John McEnroe says we should scrap doubles

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

John McEnroe says we should scrap doubles

PaulM · Tennis legend

He speaks some truth, but I think doubles still has an important role in the game. General public enjoy watching it, it just needs marketed better.

Ratty · County player

Er, what evidence do you have for the assertion that the "general public" enjoys watching doubles? I would have thought that it's crushingly obvious (from the empty stands and zero TV coverage) that they don't.

And isn't it always the lament of people who like not-so-popular sports: "if only it was marketed better".

Way to go, Mac!

Salmon · Tennis legend

I like this McEnroe guy. Actually, nah, there's no need to scrap doubles and the prize money offered is more or less fine, but it shouldn't be funded by official authorities when the more talented singles specialists are struggling.

Mixed doubles, though, should not carry any prize money.

This thread is not going to look pretty in a few hours...

indiana · Tennis legend

Although I may at times come across as no great doubles enthusiast, it is issues surrounding doubles that I really have issues with ( eg. funding for doubles as against singles in the UK, though this is being revised ) and when folk overhype its importance, particularly at futures level, or seemingly give it almost equal status as the LTA has in the past with its quoting of our number of top 100 platers.

Without that stuff, I actually enjoy a good doubles match with players skilled in the craft. and I enjoy watching later round doubles matches at the Slams. I really would not like to say it go professionally, as it is a game very familiar to and played by millions at some level throughout the world and many enjoy watching it.

However, I have to say that this "many" is generally disappointingly few when it comes to attendance when given the choice. I was at the O2 on finals day a few years ago and took my place to watch the Bryans win the WTF title, and the arena was probably half empty for most of the match. All the remainig spectators ( who had paid for both doubles and singles finals ) seemed to prefer a bite to eat, a wander round the O2 or just came later. It was full attendance for the singles final.

As Ratty says, relatively empty stands are not at all unusual for doubles and I imagine my experience at the O2 is not unusual there. This us not a game thst attacts live spectators and that is a big problem.

I don't know what can be done. As I said, I do like a good doubles, but in many ways it is certainly the singles players that attract the money into the game and to me the doubles players just have no good claim for higher prize money. Some doubles enthusiasts lament the difference in prize money, but I don't feel they should be effectively subsidised ( any more than they already are ) when the doubles in itself just does not attact great income.

They have changed the scoring system outside the Slams ( I am happy personally with the MTB, but not the no ad which to me I love in the normal scoring system ) with seemungly little great effect.

I guess I would say look again at marketing, but I don't really kniw what can be done, and Ratty makes a good point in that often sime folk just have difficulty recignusing that their favoured just us nit universally popular and never will be, however it is marketed.

There are certainly many issues and, while I certainly don't like John McEnroe's conclusion, it may be good that he raises them.

indiana · Tennis legend

PS : I am not drunk ! I just made my usual typing mistakes in initial write up on my phone, and accidently hit send before I'd gone through and corrected ( most of ) them, particularly near the end.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Ratty wrote:
Er, what evidence do you have for the assertion that the "general public" enjoys watching doubles? I would have thought that it's crushingly obvious (from the empty stands and zero TV coverage) that they don't.

And isn't it always the lament of people who like not-so-popular sports: "if only it was marketed better".

Way to go, Mac!

Like I said, I agree with much of what he says however the vast majority of recreational players play doubles, and a good doubles match is very entertaining. Empty stands is not a doubles specific problem as anyone who watches the tour events can testify. The "general public" in most parts of the world if you want to be obtuse don't actually like watching tennis very much. The only thing that is "crushingly obvious" is that you can't help but be a patronising (fill in your own blank) wink

Attendances at events are not as good as singles obviously, but doubles is shunted round the schedule to deal with TV. I think that if the tours wanted to make doubles successful they could. The reasons it's not is because nothing is really done with it. It is just left as a side-show (which I actually think is the right thing. Please understand I am agreeing with Mac, just suggesting that things could be done about it).

i know Wimbledon is a bit unique, but they love a bit of doubles late in the evening there. It's part of the Wimbledon experience I think. The must be a way to capture that week to week.

So Ratty I am not disagreeing with you at all. What I am saying is all the points you raise are in many ways down to there being zero effort to attract the public (or people who enjoying playing tennis who will predominantly play doubles) to take an interest in professional doubles if they attend a pro event (given they can't watch it on TV, which could also be changed).

Mac is bang on. Doubles is pretty pointless now beyond a pay day for players who couldn't cut it in singles. It wasn't always like that. The physicality of the game puts the top singles players off (plus some of them, Djokovic say, are horrible doubles players anyway).

Doubles used to be more than a side-show (it was never big but it was bigger than it is now) and I think the tours could do more if they wanted to to beef up its profile and in turn its popularity. But realistically that would need some of the big ATP guys on board and I just don't see that happening.

After all, isn't it pretty common knowledge that most people who go watch tennis go to see "players" and not the "game", which is why people would rather watch a Nadal or Djokovic blowout than a exciting close match between two players they've never heard of.

-- Edited by PaulM on Saturday 7th of December 2013 04:14:39 PM

korriban · Challenger level

IMO doubles is a great game to play and CAN be a great game to watch if the quality of the players is good enough. I do question the ability of many professionals in terms of their volleying, especially a large number of the women - in a few cases, outstanding highly ranked women singles players simply cannot volley, probably because they avoid the front court at all costs in their singles game style. Doubles will only be taken as seriously as singles when the very best players in the world take part. But that simply isn't going to happen any time soon. I'm sure whenever Andy or Novak or Rafa give doubles a go, stadiums will be packed - otherwise, it will remain a "bonus" for spectators at the end of the day after all the singles matches are completed. I agree that in a world of limited resources, the LTA and other national associations really ought to focus everything on younger singles players. Doubles should NOT be a priority at all. I don't think there should be more prize-money for doubles.

Rugby Sevens is a fantastic game, brilliant to watch, and arguably much more entertaining and instructive for youngsters taking up the game - but we all know that it is, ultimately, just a bit of fun - and taken far less seriously by players and spectators alike. There's very little money in it for players, and "specialist" sevens players are often those who are up and coming stars (being blooded) or those who simply don't have what it takes to make it in the 15 man game. I could make a case that the best specialist 5-a-side team of footballers in England (names we will never have heard of) would probably smash any pick of the top England stars, Rooney, Lampard et al - but it would still be full of players who would give up everything to have made in the 11 a side game.

Same issue

indiana · Tennis legend

I was pretty impressed with Djokovic's doubles when he teamed up with Andy in a masters event a couple of years ago, and basically carried the pair. But seems that wasn't very representative, I don't recall seeing him elsewhere such as in the Davis Cup or whatever.

More generally, yes it is very understandable that the top singles players ( and very likely generally good doubles players if they put their minds to it ) no longer participate at all seriously in doubles such as Newcombe and Roche, and of course more recently McEnroe himself, did so in the past.

Having big name singles players participating regularly in doubles would I am sure be good for attracting more people to actually make the effort to watch doubles live. As it is, to an extent folk don't really generally know the existing top doubles players and are not attacted to the pro doubles game and / or the names involved.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Leaving aside my personal likes and dislikes about doubles, my main question is why and how do the ATP/WTA pay such high prize money ? It's never televised, apart from a small bit during the Grand Slams and, even then, it's mainly at Wimbledon which is (a) partly tradition and (b) because it's a way to show the GB players when there are so few of them in the MD singles.
I can watch any amount of Eurosport and Sport+ and any other tennis TV channel and never see a doubles match. The stands are empty (which admittedly is often true for singles too). I can't believe that sponsors insist on it. So what gives ? As an independent body(ies), I don't quite understand how the prize money gets justified. (I'm not completely sad that it does get justified, I just don't quite understand).

A1 tennis academy · Satellite level

Even intelligent people can talk a load of boll.cks like John is on this occasion .

Lets hope he gets the common sense back before wimbledon

-- Edited by A1 tennis academy on Saturday 7th of December 2013 10:39:29 PM

-- Edited by A1 tennis academy on Saturday 7th of December 2013 10:40:36 PM

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Nail on the head by Mac. Doubles players are basically failed singles players no matter how we dress it up. If a player has aspirations to be a doubles player then it's because they can't make the breakthrough in singles. You don't get decent singles players deciding to become a doubles specialist for example.

Prize money wise it's a bit like giving Conference teams more money than league one or championship level football teams.

Allan94 · Lower Club Player

As someone who enjoys doubles as much as singles it saddens me that it has almost become two separate tours my solution and it may be confusing would be to integrate doubles into the singles rankings but half the value of doubles for example the winner of a singles grand slam would still receive 2000 points while the doubles winners would get 1000 instead of 2000 therefore more singles guys would see it as an importance the next thing that would be that the slams would have to go MTB system the no ads issue could be decided by the player. Anyone who has watched doubles on live score in the no ads system will know that matches very rarely exceed an hour and a half so if this could be organised in the players day off in singles it may make it less of issue and more of a mind over matter situation. Now with regards to the race I would still keep singles only rankings so only the best qualify with regards to doubles specialists I think that a cap would have to be enforced for example a player who does not have singles ranking yet win a futures doubles would not be able to enter the rankings until the win a singles ranking after which their doubles could be added therefore singles still remains the most important and therefore the best overall players would get to the top

if this is not the way forward then I can only see people who dislike the current doubles situation having to lump it or give financial rewards to the top singles players

Allan94 · Lower Club Player

Another thing i would like to see would be the top players earning less for example Roger Federer earns around 70 million a year and to me that is ridiculous I think that tennis could look at darts in my opinion is a great night for anyone who goes and what people notice is almost every player has a is well known and people don't leave after Phil Taylor match finishes in tennis today there are virtually no characters no fierce rivalries like McEnroe and Connors I think the guys like Gulbis and Fognini need to become household names and allowed to cause a bit of controversy but still have the serious match play guys like Nadal are killing the excitement with their true gentleman personas

with regards to money i do think every top 100 player should earn a living but the top 5 is just extreme if you bring it down to a more suitable amount all that excess money could be spent on increasing the amount of courts and participation

indiana · Tennis legend

Rankings composed of both singles and doubles is done in juniors, and in my view juniors is most certainly where it should remain

Singles is not broke, so I don't wish any complication involving how singles tournaments are run, seedings etc, being effected by doubles.

I'd love to see doubles continue ( and I am sure it will ), in general much as is, but somehow yes it would be good if it could be more attractive to folk. I know not how. I personally don't like no ad, but if the authorities and doubles players really think it helps, fair dos.

However, as it is, the top doubles players have a pretty good lucrative career, arguably subsidised by the singles players, but I don't see them complaining, so apparently no great reason why they can't be happy and carry on. Just in some ways have to accept that doubles is a minority interest compared to singles, but the specialist doubles players do a heck of a lot better than participants in most minority interest sports, largely on the back of singles and doubles being already integrated to the extent they are.

It is just a bit annoying when any huge doubles enthusiasts do their Oliver impression with a "please, sir, I want some more". Be more grateful for what you already have, Oliver !

As I say singles isn't broke. Doubles isn't really broke either, may just have to accept its place in the world, while always on the lookout for ways to enhance it, make it moe appealing. Currently, and more parochially with the LTA changes to funding, the status quo doesn't look that bad at all to me.

We would no doubt all like tennis as a whole to be more attractive to spectators, sponsors etc, and from that both singles and doubles can benefit. Much more important than arguing singles v doubles. A bigger cake would always be good, but doubles players share of the cake is fine.