Bryan Brothers: The indisputable GOAT?

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

NAh.. It will always be Johnny Mac and whomever(all due respect to Peter Fleming). The Bryan Bros are the best of today era but no where near the GOAT.. Mac and Fleming faced some of the most talented two way(singles and doubles) players ever. Eg. I would like to know how the Bryans fared against Rafa, Fed or even Djoker in doubles.(by the way.. these guys play doubles less than part -time unlike the Bryans or even Johnny Mac back in the late 80s.

That is basically the gist of John's argument. If Fed and Wawrinka, Rafa and M. Lopez,
Djokovic and Zimonjic, Murray and Marray had regularly entered in the doubles events in
all major tournaments, would Bryan Brothers have accumulated as many records as they
have now? It is difficult to answer that question as it did not happen.

The only reasonable thing that we can do is to view the H2H record of Bryan Brothers
against any pair of the form "Big Four + One More". That requires some work for which
I don't have patience now. Perhaps some other poster might dig this up for us. I will
try to get to it at leisure, if no one does.

Mac has a point. Now I believe they should still be considered GOATs since you can only beat whoever is put in front of you, but if the guys who dominate singles actually practiced doubles more often and entered tournaments, they would definitely be beating these guys. You can see it in the quality of the ground strokes. Tennis is still tennis.

 

[Federberg]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^ then logically they can't be considered GOATs.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^ then logically they can't be considered GOATs.

Yes they can, provided there isn't an actual doubles' team that has a better case (meaning a team that actually played and got the results).

You can only beat who is put in front of you. It's not the Bryan Bros' fault that top single players can't regularly play and practices doubles. So if you believe that among all the doubles teams who have played in history, the Bryan bros are the best, then they're the GOATS. Yes, the case would probably be different if say, Federer and Wawrinka played doubles regularly as a team, but that would be a case of what ifs.

The two issues to me are separate: I believe top singles players are so much better that they'd take care of business if they applied themselves to doubles. That however, does not change the legacies of those who actually DID take care of business in doubles.

 

[Federberg]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^I guess we have a different read on what a GOAT is. If you're saying that if others bothered to play doubles they would be beaten, then it might make them LAMB's but surely not GOATS. All joking aside this is why I prefer thinking of "most successful of all time" rather than GOAT. That seems more suitable for them.

By the way this, to me, is a more appropriate way of trying to define Rogers achievements. Although.. even here, I would hesitate to bestow him that accolade, as I find Connors number of titles won to be pretty darn impressive. Obviously the likelihood of a lot of 250 level tournaments in his resume is what pushes the argument in Rogers favour... just an opinion though

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I disagree that guys like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic could just decide to concentrate on doubles one day and easily mop up the floor with the top double teams. Totally different game where baseline play and movement don't mean anywhere near as much. It obviously changes up the serving and returning quite a bit too. Djokovic's awesome DTL returns in singles would be easy putaways for a doubles team for instance.

There have been quite a few singles players that clearly concentrate a lot on doubles (think Dodig, Mirnyi, etc.). These guys would trash the Bryans in singles yet they aren't nearly as good as them in doubles...

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I disagree that guys like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic could just decide to concentrate on doubles one day and easily mop up the floor with the top double teams. Totally different game where baseline play and movement don't mean anywhere near as much. It obviously changes up the serving and returning quite a bit too. Djokovic's awesome DTL returns in singles would be easy putaways for a doubles team for instance.

There have been quite a few singles players that clearly concentrate a lot on doubles (think Dodig, Mirnyi, etc.). These guys would trash the Bryans in singles yet they aren't nearly as good as them in doubles...

Ask any doubles pros, they'll be the first to tell you. It's one thing volleying Zimonic's groundies, a whole different thing volleying the kind of ground strokes that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic produce. If they actually concentrate on doubles, they'll get familiar with the tactics and positioning (which is what the pure doubles player thrive on when facing the "guest" doubles players), they'll absolutely mop the floor with them. Again, tennis is tennis.

And nobody's putting away $hit on Djokovic's return. Have fun volleying that when it's returning at your shoelaces before you've even made your way midway through the court. You're taking a shot that works in singles (Novak's DTL return) and just teleporting it to doubles. That's not how it works. He has to return differently in doubles and he's not stupid, he knows it. He'll go for more body returns, keep it low, or better yet, use the extra court space to direct his DTL return. How will any of that be easy put aways?

The way these guys strike the ball is really lightyears ahead of what you see in doubles. If we're assuming they're training doubles full time, and therefore, completely let the movement, positioning, decision making, etc...become second nature, then it wouldn't be much of a contest.

And I'm not talking about Mirnyi and Dodig. I'm talking about all-time greats.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

OK. now this becomes double hypothetical; 1) singles players have to play doubles
and 2) they need to be training for the way doubles is played.

Don't folks think that is too flimsy ground to deny Bryans the doubles GOAT title?

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

OK. now this becomes double hypothetical; 1) singles players have to play doubles
and 2) they need to be training for the way doubles is played.

Don't folks think that is too flimsy ground to deny Bryans the doubles GOAT title?

Yes absolutely, which is why I said it's silly not to award the Bryans (or any other team that's worthy) the GOAT title based on huge what ifs.

The two issues are separate. Whether the Bryans are GOATS or not hinges strictly on comparisons to other doubles team who have played and have accomplished a lot.

The second issue is a totally separate topic, and that is whether or not top singles players could dominate doubles if they put in the time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^I guess we have a different read on what a GOAT is. If you're saying that if others bothered to play doubles they would be beaten, then it might make them LAMB's but surely not GOATS. All joking aside this is why I prefer thinking of "most successful of all time" rather than GOAT. That seems more suitable for them.

That is a good distinction. While the notion of "GOAT" may be mythical, the notion of
"most successful of all time" is a tangible idea. I think Bryan Brothers will be universally
recognized as the most successful of all time.

For exactly the same reason (to take myth out), for singles there is a notion of
"most dominant player" and I once created a thread on it. It was based on a person's
blog. Unfortunately, that thread went down the expected lines with not much of
good discussion.

This is my main contention, the GOAT idea may be mythical, but the MDP (most
dominant player) is a tangible and real concept and people should not dismiss it.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I disagree that guys like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic could just decide to concentrate on doubles one day and easily mop up the floor with the top double teams. Totally different game where baseline play and movement don't mean anywhere near as much. It obviously changes up the serving and returning quite a bit too. Djokovic's awesome DTL returns in singles would be easy putaways for a doubles team for instance.

There have been quite a few singles players that clearly concentrate a lot on doubles (think Dodig, Mirnyi, etc.). These guys would trash the Bryans in singles yet they aren't nearly as good as them in doubles...

Ask any doubles pros, they'll be the first to tell you. It's one thing volleying Zimonic's groundies, a whole different thing volleying the kind of ground strokes that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic produce. If they actually concentrate on doubles, they'll get familiar with the tactics and positioning (which is what the pure doubles player thrive on when facing the "guest" doubles players), they'll absolutely mop the floor with them. Again, tennis is tennis.

And nobody's putting away $hit on Djokovic's return. Have fun volleying that when it's returning at your shoelaces before you've even made your way midway through the court. You're taking a shot that works in singles (Novak's DTL return) and just teleporting it to doubles. That's not how it works. He has to return differently in doubles and he's not stupid, he knows it. He'll go for more body returns, keep it low, or better yet, use the extra court space to direct his DTL return. How will any of that be easy put aways?

The way these guys strike the ball is really lightyears ahead of what you see in doubles. If we're assuming they're training doubles full time, and therefore, completely let the movement, positioning, decision making, etc...become second nature, then it wouldn't be much of a contest.

And I'm not talking about Mirnyi and Dodig. I'm talking about all-time greats.

Uhh, you do realize there is one player at net at all times and that's what changes things. Djokovic's down the line returns would be put away by the server's partner at net was the point I was getting across. You're making the top players sound like they're superhuman here. There aren't that many groundstrokes that are even hit in the doubles game. It's not like you'll have a team with Federer and Nadal that are staying at the baseline in a doubles match. They'd get their asses kicked if they did.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^I guess we have a different read on what a GOAT is. If you're saying that if others bothered to play doubles they would be beaten, then it might make them LAMB's but surely not GOATS. All joking aside this is why I prefer thinking of "most successful of all time" rather than GOAT. That seems more suitable for them.

That is a good distinction. While the notion of "GOAT" may be mythical, the notion of
"most successful of all time" is a tangible idea. I think Bryan Brothers will be universally
recognized as the most successful of all time.

For exactly the same reason (to take myth out), for singles there is a notion of
"most dominant player" and I once created a thread on it. It was based on a person's
blog. Unfortunately, that thread went down the expected lines with not much of
good discussion.

This is my main contention, the GOAT idea may be mythical, but the MDP (most
dominant player) is a tangible and real concept and people should not dismiss it.

I agree, but I personally view them as one and the same. As in, the most successful player is most probably the greatest player. Now we can get into just what "success" is (some will argue that it's not just the number of slams and so on) but that's a different issue.

I've always said Federer is the most accomplished player of all time (at least going by the generally accepted criteria which largely hinges on major count) and therefore, that makes him the greatest.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I disagree that guys like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic could just decide to concentrate on doubles one day and easily mop up the floor with the top double teams. Totally different game where baseline play and movement don't mean anywhere near as much. It obviously changes up the serving and returning quite a bit too. Djokovic's awesome DTL returns in singles would be easy putaways for a doubles team for instance.

There have been quite a few singles players that clearly concentrate a lot on doubles (think Dodig, Mirnyi, etc.). These guys would trash the Bryans in singles yet they aren't nearly as good as them in doubles...

Ask any doubles pros, they'll be the first to tell you. It's one thing volleying Zimonic's groundies, a whole different thing volleying the kind of ground strokes that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic produce. If they actually concentrate on doubles, they'll get familiar with the tactics and positioning (which is what the pure doubles player thrive on when facing the "guest" doubles players), they'll absolutely mop the floor with them. Again, tennis is tennis.

And nobody's putting away $hit on Djokovic's return. Have fun volleying that when it's returning at your shoelaces before you've even made your way midway through the court. You're taking a shot that works in singles (Novak's DTL return) and just teleporting it to doubles. That's not how it works. He has to return differently in doubles and he's not stupid, he knows it. He'll go for more body returns, keep it low, or better yet, use the extra court space to direct his DTL return. How will any of that be easy put aways?

The way these guys strike the ball is really lightyears ahead of what you see in doubles. If we're assuming they're training doubles full time, and therefore, completely let the movement, positioning, decision making, etc...become second nature, then it wouldn't be much of a contest.

And I'm not talking about Mirnyi and Dodig. I'm talking about all-time greats.

Uhh, you do realize there is one player at net at all times and that's what changes things. Djokovic's down the line returns would be put away by the server's partner at net was the point I was getting across. You're making the top players sound like they're superhuman here. There aren't that many groundstrokes that are even hit in the doubles game. It's not like you'll have a team with Federer and Nadal that are staying at the baseline in a doubles match. They'd get their asses kicked if they did.

Uh yeah I do realize there's a player at the net at all times, but you do realize that said player has to anticipate. If he's simply covering the DTL return every time then Djokovic or any other smart player will start mixing up his return, and take into account the server's tendencies post-serve (as in, does he rush the net immediately? does he sit back? etc...). Djokovic's return would still be the best on the doubles' tour. Nothing would change there, except the shot pattern since well, they're playing doubles.

This argument makes no sense. You're making it sound like any return that isn't cross court will be put away by a volley winner in doubles, which is far from the truth.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^ Guess I could have said would be put away "often" at net but I figured that is implied. The vast majority of the returns are going to go cross court and the vast majority of the time the server is coming into net. For you to assume that the top players would easily transfer over to doubles is kind of laughable. They wouldn't suck of course and Roger won gold with a mediocre doubles player in Stan. But to act like he could decide to focus on doubles and turn into the best doubles player ever is delusional. Again how much is the baseline play really factoring into the matches? And aside from that where is the huge edge these guys are going to have in doubles?

Roger can adapt because he is Roger, great at net, great placement on his serve, etc. But even he wouldn't turn into a great doubles player over night or even over the course of a few months. Do you really think Novak and Nadal would become the best doubles players ever if they just decided one day they wanted to take it more seriously? Based on how they are hitting forehands/backhands from the baseline??

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^I guess we have a different read on what a GOAT is. If you're saying that if others bothered to play doubles they would be beaten, then it might make them LAMB's but surely not GOATS. All joking aside this is why I prefer thinking of "most successful of all time" rather than GOAT. That seems more suitable for them.

That is a good distinction. While the notion of "GOAT" may be mythical, the notion of
"most successful of all time" is a tangible idea. I think Bryan Brothers will be universally
recognized as the most successful of all time.

For exactly the same reason (to take myth out), for singles there is a notion of
"most dominant player" and I once created a thread on it. It was based on a person's
blog. Unfortunately, that thread went down the expected lines with not much of
good discussion.

This is my main contention, the GOAT idea may be mythical, but the MDP (most
dominant player) is a tangible and real concept and people should not dismiss it.

I agree, but I personally view them as one and the same. As in, the most successful player is most probably the greatest player. Now we can get into just what "success" is (some will argue that it's not just the number of slams and so on) but that's a different issue.

I've always said Federer is the most accomplished player of all time (at least going by the generally accepted criteria which largely hinges on major count) and therefore, that makes him the greatest.

With respect to your highlighted question, read the blog cited in the OP of the following
thread titled Another Look at Most Dominant Player

 

[Federberg]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

^I guess we have a different read on what a GOAT is. If you're saying that if others bothered to play doubles they would be beaten, then it might make them LAMB's but surely not GOATS. All joking aside this is why I prefer thinking of "most successful of all time" rather than GOAT. That seems more suitable for them.

That is a good distinction. While the notion of "GOAT" may be mythical, the notion of
"most successful of all time" is a tangible idea. I think Bryan Brothers will be universally
recognized as the most successful of all time.

For exactly the same reason (to take myth out), for singles there is a notion of
"most dominant player" and I once created a thread on it. It was based on a person's
blog. Unfortunately, that thread went down the expected lines with not much of
good discussion.

This is my main contention, the GOAT idea may be mythical, but the MDP (most
dominant player) is a tangible and real concept and people should not dismiss it.

I agree, but I personally view them as one and the same. As in, the most successful player is most probably the greatest player. Now we can get into just what "success" is (some will argue that it's not just the number of slams and so on) but that's a different issue.

I've always said Federer is the most accomplished player of all time (at least going by the generally accepted criteria which largely hinges on major count) and therefore, that makes him the greatest.

I can't agree. I think each era measures success in a different way. In the 70s (and before) players clearly didn't define success as anything to do with the number of slams won. This was the dawn of the truly professional age and I suspect that the likes of Connors were simply going for money. I mean.. these guys thought nothing of skipping slams. Lendl did this in the 80s as well. If the slam count wasn't what they were going for how can we then compare their achievements to pros in the post-Sampras era. It simply doesn't make sense to me. We can't define their success/ achievements based on some current measure and happily assume that a fair comparison is being made.

What we can fairly assume is that in either era tournament wins, being ranked number 1 were definite aspirations for the top guys. But even here there's a problem. I have no doubt that the likes of Roger and Rafa (and even Murray has done this, although I would be embarrassed to bring his name up in a GOAT discussion) have been willing to skip "lesser" tournaments to bolster their chances of winning majors. So it just gets back to the familiar problem.. each era aspired to different things. Different end goals drove them to their achievements. Quite simply if they were aiming for different things, how can we compare?

I mean.. just look at golf. If Tiger were to get to 18, would that mean he's matched Jack? For me.. no. I'm not convinced Jack was aiming specifically at majors, so just because Tiger is doesn't make it a fair comparison of the two. On the other hand... I actually think Tiger in many ways has already surpassed Jack because at such a relatively young age he has already greatly exceeded Jack's total number of tournament wins. Anyway.. that's my 2 pennies worth. Simply not comparable across eras. Heck in 20years, all players might care about is winning the WTF. Will we forget about the importance of slams then? I suspect we'll say.. if WTF is what is important to them, then that's how we should measure them. In that case it means we can't penalise earlier players for focusing on other things

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I agree with you to some extent and also disagree with you to some extent.

I agree that what is important was kind of changing from one era to another and so
you cannot use one era's important stuff with other era's important stuff.

Having said that, the last time I checked in all eras, people wanted to win their
matches. It is not like that in 60's people are interested in losing matches etc.
This is one invariable bottom line. Players of all era always wanted to win the
matches which they played and by extension always wanted to win the tournaments
they played in. So, it cannot be that difficult to measure the most successful player
across different era.

 

[Federberg]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

I agree with you to some extent and also disagree with you to some extent.

I agree that what is important was kind of changing from one era to another and so
you cannot use one era's important stuff with other era's important stuff.

Having said that, the last time I checked in all eras, people wanted to win their
matches. It is not like that in 60's people are interested in losing matches etc.
This is one invariable bottom line. Players of all era always wanted to win the
matches which they played and by extension always wanted to win the tournaments
they played in. So, it cannot be that difficult to measure the most successful player
across different era.

I made that point as well GSM. But the problem is.. what did they want to win? In this era it's grand slams. In earlier eras it was certainly Wimbledon and the US Open, but not so much Australia and Roland Garros. The one constant in all eras has been a desire to win tournaments in general. The moment you try to place more value in a tournament that wasn't considered important in the past you lose comparability. It's not fair. That's why I mentioned looking at weeks at number 1 as a measure of dominance. And of course number of tournaments won. You could argue that weeks at number 1 is a constant through out time, but the problem with number of tournaments won is that we are now in an era where some players are willing to forgo some tournaments if it increases their chances of doing well at the majors. So is it fair to compare their achievements with players of the past? Quite apart from this issue, I haven't checked but I'm guessing that the prize money they now get from winning slams is proportionately much larger now than for other tournaments, so there's a natural incentive to focus on slams. While in the 70s and 80s the difference might not have been so big, so there may well have been more indifference to competing in slams versus other tournaments. If the motivations to compete and win slams have changed because of all these factors, then clearly the achievement is different now in comparison to the past. This puts into question the validity of comparisons across eras. Again.. just my opinion.. and it's why I'm not that keen on the whole GOAT debate

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

The beauty with Bryan Brothers accomplishments is that you can choose whatever
you want within reason (see the OP) as the measure of success and they are the
most successful player across all era.

So, if we remove the mythical aspect of GOAT (pitting a pair from one era and
making them play against a pair from another eta etc) and simply confine to
MSP (most successful pair), I think Bryans win hands down and should be universally
recognized as such independent of the actual measure of success.

 

[Federberg]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

Totally agree. I had an issue with the GOAT accolade for my documented reasons. Otherwise we might as well crown Margaret Court as the GOAT of singles, whether you look at men or women! It would be absurd and no one should agree with that.

Similarly we could say that Navratilova is the GOAT period as she has more titles than anyone else in history, but I think we all know that she would get smoked by even journeymen male players. It's a pointless acronym when you look at it like that. But yes.. Bryan brothers are hands down the most successful mens doubles team.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: The indisputable GOAT?

Totally agree. I had an issue with the GOAT accolade for my documented reasons. Otherwise we might as well crown Margaret Court as the GOAT of singles, whether you look at men or women! It would be absurd and no one should agree with that.

Similarly we could say that Navratilova is the GOAT period as she has more titles than anyone else in history, but I think we all know that she would get smoked by even journeymen male players. It's a pointless acronym when you look at it like that. But yes.. Bryan brothers are hands down the most successful mens doubles team.

Now, you are getting into insanity territory. Even if GOAT exists, it is different for
singles and doubles, it is different for men and women. I don't think anybody wants to
talk about a GOAT across genders and across events.