By Leigh Sanders
Speaking to a tennis-mad relative this week we were discussing last weekend’s inductions at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, RI, and how fans were staying away because the players on show weren’t considered ‘A-list’ as they were doubles specialists.
This got me thinking a lot this week as to the difference between those perceived as singles and doubles specialists and what they could be had they been able to conquer both fields.
Looking at those inducted last week, we had the Australian ‘Woodies’ Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge. Together they held aloft a record 61 ATP doubles titles, a record only just equalled by the Bryan brothers of America, including 11 majors.
They are the only team in the Open Era to win one of the four Slams for six consecutive years and sit second in the all time Grand Slam doubles winners list to the twelve hoisted by John Newcombe and Tony Roche.
Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva won more women’s doubles titles and Grand Slams together than any other partnership since Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver. They won six consecutive Slams from the 1992 French Open to the 1993 Wimbledon title and are largely considered one of the sport’s best partnerships.
These sound pretty ‘A-List’ to me. So why are doubles players not remembered as fondly as some of their singles specialist counterparts?
For years Anna Kournikova was chastised as being more eye candy than tennis quality. Yet she won two Grand Slam doubles titles with Martina Hingis and was ranked as the No. 1 doubles player in the world. She was also named (w. Hingis) as the No. 1 WTA doubles partnership of 1999.
How big could the worldwide names of Leander Paes or Liezel Huber have been had they single-handedly conquered the tennis courts? And why does this happen?
The Williams sisters have pretty much dominated the women’s game over the past few years by sweeping aside nearly everything before them in both singles and doubles play. Serena has her clothing labels, they have both ventured in to writing, while top magazine covers have also borne their images. They both appeared in cult American TV hit ‘The Simpsons’ alongside Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, widely seen as one of the greatest monikers of success in some fields.
Going back to the record-equalling Bryan bros. it begs the question of how large an empire they could muster had they also been top singles players too. Men’s tennis is generally the larger of the two, and players like Roger Federer and Agassi before him became worldwide figures with both tennis fans and non-sports fanatics by facing advertising campaigns for some of the world’s largest international corporations.
I have no doubt that they would garner the same attention. And with their band, and the various spin offs other top spars enjoy they could quite easily amass a financial empire to match some of the world’s top stars.
Not that they will be unhappy with what they have achieved of course. Let me say that this post is not meant to demeanour the doubles game in any way as the top players in this field are often equally as athletic as their singles counterparts but this facet of the game always plays second-fiddle to its glamorous brother and looks set to always do so.
Woodforde said at the ITHF induction ceremony that they never intended their careers to turn out this way and that they just turned out to be better doubles players. Congratulations to them all. But what could have become of them had the ball bounced the other way?
You make some excellent points. Plus, from a viewing perspective, doubles is frequently more fun/exciting to watch than singles. Playing doubles speeds up your responses. It’s a shame that it’s not a more respected game.