A Look at TMS Doubles Numbers - 400

With the conclusion of the TMS Miami event this past weekend, in terms of the Doubles Game, there have been 202 possible "winners" in the finals of these events.

Though doubles is often left "out" in airing of these TMS events, with some exception, there are amongst tennis followers, those who follow these doubles players avidly.

Just a look at some interesting historical numbers, for anyone who might find this interesting - not looking for debate here, or putting any particular player(s) "case" forward, just a numbers game.

Bryan/Bryan 19 team titles 19 titles for each player total
Knowles/Nestors 15 team titles 25 for Nestor, 17 for Knowles
Woodbridge/Woodforde 14 team titles 18 for W'bridge, 14 for W'forde
Haarhuis/Eltingh 8 team titles
&
Nestor/Zimonjic

Whilst Bryan/Bryan have the "all time" record in terms of TMS team titles, beaten only by Nestor in the individual numbers, the following shows their
win/loss record in their Major and TMS series finals (total each 10 both together), in relation to two other "All Time" teams.

First 10 finals Second 10 finals Third 10 finals
Woodies Won 9 Won 9 Won 6 So won 24 of first 30 finals in TMS and/or Majors (80%)

Knowles Won 5 Won 4 Won 7 So won 16 of first 30 finals in TMS and/or Majors (53.33%)
& Nestor

Bryan & Won 3 Won 4 Won 6 So won 13 of first 30 finals in TMS and/or Majors (43.33%)

Quite a difference between the respective "success" in big tournament finals from Woodies, to Bryans...

Woodies "only" reached 31 combined Major and TMS finals - their final count was 25 wins of 31 finals - 80.6%

Knowles/Nestor also reached 31 combined Major and TMS finals - final count was 17 wins of 31 finals - 54.8%

Bryans after 31 combined Major and TMS finals played - count was 14 wins of 31 finals - 45.1%, however they have gone on to play an additional
24 combined finals, winning another 16 of those - so final count is 32 wins from 55 combined finals - 58.1%

So they've played in nearly twice the number of finals of Majors and TMS finals, as the other two teams above, quite an amazing achievement.

There have been 61 "one time winners" of TMS doubles events - some notable names therein (alphabetically, no intent behind position here!!):
Agassi, Blake, Bruguera, Edberg, Federer, Fish, Isner, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Leconte, McEnroes J, & P, Melzer, Querrey, Roddick, Seguso, Stich,
Tsonga, Wheaton, Stepanek...

Notables at 2 titles....Becker, Flach, Henman, Rafter....
Notables at 3 titles....Casal, Courier, Forget, Korda, Llodra, Nadal...

World ranked No 1 singles players, to win a TMS Doubles title during career:

Kafelnikov 7 titles 3 different partners 5 different TMS titles
Courier 3 titles 3 different partners 3 different TMS titles
Nadal 3 titles 2 different partners 2 different TMS titles
Becker 2 titles 2 different partners 2 different TMS titles
Rafter 2 titles 1 partner 2 different TMS titles
Agassi, Edberg, Federer, McEnroe & Roddick won a single TMS doubles title

Nestor is the only man to have won all four Majors, all 9 TMS titles, Year End Championships, Gold Olympic medal in his career. The only record that's
really "chasable" in terms of active players - is perhaps the total individual number of TMS Doubles titles; Nestor at 25, each of the Bryans at 19, so that's 6 to go!

Well, just a slightly different look at doubles, to break it up as we "wait" for the CC TMS tournaments to start....something to peruse, enjoy, and no doubt, find the odd error!!

Maybe a paragraph to sum up the gist

Yeah simplify it it's waaaaaay tooo complicated!

Satire to show how rude that last comment was in case you were taking it seriously. Interesting article for those who follow doubles, looks like a lot of work went into it!

Appreciate the comment, reckoner.

A very good effort, Its surprising to see Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi doesnt feature in it.

This was not difficult to read guys. Just realised the OP's name backwards is monopoly. Seems to monopolise being the only good writer on this board

Monopoly - Very nice article for the doubles aficionados.

I would add three more players to your list.

Peter Fleming, John McEnroe's partner, who perhaps deserves an honourable mention.

I would also consider McGregor/Sedgman the only Doubles 'Grand Slam' winners. They won it in 1951, and came close in 1952, but did not win the USO.

Hoad/Rosewall came close to a Grand Slam in 1953 and 1956. Rosewall's doubles exploits are not as well documented as others.
John Newcombe came close to a Grand Slam twice, 1967 and 1973.
Anders Jarryd and John Alexander (with Edberg and John Alexander) also came close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_doubles_champions#Winners_of_the_Career_Grand_Slam

invisiblecoolers wrote:A very good effort, Its surprising to see Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi doesnt feature in it.

Agree! That is probably one of the most talented team ever. Paes at 40 still going strong!!!

Paes achieved a career slam when he and Stepanek won AO 2012.

Paes....also holding a positive H2H v Sampras!

Paes....also holding a positive H2H v Sampras!

lets not forget George Bastl

yloponom68 wrote:Appreciate the comment, reckoner.

I'm not into praising stg for the sake of it, really. Of course a lot of effort went into gathering all the data and numbers, but it does come across as dry, which is why I suggested it would've rounded it nicely off if you could've summed up your point at the end for those who are not doubles buffs.

Numbers "game" as you call it would've come to life if you just flash it out a bit with some comments following the historical line you have there.

Doubles are rarely talked about, I have had the opportunity of seeing a few matches live and really enjoyed them as they are great drama and fun.

You seem to be quite into doubles, so why not add a bit for us who don't have that insight.

noleisthebest wrote:

yloponom68 wrote:Appreciate the comment, reckoner.

I'm not into praising stg for the sake of it, really. Of course a lot of effort went into gathering all the data and numbers, but it does come across as dry, which is why I suggested it would've rounded it nicely off if you could've summed up your point at the end for those who are not doubles buffs.

Numbers "game" as you call it would've come to life if you just flash it out a bit with some comments following the historical line you have there.

Doubles are rarely talked about, I have had the opportunity of seeing a few matches live and really enjoyed them as they are great drama and fun.

You seem to be quite into doubles, so why not add a bit for us who don't have that insight.

That's a much better way to put it NITB.

yloponom68 wrote:Appreciate the comment, reckoner.

no worries!