread starter (or a mod) changes the title if all singles players are knocked out and only.doubles interest continues. Equally, the doubles dislikers can simply stop reading after all singles players are out.

Relatedly (I think) there is the odd posts about non GB players which I enjoy, usually as a follow up if they have done well/lost after beating our player. I am often one that does this because I find it of interest in the wider tennis context.

-- Edited by flamingowings on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 11:30:48 AM

the addict · Tennis legend

I think it works fine just as it is - all posts from the whole tournament in one place. If there are no singles entries, then the title can say Doubles - otherwise leave it as it is (and don't change the title of the thread).

I don't follow the men a lot at futures level, but do read all the Challenger and above threads and all the women's section. My view is you don't have to read the thread if there is no-one you are interestted in playing in that tournament.

indiana · Tennis legend

Essentially, have we anyone else who is finding things quite hard to follow and would like / think we should have a separate doubles section?

Jan · Hall of fame

It seems fine to me.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Bob in Spain wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:

Glad you appreciated that, I was giggling to myself for 5 minutes. Obviously loosing it.

Jan · Hall of fame

Oakland2002 wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:

Glad you appreciated that, I was giggling to myself for 5 minutes. Obviously loosing it.

Must admit I had to resist adding another one!