Wimbledon - Blake/Fish get the shaft

So, [pretend] you've been paying attention to Wimbledon; watching the bigger matches (e.g. Andy Roddick's fantastic semifinal win over Murray) on television, checking the paper to see who's left, that kind of thing.

If someone asked you about the performance of the Americans so far in the tournament (so far = through Friday, 7/3/2009), this is what you might know:

1. Venus and Serena are playing each other in the singles final and playing on the same team in the doubles final.
2. Andy Roddick is in the men's singles final against Roger Federer.
3. The Bryan brothers are in the doubles final.

And here is what you would almost certainly NOT know:

1. The slapped-together doubles team of James Blake and Mardy Fish, both known almost exclusively as singles players, stormed to the semifinals of Wimbledon, the furthest EITHER ONE OF THEM has ever made it in a Grand Slam in either singles OR doubles. In the semifinals they played an epic 3 1/2 hour match, losing 10-8 in the fifth set to defending champions Nestor and Zimonjic.

Now that's a great story, isn't it? That's something that would be fun to be part of, to follow it as it unfolded, right?

Here's the thing: watch enough tennis and you will notice that broadcasters commonly lament the lack of American men in the second week of Grand Slams, and they complain about not having "big-name" singles players in the doubles draws. This second complaint often goes hand in hand with a lament for the lack of popularity of doubles in recent years.

So, what do ESPN and NBC do when a perfect opportunity arrives to address ALL of the issues above?

They ignore it. Completely.

At one point, during a women's singles match, an NBC announcer mentioned in passing that the Bryan brothers had made it to the final - opponent "YET TO BE DETERMINED."

Are you kidding? Could they do any better if the instruction had been to "keep this Blake/Fish business quiet"? (The answer: NO)


To pull it all together, here is my complaint: Guys, you SAY you wish doubles was more popular. But when the chance arises to latch on to a uniquely compelling story, to drum up interest for the sport, you pay no regard. And guys, you say you wish there were more American tennis success stories. But you apparently don't consider an improbable CAREER-BEST run by a team of two American mostly-singles players a legitimate success story or worthy of even the slightest bit of coverage. Furthermore, in all of this you reinforce the idea that doubles tennis is somehow a second-tier sport.


Men's doubles, especially at Wimbledon where they still play real 5-set matches, is by no means a second-tier sport. It's a highly entertaining, fast-paced game that has had its share of unbelievably competitive contests. Doubles is something that anyone who has ever played tennis can relate to - it's not some fringe event. It's also something in which the United States can claim the number one team in the world (the Bryans).

Yet instead of showing reliably competitive men's doubles, you can count on the networks to replay the day's earlier singles "action" (i.e. some 6-0 6-0 Williams beatdown of a deer-in-headlights 17-year-old with no business being on Center Court).
What a joke.

"Big names" are what you make them, guys. By continuing to treat doubles like JV, you will neither make "big names" nor attract them. And we are all worse off for it.