indiana wrote:

---

JonH wrote:

---

Of the 64 top pairs in the Race only 17 of them are playing in Wimbledon as a pairing. And a few of those are out.

I think I have mentioned this before but I feel the idea of the doubles race being about the top 8 pairs is misguided and leads to ...no race at all really in the latter stages of the season. A lot of those near the top of the Race such as marach and pavic, jamie and Bruno are no more and thus make the Race lose its authenticity.

I still think taking the top 16 individual ranked players and pairing them up into obvious, committed pairs and then maybe scratch pairings to round out the numbers would actually be better for the race and make an interesting final event. the top 16 doubles players as opposed to 8 pairs that stuck at it through the year...just my thoughts

---

Sorry, I meant to come back on this earlier.

I certainly understand what you are saying but in essence I personally disagree with your conclusion. I like the doubes race as it is with the top 8 pairs ( based on points earned together ) going to the finals. 

The eventual make-up will be 16 very well ranked players. A few of the top individually ranked will be missing but with such as Jamie & Bruno this year that is their choice to part and missing the ATP finals comes with it. If it really feels time to move on I doubt the doubles race is a real biggie except maybe just sometimes delaying some otherwise potentially later in the year splits. If it does have an effect at the margins I'm fine with that in that in I quite like established partnerships. 

Most of the top 16 individually ranked will no doubt be at the finals ( because of what they have achieved in their pairs ) and it is good this year that more potential finals challengers can get into Masters tournaments with the increase to 32 pair draws ( ironically proposed by Jamie & Bruno ). That was quite a big issue when it was 24 pair draws and so many entries taken by singles players. Maybe not wholly solved but at least better for not excluding pairs fairly close to the top 8 even quite late in the year.

It would seem a bit odd to me to have scratch pair Player A and B ( what's your name again, partner? ) as season ending championship winners ( and maybe a bit mucking up or at least confusing the final race to be top pair for the year ). Let that come from the top true pairs.

So I vote leave as is. 

---

 haha, a response! Wow! Seriously, i take those points. I also am quite happy to see established pairs but my  thought process was on what effectively becomes a very dull race and about those top 16 players that  I think miss out because they arent  in a top pair. 

I remember a forerunner event of this was the old WCT/Braniff Airways event at Olympia an then Royal Albert Hall, and Birmingham NEC. It was above the Grand  Prix Finals for a fair  few years and was more sought  after and higher prestige. The event typically had 8 pairs as now, with maybe 5 or 6 established pairs. But every year, a few pairs, maybe 2 typically were scratch. At the time , Sherwood Steward (he of the big beard) partnered Ferdi Taygan, but for whatever reason Stewart was paired by Ilie Nastase. A bit like Bruno Soares getting to play with Nick Kyrgios, say. And they reached the final if I recall, and lost to Mac and Fleming in the final

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_WCT_World_Doubles

But more importantly, as a scratch pairing, they brought real interest - my concern with the WTF generally is the staleness of the field both in doubles (as the top 8 pairs are known in effect 2 months before after the US Open and play each other often, in singles it is effectively the same; the top 8 race is not really a race at all and such a let down!)

I guess it is the  excitement of the unknown that attracts me               

No offence to Ken Skupski, Lee Childs or Luke Bambridge but none of them would have been able to live with the standard in that final. Putting one of them into that would have been an ugly affair with bagels, baguettes and fish-hooks all over the place.