American adult recreational tennis has created

[sureshs]

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

That would make a D1 player who graduated in May a recreational player on June 1.

 

[Booger]

That would make a D1 player who graduated in May a recreational player on June 1.

College players are amateurs

 

[J011yroger]

College players are amateurs

Amateur and recreational don't mean the same thing.

J

 

[zalive]

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.

You're absolutely right about purpose of this forum section, it serves exactly for this. However OP rants about doubles players generally, not about forum members.
I know some players just like to play matches, they don't like drills or studying technique.

 

[Dartagnan64]

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.

It's funny I watch some of these "trained" women and they do all the right things for high level doubles but have not the skill to execute. They get to the net and blow the volley and half volley every time. They stand in all the right spots but fail to anticipate or poach properly. What ends up winning is the moonballers. I'm with Guy on this one. 3.0 women's doubles and some 3.5 women's doubles is hard to watch.

But some 3.5 men's singles is equally painful with the uncontrolled rocket launchers and junk ballers that predominate so it goes around.

I remember playing an older woman in mixed who rated herself a 4.0 doubles player. Everytime her husband served to me I hit a backhand down the line at her. Every time she flubbed it so she started to stand a bit further back near the service line. Every time I hit a dipper at her, she flubbed that too. Then on match point she finally stood at the baseline when her husband served. You guessed it: drop shot winner for the match. I kind of felt bad but if you proclaim to be a 4.0 to my lowly 3.5, you better be able to handle anything I can throw at you.

 

[ChaelAZ]

That would make a D1 player who graduated in May a recreational player on June 1.

College is being paid to play in the way of scholarships (for the most part) so they are certainly not recreational, unless as you mention they play after their college career for fun (i.e, recreation).
Anyone who plays leagues or tournaments that are not for money are recreational.

 

[GuyClinch]

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.

And? How does that relate?

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.

You are looking to make this into something its not. OP asked why there are so many bad doubles players out there. And I explained that its because I think women and men are required to play doubles too early in their tennis development.

This causes development to stagnate - and creates a lot of bad tennis players. More then that though these women and men never really get to experience that athleticism and physical challenge the sport can offer.

 

[GuyClinch]

It's funny I watch some of these "trained" women and they do all the right things for high level doubles but have not the skill to execute. They get to the net and blow the volley and half volley every time. They stand in all the right spots but fail to anticipate or poach properly. What ends up winning is the moonballers. I'm with Guy on this one. 3.0 women's doubles and some 3.5 women's doubles is hard to watch.

But some 3.5 men's singles is equally painful with the uncontrolled rocket launchers and junk ballers that predominate so it goes around.

I remember playing an older woman in mixed who rated herself a 4.0 doubles player. Everytime her husband served to me I hit a backhand down the line at her. Every time she flubbed it so she started to stand a bit further back near the service line. Every time I hit a dipper at her, she flubbed that too. Then on match point she finally stood at the baseline when her husband served. You guessed it: drop shot winner for the match. I kind of felt bad but if you proclaim to be a 4.0 to my lowly 3.5, you better be able to handle anything I can throw at you.

heh. That's kind of unfair to the lady. In singles the NTRP gap is about .5 to 1. So at 4.0 she won't better then you - likely worse. But it does vary depending if she is a stronger 4.0 or you are stronger 3.5 etc.

Let's imagine you are a 3.65 and she is a 3.91 - add in the .75 difference with regards to NTRP and you should win.. You get what I am saying here.

I played doubles (mixed) against a ladies 4.5. I mean she was alright - could hit all the shots but not real zip behind her strokes. But she was legit 4.5 on a team and all that.

 

[Dartagnan64]

heh. That's kind of unfair to the lady. In singles the NTRP gap is about .5 to 1. So at 4.0 she won't better then you - likely worse. But it does vary depending if she is a stronger 4.0 or you are stronger 3.5 etc.

Let's imagine you are a 3.65 and she is a 3.91 - add in the .75 difference with regards to NTRP and you should win.. You get what I am saying here.

I played doubles (mixed) against a ladies 4.5. I mean she was alright - could hit all the shots but not real zip behind her strokes. But she was legit 4.5 on a team and all that.

I've hit at 3.5 women who handled balls better than this lady. Of course those women all play mixed doubles regularly. I think this woman mostly played ladies.

I think it was the way she proudly stated her NTRP level when no one was mentioning those sort of things. Kind of galled me so I thought to myself. "Let's see what you got, Ms 4.0".

As I said at the end i kind of felt bad for how I treated her but she was good about it. More frustrated at herself for not being able to handle my shots than mad at me for challenging her. I would be the same way if a 5.0 was picking on me at the net. I wouldn't get mad at him for doing it and I'd get mad at myself for not figuring out how to deal with it.

 

[dominikk1985]

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.

Most rec players aren't really developing anyway. They get a little better first and then stagnate. For most it is just something to do that makes them get off the couch and move a little and that is not bad. Adult rec players are not going to be pros anyway so who cares if they are 3.0 or 4.0? Me personally I have more fun playing at the 4.0 level but if someone has fun being a 3.0 hack I don't see a problem in that at all.

At least here tennis is in retreat and courts get converted into other facilities so anyone who plays and brings money into it is good for the sport.

 

[GuyClinch]

Most rec players aren't really developing anyway. They get a little better first and then stagnate. For most it is just something to do that makes them get off the couch and move a little and that is not bad. Adult rec players are not going to be pros anyway so who cares if they are 3.0 or 4.0? Me personally I have more fun playing at the 4.0 level but if someone has fun being a 3.0 hack I don't see a problem in that at all.

USTA cares - why? Because low level players quit. They don't get into it. Skiing is similar - you have to be at a certain level before it 'clicks'. Same with golf. There is this initial level of skill needed in a sport before it's fun. Now if you personally are cool with 2.5 - 3.0 tennis that's the exception not the rule..

 

[kramer woodie]

I get a kick out off the 4.0s that play double in my area. Two doubles teams both foot fault on every serve. I find it amusing, but admit they do
have fun and try their best, but you would think they would learn to not foot fault when serving. Truth is they don't care...amusing!

Aloha

P.S. Note: woe be to anyone who calls them for foot faulting. Instantly ostracized you are.

 

[heninfan99]

College is being paid to play in the way of scholarships (for the most part) so they are certainly not recreational, unless as you mention they play after their college career for fun (i.e, recreation).
Anyone who plays leagues or tournaments that are not for money are recreational.

...and also lots of those guys don't play that much for fun once they start working or teaching

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I agree 100% with the OP. I am often shocked (but I suppose I shouldn't be) when observing USTA doubles. These people mostly suck at doubles and can't play net. But all they ever do is play doubles. This is why I generally scoff at the idea of "doubles specialists" in USTA rec tennis. I mean, you play tennis three times per week and only/always doubles, but you can't poach? Can't hit an overhead? Won't come to net? Can't hit a second serve that isn't a dink? You are not a "doubles specialist", you are just too out of shape to play singles. Here is a newsflash - you can't "model your game after Nadal" and then only play doubles without coming to the net because "I am an aggressive baseliner". Lol.

 

[movdqa]

I get a kick out off the 4.0s that play double in my area. Two doubles teams both foot fault on every serve. I find it amusing, but admit they do
have fun and try their best, but you would think they would learn to not foot fault when serving. Truth is they don't care...amusing!

Aloha

P.S. Note: woe be to anyone who calls them for foot faulting. Instantly ostracized you are.

Nothing like cell-phone camera footage for objective evidence.

Checking on your foot-faults is a good thing to do when you're doing self-videos of serve practice.

 

[GuyClinch]

I agree 100% with the OP. I am often shocked (but I suppose I shouldn't be) when observing USTA doubles. These people mostly suck at doubles and can't play net. But all they ever do is play doubles. This is why I generally scoff at the idea of "doubles specialists" in USTA rec tennis. I mean, you play tennis three times per week and only/always doubles, but you can't poach? Can't hit an overhead? Won't come to net? Can't hit a second serve that isn't a dink? You are not a "doubles specialist", you are just too out of shape to play singles. Here is a newsflash - you can't "model your game after Nadal" and then only play doubles without coming to the net because "I am an aggressive baseliner". Lol.

Yup. Go watch some low level doubles - watch the players feet. Watch their movement with regards to ball position. Watch their initial positioning. Watch their shot selection - and their inability to hit key shots..

Here is the deal - and people around here do know this.

Doubles is 'somewhat' easier athletically as players don't have to cover as much court. But it is more advanced skill wise. You need more shots. You need better control. You need in my view a much better strategic understanding of tennis and tennis tactics.

People 'get' singles - but then the USTA shoves them into doubles and they aren't ready yet. This is why you see the low level USTA stuff..

I mean its cool - I get why they do it. But this is exactly why the problem exists - the USTA leagues.

Even worse is that doubles and singles count the same - so this means savvy coaches send their best skill players to singles (assuming they can still move some) and that means the worst players can get stuck in doubles.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Even worse is that doubles and singles count the same - so this means savvy coaches send their best skill players to singles (assuming they can still move some) and that means the worst players can get stuck in doubles.

I agree this should be the strategy, but all you ever hear is "league matches are won on the doubles court". To me it is obvious - find two ballers and put them at singles, then stack your best doubles pair on court #3. Then bingo - rack up wins. But mythologies die hard, and so often teams dilute their roster trying to win three doubles matches. Al his while they don't even know how to play doubles. The next "doubles specialist" who tells me they are an "aggressive baseliner" or who says they prefer "2 back" will likely make my head explode.

 

[kramer woodie]

Nothing like cell-phone camera footage for objective evidence.

Checking on your foot-faults is a good thing to do when you're doing self-videos of serve practice.

movdqa

Can you imagine standing at the net with your cellphone camera out recording opponent server foot faulting. The instant your free hand held up
that phone, I can hear the remark, "What the H-ll are you doing"? Ah, ah I'm taking a picture of you foot faulting. To which I believe the return
comment to be "Get the H-ll off the court you Bast--d!!!!"

Face it, some people are more interested in having fun than getting better. Get better is harder and more work. Plus if you play within a select
group you can have bragging rights as long as you don't venture out into the world of better players.

It's kind of like the difference between rich and poor. The rich normally make better choices, the poor make poorer choices. Ain't life Grand?

Aloha

 

[ChaelAZ]

...and also lots of those guys don't play that much for fun once they start working or teaching

Well, if they are teaching they certainly aren't making money, so that could be considered a recreational job I suppose. This is sage wisdom from an educator.

 

[ChaelAZ]

wo doubles teams both foot fault on every serve. I find it amusing, but admit they do
have fun and try their best, but you would think they would learn to not foot fault when serving. Truth is they don't care...amusing!

P.S. Note: woe be to anyone who calls them for foot faulting. Instantly ostracized you are.

Man, can I relate.

Had a match where the guy was not just foot faulting, but setting up IN THE COURT to serve. Like, literally in front of the baseline. I mentioned it and all-of-a-sudden I am the a-hole, overly competitive player on court with delusions of playing Wimbledon still. Can't tell you how many of the other team players told me, "I need to get over myself" and how it is "just a game", followed by, "XXXXXX has knee issue and everyone just lets him serve like that". Yup...I became "that guy" that mentions ticky tack things like in the court serving.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I agree 100% with the OP. I am often shocked (but I suppose I shouldn't be) when observing USTA doubles. These people mostly suck at doubles

Couldn't one make a similar statement about the equivalent USTA singles?

Are you saying, for example, that at USTA level X, singles is about level X but doubles is considerably worse? And if everyone is like that, isn't X the appropriate level?

and can't play net.

There are a lot of players that aren't so good at net. Is the ratio any different in doubles than in singles? Singles players can more easily hide their lack of net skills by never coming in except on really short balls. Doubles players hide their skill either by playing 2 back or by everyone only hitting CC or the occasional lob with the net people not involved at all.

Now, I think that "real" doubles involves S&V, C&C, signals, different formations, etc. But Hingis/Mirza have won a ton of titles playing 1 up/1 back and no S&V. Nadal/Lopez have done pretty well too doing something similar.

But all they ever do is play doubles.

This is why I generally scoff at the idea of "doubles specialists" in USTA rec tennis.

Maybe it just means they mainly or solely play doubles, not that they're good enough to meet your threshold. No need to scoff.

I mean, you play tennis three times per week and only/always doubles, but you can't poach? Can't hit an overhead? Won't come to net? Can't hit a second serve that isn't a dink? You are not a "doubles specialist", you are just too out of shape to play singles. Here is a newsflash - you can't "model your game after Nadal" and then only play doubles without coming to the net because "I am an aggressive baseliner". Lol.

Again, you could make the same type of argument about singles: You play tennis three times per week and only/always singles but you can't follow Wardlaw's Directionals? Don't know that most points end in errors and yet you're still trying to go DTL on every shot? Won't come to the net unless dragged kicking and screaming? Zero shot tolerance? You are not a singles "specialist", you are just too anti-social to be paired with anyone. Here is a newsflash - you can't model your game after Bryan/Bryan and then only play singles and lose playing S&V against a great returner because "I am an aggressive S&Ver". LOL.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yup. Go watch some low level doubles - watch the players feet. Watch their movement with regards to ball position. Watch their initial positioning. Watch their shot selection - and their inability to hit key shots..

Couldn't one make the exact same observations about singles?

Here is the deal - and people around here do know this.

Doubles is 'somewhat' easier athletically as players don't have to cover as much court. But it is more advanced skill wise. You need more shots. You need better control. You need in my view a much better strategic understanding of tennis and tennis tactics.

I agree.

People 'get' singles -

This is debatable. People have analogous faults in singles as those you pointed out in doubles. If by "get" you mean they understand the concept of the game, OK. But not necessarily HOW to achieve that end.

but then the USTA shoves them into doubles and they aren't ready yet. This is why you see the low level USTA stuff..

So they learn. Or not. But how is this different from singles?

I mean its cool - I get why they do it. But this is exactly why the problem exists - the USTA leagues.

So you're saying the root cause of bad doubles is USTA league so if we got rid of USTA league, that would make people better doubles players? Or would it just eliminate doubles from American adult rec tennis?

Even worse is that doubles and singles count the same - so this means savvy coaches send their best skill players to singles (assuming they can still move some) and that means the worst players can get stuck in doubles.

In high school, our doubles matches counted for 3 points while singles counted for 2. Not sure how it's done these days. But that did give the coach some wiggle room for lineup optimization.

Also, there are some leagues that are all doubles so you can't depend on any singles specialists carrying the team.

I guess I'm playing Devil's Advocate because I play both singles and doubles but if attracting more people to the game is a goal, doubles is surely the better way [twice as many people, not as demanding physically, etc]. Not to mention a large chunk of the population simply do not want to play singles [not every USTA member is a young, able-bodied, fully mobile singles maniac].

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Man, can I relate.

Had a match where the guy was not just foot faulting, but setting up IN THE COURT to serve. Like, literally in front of the baseline. I mentioned it and all-of-a-sudden I am the a-hole, overly competitive player on court with delusions of playing Wimbledon still. Can't tell you how many of the other team players told me, "I need to get over myself" and how it is "just a game", followed by, "XXXXXX has knee issue and everyone just lets him serve like that". Yup...I became "that guy" that mentions ticky tack things like in the court serving.

Go to 3:15:

I hope you laughed as hard as I did.

 

[Shroud]

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.

Reported for dictatorship. Though i would vote for you for sure

 

[movdqa]

movdqa

Can you imagine standing at the net with your cellphone camera out recording opponent server foot faulting. The instant your free hand held up
that phone, I can hear the remark, "What the H-ll are you doing"? Ah, ah I'm taking a picture of you foot faulting. To which I believe the return
comment to be "Get the H-ll of the court you Bast--d!!!!"

Face it, some people are more interested in having fun than getting better. Get better is harder and more work. Plus if you play within a select
group you can have bragging rights as long as you don't venture out into the world of better players.

It's kind of like the difference between rich and poor. The rich normally make better choices, the poor make poorer choices. Ain't life Grand?

Aloha

I thought that you were talking about third parties. You can just shoot video from the visitors lounge.

 

[Chadillac]

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 a great player, but this is one thing you dont understand. They dont suck, your just better. Your expecting them to be up to your level then complain when they arent.

Respect what you have put into the game and remember others havent.

 

[Shroud]

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

Most players seem to not be able to serve and volley and have zero desire to move forward. This is due to lame volleys usually.

Occasionally i will be on a court serving and volleying with the other 3 looking like " whats he doing? He is not supposed to do that!"

Also most dont have the fortitude for the net game. One partner asked me to stop coming in after the returner hit ONE ball to my feet that i netted. Ugh. Years ago i saw a stat that the famous Fed/Nadal wimbley match was something like 195 to 200 points and only 5 points made the differnce. Or something like that. I remember thinking "damn i can get passed 195 times and still win"!

Anyhow i agree and would add that no one practices volleys and def not put away volleys.

 

[heninfan99]

Well, if they are teaching they certainly aren't making money, so that could be considered a recreational job I suppose. This is sage wisdom from an educator.

I meant teaching tennis.

 

[J011yroger]

Your a great player, but this is one thing you dont understand. They dont suck, your just better. Your expecting them to be up to your level then complain when they arent.

Respect what you have put into the game and remember others havent.

Didn't mean to imply that I was good at doubles, I'm not. I just play doubles a lot.

J

 

[Moveforwardalways]

You play tennis three times per week and only/always singles but you can't follow Wardlaw's Directionals? Don't know that most points end in errors and yet you're still trying to go DTL on every shot? Won't come to the net unless dragged kicking and screaming? Zero shot tolerance? You are not a singles "specialist", you are just too anti-social to be paired with anyone. Here is a newsflash - you can't model your game after Bryan/Bryan and then only play singles and lose playing S&V against a great returner because "I am an aggressive S&Ver". LOL.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Didn't mean to imply that I was good at doubles, I'm not. I just play doubles a lot.

^^^ doubles specialist ^^^

 

[J011yroger]

^^^ doubles specialist ^^^

I put literally 10x the amount of effort into getting better at doubles as opposed to singles.

Singles is easy.

1. Try to win the point directly with your first serve.
2. Kick your second serve into their weaker side.
3. Hit the ball crosscourt until there is a reason not to.
4. Don't miss returns.

J

 

[GuyClinch]

Couldn't one make the exact same observations about singles?




This is debatable. People have analogous faults in singles as those you pointed out in doubles. If by "get" you mean they understand the concept of the game, OK. But not necessarily HOW to achieve that end.

Singles is far more self-teaching. Sure you can go DTL all the time but you will quickly figure out its not work. Sure you can go for two big serves every time - but you will double fault too much. Sure you can use absolutely zero footwork and stand around - but you won't get to any balls. And its just you out there - no one to blame but yourself. You will also learn to better groove your groundstrokes. It's a simpler game but more useful for development. Would players be better off with even simpler rally games some of the time - sure. But singles is much better then doubles for development IMHO. Again this is why good coaches are reluctant to turn their group classes into doubles matches. You won't get much better at tennis that way. You need to simplify and work on specific skills in a repetitive format..

Once they progress you might have them play some doubles so that you can go over using specific skills in a match. But if the skills aren't there at all - you have a problem.

So they learn. Or not. But how is this different from singles?

Again and you know this - its quite a lot different in doubles. You have less court to cover - any mistake might not be your mistake. You are not put under the same pressure athletically when dealing with low paced doubles shots. AKA the guy standing around in doubles can win a lot of matches. Poach? Who needs it - the back court guy can get it and the point goes on. Probably the other guy will miss. Basically you don't NEED to play good tennis - and won't feel any pressure to do so.. Just go watch low level doubles. This is what bothers the OP. Lots of people playing doubles without the requisite skills to do so. At best they have some singles skills - aka they can hit a basic forehand and backhand - and can hit some serves in.. But they are thrust into doubles.

So you're saying the root cause of bad doubles is USTA league so if we got rid of USTA league, that would make people better doubles players? Or would it just eliminate doubles from American adult rec tennis?

As you may know - the regular USTA 18+ features 3 doubles 2 singles. The 40+ features 1 singles 2 doubles. But USTA starts at 3.0/2.5. So these low level doubles players (especially yes the women) don't really get used to playing proper tennis - nor do they need too. This is bad for the game. These guys stuck playing doubles - the weaker players (each line has the same point value) do not progress in tennis. Like I said I'd personally limit doubles in the lower levels - and give it more value. This way some of the lessor players would get to play singles. This would advance the game as a whole.

In high school, our doubles matches counted for 3 points while singles counted for 2. Not sure how it's done these days. But that did give the coach some wiggle room for lineup optimization.

Each line counts the same - so doubles will get more bad players. You win your two singles - and win one doubles.

Also, there are some leagues that are all doubles so you can't depend on any singles specialists carrying the team.

Mixed doubles (which is all doubles) don't impact your USTA ratings - unless you do nothing else. (Even then have no impact).. But no one thinks that mixed doubles is growing the sport anyway. It's even worse then regular doubles. The girl gets carried by the 4.0 guy in a 7.0 mixed for example.

I guess I'm playing Devil's Advocate because I play both singles and doubles but if attracting more people to the game is a goal, doubles is surely the better way [twice as many people, not as demanding physically, etc]. Not to mention a large chunk of the population simply do not want to play singles [not every USTA member is a young, able-bodied, fully mobile singles maniac].

Attracting - sure. Retaining no. Low level doubles is an unathletic not physically challenging game - and for the fit types - feels like a waste of time. You will never hear some cross fit guy telling his female trainees - hey if you really want a challenge go play 3 sets of mixed doubles. That will really burn you.. Retaining is the secret to growth - not just attraction. A lot of initial attraction and low retention is really bad. And its something the USTA needs to avoid.. Sure they poll current players on what they like - but this is problematic if you want to grow the sport. It's the people that have come and gone that you want to check into why they left.

Why? Because people who have checked something out and decided they don't like it - won't come back.

 

[dman72]

I greatly prefer singles, but I have little hope of playing USTA singles on established teams at my club, considering the USTA matches are 3 doubles and 2 singles matches...6 guys on doubles and 2 on singles, I'm looking at 3rd doubles in my first season if I"m lucky. Better start practicing volleys.

However, I noticed in practice against guys who have been playing doubles for years, 4.0 level..myself and another guy with bigger serves but who can't volley a lick..beat them fairly easily in a set because a first serve in had us winning the point about 80% of the time because the guy at the net on the serving team doesn't have to have any volley skills to just crush a floating return. Even I can do that.

So in other words, I'm turning into exactly what Jolly talked about.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Most players seem to not be able to serve and volley and have zero desire to move forward. This is due to lame volleys usually.

It's a positive feedback cycle: they're not good at the transition game and volleys so they don't practice it so they never get good/comfortable with it.

Occasionally i will be on a court serving and volleying with the other 3 looking like " whats he doing? He is not supposed to do that!"

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Also most dont have the fortitude for the net game. One partner asked me to stop coming in after the returner hit ONE ball to my feet that i netted. Ugh.

Yeah, just like the partner that tells you to stop poaching after you put away 5 middle balls and then get burned DTL once. They just don't see the benefit. What you're doing is out of their comfort zone so they'll use any excuse to get you to stop doing it.

Anyhow i agree and would add that no one practices volleys and def not put away volleys.

In my drill sessions we do practice volleys but when these people play matches, I'm pretty sure they are not trying to get to the net.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Singles is far more self-teaching.

It's simpler; on that I'll agree.

I disagree with the "self-teaching" conclusion because most instruction is singles-oriented, not doubles-oriented. If singles really were more self-teaching, there should be more doubles-oriented instruction. Maybe "self-evident" might be a better phrase: one can observe a problem without taking action to address it.

Maybe part of the problem is the instruction is biased towards singles?

Sure you can go DTL all the time but you will quickly figure out its not work. Sure you can go for two big serves every time - but you will double fault too much. Sure you can use absolutely zero footwork and stand around - but you won't get to any balls. And its just you out there - no one to blame but yourself.

Some people will get very creative when making excuses; they don't need a partner. Weather, opponent, time, court conditions, pollen count, moon phase...

I agree with your logic and any self-critical person will observe these shortcomings...but it's no different for doubles than for singles.

You will also learn to better groove your groundstrokes. It's a simpler game but more useful for development. Would players be better off with even simpler rally games some of the time - sure. But singles is much better then doubles for development IMHO.

It depends on what you're trying to develop. If you're emphasizing GSs, then singles is the way to go. If you're after the net game and the requisite communication to pull it off, doubles is better.

Again this is why good coaches are reluctant to turn their group classes into doubles matches. You won't get much better at tennis that way.

Sure you will: you'll get better at doubles.

You need to simplify and work on specific skills in a repetitive format..

This can be done with a doubles emphasis also.

Once they progress you might have them play some doubles so that you can go over using specific skills in a match. But if the skills aren't there at all - you have a problem.

Again and you know this - its quite a lot different in doubles. You have less court to cover - any mistake might not be your mistake. You are not put under the same pressure athletically when dealing with low paced doubles shots. AKA the guy standing around in doubles can win a lot of matches. Poach? Who needs it - the back court guy can get it and the point goes on. Probably the other guy will miss. Basically you don't NEED to play good tennis - and won't feel any pressure to do so.. Just go watch low level doubles. This is what bothers the OP. Lots of people playing doubles without the requisite skills to do so. At best they have some singles skills - aka they can hit a basic forehand and backhand - and can hit some serves in.. But they are thrust into doubles.

Whether they're thrust into singles or doubles, if they don't have the motivation to learn and improve, they won't. I agree with your points above but I still don't see avoiding doubles as a solution.

 

[Shroud]

It's a positive feedback cycle: they're not good at the transition game and volleys so they don't practice it so they never get good/comfortable with it.



Hey, I resemble that remark!



Yeah, just like the partner that tells you to stop poaching after you put away 5 middle balls and then get burned DTL once. They just don't see the benefit. What you're doing is out of their comfort zone so they'll use any excuse to get you to stop doing it.



In my drill sessions we do practice volleys but when these people play matches, I'm pretty sure they are not trying to get to the net.

Good on you for practicing. Sooo true about the dtl burn. Its like the reverse of the rec player who blasts one winner in a 0-6, 0-6 loss and keeps playing all out cause of that one winner. One burn and they want you to grow roots.

Also i think people arent team players. Its my job to set my partner up and if he hits put away volleys all day long and i rarely hit the ball i am all for that. I think often people just want to hit ground strokes and like you said active net play messes that up and is uncomfortable for them

Same with overheads and lobs. Hit 5 overhead winners but get burned by one lob and you get the "lets play back" comment....

 

[GuyClinch]

It's simpler; on that I'll agree.

I disagree with the "self-teaching" conclusion because most instruction is singles-oriented, not doubles-oriented. If singles really were more self-teaching, there should be more doubles-oriented instruction. Maybe "self-evident" might be a better phrase: one can observe a problem without taking action to address it.

I know at least 6 risers - and they all played singles. I like doubles - its alot of fun. But it's more of an activity for skilled players who have slipping athleticism then it is for beginners.

I think you are just being argumentative here. Singles is clearly more self-teaching.

Can we agree that simpler components of the game are more self teaching - and that by breaking things down to simpler components we can better teach ourselves? Or another person?

Thus when you say its simpler - you are also admitting - even if you don't like it that its more self teaching. This is why you keep your drills simpler - you are trying to learn say one specific shot. Maybe you have a rally game to learn hitting down the line. You hit into the doubles alley. The constraints and the simplicity aid in learning.

Being able to clear understand what went wrong is part and parcel of being able to improve. Doubles players very often don't even know what mistake they made because they are basing on outcome and lack of skill not smart doubles play.

I played some low level doubles myself and you get things like people standing near alley while the server is serving. Why do they do this? It's often they don't volley well. But its also so they don't f up and get 'blamed' when they shank the volley.

But here is the rub if the server has good groundstrokes this CAN work. There is no 'self-teaching' going on from playing low level doubles. The outcome of the games is all about the players single skills being used in the Frankenstien doubles the OP talked about.

USTA is wrong to make beginners play alot of doubles. I know my coach would agree.. They are strictly doing it to make some money and to temporarily pump up their participation numbers. If they wanted to create the largest pool of good players - they would get them playing singles and allow more doubles once they have grasped the basics.

 

[user92626]

I get a kick out off the 4.0s that play double in my area. Two doubles teams both foot fault on every serve. I find it amusing, but admit they do
have fun and try their best, but you would think they would learn to not foot fault when serving. Truth is they don't care...amusing!

Aloha

P.S. Note: woe be to anyone who calls them for foot faulting. Instantly ostracized you are.

You are sweating the small stuff. Unless players serve bombs, foot fault in recreational level is meaningless and impossible to regulate without a referee. Don't sweat the small stuff.

The most urgent issue that plagues rec games is the line call. However good and honest people are, people just don't trust their opponents.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Also i think people arent team players. Its my job to set my partner up and if he hits put away volleys all day long and i rarely hit the ball i am all for that.

Agree 100%. If all I do is set up my partner by hitting great serves and forcing volleys such that my partner gets every single winner, I'm happy with the "assist".

I wonder if singles specialists forced to play doubles are more likely to be unhappy with the assist.

Same with overheads and lobs. Hit 5 overhead winners but get burned by one lob and you get the "lets play back" comment....

I got this occasionally when playing at a public park but not at 4.5 USTA. Those players have been weeded out by natural selection.

Same concept with formations.

 

[Shroud]

Agree 100%. If all I do is set up my partner by hitting great serves and forcing volleys such that my partner gets every single winner, I'm happy with the "assist".

I wonder if singles specialists forced to play doubles are more likely to be unhappy with the assist.



I got this occasionally when playing at a public park but not at 4.5 USTA. Those players have been weeded out by natural selection.

Same concept with formations.

Lucky you. At 4.0 there are lots of players who get stuck playing doubles with not much idea hiw to do it. Sucks having that guy who has no idea of poaching, where to place serves for poaches, etc. same old deal. They look at you like you are nuts when you ask about signals and how often they like to poach. But do stare in wonder when i tell them things like "be ready i am going to serve so he hits a weak return right at you". Ok that doesnt always come true but when it does its great.

I bet the singles guys can have issues not being the star of the show. Once in USTA i got into it with my partner. He literally said to stay out of his way and that he could cover the whole net. And had sage advice about my game without seeing it that was totally wrong for me - like playing back and shading to the bh side to get more fhs etc. Awesome to be yelling at each other....

It sucked and later coach made him bring his own partner cause no one else would play with him...

 

[GuyClinch]

I bet the singles guys can have issues not being the star of the show. Once in USTA i got into it with my partner. He literally said to stay out of his way and that he could cover the whole net. And had sage advice about my game without seeing it that was totally wrong for me - like playing back and shading to the bh side to get more fhs etc. Awesome to be yelling at each other....

I don't think singles guys suffer from ego problems. Doubles is a bigger show.. Actually mixed is probably the place for a guy to strut his stuff.. for obvious reasons.

This guy likely didn't think you were very good - and didn't pay much attention. Sounds like a jerk..

Additionally I think very good tennis players who are good at singles - tend to be at least pretty good at doubles. Doubles OTOH will have guys that because of age and mobility are far worse in singles. So while 'doubles guys' might be a thing - singles guys aren't really.. They just might play a bit lower. In doubles though there might be some 60 year old guy who could lose to a 3.0 pusher - and that guy might be a 4.5 doubles player..

I mean heck Nadal has won a couple doubles titles - and so has Serena..

 

[kramer woodie]

You are sweating the small stuff. Unless players serve bombs, foot fault in recreational level is meaningless and impossible to regulate without a referee. Don't sweat the small stuff.

The most urgent issue that plagues rec games is the line call. However good and honest people are, people just don't trust their opponents.

user92626

Who's sweating anything? Not me. I don't play with either group, except when they ask me to be a fourth. Then I just play doubles with them and
play my side to the best outcome possible. Also, I chuckle a lot as they walk forward into the court when serving. I differently find their antics
amusing. I really find the whole thing humorous.

I do know they have been penalized for foot faults in USTA league play and are aware of their short comings, but nothing changes. It's really funny!!!

Aloha

 

[OnTheLine]

I wonder if singles specialists forced to play doubles are more likely to be unhappy with the assist.

As more of a singles player these days (65% singles play 2017 ytd) I love it when my good serve gets blocked back to my partner for a great volley/overhead winner. When my driving shot down the middle gets popped up for partner to put away. If partner then says at some point ... hey its your turn to add some points ... well, then I have a problem.

I don't think singles guys suffer from ego problems.

No, they don't suffer from their ego problems .... they relish their ego! And feed it!
If you don't have a big ego, brimming with overconfidence, you aren't going to do well on the singles court. You have to pick yourself back up after a mis-hit or a bad few points, you don't have a partner to do it for you. I think being egotistical may be required to be a good singles player.

 

[newpball]

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

What is the point of this topic?

rec·re·a·tion·al
ˌrekrēˈāSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: recreational
relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.
"recreational facilities"

 

[GuyClinch]

What is the point of this topic?

How and why US tennis is creating Frankenstein style doubles players instead of decent singles or decent doubles players. We have doubles players that practice singles skills to play doubles instead.. This creates players that aren't really getting better at doubles or singles.. and hurts the sport overall.

 

[Dartagnan64]

How and why US tennis is creating Frankenstein style doubles players instead of decent singles or decent doubles players. We have doubles players that practice singles skills to play doubles instead.. This creates players that aren't really getting better at doubles or singles.. and hurts the sport overall.

I've watched plenty of pros take singles skills to the doubles courts with success. The era of classic serve and volley doubles is being eroded by the modern power game. Many times I'm successful just hanging back hitting forehand dippers down the middle and passing shots down the alley rather than charging to the net and getting lobbed.

Personally what hurts the sport is 120 mph serves. I remember watching a match between two power servers at the club once. There wasn't a single rally the entire match. Every point was over in 1-3 strokes. That hurts tennis more than people playing one up one back in doubles.

 

[tlm]

I've watched plenty of pros take singles skills to the doubles courts with success. The era of classic serve and volley doubles is being eroded by the modern power game. Many times I'm successful just hanging back hitting forehand dippers down the middle and passing shots down the alley rather than charging to the net and getting lobbed.

Personally what hurts the sport is 120 mph serves. I remember watching a match between two power servers at the club once. There wasn't a single rally the entire match. Every point was over in 1-3 strokes. That hurts tennis more than people playing one up one back in doubles.

Good post. I've watched the top guys at my club play doubles and it's just like you stated big serve maybe 2 hits and point over. So the big serve is even worse in doubles. Especially indoors where the big servers can really rip big serves consistently. It's a total bore to watch the majority of the time is spent picking up balls and getting ready for the next serve.

 

[J011yroger]

Good post. I've watched the top guys at my club play doubles and it's just like you stated big serve maybe 2 hits and point over. So the big serve is even worse in doubles. Especially indoors where the big servers can really rip big serves consistently. It's a total bore to watch the majority of the time is spent picking up balls and getting ready for the next serve.

I see no problem with this.

J

 

[r2473]

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

This is just a problem with "this generation" of players?

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.

Am I correct in assuming that all generations except this one did all of the things you wish this one would do?