Wednesday, August 3, 2005
ATP's New Doubles: A Necessary Evil
Leave a Comment
Send to Friend
Print This Story
I have talked to a large number of casual tennis fans, several tennis club members, and occasional players before I decided to present my point of view on this subject. As I expected, most of these people expressed great sorrow over the ATP's decision to revamp the doubles system. And as I expected, most of them did that only after I explained to them what the new system brings to the table.
As I expected, most of them did not even know of such news.
In case you have not heard, ATP is changing the format for doubles once the U.S. Open ends. Sets will end after a team reaches five games, there will be tie-breakers at 4-4, and no-ad scoring will take effect. This is all in an effort to shorten the doubles' match time, thus resulting in more of the world's top-ranked singles players participating in doubles.
Furthermore, starting 2008, only players who are in the singles main draw will be allowed to participate in doubles, except for wildcards and two spots in a 16-team draw for trams with the best combined ranking not playing in singles. Also in 2008, a new ranking system will be in effect, where a player will be ranked based on the total of 50% of a player's doubles points added on to the 50% of his singles points.
Confused enough? Do you care?
If you answered "yes" to both questions, let me simplify it for you. ATP is basically half-axing the doubles game, making it a lesser factor in the world of tennis. The reason is simple, the money is not there for doubles.
If you answered "no" to the second question, regardless of your answer to the first, you are part of the reason for ATP's decision. I know my opinion will not be popular, but let me go on record saying that although the methods may be arguable, ATP's decision is a correct one. And please spare me the speech about "the greatness of watching doubles skills." My butcher down the street claims to have the greatest meat-cutting skill also, but would anyone sit and watch him on TV if he was broadcast in action?
If you are not convinced, ask yourself this question: how many times have you watched a player with the first name Lleyton, Andy, Roger, or Andre in the last few years versus Cyril, Laender, Mark (no not Phillippoussis), or Bob (no not Costas)?
So much for the silly "skills" speech...
Let's move on to "it's never on TV" excuse. Those that have the Tennis Channel will confirm that doubles is often broadcast on the tennis channel, with show times often repeated, including last week's RCA Championships. I have the Tennis Channel, and I did not make my Saturday or Sunday schedule around the doubles matches broadcast. But I did clear my schedule for the singles semifinals and finals. I am willing to bet most others did the same.
Most tennis fans will agree that a good doubles match is a pleasure to watch. However, when asked if they would rather watch any Grand Slam tournament's singles final versus doubles if given the choice, they will firmly choose singles. And let's face it, if both were on TV, do you really think most tennis fans would sit through another hour or two of doubles play after watching singles? Heck, you can't even get most spectators at tournament to sit in the stands through both singles and doubles.
Also, do you really think TVs will spare five hours of broadcast time on a Saturday or Sunday just so it can broadcast doubles featuring strange names after a singles final featuring two high-profile names (or at least one, most of the time)?
So yes, it's never on TV because, let's be honest, beach volleyball attracts more viewers than Aspelin/Perry vs. Paes/Zimonjic doubles match? Oh, don't get mad at me for being picky with names, both of those teams in the previous sentence are ranked No. 5 and No. 6 in the world, respectively!
The biggest losers in this new wave of doubles revamping will be people like the Bryan brothers and the Jensen brothers, who actually have a positive effect on the image of tennis, spending plenty of time with tournament sponsors, fans, and kids. However, they are very rare, in fact immense exceptions, in an environment where doubles players represent nothing more than a financial burden on most ATP tournaments.
Naturally, the Bryan and Jensen brothers have expressed their disappointments with this decision, along with Todd Woodbridge and a few others who use the doubles circuit as their bread-winning avenue. I see their point, but can't help wondering if they would feel as strongly if they made it on the tour as singles players. All those "doubles specialists," a term that faces extinction under the upcoming system, are only that because they did not succeed in singles. If Bob Bryan, Luke Jensen, Laender Paes, Mark Knowles, or Jonas Bjorkman ever made it to top five in singles, would they be playing doubles on a regular basis? I think not!
Do you see a pattern on all these views? It all comes down to one thing that I mentioned in the beginning: money! Players first try to make it in singles because there is more money, TVs don't broadcast doubles unless they don't have a choice because of money, and tournaments don't want the doubles specialist around because he does not offer a return for its cost in financial terms.
Fans are the only ones who don't have money as their reason for choosing to watch singles over doubles. Perhaps, it is we fans who need to put our money where our mouth is and demand more doubles before we do the talking.
Let's go back to those people that I mentioned at the beginning of this column, the club players, occasional fans etc. Once explained the revamping of doubles, talk they did. But when it comes to walking, they will not.
Hey Mert,
First, nice article. I agree with what you said, but lament the final push of what began when Open tennis really started to have big money. Back in the day, as you know, the big names played both singles and doubles. Mostly because the money wasn't that huge and it was another great paycheck. And of course they enjoyed it.
Now, since so much money is available to the top players, they don't want to "tire" themselves by playing doubles. So, no more McEnroes, Connors (he won Wimbledon dubs with Nastase) Newks, Lavers, Rosewalls, Smiths, Lutz or even Bullet Bob Hewitts.
I don't think for a minute that todays top stars will play dubs, even with the new format. There still isn't enough incentive, and most of them have never really played dubs growing up.
Having said that, did you join the US Tennis Writers Association? We would love to have you join. Its only $20.
tom k.