American adult recreational tennis has created

[J011yroger]

A generation of players who mostly play doubles but are awful at doubles and have no desire to get better.

When they are learning to play, young or old, or practicing, they spend the majority of their time hitting around hitting groundstrokes and playing singles points. Very rarely do you see people practice serve/return or volleys and almost never transition position.

Then they go to play competitive adult tennis and >80% of the opportunity is playing doubles.

So they play doubles, and they suck. But it's what there is so they keep hacking away at it and through through trial and error figure out what does and doesn't work from their singles game and end up with some Frankenstein monster type of doubles game and for whatever reason make no effort to improve either their technique, tactics, or strategy.

J

 

[LeeD]

Doubles.... FOUR player's play at a time, none get really tired out so can sort of play to the best of their bad physical abilities.
Singles just takes longer overall, only 2 play, and courts get more crowded with more player's waiting to play.

 

[esgee48]

I was going to say, 4 people on the court, but only 2 are seriously involved baseline to baseline cross court exchanges 90% of the time. The other 2 are standing around talking to each other about the weather, the stock market, their latest aches/pain, that cute woman/women on the next court.....

 

[LeeD]

If any of the 4 were serious at tennis, they'd train and get fit, take lessons and actually absorb a few, and be playing singles.
But when you're out of shape, don't ever practice or hit longer than 3 minutes, playing singles puts tennis in a serious mode, which isn't entertainman or plain fun (unless you win against the odds).

 

[ByeByePoly]

I was going to say, 4 people on the court, but only 2 are seriously involved baseline to baseline cross court exchanges 90% of the time. The other 2 are standing around talking to each other about the weather, the stock market, their latest aches/pain, that cute woman/women on the next court.....

hahaha ... 2 in a cc drill ... 2 looking at females. Perfect description.

 

[tlm]

A generation of players who mostly play doubles but are awful at doubles and have no desire to get better.

When they are learning to play, young or old, or practicing, they spend the majority of their time hitting around hitting groundstrokes and playing singles points. Very rarely do you see people practice serve/return or volleys and almost never transition position.

Then they go to play competitive adult tennis and >80% of the opportunity is playing doubles.

So they play doubles, and they suck. But it's what there is so they keep hacking away at it and through through trial and error figure out what does and doesn't work from their singles game and end up with some Frankenstein monster type of doubles game and for whatever reason make no effort to improve either their technique, tactics, or strategy.

J

Your right Jolly this is pretty accurate from what I have witnessed about adult team tennis except for the 4.5 and up players. That's why I play singles in league play, I have played some mixed dubs in a USTA league but other than that I only play dubs in fun pick up matches occasionally that's enough doubles for me.

 

[sureshs]

A generation of players who mostly play doubles but are awful at doubles and have no desire to get better.

When they are learning to play, young or old, or practicing, they spend the majority of their time hitting around hitting groundstrokes and playing singles points. Very rarely do you see people practice serve/return or volleys and almost never transition position.

Then they go to play competitive adult tennis and >80% of the opportunity is playing doubles.

So they play doubles, and they suck. But it's what there is so they keep hacking away at it and through through trial and error figure out what does and doesn't work from their singles game and end up with some Frankenstein monster type of doubles game and for whatever reason make no effort to improve either their technique, tactics, or strategy.

J

That is why it is called recreational tennis. Should be quite simple to understand.

 

[OnTheLine]

I am going to beg to differ here a little....
yes, most opportunities are doubles only
As one that gets a lot of singles time because no-one else wants to .... I get frustrated by my club's clinic drills.
it is so heavily geared to doubles
Strategy
Positioning
Shot selection
Double's serve and return
Volley, Volley, Volley and for variety, lets throw in some reflex volley
Overhead Overhead short deep wide

so, I practice practice practice, and then hit the singles court for league match .... nothing is even the least bit what I practiced, not even the serve is the same.

 

[tlm]

I am going to beg to differ here a little....
yes, most opportunities are doubles only
As one that gets a lot of singles time because no-one else wants to .... I get frustrated by my club's clinic drills.
it is so heavily geared to doubles
Strategy
Positioning
Shot selection
Double's serve and return
Volley, Volley, Volley and for variety, lets throw in some reflex volley
Overhead Overhead short deep wide

so, I practice practice practice, and then hit the singles court for league match .... nothing is even the least bit what I practiced, not even the serve is the same.

Clubs definitely cater to doubles players because most adults would rather play doubles. But I know what your saying the singles players get left out. At my club one of the leagues that always used the same 3 doubles and 2 singles format that I thought was universal changed it to 4 doubles and 1 singles. That was it for me as far as indoor team tennis was concerned. I just practice and play pick up matches indoors and play in a singles league outside in the summer.

 

[movdqa]

Doubles.... FOUR player's play at a time, none get really tired out so can sort of play to the best of their bad physical abilities.
Singles just takes longer overall, only 2 play, and courts get more crowded with more player's waiting to play.

Or management can turn a tennis court into a hockey arena, charge $5 per player for 20 players per hour - and make much more than court fees.

 

[tlm]

Or management can turn a tennis court into a hockey arena, charge $5 per player for 20 players per hour - and make much more than court fees.

It costs much much more to make ice compared to an indoor tennis court which lasts forever and only needs lights and heat.

 

[movdqa]

It costs much much more to make ice compared to an indoor tennis court which lasts forever and only needs lights and heat.

This is my club. This used to be a tennis court:

 

[tlm]

This is my club. This used to be a tennis court:

Well if your talking field hockey then that is not that much to maintain. Unfortunately depending on where you live tennis is not alive and well.

 

[movdqa]

Well if your talking field hockey then that is not that much to maintain. Unfortunately depending on where you live tennis is not alive and well.

I'm in hockey country. They play from 5-9 on MTW and also on Sundays when I often play on the court next to the hockey arena. Between the hockey pucks flying over, the goal horn going off, the subs banging on the rink, people slapping their sticks on the rink, it's enough to distract you from watching the ball. Our scheduler has promised to book a court further away from the hockey rink for the indoor season, even if he has to book it in June.

 

[GuyClinch]

Agree with the OPs theory.

But don't think people are going to start practicing doubles skills. Doubles to me is something that's really for highly skilled tennis players. I feel low level league doubles hurts the game.

Yes they get more people on the court - but those guys are always responding to 'emergencies' and playing stiff awkward tennis. Whereas with singles you can get into a groove and really learn via repetition and practice. Doubles - feels like you never see the same ball twice..

So really anyone under 40 should be concentrating on an all court singles game - and then post 40 they can move to high level of doubles play. USTAs women 3.0 doubles is pretty much an attack on tennis itself.

I know the doubles people will get upset on that but I will say that in all honesty I have never seen a 'doubles' guy improve rapidly. The guys playing #1 singles - even on lower level teams (3.0s) - they tend to be the risers. YMMV.

 

[LeeD]

Is 3.0 level tennis anything more than an attack on tennis itself?
I consider top 4.0 to be the beginnings of real tennis .... form, technique, knowledge, and some physical skills. Yes, you can find a 4.0 hacker, no doubt. But you also find the beginnings of a solid foundation in some player's of the 4.0 range.

 

[GuyClinch]

Is 3.0 level tennis anything more than an attack on tennis itself?

Absolutely. I have seen 3.0 guys end up playing 4.0..in a few years. I am not seeing that with the doubles guys. Basically in low level doubles you can get away with too much **** - and still get points. In singles even at 3.0 you will start to learn to up your game.

Doubles doesn't have that 'teaching' aspect that singles does..

 

[user92626]

I was going to say, 4 people on the court, but only 2 are seriously involved baseline to baseline cross court exchanges 90% of the time. The other 2 are standing around talking to each other about the weather, the stock market, their latest aches/pain, that cute woman/women on the next court.....

Yeah most doubles players suck at net playing. Effective net playing is sort of an entirely different game. It's quite complex that most rec players just don't bother to learn or probably have tried and given up.

Here's a question I have for you folks:

Generally speaking, can you get so good at net playing that you absolutely don't depend on your partner?

 

[fundrazer]

Is there really a problem with this? I play doubles every weekend with a group of hackers, and I enjoy it for the most part. Sureshs is actually right here, it's recreational fun.

The other thing to consider is that for some people, if you start trying too hard to improve it can take the fun out of the sport/game. Happens a lot in competitive online games with MMR. Like if I'm playing dota I could spam play the same hero over and over (maybe a hero that's particularly strong in that patch) and try to grind mmr. But is that as enjoyable as playing to have fun? Usually it's not, but fun is different for everybody. But in some cases I can have success playing the same hero and have a lot of fun at the same time.

I do try to get better at tennis though...It's one reason why I go practice serves when I'm not busy with other things.

 

[LeeD]

Yeah most doubles players suck at net playing. Effective net playing is sort of an entirely different game. It's quite complex that most rec players just don't bother to learn or probably have tried and given up.

Here's a question I have for you folks:

Generally speaking, can you get so good at net playing that you absolutely don't depend on your partner?

Just yesterday, we formed a doubles set with two good 4.0's, against a true 5.0 and me, a very bad 4.0.
No matter how good the 5.0 was at net, the opponent's could lob or hit to the open court ... to me basically, to neutralize the 5.0's superior net play, quickness, reach, and speed.
Now if the 5.0 was backcourt, the two 4.0's could still keep the ball away from the netman, and hit to the 5.0 without too much of a loss in positioning or tactics. Sure, the 5.0 can rip a forehand deep, but the good 4.0's can still lob it deep and high, hit low up the middle, or go wide once the 5.0 tries to cover more than his share of the court.
This holds true even if I were to play against the 5.0, we could avoid having him dominate the set if we played smart and at least par.
Yes, the 5.0 and I won by 3's, and the 5.0 would probably win by 3's with any of the other threesome as his partner.
This wouldn't hold true if the 5.0 was a strong 5.5, of course.

 

[user92626]

Is there really a problem with this? I play doubles every weekend with a group of hackers, and I enjoy it for the most part. Sureshs is actually right here, it's recreational fun.

The other thing to consider is that for some people, if you start trying too hard to improve it can take the fun out of the sport/game. Happens a lot in competitive online games with MMR. Like if I'm playing dota I could spam play the same hero over and over (maybe a hero that's particularly strong in that patch) and try to grind mmr. But is that as enjoyable as playing to have fun? Usually it's not, but fun is different for everybody. But in some cases I can have success playing the same hero and have a lot of fun at the same time.

I do try to get better at tennis though...It's one reason why I go practice serves when I'm not busy with other things.

There's some truth to that. If you get too competitive in a wrong situation, it's a big turn off. However, most people enjoy winning which can only be ensured by being good. Then, being good is generally very fun. Being very good is usually not fun when opponents don't rightly allow you to be, ie they give up too early, avoid you, badmouth your playing, etc. In my earliest year I actually kicked out a player for being very good. LOL. I told him, and the other 3 guys agreed, that he was too good to play with us. He gave up the court for us! hehe

 

[movdqa]

Yeah most doubles players suck at net playing. Effective net playing is sort of an entirely different game. It's quite complex that most rec players just don't bother to learn or probably have tried and given up.

Here's a question I have for you folks:

Generally speaking, can you get so good at net playing that you absolutely don't depend on your partner?

If you are that good at the net, you won't get any balls from the other side.

 

[user92626]

If you are that good at the net, you won't get any balls from the other side.

Even if a netman is average, it's generally not a good idea to hit directly to him.

Regardless if the ball is hit to you or not, and it should not be, can you be so good that you dominate the game by doing all the killing at the net?

 

[movdqa]

Even if a netman is average, it's generally not a good idea to hit directly to him.

Regardless if the ball is hit to you or not, and it should not be, can you be so good that you dominate the game by doing all the killing at the net?

Yes. I saw it in a tournament once. Two good juniors against a former pro and someone that he just dragged off the street that didn't play tennis. The guy could not only cover the net - he covered the whole court. He just had the guy off the street stand off the court once the point was in progress. The two juniors were very frustrated that they couldn't get the ball away from the former pro. The match attracted a sizable audience as it's something rare.

 

[movdqa]

Is there really a problem with this? I play doubles every weekend with a group of hackers, and I enjoy it for the most part. Sureshs is actually right here, it's recreational fun.

Well, yeah.

But the rest of us don't have Sureshs.

 

[user92626]

Just yesterday, we formed a doubles set with two good 4.0's, against a true 5.0 and me, a very bad 4.0.
No matter how good the 5.0 was at net, the opponent's could lob or hit to the open court ... to me basically, to neutralize the 5.0's superior net play, quickness, reach, and speed.
Now if the 5.0 was backcourt, the two 4.0's could still keep the ball away from the netman, and hit to the 5.0 without too much of a loss in positioning or tactics. Sure, the 5.0 can rip a forehand deep, but the good 4.0's can still lob it deep and high, hit low up the middle, or go wide once the 5.0 tries to cover more than his share of the court.
This holds true even if I were to play against the 5.0, we could avoid having him dominate the set if we played smart and at least par.
Yes, the 5.0 and I won by 3's, and the 5.0 would probably win by 3's with any of the other threesome as his partner.
This wouldn't hold true if the 5.0 was a strong 5.5, of course.

Yeah that's my impression, too. Unless you are a Bryan bro playing at rec park, you always have to depend on your partner's hitting. I would say over 50% of time.

I can rip the ball really hard and sustain 5+ shot rally (if I continue to get the ball) but it seems like most 3.5 players could easily re-direct the ball to the weaker partner.

One time I was asked to cover an old, immobile man. On paper it seemed like a good idea as I could easily handle the two opponents in an Aussie game. Big mistake in reality. If the old guy couldn't run to the ball to hit (as expected), he also couldn't run AWAY FROM IT, ie clear the court, for me to cover!

 

[bigservesofthands]

Wayne Black has a good take on modern tennis here

http://www.tennisicoach.com/media/118089/118089.pdf

The modern game of doubles: A tactical perspective on Page 13.

Here are some points he makes

Within doubles, both power and touch are important at the highest level. One cannot win a slam with one of these elements missing, but touch certainly plays a relatively smaller role nowadays in relation to the importance of power. With the game having such an emphasis on power, winning at the highest level has become more about the big serve and hard return, as opposed to a focus on getting a rst serve in and making the rst volley. In previous generations, making rst serves and placement was paramount, whereas nowadays, spin, power and groundstrokes appear to be key. There is of course still room for touch, but only when combined with power.​

Singles is a great apprenticeship for doubles for a number of reasons. Firstly, it allows you to develop a well-rounded game-style. Singles can complement doubles because it allows you to practice all your shots, whereas specializing in doubles means that you often work so much on serve and first volley, that you forget more about your second shots and follow up groundstrokes (which today are needed in a doubles player’s repertoire). Good serving, returning and groundstrokes should therefore be learnt out on the singles court. To prepare a doubles player for success, singles can really benefit. Players should work a lot on the basic singles drills such as cross courts, and line exercises, and inside out forehand work for example, that will contribute to developing an overall game. It is important also to remember that practising the whole court, and not just to focus on playing half court helps doubles development. For example, when practising net play for doubles, a good recommendation is to practice singles serve and volley on full court, as it stretches the comfort zone of the doubles player whereas only working on a half court can hinder your movement, and a player won’t learn to stretch out for the wider balls as effectively. Singles is also beneficial due to the athleticism required to drill in singles, which makes doubles easier when you come back to being responsible for just half the court.
​

You are right in that singles and doubles seem to be two disjoint groups of people. The rec doubles has not caught up to the modern game. If I try to play the modern style then they do not seem to want to counter by playing two back which is the norm nowadays when facing a good returner. Get upset and say I should be starting cross court rallies and trading gentle volleys.

 

[GuyClinch]

You are right in that singles and doubles seem to be two disjoint groups of people. The rec doubles has not caught up to the modern game. If I try to play the modern style then they do not seem to want to counter by playing two back which is the norm nowadays when facing a good returner. Get upset and say I should be starting cross court rallies and trading gentle volleys.

Agree - also agree with excerpt from book. OP is actually quite correct but what has happened is USTA. USTA gets most people playing doubles - when in reality they should be playing ALOT more singles. This in turn gets people who are underdeveloped for the game of doubles playing..and it leads to some seriously eye bleeding play - especially on the women's side.. Damn.

I wouldn't even allow women's doubles until 4.0.. If I was made supreme dictator.

That being said you need to play with better people. I know you are shy but expand your circle.

 

[heninfan99]

These players have the most fun.

 

[zalive]

Agree - also agree with excerpt from book. OP is actually quite correct but what has happened is USTA. USTA gets most people playing doubles - when in reality they should be playing ALOT more singles. This in turn gets people who are underdeveloped for the game of doubles playing..and it leads to some seriously eye bleeding play - especially on the women's side.. Damn.

I wouldn't even allow women's doubles until 4.0.. If I was made supreme dictator.

That being said you need to play with better people. I know you are shy but expand your circle.

Rec tennis is about fun.
And different players have a different vision of what is fun.
For example, one finds his fun in learning. While the other one finds his fun in leaving all the worries and mind boggling stuff behind...which includes intentionally learning tennis. They just want to relax and play at whatever level.
Who is anyone here to judge what should be a personal fun in tennis? Be serious.

 

[MathGeek]

A generation of players who mostly play doubles but are awful at doubles and have no desire to get better.

When they are learning to play, young or old, or practicing, they spend the majority of their time hitting around hitting groundstrokes and playing singles points. Very rarely do you see people practice serve/return or volleys and almost never transition position.

I used to only play doubles when there was an event someone else wanted me to play. And I would pretty much show up with my singles game and strategy and be lost at the net. But in the past few months, I've switched exclusively to doubles. My peeps and I regularly practice volleys, and we make use of very intentional strategies that commonly involve transition positions. Granted, we're mostly a bunch of 3.0-3.5 level hacks, so there are plenty of weaknesses in our games.

But we are practicing regularly with the intent to improve our doubles game, and we are each getting better. We're also learning to form doubles strategies to maximize our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses. It is highly unlikely the older members of the group will scratch and claw our way up to the 4.0 (or equivalent) level. As new skills and technique strengthen our game, reduced speed, mobility, and injuries will tend to make our overall prowess roughly break even in the long run.

However, if the younger players maintain our level of intentional effort at doubles for a few years, I can see them all getting a lot better. But at some point, real life may throw them curve balls and I would not be disappointed if they are not much better than I am now when they reach my current age. On the contrary, I'd be happy they were still playing.

But the bottom line is that we're having fun. Only one of our group prioritizes his tennis highly enough to be investing in ongoing lessons, and it is no surprise that his game is improving the fastest. But he is humble enough to realize that he is also learning a lot from the group, and I expect he has more fun hanging with us than at his more formal lessons.

 

[movdqa]

I used to only play doubles when there was an event someone else wanted me to play. And I would pretty much show up with my singles game and strategy and be lost at the net. But in the past few months, I've switched exclusively to doubles. My peeps and I regularly practice volleys, and we make use of very intentional strategies that commonly involve transition positions. Granted, we're mostly a bunch of 3.0-3.5 level hacks, so there are plenty of weaknesses in our games.

But we are practicing regularly with the intent to improve our doubles game, and we are each getting better. We're also learning to form doubles strategies to maximize our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses. It is highly unlikely the older members of the group will scratch and claw our way up to the 4.0 (or equivalent) level. As new skills and technique strengthen our game, reduced speed, mobility, and injuries will tend to make our overall prowess roughly break even in the long run.

However, if the younger players maintain our level of intentional effort at doubles for a few years, I can see them all getting a lot better. But at some point, real life may throw them curve balls and I would not be disappointed if they are not much better than I am now when they reach my current age. On the contrary, I'd be happy they were still playing.

But the bottom line is that we're having fun. Only one of our group prioritizes his tennis highly enough to be investing in ongoing lessons, and it is no surprise that his game is improving the fastest. But he is humble enough to realize that he is also learning a lot from the group, and I expect he has more fun hanging with us than at his more formal lessons.

One of my coworkers (older, somewhat overweight) has clawed his way from 3.5 to 4.0 but he plays 3-4 times a week, takes lessons here and there and also practices. He plays both singles and doubles and I think that doing both has helped his overall improvement.

 

[dominikk1985]

Doubles.... FOUR player's play at a time, none get really tired out so can sort of play to the best of their bad physical abilities.
Singles just takes longer overall, only 2 play, and courts get more crowded with more player's waiting to play.

Also cheaper if you consider indoor court prices.

 

[mcs1970]

Love doubles. Some of the reasons:

• Gives me more open courts to play singles.
• Lets people who can't play singles at a high level anymore still enjoy the game late into their lives.
• Even people who are there just more for fun and socializing keep the courts busy and the clubs/facilities spending money on those. I've seen in racquetball how so many courts were re-converted to something else because of diminishing usage.

 

[movdqa]

Love doubles. Some of the reasons:

• Gives me more open courts to play singles.
• Lets people who can't play singles at a high level anymore still enjoy the game late into their lives.
• Even people who are there just more for fun and socializing keep the courts busy and the clubs/facilities spending money on those. I've seen in racquetball how so many courts were re-converted to something else because of diminishing usage.

Racquetball has made a huge comeback at my club. Squash is the thing that seems dead. Our former squash courts have been turned into:

- Volleyball court
- TRX, bodyweight, mixed fitness room
- Spinning room
- Preschoolers jungle gym

 

[OnTheLine]

I know that most posters are men, and most claim to at least be 4.0 ... but what is with the seeming derision of lower ranked players and women players specifically?

wouldn't even allow women's doubles until 4.0.. If I was made supreme dictator.

Is 3.0 level tennis anything more than an attack on tennis itself?

Wouldn't you rather those that are learning the game, perhaps in their 30s or 40s or even 50s be there pouring money into your sport, into your club?

If they gravitate towards doubles, and since you are all such strong smart players, are you taking the time to build those that are playing and practicing to help them become better players so that your sport remains "pure"?

 

[SinjinCooper]

Rec tennis is about fun.

Who is anyone here to judge what should be a personal fun in tennis? Be serious.

Sure, but this isn't the fun forum. The post was made, and the thread exists, in a forum dedicated to tennis improvement.

Seems only natural to call into question the way doubles players are preparing and performing here, if we're going to bother discussing it at all.

Those uninterested in improving are free to coast, and ought to know from the forum title that we're not speaking to their concerns.

 

[sureshs]

Actually, OP has got it wrong. The truth is the other way around. We should be marveling as to how so many adult doubles players who do not even have the appropriate grip, cannot hit 3 groundies in a row, and hit each shot differently with a wobbly swing, and dink in their second serve, do so well in doubles because of their shrewd court sense and tactics.

Watch them play singles and it is disgusting. But watch them play doubles and you will see how savvy they are.

If anything, their tactical sense far exceeds their stroke fundamentals.

 

[GuyClinch]

Wouldn't you rather those that are learning the game, perhaps in their 30s or 40s or even 50s be there pouring money into your sport, into your club?

If they gravitate towards doubles, and since you are all such strong smart players, are you taking the time to build those that are playing and practicing to help them become better players so that your sport remains "pure"?

I can't speak for Lee oh social justice wannabe guy..

But I never said I don't want them to play tennis. I said low level doubles actual sucks for their development as a player. And I stand by that.

Again just go WATCH some low level doubles.

Lots of people just standing around - arguing about line calls - no movement - no exercise - no athleticism. Occasionally a ball wafts over to one of them they take some link dink swing at it - acting likes it an emergency and usually mishit - having developed absolutely no timing during that point.

Why is women worse than men? Because roughly they play about 1NTRP worse. So 3.0 women's doubles is a bit like watching 4 unathletic men who have never played tennis play doubles. (There is no 2.0 men - lowest is 2.5)

Now if they were playing singles - they would be hitting more balls - getting a rythym - grooving those strokes. Learn to cover lobs - not just by standing back - but by using a drop step to cover some area. When they have to cover passing shots - the learn to just go for it rather than hoping it's not in their 'area'. They would learn to actually split step and move their feet - and recover to handle balls hit in the back court - rather then just stand around flat footed and hope the ball comes to them.

Again like I said bad play is 'rewarded' in low level doubles. Because errors are so high and the rythym is so low you are never forced to make these kinds of adjustments.

For low level skill development - singles is much better. Yes many many good players BECOME good doubles players and eventually when they are old they will eventually end up exclusively doubles players.

Its because I respect doubles that I don't think its good for low level players. Coaches feel the same way (at least good ones). They don't have their 'class' be all 'doubles play' because its not good for skill development if the students are low level. Doubles takes the most skill to play well. Skill development is paramount for the low level players.

Anyway TL;DR

USTA forces bad players to play doubles when they don't have the skills yet. This has a chilling ripple effect on the skill development and the tennis enjoyment of younger women.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I was going to say, 4 people on the court, but only 2 are seriously involved baseline to baseline cross court exchanges 90% of the time. The other 2 are standing around talking to each other about the weather, the stock market, their latest aches/pain, that cute woman/women on the next court.....

Yup, too much standing in one place in a lot of rec/low-level doubles. Contrast with high-level doubles where the non-hitting partners are very active = always moving from a defensive to an offensive position and back again. Movement left and right as well.

 

[sureshs]

I can't speak for Lee oh social justice wannabe guy..

But I never said I don't want them to play tennis. I said low level doubles actual sucks for their development as a player. And I stand by that.

Again just go WATCH some low level doubles.

Lots of people just standing around - arguing about line calls - no movement - no exercise - no athleticism. Occasionally a ball wafts over to one of them they take some link dink swing at it - acting likes it an emergency and usually mishit - having developed absolutely no timing during that point.

Why is women worse than men? Because roughly they play about 1NTRP worse. So 3.0 women's doubles is a bit like watching 4 unathletic men who have never played tennis play doubles. (There is no 2.0 men - lowest is 2.5)

Now if they were playing singles - they would be hitting more balls - getting a rythym - grooving those strokes. Learn to cover lobs - not just by standing back - but by using a drop step to cover some area. When they have to cover passing shots - the learn to just go for it rather than hoping it's not in their 'area'. They would learn to actually split step and move their feet - and recover to handle balls hit in the back court - rather then just stand around flat footed and hope the ball comes to them.

Again like I said bad play is 'rewarded' in low level doubles. Because errors are so high and the rythym is so low you are never forced to make these kinds of adjustments.

For low level skill development - singles is much better. Yes many many good players BECOME good doubles players and eventually when they are old they will eventually end up exclusively doubles players.

Its because I respect doubles that I don't think its good for low level players. Coaches feel the same way (at least good ones). They don't have their 'class' be all 'doubles play' because its not good for skill development if the students are low level. Doubles takes the most skill to play well. Skill development is paramount for the low level players.

Anyway TL;DR

USTA forces bad players to play doubles when they don't have the skills yet. This has a chilling ripple effect on the skill development and the tennis enjoyment of younger women.

Not many younger women on the doubles league circuit. Just like men, there is a big void between the juniors who stop playing, and the adult players who show up after a certain degree of career stability.

The other issue I agree with that players are forced to play doubles early. It is not because of USTA. It is because doubles is the easiest way to get into the playing crowd. I remember when I was starting out, I used to play doubles with every oldie team that would have me, and that is how I worked my way up. No one is willing to play singles with a beginner.

It is up to the person to move on if he/she wants to do so. But if you expect adult players to go through the progression of first taking a lot of lessons, then playing singles till their technique is good, and then moving into doubles, and then mastering doubles strategy - it ain't going to happen. They need to dive in or else play only with their coach for years and years shelling out the money.

 

[heninfan99]

Jolly years and years ago was a terrible troll, was over-the-top. He has tightened up his game most tremendously. It is so subtle he has people making videos to perform for him. He is reborn.

 

[sureshs]

Jolly years and years ago was a terrible troll, was over-the-top. He has tightened up his game most tremendously. It is so subtle he has people making videos to perform for him. He is reborn.

He has the correct ratio of provocativeness to serious content to maintain the troll threshold. Take it more one way or the other and you cannot be a good troll.

 

[OnTheLine]

I can't speak for Lee oh social justice wannabe guy..

But I never said I don't want them to play tennis. I said low level doubles actual sucks for their development as a player. And I stand by that.

Again just go WATCH some low level doubles.

Lots of people just standing around - arguing about line calls - no movement - no exercise - no athleticism. Occasionally a ball wafts over to one of them they take some link dink swing at it - acting likes it an emergency and usually mishit - having developed absolutely no timing during that point.

Why is women worse than men? Because roughly they play about 1NTRP worse. So 3.0 women's doubles is a bit like watching 4 unathletic men who have never played tennis play doubles. (There is no 2.0 men - lowest is 2.5)



.

I understand what you think you are saying but aren't actually saying .... but certainly not the reality that I see on the courts. I play 3.5 and have played 3.0 last year.

Your description of women's 3.0 doubles is nothing like the reality that I see and have played. Perhaps you live somewhere truly bizarre for this to be the case.

And in case you think I am some middle-aged un-athletic pansy ... I played collegiate D1 soccer and track on scholarship ... yes middle aged now ... and in tennis I play both singles and doubles. I do know the definition of athletic.

And there are no 2.0 women's teams in my section either, lowest is 2.5

Do you want to defend why you would allow men's doubles at lower levels but not women?

 

[GuyClinch]

It is up to the person to move on if he/she wants to do so. But if you expect adult players to go through the progression of first taking a lot of lessons, then playing singles till their technique is good, and then moving into doubles, and then mastering doubles strategy - it ain't going to happen. They need to dive in or else play only with their coach for years and years shelling out the money.

Don't have to do that - but they could bump down the number of doubles in USTA in the lower levels. This would encourage more singles play and practice and help the game overall.

Big problem with USTA is only the best player on the team gets to play singles. So basically USTA does not really help your game much, IMHO. Players are better off joining a flex league or something if they want to develop. USTA needs to commit more to developing players if it wants to increase retention.

I think 3.5 male/4.0 female is strong enough player to keep retention high - but if the players never really make it that level they tend to drop out.

 

[GuyClinch]

Your description of women's 3.0 doubles is nothing like the reality that I see and have played. Perhaps you live somewhere truly bizarre for this to be the case.

Your kidding right? I will shoot some video if I get a chance this Sunday. They always have league matches over where play.

And in case you think I am some middle-aged un-athletic pansy ... I played collegiate D1 soccer and track on scholarship ... yes middle aged now ... and in tennis I play both singles and doubles. I do know the definition of athletic.

You might be athletic but perhaps you don't know what to look for on the court. It's pretty much all in the feet. You can tell low level women's doubles just by watching their lack of footwork.

This isn't to bash them - they ball is usually coming so slow they don't need the footwork. They can cover most balls just standing around. If they get lobbed the back player can ramble over to it. There is no reason for them to develop proper technique and they do not.

OP was wondering why so many bad doubles player are being developed - and the reason why is that they are rushed into it.

Do you want to defend why you would allow men's doubles at lower levels but not women?

I was kidding with the dictator bit - its a joke. But the idea behind it is that because the women are playing tennis at lower level overall - the problems of low level doubles is intensified. As I explained earlier women 3.0 play LIKE 2.5 or 2.0 men (and there is no 2.0).

For actual training of tennis they often hold off competitive player until the juniors have very good strokes. This is sound thinking. Learn the fundamentals - then add the competition.

This is the opposite of the what the USTA does. I get why they do it - less court costs etc. But it is the reason why they have trouble with retention and why we have more lousy doubles players.

 

[OnTheLine]

Your kidding right? I will shoot some video if I get a chance this Sunday. They always have league matches over where play.

No, I am not kidding. Your description of lack of movement, standing in one place is like nothing I have seen in the matches I have watched and played in both 3.0 and 3.5.

You might be athletic but perhaps you don't know what to look for on the court. It's pretty much all in the feet. You can tell low level women's doubles just by watching their lack of footwork.

No idea how to "prove" this, but Let's count steps ... no one is standing still. My average steps in a doubles match as per my trusty fitbit hit right around 9000. for a singles match it goes up to 11,000.
Mostly tiny re-positioning steps move, split, move, split .... At net, you are constantly moving to cut off angles and move from offense to defense and back ... non-stop, baseline same thing until you find your way to the net but still ready to cover the lob.

This isn't to bash them - they ball is usually coming so slow they don't need the footwork. They can cover most balls just standing around. If they get lobbed the back player can ramble over to it. There is no reason for them to develop proper technique and they do not.


BS total BS. It may be a slower ball than a men's 4.0 match, but standing still? you have no idea what you are talking about.

I was kidding with the dictator bit - its a joke. But the idea behind it is that because the women are playing tennis at lower level overall - the problems of low level doubles is intensified. As I explained earlier women 3.0 play LIKE 2.5 or 2.0 men (and there is no 2.0).
.

a few weeks back our 3.5 women's team got challenged by the 3.0 men't team at the club. We only had 3 courts to use, so doubles only. The women won 2 out of 3 courts ... why? because the women had been trained on positioning and tactics while the foolish men just tried hitting hard.

if you don't respect women who are learning the game, just say so. Tell them to get out of your club so they don't waste your precious court space.

 

[sureshs]

This is the opposite of the what the USTA does. I get why they do it - less court costs etc. But it is the reason why they have trouble with retention and why we have more lousy doubles players.

That is not the real reason. Real reason is that tennis is a tough sport to learn. Frankly, adults should also begin with ROG balls. I am not kidding. I am reading more and more articles about how pickleball is much easier to pick up and is growing rapidly, and some tennis coaches are getting themselves certified in pickleball. Playing doubles in leagues is not the main reason.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I consider top 4.0 to be the beginnings of real tennis...

I consider everyone who isn't making a living or decent income playing tennis recreational, no matter the level.

 

[sureshs]

a few weeks back our 3.5 women's team got challenged by the 3.0 men't team at the club. We only had 3 courts to use, so doubles only. The women won 2 out of 3 courts ... why? because the women had been trained on positioning and tactics while the foolish men just tried hitting hard.

if you don't respect women who are learning the game, just say so. Tell them to get out of your club so they don't waste your precious court space.

LOL so the men were the ones who challenged and then lost.

Serves them right.

But they will soon be on here posting about how they can beat Serena.