British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Sheddie · administrator

Doubles - ATP reforms to downgrade the importance of doubles

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

This actually made me smile - basically, what you want, Sheddie, is cat fights ?

Well, you're not completely wrong..... they're interesting points

Firstly, though, as said, I don't think the women's discussion is a good comparison with men's doubles - again, there is no ethical point of principle at play in the latter

But even so, as you say, something has to be done re women's tennis. The Grand Slams will continue to give parity, they've the funds, it would look awful if they didn't, and women's tennis is at its most visible and popular in Grand Slams (as is men's, of course)

But, again, the WTA is close to bankruptcy - they can't sell their product

And that's a problem that can't be ignored

indiana · Tennis legend

I recall getting shot down by a few folk for suggesting that Ash Barty seemed a very nice young lady but that her presence at the top wasn't helpful for promoting women's tennis.

I got told that she had a lovely game and women's tennis didn't need big personalities and 'performers'. But it does.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 4th of July 2026 08:06:44 AM

Var · Challenger qualifying

Role on Naomi Osaka. She can bring it back. Doubles will go before womens tennis bites the dust.

Sheddie · administrator

Coup Droit wrote:
This actually made me smile - basically, what you want, Sheddie, is cat fights ?

Well, you're not completely wrong..... they're interesting points

Firstly, though, as said, I don't think the women's discussion is a good comparison with men's doubles - again, there is no ethical point of principle at play in the latter

But even so, as you say, something has to be done re women's tennis. The Grand Slams will continue to give parity, they've the funds, it would look awful if they didn't, and women's tennis is at its most visible and popular in Grand Slams (as is men's, of course)

But, again, the WTA is close to bankruptcy - they can't sell their product

And that's a problem that can't be ignored

Essentially, yes biggrin

But not just in women's tennis, men's tennis could also benefit from a little more spice when it comes to the battle for attention spans, almost in a similar way to boxing. If Alcaraz and Sinner genuinely disliked each other, it would drive even more interest in their battles.

I feel that some of these rivalries are naturally there - they're inevitable in a brutally competitive, individual sport - but they've almost been whitewashed in a misguided quest for blandness, to appease corporate sponsors.

It worked in the era of the Big 3. Rafa, Roger, Novak has such distinct and interesting personalities anyway, that there wasn't quite the need for an Agassi-Sampras, or Agassi-Becker style animosity. But times are changing...

And as you say for the WTA in particular, they need to make way more of an effort to get eyeballs to their product. Tennis has long been the no.1 women's sport, globally speaking, there should be far more interest. I really believe the issue lies in such feeble attempts at creating storylines, bringing the players to the fore in a non-superficial way, and bigging up rivalries to create something which more people follow and want to watch, both on TV and in person.

And Indy is right - loved watching Ash as a player, but she was a terrible ambassador for the sport. Hated engaging with the media, even objected to the relatively innocuous 'Barty Party' name of her fangroup, and was always going to check out of tennis at a young age to do other things.

But the ingredients are there at the moment. There's the new big three - the Sabalenka-Swiatek-Rybakina rivalry. And other fascinating storylines:

- Coco's astonishing athleticism, and yet remarkable frailties as a player

- The second coming of Madison Keys and Elina Svitolina

- The next generation - Andreeva, Jovic and others.

All the ingredients are there, but the WTA are shockingly bad when it comes to facilitating media interviews to help bring these storylines to life, creating a narrative around their tour in the same way that the ATP do, and generating any meaningful meaty content beyond the superficial stuff

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

There's an article by Alyson Rudd in today's Times condemning the proposed reforms under the heading "ATP is murdering doubles, then blaming it for mot being popular". Unfortunately, the archive site is currently refusing to archive the full version, so I can't provide a link for the benefit of non-subscribers. Sub-heading:

Team game is bedrock of tennis in Britain, but insulting plan to reduce prize money simply confirms those in charge are too wrapped up in glamour of singles

It essentially rehearses many of the arguments put forward on this thread. First couple of paragraphs:

There is an intensity to Wimbledon that would be close to unbearable were it not for the ability to turn to one of the outside courts, take a deep breath, and watch the doubles.

This is not to say doubles tennis is frivolous in any way, but rather it offers a different texture and atmosphere. It is to enter the world of team sport and leave the exposing brutality of singles to one side, just for a while. There are more smiles on the doubles court, even at a grand-slam event. The laughter among the spectators is not of the nervous variety, but the sort you get at the theatre as the pairings whisper and plot and signal to each other. No matter if one half of the partnership misplaces an easy smash, his or her team-mate will tap hands and offer encouragement. It is good for the soul, this kind of tennis. You get slapstick sometimes as the ball pings from racket to racket, but who doesn't love slapstick, and there is something quite magical in watching the movement and placement.

That second one made me smile.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Fine, Alyson

But you're missing the point - no one is talking about Wimbledon

the ATP are not in charge of Wimbledon

How much doubles do you watch, Alyson, in the ATP 250s and 500s ?

JonH · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Fine, Alyson

But you're missing the point - no one is talking about Wimbledon

the ATP are not in charge of Wimbledon

How much doubles do you watch, Alyson, in the ATP 250s and 500s ?

Exactly - nothing to do with Wimbledon or the slams or womens tennis (why did this thread get into womens tennis? Its about doubles and its status in the tour). I agree with CD in general through this thread (which is highly unusual for me! .

christ · Challenger qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
Firstly, though, as said, I don't think the women's discussion is a good comparison with men's doubles - again, there is no ethical point of principle at play in the latter

I don't think that there is - or should be - an ethical point of principle at play in the former either: either women's tennis can stand on it's own or it can't - if it fails it is not because of sexism, it is because it is not commercially viable (or because it is run by a bunch of idiots*). We the public shouldn't be made to feel guilty for preferring to watch men's tennis to women's tennis.

*note to powers that be: dressing sportswomen in negligées is not good for them or the sport it simply feeds into the myth that the attractiveness of the players is the only reason to watch the sport.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Firstly, though, as said, I don't think the women's discussion is a good comparison with men's doubles - again, there is no ethical point of principle at play in the latter
I don't think that there is - or should be - an ethical point of principle at play in the former either: either women's tennis can stand on it's own or it can't - if it fails it is not because of sexism, it is because it is not commercially viable (or because it is run by a bunch of idiots*). We the public shouldn't be made to feel guilty for preferring to watch men's tennis to women's tennis.

*note to powers that be: dressing sportswomen in negligées is not good for them or the sport it simply feeds into the myth that the attractiveness of the players is the only reason to watch the sport.

I completely agree

And people have to accept (or accept the point of view) that men play faster, stronger etc, and women are not more 'crafty', or construct points better or whatever - and, for a lot of people, the extra power etc is appealing

But I do think there's an ethical point, insofar as messaging to youngsters goes

i.e. I see some relevance to the argument that women should have parity because it tells young girls and boys that they are of equal value (and leave it till later for them to work out the financials)

Of course, there isn't parity at the moment - WTA players receive a lot less overall - so there's really no issue, and if the Grand Slams wish to promote parity that's great, I'm very happy, but it's up to them

Var · Challenger qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Firstly, though, as said, I don't think the women's discussion is a good comparison with men's doubles - again, there is no ethical point of principle at play in the latter
I don't think that there is - or should be - an ethical point of principle at play in the former either: either women's tennis can stand on it's own or it can't - if it fails it is not because of sexism, it is because it is not commercially viable (or because it is run by a bunch of idiots*). We the public shouldn't be made to feel guilty for preferring to watch men's tennis to women's tennis.

*note to powers that be: dressing sportswomen in negligées is not good for them or the sport it simply feeds into the myth that the attractiveness of the players is the only reason to watch the sport.
I completely agree
And people have to accept (or accept the point of view) that men play faster, stronger etc, and women are not more 'crafty', or construct points better or whatever - and, for a lot of people, the extra power etc is appealing
But I do think there's an ethical point, insofar as messaging to youngsters goes
i.e. I see some relevance to the argument that women should have parity because it tells young girls and boys that they are of equal value (and leave it till later for them to work out the financials)
Of course, there isn't parity at the moment - WTA players receive a lot less overall - so there's really no issue, and if the Grand Slams wish to promote parity that's great, I'm very happy, but it's up to them

Well I watching both womens and mens tennis. I sometimes dont find either gripping but tend to choose matches that appeal be they men or womens. I am not watching the Berrwttinis match because it doesnt appeal. I did enjoy Alexs victory over Iga though.

jb288 · Satellite level

I think a bigger point here is that the tour should remove tournaments that can't fill stadia.

I remember seeing Lloyd and Julians Cincinatti final last year in front of an empty stadium - why is that venue rewarded with a continued license?

I'm sure there are plenty of places in the world that would love to host!

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

jb288 wrote:
I think a bigger point here is that the tour should remove tournaments that can't fill stadia.

I remember seeing Lloyd and Julians Cincinatti final last year in front of an empty stadium - why is that venue rewarded with a continued license?

I'm sure there are plenty of places in the world that would love to host!

I view it as a lack of proper marketing. My local club gets more people down there to watch the Padel coaches take on the Tennis coach and the gym manager (a very good player) than the LTA, the WTA and the ATP manage to get for the tournaments below 250k. They make it a proper jamboree.

Tennis relies on a few big names rather than the actual sport hence the concern when Federer and Nadal laid down their rackets. It's always been like that so rather than try and change it they decide to reduce the offering to maintain the income.

Businesses don't grow by becoming smaller and narrowing their product, they grow by gaining more consumers and they do that by offering either a better product, more product, more outlets and/or better service.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Sunday 5th of July 2026 09:00:21 AM

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

emmsie69 wrote:
jb288 wrote:
I think a bigger point here is that the tour should remove tournaments that can't fill stadia.

I remember seeing Lloyd and Julians Cincinatti final last year in front of an empty stadium - why is that venue rewarded with a continued license?

I'm sure there are plenty of places in the world that would love to host!
I view it as a lack of proper marketing. My local club gets more people down there to watch the Padel coaches take on the Tennis coach and the gym manager (a very good player) than the LTA, the WTA and the ATP manage to get for the tournaments below 250k. They make it a proper jamboree.
Tennis relies on a few big names rather than the actual sport hence the concern when Federer and Nadal laid down their rackets. It's always been like that so rather than try and change it they decide to reduce the offering to maintain the income.
Businesses don't grow by becoming smaller and narrowing their product, they grow by gaining more consumers and they do that by offering either a better product, more product, more outlets and/or better service.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Sunday 5th of July 2026 09:00:21 AM

Just seen this comment from the Nottingham W50 thread

Its a much smaller event, on the same courts as the main nottingham open but all the temporary stands will be gone. No tickets and no publicity (i only know about it via ball crew!) I went to the final last year which was jack pinnington-jones vs kyle edmund. Very few spectators- mainly seemed to be people passing through the tennis centre to watch a bit, players friends/ families and ball crew parents!

I rest my case