PDA

View Full Version : What skills are most important for singles specialists?


Cindysphinx
02-05-2007, 02:40 PM
I'm trying to identify who among my 3.0 ladies players would make a good singles specialist. We want 4-5 singles specialists, and I've identified 3 clear choices. That leaves two more.

Once we eliminate players with poor groundstrokes or poor fitness or no desire to play singles, we're left with many candidates.

How important is it in singles at our level to have a big first serve? Or a consistent serve? Or good footspeed? Or topspin groundstrokes? Or slice groundstrokes? A good overhead? Is it a deal killer if someone has a weak side (e.g. weaker backhand)?

Or is it as simple as using the weaker volleyers as singles specialists?

Dunlopkid
02-05-2007, 03:27 PM
At the 3.0 level, I would say that the most consistent players should play singles. Consistency is huge at the 3.0 level.

J011yroger
02-05-2007, 03:35 PM
I am a born singles player, and play dubs when I have to. So maybe I can help with this. I would say the most important thing would be that the person wants to play singles, that they enjoy it. I live for competition, for that time when you are serving down 5-6 in the third set, and need to hold to get into a tiebreak. If you have someone who is competitive, and mentally tough, not someone who plays for fun and to hang out with their friends, that would be my first criteria. I love the Roman gladiator aspect.

As far as strokes go, on groundies, I would look for someone who hits through the court well, I understand that this is 3.0 but you can still watch them hit. When I give lessons, without a word from the people during the first lesson, just by how they hit, I can tell singles players from doubles players. Volleys are probably the thing you have the biggest leeway with, If you have a poor volleyer, who is otherwise a solid player, that lack of ability will hurt you more in dubs than singles. Good overhead is the same, more important in dubs than singles. As far as serving, you can get away with a not so good serve in doubles, as there is less of an area for the opposition to hurt you, and they are already under pressure from your partner. In singles you will be in more trouble with a lame serve, and conversely if you have a good serve, you will only get to serve 1/2 of the games for your team in dubs, and you will get to use that good serve for all of the service games in singles.

J

Topaz
02-05-2007, 03:43 PM
Consistency!!!! And some knowledge of strategy...corner to corner, put away short balls, and having a down the line shot (at least on one side if not both) will help. Also, a strong first serve, consistent second serve...or, someone who doesn't DF often.

spot
02-05-2007, 03:44 PM
The person who can hit groundstrokes deep with consistency. If you do that you can win a ton of singles matches. People who go for winners get killed at that level because they aren't as good as they believe- Just find the person who gets to the ball early, gets it back deep, and can do it repeatedly.

Cindysphinx
02-05-2007, 03:45 PM
When you say "hits through the court well", are you referring to achieving depth? Or do you mean whether they actually finish the stroke? Or something else?

Dunlopkid
02-05-2007, 03:56 PM
Consistency is def the key at this level.

J011yroger
02-05-2007, 03:57 PM
Hitting through the court is about more than just depth its about the ball carrying back after the bounce to force your opponent back. Doubles players especially have trouble with this, as their shots are hit with placement and angle to get them where they want them (Past a net player, low over the net, angled cross return) while singles players are more about forcing the opponent back, getting them out of position. Look for people who drive the ball, more than steer it (I am sorry if this doesn't make sense I am new to the boards and it is much easier to describe and show in person rather than convey in words).

JHBKLYN
02-05-2007, 05:08 PM
You should have those who want to play singles play each other and see who are the better singles players. As others said, at this level, just getting the ball over consistently is enough to win matches.

cak
02-05-2007, 05:12 PM
Good point JHBKLYN. It's easy to set up a singles ladder. The top two available get to play. People who really want to play singles can work on their game, and might even make it to the top by the end of the season.

(And I'm jealous, on our team the singles players are pretty much anyone willing to play singles. And that still leaves us with less than 4 or 5.)

spot
02-05-2007, 05:22 PM
Cindy- don't you think that you are going way overboard by having singles "specialists" at 3.0? At that level let people go out and play and see who enjoys playing singles. There is just no need to have people on your team that only play singles unless you have people that only want to play singles.

rasajadad
02-06-2007, 04:38 AM
Cindy,
At that level (even up through 4.0), it's possible that you have players who are competent players, but have no idea or skills to play doubles. You know, bad position, wrong shot selections, can't return crosscourt, or who are really weak at net, e.g.

Move them over and don't split up a good doubles team.

rletizia
02-06-2007, 05:22 AM
I always thought at any level, skill is more important at doubles and movement at singles. Why would level matter? Players are going to make mistakes no matter what and especially at 3.0 - 4.0.

Who likes to move and run a lot on the team? Those are my singles players.

raiden031
02-06-2007, 05:34 AM
Your best bet is to have them all play against each other, just play to one set, and from there pick the ones who played the best (of those that are willing to play singles).

Ignoring that, I'd pick ones who can hit the ball most consistently. I wouldn't focus on serve, strokes, or anything but consistency. And you can't choose them based on their doubles performance, you'd have to watch them play singles since its a completely different game.

raiden031
02-06-2007, 05:37 AM
I always thought at any level, skill is more important at doubles and movement at singles. Why would level matter? Players are going to make mistakes no matter what and especially at 3.0 - 4.0.

Who likes to move and run a lot on the team? Those are my singles players.

From my experience, doubles requires better ball placement, volleying, and positioning than singles. Singles requires better groundstroke consistency and movement. At 3.0 in singles, if you can keep the ball in play, you are guaranteed to win. At 4.0, thats not really true because if you give them short balls every time, they will put them away much more.

Fedace
02-06-2007, 06:01 AM
Speed is important. You must run the hills and go up and down the football stadium 50+ times and do sprint drills side to side court drills 50+ times everyday.

Cindysphinx
02-06-2007, 07:32 AM
Cindy- don't you think that you are going way overboard by having singles "specialists" at 3.0? At that level let people go out and play and see who enjoys playing singles. There is just no need to have people on your team that only play singles unless you have people that only want to play singles.

Well, no.

The idea of having singles specialists came from the advice on the subject from people here at TW. I asked a few months ago, and the consensus seemed to be that you need singles specialists to win team matches. If you can't win at singles, you must win all three of your doubles matches, which is a tall order.

Also, I was on a 0-12 team last season that didn't have singles specialists. Interested players kind of dabbled in singles. Despite being a doubles specialist, I was tossed out there at No. 1 singles for one match, with no practice at singles beforehand. I was whipped 6-1, 6-0 in 45 minutes. I felt like I was playing tennis on a bowling alley because the court felt very narrow to me. I was repeatedly hitting great angles to the doubles lines. I was astonished that my normally good doubles shots were being treated as "short balls" and punished accordingly. So yeah, there's much to be said for learning to play singles properly.

Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

raiden031
02-06-2007, 07:41 AM
Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

If you're worried about hurting their feelings, then you probably won't end up with a winning team. Take it from me though, most of the people that beat me in singles have lousy technique, yet are able to simply block back all my shots so that I beat myself. Thats why I'd say their actual performance in singles is the only decent way to determine who is best for the job.

But if you really must base it on their doubles play, pick whoever is best at the baseline. Pick someone with consistent service returns that can hit cross court or down the line without getting poached.

cak
02-06-2007, 08:12 AM
Cindy, do your singles matches have time limits?

The reason I ask is many of us are saying singles players at the 3.0/3.5 level often don't look like much, but can get the ball over more times than the other guy, and that's how they win. Yes, it's truely pusher tennis at it's worst, but you get the big W. But if you have time limits you need a different type of singles player.

I play practice matches against our singles players because I don't have a singles game, and often end up at net without thinking about it. They aren't used to that, and like to try out the passing shots/lobs they don't usually try in matches. Because of that, when they stick me out to play singles I have yet to drop the first set. I confuse even good singles players, as well as myself. By the second set they are getting more savy, and my game has to morph into something ugly to win. And sometimes that isn't enough. But, if you have a time limit, and it favors whomever won the first set, you might want your good serve and volleyers to give singles a try because at the 3.0 level it would confound other singles specialists for a set.

sue20852
02-06-2007, 08:16 AM
At the 3.0 level, I would say that the most consistent players should play singles. Consistency is huge at the 3.0 level.

In addition, I would select strong players to play singles, only if they want to play singles. Strong players usually have more developed attributes like fitness, mobility, stroke mechanics, mental toughness, etc., than your average player.

Sue

Ace
02-06-2007, 08:29 AM
Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

raiden031
02-06-2007, 08:33 AM
Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

Heheh. I know who she is, I even spotted her on tennislink.

Ace
02-06-2007, 08:34 AM
Heheh. I know who she is, I even spotted her on tennislink.

yeah....hahaha....me too. what would her teammates say....? ..."Hey! I'M that WEAK player she's complaining about all the time!!!!"

ohplease
02-06-2007, 08:58 AM
Club level singles is really about things like consistency, movement, shot tolerance, and tenacity.

Since you've got three obvious choices already, I'd keep effective doubles teams together, and of the remaining players, I'd pick the two that tend towards the more boring and patient side of the spectrum. Style points don't count for much, in this case.

Barring that, I'd let the people who want to play singles play singles - odds are, two of your top three choices will likely be available, anyway.

Cindysphinx
02-06-2007, 09:05 AM
Cindy, do your singles matches have time limits?

The reason I ask is many of us are saying singles players at the 3.0/3.5 level often don't look like much, but can get the ball over more times than the other guy, and that's how they win. Yes, it's truely pusher tennis at it's worst, but you get the big W. But if you have time limits you need a different type of singles player.

I play practice matches against our singles players because I don't have a singles game, and often end up at net without thinking about it. They aren't used to that, and like to try out the passing shots/lobs they don't usually try in matches. Because of that, when they stick me out to play singles I have yet to drop the first set. I confuse even good singles players, as well as myself. By the second set they are getting more savy, and my game has to morph into something ugly to win. And sometimes that isn't enough. But, if you have a time limit, and it favors whomever won the first set, you might want your good serve and volleyers to give singles a try because at the 3.0 level it would confound other singles specialists for a set.


CAK, we do have timed matches, and you're correct that the winner of the first set usually has an advantage. Many 3.0 singles matches do time out. The first mathematical tiebreaker is total number of games, so if you tank the first set 1-6 but come back nicely in the second set 0-6, you'd win.

As for serve and volley players, we have zero of them. I am the closest thing we have. Which is why I said "zero."

Hey, if everybody has figured out who I am, does this mean you'll be coming to my matches to cheer me on? :)

I'm still trying to figure out who Raiden is. I think I can do it. I just need some time. :)

Cindysphinx
02-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

Hee!

I heard a joke once about this sort of thing.

There was a coach of a mixed doubles team who was expressing his displeasure. He said some of the players don't work hard, don't give it their all, need to work on their fitness, were the weak link.

All the women were convinced he must be talking about them.

All the men were convinced he had to be talking about someone else. :)

rasajadad
02-06-2007, 09:13 AM
Hee!

I heard a joke once about this sort of thing.

There was a coach of a mixed doubles team who was expressing his displeasure. He said some of the players don't work hard, don't give it their all, need to work on their fitness, were the weak link.

All the women were convinced he must be talking about them.

All the men were convinced he had to be talking about someone else. :)

Good one! Not a lot of tennis jokes out there.

Ace
02-06-2007, 12:07 PM
I'm still trying to figure out who Raiden is. I think I can do it. I just need some time. :)

hahahah....he's said where he's from, and when his matches were.....and even said (about) what his scores were.....

ah, the anonymous internet......:)

raiden031
02-06-2007, 01:00 PM
hahahah....he's said where he's from, and when his matches were.....and even said (about) what his scores were.....

ah, the anonymous internet......:)

I'd be impressed if she could figure out who I was. I don't think I gave out enough info to make it that easy. It was pure luck that I found out who she was; she mentioned her win-loss record and her individual record and I happened to be looking at people in her league at the time and noticed it. I didn't even know she was playing in that league.

Ace
02-06-2007, 01:55 PM
I'd be impressed if she could figure out who I was. I don't think I gave out enough info to make it that easy. It was pure luck that I found out who she was; she mentioned her win-loss record and her individual record and I happened to be looking at people in her league at the time and noticed it. I didn't even know she was playing in that league.

Does your first name begin with a "D"?

raiden031
02-06-2007, 02:20 PM
Does your first name begin with a "D"?

I won't say what my name begins with because I do think you can narrow down who I might be between just a few people. Are you in MD or did you just get curious and decide to poke around the MD leagues on tennislink?

spot
02-06-2007, 02:23 PM
Cindy- anyone who would be embarrassed about losing at singles probably should not be playing singles anyway

Ace
02-06-2007, 02:27 PM
I won't say what my name begins with because I do think you can narrow down who I might be between just a few people. Are you in MD or did you just get curious and decide to poke around the MD leagues on tennislink?

Cindy said she was trying to figure it out. That was just today, and it got me curious.
You had posted before what county you were in.
You had also posted after your first match and reported how it went. I admit, I did remember the post, but had to go back and look at it again for the date and the score.

Theres only one 6.0 Mixed flight in that county, so I assumed that was the one you were in. Not all the teams played on that day you mentioned, which narrows it down.
You said the score (more or less), so out of two or three matches to view....

Yeah, I had too much time on my hands I guess. But I took Cindy's post as a personal challenge.... sorry. Your identity is safe with me, assuming I guessed right anyway.

Cindysphinx
02-06-2007, 03:42 PM
I'd be impressed if she could figure out who I was. I don't think I gave out enough info to make it that easy. It was pure luck that I found out who she was; she mentioned her win-loss record and her individual record and I happened to be looking at people in her league at the time and noticed it. I didn't even know she was playing in that league.


Raiden, I think I could find you, but I need to think of someone who plays in your league and navigate my way around. But it looks like someone else has done the legwork!

Actually, my reason for tracking you down would be entirely benign. My 7.0 mixed team is down to just six guys, with one injured. I think we're going to try to limp along for the rest of the season and then regroup in the fall. From your posts, you sound like a good prospect: solid player who just needs more experience in doubles. When you're trying to build a doubles team from the ground up, players like you are perfect.

Cindysphinx
02-06-2007, 03:44 PM
Cindy- anyone who would be embarrassed about losing at singles probably should not be playing singles anyway

Ha! One of my singles specialist casually mentioned that she is looking forward to playing me on the ladder.

I tightened up immediately. Losing to a stranger is one thing. Losing to a friend is something else again.

J011yroger
02-06-2007, 03:45 PM
Yea, when you lose to a stranger he goes home, when you lose to a friend you have to buy the first round!

raiden031
02-06-2007, 03:56 PM
Raiden, I think I could find you, but I need to think of someone who plays in your league and navigate my way around. But it looks like someone else has done the legwork!

Actually, my reason for tracking you down would be entirely benign. My 7.0 mixed team is down to just six guys, with one injured. I think we're going to try to limp along for the rest of the season and then regroup in the fall. From your posts, you sound like a good prospect: solid player who just needs more experience in doubles. When you're trying to build a doubles team from the ground up, players like you are perfect.

Thank you for the compliment. I think the best thing going for me is that my goal is to improve and climb the levels, not just win. This one woman I play singles with surprises me because she is a dominant 3.5, and I asked her about playing 4.0 and she just shrugged it off like she doesn't want to play at a level where she isn't dominant.

Ace
02-06-2007, 05:56 PM
Ha! One of my singles specialist casually mentioned that she is looking forward to playing me on the ladder.

I tightened up immediately. Losing to a stranger is one thing. Losing to a friend is something else again.

I'd rather lose to a friend. A friend knows your game, knows if you are just having a bad day, and a true friend will play with you even if you can't beat them.
A stranger could be someone thats walking around telling everyone how they can whip your butt even though you wanted to practice a new shot that day.

raiden031
02-06-2007, 06:00 PM
Friend or no friend, I feel much less stress if I am playing someone that is considered as strong or stronger than me. If I am playing someone where the expectation beforehand is that I am the better player, than I feel alot of pressure to win, and when I don't, I feel embarrassed.

This reminds me of a singles ladder match I played around September where I was warming up with the guy and right before the match he said something like "I can tell you are a better player than me, but I think this will be a good experience for me". Then he goes and kicks my ***. LOL.

Sakkijarvi
02-06-2007, 07:43 PM
<Consistency!!!! And some knowledge of strategy...corner to corner, put away short balls, and having a down the line shot (at least on one side if not both) will help. Also, a strong first serve, consistent second serve...or, someone who doesn't DF often.>

This by definition is a 3.5 player or better, and a bit much to expect from a true 3.0.

goober
02-06-2007, 09:08 PM
This reminds me of a singles ladder match I played around September where I was warming up with the guy and right before the match he said something like "I can tell you are a better player than me, but I think this will be a good experience for me". Then he goes and kicks my ***. LOL.


That's some pretty low level gamesmanship.

Whenever somebody I don't know tells me that I am better than them or take it easy on them because they are not that good, old or whatever I know I better step it up a notch.

JHBKLYN
02-06-2007, 09:55 PM
Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

Losing face? Are you saying people on the team don't know who the better players are? Unless they are in a state of denial, they should know who can play and who can't.

Despite how good someone's stroke or technique is, you can't force someone to play singles when they don't want to. By picking randomly yourself, you might make some players unhappy. I say get your team together, by a show of hands or racquets, have those who want to play singles be heard and then decide if they are worthy.

Your team also need to decide whether they want to win or just play and don't care if they come in last place. If your team wants to win, then get the best singles players out there, win your league, get that t-shirt and water bottle, and try to make it to the Nationals. If the games don't matter, then pick whoever you want and let them experience what is like to hit the ball by themselves and do a lot of running around. :-)

MordredSJT
02-06-2007, 10:13 PM
I'll just throw my two cents in...consistency and movement skills.

That is all.

JHBKLYN
02-06-2007, 10:19 PM
That's some pretty low level gamesmanship.

Whenever somebody I don't know tells me that I am better than them or take it easy on them because they are not that good, old or whatever I know I better step it up a notch.

That reminds me of this guy, right before the match, he was telling me how his feet was hurting and he had this huge headache. I'm already thinking if he had bad feet and a bad head, why would they put him in singles? He must've been a world class sprinter because during the match, with those bad feet, he was running around the court like Carl Lewis.

raiden031
02-07-2007, 05:34 AM
That's some pretty low level gamesmanship.

Whenever somebody I don't know tells me that I am better than them or take it easy on them because they are not that good, old or whatever I know I better step it up a notch.

I don't think it was intent. He honestly believed I was better because my strokes were more consistent. But once the match started, he resorted more to blocking the ball because he lacked confidence in his strokes. But he was good enough to beat me doing that.

goober
02-07-2007, 05:42 AM
I don't think it was intent. He honestly believed I was better because my strokes were more consistent. But once the match started, he resorted more to blocking the ball because he lacked confidence in his strokes. But he was good enough to beat me doing that.

If you keep playing and practicing you will beat these types of players easily. 3.0 and 3.5 is filled with players with bad strokes and all kinds of weaknesses in their game. Many of them have been playing that way for years so they are consistent in their style of play and enjoy beating younger up and coming players. But you absolutely need to learn how to beat these players to move up.
Nothing is more motivating than losing to some guy that is 20 years older than you, can barely move and hacking at the ball :)

raiden031
02-07-2007, 07:56 AM
If you keep playing and practicing you will beat these types of players easily. 3.0 and 3.5 is filled with players with bad strokes and all kinds of weaknesses in their game. Many of them have been playing that way for years so they are consistent in their style of play and enjoy beating younger up and coming players. But you absolutely need to learn how to beat these players to move up.
Nothing is more motivating than losing to some guy that is 20 years older than you, can barely move and hacking at the ball :)

Well the good news is that I still play this guy on occasion. Last time we played 4 sets and I won all of them. He hits alot of short balls and I tore them up, which I wasn't able to do the first time we played.

Cindysphinx
02-07-2007, 09:59 AM
Losing face? Are you saying people on the team don't know who the better players are? Unless they are in a state of denial, they should know who can play and who can't.

My players know who is strong and who is weak. What they (and lots of players, I'd say) can't stomach is having this proved all out in public and everything. It is easier for a player with poor mobility to believe they were not asked to play singles because they are too valuable in doubles than to face the hard truth that they are too slow.

Despite how good someone's stroke or technique is, you can't force someone to play singles when they don't want to. By picking randomly yourself, you might make some players unhappy. I say get your team together, by a show of hands or racquets, have those who want to play singles be heard and then decide if they are worthy.

All I can do is ask players to play singles. So far, both players I have asked have said yes. I just need 1-2 more (since I plan to play singles myself).

If I were to get everyone together and ask for a show of hands, then we would introduce the concept of "public rejection and humiliation." Everyone would know player A raised her hand and was passed over for someone else. That's not cool.

Your team also need to decide whether they want to win or just play and don't care if they come in last place. If your team wants to win, then get the best singles players out there, win your league, get that t-shirt and water bottle, and try to make it to the Nationals. If the games don't matter, then pick whoever you want and let them experience what is like to hit the ball by themselves and do a lot of running around. :-)

As I said in a prior thread, I think there is a third choice: winning a decent number of matches and thereby putting in a respectable showing, all the while working to improve.

Coming in last place stinks. I was on such a team last year, and it just casts a pall over everything. I think some reasonable decision-making will put us in contention to win a few and lose a few, and that ought to be make it a good season for us.

cak
02-07-2007, 01:45 PM
I'm still in awe you have a team where there are too many women that prefer to play singles. You might want to publish who your singles specialists are to the team just so those that want to play singles and didn't make the list can look for another team to play singles on. Make another captain's day, share the wealth.:-)

Cindysphinx
02-07-2007, 04:27 PM
CAK, I have heard that it gets harder to find singles players at 3.5 than 3.0. I even heard that some 3.5 teams are so desperate for singles players that they will use 3.0s, figuring a loss is better than a default.

I have two theories. One is that a fast way to move from 3.0 to 3.5 is to play singles, so perhaps 3.0s are more eager to make the leap than 3.5s would be to leap to 4.0.

The other is that 3.0 singles is significantly easier than 3.5 because at 3.0 you can just wait your opponent out and be a pusher.

But yeah, I seem to be lucky in the singles department, for sure.

cak
02-07-2007, 05:09 PM
Well, here we had trouble finding 3.0 singles players, and it didn't get better at 3.5. And the horrendous 3 hour pusher game I refer to, I was playing 3.5, against a young lady that had just dropped from 4.0. (And no, she wasn't the one pushing.) In NorCal there are so many players that the areas are pretty small. And if you are willing to drive, say 20 minutes you can play at the same level on three different teams each season. So the singles players often play on multiple teams.

JHBKLYN
02-08-2007, 01:59 AM
My players know who is strong and who is weak. What they (and lots of players, I'd say) can't stomach is having this proved all out in public and everything. It is easier for a player with poor mobility to believe they were not asked to play singles because they are too valuable in doubles than to face the hard truth that they are too slow.

All I can do is ask players to play singles. So far, both players I have asked have said yes. I just need 1-2 more (since I plan to play singles myself).

I guess sometimes the truth does hurt so your way of dealing with it is a more diplomatic way to solve that situation, not to mention no hurt feelings. :)

If I were to get everyone together and ask for a show of hands, then we would introduce the concept of "public rejection and humiliation." Everyone would know player A raised her hand and was passed over for someone else. That's not cool.

Perhaps you can add that whoever wants to play singles will be playing each other for the slots? This way, if one wants to embarass themselves would think twice before showing their hands. Seriously though, the team should think as a team and no one should feel embarassed or humiliated. Everybody should know their strengths and weaknesses and all should be encouraging and not discouraging. I'm wondering, as the captain of the team (I assume you are), if someone who is weak at singles really wants to play singles, will you give that person a chance or will you not let them play?

As I said in a prior thread, I think there is a third choice: winning a decent number of matches and thereby putting in a respectable showing, all the while working to improve.

Coming in last place stinks. I was on such a team last year, and it just casts a pall over everything. I think some reasonable decision-making will put us in contention to win a few and lose a few, and that ought to be make it a good season for us.

I don't know what your league format is but I assume its 2 singles and 3 doubles? If that is the format, all you need is a good singles player and 4 good doubles players and try to win 3 out of 5 matches every time and you should be in the playoffs. What is your evaluation of your team? Do you think you have a chance to compete for the playoffs or do you think the season will be just winning a few matches here and there and putting in a respectable showing?

JHBKLYN
02-08-2007, 02:09 AM
Well, here we had trouble finding 3.0 singles players, and it didn't get better at 3.5. And the horrendous 3 hour pusher game I refer to, I was playing 3.5, against a young lady that had just dropped from 4.0. (And no, she wasn't the one pushing.) In NorCal there are so many players that the areas are pretty small. And if you are willing to drive, say 20 minutes you can play at the same level on three different teams each season. So the singles players often play on multiple teams.

3 hours? That's a long match! Was it outdoors or indoors?

Do you ladies go 2 out of 3 sets or is there a 3rd set tiebreaker?

Cindysphinx
02-08-2007, 07:18 AM
I'm wondering, as the captain of the team (I assume you are), if someone who is weak at singles really wants to play singles, will you give that person a chance or will you not let them play?

That's an interesting question. Say I have my 4-5 singles players and someone else wants to do it. (There is a player like this. I'm not asking her to play singles because I can't have all of my strongest players playing singles; someone has to play doubles on court one).

If she wanted to play singles, I would tell her what the singles players are expected to do. Our plan is to participate on a singles ladder in our area, in addition to regular lessons/clinics/practices. If she demonstrated her commitment to learning singles, then I'd take her on as an extra singles players, and we'd spread the matches around.



Do you think you have a chance to compete for the playoffs or do you think the season will be just winning a few matches here and there and putting in a respectable showing?

Boy. It's hard to say. We won the Fall division at 5.5, going 11-1. We have since parted ways with all of our 2.5 players and are doing 6.5this winter. We have only one 3.5 players, and we are 1-1 so far this season. Hopefully, the many months of doubles experience and the winter playing against superior 6.5 teams will pay off. Then again, the top 3.0 teams have been at the top for years, so imagine it would be difficult to dethrone them.

If we go .500 on the season, I'd be happy with that as a foundation for next season.

cak
02-08-2007, 08:24 AM
3 hours? That's a long match! Was it outdoors or indoors?

Do you ladies go 2 out of 3 sets or is there a 3rd set tiebreaker?

Outdoors, no time limit, and that was only two sets. As I told my captain this year. Well, yeah, I could play singles, but NO ONE wants to wait that long. The wine and appetizers were long gone, and the only spectators left were the captains. And my captain had to find her captain to get her down on the court when she went down. (For those not following in another thread, she cramped up and couldn't move, on my match point. She had to retire.)