PDA

View Full Version : Top-Ranked Doubles Team Seeks a Little Attention


Bijoux0021
Sep 7th, 2009, 06:49 AM
http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/top-ranked-doubles-team-seeks-a-little-attention/

September 6, 2009, 11:03 pm

Top-Ranked Doubles Team Seeks a Little Attention
By John Branch

Venus and Serena Williams, two of the best women’s players in the world, played their doubles match at Louis Armstrong Stadium on Sunday. Meanwhile, the best doubles team in the world played over at Court 11.

Liezel Huber and Cara Black have been No. 1 since November 2007. They have won four Grand Slam doubles titles together, including last year’s Open. This year, they still barely register a blip — particularly frustrating for Huber, a South African who became an American citizen in 2007.

“It’s probably pretty mean to say, but I feel like, being an American, I might as well be playing for another country here,” said Huber, effervescent and candidly chatty. “You have the Bryan brothers getting show courts, you have the Williams sisters getting show courts. Last year we played the semifinals on Court 11. We won the doubles here, she won the mixed, I lost in the final of the mixed, and I’ve played on the major court twice in my life. It was for the mixed crown and the doubles final last year. I’m the No. 1 American in the U.S. Open.”

She and Black spoke during the interview session after their third-round victory over Olga Govortsova and Alla Kudryavtseva, 6-4, 5-7, 6-1. One reporter showed up.

Huber, most comfortable as a backstop on the baseline, is the thunder to the much smaller Black’s lightning. Black, from Zimbabwe and part of well-known tennis family that includes brother Wayne Black, who won a handful of Grand Slam doubles titles himself, is one of the top net players. She, too, is frustrated that doubles tends to get ignored, and that her successful partnership with Huber is largely overlooked.

“You get treated like a second-class citizen,” Black said.

Their match on Sunday in front of several hundred fans at Court 11 was tougher than expected. It took a strange turn when Black hit a ball in the first set that smacked Kudryavtseva in the left temple. Black and Huber ran to the net and asked Kudryavtseva if she was O.K. Walking off the court, she angrily replied, “No, I’m not.”

A trainer was summoned as Kudryavtseva sat on the sideline. Ball people scurried to bring bags of ice and provide shade. After a few minutes, before a trainer arrived, Kudryavtseva said she was fit to play. Black gave her an apologetic wave that she did not seem to see.

“We’ve played a few girls now that have got a bit angry with us on the court,” Huber said. In the first round, Huber unintentionally hit an opponent three times with balls.

“Same thing — she was saying sorry but the girl didn’t acknowledge her,” Black said.

In the second match, Huber and Black said, opponents imitated them, apparently upset at the way Huber and Black smacked hands after every point and shouted, “Come on!”

“I asked Cara in the locker room today, why do you think that is?” Huber said of the contentious nature of their matches so far. “I think it’s because they’re not supposed to lose to us. We’re not singles players. And we have a game where we almost outsmart them, and it’s frustrating for them.
She laughed. “That’s what we came up with,” she added. “People are frustrated. That must be a great compliment.”

Huber and Black, looking for their first Grand Slam victory of 2009, hope to continue frustrating opponents. But they will probably continue to be frustrated by the schedule makers who, it should be noted, placed the well-known No. 1 men’s doubles team of Mike and Bob Bryan on Court 11 later in the day.

Goai
Sep 7th, 2009, 07:06 AM
Rare seeing a sympathetic article for Black/Huber.

Obviously there must be a reason why reporters ignore them, and why they remain unpopular amongst other players.

stefi62
Sep 7th, 2009, 07:25 AM
Very nice article, thanks for sharing. Cara and Liezel definitely deserve more credit. If you go and see them play, that's very impressive to watch. And they are great to fans, I've never seen them say no to anyone asking for a photo or an autograph, unlike other players.

serenus_2k8
Sep 7th, 2009, 08:14 AM
Well of course the WS are gonna get a lot of crowd attention - its not unreasonable to understand why two huge superstars get priority. I do have sympathy for them, but I would be kinda embarassed to beg for attention... And dont forget that WS are an amazing doubles team too and are both very popular Americans. I kinda dont see the problem.

Serendy Willick
Sep 7th, 2009, 08:33 AM
USTA should be freakin ashamed of themselves with the BS court assignments. When you are the top ranked doubles team, you should be up there on Armstrong. Leizel is American too. First Dinara Safina, now this.

Bijoux0021
Sep 7th, 2009, 10:38 AM
They are so right about not getting attention and respect. I couldn't find a livestream for their match anywhere yesterday. On one site alone, they had 6 livestreams for Nadal/Almagro match. Yet they had none for the women's Doubles.

Cookie Power
Sep 7th, 2009, 11:45 AM
I find WS and Stubbs/Stosur a lot more entertaining the Black and Huber.

sweetpeas
Sep 7th, 2009, 11:55 AM
It's not right!Right is right,wrong is wrong!

Elldee
Sep 7th, 2009, 11:59 AM
This may be, in theory, an article symapthising with Bluber but I don't think they come across well from this at all.

Joee
Sep 7th, 2009, 12:13 PM
I think the girls are right, they deserve a little more attention. They may not have the power of Venus and Serena or the ways of Stosur/Stubbs...but at the end of the day they are the world number 1's in doubles. You dont see Safina being pushed of to one of the outside courts ever even though it is singles. Doubles deserves alot more attention in my opinion. Most people do enjoy watching doubles because its whats they will normally play at their club etc.
I have always enjoyed watching Cara and Liezel when I can and I do find them entertaining to watch..Cara's lightning fast reactions at net and even Liezel's cute little angles to set points up.
They ARE THE CO-RANKING WORLD NUMBER 1 DOUBLES TEAM AND THEY DESERVE THE RESPECT THEY HAVE EARNED.If I were in charge of the scheduling at the US Open...I would be hiding after reading the article. And Alla was being a little cheeky...(even though she did almost get her head taken off...it was clearly an accident - The first thing I was told when I started to play more doubles was to never intentionally hit your opponent..And Im sure Cara of all people know that)I mean at this years Wimbledon one of the men got hit between the legs(:lol:) and he walked off as if nothing happened!!!

Harvs
Sep 7th, 2009, 12:25 PM
Well they are not going to draw the big crows like the Bryan brothers or the Williams sisters... simple as that. theres no point putting them on a bigger court over players who are going to pull in more spectators, no matter how far ahead of everyone else they are in the rankings.

sammy01
Sep 7th, 2009, 01:19 PM
This may be, in theory, an article symapthising with Bluber but I don't think they come across well from this at all.

they surely didn't, huber as usual came across like a total bitch again in this interview.

“We’ve played a few girls now that have got a bit angry with us on the court,” Huber said. In the first round, Huber unintentionally hit an opponent three times with balls.

“Same thing — she was saying sorry but the girl didn’t acknowledge her,” Black said.

yeah because huber was so understanding towards petrova at wimbledon, and was so quick to accept nadia trying to help/see if she was ok :weirdo:

what they also fail to understand is they are pretty boring to watch and not big names. they play infront of a few hundred on court 11, but stick them on the amstrong court late in the evening and they would be playing to the same size crowds. theres no point in putting them on a show court for it to be empty. the bryans and williams sisters draw in the crowds.

it's not a case of how well they play its a case of both of them being very off putting personalities.

“You get treated like a second-class citizen,” Black said.


thats because they are, the doubles players don't pull in the crowds or pull in the ratings so they need to accept they are not the main event at a tournament.

Huber and Black, looking for their first Grand Slam victory of 2009, hope to continue frustrating opponents. But they will probably continue to be frustrated by the schedule makers who, it should be noted, placed the well-known No. 1 men’s doubles team of Mike and Bob Bryan on Court 11 later in the day.

that basicaly sums it up, and it finishes the article with a tinge of these 2 girls need to get over themselves. the bryans are on court 11 and pull a much bigger crowd, im sure the bryans wont be moaning.

serenus_2k8
Sep 7th, 2009, 02:37 PM
OMG I agree with Sammy :bolt: :eek: You hit the nail on the head - first time for everything :p

*Jean*
Sep 7th, 2009, 02:45 PM
they surely didn't, huber as usual came across like a total bitch again in this interview.

yeah because huber was so understanding towards petrova at wimbledon, and was so quick to accept nadia trying to help/see if she was ok :weirdo:

what they also fail to understand is they are pretty boring to watch and not big names.
it's not a case of how well they play its a case of both of them being very off putting personalities.

they need to accept they are not the main event at a tournament.

the bryans are on court 11 and pull a much bigger crowd, im sure the bryans wont be moaning.

:wavey:
You sum it up so well. Black and Huber have been bitching about themselves since they play together. They are just boring to watch and even if they are #1s of doubles, they are not big names. If they were doubles specialists, Williams sisters wouldn't be big names neither.
And the ATP doubles stars don't moan every time someone has time to waste listening to them. Okay the Bryan brothers are some doubles star because they are some real show stars. Who has seen Knowles/Nestor, Fyrstenberg/Matkowski or Dlouhy/Ullyett on a show court, in a round before a final ? No one, so STFU.

Dave.
Sep 7th, 2009, 03:24 PM
I've said everything I've wanted to say below, but the last part of the article was interesting IMO. I don't think that's how the players in general see Black/Huber (maybe before but certainly not now), because they're record speaks for itself. And frankly, two doubles specialists are usually going to beat two singles specialists 8/10, and is reflected in our current no.1 team. It's clear when some singles players play them that they're just totally confused at what to do. Doubles is a different game and one that Cara and Liezel do unbelievably well.


Very nice article, thanks for sharing. Cara and Liezel definitely deserve more credit. If you go and see them play, that's very impressive to watch. And they are great to fans, I've never seen them say no to anyone asking for a photo or an autograph, unlike other players.

Too true. :yeah: I took photos with Liezel TWICE at Wimbledon this year and she was so pleasent to talk to both times. I couldn't even get near Cara because she was there for like 30 minutes after her match just chatting with some of her fans. They are a credit to the game, and tbh are MUCH more fan friendly than some of the so-called stars who rarely ever give autographs (I was talking about Venus' reputation the other day). Cara and Liezel never ignore their fans.


Well of course the WS are gonna get a lot of crowd attention - its not unreasonable to understand why two huge superstars get priority. I do have sympathy for them, but I would be kinda embarassed to beg for attention... And dont forget that WS are an amazing doubles team too and are both very popular Americans. I kinda dont see the problem.

They're not begging for attention.

There is nothing wrong with the Williams sisters having show courts, they're two of the biggest superstars in the game and a very successful doubles team. But if we have them on the stadium courts, I think it's only fair that the world no.1 pairing (with 1 American) also gets some time on those courts, or at least higher profile courts than Court 11.



They are so right about not getting attention and respect. I couldn't find a livestream for their match anywhere yesterday. On one site alone, they had 6 livestreams for Nadal/Almagro match. Yet they had none for the women's Doubles.

The coverage of women's doubles is DISGRACEFUL. Easily the worst of the 5 main events. It's just downright disrespectful to the players, the fans and the sport.

As far as I know, Wimbledon is the only place that has true respect for doubles and doubles matches always fill crowds just as much as singles. I had to wait over 2 hours before play had even begun to make sure I had a seat for Black/Huber in their Wimby QF.


they surely didn't, huber as usual came across like a total bitch again in this interview.



yeah because huber was so understanding towards petrova at wimbledon, and was so quick to accept nadia trying to help/see if she was ok :weirdo:

what they also fail to understand is they are pretty boring to watch and not big names. they play infront of a few hundred on court 11, but stick them on the amstrong court late in the evening and they would be playing to the same size crowds. theres no point in putting them on a show court for it to be empty. the bryans and williams sisters draw in the crowds.

it's not a case of how well they play its a case of both of them being very off putting personalities.



thats because they are, the doubles players don't pull in the crowds or pull in the ratings so they need to accept they are not the main event at a tournament.



that basicaly sums it up, and it finishes the article with a tinge of these 2 girls need to get over themselves. the bryans are on court 11 and pull a much bigger crowd, im sure the bryans wont be moaning.

Sammy, love you, but I think you would have come to that conclusion regardless of what Liezel said. :shrug: She didn't say anything that wasn't true or anything degrading to other players. Ok I understand the bit about players not accepting their apologies, Liezel did the same thing. But everything else they say is right and stems from a lack of respect for them from fellow players, tournaments and the media. The disrespect towards the top ranked women's doubles team also indicates a general disrespect towards women's tennis.

Singles No.1 Safina's boring to watch, the majority of the top singles players have put in boring performances throughout their careers yet still get put on stadium courts. Nobody can say Black and Huber are boring until they've seen them (and most haven't seen more than a few matches of them). Personally I think they play an exciting brand of doubles combining a traditional game with a more modern edge. But the bottom line is they're the best women's doubles has to offer, so how they are treated reflects women's doubles and women's tennis period. You might not like Black/Huber in particular but the same happened when teams like Raymond/Stosur (then both primarily doubles players) were no.1, and they have completely different personalities. So this problem is not directly because of Cara and Liezel's games or personalities.



:wavey:
You sum it up so well. Black and Huber have been bitching about themselves since they play together. They are just boring to watch and even if they are #1s of doubles, they are not big names. If they were doubles specialists, Williams sisters wouldn't be big names neither.
And the ATP doubles stars don't moan every time someone has time to waste listening to them. Okay the Bryan brothers are some doubles star because they are some real show stars. Who has seen Knowles/Nestor, Fyrstenberg/Matkowski or Dlouhy/Ullyett on a show court, in a round before a final ? No one, so STFU.

Ullyett and Soares played their Wimbledon QF on Centre Court. At the French, the men's doubles final is always played on Chatrier wheras the women's doubles is usually on Lenglen. ETC. ETC.

The Bryan Brothers are only "stars" because they are twins (a remarkable situation), they are American, and yes they're an exceptional team. But they play no higher quality or "more exciting" doubles than Knowles/Bhupathi or Nestor/Zimonjic.




Anyway, Liezel is on Louis Armstrong today for her mixed. :bounce:

davidmario
Sep 7th, 2009, 04:38 PM
there are 5 showcourts at the US Open. Ashe, Armstrong, Grandstand, Court 11 and Court 13;
I was able to watch their matches. There were singles 3rd round matches played on outside courts and they were having the showcourt, don't get their problem.

tucker1989
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:13 PM
So, so annoying, this just confirms my distaste for them. Huber, especially, is just such a big brat. She gloats on court when winning, screaming "come on" at every opportunity, including her opponents mistakes, and she acts pathetic when losing. I even witnessed this behavior in WTT, hardly an extremely competitive arena. Nevermind that watching her seems like watching a highly advanced club player. I wish they would just go away.

Joee
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:14 PM
^ ^
True.
I think they just want Ashe,Armstrong or Grandstand...

Joee
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:15 PM
My reply above is to davidmario :lol:

Wiggly
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:37 PM
So Iveta/Barbora imitated them? Oh boy.
Must have been hilarious with these two going crazy. :lol:

davidmario
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:43 PM
So Iveta/Barbora imitated them? Oh boy.
Must have been hilarious with these two going crazy. :lol:

seriously, don't fuck with barbora.
we should make some kind of bitch dream team that would konsist of team leader rodionova, poutchek, zvonareva, strycova, mayr and schnyder. coach would be schnyder's husband:lol:

Joee
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM
^
lmao

Njay16
Sep 7th, 2009, 05:54 PM
So, so annoying, this just confirms my distaste for them. Huber, especially, is just such a big brat. She gloats on court when winning, screaming "come on" at every opportunity, including her opponents mistakes, and she acts pathetic when losing. I even witnessed this behavior in WTT, hardly an extremely competitive arena. Nevermind that watching her seems like watching a highly advanced club player. I wish they would just go away.

I feel the same way. Highly advanced club player. She doesn't do anything extremely well and she doesn't have any weapons. She's just mediocre in my opinion

tobi
Sep 8th, 2009, 03:11 AM
yeah because huber was so understanding towards petrova at wimbledon, and was so quick to accept nadia trying to help/see if she was ok :weirdo:
So true.

Huber acting like she was no nice towards Petrova in that time :spit:

what they also fail to understand is they are pretty boring to watch and not big names. they play infront of a few hundred on court 11, but stick them on the amstrong court late in the evening and they would be playing to the same size crowds. theres no point in putting them on a show court for it to be empty. the bryans and williams sisters draw in the crowds.
Exactly.

They might think they are playing the best "doubles" tennis,they probably are,but I would never ever watch them playing doubles :shrug:

Instead I would watch some interesting singles players teaming up,or kind of players who draw attention.

Seems like many of the tennis fans thinking like that,and who can blame them?

it's not a case of how well they play its a case of both of them being very off putting personalities.

thats because they are, the doubles players don't pull in the crowds or pull in the ratings so they need to accept they are not the main event at a tournament.
Exactly.

that basicaly sums it up, and it finishes the article with a tinge of these 2 girls need to get over themselves. the bryans are on court 11 and pull a much bigger crowd, im sure the bryans wont be moaning.
Yeah,I mean there were #1 players in the past and in general they all played at the same situations and I hardly ever heard an argument like these :o

Sammy - Excellent post.

:wavey:
You sum it up so well. Black and Huber have been bitching about themselves since they play together. They are just boring to watch and even if they are #1s of doubles, they are not big names. If they were doubles specialists, Williams sisters wouldn't be big names neither.
And the ATP doubles stars don't moan every time someone has time to waste listening to them. Okay the Bryan brothers are some doubles star because they are some real show stars. Who has seen Knowles/Nestor, Fyrstenberg/Matkowski or Dlouhy/Ullyett on a show court, in a round before a final ? No one, so STFU.
Exactly.

fufuqifuqishahah
Sep 8th, 2009, 03:17 AM
I agree with *Jean*

this is silly. if you want more attention, do something to get it. understand that how much attention one gets is not entirely in one's control though.

gmokb
Sep 8th, 2009, 04:21 AM
:lol::lol:First Safina now them:lol::lol: All these so-called #1 players demanding instead of earning respect. Now tell me why would you put #1 who is still waiting for a 2009 win on a show court, when they can only attract a single report to their press conference.:confused:

In The Zone
Sep 8th, 2009, 07:07 AM
This may be, in theory, an article symapthising with Bluber but I don't think they come across well from this at all.

I agree. I am little off-put by reading some of these things about Black/Huber. Especially about Black hitting Kudryavtseva (when the same was done to her at Wimbledon by Petrova). Also comparing herself to the Bryans and Williamses. (Don't forget the Bryans played on Court 11 the other day.) Considering Armstrong was filled for both Williams doubles matches on Saturday and Sunday (I was there), they deserved to be put on Armstrong. I'd love to see the stands for a Black/Huber doubles match at Armstrong. Hmmmm.

sammy01
Sep 8th, 2009, 10:10 PM
lol at hubers mixed doubles semi on court 4, serves the bitch right.

Uranium
Sep 8th, 2009, 10:20 PM
lol at hubers mixed doubles semi on court 4, serves the bitch right.

:weirdo:

They are the #1 doubles team in the world, they should be on the Armstrong or Ashe once in a while IMO.

AJZ.
Sep 8th, 2009, 10:28 PM
Court 4 makes no sense, no camera !
And I feel bad for Carly and Travis :sad: Their opportunity to get into the limelight.

Midnight_Robber
Sep 8th, 2009, 11:04 PM
:weirdo:

They are the #1 doubles team in the world, they should be on the Armstrong or Ashe once in a while IMO.

Yeah... *This*
I don't particularly care for how they come across - particularly Huber who I don't follow, yet everytime I read anything related to her, there is a distincly bitter whine accompanying it...which is off-putting. Nevertheless, personal distaste is completely beside the point, and has nothing to do with being fair. They have earned the top ranking, so they should get better court assignments and the added exposure that comes from that.

Doubles in general needs more attention as well...

sammy01
Sep 8th, 2009, 11:18 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

they are grossly over paid as it is, i mean if you see how many people turn up to watch huber, its no where near what kind of money she rakes in. i think she needs to stop maoning and accept that the doubles game is only alive because of the singles game. theres a reason theres no seperate doubles tour, because it couldn't work to make any kind of profit and huber wouldn't be getting the money she is. so just be grateful that shes getting the money and minimal exposure she is because her gate and t.v revenue don't add upto anywhere near that amount.

Uranium
Sep 8th, 2009, 11:32 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

they are grossly over paid as it is, i mean if you see how many people turn up to watch huber, its no where near what kind of money she rakes in. i think she needs to stop maoning and accept that the doubles game is only alive because of the singles game. theres a reason theres no seperate doubles tour, because it couldn't work to make any kind of profit and huber wouldn't be getting the money she is. so just be grateful that shes getting the money and minimal exposure she is because her gate and t.v revenue don't add upto anywhere near that amount.

Use shift button.
I was at the USO the day of the Bluber match and Court 11 was packed with no seats available and barely any room to see the action when standing because it was packed.

CrossCourt~Rally
Sep 8th, 2009, 11:33 PM
Use shift button.
I was at the USO the day of the Bluber match and Court 11 was packed with no seats available and barely any room to see the action when standing because it was packed.


Yup and the same goes for most of the Bryan Brothers matches :bounce:

Midnight_Robber
Sep 8th, 2009, 11:36 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

What's up with the high-handedness - who, exactly, do you imagine you're 'educating' here?

Believe it or not, I think that most people already 'get' that the doubles is regarded as secondary to singles. You mentioning the obvious is hardly enlightening and nothing new to most of us. It's just that not everybody sees things the way that you do (i.e. biggest crowd pullers = best court assignments or that doubles should get less and less exposure and media because it isn't regarded as 'important as the singles, and that the situation should remain as such. Besides, plenty of people find the doubles entertaining, even if you don't.)

And there is such a thing as principle. (Top-ranked players should be shown some respect at tournaments, irrespective of whether they are interesting, charsimatic, nice or not.) Nobody is arguing that Bluber set up a tent on the show courts - just that they ought to see the inside of one occassionally.

But why am I saying this to someone who holds such personal vitriol against them anyway?

The Kaz
Sep 9th, 2009, 01:25 AM
Use shift button.
I was at the USO the day of the Bluber match and Court 11 was packed with no seats available and barely any room to see the action when standing because it was packed.

Thats because it was court 11 ;)

Put them on Ashe and it would appear empty :lol:

Dave.
Sep 9th, 2009, 05:04 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

they are grossly over paid as it is, i mean if you see how many people turn up to watch huber, its no where near what kind of money she rakes in. i think she needs to stop maoning and accept that the doubles game is only alive because of the singles game. theres a reason theres no seperate doubles tour, because it couldn't work to make any kind of profit and huber wouldn't be getting the money she is. so just be grateful that shes getting the money and minimal exposure she is because her gate and t.v revenue don't add upto anywhere near that amount.

Sammy you are always going on about the amount of crap matches on the WTA and handing in your fancard. Surely you wouldn't mind having the occassional doubles match on a show court from time to time? The doubles game is actually in a good state right now. The few doubles matches I get to see are normally higher quality tennis than the average singles match these days.

And those two go hand in hand. The doubles players are not going to fill out stadiums because most don't know who they are. More show courts = more exposure = more fans. If it was the other way round and doubles was the centre of attention then Black and Huber would be two of the games main stars (well they already are for me ;)).


Use shift button.
I was at the USO the day of the Bluber match and Court 11 was packed with no seats available and barely any room to see the action when standing because it was packed.

Good to hear, it was the same at Wimbledon.

Dave.
Sep 9th, 2009, 05:05 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

they are grossly over paid as it is, i mean if you see how many people turn up to watch huber, its no where near what kind of money she rakes in. i think she needs to stop maoning and accept that the doubles game is only alive because of the singles game. theres a reason theres no seperate doubles tour, because it couldn't work to make any kind of profit and huber wouldn't be getting the money she is. so just be grateful that shes getting the money and minimal exposure she is because her gate and t.v revenue don't add upto anywhere near that amount.

Sammy you are always going on about the amount of crap matches on the WTA and handing in your fancard. Surely you wouldn't mind having the occassional doubles match on a show court from time to time? The doubles game is actually in a good state right now. The few doubles matches I get to see are normally higher quality tennis than the average singles match these days.

And those two go hand in hand. The doubles players are not going to fill out stadiums because most don't know who they are. More show courts = more exposure = more fans. If it was the other way round and doubles was the centre of attention then Black and Huber would be two of the games main stars (well they already are for me ;)).


Use shift button.
I was at the USO the day of the Bluber match and Court 11 was packed with no seats available and barely any room to see the action when standing because it was packed.

Good to hear, it was the same at Wimbledon.

davidmario
Sep 9th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I am watching their semifinals right now and this is really too much. I've always tried to stay quite neutral in this case but watching liezel cheer after every single UEs of their opponents and then running while changing ends, looking to her box, fistpump... waits 2seconds fistpumps again while standing on one leg like Ana always does.
I also feel embarrassed for her:o I mean she doesn't know how much she sucks.

davidmario
Sep 9th, 2009, 07:21 PM
all her gestures seem so fake, after handshake she walks to her chair and says two or three times "Come ON!" I mean the match is over, also cold handshake by llagostera vives:bigclap:

davidmario
Sep 10th, 2009, 12:46 AM
she tweeted about it:

Today:mixed semi's court 4. 2008 Ladies' doubles semi's court 11. Coincidence? You have 2 b born American 2 b shown some love @ the US Open.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Sep 10th, 2009, 01:11 AM
It does come off as whining, but she definitely has a point. Court 4 doesn't even have any cameras. Considering that she was playing against two other Americans and paired with one of the top men's doubles players in the world, they should have at least put that match on the Grandstand. She got to play on Armstrong today though, so hopefully she is satisfied with that.

davidmario
Sep 10th, 2009, 03:49 AM
yeah I can understand her a bit but she has to ask herself whether it makes people want to watch her play again when she behaves like she did today. I as a spectator would be kinda pissed. that was too much(see above)

also I think people might not regard their display on court as interesting because they really NEVER share a smile, they are like machines and really don't give the viewer any chance to get a warm vibe or sth from them.
But on the other side exactly this point is what makes them so successful, they never lose focus.

tobi
Sep 10th, 2009, 04:36 AM
yeah I can understand her a bit but she has to ask herself whether it makes people want to watch her play again when she behaves like she did today. I as a spectator would be kinda pissed. that was too much(see above)

also I think people might not regard their display on court as interesting because they really NEVER share a smile, they are like machines and really don't give the viewer any chance to get a warm vibe or sth from them.
But on the other side exactly this point is what makes them so successful, they never lose focus.
Exactly.

I posted my general thoughts about it earlier but personally I would love to see any team playing doubles but not one with Huber involved in it :tape:

As you said her reactions are so fake and I cant stand to them.

Maybe she is trying to do that to get more attention for a step towards big courts but doubt it is going to work for her :lol: :tape:

In The Zone
Sep 10th, 2009, 06:19 PM
she tweeted about it:

Today:mixed semi's court 4. 2008 Ladies' doubles semi's court 11. Coincidence? You have 2 b born American 2 b shown some love @ the US Open.

She is nuts. There are only so many open spots available. Clearly the Bryans and Sisters will trump her. God she is annoying. You're not given respect, you earn it and surely this is not the way to do it.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Sep 10th, 2009, 06:23 PM
They will get some attention in the final as they are playing the WS

harloo
Sep 10th, 2009, 06:51 PM
when are people going to learn that doubles doesn't pull in the crowds or t.v viewers so no they don't deserve the main courts.

they are grossly over paid as it is, i mean if you see how many people turn up to watch huber, its no where near what kind of money she rakes in. i think she needs to stop maoning and accept that the doubles game is only alive because of the singles game. theres a reason theres no seperate doubles tour, because it couldn't work to make any kind of profit and huber wouldn't be getting the money she is. so just be grateful that shes getting the money and minimal exposure she is because her gate and t.v revenue don't add upto anywhere near that amount.


:worship::worship: For once, we agree on something. This is just the reality of doubles everywhere. At one point in time the Grand Slams were considering eliminating doubles completely because it was a financial burden. I think Huber and her partner should be glad we have big stars around to at least give doubles the attention it needs. She should be grateful the powers that be haven't decided to ax doubles altogether.

RND
Sep 11th, 2009, 06:06 AM
And they get put on Court 11 again for their semis. :awww: :rolls:

2Black
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:17 PM
They need to worry about beating Stosur & Stubbs because that's a damn good team

In fact, if Stosur/Stubbs win, I won't consider Black & Huber as #1 anyway.

RND
Sep 11th, 2009, 04:56 PM
In fact, if you do because Black/Huber would lose to the 3rd seeds in a slam semifinal, I won't consider you as a real tennis fan anyway. :help:

Rui.
Sep 11th, 2009, 05:01 PM
In fact, if you do because Black/Huber would lose to the 3rd seeds in a slam semifinal, I won't consider you as a real tennis fan anyway. :help:

It's more because they'd be number 1 without a slam :)

Dave.
Sep 11th, 2009, 06:39 PM
It's more because they'd be number 1 without a slam :)

That wouldn't mean anything with them as they'd still hold bucketloads of titles including the YEC should they lose this US Open. Their situation is nothing like the slamless no.1's we've had on the singles side.

RenaSlam.
Sep 14th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Williamses > Bluber

Slutiana
Sep 14th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Step to this.

Dave.
Sep 14th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Williamses > Bluber

Bluber still no.1 last time I checked. ;)

Not that that comparison has ANYTHING to do with this thread. :weirdo:

Wiggly
Sep 14th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Bluber still no.1 last time I checked. ;)

Not that that comparison has ANYTHING to do with this thread. :weirdo:

You get attention by winning Slams.
The Sisters won three this year. Black/Huber played one final and lost it.

I would rather be the current holder of 3 Grand Slam Titles than being #1 + the YEC. I bet Liezel/Clara would too.

tobi
Sep 14th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Honestly Black/Huber should reconsider their situation as a "top" team.

A year with QF - SF - SF - F at slams,when it matters most,not winning one of them says a lot.

edificio
Sep 15th, 2009, 02:31 AM
It's more fun to watch Stosur/Stubbs play.

Dave.
Sep 15th, 2009, 01:02 PM
Honestly Black/Huber should reconsider their situation as a "top" team.

A year with QF - SF - SF - F at slams,when it matters most,not winning one of them says a lot.

No not really. You don't have to win a slam to be the best and no.1 team. They're the only team to make the QF's of all 4 slams this year. The fact that they've won the same amount of tournaments as the no.2 team has even played says enough for me.

bandabou
Sep 16th, 2009, 03:11 PM
Only Dave would say that Black/Huber's year was better than WS..despite that the Black/Huber didn't win a major, reached only one major final and lost it pretty badly too.

I mean..empty stats are good and nice, but this takes the cake.

Dave.
Sep 16th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Only Dave would say that Black/Huber's year was better than WS..despite that the Black/Huber didn't win a major, reached only one major final and lost it pretty badly too.

I mean..empty stats are good and nice, but this takes the cake.

These aren't empty stats though.

but anyway, are you seriously going to argue that Williamses deserve the no.1 rank being a part time team? Come on now, 5 tournaments played...

Kworb
Sep 16th, 2009, 05:10 PM
They're one of the few teams who stick with the same partner and play many tournaments throughout the year... it's not that difficult to be #1 when you have hardly any competition. They suck compared to great teams of the past like Fernandez/Zvereva and Ruano Pascual/Suarez. And they definitely suck compared to Williams/Williams. Black/Huber are a joke and they should feel blessed they are still earning so much money.

bandabou
Sep 16th, 2009, 05:59 PM
These aren't empty stats though.

but anyway, are you seriously going to argue that Williamses deserve the no.1 rank being a part time team? Come on now, 5 tournaments played...

I didn't say that..but you're acting like it's the Black/Huber team who had the giant season. The story of the doubles season was the sisters winning 3 out of 4 majors. The Black/Huber team just played more often, that's it.

Dave.
Sep 16th, 2009, 07:21 PM
I didn't say that..but you're acting like it's the Black/Huber team who had the giant season. The story of the doubles season was the sisters winning 3 out of 4 majors. The Black/Huber team just played more often, that's it.


I think they've both had pretty huge seasons which is why they're the top 2 teams now. The no.1 team have played and won more often which is why they're where they are. You act as if it's just a case of playing more = no.1 ranking. It's not that simple.

Slammer7
Sep 16th, 2009, 07:35 PM
I think they've both had pretty huge seasons which is why they're the top 2 teams now. The no.1 team have played and won more often which is why they're where they are. You act as if it's just a case of playing more = no.1 ranking. It's not that simple.

Dave how many tournaments have Bluber played this year? They have won 5 tournaments this year right?

serenus_2k8
Sep 16th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Bluber have done better at WTA events, WS have done better at ITF events :) I think thats kinda fair?

Dave.
Sep 16th, 2009, 07:47 PM
Dave how many tournaments have Bluber played this year? They have won 5 tournaments this year right?

18 and yes they've won 5 titles.

Bluber have done better at WTA events, WS have done better at ITF events :) I think thats kinda fair?

Ok :lol:

bandabou
Sep 16th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I think they've both had pretty huge seasons which is why they're the top 2 teams now. The no.1 team have played and won more often which is why they're where they are. You act as if it's just a case of playing more = no.1 ranking. It's not that simple.

And I guess that's where you and me differ. Sure..the Black/Huber had a nice consistent season, winning a couple of wta events, but how can you say they had a GREAT/HUGE season while as the no.1 team they didn't won a major and reached just one final?! Your favs seem to always have this problem: great on the wta tour, useless at the majors. Do u choose them on that?!

The Witch-king
Sep 17th, 2009, 12:03 PM
It's not right!Right is right,wrong is wrong!

I'm no fool!!

Dave.
Sep 17th, 2009, 12:25 PM
And I guess that's where you and me differ. Sure..the Black/Huber had a nice consistent season, winning a couple of wta events, but how can you say they had a GREAT/HUGE season while as the no.1 team they didn't won a major and reached just one final?! Your favs seem to always have this problem: great on the wta tour, useless at the majors. Do u choose them on that?!

Because I don't put all weight on the slams like you do. The way you carry on sometimes it's like you don't even follow tennis when the slams aren't on.

Which faves? Hope you're not referring to Black/Huber who have actually won 4 slams. Anyway, semis and finals does not mean they're useless.

Rui.
Sep 17th, 2009, 01:06 PM
Dave, were you given the possibility to chose one of this two teams season, which would you chose? :)

bandabou
Sep 17th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Because I don't put all weight on the slams like you do. The way you carry on sometimes it's like you don't even follow tennis when the slams aren't on.

Which faves? Hope you're not referring to Black/Huber who have actually won 4 slams. Anyway, semis and finals does not mean they're useless.

I do value other tournaments, but I think we agree that the majors are the creme de la creme, no?

But you seem to go overboard..you want to claim that just because someone is ranked no.1 or ended the year ranked no.1 they had a great year..without looking how they actually peformed at the big events.

Used to do that for Linds, r doing it now for Black/Huber too. Black/Huber when looking just at the numbers and rankings: hey great season.. while if you look closely at the numbers, they underpeformed at all the big tourneys..despite being no.1 for the whole year.

Ellery
Sep 17th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Bryan's are so boring :o Apart from the fact that they are twins, what makes them that special? :shrug:

In any case, I think Cara and Liezel have a pretty good point.

Dave.
Sep 17th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I do value other tournaments, but I think we agree that the majors are the creme de la creme, no?

But you seem to go overboard..you want to claim that just because someone is ranked no.1 or ended the year ranked no.1 they had a great year..without looking how they actually peformed at the big events.

Used to do that for Linds, r doing it now for Black/Huber too. Black/Huber when looking just at the numbers and rankings: hey great season.. while if you look closely at the numbers, they underpeformed at all the big tourneys..despite being no.1 for the whole year.

Semis and Finals is not underperforming. Plus Cara/Liezel have actually won three Tier I titles this year and another Tier II == "big tourneys". I look at their overall performances at ALL events before making my judgement on their year, and IMO Cara/Liezel have had a fantastic season (not as good as 07 or 08 but still). If they had done well on tour but lost early at all the slams then I'd take your point, but their slam record has been unmatched this year in terms of consistency. You seem to think no title = bad year without actually looking at when and who they lost to in these slams.

bandabou
Sep 17th, 2009, 07:40 PM
Semis and Finals is not underperforming. Plus Cara/Liezel have actually won three Tier I titles this year and another Tier II == "big tourneys". I look at their overall performances at ALL events before making my judgement on their year, and IMO Cara/Liezel have had a fantastic season (not as good as 07 or 08 but still). If they had done well on tour but lost early at all the slams then I'd take your point, but their slam record has been unmatched this year in terms of consistency. You seem to think no title = bad year without actually looking at when and who they lost to in these slams.

semis and FINAL,not finals...but I see your point. It's good, I guess just a different angle of interpreting things.

So who's team of the year?

davidmario
Sep 17th, 2009, 11:36 PM
we don't need to have one single team of the year. I guess we have to accept that there are many good teams out there.

In The Zone
Sep 18th, 2009, 05:59 AM
we don't need to have one single team of the year. I guess we have to accept that there are many good teams out there.

Exactly!

I think what people are failing to realize is that Williams/Williams is a horrible matchup for Black/Huber.

If you look at Yan/Zheng, Kleybanova/Makarova, and Stosur/Stubbs, these teams can compete with the Sisters.

Black/Huber being #1 and losing easily to Williams/Williams does not say that the doubles tour is a joke -- it says that the Sisters are the best team when playing well and that Black/Huber cannot matchup. It is an overestimation to say that Black/Huber are a bad doubles team, period. They can clearly compete and defeat most if not all of the other doubles teams on the tour.

bandabou
Sep 18th, 2009, 06:55 AM
we don't need to have one single team of the year. I guess we have to accept that there are many good teams out there.

Sure..and of course if it was the WS no.1 with 5 titles and no majors and the Black/Huber team with 3 majors..people would say Black/Huber was team of the year. It's good though..:lol:

The Witch-king
Sep 18th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Exactly!

I think what people are failing to realize is that Williams/Williams is a horrible matchup for Black/Huber.

If you look at Yan/Zheng, Kleybanova/Makarova, and Stosur/Stubbs, these teams can compete with the Sisters.

Black/Huber being #1 and losing easily to Williams/Williams does not say that the doubles tour is a joke -- it says that the Sisters are the best team when playing well and that Black/Huber cannot matchup. It is an overestimation to say that Black/Huber are a bad doubles team, period. They can clearly compete and defeat most if not all of the other doubles teams on the tour.


i dont know why everyone makes there sweeping generalisations about guber and black vs the williams though. They've only played twice. Look at yan and zheng who got 60 60 once!the next match was more competetive.

Patrick345
Sep 19th, 2009, 02:03 AM
Of course Doubles is for losers, who cannot cut it in singles. I don´t know how that is even a discussion? Every Olympics some random singles players combination wins the gold medal (male or female) and almost every time the Williams sisters show up for a Doubles Slam they win it. The singles prize money is much bigger and only a retard would choose doubles over singles, if she/he could play both equally well.

tobi
Sep 22nd, 2009, 12:20 AM
These aren't empty stats though.

but anyway, are you seriously going to argue that Williamses deserve the no.1 rank being a part time team? Come on now, 5 tournaments played...
My point isnt about deserving it or not.

Sure Black/Huber are having a good season but slams are the most important tournements and they are clearly couldnt perform well enough to win a single title this year.

Obviously we expect them to do well since they are regular partners,and they are only playing doubles.

It isnt that difficult for them to win some of the tour events,since they are regular partners and experienced playing and beating some of the players just teaming up for a event and most just dont take doubles seriously so these are the also reasons why I take slam results as big as I do.

With all these It still makes no sense to me to see them complaining about attention especially after failing to win a slam this year.

They're one of the few teams who stick with the same partner and play many tournaments throughout the year... it's not that difficult to be #1 when you have hardly any competition.
Exactly.

I didn't say that..but you're acting like it's the Black/Huber team who had the giant season. The story of the doubles season was the sisters winning 3 out of 4 majors. The Black/Huber team just played more often, that's it.
Yep.

If you are decent enough player and have regular partner it isnt a big deal win tour titles,so they need to do something big or they need to be interesting team to achieve attention.

*Huber trying to be interesting I guess with her personality on court but failing it seems :tape: :lol:

cellophane
Sep 22nd, 2009, 02:19 PM
I think what people are failing to realize is that Williams/Williams is a horrible matchup for Black/Huber.That's the excuse? They are a horrible matchup? COME ON.

Dave.
Sep 22nd, 2009, 04:58 PM
Tobi, what are you talking about? The same teams do play in the Slams as the tour events. :confused: Black/Huber have winning records over Hantuyama and Medina/Ruano (teams they lost to at AO-RG) so it's not like they can't beat them.

Cellophane, of course it's a reason. Some people are just always a bad matchup for the other. For instance, when Mauresmo was no.1 and just won Wimbledon she still lost to Davenport who had not played in 5 months, in New Haven.

Njay16
Sep 22nd, 2009, 07:02 PM
I think the major deciding factor in their matches against each other is the power factor. If you look at the top teams like Stosur/Stubbs, Medina Garrigues/Ruano Pascual, Llagostera Vives/Sanchez, Mattek-Sands/Petrova, etc. They all have at least one player who can handle the pace of shot of V&S and hang with them from the baseline and generate pace of their own. Black/Huber just don't have that. Even Davenport commented on TTC that she feels Liezel Huber could develop her game a whole lot more to become that strong baseline player who can hit big from the baseline. If they want to compete with the sisters, I think Liezel is going to have to step it up.

tobi
Sep 22nd, 2009, 10:28 PM
Tobi, what are you talking about? The same teams do play in the Slams as the tour events. :confused: Black/Huber have winning records over Hantuyama and Medina/Ruano (teams they lost to at AO-RG) so it's not like they can't beat them.
My point was this ;

I feel like there are few regular teams on tour and at slams you must win some matches against them to win titles.

You were pointing out that Black/Huber had a very good season with winning some tour events and having solid results at slams without winning.

I said you can win tour titles,at times mostly against first time pairs,or players who just dont take doubles seriosly enough.

But at slams you must win 6 matches against either regular teams or still mainly singles players who are lot more motivated since it is slams.

Black/Huber failed to achieve that this season and they cant afford to ask any attention with slam results like these - Even if they are popular/ charismatic team (which isnt the case as far as we can see)

bandabou
Sep 23rd, 2009, 07:53 PM
and Dave just proved my point..Black/Huber has winning h2h record against all those other teams..yet in the big matches this year, still ended up losing. How's this for a no.1 team? Just can't step it up when it counts.

Dave.
Sep 24th, 2009, 12:50 PM
It's so easy to just look at their losses.


In the slams, no they haven't won one this year but they just beat the most in-form team of the summer in Llagostera/Martinez in the QF's, and Stosur/Stubbs in the SF's, they not big matches? Also beat Llagostera/Martinez in the Wimby QF's, most in-form claycourt team Mattek/Petrova in the French QF's. So all that, plus the fact that they have WON 4 slams, are you really trying to tell me this team can't win big matches?

bandabou
Sep 24th, 2009, 01:53 PM
It's so easy to just look at their losses.


In the slams, no they haven't won one this year but they just beat the most in-form team of the summer in Llagostera/Martinez in the QF's, and Stosur/Stubbs in the SF's, they not big matches? Also beat Llagostera/Martinez in the Wimby QF's, most in-form claycourt team Mattek/Petrova in the French QF's. So all that, plus the fact that they have WON 4 slams, are you really trying to tell me this team can't win big matches?

I'm not dissing the Black/Huber team..I just think you're making them to be better than they are. They're a good team, not a great team.

They get the job done, are consistent..beat teams they're supposed to beat. But this year they've been the sidestory to the WS in the doubles.. sorry, if you don't get it done at the majors..can't put you ahead of a team that won 3 majors!

tobi
Sep 24th, 2009, 10:29 PM
In the slams, no they haven't won one this year but they just beat the most in-form team of the summer in Llagostera/Martinez in the QF's, and Stosur/Stubbs in the SF's, they not big matches? Also beat Llagostera/Martinez in the Wimby QF's, most in-form claycourt team Mattek/Petrova in the French QF's. So all that, plus the fact that they have WON 4 slams, are you really trying to tell me this team can't win big matches?

I'm not dissing the Black/Huber team..I just think you're making them to be better than they are. They're a good team, not a great team.

They get the job done, are consistent..beat teams they're supposed to beat. But this year they've been the sidestory to the WS in the doubles.. sorry, if you don't get it done at the majors..can't put you ahead of a team that won 3 majors!
Exactly.

I am not saying they are a bad team by any means but this season especially,despite having good wins as you mentioned they just couldnt keep and string it together at the slams and obviously slam results are very good indicator about greatness for me especially in doubles.