Poll

How good are the changes in doubles?

Very good, it's more exciting, use it for the slams
1 (16.7%)
Terrible, a way to get the doubles players off as quickly as they can
3 (50%)
OK, but the slams should be kept to best of 5 sets, traditional scoring
2 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: June 28, 2007, 05:13:00 PM

Author Topic: New Doubles system  (Read 6660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« on: June 28, 2007, 05:13:00 PM »
Since 2006, two radical changes have been made to ATP Tour Level doubles:
Sudden Death Deuce
Match Tie-break

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
Re: New Doubles system
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2007, 05:16:17 PM »
Quote from: "kickserve"
Since 2006, two radical changes have been made to ATP Tour Level doubles:
Sudden Death Deuce
Match Tie-break


We use some of the no-ad scoring in some of our leagues here.  It really isn't that bad after all, it just makes every point that much more important and especially that last point of the game. (deuce point)

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2007, 05:16:42 PM »
Personally, I think the changes are a joke. The ATP underestimate the popularity of doubles: about 90% of casual tennis players and fans are doubles players, so would appreciate it if doubles was properly marketted, possibly as much if not more so than singles. I really enjoy the rarity of a televised doubles match and I think a lot of the tennis fans who play tennis themselves (not the idiots who hop on the Henmania bandwagon in June then never think about tennis again for 12 months) appreciate good doubles play.

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2007, 05:17:00 PM »
I think the whole thing is a degrading treatment of doubles. I prefer to keep it as it was, equal partners, and try and promote it as much as singles are promoted.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2007, 05:20:57 PM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
I think the whole thing is a degrading treatment of doubles. I prefer to keep it as it was, equal partners, and try and promote it as much as singles are promoted.


Agreed

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2007, 05:21:27 PM »
Trust me, I would lead the cause on seeing more dubs but tennis, at least in the US is all about the big marquee names.  It calls out to the very casual tennis fan because the only players they know are the big ones.  Dubs doesn't have those big names that any of the casual tennis fans know.  If they knew better they would see that dubs is way better than singles in so many ways!

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2007, 05:25:16 PM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Trust me, I would lead the cause on seeing more dubs but tennis, at least in the US is all about the big marquee names.  It calls out to the very casual tennis fan because the only players they know are the big ones.  Dubs doesn't have those big names that any of the casual tennis fans know.  If they knew better they would see that dubs is way better than singles in so many ways!


Which is why doubles must be marketted better. On the Wimbledon montage adverts, why not have a clip of the Woodies or the Bryans, or have doubles players on Centre Courts and TV more often?

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2007, 05:32:07 PM »
Quote from: "kickserve"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Trust me, I would lead the cause on seeing more dubs but tennis, at least in the US is all about the big marquee names.  It calls out to the very casual tennis fan because the only players they know are the big ones.  Dubs doesn't have those big names that any of the casual tennis fans know.  If they knew better they would see that dubs is way better than singles in so many ways!


Which is why doubles must be marketted better. On the Wimbledon montage adverts, why not have a clip of the Woodies or the Bryans, or have doubles players on Centre Courts and TV more often?


Hey, I agree but the masses are who need to be advertised to and the masses are a bunch of people who barely know tennis that well at all.   Your comment before was on it, most people that play, play dubs.  But, the media have us locked into any tennis that they will show on TV.  So it is all those peeps that barely play or watch tennis that tennis needs to get playing or watching more so the game overall will be more popular, in the media's mind!?

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2007, 05:34:32 PM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "kickserve"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Trust me, I would lead the cause on seeing more dubs but tennis, at least in the US is all about the big marquee names.  It calls out to the very casual tennis fan because the only players they know are the big ones.  Dubs doesn't have those big names that any of the casual tennis fans know.  If they knew better they would see that dubs is way better than singles in so many ways!


Which is why doubles must be marketted better. On the Wimbledon montage adverts, why not have a clip of the Woodies or the Bryans, or have doubles players on Centre Courts and TV more often?


Hey, I agree but the masses are who need to be advertised to and the masses are a bunch of people who barely know tennis that well at all.   Your comment before was on it, most people that play, play dubs.  But, the media have us locked into any tennis that they will show on TV.  So it is all those peeps that barely play or watch tennis that tennis needs to get playing or watching more so the game overall will be more popular, in the media's mind!?


I think the doubles players have to be made into superstars just as big as the singles players. Their matches can be equally as entertaining and more so, if the masses watch, they'll appreciate, enjoy and become fans.

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2007, 06:46:16 PM »
If you look at doubles historically (which I have an annoying tendency to do), thru the 60's and 70's it was played by the same players as the singles draw. It was an addendum. Not much attention was paid to it because there was no need to pay extra attention to maintain it. In the 70s as tennis, and specifically singles, became more popular and more profitable, and singles became more of a baseliner's game, singles players stopped playing doubles that much. But even into the 80s some singles players played both, McEnroe and Stephan Edberg were two notable ones, but most didn't. Every once in awhile (Mac the US Open one year) a player will have an especially draining singles run and pull out of the doubles to save energy.
As the singles players played less doubles it has become populated with NCAA players. To me NCAA players are very talented players who didn't have the talent to go pro and went to school instead. They played 4 years and by the time they graduate they are too old to really make a dent in singles. But since doubles is an integral part of the NCAA matches they are all competent doubles players and, just to get into the draws, start playing doubles. Guys like Jim Grabb, Rick Leach and Patrick McEnroe are all examples of this.
But as the singles players have shorn doubles, there is now two separate sets of players to take care of for the tournaments. And tournaments really take care of their players. Hotel suites, car service, parties, free goodies (swag), and so on. Now they can't get away with swag and service for a 64 player draw plus maybe 10 or so other doubles types. They have a 64 player draw for singles and a 64 player (32 team) draw for doubles. Now we're talking about 128 players to take care of rather than maybe 70.
Because of the lack of marketing, and the scheduling (putting the doubles matches at the end of a long day of singles, so people, tired of watching tennis, go home as it starts. Or putting doubles on obscure courts) doubles doesn't draw flies. Tournaments are tired of paying the freight and consider the doubles specialist players free loaders and to some extent they are. But the two biggest culprits are the tournaments and the media. There is very little push to popularize doubles as a sport. It's not an event it's an after thought.
As I said before changing the rules for doubles as they've done only serves to make it seem even more of a second class citizen. The idea behind the rule changes were to entice more singles (marquee) players to enter into the doubles events (now doubles matches won’t last as long, read: they can be gotten over with quicker so we can get on with the more important stuff). But they aren't going to do so unless there is a benefit to do so (such as Roddick playing doubles as preparation for Wimbledon).
To me the only way to save doubles as a pro event (and I do think it needs saving, as I think it's on it's way to extinction), is to go the other direction. Make the doubles part of the tournament as enticing as the singles. Schedule doubles on marquee courts, and as first class matches rather than 'let's see if we can get this in before dark' matches. Put it on display. Don't change doubles scoring, and match play rules, make them the same as singles, on par with singles. Make doubles points count towards rankings. Not just doubles rankings, tennis rankings. Maybe keep track of singles and doubles separately, but the polls that count should incorporate both.
As annoying as the Jenson brothers were (and they were and are annoying), they went a long way towards marketing doubles. The Bryan brothers are less dynamic, but almost as heavily marketed. The marketing is there. But until the tournaments treat the doubles with respect, and media won't, and we will continue to see doubles matches begin as the fans are walking to their cars to go home.




(sorry, old tennis nerd with long memory rambling again...... :angle-not: )

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
New Doubles system
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2007, 01:24:21 AM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
If you look at doubles historically (which I have an annoying tendency to do), thru the 60's and 70's it was played by the same players as the singles draw. It was an addendum. Not much attention was paid to it because there was no need to pay extra attention to maintain it. In the 70s as tennis, and specifically singles, became more popular and more profitable, and singles became more of a baseliner's game, singles players stopped playing doubles that much. But even into the 80s some singles players played both, McEnroe and Stephan Edberg were two notable ones, but most didn't. Every once in awhile (Mac the US Open one year) a player will have an especially draining singles run and pull out of the doubles to save energy.
As the singles players played less doubles it has become populated with NCAA players. To me NCAA players are very talented players who didn't have the talent to go pro and went to school instead. They played 4 years and by the time they graduate they are too old to really make a dent in singles. But since doubles is an integral part of the NCAA matches they are all competent doubles players and, just to get into the draws, start playing doubles. Guys like Jim Grabb, Rick Leach and Patrick McEnroe are all examples of this.
But as the singles players have shorn doubles, there is now two separate sets of players to take care of for the tournaments. And tournaments really take care of their players. Hotel suites, car service, parties, free goodies (swag), and so on. Now they can't get away with swag and service for a 64 player draw plus maybe 10 or so other doubles types. They have a 64 player draw for singles and a 64 player (32 team) draw for doubles. Now we're talking about 128 players to take care of rather than maybe 70.
Because of the lack of marketing, and the scheduling (putting the doubles matches at the end of a long day of singles, so people, tired of watching tennis, go home as it starts. Or putting doubles on obscure courts) doubles doesn't draw flies. Tournaments are tired of paying the freight and consider the doubles specialist players free loaders and to some extent they are. But the two biggest culprits are the tournaments and the media. There is very little push to popularize doubles as a sport. It's not an event it's an after thought.
As I said before changing the rules for doubles as they've done only serves to make it seem even more of a second class citizen. The idea behind the rule changes were to entice more singles (marquee) players to enter into the doubles events (now doubles matches won’t last as long, read: they can be gotten over with quicker so we can get on with the more important stuff). But they aren't going to do so unless there is a benefit to do so (such as Roddick playing doubles as preparation for Wimbledon).
To me the only way to save doubles as a pro event (and I do think it needs saving, as I think it's on it's way to extinction), is to go the other direction. Make the doubles part of the tournament as enticing as the singles. Schedule doubles on marquee courts, and as first class matches rather than 'let's see if we can get this in before dark' matches. Put it on display. Don't change doubles scoring, and match play rules, make them the same as singles, on par with singles. Make doubles points count towards rankings. Not just doubles rankings, tennis rankings. Maybe keep track of singles and doubles separately, but the polls that count should incorporate both.
As annoying as the Jenson brothers were (and they were and are annoying), they went a long way towards marketing doubles. The Bryan brothers are less dynamic, but almost as heavily marketed. The marketing is there. But until the tournaments treat the doubles with respect, and media won't, and we will continue to see doubles matches begin as the fans are walking to their cars to go home.




(sorry, old tennis nerd with long memory rambling again...... :angle-not: )


I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2007, 08:07:19 AM »
Quote from: "kickserve"

I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?


They were more loud than good. But they did win a few titles together and in mixed. They won a grand slam title (the French I think), and usually got the the semis or quarters in any tournament. They were all about rock and roll tennis and trying to make tennis exciting and fun. Lots of energy.
The problem was the hype and energy was really more than the substance. They were decent, but not great, but for awhile they were all over everywhere.
Luke Jenson was the louder one, and he was interesting becuase he could serve effectively both left and right handed, and would switch up as needed in a match.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2007, 08:21:21 AM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
If you look at doubles historically (which I have an annoying tendency to do), thru the 60's and 70's it was played by the same players as the singles draw. It was an addendum. Not much attention was paid to it because there was no need to pay extra attention to maintain it. In the 70s as tennis, and specifically singles, became more popular and more profitable, and singles became more of a baseliner's game, singles players stopped playing doubles that much. But even into the 80s some singles players played both, McEnroe and Stephan Edberg were two notable ones, but most didn't. Every once in awhile (Mac the US Open one year) a player will have an especially draining singles run and pull out of the doubles to save energy.
As the singles players played less doubles it has become populated with NCAA players. To me NCAA players are very talented players who didn't have the talent to go pro and went to school instead. They played 4 years and by the time they graduate they are too old to really make a dent in singles. But since doubles is an integral part of the NCAA matches they are all competent doubles players and, just to get into the draws, start playing doubles. Guys like Jim Grabb, Rick Leach and Patrick McEnroe are all examples of this.
But as the singles players have shorn doubles, there is now two separate sets of players to take care of for the tournaments. And tournaments really take care of their players. Hotel suites, car service, parties, free goodies (swag), and so on. Now they can't get away with swag and service for a 64 player draw plus maybe 10 or so other doubles types. They have a 64 player draw for singles and a 64 player (32 team) draw for doubles. Now we're talking about 128 players to take care of rather than maybe 70.
Because of the lack of marketing, and the scheduling (putting the doubles matches at the end of a long day of singles, so people, tired of watching tennis, go home as it starts. Or putting doubles on obscure courts) doubles doesn't draw flies. Tournaments are tired of paying the freight and consider the doubles specialist players free loaders and to some extent they are. But the two biggest culprits are the tournaments and the media. There is very little push to popularize doubles as a sport. It's not an event it's an after thought.
As I said before changing the rules for doubles as they've done only serves to make it seem even more of a second class citizen. The idea behind the rule changes were to entice more singles (marquee) players to enter into the doubles events (now doubles matches won’t last as long, read: they can be gotten over with quicker so we can get on with the more important stuff). But they aren't going to do so unless there is a benefit to do so (such as Roddick playing doubles as preparation for Wimbledon).
To me the only way to save doubles as a pro event (and I do think it needs saving, as I think it's on it's way to extinction), is to go the other direction. Make the doubles part of the tournament as enticing as the singles. Schedule doubles on marquee courts, and as first class matches rather than 'let's see if we can get this in before dark' matches. Put it on display. Don't change doubles scoring, and match play rules, make them the same as singles, on par with singles. Make doubles points count towards rankings. Not just doubles rankings, tennis rankings. Maybe keep track of singles and doubles separately, but the polls that count should incorporate both.
As annoying as the Jenson brothers were (and they were and are annoying), they went a long way towards marketing doubles. The Bryan brothers are less dynamic, but almost as heavily marketed. The marketing is there. But until the tournaments treat the doubles with respect, and media won't, and we will continue to see doubles matches begin as the fans are walking to their cars to go home.




(sorry, old tennis nerd with long memory rambling again...... :angle-not: )



Yeah, but good rambling with very good points.  I think the one thing you didn't discuss was the issue I have mentioned.  That is that we real tennis fans are going to watch whatever tennis the media shows us but the very casual fans that don't follow tennis closely at all are only attracted to the big name celebrity types like Roddick and Federer.

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2007, 08:27:26 AM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "kickserve"

I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?


They were more loud than good. But they did win a few titles together and in mixed. They won a grand slam title (the French I think), and usually got the the semis or quarters in any tournament. They were all about rock and roll tennis and trying to make tennis exciting and fun. Lots of energy.
The problem was the hype and energy was really more than the substance. They were decent, but not great, but for awhile they were all over everywhere.
Luke Jenson was the louder one, and he was interesting becuase he could serve effectively both left and right handed, and would switch up as needed in a match.


I actually loved the Jensens and still do, apparently I am one of the few on this.  I think the Jensens and McEnroe's are doing more for the game to try to show energy and excitement so people can get excited about tennis!  For this I think they should have all tennis fans respect.  

As for their games, I think it was a case where they just weren't quite top 10 dubs teams material.  So, maybe they were top 20 or 50 but still very impressive to me.  I think they played with a lot of energy and almost all heart and really fed off of crowd energy.  I wish I was good enough to be top 50 dubs teams in the world!   ;-()

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2007, 08:36:40 AM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"

Yeah, but good rambling with very good points.  I think the one thing you didn't discuss was the issue I have mentioned.  That is that we real tennis fans are going to watch whatever tennis the media shows us but the very casual fans that don't follow tennis closely at all are only attracted to the big name celebrity types like Roddick and Federer.


Big name celebraty tennis players are made in the media. There is some effort to make the Bryan brothers something of a thing, and Wayne Bryan is enjoying some ancilary celebraty from that as well. But Andy Ram is a very good doubles player whom nobody knows about. They won't know about him unless he is shown in a match.
The Wimbledon doubles final is an event just like the singles. But we won't see it unless the singles finals don't go too long and the networks have a little extra time. Then when they do actually schedule, and show the doubles it's at an unusual time, and not advertised. The tournaments don't help by scheduling the doubles as add ons, and fill in matches rather than feature matches
Speculation on the players and discussion of their strengths and weaknesses during some of the round table discussions would add to that. We had the whole story of Knowles and Nestor splitting up and making a run to win the French Open doubles title. It was an interesting story with an intersting twist, yet I didn't hear a peep about it anywhere except on TTC once or twice. But only in passing and not as part of any major discussion.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2007, 08:43:43 AM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "kickserve"

I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?


They were more loud than good. But they did win a few titles together and in mixed. They won a grand slam title (the French I think), and usually got the the semis or quarters in any tournament. They were all about rock and roll tennis and trying to make tennis exciting and fun. Lots of energy.
The problem was the hype and energy was really more than the substance. They were decent, but not great, but for awhile they were all over everywhere.
Luke Jenson was the louder one, and he was interesting becuase he could serve effectively both left and right handed, and would switch up as needed in a match.


I actually loved the Jensens and still do, apparently I am one of the few on this.  I think the Jensens and McEnroe's are doing more for the game to try to show energy and excitement so people can get excited about tennis!  For this I think they should have all tennis fans respect.  

As for their games, I think it was a case where they just weren't quite top 10 dubs teams material.  So, maybe they were top 20 or 50 but still very impressive to me.  I think they played with a lot of energy and almost all heart and really fed off of crowd energy.  I wish I was good enough to be top 50 dubs teams in the world!   ;-()


I too had respect for what they did. But following Flach and Seguso, whom they were supposed to be the replacement for, they were a major dissapointment. They weren't up to that. They had a very respectable career.
The problem I had with the Jensens, and I don't think I'm alone here, is that there was far too much hype as compared to substance. It was sound and fury and a ho-hum tennis match. They tried to make tennis much more that it really is. Promises of incredible fun and excitement followed by a normal every day tennis match. We love it, but it's not the amazing event that was promised. And we don't love it because of the sound and fury, we love because of what it is.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2007, 08:47:32 AM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"

Yeah, but good rambling with very good points.  I think the one thing you didn't discuss was the issue I have mentioned.  That is that we real tennis fans are going to watch whatever tennis the media shows us but the very casual fans that don't follow tennis closely at all are only attracted to the big name celebrity types like Roddick and Federer.


Big name celebraty tennis players are made in the media. There is some effort to make the Bryan brothers something of a thing, and Wayne Bryan is enjoying some ancilary celebraty from that as well. But Andy Ram is a very good doubles player whom nobody knows about. They won't know about him unless he is shown in a match.
The Wimbledon doubles final is an event just like the singles. But we won't see it unless the singles finals don't go too long and the networks have a little extra time. Then when they do actually schedule, and show the doubles it's at an unusual time, and not advertised. The tournaments don't help by scheduling the doubles as add ons, and fill in matches rather than feature matches
Speculation on the players and discussion of their strengths and weaknesses during some of the round table discussions would add to that. We had the whole story of Knowles and Nestor splitting up and making a run to win the French Open doubles title. It was an interesting story with an intersting twist, yet I didn't hear a peep about it anywhere except on TTC once or twice. But only in passing and not as part of any major discussion.


And, while we are ranting, do you know those 5 or 10 best shots of the tourney the media sometimes show at the end of a tourney?  They hardly ever show dubs points and you know you could find some ridiculously sweet points that show the amazement happening on the dubs courts.  I think if people saw more of those amazing dubs points, maybe they would seek the dubs out a little more.   ;-()

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
New Doubles system
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2007, 08:54:20 AM »
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "kickserve"

I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?


They were more loud than good. But they did win a few titles together and in mixed. They won a grand slam title (the French I think), and usually got the the semis or quarters in any tournament. They were all about rock and roll tennis and trying to make tennis exciting and fun. Lots of energy.
The problem was the hype and energy was really more than the substance. They were decent, but not great, but for awhile they were all over everywhere.
Luke Jenson was the louder one, and he was interesting becuase he could serve effectively both left and right handed, and would switch up as needed in a match.


I actually loved the Jensens and still do, apparently I am one of the few on this.  I think the Jensens and McEnroe's are doing more for the game to try to show energy and excitement so people can get excited about tennis!  For this I think they should have all tennis fans respect.  

As for their games, I think it was a case where they just weren't quite top 10 dubs teams material.  So, maybe they were top 20 or 50 but still very impressive to me.  I think they played with a lot of energy and almost all heart and really fed off of crowd energy.  I wish I was good enough to be top 50 dubs teams in the world!   ;-()


I too had respect for what they did. But following Flach and Seguso, whom they were supposed to be the replacement for, they were a major dissapointment. They weren't up to that. They had a very respectable career.
The problem I had with the Jensens, and I don't think I'm alone here, is that there was far too much hype as compared to substance. It was sound and fury and a ho-hum tennis match. They tried to make tennis much more that it really is. Promises of incredible fun and excitement followed by a normal every day tennis match. We love it, but it's not the amazing event that was promised. And we don't love it because of the sound and fury, we love because of what it is.


Honestly, did Flach and Seguso have tons better success than the Jensens?  Admittedly, I started watching as they were leaving the game but I have some slight memories of seeing them at Cincy.  

Are you talking about hype created by the Jensens or by the media or something?  I thought it did live up to the hype but maybe I just got lucky to see a good match of theirs.  It was late night at Cincy and their was still a decent crowd in the center court, there was lots of energy and excitement and really it was one of the most fun matches I have ever watched!

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2007, 08:55:11 AM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"

Yeah, but good rambling with very good points.  I think the one thing you didn't discuss was the issue I have mentioned.  That is that we real tennis fans are going to watch whatever tennis the media shows us but the very casual fans that don't follow tennis closely at all are only attracted to the big name celebrity types like Roddick and Federer.


Big name celebraty tennis players are made in the media. There is some effort to make the Bryan brothers something of a thing, and Wayne Bryan is enjoying some ancilary celebraty from that as well. But Andy Ram is a very good doubles player whom nobody knows about. They won't know about him unless he is shown in a match.
The Wimbledon doubles final is an event just like the singles. But we won't see it unless the singles finals don't go too long and the networks have a little extra time. Then when they do actually schedule, and show the doubles it's at an unusual time, and not advertised. The tournaments don't help by scheduling the doubles as add ons, and fill in matches rather than feature matches
Speculation on the players and discussion of their strengths and weaknesses during some of the round table discussions would add to that. We had the whole story of Knowles and Nestor splitting up and making a run to win the French Open doubles title. It was an interesting story with an intersting twist, yet I didn't hear a peep about it anywhere except on TTC once or twice. But only in passing and not as part of any major discussion.


And, while we are ranting, do you know those 5 or 10 best shots of the tourney the media sometimes show at the end of a tourney?  They hardly ever show dubs points and you know you could find some ridiculously sweet points that show the amazement happening on the dubs courts.  I think if people saw more of those amazing dubs points, maybe they would seek the dubs out a little more.   ;-()


Speaking of that, while I was feasting on the TTC full court coverage in the first week of the French I was getting some doubles in that mix. I was entertaining thoughts of putting some of those points into a video montage and posting it YouTube or something. Some awesome playing. Quick hands. Lots of 'how did they do that!' kind of stuff.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Offline dmastous

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15270
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.tips4tennis.com
New Doubles system
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2007, 09:00:11 AM »
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "OSU Buckeye"
Quote from: "dmastous"
Quote from: "kickserve"

I don't know much about the Jensens, were they much good?


They were more loud than good. But they did win a few titles together and in mixed. They won a grand slam title (the French I think), and usually got the the semis or quarters in any tournament. They were all about rock and roll tennis and trying to make tennis exciting and fun. Lots of energy.
The problem was the hype and energy was really more than the substance. They were decent, but not great, but for awhile they were all over everywhere.
Luke Jenson was the louder one, and he was interesting becuase he could serve effectively both left and right handed, and would switch up as needed in a match.


I actually loved the Jensens and still do, apparently I am one of the few on this.  I think the Jensens and McEnroe's are doing more for the game to try to show energy and excitement so people can get excited about tennis!  For this I think they should have all tennis fans respect.  

As for their games, I think it was a case where they just weren't quite top 10 dubs teams material.  So, maybe they were top 20 or 50 but still very impressive to me.  I think they played with a lot of energy and almost all heart and really fed off of crowd energy.  I wish I was good enough to be top 50 dubs teams in the world!   ;-()


I too had respect for what they did. But following Flach and Seguso, whom they were supposed to be the replacement for, they were a major dissapointment. They weren't up to that. They had a very respectable career.
The problem I had with the Jensens, and I don't think I'm alone here, is that there was far too much hype as compared to substance. It was sound and fury and a ho-hum tennis match. They tried to make tennis much more that it really is. Promises of incredible fun and excitement followed by a normal every day tennis match. We love it, but it's not the amazing event that was promised. And we don't love it because of the sound and fury, we love because of what it is.


Honestly, did Flach and Seguso have tons better success than the Jensens?  Admittedly, I started watching as they were leaving the game but I have some slight memories of seeing them at Cincy.  

Are you talking about hype created by the Jensens or by the media or something?  I thought it did live up to the hype but maybe I just got lucky to see a good match of theirs.  It was late night at Cincy and their was still a decent crowd in the center court, there was lots of energy and excitement and really it was one of the most fun matches I have ever watched!


There's no question Flach/Seguso were a much better team, results-wise, than the Jensens. What the Bryan brothers are now, the Flach/Seguso team was in the 80s. They won an incredible number of Davis Cup ties for the US. They were, if not the #1 team, in the top 2 or 3 of doubles teams in the world for many years.
From what I saw the Jensen brothers were very much in the middle and driving some of the media hype. I can dig out some Tennis Magazines that had whole sections of the Jensen brother's Rock & Roll tennis crap stuffed in there.

Is a tree as a rocking horse
An ambition fulfilled
And is the sawdust jealous?
I worry about these things .

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)