Weeks 3 & 4 - Australian Open - doubles

Spectator · All-time great

Weeks 3 & 4 - Australian Open - doubles

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Really pleased for Ken/Neal although they have a tough draw.

My point above stands regardless of the personalities involved. I guess it depends on whether the philosophy is let those who earned the right to play, actually play, or get the big names on court as often as possible for the fans.

For me, this is a slam and those who have earned the right through their performances throughout the year, should be allowed to play. Let's be honest, the main reason that people like Evo and Kyrgios are playing is to earn a few extra pounds/dollars and they have no real ambition in the doubles arena. Having said that, the rules allow them to enter and so I don't blame them in any way for taking advantage of that. I just think the rules are wrong.

Application in the post to join the No Slam MD WCs Club ( at least if not open contested ones ).

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 17th of January 2017 09:35:26 PM

When I was writing that, I was thinking about you biggrin

Bruce · Lower Club Player

D. Inglot / F. Mergea lead 3-0 with 2 breaks

-- Edited by Bruce on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 04:00:01 AM

Spectator · All-time great

(16) Dom Inglot & Florin Mergea (ROU) CR 70 (43+27) d (WC) Luke Saville & Jordan Thompson (AUS/AUS) CR 242 (144+98) 6-2 7-5. Nice clean win.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
Did the Skupskis not make it ? I think someone said they were first Alt. Much as I love seeing Evo do well, it kills me to see Evo/Kygrios (and other pairings like that) playing doubles and Ken/Neal missing out.

I know this is a perennial argument, but doubles should be for doubles players and based SOLELY on doubles rankings.

If this comes to pass, I rest my case.

Tweet from Stuart Fraser

Looks like no doubles for Evans and Kyrgios as the Aussie says "I'm probably not going to play."

Let the doubles players play doubles.

Edit

And even if he DOES play in the end, it still shows how seriously (or not) that he takes the doubles. But maybe that's just Kyrgios and not singles players in general.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Wednesday 18th of January 2017 12:00:10 PM

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Did the Skupskis not make it ? I think someone said they were first Alt. Much as I love seeing Evo do well, it kills me to see Evo/Kygrios (and other pairings like that) playing doubles and Ken/Neal missing out.

I know this is a perennial argument, but doubles should be for doubles players and based SOLELY on doubles rankings.
If this comes to pass, I rest my case.
Tweet from Stuart Fraser
Looks like no doubles for Evans and Kyrgios as the Aussie says "I'm probably not going to play."
Let the doubles players play doubles.
Edit
And even if he DOES play in the end, it still shows how seriously (or not) that he takes the doubles. But maybe that's just Kyrgios and not singles players in general.

Is he spitting out his dummy after losing in five sets to Andreas Seppi in the singles, where he was the 14th seed, I wonder?

RJA · Hall of fame

To be fair to Kyrgios, not that he deserves it, he came into the tournament with an injury and it apparently affected him against Seppi.

JonH · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
L64: (WC) Luke Saville & Jordan Thompson (AUS/AUS) CR 242 (144+98) vs (16) Dom Inglot & Florin Mergea (ROU) CR 70 (43+27)
L64: Dan Evans & Nick Kyrgios (AUS) CR 507 (277+230) vs Dusan Lajovic & Victor Troicki (SRB/SRB) CR 299 (208+91)
L64: Sam Querrey & Donald Young (USA/USA) CR 255 (85+170) vs (2) Jamie Murray & Bruno Soares (BRA) CR 7 (4+3)
L64: (ALT) Ken Skupski & Neal Skupski CR 167 (76+91) vs (14) Juan Sebastián Cabal & Robert Farah (COL/COL) CR 58 (29+29)
That is a horrible draw, but I suppose they're just pleased to have the chance to play.

Yes, much better than being down there and not in the draw at all. All the best to them.

Dom and Mergea won in straight sets today, second round opponents not known yet. Dan (for the moment at least), Skupski's and Jamie all appear on tomorrows OOP.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Spectator wrote:
At one level, the amount is risibly small relative to the singles: as I follow it, each team gets $14,800 Australian dollars. Converted into Euros, that's about 5,250 each. By comparison, FQR singles losers get $25,000 AUD. (Yes, I know singles are a bigger draw than doubles - but that does feel like too much of a discrepancy)

But to compare - and the reason why I converted to Euros - the winning team in this week's 43,000 Euro Challenger will earn 2,670 Euros (1335 each). A SF team will earn 930 Euros. So for a doubles team, just getting into a Grand Slam is financially the equivalent of winning four mid-level Challengers, or reaching the SFs of about eleven of them.

-- Edited by Spectator on Tuesday 17th of January 2017 08:58:38 PM

Thanks for the numbers. Grand Slams are where the money is as proved by the post.

(To be fair Neal and Ken told me this at Didsbury)

RJA · Hall of fame

Now confirmed that Evans and Kyrgios have withdrawn from the doubles.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L64: (14) Juan Sebastián Cabal & Robert Farah (COL/COL) CR 58 (29+29) defeated (ALT) Ken Skupski & Neal Skupski CR 167 (76+91) by 3 & 4 cry

wolf · Tennis legend

Neal unfortunately had double fault-itus, which cost them the break in each set.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Shame, Evo and Gyrigios are out, I would have gone out of my way to watch that, now realistically might catch the odd snipit but very unlikely to watch any doubles in its entirety in the whole tournament unless one of our scratch pairings gets a run in the mixed. I don't think one can avoid the reality that in isolation it is about as popular as 4 day county cricket (not without merit) and its whole existence as a professional entity is as a sideshow to the main event i.e. The singles at the slams, the relative prize monies reflects that reality.

Cricket has survived by innovation and generating an income that allows it to respect its roots and traditions. The traditional formats are subsidised with income generated from shorter fan friendly formats. Doubles for doubles players ummmm.... it is the singles players that are subsidising it in every way, the fact that a star player withdraws because of injury I feel is completely acceptable and indeed reflects positively on their motivation for entering which is not really fiscal but probably more to do with enjoying and lapping up more of the atmosphere around what is a great tournament.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Apologises again, Dan does need the money as he is buying his own shirts. Very tempted to sponsor him at £19:99 a shirt with a nice claret and blue number with ACORNS emblazoned across the chest. UTV

indiana · Tennis legend

Oakland2002 wrote:
Shame, Evo and Gyrigios are out, I would have gone out of my way to watch that, now realistically might catch the odd snipit but very unlikely to watch any doubles in its entirety in the whole tournament unless one of our scratch pairings gets a run in the mixed. I don't think one can avoid the reality that in isolation it is about as popular as 4 day county cricket (not without merit) and its whole existence as a professional entity is as a sideshow to the main event i.e. The singles at the slams, the relative prize monies reflects that reality.

Cricket has survived by innovation and generating an income that allows it to respect its roots and traditions. The traditional formats are subsidised with income generated from shorter fan friendly formats. Doubles for doubles players ummmm.... it is the singles players that are subsidising it in every way, the fact that a star player withdraws because of injury I feel is completely acceptable and indeed reflects positively on their motivation for entering which is not really fiscal but probably more to do with enjoying and lapping up more of the atmosphere around what is a great tournament.

Pity in a way for doubles and I can on occasion enjoy a doubles match, but I find it difficult to dissent from that in any substance.

It may on the face of it go against my Slams for the best but that is much more relevant for singles. Doubles is much more a niche professional relation, however widely played at least in the UK at grassroots level, much less popular to watch and essentially played full time by a group of players who generally didn't really make it at singles, they are not as good at 'tennis', are pretty proficient at doubles and in the upper rankings make a pretty good living.

I have gone to the tour finals final day at the 02 once and watched both the doubles final, won by the Bryans, and the singles final. The arena for the doubles final was generally not half full until the singles approached. People had paid for both but more preferred to snack or more and / or wander the 02 than enter the tennis arena for effectively a freebie extra to them, even if their big interest was singles.

Doubles commercially does not and cannot stand on its own feet. MTBs were a necessary and general good innovation, helping with scheduling though I will never take to no Ad, because deuce, ad is a great general scoring method and creates all sorts of sub plots. I don't think no Ad has really been of particular benefit.

If some top talented and motivated players enter doubles in place of rather a relatively lowly ranked doubles specialist pair it increases interest. That's the bigger picture. We're not again in any foreseeable future going to have many top singles players entering Slam doubles with the intense nature of singles, but I am sure it would increase interest compared to the general doubles cast. If a few enter as they can and we don't get the 56th, 57th and 58th best ranked pair on doubles rankings that's very fine with me.

I hope doubles does manage to at least continue to survive on singles' coattail for all these who do enjoy it or indeed compete professionally, but they do pretty well and maybe there are innovations that might help.