Should the slams dump doubles?

[bombermick]

Having worked at this year's Open it's an unqualified yes.

Last night, and after any late night there are only about 200 people watching a who cares match on RLA. There are probably 100 people who have to be employed to look after these patrons.

Doubles would sell few, if any, extra tickets and yet eats up more than $1 million in prize money. It probably costs an extra $1 million in administration and staff costs during the Open.

Doubles specialists are not the world's best players, and it's merely a way for the also-rans to stay on the tour. Use that money and increase the prize pool for those that bring the people in.

 

[matt_897]

Dumbest thread ever? Seen some of the crowds it gets with a ground pass especially in the first week. Gives more matches to the fans to see while also being a different brand of tennis. And just because everybody left when the singles match finished at midnight last night doesn't mean that nobody watches doubles. My mate (who loves doubles more thsn singles) would be tearing you a new one as well, haha.

 

[XFactor1979]

They've changed it

Ie the match tie break

next point on deuce wins the games

^ thats not tennis

 

[hamohawk1]

if doubles goes before womens tennis from slams something is absurdly wrong

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Are you serious? Doubles is actually quite enjoyable, not to mention they have more arguments than they do in singles. Its just a shame they have not shown what happened in ladies doubles yesterday. Not sure why, but there was quite the argument over a double bounce apparently.

 

[Chris_2593]

They've changed it

Ie the match tie break

next point on deuce wins the games

^ thats not tennis

They dont do that in Grand Slams. And no they shouldnt dump it.

 

[Caesar]

Doubles specialists are not the world's best players, and it's merely a way for the also-rans to stay on the tour.

Er, no. Doubles at big events is a vital payday that supplements the income of satellite tour players and those outside the top few dozen who aren't guaranteed to make the singles main draw of ATP events.

That is not just journeymen. You will struggle to find a single player on tour who has not played doubles at some stage of their career. Even child prodigies like Nadal played doubles to supplement their income in their early days on tour.

Without doubles, nobody except the top hundred or so players could afford to stay on the circuit. The development path would collapse and everyone would be worse off.

 

[pepsi]

No it should not. Go out and watch some quality doubles, it is exciting and very enjoyable to watch. Of course not many people are going to stay around for a doubles match that starts after midnight on a work night.

 

[bombermick]

Er, no. Doubles at big events is a vital payday that supplements the income of satellite tour players and those outside the top few dozen who aren't guaranteed to make the singles main draw of ATP events.

That is not just journeymen. You will struggle to find a single player on tour who has not played doubles at some stage of their career. Even child prodigies like Nadal played doubles to supplement their income in their early days on tour.

Without doubles, nobody except the top hundred or so players could afford to stay on the circuit. The development path would collapse and everyone would be worse off.

I can sympathise with helping those at the precipice of elite tennis, but the slams shouldn't exist to fund those outside the top 100. Development academies would still nurture the next generation, and I don't think we'd miss the Bryan Brothers or the Woodies much, if at all.

Doubles, IMO, drains the finances of elite tennis, but doesn't sell any extra tickets.

 

[hamohawk1]

doubles tennis at is best is an artform i love to watch

it's a shame in the mens game a lot of the top players don't get amongst doubles as much as they can, but on the contrary their schedules are already taxing

i think its more an issue of class in doubles. the williams sisters only played grand slam doubles and a few minor tournaments mostly easily accounting for any opponents. no doubting the williams are good players but a specialist high quality doubles pair should be able to knock them off

doubles would sell some tickets, i'd rather see doubles than junior tennis

 

[Caesar]

I can sympathise with helping those at the precipice of elite tennis, but the slams shouldn't exist to fund those outside the top 100. Development academies would still nurture the next generation, and I don't think we'd miss the Bryan Brothers or the Woodies much, if at all.

Doubles, IMO, drains the finances of elite tennis, but doesn't sell any extra tickets.

Players don't spring fully-formed from development academies. The satellite circuit is a very important stage for the development of players. Without it, you don't have quality grand slams.

I don't really think you have a full appreciation of how the tennis circuit works. What you are suggesting is somewhat tantamount to saying we scrap the VFL because it's mostly full of spud players.

 

[Bombers_Forever]

Answer - no. Doubles in my opinion is more exciting to watch. I watched the Bryans win this morning and really enjoy that form of the game. Would prefer to watch doubles than the Williams sisters or the squealers.

You can understand if a game starts at 11pm, not many are going to stay around unless there are two top 10 players at it is finals game. Blame the schedulling for the lack of people, particularly if they have been there most of the day.

The only cut should be to maybe mixed doubles, you still have to have doubles for the specialists and also the singles players find it to be important to thier own developments as a player

 

[red+black]

Doubles, and especially Men's Doubles, is a different game than it used to me with the top players not playing any more. That probably has something to do with the levels of interest.

 

[Selective Retention]

Without doubles, nobody except the top hundred or so players could afford to stay on the circuit. The development path would collapse and everyone would be worse off.

Even guys in the top 100 like Petzschner and Llodra etc would probably consider whether it's worth coming to Australia if there were no doubles. As unseeded guys they could jag a Fed or Nadal in the first round and they've come a long way for nothing.

The prize money for first round loser is still tidy but by the time you take out airfares, accomodation, other expenses for themselves, family, coaches/trainers it's not going that far. Plus if you didn't come you could take extra time off or have a bigger pre season in Europe and the value of that is immeasurable.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

FWIW, I'm not the most passionate Tennis fan, but I think it would be a shame if doubles got dumped. Doubles is a legit game, isn't it? However, I do have a funny feeling about mixed doubles, is that taken seriously by even the most passionate Tennis fans?

 

[bombermick]

Some good responses and Caesar, most notably has a point.

Thinking about it I'm for doubles supplementing incomes of rising players, but at the moment it exists to allow average singles players like the Bryan brothers to have a career. That's not helping to foster the next generation.

 

[Underarm]

mens doubles is a sight to watch. much more interesting than Womens singles...

 

[Alfonz]

Dumping men's doubles would be ridiculous. It is 10 times the spectacle of women's tennis. I'd also argue a good men's doubles match is much better than your average early round men's singles encounter. It's a shame the general public don't get interested in it.

When I was a junior, I loved playing doubles. Had much more success as well. If it gives a chance for the lesser lights to make a bit of money and have some success ... while putting on what is actually a great spectacle ... is that such a bad thing?

 

[BobbyMorri]

Doubles should stay. The fact u rate the Byron Bros as average tennis means you dont appreciate how adapted they are to the game. I personally think they are so adapted that they make watching them boring. Prefer watching womens doubles to Mens. At least the rallies last longer than 2 or 3 shots.

 

[The Passenger]

The prize money for first round loser is still tidy but by the time you take out airfares, accomodation, other expenses for themselves, family, coaches/trainers it's not going that far. Plus if you didn't come you could take extra time off or have a bigger pre season in Europe and the value of that is immeasurable.

big time. i don't know about tennis, but i read an interview with a fairly prominent golfer who's name escapes me and he reckons the average running cost for a golfer on the US PGA is $500,000 american. and when you think about all the things you listed above (plus a caddy), that sounds about right. ivan lendl isn't working with andy murray pro-bono (well maybe he is, i don't know, but i highly doubt it, and if he is he'd be in a select few)...

and you'd reckon the cost of a tennis player would be higher because they generally have more international travel than a golfer who is usually either based in the US or Europe with the occasional tournament outside of their usual region - which for some is purely travelling for 3 majors in US or 1 in Europe, but some will venture for tournaments in Asia, the Middle East and South Africa. But i wouldn't classify the amount of worldwide travel a golfer does on the same level as a tennis player.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Doubles doesn't have much commercial appeal but I think it would be sad from a tennis purist viewpoint to lose it. I think it's important for the economics of the lower ranked players also.

 

[Alfonz]

How many tennis players actually make a profit (from touring)? Taking out all the expenses? I would imagine unless you are in the top 50, then you aren't going to make much money.

 

[The Passenger]

How many tennis players actually make a profit (from touring)? Taking out all the expenses? I would imagine unless you are in the top 50, then you aren't going to make much money.

i'm not gonna pretend to be an expert but i'd imagine it's more otherwise you'd have less blokes doing it... but i'm purely guessing. in saying that there are plenty of guys who drop out of their respective individual sports because it is just too hard... prizemoney for guys is widely available, but sponsorship is hard to guage. a lot make decent enough moeny coaching too. but yeah, for a lot it just isn't enough. especially when you expenses get high. even if you're profit is $80-$100k a year, that is good, but if your expenses are $400,000 and your income is $480-500k, then it's still not exactly stress free on the financial front even though you're earning about a third more than the average wage. that income is not garuanteed and any loss of form starts eating into your profit margin signficantly and quickly.

but one thing i've always had a lot of respect for is guys who push through in individual sports without ever really cracking it. tennis, golf, but also running, horse racing, and many others.

what most people see is the high end, and the elite and the glitz and glamour of it all. and they just assume that is how it all is. but you go to a low end tennis tournament, or a random country horse track on a tuesday, and you'll see blokes who are absolutely struggling to make ends meet.

what people never factor in for individual sports is, unliek team sports, they have to pay their own way (almost all of them. some get appearance fees but few and far between). when shane watson, chris judd or darren lockyer get on a plane to travel for a game it's their club (or cricket australia) who pays for the flights, pays for the trainers to come with them, pay's their insurance, and all this sort of stuff. individual sporst though, you've gotta front the bill.

there is funding available, and tennis players and golfers do get help in this regard, but as you get older this starts to dry up - either you've cracked it up the money lists and able to pay you're own way, or you're still stuck outside the top 100 and the powers that be in control of your funding don't see you as such a good investment any more. athletes in australia don't get much by way of funding, aside from a select few, and people in the horse racing industry are basically left to fend for themselves.

 

[red+black]

I have far more interest in this Men's Doubles final than the Women's Singles final.

 

[Caesar]

I hope people who think doubles is crap are watching this final.