Week 11 - Challenger - $35,00 H - Salinas, Ecuador

wolf · Tennis legend

RE: Week 11 - Challenger - $35,00 H - Salinas, Ecuador

freerider · Futures level

not saying that they arnt as skilled just that i dont think it has the same appeal as singles, could be something to do with lack of coverage... it may be because most british players play with a non britis partner

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

I absolutely love watching doubles, and unlike singles matches, I'll watch anyone play doubles, whereas I like to have an interest in at least one of the players in a singles match. But i don't follow the doubles rankings/players as much as I do the singles. I'm still happy to celebrate when they do well, I just don't go searching for the results in the same way. I can't really put a finger on why that is, however whoever suggested the constant changing of partners may well have hit on something.

wolf · Tennis legend

Delgado and Muller beat Armando and Juqueira 6-2, 6-4 in the quarter-finals, and play Decoud and Norman in the semi-finals.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:

Delgado and Muller beat Armando and Juqueira 6-2, 6-4 in the quarter-finals, and play Decoud and Norman in the semi-finals.

Norman, ironically, being one of Jamie's other occasional doubles partners! wink

C'mon, Jamie!

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Well done Jamie and Gilles!

steven · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
And that's what I mean by people bagging it, saying doubles players are not as talented as singles players, they are, they just need different skills to play their game.

It's largely true though that singles players are more talented than doubles players - if the doubles players were more talented at tennis, they'd play singles where they could make far more money and I'm pretty sure a pair of top singles specialists would get far closer to a top doubles pair in a doubles match than a top doubles player would get to a top singles player in a singles match.

Indeed, there are numerous players who have admitted that they concentrated on doubles because they were never going to make it to the top in singles, Jamie Murray being one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, indeed it's probably a good thing about tennis that it offers more than one route to success.

I also agree that the skills needed to be good at doubles are not identical to those needed to be good at singles and yes, the top doubles players make doubles an art form.

As to how interested I am in doubles compared to singles, doubles is fun to play (probably more fun than singles) and I find it fun to watch if I am attending a tournament live (e.g. at Queen's last year), but the idea of following doubles throughout the year as avidly as singles just doesn't grab me.

More stable doubles pairings might make it more interesting, but the main reasons why I can't bring myself to follow doubles as avidly as singles (given finite time to spend on tennis as a whole) are:

1) that (leaving aside the fact that all tennis rankings are pretty dodgy/unscientific in the first place) a player's doubles ranking depends so heavily on which partner (or combination of partners) they play with.

2) at lower levels in particular, tanking of doubles matches is rife, e.g. if you're still in singles and don't want to use up too much energy, or you need to get to the next event.

Bloomers/Skupski were particularly honourable over this the week before they went to Japan, but I admit to wishing they had tanked early enough to be able to leave for Kyoto in time for Ken to play singles qualies and Richard to have been less jet-lagged, even if it didn't seem to affect him! smile

Robxon · Lower Club Player

Doubles vs Singles.

One way of answering the question for me is which set of results do I look for first. Always singles.

Doubles for me feels like the consolation prize or even dare I say it the plate competition. If there are Brits in it I am still interested, but only just.

I do not get to see as much tennis I would like and yes watching doubles is fun. BUT it does have anywhere near the same intensity for me as singles. Doubles always feels like light relief after the main event, pudding after the main course if you like.

That is not to say I am disrespecting doubles players. But do you really think that Bob and Mike Bryan would settle for the $900k they earned last as world No 1's if they thought they had a chance as singles players.

If adult players had a combined ranking in the same way as junior players do, would the Bryans still be top money earners in the doubles tour? I doubt it.

wolf · Tennis legend

steven wrote:
I'm pretty sure a pair of top singles specialists would get far closer to a top doubles pair in a doubles match than a top doubles player would get to a top singles player in a singles match.

How about Nemad Zimonjic, who took a set off Youzhny in a Davis Cup live rubber this year? Shows the doubles players can play. A lot of them (Bjorkman, most of the French players) play singles as well anyway.

john · Top national player

I think Bjorkman is an exception, a quality singles and doubles player. I think the Zimonjic thing kind of proves the point. World doubles number 10 can only take a set off singles number 13 and I think that is a very rare exception. Conversely, let's say singles number 10 and 11 (Murray and Berdych) against doubles number 13 and 14 (Damm and Dlouhy).

I think Murray and Berdych would probably take more than a set there. Would probably win the majority of times in fact. I know that was a bit muddled and somewhat crude but just trying to point out what steven is saying about singles players getting closer at doubles than the doubles would at singles.

goldfish · Futures qualifying

I'm too lazy to go and do the proper research but Llodra springs to mind when discussing singles and doubles. OK, he's not top 10 singles but I believe he has won 2 tournaments this year and also has GS doubles to his name in previous years. Bit sporadic in singles though - losing in first round too this year. Now who does that remind you of?

freerider · Futures level

counter arguent: the bryans in davis cup

James · Satellite level

freerider wrote:

counter arguent: the bryans in davis cup

How many live singles rubbers have they won? I would imagine no more than 1 or 2 at most..

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:

wolf wrote:

Delgado and Muller beat Armando and Juqueira 6-2, 6-4 in the quarter-finals, and play Decoud and Norman in the semi-finals.

Norman, ironically, being one of Jamie's other occasional doubles partners! C'mon, Jamie!

B*gger! My prayers went unanswered: Jamie & Gilles lost 3 & 4! cry

steven · Tennis legend

James wrote:

freerider wrote:

counter arguent: the bryans in davis cup

How many live singles rubbers have they won? I would imagine no more than 1 or 2 at most..

I'm not sure who's trying to make what point here LOL but neither of them has ever played a live DC singles rubber. Based on the limited eveidence of half a dozen dead rubbers, they tend to beat those who are outside or just inside the top 100 when they play then and lose to anyone in the top 50.

Bob has beaten Eschauer, Dlouhy & Karanisic but lost to Andreev & Robredo.

Mike lost to Koubek in the only singles rubber he played.