Week 38 - Challenger (€106,500): Pekao Szczecin Open - Szczecin, Poland (red clay) - doubles

spud · Challenger qualifying

RE: Week 38 - Challenger (€106,500): Pekao Szczecin Open - Szczecin, Poland (red clay) - doubles

indiana · Tennis legend

Then again, we have a significant number of Brits who have turned their back on singles and populate the top 100 in doubles, so maybe not such a real issue with prize money disparity.

What it does more mean probably is that playing week to week as a say 400 to 600 ranked singles player is far from financially lucrative and if you have doubles ability it may be better to go down that route, particularly if you can get yourself significantly into the doubles top 100.

There have been threads in the past where folk have bemoaned such as Colin Fleming giving up singles to concentrate solely on doubles, but understanding the case financially.

While it may be more an issue with ( non ) financial reward at lower rankings levels in singles, I would not want a switch out of singles into doubles to become more appealing.

indiana · Tennis legend

That said, very well done, the Skupskis.

indiana · Tennis legend

For me, I certainly see doubles as a dicipline in its own right, and often enjoy watching top class / important doubles matches. But do I want to see similarly ranked singles and doubles players remotely rewarded similarly ? - no. Would I generally prefer to see singles at quite a lower ranking level cimpared to doubles ? - yes.

And again, the comparative movement of players from singles into doubles, notably in GB, suggests that the comparative rewards are not out of line.

paulisi · Tennis legend

First set very solid, second set the serve went to pot. Recovered in MTB to hardly put a foot wrong.

They will be playing ATP tour events very soon.

-- Edited by paulisi on Saturday 21st of September 2013 09:17:40 PM

john · Top national player

I see becoming a "doubles specialist" as effectively retiring, and think the prize money on offer is, if anything, too high. The doubles imo, particularly at challengers and futures, are a good way for guys who are actually still trying to make a career in tennis to supplement their income and provide some extra tennis for spectators to watch. Guys solely playing doubles at challenger level is a bit pathetic, and is just hindering the chances of singles guys being able to afford to keep playing.

I think they should change the entry system at challenger level and below, and if somebody in the singles draw wants to play they should get first entry rights, and the "specialists" (those who have given up on making anything of themselves in singles in order to concentrate on something others are just doing part time) given any empty slots available.

Basically, I don't exactly see it as an achievement for a team to win a challenger title when this is all they are there for, and are only beating players who have more important things to worry about and are just trying to get a little extra cash in order to try and continue their singles careers.

Spectator · All-time great

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I really enjoy watching doubles, and don't think that becoming a doubles specialist is akin to retiring. Or that the ladder up to the ATPs should be removed for doubles specialists ... and their victories regarded as lesser achievements.

Not really convinced either (to pick up generally expressed themes) that any competent Challengers player could necessarily become a good doubles player. Or that a team of good singles players would necessarily beat the top doubles players at any given time (Just to check the most obvious example, the Bryans this year have beaten teams including Gasquet, Chardy, Seppi, Youzhny, Dodig, Verdasco, Haas, Isner, Querrey, Raonic, Tomic, Benneteau, Cilic, Tipsarevic, Janowicz, and Fognini. Nor is this limited to the Bryans: I had a quick scan through other top doubles players' records, which also showed victories over singles players) That's not to say that an Andy Murray (say) who played doubles regularly wouldn't be a top doubles player - and indeed, I'd love to see him play more regularly!

It's true that you can mask a particular weakness (say in movement) in a doubles team in a way that you can't if you're playing singles. But there are other skills that you need to add to the mixture to form a team that you don't need on the singles court. And some players are just better doubles players than singles players, because their skills are a better match. So why not enjoy it all!

Delighted for the Skupskis that they are progressing so well ... and hope they win their final.

wolf · Tennis legend

Ken & Neal already a break up 3-1*.

Live stream - http://www.drakulastream.eu/static/popups/1718421012352390.html

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

And win the first set 6-4 but are 1-3* down in the second

wolf · Tennis legend

F: (3) R1: (3) Ken Skupski & Neal Skupski CR 231 beat Andrea Arnaboldi & Alessandro Giannessi (ITA/ITA) CR 451 6-4 1-6 [10-7]

s

Not to take anything away from them, but they have not faced seeded opposition in either of the title triumphs these past two weeks.

Neal should now to rise (approx) +22 to about 122, Ken +5 to 82.

Spectator · All-time great

Hurrah for the brothers. Glad to see that they have made good use of two nice draws. Suspect, looking at the players who are going to be at Orleans, that the next Challenger will be somewhat more ... challenging.

Jan · Hall of fame

excellent news!

john · Top national player

Spectator wrote:
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I really enjoy watching doubles, and don't think that becoming a doubles specialist is akin to retiring. Or that the ladder up to the ATPs should be removed for doubles specialists ... and their victories regarded as lesser achievements.

Not really convinced either (to pick up generally expressed themes) that any competent Challengers player could necessarily become a good doubles player. Or that a team of good singles players would necessarily beat the top doubles players at any given time (Just to check the most obvious example, the Bryans this year have beaten teams including Gasquet, Chardy, Seppi, Youzhny, Dodig, Verdasco, Haas, Isner, Querrey, Raonic, Tomic, Benneteau, Cilic, Tipsarevic, Janowicz, and Fognini. Nor is this limited to the Bryans: I had a quick scan through other top doubles players' records, which also showed victories over singles players) That's not to say that an Andy Murray (say) who played doubles regularly wouldn't be a top doubles player - and indeed, I'd love to see him play more regularly!

It's true that you can mask a particular weakness (say in movement) in a doubles team in a way that you can't if you're playing singles. But there are other skills that you need to add to the mixture to form a team that you don't need on the singles court. And some players are just better doubles players than singles players, because their skills are a better match. So why not enjoy it all!

Delighted for the Skupskis that they are progressing so well ... and hope they win their final.

I had a feeling a fair few would disagree, as is their right, and as is the beauty of a discussion board. Appreciate your input still, you're one of the good posters on here, good quality insight smile

I will answer one point though, all those names you list as beaten by the Bryans and other top doubles teams are irrelevant. Firstly they wouldn't be playing at full intensity like in the singles and therefore play at a lower level than they would if they were focusing on doubles as a career. Also, if Raonic, Isner, Gasquet etc had the luxury of focusing completely on doubles, which includes, among other things, training specifically on the doubles skill set, having a regular partner and practising with them all the time, putting time into preparing for opponents and coming up with a game plan etc. instead of those pesky singles careers getting in the way, I have little doubt those results would reverse.

indiana · Tennis legend

Apparently, of the 7 GB players who have won over $100,000 in prize money this year, 4 are doubles players ( ref : Ratty in the Marcus doubles thread ).

The rewards, if you do make a good transition into the top doubles ranks, are by no means insubstantial.

If the Skupskis do as well in the future as many expect then they can look forward to such earnings.