Why Indians are doing better in doubles than in singles?

[BSharma]

There was a time when the Indian tennis players were known for their skills in singles, e.g., Ramanathan Krishnan, Ramesh Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj, Leander in the early part of his career, etc. A few were good in doubles also, e.g., Vijay, Jaideep Mukherjea, Premjit Lal, etc. After the success of Leander and Mahesh in doubles it appears that the Indian tennis players are making more progress in doubles than in singles. Manisha, Prakash Amritraj, and Stephen Amritraj have made a bigger splash (comparative word only) in doubles than in singles. Prakash and Stephen are only starting their career so they may become better singles players in the future. Even Srinath's big hurrah was in doubles at Chennai! My questions for the Indian tennis fans are:

- Do Indian tennis players have more natural talent for doubles than in singles?

- Do Indian tennis players take doubles seriously because they lack the skills to become top singles players?

Although Leander and Mahesh have been great role models for the budding tennis players in India, they have also set a precedent of focussing on doubles at the expense of singles. I hope Bopanna, Harsh, Sania, Sunil, and the host of talented youngsters (13 to 17 yr age group) remain on track to become great singles tennis players. I hope they look at our newest Chennai Open winner Mr. 56 for inspiration!

[Dhruv]

I don't think they are generally better at doubles than singles, I just think it is circumstance. As they tend to travel a lot together and play in the same tourneys they team up in the doubles quite often. As a result they are more used to each others games and playing doubles in tandem more than most of the other teams. This gives them an edge in the doubles. So answer to two might be yes. As they are often only good enough to make it to the top 300 on singles strength alone to make money on the tour they play the doubles events and perform much better as there are fewer permanent teams on tour.

Also in doubles one partner can make up for the defeciencies of the other and vice-versa. A weak serve is not as much of a penalty in doubles as in singles and you need to have great reflexes at the net which Indian players are reasonably good at. It is more difficult for all the baseliners (read majority of todays players) to play at the net and also if you have two reasonably competent volleyers at the net it is extremely difficult to pass. e.g. think if Becker/Edberg played doubles regularly together, passing them anyway in singles was difficult now with both standing at the net even two Agassi's would find it extremely difficult to pass and break their serves.

That is MHO but then again I might be completely off base with that.

[amr090]

I think the main reason Indians do not succeed at tennis is because they lack the drive, ambition and killer instinct the top layers in the world have. I don't really hear too many stories of any indian players running hills for miles with weights on my back during the off season like andre agassi. In other cases, it may be players lack the top level coaching of the likes of brad gilbert in their career. I'm a big advocate of bringing in foriegn coaches who have tasted success as opposed to Indian ones who have had less or at best as much success than the players they are coaching. Another reason we may not be successful is because many of our players are undersized. For ever Lleyton Hewitt ont he pro tour there twice as many Sampras, and Rusedskis, and Andy Roddicks. If India wants to succeed it must select 10-15 committed youngsters, who are projected by doctors to be physically strong, and athletically gifted and train them for a period of 5-6 years intensively with the best of coaching in order for us to taste success. Otherwise we will continue to languish and hope with the spread fragmented array of Indian players struggling alone to come up in a rouch unforgiving circuit world.