CD we all know you are a closet doubles fan, you post about it all the time, oh I enjoyed the last 10 minutes of this match or whatever. Feel free to come out in the open we are all friends here. 

It's a fair point.
But we don't use men's singles to majorly subsidise veteran tennis. Or wheelchair tennis .
So why doubles?
Or indeed why women's tennis?
There's no hard and fast rules as to why one and not the other.

christ wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Ok, it's probably just me (and maybe Jaggy ) but I've got no problem with it

The ATP/WTA have decided (quite rightly) that nearly every tennis spectator would rather see Dimitrov etc playing doubles than some doubles specialist most people have never heard of

And the price you pay for that is that Dimitrov etc will prioritise their singles, and hence drop out from doubles when it suits

And, yes, that prevents other doubles players getting a living but, given press coverage, TV viewership, etc etc etc, the doubles players only get a living in the first place because they are heavily subsidised (too heavily subsidised, I would say) by the singles sport. (I'd rather their money was more spread out to singles challengers etc)

---

You could argue the same about the Women's game. Would you be happy to see them pushed aside too.

---

 No - but I would be happy if their prize money weren't equal.

---

 It's only equal for the Slams.  We've just had 15 years of Federer and Nadal with support from Andy. Djokovic and a few others so the Men's game has been in the ascendency but the next big rivalry could come from the Women's game or Doubles could get more exposure. I personally think that Doubles is more entertaining for non tennis playing viewers.  

Coup Droit wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

christ wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Ok, it's probably just me (and maybe Jaggy ) but I've got no problem with it

The ATP/WTA have decided (quite rightly) that nearly every tennis spectator would rather see Dimitrov etc playing doubles than some doubles specialist most people have never heard of

And the price you pay for that is that Dimitrov etc will prioritise their singles, and hence drop out from doubles when it suits

And, yes, that prevents other doubles players getting a living but, given press coverage, TV viewership, etc etc etc, the doubles players only get a living in the first place because they are heavily subsidised (too heavily subsidised, I would say) by the singles sport. (I'd rather their money was more spread out to singles challengers etc)

---

You could argue the same about the Women's game. Would you be happy to see them pushed aside too.

---

 No - but I would be happy if their prize money weren't equal.

---

 It's only equal for the Slams.  We've just had 15 years of Federer and Nadal with support from Andy. Djokovic and a few others so the Men's game has been in the ascendency but the next big rivalry could come from the Women's game or Doubles could get more exposure. I personally think that Doubles is more entertaining for non tennis playing viewers.  

---

But that's not backed up with viewing figures

---

 Amazon gave up the rights to Tennis. The sport as a whole has a viewing problem.

OK, I hope we're not going to down the route of debating whether women deserve equal prize money. It's positive for tennis - and women's sport in general - that they do at least at the majors. Tennis has become a truly global sport because of the investment in the women's game.

You only have to look at the growth in the popularity of women's football, both at international and national level, following increased investment and promotion. Of course it's never going to be the same level as the men's game, but they are probably about a century behind in terms of investment in the sport. And like tennis, there is definitely a market.

I think the same principle has applied to the ATP's approach to doubles. With the top players stopping playing doubles, doubles was finding itself increasingly marginalised and consigned to back courts at unsociable times. Changing the doubles scoring system allowed matches to be shown on bigger courts and on TV, and permitting players to use singles or doubles rankings enabled top ranked singles players to play some doubles without having to commit to the discipline.

The downside is that some singles players occasionally pull out of doubles to protect themselves for singles. The upside is that spectators/TV viewers get to see some of their favourite players playing doubles and often playing well. With respect to the incredibly talented doubles players, many are aged 35-40, and on their own aren't enough to raise the profile of doubles.

9vicman wrote:

---

OK, I hope we're not going to down the route of debating whether women deserve equal prize money. It's positive for tennis - and women's sport in general - that they do at least at the majors. Tennis has become a truly global sport because of the investment in the women's game.

You only have to look at the growth in the popularity of women's football, both at international and national level, following increased investment and promotion. Of course it's never going to be the same level as the men's game, but they are probably about a century behind in terms of investment in the sport. And like tennis, there is definitely a market.

I think the same principle has applied to the ATP's approach to doubles. With the top players stopping playing doubles, doubles was finding itself increasingly marginalised and consigned to back courts at unsociable times. Changing the doubles scoring system allowed matches to be shown on bigger courts and on TV, and permitting players to use singles or doubles rankings enabled top ranked singles players to play some doubles without having to commit to the discipline.

The downside is that some singles players occasionally pull out of doubles to protect themselves for singles. The upside is that spectators/TV viewers get to see some of their favourite players playing doubles and often playing well. With respect to the incredibly talented doubles players, many are aged 35-40, and on their own aren't enough to raise the profile of doubles.

---

 Exactly, it's all about marketing and bringing in new viewers and doubles can be very entertaining.  Instead the ATP have continued to devalue doubles by making the 3rd set a crapshoot.

And you're 100% right about Women's sport. Tennis,  Athletics and Swimming are the only sports where Women have a similar profile to the Men. Reducing that in Tennis would be a real smack in the mouth to Women.

The Men's game has benefitted from a huge rivalry between 2 very popular players at the same time as the Women's game was dominated by the Williams sisters, one of whom was not popular.

 

 

SF: (2) Lloyd Glasspool & Jean-Julien Rojer (NED) CR 49 (18+31) defeated (8) Yuki Bhambri & Robin Haase (IND/NED) CR 103 (62+41) by 6-3 6-7(5) [11-9]