Doubles has long been the inferior sibling in the tennis world–dispatched to the outside courts, leaving Djokovic and co to accommodate Centre Court. For too long mainstream TV channels such as ESPN and BBC see the “inferior sibling” as, regrettably, just that. Watching doubles, and for that matter playing, is very often more enjoyable than partaking in the alternative format. However, the television directors fail to recognise this–that needs to change.
In March of last year, Michael Downey, chief executive of the Lawn Tennis Association, unleashed a no-holds barred critique of the state of play in the UK. Clear and simple – the game is in decline. This was in stark contrast to the previous LTA party line of denial.
Walk into any of the nation’s 2,700 clubs and you will see a very similar story: one of middle-aged men and women enjoying their weekly game of tennis, where the format of choice is a gentle game of doubles.
The LTA knows doubles is where the people’s hearts lie, yet turn on BBC in early July and you’ll see only two people on the green grass of SW19. Doubles is nowhere to be seen. Yet Downey himself has recognised this is where the game is strongest–so why do our television screens show only the singles format of the game?
McEnroe, Federer, Sampras–tennis’ superstars are the attraction. Aside from the Williams sisters and the Bryan brothers, doubles is left starless in the corner waiting for its turn on stage. Walk down the street alongside Federer and you’d struggle to make it ten metres before being encircled by teenagers carrying iPhones waiting for their selfie with the Maestro. Do the same alongside the Bryan brothers and you’d be lucky to get someone to ask you directions. Without superstars, doubles is likely to always be the ugly duckling of tennis in the eyes of the television directors.
However, what if the reason behind the lack of superstars is due to doubles players being slower and mediocre, rather than the lack of exposure? Disagree with the previous sentence? Feel free to contact arguably the best player to have ever crossed between singles and doubles consistently in his career: John McEnroe.
McEnroe won 155 titles in his illustrious career, of which 77 were in singles and 78 came in doubles.
But he has consistently spoken out against the latter, arguing that it is of little interest in the modern era and featuring that “doubles is for the slow guys who aren’t quick enough to play singles.”
This may be the case, but why? Why does doubles have to find itself lumbered with those players who never quite made it to the top echelon of the singles game?
Prize money.
Walk out of the gates at SW19 with either the singles of doubles trophy under your arm and the size of the trophy isn’t the only difference you’ll feel, you’ll feel it in your pocket also.
Walk out as singles champion and you’ll have £2.15m in the briefcase. Walk out as doubles champion and you’ll have £360,000 in the briefcase. Don’t forget to split that £360,000 between two players and you’re down to £180,000 – only a little more than is given to those who leave the singles tournament at the fourth round.
The lack of sponsorship depresses the monetary return even further for those who choose to play the alternative format – another disincentive for players to swap allegiances.
Here’s the self-perpetuating problem: doubles isn’t growing because it can’t grow. It’s in a stranglehold by the TV executives; without exposing the wider public to the joys of doubles, they cannot engage and appreciate it. Without the publicity, superstars will seldom develop and sponsorship and prize money will struggle to increase beyond its current levels.
If the TV executives don’t start backing doubles with more than just a brief glimpse on the Wimbledon highlights reel, the game may soon be nowhere to see at all.
Main Photo:
