McEnroe thinks doubles should be scrapped.

Legendary player John McEnroe has questioned the usefulness of keeping doubles alive in professional tennis.
McEnroe won 155 titles in his illustrious career, of which 77 were in singles and 78 came in doubles.
But he has now spoken out against the latter, arguing that it is of little interest in the modern era and featuring only 'slower', 'mediocre' players.
McEnroe, who will be 55 next February, was arguably the best player to have ever crossed between singles and doubles consistently in his career and his views have been forthright.
"Doubles - why are we even playing it?" he said in an interview with The Times. "Most of you guys know I love doubles. But I look at it now and say, what is this? I don’t even recognise what this is.
"I don’t know what doubles is bringing to the table," he added. "The doubles are the slow guys who aren’t quick enough to play singles.
"Would it be better off, no disrespect, but would it be better off if there was no doubles at all, and we invest all the money we save elsewhere so that some other guys who never really got into a good position in the sport, end up playing more in singles?"
McEnroe's major gripe is with the fact that doubles has made millionaires of very mediocre players who could not cut it on the singles tour, and that is an issue many others in the game share.
His former professional doubles partner, Peter Fleming, once said that the best doubles team of all time would be 'Junior (his nickname for McEnroe) and anyone', so there is no doubt that his views carry real clout.
And on the subject of the most dominant doubles pair in the modern era, Bob and Mike Bryan, he was equally uncompromising with his views.
"I hear the greatest doubles players of all time - the Bryan Brothers and it’s 'Excuse me?' I find that comment unbelievable."
This week McEnroe has been asked to meet with Chris Kermode, the soon-to-be executive chairman and president of the ATP World Tour, and he will have a chance to further air his views on the state of the sport."

So what do you think?
I don't agree but it is a shame more top players don;t play it. Thoughts?

Completely agree. None of the top guys play it anymore so why bother with it if its just a graveyard for failed singles guys.

I watched the Bryan Bros from 20 yards away at the O2 Champs recently and it was a bore-fest. It's just regulation doubles, little flair, same play shot after shot, point after point. Boring...

Yep, put the money into singles and pay those on the Challenger circuit more so guys ranked 150-300, who are far better than the likes of Mike and Bob, can actually earn a living!

Also, McEnroe said:

“Would the Bryan brothers have made it as singles players? No. What do you think they are playing doubles for?”

“But sometimes I hear people saying they [Bryan Bros] are the greatest doubles players of all time. I’m like ‘Excuse me?’ If you put Federer and Nadal together, I am taking them.”

Murray teams up with Fleming, just to sharpen his game, and gets to the final in Canada.

Novak teams up with Stan at Beijing, just to get some enjoyment, and they get to the semi final before pulling out.

You put Bob or Mike Bryan in the singles competition, I don't rate their chances of getting far.

That's the difference. So I agree with McEnroe.

Mac also said...

"I love doubles but I don’t even recognise what this is. If there was a volleying contest from the service line, most of these guys couldn’t...” He stopped and sighed. “They play an inch from the net. It is like wham, bam, thank you ma’am."

BTW, it's a pleasure watching Mac on ITV4 HD at the moment vs Bruguera, boy these guys can still play. Mac beat Ferreira yesterday, 15 years his senior!

lydian wrote:
Also, McEnroe said:

“Would the Bryan brothers have made it as singles players? No. What do you think they are playing doubles for?”

Presumably that's why Peter Fleming played doubles - I wonder if Mac said that about his partner at the time?

Fleming was a top 10 singles player though?

He was briefly, but his 3 singles titles against his 60 doubles titles show what made his career. He played doubles because it was the only way he was going to win a lot of titles.

If you look at Mac's doubles matches, they were mostly played against doubles specialists who couldn't make it as singles players - I didn't hear him complaining at the time that doubles should be scrapped.
For example the US Open final 1983 was against Fritz Buehning and Van Winitsky. The Wimbledon final that year was against the Gullikson twins - who played doubles because they couldn't make it as single players. Pretty much the same for the Woodies and McNamara/McNamee etc.

Thats discounting his singles career too harshly. He was ranked up to #8, QF at Wimbledon and beat McEnroe on carpet to win a singles title (3 in total) in 1979...thats talent to do that. He was no mug singles player, played over 430 ATP singles matches...was top 50 for over 8 years (1977 - 1985). So that's a pretty full and decent singles career...which he combined with. Doubles career.

Highest rank either Bryan Bros got to was #120...they played a combined 77 ATP singles matches between them. Best achievement, round 2 in a slam...come on, no comparison.

Yes, but that's because these days you have to make a choice between doubles and singles - you can't play both in the same way that you could back in the day. In that sense, there is no comparison.

Are the Bryan brothers incapable of playing more than 77 matches between them if they decided to pursue singles careers instead and only play doubles occasionally? No IMHO. They simply made the choice between being say, in the 20s/30s/40s in singles and winning an ATP 250 every now and then, or sticking with doubles and winning GSs. These days, it's one or the other.

Doubles for many players makes them more of an all round player.
Betting volleys, s&v, reaction stuff etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, but that's because these days you have to make a choice between doubles and singles - you can't play both in the same way that you could back in the day. In that sense, there is no comparison.

Are the Bryan brothers incapable of playing more than 77 matches between them if they decided to pursue singles careers instead and only play doubles occasionally? No IMHO. They simply made the choice between being say, in the 20s/30s/40s in singles and winning an ATP 250 every now and then, or sticking with doubles and winning GSs. These days, it's one or the other.

I don't see that you do have to make that choice. Llodra/Melzer have had reasonable success combining both. The top guys could do likewise but the prize money in doubles just isn't worth their time so they only use it to tune up. Look at someone like Henman, with a decent partner he could have had a great shot at grabbing a doubles slam but it clearly held zero interest for him.

Let's be honest, if the top players bothered, the current doubles "specialists" would be torn apart. I mean Nadal doesn't play doubles for anything other than a nice warm up, and he has a USO SF, and three Masters titles on his ledger.

kingraf wrote:Let's be honest, if the top players bothered, the current doubles "specialists" would be torn apart. I mean Nadal doesn't play doubles for anything other than a nice warm up,  and he has a USO SF, and three Masters titles on his ledger.

Pretty much the same as it was in Mac's day, with him being the exception to the rule. I don't recall McEnroe lamenting Borg's retirement with "Oh dear, the doubles circuit won't be the same without him". Connors used to play doubles for fun a bit, Lendl now and then (very much like Fed, Nadal, Djoko) but essentially Mac's point about the current doubles game more or less applied when he was playing doubles and I didn't hear him calling for it to be scrapped back then.
Does Mac really think he'd have won as many doubles titles if the other top players of his day had taken doubles seriously? Instead he mainly played doubles against players who weren't good enough to be at the top of the singles game.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, but that's because these days you have to make a choice between doubles and singles - you can't play both in the same way that you could back in the day. In that sense, there is no comparison.

Are the Bryan brothers incapable of playing more than 77 matches between them if they decided to pursue singles careers instead and only play doubles occasionally? No IMHO. They simply made the choice between being say, in the 20s/30s/40s in singles and winning an ATP 250 every now and then, or sticking with doubles and winning GSs. These days, it's one or the other.

I don't see that you do have to make that choice. Llodra/Melzer have had reasonable success combining both. The top guys could do likewise but the prize money in doubles just isn't worth their time so they only use it to tune up. Look at someone like Henman, with a decent partner he could have had a great shot at grabbing a doubles slam but it clearly held zero interest for him.

You really think the 'Big 4' want to add another 40 or 50 matches to their year? Or that they be up for it, if only someone paid them enough? Disagree on both points.
Presumably Llodra and Melzer are exactly the sort of players Mac is referring to when he says doubles players only play because they can't cut it in singles - hence I disagree with him.

I think it's fairly clear he is referring to the likes of The Bryans, Zimonjic etc who never had any success at singles.

I don't think the big 4 want to add an extra 40-50 matches. However, if the winners of a doubles slam were awarded the same as singles rather than 1/10th of it then I've no doubt that nearly all the top guys would play in it.

good points jhm.

Doubles is great fun to play, excellent practice for singles and can even be fun to watch. But and this is a big but as far popularity with paying spectators goes it lacks drama. In singles the drama comes from individual personalities playing under pressure. In doubles the drama is always watered down. The only time it has a little drama is when it's part of a team competition as in the Davis Cup.

It has been watered down even further by introducing the shortened scoring system. TBH I doubt doubles generates much income on the tour and I also doubt it would be missed if it was no longer played. Although I'm sure for historical reasons it would continue to be played in slams but even then IMO they should do away with mixed doubles as it is cringe worthy...

McEnroe has a point. But after saying all that if Federer and Nadal teamed up to play doubles after retiring from singles I would be first in the queue for tickets

LuvSports! wrote:Doubles for many players makes them more of an all round player.
Betting volleys, s&v, reaction stuff etc.

An easy thing to say, where is your evidence of the benefit back into singles?

No it doesn't. Actually doubles would make the top guys more one dimensional as the patterns of play are turgidly predictable, with little variation or creativity.

Trust me, there is nothing faster in terms of footwork, directional change, transition play than top level singles, whatever the surface. It's because doubles is so 1-dimensional that failed singles players can excel at it.

The top singles players already have insanely quick reflexes to have become top 50 in the first place.
They are probably much sharper than the doubles guys inherently - think about why top singles guys are top singles guys. It's not just about ground strokes, that's far too simplistic.

Conversely, if your statement was true then why aren't the top doubles guys riding up the singles rankings?

The top doubles guys just play easy sit-on-the-net volleys, or standard fodder split-step transition volleys...the top singles pros can do most of that in their sleep. Sure it's not their core game but they could adjust to top doubles in a matter of 2-3 weeks if they had to.

They don't need the doubles practice to sharpen their game up - otherwise, trust me, they would be doing it!!

Lydian, you're turning this into a doubles vs singles debate. We all know the top singles players are better than the top doubles players.

But if you take Mac out of the picture in the late 70s/80s, was it really that much different? Did the top players play much doubles then? Did they feel the need to play doubles to improve their singles game? No and no - they just did it every now and then as a tune up and a bit of fun. Very much like nowadays. I wonder how Mac would have reacted if, in 1980, Laver had suggested that doubles be scrapped for the same reasons as Mac is suggesting now?

On the other hand, if anyone thinks doubles has been obsolete at a pro level for the last 35 years, then at least I can see the consistency in the argument.

No. I was responding to the notion that doubles improves singles players. Rubbish.

More top singles players used to play doubles anyway...Paul McNamee and Peter McNamara, Mark Woodforde and Tood Woodbridge were all top 20 singles players. Plus plenty of others. Your analogy to out and out failed singles journeymen like the Bryan Bros doesn't hold water.

Doubles has been obsolete since the top singles guys (top50) started focusing on singles due to the demand of the tour and its post 2000 best of 18 ranking approach. When it was best of 14 the top singles guys had more time, or rather could afford more time, to play more doubles. And did.

lydian wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Doubles for many players makes them more of an all round player.
Betting volleys, s&v, reaction stuff etc.

An easy thing to say, where is your evidence of the benefit back into singles?

No it doesn't. Actually doubles would make the top guys more one dimensional as the patterns of play are turgidly predictable, with little variation or creativity.

Trust me, there is nothing faster in terms of footwork, directional change, transition play than top level singles, whatever the surface. It's because doubles is so 1-dimensional that failed singles players can excel at it.

The top singles players already have insanely quick reflexes to have become top 50 in the first place.
They are probably much sharper than the doubles guys inherently - think about why top singles guys are top singles guys. It's not just about ground strokes, that's far too simplistic.

Conversely, if your statement was true then why aren't the top doubles guys riding up the singles rankings?

The top doubles guys just play easy sit-on-the-net volleys, or standard fodder split-step transition volleys...the top singles pros can do most of that in their sleep. Sure it's not their core game but they could adjust to top doubles in a matter of 2-3 weeks if they had to.

They don't need the doubles practice to sharpen their game up - otherwise, trust me, they would be doing it!!

So quotations from players who say doubles has helped them is rubbish? Well then that may be so to you, but not to them. Improvements doesn't mean monumental surges up the rankings. They say it helps them, nuff said.

lydian wrote:No. I was responding to the notion that doubles improves singles players. Rubbish.

More top singles players used to play doubles anyway...Paul McNamee and Peter McNamara, Mark Woodforde and Tood Woodbridge were all top 20 singles players. Plus plenty of others. Your analogy to out and out failed singles journeymen like the Bryan Bros doesn't hold water.

Doubles has been obsolete since the top singles guys (top50) started focusing on singles due to the demand of the tour and its post 2000 best of 18 ranking approach. When it was best of 14 the top singles guys had more time, or rather could afford more time, to play more doubles. And did.

Exactly, the demands of the tour is what dictates it, not the quality of the players. If the Bryan brothers had been around in the 70s and 80s they could have played both singles and doubles and probably been right up there with the 'plenty of others'. It's the current state of the game that makes them journeymen singles players, not lack of ability compared to the Woodies or the Gulliksons.
Nowadays you can't really do doubles if you want to get to the top in singles, and you can't do singles if you decide to concentrate on getting to the top in doubles (in preference to being ranked 20/30/40 in singles). Mainly due to the physical demands of the modern game and the much greater strength in depth than 30 years ago.
That's not an argument for scrapping doubles though, it's an argument for either changing the game to where players can do both, or leaving it as it is. If some guy ranked 300 wants to make more money, he can switch to doubles, if he's good enough at that.

 

Show me those quotes LS?

I don't agree re: Bryan Bros, they wouldn't have been top 20 singles in any era. Their only advantage is Bob's 6'4 powerful serve, the rest of their game is distinctly, and I mean particularly, average by top tennis standards. What are they the best at?

Do people on here know the career path of a tennis player? They start out trying to make it as a singles player...so why do you think they end up focusing on doubles? Because of the best of 18 ranking system? Yeah right. Bob & Mike could have been top 20 singles players in the 80s or 90s? Yeah dream on...

Ha ha! The Bryan brothers could have been top twenty in singles but decided to concentrate on doubles. Same goes for the likes of Jamie Murray too. Ha ha! again. The only way a player can afford to to "specialize" in doubles is if they are receiving subs from elsewhere. It's difficult enough for singles players outside the top 10 or 20 to make a living. I would make a guess that there are any number of players who could do very well on today's doubles circuit if they were helped financially.

eg. Jamie Murray is at present ranked 10 in the world at doubles and this year has earned just $200 dollars. He is 27 and has career earnings (singles and doubles) of $900 dollars. Not really enough to pay for travel, hotel bills, the odd coaching session, clothes and a bite to eat over about 10 years of "pro" play. Doubles is just a vanity sport for those that have separate financial backing... Playing doubles is not a viable career option.

Agree that Bryans would have struggled to make the top 20-40 in singles. I also think that the standard seemed higher in the Woodies era, they might have been the greater, but the Bryans have got the statistics on their side, so it is a weak era debate.

I have seen some entertaining matches at the O2, this year was very good actually, although some years was rather boring and average. Leander Paes was playing at the WTF this year at the age of 40. This year the Bryans lost to Verdasco/Marrero and Verdasco, a 10-30 singles player, was clearly the stronger one of that pairing. At one stage in a match earlier in the tournament I heard him calling out instructions to his partner, telling him where to put the ball. "We didn't play poorly" Mike Bryan admitted after the final.

But, although containing a lot of truth, Mac's comments are very harsh and lacking in tact to me. No doubles at all? A more sensible argument might be to adjust the prize money a little, or reduce the number of rounds. As a realistic policy, just removing doubles is a non-starter.

It's also greatly preferred by many many club level players, especially those who are middle aged rather than young.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! The Bryan brothers could have been top twenty in singles but decided to concentrate on doubles. Same goes for the likes of Jamie Murray too. Ha ha! again. The only way a player can afford to to "specialize" in doubles is if they are receiving subs from elsewhere. It's difficult enough for singles players outside the top 10 or 20 to make a living. I would make a guess that there are any number of players who could do very well on today's doubles circuit if they were helped financially.

eg. Jamie Murray is at present ranked 10 in the world at doubles and this year has earned just $200 dollars. He is 27 and has career earnings (singles and doubles) of $900 dollars. Not really enough to pay for travel, hotel bills, the odd coaching session, clothes and a bite to eat over about 10 years of "pro" play. Doubles is just a vanity sport for those that have separate financial backing... Playing doubles is not a viable career option.

$200? You don't seriously think it would be $200? It's two hundred thousand dollars $200,000. Not bad and he may get some modest endorsements and media work to boost it. Certainly not filthy rich, but doing perfectly well and having a good life.

lydian wrote:Show me those quotes LS?

I don't agree re: Bryan Bros, they wouldn't have been top 20 singles in any era. Their only advantage is Bob's 6'4 powerful serve, the rest of their game is distinctly, and I mean particularly, average by top tennis standards. What are they the best at?

Do people on here know the career path of a tennis player? They start out trying to make it as a singles player...so why do you think they end up focusing on doubles? Because of the best of 18 ranking system? Yeah right. Bob & Mike could have been top 20 singles players in the 80s or 90s? Yeah dream on...

We'll have to disagree on that then Lydian, but I love the patronising tone.

Jamie Murray earned $200 this YEAR?  

I'm guessing that's a typo. Otherwise it means I earned more money today than Jamie Murray has this year!

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! The Bryan brothers could have been top twenty in singles but decided to concentrate on doubles. Same goes for the likes of Jamie Murray too. Ha ha! again. The only way a player can afford to to "specialize" in doubles is if they are receiving subs from elsewhere. It's difficult enough for singles players outside the top 10 or 20 to make a living. I would make a guess that there are any number of players who could do very well on today's doubles circuit if they were helped financially.

eg. Jamie Murray is at present ranked 10 in the world at doubles and this year has earned just $200 dollars. He is 27 and has career earnings (singles and doubles) of $900 dollars. Not really enough to pay for travel, hotel bills, the odd coaching session, clothes and a bite to eat over about 10 years of "pro" play. Doubles is just a vanity sport for those that have separate financial backing... Playing doubles is not a viable career option.

By $200 and $900, do you mean $200,000 and $970,000?

The point which everyone is missing is not that Bob Bryan may or may not be able to reach a higher ranking than Florian Mayer or Marcel Granollers, should he concentrate on singles, or that Granollers would win multiple GS if he solely played doubles.
The point is that doubles has always been the poor relation to singles, and there's no more reason why it should be scrapped now than in 1983, when Mac was winning everything.

Why Lydian? So you can find a way to spin it that they are wrong and you know more than them?
I found quotes from over half a dozen players who said this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:Show me those quotes LS?

I don't agree re: Bryan Bros, they wouldn't have been top 20 singles in any era. Their only advantage is Bob's 6'4 powerful serve, the rest of their game is distinctly, and I mean particularly, average by top tennis standards. What are they the best at?

Do people on here know the career path of a tennis player? They start out trying to make it as a singles player...so why do you think they end up focusing on doubles? Because of the best of 18 ranking system? Yeah right. Bob & Mike could have been top 20 singles players in the 80s or 90s? Yeah dream on...

We'll have to disagree on that then Lydian, but I love the patronising tone.

Just as much as I love your alter ego Mikey on OTF, at least you came off the fence at last and now I see why we never saw eye to eye. The master of sarcasm talking to me about patronising tones...oh the irony.

LuvSports! wrote:Why Lydian? So you can find a way to spin it that they are wrong and you know more than them?
I found quotes from over half a dozen players who said this.

Yeah whatever, it's clear what you think of 606 posters like me by sidebar comments over on OTF...after all the questions I answered for you too. Obviously only posters like Tenez and NITB know their stuff, us 606 posters live in denial and dont know our ar5e from our elbow when it comes to the game and what constitutes talent.
Anyway, name me a top 20 player who got better at singles by playing doubles...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/08/32/Montreal-Nadal-Doubles-Feature.aspx

"I want to play more doubles because it is a good way to practise things that can improve your tennis in general. You can find things in doubles that you can adjust then on the singles that can help you to be a better player.”

WHy are you getting so irate?
We disagree on one topic, so what? I said thank you for your help but there is no need for this response.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Top 20 player at present, no I cannot. Top 30-50 yes.

Yes of course I meant $200,000 and $900,000. But after paying for all the expenses involved in competing I doubt that Jamie Murray would be left with $200. He is not making a living from playing doubles.

Luvsports. You have a lot to learn as you are acting like an idiot. Don't be surprised if not everyone laughs at your naivety some will treat you with more respect and get irritated.

Another petty comment from you HE. I am really getting used to them.

How about saying we agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to name calling.
This is such hypocrisy after the stuff you come out with about Murray.
I don't agree with many of the stuff JMAC says nowadays.

People like Melzer, Granollers and Verdasco have spoken about how doubles improves their volleying and return game. They aren't top 20 players, but they have said doubles helps them.
What is so idiotic about that?

Actually don't answer because I don't care.

Luvsports. I said "acting" like an idiot. You have some interesting views.

hawkeye wrote:Yes of course I meant $200,000 and $900,000. But after paying for all the expenses involved in competing I doubt that Jamie Murray would be left with $200. He is not making a living from playing doubles.

Luvsports. You have a lot to learn as you are acting like an idiot. Don't be surprised if not everyone laughs at your naivety some will treat you with more respect and get irritated.

So what exactly is your point HE, other than a dig at another Murray family member? Why choose Murray, not Colin Fleming or Jonny Marray?

Yes, we all know that singles players earn more than doubles players. Yes, we all know that the top singles players are better than the top doubles players.
Yet it seems that when LS and I try to have a debate about whether doubles should be scrapped now, or whether it should have been scrapped in the 1980s, or whether playing doubles can help improve a players singles game, the reply is basically we're idiots who don't know anything about tennis. Whoopee-do.

Just watching some of the statoil masters tennis. Great stuff seeing the old S&V. Imo the game really needs this. Just need a little help from those tournament organisers and maybe varying the ball sizes, oh and getting players in who actually can volley well.

LS, I have no beef with you - I get narked when called patronising by those who stealth other tennis forums. Also, if I know my comments on here are going to be constantly cross compared on OTF then why should I bother posting on this forum? Or maybe I should continue so I can keep my effigy/pariah status over there 'real'...I'm sure mikey1000 would love that.

Playing doubles is not going to propel a 75 ranked singles player above a 70 ranked guy. It just isn't. Its too narrow a discipline. If it could do that then trust me more top 100 guys would be playing doubles.

Back to OP. Doubles is a dead duck, a spectacle of 1-2 shot ralleys with litle variation of play because most of its top players are not the best tennis players. They're largely average pros who end up playing pretty average matches. Without singles at the same tournaments it would already be dead. The singles guys are effectively paying for the doubles guys prize money. Its unsellable, led by the 'greatest' pair ever who would go unrecognised down a high street and format changes have done little to increase viewing figures. Doubles matches are played to empty or largely empty stadiums unless a warm up act to singles.

Whilst it doesn't attract top singles guys its a dodo, an irrelevance. It will slowly disappear from events and viewing in time, just you watch. Again, it's the ATP Tour's fault.

At the O2 Arena the Bryan Bros were playing and we were sat 20 feet from the players. My 5 times a week tennis playing son played on his Google Nexus as the Bryan Bros chest bumped their way through a multitude of 2 shot ralleys. I said are you not watching this, he just said to me "nah, boring, tell me when Djokovic is on" and went back to playing Angry Birds. Enough said for its future as a spectacle people want to go out of their way to watch...

lydian wrote:LS, I have no beef with you - I get narked when called patronising by those who stealth other tennis forums. Also, if I know my comments on here are going to be constantly cross compared on OTF then why should I bother posting on this forum? Or maybe I should continue so I can keep my effigy/pariah status over there 'real'...I'm sure mikey1000 would love that.

I think you'll find that 'mikey' has never mentioned you on OTF lyidan. In fact, the only person currently on this forum who mikey has criticised is JuliusHMarx.

"Do people on here know the career path of a tennis player?" I read that as patronising. Perhaps it wasn't.

This is how fit you need to be for top level doubles. This porker (MARCIN MATKOWSKI) reached the semis of 2013 ATP Tour Finals and is a staple top 10 & 20 doubles specialist His highest singles ranking? #647. He's not far off the same career earnings as Ernests Gulbis and yet who has ever heard of this guy? Good job people wanting to watch guys like Gulbjs et al are paying for the likes of Matkowski earning a good living.

His waist line shows you how much action goes on in doubles...wam bam 2 shot ralleys. Doubles is just not an attractive proposition to the public. And McEnroe knows that.

Don't worry JHM, I know full well what you think of me as a poster. Thats always been clear. Perhaps if I just left you could get your OTF pals Tenez and NITB to accept your prospective offer of apology for their bans and rejoin here. Job sorted.

It wasn't attractive 30 years ago either - but Mac didn't seem to want to scrap it back then. It's always been the poor second relation to singles as far as the watching public are concerned.

As for your other post, I've always thought of you as one of the better posters here. I had thought that was clear, but obviously not. I wasn't involved in what happened to Tenez and NITB, nor do I know what happened, so am in no position to comment on it or apologise for it.

Hehe, never thought i'd say this, especially in the cyber presence of a mod, but can we keep this on topic please and not talk about otf!
Or is that your role to say that jhm?

It's clear you both have good points.
Lydian for the current state of the game and JHM for JMAC's hypocrisy.
Can you agree JHM with Lydian regardless of JMAC's statements?

Fair enough LS - I was merely explaining my position on all the points lydian raised.

I have already stated "Yes, we all know that singles players earn more than doubles players. Yes, we all know that the top singles players are better than the top doubles players." I think that agrees with Lydian.
I also agree with Nadal when he says "You can find things in doubles that you can adjust then on the singles that can help you to be a better player.”

Yes I agree with Nadal it can improve/sharpen your all round game BUT my point is I'm not convinced that actually translates into a net benefit in terms of ranking improvement per se. We have no way of proving either way of course.

I have no problem with seeing hypocrisy from Mac, and agree there is a point there. But on balance there can be no doubt that doubles players were better overall back then. We agreed that doubles has never been a full on attraction in tennis, it's simply not as gladiatorial or nerve wrangling a spectacle as the singles. I mean, name me 3 riveting doubles matches in Open Era...yeah exactly. It is a dodo in waiting I'm afraid. The top singles guys have rejected it...so will the public in time. Even more so once the Bryan's are gone and we get more and more unknowns at the top.

The other issue is that slowing conditions as a whole increase the difference between singles and doubles...in that the singles guys don't have time to adjust to the quicker game doubles is. Not that they can't, top singles players for me will nearly always be top doubles guys if they decided to take it seriously. After all, look at who wins the Olympic doubles when singles guys take it seriously and do a bit of practice. But in general they don't have time in the ATP schedule to adjust since they went Bo18. It really is ATP's fault.

Look at Olympic medallists in doubles in Open Era (1988+) and see how many of the guys were top singles players...out of 46 players I'd say at least 30 were top 30 singles guys. Thats ~70%...but bet far less than 70% get to semis or better on regular ATP tour as don't enter. So that's the key to future doubles success...no top singles players = no interest = no longevity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_tennis

Yes, let's move on from past squabbles.
Apologies if posts were a little blunt.

One thing to consider is the fact that if there was enough cross-pollination between Singles and Doubles from both sides of the aisle, then Doubles would also improve. At least during Laver's time, many did cross the aisle. As DC was mentioned, many older DCs had a good balance of players.

Lopez, Verdasco, Kubot, Llodra, Stepanek, Berdych, Clement, Benneteau, Paes are/were fairly competent singles and doubles players. Nadal/Lopez (M), Fedrinka are not too bad when it comes to crossing the lines.

If Mac talks about scrapping doubles, then WTT is an absolute sham.