Yes. Joe Salisbury is a case in point. He tried singles. Even with his serve, he was never going to make it. I think it was obvious to most of is who saw him when he started out from college. And he quickly figured it out for himself too. As he says, he would gave quit tennis and got a 'proper' job. But then got a bit lucky with some wildcards and entries in doubles. Won a couple of matches that reallly made a difference. And never looked back.
I dislike kids focusing too much on doubles too soon.
But, as indy says, for some it's A1 the right thing to do, especially those who've gone the college route, IMO, as they've had tons fo quality dubs coaching and matchplay, and are in a comparatively better position
Ive maybe chose some of the wrong examples with Joe perhaps but I think its still a very interesting subject. There is definitely a discrepancy about how young our players go. Its certainly a lot easier transition to the top if you commit solely to doubles. Im not being disrespecful to those who make it to the top but the risk and reward certainly makes it easier to get to the top in doubles. Its practical and I get it I just think its a shame it happens like that.
I also accept Indys point that I perhaps am too broad on the matter and accept that. Others will be better and more balanced in some respects which is fair enough.
Good to see Jay have a great week. QFs in singles and taking home the doubles titles, probably means he has covered the cost of this Indian swing already. Has something to show for it as well.
Looks like he will be back at it tomorrow in Bengaluru in qualifying as is two from the main draw and only one SE left to clear.
Pleased to see him playing doubles more. Not just because it can help him get into a better rhythm of winning but also because I think his net play is an important part of his game and to me when he becomes more tentative and hangs back, his single's game suffers. Getting more confident at the net though more double's play might mitigate that a bit.