"Forehand Takes The Middle"

[Cindysphinx]

I'm starting to play with some women who will come to net, which means we can be 2-up more often. So far, so good.

But I'm hearing the same thing again and again about how to handle balls up the middle when both people are up: "Forehand takes the middle." In fact, all three of the women I played with yesterday subscribe to that approach to handling middle balls.

Personally, I subscribe to "The Art of Doubles" take on who plays the middle ball, and that book debunks "forehand takes the middle."

Yesterday was a time when these philosophies collided. I was playing with a woman who is a good volleyer and who would transition to net (yeah for her!!). She was deuce, I was ad. I had followed my return to net and was farther from the net than she was, maybe at the service line. Opponents hit a ball up the middle, and neither of us played it. I could have played it, but it would have been a stretch for me. She turned to me and said it was my ball because "forehand takes the middle." I thought (but didn't say), "No, it was your ball because you were closer to the net *and* the ball was closer to you than to me."

Trying to call the ball (yelling "Yours") seems particularly unsuited for the pace of events when both people are up, although saying "Mine" as you pounce does work well. It's that unplayed ball up the middle that seems to be a recurring problem.

So what's the deal here? Am I misunderstanding how middle balls should be played (I have also heard that as the player who played the previous shot, the reply is my responsibility)? Should I just give up and do "forehand takes the middle" like everyone else on the planet? Should I try to explain what "The Art of Doubles" says about it?

Or should I just play the deuce court so I'll never have to play a volley up the middle? :)

[bucpride]

Just my $0.02, I play doubles and my partner and I do not use that "Forehand takes the Middle" when 2-up. Either of us can hit it, for us communication is the key.

[GeorgeLucas]

I think that BOTH players should go for a volley down the middle. If your racquets collide, okay then - nice try.
Too many times do partners try to be "polite" and let their partner finish the point and end up watching the ball zip through the middle. Go for the middle volley within reason, though. Don't lunge for something way out of your strike zone.

[fuzz nation]

You've got a problem, Cindy. Your doubles IQ is more advanced than the other kids in your sandbox!

"Right of way" for volleyers goes to the player closer to net... absolutely. She has the better angles to hit through and the ball was closer to her, too. That's a no brainer, but lots of doubles players who cling to a script will lay off of that backhand volley and use you as their safety net. In that example you gave us, she blew it and tried to make it your fault. Unfortunately, your partner may not even be familiar enough in the subtleties of good doub's to know it.

Lots of times when I'm playing doubles, especially on that ad side, I'll at least back up my partner if I can in case the ball sneaks through or he/she just lets it go by. If the ball is so far over that it would pull me way out of position just to back it up, then it's obviously in my partner's realm of responsibility.

The best teams are those pairings that share the same concept of what to cover (among other things), but even then, good communication never goes out of style in good doubles. Without dumping on her, I guess you could have asked your partner right then about what sort of backhand volleys she will take - it's just not reasonable for her not to take any in the deuce court! It's also her responsibility to tell you to take that ball up the middle when she can. "You!" One quick syllable from her and both of you are on the same page. Hope the clash of concepts didn't wreck your outing.

[JavierLW]

I'm starting to play with some women who will come to net, which means we can be 2-up more often. So far, so good.

But I'm hearing the same thing again and again about how to handle balls up the middle when both people are up: "Forehand takes the middle." In fact, all three of the women I played with yesterday subscribe to that approach to handling middle balls.

Personally, I subscribe to "The Art of Doubles" take on who plays the middle ball, and that book debunks "forehand takes the middle."

Yesterday was a time when these philosophies collided. I was playing with a woman who is a good volleyer and who would transition to net (yeah for her!!). She was deuce, I was ad. I had followed my return to net and was farther from the net than she was, maybe at the service line. Opponents hit a ball up the middle, and neither of us played it. I could have played it, but it would have been a stretch for me. She turned to me and said it was my ball because "forehand takes the middle." I thought (but didn't say), "No, it was your ball because you were closer to the net *and* the ball was closer to you than to me."

Trying to call the ball (yelling "Yours") seems particularly unsuited for the pace of events when both people are up, although saying "Mine" as you pounce does work well. It's that unplayed ball up the middle that seems to be a recurring problem.

So what's the deal here? Am I misunderstanding how middle balls should be played (I have also heard that as the player who played the previous shot, the reply is my responsibility)? Should I just give up and do "forehand takes the middle" like everyone else on the planet? Should I try to explain what "The Art of Doubles" says about it?

Or should I just play the deuce court so I'll never have to play a volley up the middle? :)

Which opponent hit it?

If the ball was being hit by your opponent on the right (their ad court) then:

1) You should shade toward the middle, and be prepared to take any angled ball that comes down the middle. (because it's coming directly at you)

2) Your partner should "mirror" the opponent that is hitting the ball, and really should take any ball that is coming right at their direction, but they shouldnt have to move too far to the left to get the angled ones (because they open up court then)

If the ball was hit by the opponent direction in front of you, then you reverse that:

1) Any ball down the middle angled in your partner's direction is their's, regardless of if it's their backhand or not.

2) You have to mirror the opponent who's hitting the ball, and your responsible for shots hit more directly at you down the middle.

Ive been having a lot of trouble with people who play "forehand takes the middle" as well.

One of them is a lefty, so it's especially bothersome when he is on the deuce side, because he will randomly take it and crash into me (which isnt a big deal, but he gets upset then), or sometimes he wont go for it, and I wont go for it and the ball goes clear thru. (in which case Id defer to what GL said, it's better to get two racquets on the ball then none)

I like the "Wall Axiom" in the Art of Doubles, but it's hard to translate that to a partner who doesnt understand it on the fly.

I was thinking of making some flashcards or something next time it comes up. Im sure they'd love that. (I had a 3.0 partner once where we'd have dinner before a match and go over things like that so we didnt have to think about it as much during the actual match)

Especially if they have been playing a certain way forever and it makes perfect sense to them because they have been playing forever.

Also you have to consider skill as well, at 3.5 not everyone necessarily has a great backhand volley. If that's the case, then you can throw the "Art of Doubles" out the window, you just have to find a way your own way that works with what your partner is doing. (we call it rule 6 doubles)

[Swissv2]

Most everyone above have good advice on how to handle this situation.

The Bryan Brother's advice for the middle (and I am sure they should be good authorities on this topic :p ) is both of you should be prepared to take any middle ball, but the closer one to the net should be able to cut the angle off that ball early. On every straight down the middle shot, both brothers have their racquets out and prepared to hit the volley, and sometimes they do hit each others racquets! So its a combination of both teammates willing to hit the ball and communication.

[Topaz]

Which opponent hit it?

If the ball was being hit by your opponent on the right (their ad court) then:

1) You should shade toward the middle, and be prepared to take any angled ball that comes down the middle. (because it's coming directly at you)

2) Your partner should "mirror" the opponent that is hitting the ball, and really should take any ball that is coming right at their direction, but they shouldnt have to move too far to the left to get the angled ones (because they open up court then)

If the ball was hit by the opponent direction in front of you, then you reverse that:

1) Any ball down the middle angled in your partner's direction is their's, regardless of if it's their backhand or not.

2) You have to mirror the opponent who's hitting the ball, and your responsible for shots hit more directly at you down the middle.



Yes, this is what I've had drilled into my head for the past few years, with the exception, however, that whoever is closest to the net can step in front and take the ball.

[ohplease]

Frankly, I think this is just a way for people who prefer to hide on the deuce side to put even more responsibility on the partner playing ad.

There's no reason that both partners shouldn't be playing balls in the middle. If you're both at net, either a) the opposition is one up/one back or both back - therefore you've got tons of time to recover (assuming you're not volleying up to the opposing net player. Duh) or b) the opposition is also both at net - in which case you need to be on full offense, not worried about court coverage.

Not to mention the fact that in the current era of semi-western (or even more extreme) forehands and slice backhands, it's very common to see club players with better backhand volleys nowadays.

[Cindysphinx]

I don't recall where my shot landed, but I can guess.

I was receiving, so I would have hit the ball back to the ad court (although it might have been more toward the middle because the opponent in question never poached and was no threat).

Also, I was in the middle of the court and my partner was a touch more toward the alley, so that means it couldn't have been an up the line return. It was probably a return in the middle of the ad service box, I'm guessing.

Well, I liked this partner very much indeed. We will have to come to an understanding assuming she is willing to play with me again.

[Nellie]

As said above - the closer person should take the volley, particularly at higher levels where the backhand volley is usually much stronger than the forehand volley.

But - this is something you discuss with the partner before the match in the future to define your roles.

[JavierLW]

Yes, this is what I've had drilled into my head for the past few years, with the exception, however, that whoever is closest to the net can step in front and take the ball.

Right, I didnt mention that part of it because that makes it sound even more confusing (in addition to everything else I typed in).

It probally looks better in a diagram or something then it does when you put it in words on a computer screen.

[Geezer Guy]

I think the Art of Doubles is a great book. Can you make it required (or at least recommended) reading for your entire team?

However, knowing that many of your potential partners subscribe to the Forehand Takes the Middle Ball guideline, YOU should be swinging at any ball that comes up the middle when you're playing Ad side.

[Cindysphinx]

I've recommended the book many times over several years. I can count on one hand those who have read it. You can tell who this is. They use words like "wall" and "toe protector."

It's funny how people won't even read a short book readily available at the public library. Then again, one lady who has been on the last few seasons told me she asked her husband to get it for her for Christmas. No word yet on whether he was listening! :)

[Swissv2]

Cindy, have you ever had a chance to watch some doubles videos (in slow motion)? I call this "watching a book's tactical advice in action"

Even though the players may have a bit more refined game, there is a lot that can be learned from their positioning, communication, and movement.

[LuckyR]

Javier and Topaz's advice is correct, however there are definitely times when the actual shot is closer to the person who does not have the "responsibility" for the ball. Naturally they are free to hit the ball and when they don't it usually tells you volumes about their competitiveness...

[kevhen]

Attempt to play every ball that you can get to. Don't assume your partner will play the ball. If your partner moves to the ball and is in front of you, then you can move back over and get ready for the next ball.

Good opponents will hit every ball between you and your partner and attempt to make you upset at each other for not always making the right play. Don't get upset at your partner, but just remember to always move towards the balls that are between you and try to play them. Don't assume your partner will take them. The up partner has less time to react so may not always play everything that you think would be playable.

Forehand volley is usually easier at least for me it is, so player with forehand volley may have better advantage but player closest to net should take balls they can easily reach and not have to lunge for.

[Cindysphinx]

Cindy, have you ever had a chance to watch some doubles videos (in slow motion)? I call this "watching a book's tactical advice in action"

Even though the players may have a bit more refined game, there is a lot that can be learned from their positioning, communication, and movement.

No, not in slow motion. I have the US Open men's doubles final and the mixed doubles final on tape, and I think it's neat to watch their positioning and technique. And I have been known to rewind and watch certain things, especially their feet.

If my husband caught me re-watching a 3-month old doubles match in slow motion, he just might have me committed. :)

[Swissv2]

Javier and Topaz's advice is correct, however there are definitely times when the actual shot is closer to the person who does not have the "responsibility" for the ball. Naturally they are free to hit the ball and when they don't it usually tells you volumes about their competitiveness...


Both people should have the responsibility for the ball! Isn't that the point of tennis (especially doubles) to at least get the ball back in play? I am sure you agree with this.

I don't personally think its a factor of someone's "competitiveness" if they don't reach for the ball - I know PLENTY of people who barely move if they feel the ball is not within their reach, but are extremely agressive when they know the ball is coming directly to them (as well being obsessed with winning). I feel its more of a persons "willingness" to hit that ball whether they can or not, and the lack of communication. I have heard many arguements between partners who state "you SHOULD have hit that ball", where the other player would retort "but, I thought you would hit it and plus I didn't want to get in your way".

[jayserinos99]

Cindy, being a lefty who normally plays deuce side with a righty partner who plays ad poses a different problem since both of our fh's are in the middle or if the opposite happens, both of our bh's are in the middle. We still follow the advice from fellow posters (person closer to the net goes for it).

[Sup2Dresq]

This is how I was taught to play doubles in college and as recent as doubles clinics.

Whoever starts at net should be on top of the net, close enough to touch it and take anything hit by the returner. The approaching player (returner or server) is soley responsible for covering the lob or extreme angle to his side of the court.

With that said, the net man takes middle no matter if its forehand or backhand.

Hope all is well with you Cindy. Wish you could come out for our meeting on the 12th. At least you and Topaz could play.

Sup2dresq

[JavierLW]

Javier and Topaz's advice is correct, however there are definitely times when the actual shot is closer to the person who does not have the "responsibility" for the ball. Naturally they are free to hit the ball and when they don't it usually tells you volumes about their competitiveness...

Actually a lot of times in doubles, when someone thinks that someone is "slow" or just not "very aggressive" it's really because they are confused, or they just are not sure when they should go for things.

I know a lot of players who in singles run all over every single inch of the tennis court, yet in doubles, they just stand there and end up covering a 3ft x 3ft area because they just dont react to anything.

I have an issue myself. When I play with a slower partner where I at least know where he is, I am able to run around him to make up for it. (I dont really desire to play this way, but I do perform better)

When I get a scramber who's running around lunging for everything, the habit is to just stand around and let them get it. I dont think it has anything to do with lack of competitiveness, it's just kind of the funny way people react sometimes when they are out there and actual balls are flying around. (because most of the time you are not thinking out there, you just react or you dont react which is why it's good to agree on what's going to happen ahead of time and dont assume your partner has read "The Art of Doubles")

There is a book called "Winning Doubles" as well. It has a minimum amount of similar info to Art of Doubles, but mostly it's just pictures of diffrent situations that come up in a doubles point. Which is fun if you would rather look at pictures.

[Cindysphinx]

Both people should have the responsibility for the ball! Isn't that the point of tennis (especially doubles) to at least get the ball back in play? I am sure you agree with this.

I don't personally think its a factor of someone's "competitiveness" if they don't reach for the ball - I know PLENTY of people who barely move if they feel the ball is not within their reach, but are extremely agressive when they know the ball is coming directly to them (as well being obsessed with winning). I feel its more of a persons "willingness" to hit that ball whether they can or not, and the lack of communication. I have heard many arguements between partners who state "you SHOULD have hit that ball", where the other player would retort "but, I thought you would hit it and plus I didn't want to get in your way".

I kind of read LuckyR a bit differently. If someone is closer to the net and habitually does not play volleys nearer to them than their partner, that does say something about their competitiveness. I mean, you have to be willing to take balls that aren't directly to your racket, and you have to know when to take a chance. Had I been pulled wide by the serve, I can assure you that my partner would have played that ball with no trouble. If my net partner is only willing to take the low-hanging fruit, that's bad.

Regarding that both people should go for balls down the middle, I disagree. Having the ball go unplayed between you is a loss of point just as surely as a racket-clash that sends the ball into the net. You want some sort of sensible understanding of who is going to be doing what. "Art of Doubles" is the foundation for an understanding. "Forehand takes the middle" is another. Trouble is, the two are incompatible.

My pro says the best thing is for each player to always say "mine" when she attacks the ball. If my partner and I were both in the habit of doing that, fewer balls would get between us, definitely. It takes time to work that relationship. When I watch the pros, I don't hear many "mine" and "yours" calls when both players are up. Nor do they seem to be "backing each other up."

They just seem to know who will take what ball.

[Topaz]

My pro says the best thing is for each player to always say "mine" when she attacks the ball. .

Yeah, I tried that twice last night...got hit twice by my partner. I feel your pain (literally) Cindy...it doesn't work well when both partners are not on the same page of communication.

[Geezer Guy]

... Regarding that both people should go for balls down the middle, I disagree. Having the ball go unplayed between you is a loss of point just as surely as a racket-clash that sends the ball into the net. ...

Not to nit-pick, but the untouched middle ball is certainly a loss of point (unless it goes long), but the racquet-clashed ball often seems to dribble back over the net. Sometimes for a lucky winner, and sometimes just to keep the ball alive. I'm a big proponent of always taking a swing at the ball, even if I think it's out of reach.

[Swissv2]

Regarding that both people should go for balls down the middle, I disagree. Having the ball go unplayed between you is a loss of point just as surely as a racket-clash that sends the ball into the net. You want some sort of sensible understanding of who is going to be doing what. "Art of Doubles" is the foundation for an understanding. "Forehand takes the middle" is another. Trouble is, the two are incompatible.

My pro says the best thing is for each player to always say "mine" when she attacks the ball. If my partner and I were both in the habit of doing that, fewer balls would get between us, definitely. It takes time to work that relationship. When I watch the pros, I don't hear many "mine" and "yours" calls when both players are up. Nor do they seem to be "backing each other up."

They just seem to know who will take what ball.

I agree with you to a point. If you and your partner are side by side, then that would most likely lead to a clash of racquets (which I have seen in pro tennis many times). But if both of you are not side by side, for a ball going straight down the middle, it should be fine for both of you to attempt to go for the ball. The closer one to the net will obviously have a chance to get to the ball earlier, but the person behind will be able to back that forward person up.

I did watch several videos of the Bryan Brothers making a suggestion about reinforcing the middle. As for both of the players going for the shot, this may be a good picture as demonstration. You can see both of them are getting quite prepared to hit the ball.

http://picsrv.usta.com/?fif=/usta/gallery/img_677_21605_8043.jpg&obj=iip,1.0&wid=498&cvt=jpeg
http://picsrv.usta.com/?fif=/usta/gallery/img_677_22081_9264.jpg&obj=iip,1.0&wid=498&cvt=jpeg

[JavierLW]

I agree with you to a point. If you and your partner are side by side, then that would most likely lead to a clash of racquets (which I have seen in pro tennis many times). But if both of you are not side by side, for a ball going straight down the middle, it should be fine for both of you to attempt to go for the ball. The closer one to the net will obviously have a chance to get to the ball earlier, but the person behind will be able to back that forward person up.

I did watch several videos of the Bryan Brothers making a suggestion about reinforcing the middle. As for both of the players going for the shot, this may be a good picture as demonstration. You can see both of them are getting quite prepared to hit the ball.

http://picsrv.usta.com/?fif=/usta/gallery/img_677_21605_8043.jpg&obj=iip,1.0&wid=498&cvt=jpeg

I think that picture is a result of the idea that the person who is furthest back still has a responsibilty to be ready to return the ball if need be. (rather than just stand around and think the net player is going to get it)

[Swissv2]

I think that picture is a result of the idea that the person who is furthest back still has a responsibilty to be ready to return the ball if need be. (rather than just stand around and think the net player is going to get it)

Exactly, though I should stress my position is both players' responsibility for the ball should be reinforcement for a straight down the middle shot, and not for all shots.

If a both players are scrambling for every single ball, then that’s just bad doubles IMO.

[Cindysphinx]

Yeah, point taken. Actually, I looked exactly like the Bryan brother in back. But uh, my partner blocked me and I lost sight of the ball. Yeah, that's what happened. :)

Hey, I wouldn't have thought anything about it (other than telling myself to get ready to get it the next time) had it not been for the "forehand takes the middle" remark.

And to my partner's credit, at least she didn't do one of those "I got it, no I don't" moves where they stick the racket out for a ball they could totally reach, and then chicken out and pull it down. That really throws me off, and sometimes my next view of the ball is when it is about to bounce off my chest.

She's a good partner. Best I've had yet.

[Bagumbawalla]

Take a cue from Ms Manners. There is always a polite way to sugest someone might handle a situation differently.

During a changeover you might say something like, "Please, I don't want you to feel like you are stealing my shot. If the ball is near you and you have a good shot at it, feel free to put it away."

Then, be there ready to take the ball, just in case she doesn't.

Often times a player will let a ball like that go by, not because of the "forehand rule" but because they have a moment of self-doubt and they are confident in your ability to pick up their slack (an odd sort of compliment).

[Off The Wall]

Now you know your partner's way of playing doubles...and it's not ideal. So, Bags has a good idea. That is, telling her about your willingness to share the glory of the put-away with her.

Still, when coming to net when she's up there, you may have to slow down to see if she's going to let a middle shot go. At the same time, when the circumstances are reversed, you should take those same middle shots. Word will spread about your doubles prowess.

[LuckyR]

Both people should have the responsibility for the ball! Isn't that the point of tennis (especially doubles) to at least get the ball back in play? I am sure you agree with this.

I don't personally think its a factor of someone's "competitiveness" if they don't reach for the ball - I know PLENTY of people who barely move if they feel the ball is not within their reach, but are extremely agressive when they know the ball is coming directly to them (as well being obsessed with winning). I feel its more of a persons "willingness" to hit that ball whether they can or not, and the lack of communication. I have heard many arguements between partners who state "you SHOULD have hit that ball", where the other player would retort "but, I thought you would hit it and plus I didn't want to get in your way".


You are addressing an issue I did not describe. I'm speaking about folks who not only can hit the ball, but really should hit the ball (even though according to The Art of Doubles the ball is technically their partner's to hit.)

[samizram]

I'm starting to play with some women who will come to net, which means we can be 2-up more often. So far, so good.

But I'm hearing the same thing again and again about how to handle balls up the middle when both people are up: "Forehand takes the middle." In fact, all three of the women I played with yesterday subscribe to that approach to handling middle balls.

Personally, I subscribe to "The Art of Doubles" take on who plays the middle ball, and that book debunks "forehand takes the middle."

Yesterday was a time when these philosophies collided. I was playing with a woman who is a good volleyer and who would transition to net (yeah for her!!). She was deuce, I was ad. I had followed my return to net and was farther from the net than she was, maybe at the service line. Opponents hit a ball up the middle, and neither of us played it. I could have played it, but it would have been a stretch for me. She turned to me and said it was my ball because "forehand takes the middle." I thought (but didn't say), "No, it was your ball because you were closer to the net *and* the ball was closer to you than to me."

Trying to call the ball (yelling "Yours") seems particularly unsuited for the pace of events when both people are up, although saying "Mine" as you pounce does work well. It's that unplayed ball up the middle that seems to be a recurring problem.

So what's the deal here? Am I misunderstanding how middle balls should be played (I have also heard that as the player who played the previous shot, the reply is my responsibility)? Should I just give up and do "forehand takes the middle" like everyone else on the planet? Should I try to explain what "The Art of Doubles" says about it?

Or should I just play the deuce court so I'll never have to play a volley up the middle? :)

You and Blaskower are right. All other things being equal, normally the forehand takes the middle. But the player closer to the net has a better vantage point and angle.

Other factors can come into play too.

Only you can decide whether your particular team is better off with a backhand from on top of the net or a forehand from farther back.

But these people are afraid to tax their minds and are playing by rote. They memorize stupid sayings like this instead of bothering to think or understand anything. They are too lazy to think.