I thought I'd start a thread to discuss this after Tenez' interesting post in the rankings bit which went as follows-

What do we make of the Clement LLodra win at Wimbledon? I do not follow much this game anymore but does it simply mean that if top players were to play it a bit more, they would, for most, occupy the top ranking?

I thought for some times that it was a different game altogether and sync between the team was key but clearly Clement and LLodra have only been playing together for the last 6 months I believe but their success could essentially be attributed to the fact they are simply better single players than the Brians or the Brazilian team. Not much better admitedly.....

I don't think that, at the minute, a better singles player means you're better at doubles. There is so much net-play in doubles that is on the verge of extinction in the singles game that, arguably, playing doubles should improve and enrich one's singles game.

I saw Petrova/Kuznetsova play at Wimbledon this year (women I know, but the same principle applies) and although they had the power to overcome lower ranked players, they really struggled when it came to the number 2 ranked combo of Huber and Black because they just didn't have those extra reflexes etc that good doubles players have.

Re: The French pairing, although Clement has had some good singles results this year, Llodra has been struggling and has had to play a few challengers just to keep up. I've always thought of Llodra as predominantly a doubles player in any case (not sure why though?!). Although they've only been playing together these past few months I'm sure they have often hit together and are also good friends. (That is purely speculative but I've read on several occassions how the French players often stick together when they travel).
Their match against the Bryan's was superb and, to me, they looked like proper doubles players rather than just being singles players coming together.

I could continue but I'm meant to be working so I won't, for now! ;)

Good topic and good post, I dont think that necessarily it works that if you are the best singles player in the world you'd be the best (or even a decent doubles player)...

Federer's doubles record is pretty poor.... the last time he won a doubles event was 2005. Sure he hasnt played much doubles this year, but you'd still expect better than a 2-4 YTD record. Nadal slightly better 2 finals this year and a 9-6 YTD record, still hardly unstoppable given they've mostly been played on clay - his favoured subject.

The two games (singles and doubles) are substantially different and require substantially different techniques. A good net game and touch is required for doubles - not so for singles where baseline rallies can be more important. The 'big' serve is also less of an factor in doubles - Roddick for example had a pretty disasterous doubles tournoi in surbiton with Ginepri. In doubles, you also require to work as a team and gave good peripheral vision.

Not only this but the types of person required to be successful in singles and doubles are very different. Acedemic research examined individual differences between people who prefer to perform a task alone and people who prefer to cooperate with a partner. The contributions of self-esteem, agreeableness, locus of control, and optimism were investigated in prediction of doubles or singles playing preference in recreational tennis players. Seventy recreational tennis players (aged 16-75) completed measures of singles/doubles playing preference, locus of control, optimism/pessimism, agreeableness, and self-esteem. Results of regression analysis show the strongest predictor of singles or doubles playing preference is optimism/pessimism. Players who prefer to play doubles were more agreeable and more optimistic than players who prefer to play singles. ( Psi Chi Journal - Vol. 4 Iss. 3)

If simply being a good singles player meant you'd be a good doubles player the opposite should also surely be true and although The Bryans are (supposedly) the best doubles pairing in the world, yet they're not particularly great singles players.

Thanks for the info Ivo. I am still in 2 minds about it. I think in the past top singles players who were playing doubles consistantly were usually at the top of the doubles ranking as well (mCEnroe, Wilander, Stich etc...). However times have changed. I agree that the reflexes are different but I would think it would be more placement (of th eplayer and the shots) rather than pure reflexes (speed of hands) that make the difference. I am quite convinced that shoudl the other singles top 5 were to play more consistantly, those reflexes would be quickly learnt and that they woudl end up at the top of the ranking as well. We can see for instance, Youzhny and Gasquet doing some damage almost every time they enter a doubles tournament.

I think the most determining factor is that doubles do not require as much fitness and therefore can be played by more plavers, usually very talented who could not be successful on the singles tour because they would simply not be on the ball. Paes, Santoro (great talents) , Mirnyi and Llodra (too tall), the Brians (perfectly sinchronised) etc....are all successful at doubles and would be ranked higher at singles if they had legs and stamina.

I seem to think that it holds true only for the women.I mean we only have to look at the past greats in doubles and you will find that they were all or I should say most of them were great singles players. Another recent example would have to be Jankovic who recently claimed the mixed crown and having never before playing mixed in her life.Her reflexes were amazing because the guys thought that because she is a singles specialist she would be easy pickings at the net and they were wrong!

With the men its a different ball game and I dont think that the best singles players are or will be equally great in doubles.

Re: Jankovic. You're right that the opposition underestimated her but although she's never played mixed, she has played quite a few women's doubles. In fact I saw her play doubles long before she broke into the top 10 so it wasn't as if she had zero experience on a doubles court.

Also past greats in men's doubles were also great singles players, McEnroe being a prime example. Now, however, I do agree that more women are gaining success in both doubles and singles than in the men's game.

With the changes to the scoring of doubles matches hopefully the men will step up soon. I fear, however, unless their singles schedule is shortened (which it should, regardless of doubles) then we'll still see a separation between doubles and singles players.

Good post!! :ok:

I think that your observation that a good singles player doesn't necessarily make a good doubles player is absolutely right.

I would add to the mix that a doubles player also has to be able to develop a good understanding with their partner too. Reminds me of another gem from Tursunov's blog when talking about playing doubles with Marat Safin, where Dmitry commented that the concept of 'my side, your side' was an alien one to Marat!! :D

And yes, doubles does require more of an all round game than singles. All world-class doubles players can volley. The same cannot be said for all of the top singles players. It helps a great deal also to be able to lob effectively too with both opponents at the net.

I wish that the doubles did have a higher profile as it's a fine form of the game with its own aesthetic merits. I mean, you're guaranteed variety, regardless of the surface, for starters..

Me too! Like you said there is more variety and, on many occassions, more drama and excitement.

I'm unsure whether I like the newish system of two sets and then a champions tie-break. I can understand why they're doing it but there's nothing better than watching a tough 3/ 5 setter at Wimbledon!

I was reading an article by Lisa Raymond on si.com and she seemed to suggest that, as with singles, less and less doubles players are coming to the net and prefer to stay back. Obviously at the mo the top doubles players like Raymond, Black, the Bryans etc are still around so it's not as noticable but when these players, who are in their late 20s/early 30s retire, we may be in for baseline doubles! :o

I am certainly not sure that top doubles players are better volleyers than top singles ones. The difference is essentially that a double player is already at the net most of the time holding the racket grip the way it shoudl be ready to volley. A singles player is truggling at the base line and the rush at the net requires a swift change of grip and his goal posts are a bit wider than for a doubles player. I am convinced that shoudl top players put their time into doubles they would end up at the top as well as it used to be in the past.

Is it not amazing how doubles seem like an entire separate tour on its own. Its kinda like the players are totally different yet we all know them so well. LOL! :)

Oh, I agree about the champions tie break. I think that this is a terrible thing! It devalues doubles, quite frankly. It relegates it ever more as a side show to the singles events, and possibly makes the doubles specialists themselves appear even more inferior to the singles players.

It's also interesting that you note that less doubles players are coming to the net. I guess that the doubles pair that is serving almost always has one player at the net though? :shrug:

It wouldn't surprise me if there is less netplay in doubles than there used to be, given the racquet technology enabling more fizzing passing shots etc etc..

Yes, but the fact is that many singles players don't volley, or have poor volleys. Sharapova for example hits drive volleys rather than normal volleys, as she simply doesn't have soft hands to enable her to volley effectively.

And yes, I'm sure that singles players could be as good volleyers as doubles players, "if" they were to develop their volleying skills.

Note that this is an "if". If they don't develop this, then their volleying isn't likely to be as good, because they don't use it in match situations.

And whilst players might have their grips at the ready at the net, that doesn't matter quite so much. There is the net player, fine, but often the server comes to the net to attack too, along with their partner. There is certainly more serve-volley in doubles than there is in singles, and regardless of relative ability, doubles players have more rounded games than singles players because their game demands that this is the case. Remember when A-Rod played doubles recently after RG, for example??

Some excellent points there petalp!

Glad to see doubles is getting the attention it deserves! :D

I watched Santoro/Zimonic play Paes and Damn? at Wimbledon on court 18 and because I was standing 2 meters from them we could really see the skills involved and it s quite enjoyable to watch.

I still think that shoud Djokovic team up with Bagdhatis for 3 months and play double matches consistantly, they would bring the game to new levels.

On the other hand someone like Paes is a huge talent (rounded player as you call them) and woudl be successful at singles if his physics was better. Doubles allow for talented players like him and Santoro to make the difference amongst other double players while on a single match they could be relatively easily blasted off the court by lesser talented/rounded players.

(Although Santoro did just win Newport so is sort of holding his own at certain tier events)

Anyways, what I was going to say was that I watched that match on court 18 too, well most of it! Small world! :D

It's interesting to note that singles players are often assessed about what weapons they have to hurt other players. In that instance it's often about having the killer punch as opposed to an all-round game.

In doubles, this is less of an issue because of the greater variety of the game.

A good doubles player may not do as well in singles because they might not have much of a chance to put away dinky volleys at acute angles in a singles match, compared to a doubles match, for example..

I think that it would be good for many of the younger tennis players to play doubles as well as singles, would really help them to just try different things out in a match situation.. and also doubles is often just more fun, and could enable players to show a different side of their game that perhaps doesn't get the chance in their singles matches..

[QUOTEIt's interesting to note that singles players are often assessed about what weapons they have to hurt other players. In that instance it's often about having the killer punch as opposed to an all-round game.
[/QUOTE]
]Yes - And you mentioned A-Rod doubles match recently which is the perfect example to argument your point.

Paes was actually quite a good singles player in his time and by the way has that ever elusive win over the supposed GOAT Pete Sampras.By troll logic if you beat Pete you were playing in the era of lions and that makes you great.Bar that crap Paes was indeed a good singles player before his full time commitment to doubles.Santoro isnt a pushover as well in singles.Although Federer has that great H2H with him he generally struggles with Santoro as do most guys,ask Marat Safin. ;) Todd Woodbidge known better as the 1 half of the Woodies also was quite a decent singles player and he reached the semis at Wimbledon.So it proves all of you guys points true.The guys should in their early years devote some time to doubles.Its a huge advantage to anyones game!

I dont know why doubles is so underrated and to add insult to injury that champions tiebreak is a slap in the face.Doubles requires huge talent and great hands and reflexes and the specialists are amazing.I have great respect for them.My doubles league starts now on sunday the 22 July and its on of my favourite leagues of the year.

Just a footnote to some of the excellent posts about doubles, but I suspect that one of the reasons for few singles players also playing doubles is because they are two very different games with different aims. In doubles, most of the returns are hit at the feet of the serve-volleyer, a shot that singles specialists don't want to groove, because on the singles court it translates into short, attackable returns. When at the baseline with opponents at the net, the percentage shot in doubles is down the middle. Again, not a shot that singles players want to develop. Serving position is different, returning direction is different, where you take the ball on returns is different (usually stepping further into the court to take time away from the serve-volleyer), hitting angles are different, movement at the net are different. Serious singles players can develop timing and touch by playing doubles, but they can also lose some of their rhythm and routine on other shots.
Some players can make the transition well (Bjorkman is a modern phenomenon with success at both), but most of his success comes on the faster courts where his doubles tactics don't necessarily disadvantage him.
I would love to see more singles specialists play doubles, but I can't see it happening regularly unless they are uniformly made to, meaning that all players are equally advantaged/disadvantaged by playing both. :)