Combo league frustration

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Playtennis, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    37,229
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    While playing both back is hard to win in doubles, lots of 4-4.5 doubles is played with one player shying away from the net, while the other plays traditional doubles. It's the TRANSITION that seems to bother lots of players. They can't make the move from baseline to net, and from service line to NML with grace. But once planted at net position (center of service box, one step forwards), they should stay there unless lobbed.
     
    #51
  2. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Well, lots of things are better than alley camping, and I named a few.

    Playing two back is fine, but I assume OP knows all about that. Besides, playing two back can make it quite difficult to intercept balls if the partner cannot hit passing shots/groundies.

    What does "sucks at net" mean, though? There are many flavors.

    She may be a persistent back-pedaler, the type who is timid at net and keeps backing off until she is so far away from the net that opponents can place it at her feet.

    She may be lopsided and have a decent FH volley but no BH volley, or vice versa.

    If she is 3.5 facing 3.5s, she should be able to do *something* at the net. The key is to find it and then adopt a strategy to use it.

    Again . . . you have to respect what the weak player can and cannot do. There are some people who volley better when a bit farther off the net. Personally, I do not like to be 1 foot from the net because then I cannot step into my volley. I think it best to allow players to decide where they are most comfortable on the court and then work with what you've got.

    Anyway, please understand that I am not advocating alley-camping, so let's not argue the merits of it.
     
    #52
  3. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    37,229
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Good stuff...
    You go, girl.
     
    #53
  4. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    No one naturally wants to be close to the net. For some reason, people without instruction tend to want to stay far back away from the net, often in "no mans land" because they dont understand that the closer you are to the net means you have the largest area of court to hit in.

    People like to play back so they "have more time" (or to "step in" or w/e) to get to the ball but they dont consider that being far off the net is a severe disadvantage.

    The only way to make an error while you're 1 ft. from the net is to miss the ball completely or take a completely wild swing and somehow hit that ball long/wide. You dont need to "step in". You dont need to swing. You barely need to aim. The harder they hit at you, the easier it is to make a winner at that range too.

    It comes down to mindset, training, and general knowledge of the game. Being as close to the net as possible as close to the center as possible is the best place for a net person to be, especially if its 1 up 1 back because a lob winner is going to be almost impossible. Even if both players are up, someone should be actively trying to close off the middle.

    If shes completely missing the ball, getting beaned, or getting passed that has nothing to do with her "volleys". The closer you are to the net the less volley skill you need to make a winner. That's a fact. Instinct will tell you to back up. Training will tell you to move closer.

    I consider my volleying to be the worst part of my game. Even I hardly make an error when im that close to the center. You have so many options for winners that you dont have when you're in the middle of the box, or worse, at the service line. Bounce; angle; drop; deep all easily accessible that close to the net.



    Edit: I wanted to reiterate on this

    "If shes completely missing the ball, getting beaned, or getting passed that has nothing to do with her "volleys"."

    -If shes missing the ball thats just bad hand eye coordination. Being off the net is not going to help with fixing that error. If her racket is in the wrong place she is not going to make contact with the ball. As long as she is keeping her eye on the ball and not recklessly swinging spin should not be defeating her. Even a heavy slice (flatter trajectory) or heavy topspin (loopy and diving down) should be able to be enough to hit it into the net or out of bounds.

    -If shes getting beaned thats either because the serve is easily punished or was an errant shot. More often than not, a net player who was beaned just wasnt prepared. What is "prepared"? Low and light. Her opponent should not be able to see lower than her shoulders over the net and racket should be in front of her face.

    -If shes getting passed the serve has either been punished or the opponents just hit a good shot. Its never your fault if your opponent makes a good shot. Some people get really bent outa shape when they get passed with a good ball. You can do everything right and still lose. You cant let that get you down.


    Even if lobs are going over her head thats not a bad thing unless those lobs are winners. It's pretty hard to hit a lob winner... If the person at the baseline is losing points because of lobs, I dont see how a player who is weak at net is supposed to make up for that by either back peddling and hitting overheads or playing more off the net where low balls are easy winners for people with bad volleying.

    Even if the person at the net hates net, they can always play back. The person playing back can always come up. If you dont like to net, play back. If both of you hate the net, someone camps baseline while the other player camps net.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2012
    #54
  5. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I don't see much in your post with which I disagree, but I do want to say that being 1 foot from the net is not a good idea.

    If your toes are one foot from the net, that is too close. You are so close that you will make contact with the ball on the other side. Because it is difficult to have good technique when that close to the net, weak volleyers can miss even from that close (even into the net!).

    Remember, we are talking about 7.5 combo. The ball is not coming that fast. Just sticking the racket out may not be enough -- you can hit a ball that sits up close to the net that the opponents can easily reach. Or the ball can dribble off your racket into the net.

    Also, being that close is a problem if the opponents lob. When I see a weak volleyer trembling a foot from the net, I lob her. As the partner runs along the baseline to run it down, I join my partner at the service line. We will do this all day until the weak volleyer moves back.

    As far as having the weak player move back at the baseline. . . yes, that is an option. I have seen mixed pairs (4.5 guy/3.5 woman) do this if the woman cannot handle the net, but it rarely ends well. We steer every ball to her at baseline, come to net, and dare her to pass us. Better is to use other strategies (e.g. Aussie) to keep her up there if at all possible.
     
    #55
  6. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    Played 7.0 today and it was a rough match. Both the guy and the girl burned me DTL numerous times because my partners second serve was unusually slow today. The good thing is that her first serve was faster than usual.

    We had quite a few exciting exchanges. Baseline rallies with lobs and overheads. 4 up net exchanges. High angle cuts off droppers. Good stuff.

    I dare to say that the girls backhand was by far better than the guys especially when my partner was serving unusually slow on her second.


    The thing about being 1 ft. off the net is that nearly every ball you touch is going to be the height of the net or higher. This is a tremendous. Any ball that is going more upwards than forwards (or downwards) in a net exchange is a liability. When you're 1 ft. from the net its pretty hard to hit the ball upwards unless you have absolutely no control over the face.

    The worst balls to volley are the low ones, contacted low to the ground, and then trying to keep that ball low and fast across the net on the volley. I can see people having problems with these shots because they're certainly not easy. Any ball struck over the height of the net especially at that close range should be a winner most of the time and almost never an error.

    Granted, the pace of the ball is slow, but you can still drop volley a slow ball, or angle the face and cut that ball at insane angles. You dont need to push or swing all the time which is what I used to try and do. Now, if im jammed up with a backhand or w/e, I just angle it or drop it and hold my ground. You'll find most of the time if its not a winner they will lunge for it and pop it up. Then you can just put it away the second time around.


    The guy got a little upset and did this in the tie breaker... it didnt stab into the windscreen like that, but it did look like it poked a hole it. His partner scolded him lol. Cute girl too. She was a pretty good 3.5. I bet she played high school.

    NSFW: Language

    watch at 0:26

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SI54sLWQ9o
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2012
    #56
  7. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    37,229
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Yeah, you DO sound like you play 3.5. No sense of net play.
     
    #57
  8. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Maybe you just want to say that you were using hyperbole and that you don't really want your partner standing 1 foot from the net? I mean seriously... measure a foot from the wall and put your feet at that spot. You can't possibly think that is the right position to be in.
     
    #58
  9. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    You know, I was trying to be really nice to you, but with comments like these you make it pretty hard.

    You sound like an old 4.0 who clings to their bad habits and has no understanding of the game of tennis or simple geometry. Formal instruction and formal education can help with this. Old 4.0 park rat who thinks their local D1 singles player is world class and anyone who has an NTRP rating lower than yours is below you.

    Of course not. The problem is, if you tell someone to be 1 ft. from the net, they wont actually go 1 ft. from the net. They will go 3 ft. from the net and make contact 2 ft. from the net.

    People are scared of the net.

    9/10 people you tell to stand 1 ft. from the net will stand 3 ft. from the net. The 1/10 people you tell to go that close to the net and actually go 1 ft. already know what they're doing.

    Bad habits of park tennis players: afraid of the net. Simple as that.

    By moving closer to the net your net play increases dramatically without ever doing anything else. You can work on your shots/footwork/whatever all you want but the biggest thing rec players can do to get better to the net is to quit being afraid of it.
     
    #59
  10. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Don't know if the person advocating standing 1 ft from net is serious or not, but if serious, that's just ridiculous. As a returner, that would have me salivating. On a weak serve, I would go at the net player's right hip. On a good serve, lob. Both are winning plays.
     
    #60
  11. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    37,229
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    I understand NT's point.
    If you are a 3.0 volleyer, facing passing shots off a 3.0, you can stand 1' or 3' from the net. It's effective.
    As said, once he learns how to play some tennis, he'd never stand there again.
     
    #61
  12. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    It is more serious than not, but not necessarily literally 1 ft from the net. If I tell someone to stand 3 ft. from the net, they will probably stand 5 ft. from the net because of the common fear of being close.

    Also, being literally 1 ft. from the net makes errors nearly impossible and hitting winners much easier since you have almost 100% of the court available for a winner.

    While I do agree that being that close could very well be dangerous against a good returner and does leave you vulnerable to a lob winner most people will not have the skills to execute that shot. I think its funny how I tell people on this forum that I punish serves all the time, but then, when I post something like "stand 1 ft. from the net" everyone can all of a sudden hit winners.

    Trust me. Being 1 ft. from the net is a lot safer than being 5 ft. from the net against a hard return.



    And, FWIW, you would not be able to hit my hip if I was standing 1 ft. from the net unless you plan on going through the net first.

    The skill required to hit a lob winner, especially off a serve is very high. Since most people cant execute a topspin lob properly, especially a backhand, I dont see this happening very often. Also, in the context of the discussion, the person who is serving is probably a baseline player anyway in which case a poor lob (a popup) could very well be punished for a quick transition to offense.

    I know LeeD is making comments about me "learning how to play tennis" but all you have to do is watch high level doubles and you will see how close they get to the net when they close towards the center. After he sees that, he will see the types of angles they can hit from there. After he sees those angles he will make the connection between being close to the net and hitting those seemingly impossible shots because most people are way too far back from the net to have those angles available.
     
    #62
  13. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I cannot begin to tell you how wrong you are.

    If the net player is draped on the net, they are inviting the lob. Many players are quite capable of taking advantage of that invitation. Off of a fast serve, many can hit slice lobs. Off of a slow serve, players can hit topspin lobs or just push lobs.

    Remember, when you are 1 or 3 feet off the net, you are leaving a lot of court undefended behind you. Yes, your partner can cross, but much depends on how good the lob is and how it is placed.

    It is a standard play at 3.5/4.0 to lob the net player and then take control of the net. Meanwhile, the team that was lobbed loses control of the net and must run down a lob. Few are fast enough to do this well.

    As for the baseliner server punishing a lob out of the air, well, no. If the server is truly a baseliner, she isn't comfortable taking balls out of the air, which is why we call her a "baseliner." The idea that she will take balls out of the air on the FH or BH wing and crush them is something you wouldn't say if you had more experience.

    The best thing for net players to do, IMHO, is start from the middle of the box. Since the box is 21 feet deep, that is about 10 feet from the net. As the ball is struck, the net player can split and then move forward on the diagonal to cut off the ball. Standing like a potted plant 1 or 3 feet from the net is bad positioning, IMHO.

    Yes, you can hit sharper angles from closer to the net. The pros, of course, have great hands, anticipation and amazing overheads. So they can play on top of the net. Most net-huggers I know leave the entire back court undefended, crying "Switch" for all but the shortest lobs.

    I think most players stand on top of the net not because they want to hit sharp angles but instead because they have poor volley technique and hit "whack a mole" volleys.
     
    #63
  14. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    I disagree with much of NTRP's views but some 7.0 double's teams can be quite effective playing the 3.0/3.5 right on the net. Play your strengths. The 3.0 may be somewhat fearless; stay low, racket out front, soft hands. Sure it's not the ideal spot but hugging the net limits the damage; all balls are played above the net, no sinking balls at the shins, even framed balls drop in.

    Occasionally I'll find some woman that will do this exceptionally well in mixed; not going to back away from my best forehand. (Still have nightmares of losing club mixed doubles final to a woman who simply kept her head above the net behind racket face.) Very effective team if the baseline player's strengths are 4.0 like mobility and groundstrokes.
     
    #64
  15. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    What you have described is low level rec tennis.

    -Slice lobs (off the serve even) are great shots and win points often.

    -Standing in no mans land when you have weak volleys is a great idea, because, you know, slice lobs are dangerous.

    -Standing in no mans land and having to play high volleys, low volleys, half-volleys, swinging volleys, overheads fore/back is obviously a great idea when the person is described has having poor net play.

    -Inability to understand how much open court there actually is when you're close to the net and why a poor net player (especially) should be closer to the net than further away.

    -Swinging volleys or hitting overheads before the bounce is out of the question for a "baseline player". You know that hitting an overhead that hasnt bounced yet is just a serve? A swinging volley is just a ground stroke that hansnt bounced?

    -Apparently calling "switch" is bad on a short lob, because, you know, the baseline player cant run up on that ball and crush it with an overhead or a swinging volley (because, as you mentioned before they "dont have those shots" lol). Are you suggesting that the backpedaling net player should stretch for it? Call me crazy but I think letting the short ball go and letting the baseliner close in on it is better than overreaching for the ball.

    -"whack-a-mole" play is apparently bad because hitting a crazy angle wide or bouncing the ball straight down and up and over your opponents heads are bad shots.
     
    #65
  16. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    short 3.0 or 3.5 woman + close to the net = lob every single shot over the woman!

    Lower rated women are typically not that athletic in terms of being able to backpedal for overheads.

    If playing with a 4.0 or above male partner, he might be able to run some of those down, but he's going to be in for a long day.
     
    #66
  17. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    Exactly.

    As long as the net player stays low and tight its almost impossible to mess anything up. If the baseliner can move, they can cover almost the entire baseline except for hard driven shots DTL in the doubles alley. It's very, very hard to hit a lob winner that both goes higher than the net player can reach, and fast/deep enough where the baseliner cannot get to it.

    Getting rid of the "bad" net players fear of the net and getting them close is the best possible thing you can do as a temporary fix.

    Of course, if the player has a great volley game they can move as they want around the court. If the player does not have a good volley game, you do not want them to have to be able to hit all of the various volleys required to be effective being that far off the net.

    Being "10 ft. off the net" as Cindy suggests is very hard. Any ball that is popped up by a bad volley is immediately put away at the 7.0 level here with the exception of a few 3.0's.
     
    #67
  18. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    Any mobile player who stays back is going to able to cover almost all lobs. Now your trading lobs or groundies with the 7.0 team's 4.0 player; just what they want.
     
    #68
  19. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Ok, whatever works for you.

    IMO, 3.0 woman at net (properly positioned) + 4.0 man at net (having come up to net after hitting the lob over opponent woman) > 3.0 woman 1ft from net + 4.0 player scrambling to cover the lob over his partner's head.

    Same situation if it was the receiving woman who had lobbed server's partner and followed it up to net.

    Honestly I have no philosophical problem if you have some weird ideas about proper positioning - maybe they work for you and your game. Same goes to NTRPolice. But let's not mislead any impressionable readers into thinking that these are the correct percentage plays.
     
    #69
  20. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Exactly.

    NTRPolice has forgotten that this thread is about 7.5 ladies combo. This is not high level tennis -- I should know, as I play this level.

    The bottom line is that having the net player hug the net is a total loser in 7.5 combo ladies unless the other player can find a way to deal with all of the lobs.

    Believe me, I have watched my teammates lose very, very slowly to teams they should beat. Often, one of my teammates is hugging the net for dear life, and the other is running the baseline. If the net player would just back up off the net, she could put a stop to this, but noooooooo. She is uncomfortable volleying unless she is on top of the net.

    It is very hard to win this way. By the time ladies reach 4.0 and up, they will no longer tolerate a partner who covers the few feet closest to the net and expects their partner to cover everything else.
     
    #70
  21. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Seriously, you should defer to those who play frequently with 3.5/4.0 women.

    Dang, have you *seen* a 3.5 ladies doubles match? There will be a huge number of lobs. Huge. The lob is the default shot at that level.

    Remember, the lob does not need to be a winner to draw blood. It just needs to be deep. If the baseliner is running for it (especially to the BH side), it will draw an error or a short lob.

    I think the disconnect here is that you assume lobs need to be winners or fancy shots. Nah. They just need to go high and deep. Many players with poor stroke mechanics can hit lobs within a few feet of the baseline all day. That is their game. If your partner hugs the net and you face one of these lob queens, you will not beat them unless you are very adept at defending the lob with approach volleys, overheads and swing volleys -- shots that 3.5/4.0 often lack.

    Your observations may hold in mixed or at higher levels, but we should be responding to the OP.
     
    #71
  22. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Why do you keep saying such ridiculous stuff? You don't know any 3.5 players who have trouble putting away a floating volley!? I play with 4.5 rated guys who can't put volleys away to save their lives. I can't tell if your are more delusional about your own level of play or how good the 3.5 players you face are. Are you really so delusional to think that virtually every 3.5 level woman can automatically put away a floating volley?

    I mean seriously.. normally the issue with people who have delusions about their own game look at other players at their same level and think that they suck and then come up with a long list of reasons why they lost that were entirely out of their control. (they didn't give me enough pace, etc) You are just the first I can remember that is both delusion about your own game and the game of the 3.0 and 3.5 players you have faced so far in league tennis.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2012
    #72
  23. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    NTRPolice- do you really think that standing in the middle of the service box is "No mans land"!?
     
    #73
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,650
    An old guy told me yesterday (it was so bright that looking up was a pain): One who lives by the lob dies by the lob.

    I don't know what that means, and I don't think he knows either, but feel free to repeat it so you can appear to be profound.
     
    #74
  25. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    Keep in mind this is 7.0; not Bryan brothers stuff. At 3.0 back off the net (in "correct" position) has a lot more vulnerabilities than one on net.

    And I know it's heresay here to say here on tt, but at 7.0 doubles, both players crashing the net can be fodder for even a moderately good lobbing team.

    To be fair, the OP was talking 7.5 stuff where a 3.5 should have some better skills and positioning to at least make one think twice about lobbing that side but even then, playing on the net may be "weird" but yet effective.
     
    #75
  26. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    Really? 4.5 guys who can't put away a popped up floating volley??
     
    #76
  27. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Of course. There are lots of 4.5 guys who prefer singles and live at the baseline and can hit ground strokes all day. Normally they are absolutely terrible mixed players because they simply do not have the net game. Your rating is an overall number- if you suck in one area then you can make up for it in others. And there are always outliers when you face enough people over the years. Then add in that people have the same rating for doubles and singles and there is even more room for players who are completely imbalanced.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2012
    #77
  28. JoelDali

    JoelDali G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10,722
    When I was 6.0 and played 9.0 mixed I would have my 3.0 partner stand 6 inches from the net.
     
    #78
  29. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    Call me crazy, but this past week is the second time ive played someone with college experience who is rated at 3.5. The first time it was a guy who played in 2003 but has obviously gained weight and is out of practice. This last week I played a girl who played 9.0 in 2009 (college circa 2005), but is now a 3.5, and after Googling her name she played mostly singles in college.

    Now, I dont count these players as "normal" but you have to understand that players like this exist at all levels. If these are the top tier players of "3.5" what do you think players are like in the middle? Even the "fat old ladies" I know can put away floaters at the net. These ladies are 5'5 or shorter, and probably weigh 150 or more. They arnt that mobile, but if they camp net, they do reasonably well with "whak-a-mole" as you call it. That's probably what they do best when they have a player like me camping baseline.

    Sorry. A 4.5 has every shot in tennis and can preform them well. There is no way to get to 4.5 if you have any substantial weaknesses and certainly having problems putting away floaters at the net is out of the question. Sure, you dont have to "serve and volley" but that certainly doesnt mean you cant have a "serve" and you cant have a "volley".

    I dont know what you think a "4.5" is, but this person is an exceptional "rec player" or has played college, or very high level high school tennis.

    You will not get close to being a 4.5 unless you have every shot in tennis.
     
    #79
  30. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    If they have a player like you as their partner, then they aren't playing 7.5 ladies combo, are they?

    Anyway, I believe college players cannot self rate at 3.5, but I could be wrong about that. In any event, I can assure you that most3.5 women do not have college level strokes.
     
    #80
  31. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    If this is all you have to argue at this point then ill be leaving this conversation soon.

    1) I'm a 3.0 and im not a lady. Besides, if I was playing this the girl im mentioning, then we'd be a 6.5 mixed doubles team which is "way below you" so im sure you'd just bagel me all day, right? :rolleyes

    2) What makes you think that two of these ladies cannot partner up and play 7.0 or 7.5? There are quite a many legit 4.0 players who have games much better than yours, who when partnered with the 3.5 im talking about can very well play the same type of game that my partner and I played this past week.

    3) If she was grandfathered in under the old minimum rating requirements and if she did not lie on her application questions then she's safe. While I do agree that "most 3.5's dont play like that" you guys seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are many people "in the middle" who have solid games as well, who can cover the baseline, who dont duff floaters at the net, who can serve over 50 mph, who dont lose slice lobs, misread spin, or let a ball bounce too high before they can swing at it. For me, that's a good 3.5, for you, that seems totally out of the question. Spot says there are "4.5" that he plays with who cant put away floaters at the net. Lol.


    I know you and your fanboi "spot" think im still delusional about a great many things, but in time you'll see that maybe its you who thinks their game is better than it really is and that im not as bad or unrealistic about my skill level or the abilities of my competitors as you think.

    I have a nearly flawless record over two years playing 7.0 mixed doubles as a 3.0 guy with a 4.0 girl. That should tell you something. Either these girls are absolutely amazing for carrying me for 4 seasons or I might actually be better than you think. Realistically, my partners are not that "good". They're definitely solid, well rounded 4.0 ladies, but arnt "good" or "exceptional" by any means.
     
    #81
  32. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I would say the main reason you have a good record in 7.0 mixed with a 4.0 female partner is that your skills are 3.5-ish, not 3.0. If you are actually a 7.5/8.0 pair playing 7.0, then you should dominate.

    Anyway, I guess we should leave this where we always do: You know more than I do about what 3.5/4.0 women can do based on your experience playing 7.0 mixed.

    Yeah, sure. Let's go with that.
     
    #82
  33. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    You are delusional yet again. Absolutely you can become a 4.5 player without having any volley skills whatsoever. There are guys who are absolute backboards from the baseline who can crush balls from the baseline but can't hit a volley. The absolutely torch 4.0 players because they can just shred them from the baseline and with return of serve and have no need to ever go to the net. They don't keep you at 4.0 when you are crushing 4.0 players just because your volleys suck. You don't have to have played college or highschool to be a 4.5 player. You have to beat 4.0 players and for some players it simply doesn't take any volley skills to do so.

    Someday after you have actually played a lot of 4.5 players then you will come across one. Right now you are a 3.0 player dreaming of what it is like to play against 4.5 players. Just as you can think that there are no serves less than 50 MPH that have useful spin right up until the time you face one, you can also think that every single 4.5 player has every shot in tennis right up until you face one that doesn't. You are simply talking about your fantasy of what 4.5 players are like.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
    #83
  34. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    NTRPolice- you think you serve 110 out wide. That there is no kick serve that would trouble you. That you hit clean winners off of every serve less than 50 MPH. That you automatically put away every floating volley that comes to you. That swinging volleys from no man's land and crushing overheads that bounce at the baseline are trivial shots. What does any of this have to do with 4.0 level women?

    I have no doubt that you are a very good for a 3.0 player. Any guy with a moderate amount of athletic ability who is taking lessons regularly and playing several times a week should be a 3.5 within a couple months and likely a 4.0 player within a year. I just think your experience playing as a 3.0 has made you delusional about how things work at the higher level. Or even how things will go playing 7.0 mixed when you have to have a 3.5 or even a 3.0 partner.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
    #84
  35. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    What if I told both you that im a 4.5 pretending to be a 3.0 on the internet with the sole intention of seeing how many people can recognize the difference between a 3.0 and a 4.5?

    It's not a true statement, but that would be pretty funny if it was...

    I would love to see some videos of you guys playing a set of doubles together. You and Spot should go get together with LeeD and play some practice points. Other than your massive levels of experience, I would love to see your actual play.
     
    #85
  36. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    That is not possible- 4.5 players have a much better idea of the limitations of 3.5 players than you do.
     
    #86
  37. samarai

    samarai Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    251
    Just played a state combo league and these are my observations of the winning teams at 6.0 and 7.0. Have a male player with a good slice serve and good baseline strokes. Have a female player who is not afraid to play 2-3 ft from the net. This was the wining combinations. The guys who just camp at the baseline and hit it deep. The lady would run to the middle of the net and pick away at the returns. If your female partner was not comfortable at the net, it was a losing cause. The men rarely would need to play at the net.
     
    #87
  38. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    And this is why we disagree.

    I have a lot of respect for some 3.5 players because I can acknowledge the fact that some of them have great potential. You and Cindy sit at your computers dedicated to some sort of quest to make everyone with an NTRP lower than yours look inferior.

    I may be speculating, but if you and Cindy are 4.0's and cant perform a certain shot at a certain standard you automatically assume that most people of your level (or below) cannot do it either.

    It's becoming more and more obvious to me.

    4.5's that miss easy put-aways at net...
    Swinging volleys and/or overheads from inside the baseline impossible...
    Only a 5.0 can serve over 100...
    Slice lob winners...
    50 mph first serves normal...

    It really sounds like you project your inadequacies on those of level and those below you in an attempt to make your game seem stronger.

    While true that some 3.0's-4.0's are very bad players there is no reason to assume that they're all bad.
     
    #88
  39. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Please show me where I said that 3.5 players don't have potential. Of course they have potential- everyone on the ATP tour was a 3.5 player at one time.

    I simply understand that 3.5 players are 3.5 players for a reason and that is that they all have limitations on their games. That is why they are 3.5 players. You are new to tennis and I simply have played against a ton more 3.5 players than you. And a ton more 4.0 players. And a ton more 4.5 players. And a ton more 5.0 players. I just have more knowledge about the range of tennis abilities at these levels than you do through no fault of your own.

    Its very common for 3.5 players to think that higher ranked players don't realize how good 3.5's are. Then when you improve and start playing 4.0 on a regular basis you will look back and see how many flaws they had in their game. You go back and play against friends who are 3.5's and you just know how to take advantage of their limitations. I have never said that 3.5 players can't have some very impressive shots but they are 3.5 level players because there also have big holes in their game. Someday after you improve then you will see the same thing. Someday you will get a good laugh out of yourself if you go back and read these threads just as all of us are getting a good laugh out of you now.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
    #89
  40. Maui19

    Maui19 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,659
    I couldn't disagree more. Cindy is very upfront about her shortcomings, in fact making some pretty funny posts about the shortcomings in her game. Doesn't her sig say she is a random error generator?

    I don't even know what spot's rating is. 4.0 maybe?

    I'm not trying to bash you here, but my experience playing USTA league and other tennis at the 3.5 and 4.0 levels, in regular, combo and mixed tells me that Cindy's view of the capabilities of various levels of tennis players is right on, while yours is skewed to thinking everyone is better than they are. I don't know why this is. My league experience tells me that consistency is FAAAAR more valuable than erratic power. It isn't until you get to the 4.5 level that you beginning to see a fair number of winners being hit, and even then the winners are not usually backhand blasts DTL, rather they are the result of good point construction resulting in an easy winner.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
    #90
  41. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    We're not just talking about "erratic" power, we're talking about the ability to produce such power among many things.

    Speaking of "errors" the only thing that changes as you go up levels are the types of errors a person makes. While a 3.0 "nationals" level player may never make a lob error, a 4.5 player might. It's important to consider the difference though.

    A 4.5 level playing hitting a topspin lob is probably trying to hit a winner and the degree of how this ball has to be stuck is much higher than the 3.0 player. A 3.0 player can hit lobs all day long with no spin and the ball can land inside the service box and they still have a chance at winning the point.

    A 3.0 player might take a wild swing off a serve return and sail the ball into the fence. A 4.5 player might rip a backhand DTL for a winner and miss. Big difference.

    I dont know how close you've been following this thread Maui, but when spot claims he knows 4.5's who miss easy put-aways at the net im extremely skeptical. When he thinks playing the ball in the air with a swinging volley or an overhead from well inside the baseline is out of the question for a 3.5-4.0, I wonder what types of player he plays with.
     
    #91
  42. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    You are making stuff up yet again. I never said this.
     
    #92
  43. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    FWIW everyone makes an occasional error on easy put-away volleys - even the pros.
     
    #93
  44. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    524
    We're not talking about that. Everyone misses sometimes.

    "I play with 4.5 rated guys who can't put volleys away to save their lives." is what hes claiming.

    Keep in mind, he said that in the context of me claiming that 3.0's and 3.5's can and should easily put away floaters at the net, provided they're in proper position (close to the net).
     
    #94
  45. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    Most players at any level will put away floaters at the net. Some people at even fairly high levels do struggle with it. The definition of "put away" changes as the level increases too - it is much easier to smack a ball passed a 3.0 than it is to get it passed a 4.5.

    I think what many people are reacting to may be the generalizations. Each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. You can't assume that a particular person at a given level has a particular shot. One of the things I love about doubles is figuring out how to use the stengths on my side of the net while not letting our opponents take advantage of our weaknesses - which may include a weak serve, awful backhand, or inconsistent volleys.
     
    #95
  46. tennis_ocd

    tennis_ocd Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,002
    You got it. A tough combination at this level; a soft handed woman unafraid of the net paired with a male who stays back with solid groundstrokes.
     
    #96
  47. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Absolutely there are 4.5 guys who can't put the ball away at the net to save their lives. There are a TON of 4.0 guys who are flat bad at the net. You don't think that any of them ever make it to 4.5!? Ridiculous. And I know its ridiculous for a fact because I play with guys who are absolute butchers at the net but make up for it in other ways. Again- all you need to have at 4.5 is the ability to beat 4.0 players. 4.0 players have enough holes in their game that you can do so without being able to hit a volley.

    You said that all 3.5 players "immediately put away" all bad volleys. That is laughably far from the truth to anyone who has played league tennis for a significant amount of time.

    Talk to people who play 4.5 league tennis. They will have team mates who are lousy at the net.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
    #97
  48. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Since I am a 4.5, I think I'm qualified to respond to this :)

    I don't claim to be a "top" 4.5, but I win more than I lose in USTA Adult league play. In league I play about 2/3 singles (winning record) and 1/3 dubs (even record).

    I most certainly do not have every shot in tennis. I will sometimes flub what should be easy putaways, both at the net and from midcourt.

    For the record, I played some mid-level HS tennis but was not nearly good enough to play college tennis at my school. I then stopped playing for about 15 years. So I consider myself just a good rec player.

    4.5's are good but still very fallible.
     
    #98
  49. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    Based on your prior posts, we are talking about "erratic" power. Take your first serve, the one that goes 120 mph IIRC. You admit it is Not Ready For Prime Time. That's "erratic power." And it is worthless.

    : snort :

    The "only thing that changes as you go up levels are the types of errors a person makes"? There is a breathtaking amount of ignorance in that statement.

    All kinds of things change as you go up levels. Most notable, perhaps, is footwork. Power changes. Accuracy changes. Variety changes. Understanding of positioning/strategy changes. Fitness often changes.

    And the idea that a top 3.0 will never make a lob error is a joke also. "Never"? Really?

    Yes, of course higher-level players have to hit better quality shots than lower-level players, on account of how the opponents are stronger so it takes better tennis to beat them. This is kind of obvious. Does it prove anything beyond the obvious?

    Funny thing.

    I have two teaching 5.0 pros. Both have told me their volleys are awful. To me, their volleys look exceptional. They say that their volleys do not hold up well against other 5.0s.

    If that is true, then I imagine there are 4.5s whose put-away volleys might look awesome to a 3.0/3.5 player but who struggle with those shots in match play against others of that level.
     
    #99
  50. samarai

    samarai Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    251
    a 3.0 state, regional, or national level player is not your typical local ladder player ( can I say sandbagger ) if you can consistently send the balls deep into the baseline. Have a slice and kick serve that penetrates with some pace, then that's not a 3.0 level.
     

Share This Page