Great Tennis Journalism 2.0

[ti-amie]

So many people said the big change would simply involve changing the font...

[ti-amie]

So this was from the lastest podcast episode of Roddick's Served Podcast. I have to say Roddick's general attitude regarding doubles is a bit over the top. I dont know what his problem is regardless of it making money or not but he just comes off as belittling doubles players and acting like how Opelka says that they are failed singles players.

Roddick in his podcasts tends to just (expletive) on doubles to no end. For him its just a money suck. Even with that nice feel good win of patten and heliovaara he went and (expletive) on it. Even i the recent podcast he keeps harping on doubles being a money suck when I genuinely dont see it. He also seems to hate the fact that doubles specialists exists and also agrees with Reilly that doubles players are just failed singles players or ones who never tried at singles. (Also as aside note love how he's fine with all the (expletive) that Reilly posts cause 'he's just being himself' but needs to find a way to critique other players who post (expletive) on social media

Roddick in this podcast episode really has me turning off from him cause of the way he is talking. Watching it today it was just like "if you dont agree with me then your just an emotional loser who doesnt understand the realities of money and life'. But like doubles has been here for a while it makes money when the tournaments promote it properly IMO. Heliovaara and Patten winning was such a nice thing imo given the sturggle they had to make it into tennis. Maybe Roddick's been blessed in that he's never had that issue of financial struggle and its clearly showing especially wiht the Bopanna comments.

Overall very preachy and over the top.

I read a response pointing out that none of this mattered to US players when the Brian's were among the top doubles players.

[mick1303]

Top players rarely play 250s as it is now. But if there is a portion of the season when those 250s are not competing with other events. SOME top players maybe will be more inclined to enter.

Regarding the doubles - I did not like this section of the podcast at all.
1) Claiming that doubles bring very small revenues is quite speculative when there is a tournament featuring both singles and doubles.
2) Reducing the argumentation exclusively to money is a slippery slope, because it will open WTA/ATP equal prize money movement to the criticism based on the same line of reasoning. I'm not saying that equal prize money across WTA/ATP is a "sacred cow" and shall be free of any scrutiny. What I'm saying is that it would be hypocritical to argue for equal WTA prize money and then turn around and use the arguments of your opponents to advocate eliminating doubles.

My idea of bringing more relevance to doubles is to establish a combined ranking, where doubles may contribute with a reduced weight (somewhere from 0.25 to 0.5 comparing to singles). This will allow singles players enter doubles tournaments and vice versa. It will not be a pure distraction to the top singles players (as it is now), because their efforts in doubles could give them a competitive edge in rankings.

[ponchi101]

How about if they go full Darwinian on the 250's? If your tournament can bring in a profit, you survive. If not, nice meeting you.
We keep forgetting: this is a business now. I will say doubles is as relevant as singles when we see a doubles-only tournament that is financially viable. Until then, doubles was a glorious part of the sport. Emphasis on WAS.

[Owendonovan]

So this was from the lastest podcast episode of Roddick's Served Podcast. I have to say Roddick's general attitude regarding doubles is a bit over the top. I dont know what his problem is regardless of it making money or not but he just comes off as belittling doubles players and acting like how Opelka says that they are failed singles players.

Roddick in his podcasts tends to just (expletive) on doubles to no end. For him its just a money suck. Even with that nice feel good win of patten and heliovaara he went and (expletive) on it. Even i the recent podcast he keeps harping on doubles being a money suck when I genuinely dont see it. He also seems to hate the fact that doubles specialists exists and also agrees with Reilly that doubles players are just failed singles players or ones who never tried at singles. (Also as aside note love how he's fine with all the (expletive) that Reilly posts cause 'he's just being himself' but needs to find a way to critique other players who post (expletive) on social media

Roddick in this podcast episode really has me turning off from him cause of the way he is talking. Watching it today it was just like "if you dont agree with me then your just an emotional loser who doesnt understand the realities of money and life'. But like doubles has been here for a while it makes money when the tournaments promote it properly IMO. Heliovaara and Patten winning was such a nice thing imo given the sturggle they had to make it into tennis. Maybe Roddick's been blessed in that he's never had that issue of financial struggle and its clearly showing especially wiht the Bopanna comments.

Overall very preachy and over the top.

I read a response pointing out that none of this mattered to US players when the Brian's were among the top doubles players.

Andy's always been a frat bro. Most frat bro's embody a toxic masculinity. Disparaging your own sport so you can agree with a buddy shows your character.

[ashkor87]

https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/ca ... -davenport
Not much about Keys despite the headline...True that Keys will do better at Miami since she can handle heat and humidity better than most...
Happy to disagree with Davenport..Coco will not do well here .she cannot hit through the slow surface, and her footspeed won't help her much here...on a slow surface, anyone can reach any ball...

Keys actually should do well here, powerful and a tad slow of foot.

[FredX]

How about if they go full Darwinian on the 250's? If your tournament can bring in a profit, you survive. If not, nice meeting you.
We keep forgetting: this is a business now. I will say doubles is as relevant as singles when we see a doubles-only tournament that is financially viable. Until then, doubles was a glorious part of the sport. Emphasis on WAS.

There needs to be some way for lower rank players to work their way up and gain experience, money, and ranking points. The 250s are part of that ladder, the first rung of ATP tournaments above the challengers. If we want a healthy sport, it's in the sport's interest to subsidize that - and those tournaments - to some extent.

As for doubles, does it need to be self-sustainable to justify its existence? If we go full Darwin, let's eliminate wheelchair tennis! I'm pretty sure that doesn't bring in money. The U.S. Open (for example) pays out money for performers, musicians, fine dining, stilt walkers, aging stars hamming it up in exhibition matches, face painting for little kids, and all sorts of other things to support the main event. Doubles are part of that added value (particularly in the later parts of big tournaments), and unlike say - stilt walkers - it's actually tennis, and it actually helps subsidize lower ranked players who might be still fighting it out in singles and are having trouble making ends meet. Are some of those players "failed singles players" in the sense that they have now focused on doubles more? Sure...but I don't see why they need to be driven out of the sport.

I probably won't miss mixed doubles, and maybe the current format needs a redo. But there is something lost every time the sport is tinkered with to make it more flashy entertainment. I'm sure turning mixed doubles into a semi-exhibition battle of the stars will bring in more revenue, but won't it mostly go to the players who already make plenty of money?