I played Padel last night: first time although Id been planning to for some time-

1) 6 indoor courts crammed
2) great booking app and club set up - snazzy indoor place
3) accessible - so much easier to play than tennis for beginners
4) wear what you like - no snobbiness
5) hire racquets and balls for the hour and decent ones at that . As a new player that was good
6) as a 57 year old I played with a bunch of players around 20-30 years younger than me - I held my own as I know how to play both tennis and squash at a decent level (u16 county squads in both) so I could out finesse them once Id worked out tactics etc but fitness wise in a doubles sport on a small court, it is completely easy for most people to be fit enough for.

Tennis needs to watch out in terms of participation- never
Compete at a pro level as it isnt ever going to be watchable or attractive enough but at beginners and social level, it won me over

Don't agree with Opelka saying scrap the doubles tour from the ATP. Would he be saying this if he suddenly found his singles going no further but he excelled at doubles, gelled with a good partner and found himself in the finals at Masters 1000 and Grand Slams. I don't think so. Why does doubles always get picked on. Since tennis was first around people have always played both singles and doubles. It's not the players fault that the number of people watching at events goes down. The tour needs to promote these top doubles guys more. They train and work just as hard as singles players. To say scrap the doubles tour would suddenly end the careers of so many players who have worked hard to get to that position. Same with prize money. Shameful that winners of a doubles title at Grand Slam level get barely a fraction of the prize money that the singles winner gets. I don't know the answers but at the biggest events the tour needs to do more in how they push these top players. Be a sad day if scrapping doubles and then possibly mixed doubles ever comes about. Some of us do still like and enjoy watching a doubles match as much as a singles match.

Rich2310 wrote:

---

Don't agree with Opelka saying scrap the doubles tour from the ATP. Would he be saying this if he suddenly found his singles going no further but he excelled at doubles, gelled with a good partner and found himself in the finals at Masters 1000 and Grand Slams. I don't think so. Why does doubles always get picked on. Since tennis was first around people have always played both singles and doubles. It's not the players fault that the number of people watching at events goes down. The tour needs to promote these top doubles guys more. They train and work just as hard as singles players. To say scrap the doubles tour would suddenly end the careers of so many players who have worked hard to get to that position. Same with prize money. Shameful that winners of a doubles title at Grand Slam level get barely a fraction of the prize money that the singles winner gets. I don't know the answers but at the biggest events the tour needs to do more in how they push these top players. Be a sad day if scrapping doubles and then possibly mixed doubles ever comes about. Some of us do still like and enjoy watching a doubles match as much as a singles match.

---

 Ok, just for the alternative view....

It doesn't matter that doubles players have worked so hard. Because so have many veteran players. Or table tennis players. Or whatever. But they don't get the same payout. Money is not based on effort put in. 

And why isn't it the players' fault if no one is watching? 

My Amazon Prime shows the doubles matches. And the singles. But I don't watch the doubles (or very rarely). And it's not because the players have not been marketed well. I know nearly all the top doubles players. I know quite a few of their back stories. 

I don't watch doubles because I don't think it is as interesting. I agree it's fun. But players switch partners. So you don't get the long rivalries. The physical effort is a lot less (a lot less court to cover). So you don't get the ultimate physical struggle which I rather like. 

In short, the numbers show that people do not like watching doubles on TV. I agree the ATP could try doing a two-year mega push, if you want. And see where it gets you. It might be a good idea.

But if the numbers still didn't go up (or only a tidgy bit), would you then be happy to drop doubles?

I would suggest having doubles just for the Grand Slams.

Just like mixed doubles. 

It would be a fun sideshow. Good for courtside spectators. Would get a bit of TV time for home players or whatever. 

But I think the money from doubles on the main tour should go into Challengers and lower ranking events.

That way, more players could actually challenge for the top spots, which would raise the quality, and - importantly - raise the chances of players from all classes, all sections of society, from poorer countries etc, actually being able to make a living from tennis.  

A far better use of money and focus than general mainstream doubles, in my opinion.  

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Rich2310 wrote:

---

Don't agree with Opelka saying scrap the doubles tour from the ATP. Would he be saying this if he suddenly found his singles going no further but he excelled at doubles, gelled with a good partner and found himself in the finals at Masters 1000 and Grand Slams. I don't think so. Why does doubles always get picked on. Since tennis was first around people have always played both singles and doubles. It's not the players fault that the number of people watching at events goes down. The tour needs to promote these top doubles guys more. They train and work just as hard as singles players. To say scrap the doubles tour would suddenly end the careers of so many players who have worked hard to get to that position. Same with prize money. Shameful that winners of a doubles title at Grand Slam level get barely a fraction of the prize money that the singles winner gets. I don't know the answers but at the biggest events the tour needs to do more in how they push these top players. Be a sad day if scrapping doubles and then possibly mixed doubles ever comes about. Some of us do still like and enjoy watching a doubles match as much as a singles match.

---

 Ok, just for the alternative view....

It doesn't matter that doubles players have worked so hard. Because so have many veteran players. Or table tennis players. Or whatever. But they don't get the same payout. Money is not based on effort put in. 

And why isn't it the players' fault if no one is watching? 

My Amazon Prime shows the doubles matches. And the singles. But I don't watch the doubles (or very rarely). And it's not because the players have not been marketed well. I know nearly all the top doubles players. I know quite a few of their back stories. 

I don't watch doubles because I don't think it is as interesting. I agree it's fun. But players switch partners. So you don't get the long rivalries. The physical effort is a lot less (a lot less court to cover). So you don't get the ultimate physical struggle which I rather like. 

In short, the numbers show that people do not like watching doubles on TV. I agree the ATP could try doing a two-year mega push, if you want. And see where it gets you. It might be a good idea.

But if the numbers still didn't go up (or only a tidgy bit), would you then be happy to drop doubles?

I would suggest having doubles just for the Grand Slams.

Just like mixed doubles. 

It would be a fun sideshow. Good for courtside spectators. Would get a bit of TV time for home players or whatever. 

But I think the money from doubles on the main tour should go into Challengers and lower ranking events.

That way, more players could actually challenge for the top spots, which would raise the quality, and - importantly - raise the chances of players from all classes, all sections of society, from poorer countries etc, actually being able to make a living from tennis.  

A far better use of money and focus than general mainstream doubles, in my opinion.  

---

Wow. 

I think that if a player retires/ defaults from one event, then they should be excluded from the remainder of the tournament.

So singles players can feel free to enter - and play, and earn money from - doubles or mixed, or whatever but if they hold the tournament and their opposition in sufficient contempt to withdraw from one event, then that should apply to all disciplines.

... and I completely concur with CD on the "equality of effort" nonsense. Nine-year-olds will give their all in an inter-school tennis tournament, but they don't deserve the same income as a singles finalist at Wimbledon. I think that equality of earnings for the sexes is the thin end of the wedge.

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Neal and Wes lost this final 10-8 MTB

---

The full SP:

Final:  Rohan Bopanna & Matthew Ebden (IND/AUS) CR 52  (15+37) defeated (1) Wesley Koolhof (NED) & Neal Skupski CR 2 (1+1) by 6-3 2-6 [10-8]