How to pair doubles team?

[Traffic]

If you had 5 players ranked loosely in strength order:
Player A = Aggressive Play; moderate errors. Big serve, great net. Go big or go home.
Player B = Moderate aggressive play; low errors. Slightly less big plus spin serve, good net.
Player C = Moderate aggressive play; low errors. Varying spin serves, good net.
Player D = Moderate aggressive play; moderate errors. Spin serve, weak 2nd serve, good net.
Player E = Moderate play; low errors. Spin serve, weak second serve, touch net, low pace baseline

How would you pair them for 1st line and 2nd line doubles?
Would you automatically put A and B together to try to go undefeated on line 1? Win 50% line 2.
Or would you put A and C together and B and D together and possibly go undefeated on line 1 and win more line 2?
Or would you put A and E together and win most of line 1 and most of line 2?

 

[CHtennis]

It very much depends on the opponent but I would probably pair A and C together and B and D to have one low error player with one moderate error player.

 

[OnTheLine]

Definitely think to put a low error player with the very aggressive player ... if aggressive player has good serve, put your best volleyer and smartest positioner with that player.

But, sometimes pairings will surprise you as to what really meshes well ... sometimes on paper you have what should be a good match but the personalities are a terrible mix. Others that have such great personal chemistry but on paper look like they wouldn't fit and you end up with a wonder pair.

 

[ShaunS]

I'd definitely want to know more about their return of serve before I ever constructed a lineup. That said with the information I have, I would put B&C #1 and A&D #2.

A strong kick serve that's consistent is a bigger weapon in doubles than less accurate bombs. So I have to think B is actually the best doubles player, and I want them with C so they provide a good mix of strong shots and minimal mistakes.

Player A would be less likely to get free points off his big shots against the other teams best. I move him down to hopefully face slightly weaker opponents who will be more impacted by the pace. I put him with D because I'm making a judgment call that the "moderate" errors is offset by better net play. Player A should be setting them up for a lot of putaway opportunities, and if Player E is hitting all touch shots they might go to waste.

the personalities are a terrible mix.

Yeah, you need to do personality before you even consider style of play. Last season we had two players who should've been great together, and I played a couple times with each. I won with each because they were good players, but I found out they *hated* playing together and lost a winnable match because of that... despite their almost perfectly complimentary games.

 

[heninfan99]

In general I like putting a more aggressive player with a more steady/high percentage player.
For teams there might be a point system to guards against stacking so you have to be mindful of that and your opponents.

 

[Traffic]

Definitely think to put a low error player with the very aggressive player ... if aggressive player has good serve, put your best volleyer and smartest positioner with that player.

But, sometimes pairings will surprise you as to what really meshes well ... sometimes on paper you have what should be a good match but the personalities are a terrible mix. Others that have such great personal chemistry but on paper look like they wouldn't fit and you end up with a wonder pair.

Yes. Agreed. Low error player with the aggressive player.
I'm one of the low error player. But I'm not as aggressive at net. I think I'm good at net. But I don't poach as often as I could. Plus I'm short, so some balls are out of my reach that are well within the wheelhouse of the aggressive net player.

At my level, low UE is key. But great volleying really takes it to the next level.
I have a pretty good kick serve that coughs up weak returns for the net guy to put away.

I actually need an aggressive player to partner with to help capitalize on some of the opportunities that come up. At the same time, I'm not good at poaching as much, nor do I have a put away shot. So I can't carry another player that is consistent but doesn't really have shots that put lots of pressure on the opponents.

So I think a combo of a shot-maker and a consistent ball returner makes a lot of sense.

I'd definitely want to know more about their return of serve before I ever constructed a lineup. That said with the information I have, I would put B&C #1 and A&D #2.

A strong kick serve that's consistent is a bigger weapon in doubles than less accurate bombs. So I have to think B is actually the best doubles player, and I want them with C so they provide a good mix of strong shots and minimal mistakes.

Player A would be less likely to get free points off his big shots against the other teams best. I move him down to hopefully face slightly weaker opponents who will be more impacted by the pace. I put him with D because I'm making a judgment call that the "moderate" errors is offset by better net play. Player A should be setting them up for a lot of put away opportunities, and if Player E is hitting all touch shots they might go to waste.

Yeah, you need to do personality before you even consider style of play. Last season we had two players who should've been great together, and I played a couple times with each. I won with each because they were good players, but I found out they *hated* playing together and lost a winnable match because of that... despite their almost perfectly complimentary games.

Makes a lot of sense to put the power player A on line 2. But I think he's probably the most under-rated player on the team.

I'm player C. I can play well with either player A or B to make a very formidable pairing.

I've played with player D and we do well. But it's pretty much from keeping the ball in play. Get ready for some long rallies. The longer the rally, the higher chance of us winning.

I do worst with player E. When the touch shots are working well, we can hold our own. But if it misses, we're done for. I don't play as aggressive at net and he doesn't put enough pressure from baseline. No easy points. The longer the rally goes, the higher the chances we'll lose the point. But. Player E can probably pair well with player A and possibly player B.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

Player C = Moderate aggressive play; low errors. Varying spin serves, good net.

Would like to know what you mean by varying spin serves. maybe we have two different definitions. My "varying spin serve" definition usually goes like this....

{post match commentary}
Partner: "you had about 18 double faults."
Me: "Well...(pauses)... its because its a varying spin serve. you cant hit a varying spin serve and expect me to make each one? that's why it varies. Okay?"

@Traffic same?

 

[Cindysphinx]

If you had 5 players ranked loosely in strength order:
Player A = Aggressive Play; moderate errors. Big serve, great net. Go big or go home.
Player B = Moderate aggressive play; low errors. Slightly less big plus spin serve, good net.
Player C = Moderate aggressive play; low errors. Varying spin serves, good net.
Player D = Moderate aggressive play; moderate errors. Spin serve, weak 2nd serve, good net.
Player E = Moderate play; low errors. Spin serve, weak second serve, touch net, low pace baseline

How would you pair them for 1st line and 2nd line doubles?
Would you automatically put A and B together to try to go undefeated on line 1? Win 50% line 2.
Or would you put A and C together and B and D together and possibly go undefeated on line 1 and win more line 2?
Or would you put A and E together and win most of line 1 and most of line 2?

It's a trick question. I would ask the players what kind of partner suits them best, and then try to accommodate that.

Seriously, it's not a terrible idea. If you give them what they ask for and they still lose, they can't blame you.

That said, and assuming we are playing a challenging opposing team . . . I pair strong with strong and weak with weak.

Strong players who are given weak partners will resent you for making them play keep-away all night.

Weak players who are given strong partners tend to sit on the heels and play passively, waiting for the partner to make everything happen.

Two weak players know they can't count on anyone carrying them and will sometimes pull off an upset. And if not? Well, at least they didn't get too used to playing with a sweet, sweet strong partner. That can be addictive.

 

[NoChance]

This goes back to the mid-'80s, when many more people played, and there were a lot of tournaments, and no leagues (which I am guessing why this thread was created).

We met in the final of a local tournament, and had a few cold ones after. We were both looking for a doubles partner.

Me: Fundamentally sound, willing to play the net, willing to serve and volley, willing to listen to advice.

He: Played D-2 college, served two tours in Vietnam, liked to hit backhands, good at hitting overheads, unafraid of tight situations, played serve and volley even in singles.

We did a lot of damage, back in the day. And, drank a few beers. He had the ad-court. Loved having a future "colonel" returning serve on ad-point

I guess the only takeaway I have for you is, if you have someone on your team with any military background, the ad court is where to put that player. It worked for us.

But, what do I know? We're just two old guys now. The nearest league is 90 miles away. No tournaments--the leagues killed that.

So, we play in a weekly group nowadays. They still hesitate to pair us together, even now ; )

 

[Traffic]

Would like to know what you mean by varying spin serves. maybe we have two different definitions. My "varying spin serve" definition usually goes like this....

{post match commentary}
Partner: "you had about 18 double faults."
Me: "Well...(pauses)... its because its a varying spin serve. you cant hit a varying spin serve and expect me to make each one? that's why it varies. Okay?"

@Traffic same?

power top or top-slice 1st serve down the T or out wide. Use kicker of top-slice body serve for 2nd.

 

[Traffic]

It's a trick question. I would ask the players what kind of partner suits them best, and then try to accommodate that.

Seriously, it's not a terrible idea. If you give them what they ask for and they still lose, they can't blame you.

That said, and assuming we are playing a challenging opposing team . . . I pair strong with strong and weak with weak.

Strong players who are given weak partners will resent you for making them play keep-away all night.

Weak players who are given strong partners tend to sit on the heels and play passively, waiting for the partner to make everything happen.

Two weak players know they can't count on anyone carrying them and will sometimes pull off an upset. And if not? Well, at least they didn't get too used to playing with a sweet, sweet strong partner. That can be addictive.

Very good points regarding strong paired with weak. But in this case, weak just implies steady; willing to just extend the rally. Strong just means they like to play a bit more aggressively and try to end the point quicker.

 

[schmke]

But, sometimes pairings will surprise you as to what really meshes well ... sometimes on paper you have what should be a good match but the personalities are a terrible mix. Others that have such great personal chemistry but on paper look like they wouldn't fit and you end up with a wonder pair.

This. Ultimately it is results that matter. This is part of the reason why I added the partner report to my individual and team reports years ago. Given enough matches, you can see who each player partners best with based on real results factoring in strength of opponent. There will always be style matchups that influence things, but there are always pairings that are just better because they mesh well and the numbers will show it.

 

[ShaunS]

This is part of the reason why I added the partner report to my individual and team reports years ago. Given enough matches, you can see who each player partners best with based on real results factoring in strength of opponent.

That was something I particularly enjoyed. Your report proved a point I had suspected about a couple people I'd played with. They have debated, sometimes contentiously, who makes up the better doubles team. The first partner is more of a conventional fit with me, but the second partner and I play better together despite our seemingly weaker dynamic. It's largely a mental thing for us too, which we all already knew.

The results are somewhat limited due to number of matches but a .15 difference isn't trivial nor do I think inaccurate.

 

[schmke]

That was something I particularly enjoyed. Your report proved a point I had suspected about a couple people I'd played with. They have debated, sometimes contentiously, who makes up the better doubles team. The first partner is more of a conventional fit with me, but the second partner and I play better together despite our seemingly weaker dynamic. It's largely a mental thing for us too, which we all already knew.

The results are somewhat limited due to number of matches but a .15 difference isn't trivial nor do I think inaccurate.

Yeah, the challenge is getting enough matches with the respective partners for it to really be statistically significant, but even with a few matches each, large differences tell you something.

 

[Traffic]

I think we are still sorting out how the line-up could work. And then there is singles. I threw my name in the hat for singles. I prefer to play doubles, but I could probably play singles better than most of the guys that want to play. I have a lot of neutral and defensive shots that get eaten up playing doubles. But they are very effective in singles... But not sure if my body can hold up to it. Maybe I need to demand more practice sessions with my son to get my conditioning up. Then I will fail because I will only be able to hit against baseline shots with pace and topspin.

In any case, I think we have a core of 5 players with relatively low error. That should make up our 1D and 2D courts. Not sure how the final pairing will go. Possibly talk with the players to see if any personalities work better with others. Or if there is a (personality) pairing that may not work well together.