"The Art of Doubles": What Advice In It Isn't So Great?

[vinouspleasure]

My pro doesn't like the advice to serve up the middle primarily. He thinks it is an excellent play to serve wide to the deuce court, follow it in and hit a winner into the gigantic hole created when the returner is swung wide.

Hi Cindy,

In general, I don't think following your serve to net at the 3.0 level is not great advice. Through the 3.5 level, the team with two players at the net loses more points than wins. I think at this level, its generally better to play one up and one back until you get a short ball that you can come in behind.

FWIW, I don't understand why the author thinks it is advisable to come to net on a second serve. If anyone knows, please clarify.

[/QUOTE]

not sure if this question got answered. The point here is that once you reach a certain level, players may not be able to take advantage of your second serve. In doubles, I'm typically hitting something closer to two second serves rather than a first and second serve. I can usually handle the first volley pretty well following my second serve.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Hi Cindy,

In general, I don't think following your serve to net at the 3.0 level is not great advice. Through the 3.5 level, the team with two players at the net loses more points than wins.

Really? Did you count the lost points? What was the ratio? Was this with every single team in the country? The world? The universe? How were you able to be there at the same time?

I think at this level, its generally better to play one up and one back until you get a short ball that you can come in behind.

Why? Why is it better to play one-up one-back. Why not play two back and they both can wait for the short ball. What if these players don't recognize the short ball in time? What happens then?

 

[vinouspleasure]

Really? Did you count the lost points? What was the ratio? Was this with every single team in the country? The world? The universe? How were you able to be there at the same time?

yes, it was the universe. I invented a time machine that allowed me to make the count. It was tough, but hey, neccessity is the mother of invention.

Actually, bb, there was a study that I read on this. If you are interested, I'll try to dig it out.

Why? Why is it better to play one-up one-back. Why not play two back and they both can wait for the short ball. What if these players don't recognize the short ball in time? What happens then?

yup, I suspect two back would work at this level. Based on the study, I'm suggesting two up at net is the least effective configuration at this level.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

yes, it was the universe. I invented a time machine that allowed me to make the count. It was tough, but hey, neccessity is the mother of invention.

Actually, bb, there was a study that I read on this. If you are interested, I'll try to dig it out.



yup, I suspect two back would work at this level. Based on the study, I'm suggesting two up at net is the least effective configuration at this level.

Well this study should make better sense if they suggested the two-back formation. Why have one person up and one back if playing back and waiting for the short ball is superior.

How much did overheads and volley skills play into this? What were the ratios?

 

[vinouspleasure]

Well this study should make better sense if they suggested the two-back formation. Why have one person up and one back if playing back and waiting for the short ball is superior.

How much did overheads and volley skills play into this? What were the ratios?

bb, they didn't suggest a formation, they just presented the statistics and I suggested the formation based on the statistics. The study was based on mens usta tennis and it showed that at and below 3.5, more points were lost with two men at net than won. At 4.0, the odds went in favor of the two people at net. There was no qualitative analysis of overhead/volley skills, they just collected and presented the statistics. Its been about 3-4 years since I read the thing...

On your point about one up and one back vs two back, I take your point but I'm not sure what would be most effective. Part of the problem with two up at net at this level is the effectiveness of the lob. With one back and one up, you can still cover the lob while retaining a presence at net.

what I don;t like about either of these formations is that it doesn't lead the players to higher level play...

 

[Cindysphinx]

I'd like to see that study too.

I hate it when both of my opponents are at net. It's hard to drive the ball hard enough and well enough to pass them, so I chicken out too much and wind up lobbing. If half of my lobs are deep enough without going out, I'd be happy. I suspect the percentage is considerably lower.

 

[MordredSJT]

There is a very interesting article up on tennisone right now that gives some statistical analysis of WTA doubles. There were a few very interesting things in there. Despite the fact that more and more of the pro women are playing one up and one back, or even two back...the highest percentage position was two players at the net in a staggered formation (one partner closer than the other). Two players at net even with each other was less effective.

Oddly enough, playing one up and one back seemed to be the best way to neutralize a team that was playing with two up. The idea put forth was that a well struck groundstroke could produce a weak volley that the net player could then attack. Two back doesn't have this possibility and was found to generally suck all around. Of course, my preferred way to neutralize a team trying to play two up is to simply beat them to the net...and on that note, the stat that I took away to indoctrinate people with was that the team that struck the first volley won approximately 75% of the points played.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Mordred, any idea whether the stats for WTA would translate down to the lower levels, say 3.0-ish?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

bb, they didn't suggest a formation, they just presented the statistics and I suggested the formation based on the statistics. The study was based on mens usta tennis and it showed that at and below 3.5, more points were lost with two men at net than won. At 4.0, the odds went in favor of the two people at net. There was no qualitative analysis of overhead/volley skills, they just collected and presented the statistics. Its been about 3-4 years since I read the thing...

On your point about one up and one back vs two back, I take your point but I'm not sure what would be most effective. Part of the problem with two up at net at this level is the effectiveness of the lob. With one back and one up, you can still cover the lob while retaining a presence at net.

what I don;t like about either of these formations is that it doesn't lead the players to higher level play...

Okay, well, I would venture to say that this analysis is falling a bit short IMO.

If it is just a strict analysis on saying that the teams surveyed did not fair as well at the net, that leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

For example, let's say one gave the advice based on this article and said all teams should stay one-up and one-back. However, the specific team we are saying this to has excellent volleying skills? Do we alter the results of the survey in favor of what we think is appropriate?

Further, most doubles teams at the level they did the analysis on stay in a one-up/one-back formation anyway. So how did they determine the two-up formation didn't work? Was it when they finally came up? Was it when they always came up (i.e. following their serve/return)? How many net rushing teams were there compared to one-up/one-back formations? Why weren't skills considered and playing styles considered?

If skills weren't evaluated, how can anyone suggest a team stay in a one-up/one-back formation when nobody has evaluated the skills of the team?

Based on what you have said about this article (no offense on you) this article falls short in anyone using the information to suggest teams at a certain level should do what the surveys outcomes imply.

 

[MordredSJT]

Mordred, any idea whether the stats for WTA would translate down to the lower levels, say 3.0-ish?

I have no idea

However, I found it interesting because I've often heard the argument that professional players are staying back more in doubles because the groundstrokes are being struck with so much more pace and spin now that it is difficult to win at the net. Also that a lot of them do not have the skills at net that a lot of players used to have in previous generations. I hear similar excuses from 3.0 women. "I'm better/more comfortable staying back...I don't volley well." Yet, at the professional level it still seems to prove true that decent shotmaking from superior positioning beats great shotmaking from bad positioning.

As far as I am concerned, that holds true for all levels of doubles play. Now, there are those that disagree with me (my current boss for instance). However, it seems strange that while the 3.0 players that they teach to stay back win more quickly and often at the 3.0 level, they usually end up staying at the 3.0 level (or getting bumped to 3.5 where they either change their game again or get spanked for a few years). On the other hand, the players I teach to play position and move forward may lose at first while they are learning, but once they understand will usually win easily and be forced to move up where they continue to do reasonably well.

 

[travlerajm]

There is a very interesting article up on tennisone right now that gives some statistical analysis of WTA doubles. There were a few very interesting things in there. Despite the fact that more and more of the pro women are playing one up and one back, or even two back...the highest percentage position was two players at the net in a staggered formation (one partner closer than the other). Two players at net even with each other was less effective.

Oddly enough, playing one up and one back seemed to be the best way to neutralize a team that was playing with two up. The idea put forth was that a well struck groundstroke could produce a weak volley that the net player could then attack. Two back doesn't have this possibility and was found to generally suck all around. Of course, my preferred way to neutralize a team trying to play two up is to simply beat them to the net...and on that note, the stat that I took away to indoctrinate people with was that the team that struck the first volley won approximately 75% of the points played.

That's interesting about the staggered 2-at-net formation in the WTA tour. I suspect that it is most effective because women have a tougher time covering their own lobs. The staggered formation allows the person closer to the net to be the aggressor/poacher and the person further from the net to be the sweeper/lob smasher. So the coverage zones are divided a little differently, with the aggressor covering a wider zone at the net, and the sweeper covering anything that goes high enough to clear the agressor's head. It's actually quite easy for a speedy righthanded player playing the adcourt to cover a lob in her partner's alley by rolling diagonally back to her right, easier than it is to backpedal straight back to cover her own lob.

 

[slice bh compliment]

My favorite part of any dubs strategy book is that golden chapter at the end that was either lost or left on the editor's floor at the publishing house. You know the one...that very honest chapter about how most people overthink the game....and get too dogmatic about stuff.

They paralyze eachother with too much thought. They stop playing instinctively. They arrest/inhibit/stifle their own athleticism and agility. They remove all imagination from their games. I've seen it at the 3.5 level all the way up to solid juniors and college players.

Some teaching pros, unknowingly of course, promote this paralysis by analysis. They even come up with fancy names for old, simple concepts. Some even make a buck or two off that.

People, please. Attack. Defend when you need to...then attack again. Play without fear. Play with ball control. Behave as a team. Enjoy the game. Enjoy your partner. Respect your opponent(s). Improve. PLAY.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Of course you can poach off your partner's wide serve to the deuce side. You can do this as a planned move, or as a reaction to something you read from your opponent...as long as your partner understands that as soon as you make a move to poach the down the line return is no longer your responsibility in any way and she needs to get her butt over there and cover that shot as soon as you move.

That having been said. I would say that this play is highly situational in nature and is very, very rarely that good of an idea. Serving down the middle is the percentage play. Of course, if you serve down the middle 100% of the time, an astute opponent will see a pattern developing and their returns might suddenly start improving. So, the majority of your serves should go down the middle, but you need to throw in the serve out wide every so often to keep them on their toes (and the net player should know it is coming, and be aware if their responsibility is to cover the line or look to poach).

Dont always have to hit wide to change things up. A good serve into the body can do the trick as well.

 

[MordredSJT]

Dont always have to hit wide to change things up. A good serve into the body can do the trick as well.

Quite true, in fact my second most used serve on the deuce side is a slice up the middle that breaks into the returner. My "flat" first serve has a lot of topspin, but I can slice it off of the same toss. It's usually a nice little jammer that gets a weak return for my partner.

I'd say I serve out wide maybe once a match at most (unless someone is cheating towards the middle a lot).

 

[travlerajm]

I'd say I serve out wide maybe once a match at most (unless someone is cheating towards the middle a lot).

I serve mostly to the middle too, unless the guy's forehand is his weaker side.

 

[Solat]

There is a very interesting article up on tennisone right now that gives some statistical analysis of WTA doubles. There were a few very interesting things in there. and on that note, the stat that I took away to indoctrinate people with was that the team that struck the first volley won approximately 75% of the points played.

thats going into my required quoting on court

can't arguie with those numbers

 

[vinouspleasure]

Okay, well, I would venture to say that this analysis is falling a bit short IMO.

For example, let's say one gave the advice based on this article and said all teams should stay one-up and one-back. However, the specific team we are saying this to has excellent volleying skills? Do we alter the results of the survey in favor of what we think is appropriate?

Right, the survey is just a broad brush statistical survey and it may or may not apply to an individual team. However,two points here: I was answering cindi's question about 3.0 players. If the odds are against a men's 3.5 doubles team at net, its probably safe to assume they are really stacked against a 3.0 team...again, I agree, exceptions do exist. The other point is that while exceptions do exist, the study does present some interesting analysis. We should give pause before issuing the standard advice of getting two up at net at every level.

Further, most doubles teams at the level they did the analysis on stay in a one-up/one-back formation anyway. So how did they determine the two-up formation didn't work? Was it when they finally came up? Was it when they always came up (i.e. following their serve/return)?

yes, any time during the point when there were two at net.

Why weren't skills considered and playing styles considered?
If skills weren't evaluated, how can anyone suggest a team stay in a one-up/one-back formation when nobody has evaluated the skills of the team?

assessing skills sets is a) subjective and b) makes the study much harder to perform.

Based on what you have said about this article (no offense on you) this article falls short in anyone using the information to suggest teams at a certain level should do what the surveys outcomes imply.

no offense taken but I disagree with your conclusion. At the very least, we should question the stock advice of getting two up at net if a team is playing a match to win (as opposed to process goals). Perhaps I was hasty to recommend one up and one back but, given the statistics, I'd guess that cindi's team is losing more points with two up at net than winning.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Right, the survey is just a broad brush statistical survey and it may or may not apply to an individual team. However,two points here: I was answering cindi's question about 3.0 players. If the odds are against a men's 3.5 doubles team at net, its probably safe to assume they are really stacked against a 3.0 team...again, I agree, exceptions do exist. The other point is that while exceptions do exist, the study does present some interesting analysis. We should give pause before issuing the standard advice of getting two up at net at every level.



yes, any time during the point when there were two at net.




assessing skills sets is a) subjective and b) makes the study much harder to perform.



no offense taken but I disagree with your conclusion. At the very least, we should question the stock advice of getting two up at net if a team is playing a match to win (as opposed to process goals). Perhaps I was hasty to recommend one up and one back but, given the statistics, I'd guess that cindi's team is losing more points with two up at net than winning.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. You can question stock advice any time you want. The problem is the analysis you provided is extremely weak.

Also, you were a bit hasty suggesting a permanent formation when you know nothing about the team!

The other trouble is no matter how you slice it there is a reason a two-up formation is always suggested. It does not mean that it is the best formation for a particular team. It also could be the best formatin but the team needs to build their skills to handle the formaton. In other words, there volley skills may be better than their groundstrokes even though their volleys need more work.

The bottom-line? The article you provided is worthless as it does not included skills. It doesn't matter if adding skills would make the survey more difficult to perform. Without it renders the survey useless except on a very very high level and general level.

Again, you can question a two up formation till the cows come home, still the two-up formation is the superior formation above all others.

 

[vinouspleasure]

Again, you can question a two up formation till the cows come home, still the two-up formation is the superior formation above all others.

At mens 4.0 and above. At 3.5 and below, it is not superior. We can argue about the application of the data, but its hard to argue with the conclusion of the study.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

At mens 4.0 and above. At 3.5 and below, it is not superior. We can argue about the application of the data, but its hard to argue with the conclusion of the study.

LOL, 4.0 as well? Men's 4.0? LOL

Now, I know the study is full of it. If you would have just said 3.5 women's and below I could buy that. However, it is only viable if a player wants to never rise above 3.5.

Unfortunately, if you want to rise above 3.5, players need to keep developing their skills in order to beat the 3.5 level and rise to the next level.

Going by your advancement path, a mediocre team will rise because they won only to fail miserably as they rise.

Wouldn't it be better to continue to use a superior formation and simply work to improve skills executing it? I do realize my way is not the short-cut way and I realize it will take more work. However, I also know that following the advice of that study of yours would stifle a team.

Although many times doubles teams get caught in the one-up, one-back formation, it is the weakest formation of all - hands down.

 

[vinouspleasure]

LOL, 4.0 as well? Men's 4.0? LOL

not sure if you are reading my note correctly. At mens 4.0 and above, the study says the two players at net win more points than they lose. So two up is the way to go for 4.0 and above.

Unfortunately, if you want to rise above 3.5, players need to keep developing their skills in order to beat the 3.5 level and rise to the next level. oing by your advancement path, a mediocre team will rise because they won only to fail miserably as they rise.

Wouldn't it be better to continue to use a superior formation and simply work to improve skills executing it? I do realize my way is not the short-cut way and I realize it will take more work. However, I also know that following the advice of that study of yours would stifle a team. Although many times doubles teams get caught in the one-up, one-back formation, it is the weakest formation of all - hands down.

yes, we're in agreement here and I said the same thing earlier in this thread. However, if you're playing to win today rather than in the future (as a lot of teams are), you may not want to have two up at net at 3.5 and below.

 

[Geezer Guy]

Cindy,

Don't know if you're still reading this thread, but I finished the book and at the very end there are two points I disagree with:

1) Pat says to split-step when you hear your opponent hit the ball. I believe that's a tad too late. I believe you should split step when you see your opponent ABOUT to hit the ball. Admitedly, we're only talking fractions of a second here.

2) She also said that quick hands are something you've either got or you don't - it can't be learned or trained for. I disagree with that as well. Spending just 10 - 15 minutes each practice session with two players at net hitting QUICK volleys back and forth will do wonders for your reflexes. As will spending some time playing catch with a reflex ball against a wall. You'll surprise yourself with some of the hot volleys you reflex back across the net.

Those two very minor points aside, I think it's a great book.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Yep, I'm still reading, Geezer Guy.

Yeah, the negativity about whether you can learn to have quick hands isn't so helpful. Maybe she means "having good hands" is something you either have or you don't?

I am also finding the Australian formations loses me more points than it gains me. Signaling poaches works great, but Australian . . . I must be doing something wrong.

 

[vinouspleasure]

How are the points being lost playing Australian? Where is your team serving and where are you and your partner positioned?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

not sure if you are reading my note correctly. At mens 4.0 and above, the study says the two players at net win more points than they lose. So two up is the way to go for 4.0 and above.

Thank goodness I misread that!!! I have been baffled all weekend by that.

yes, we're in agreement here and I said the same thing earlier in this thread. However, if you're playing to win today rather than in the future (as a lot of teams are), you may not want to have two up at net at 3.5 and below.

I guess I am different than you or maybe you think the same. I always entertain the concept to win today but I also want to play better than I did yesterday.

What this means is, I am willing to drop some matches in order to conquer the level I am at down the road to be prepared to compete decently at the next level.

The other side to this issue is at the 3.5 level (especially womens) I am always seeing one of the players back. So they are already in the one-up/one-back formation. Rarely do I see them come to net on a consistent basis.

In fact, as a coach, that is one of my biggest conplaints. Anyway, we are cool.

 

[vinouspleasure]

Thank goodness I misread that!!! I have been baffled all weekend by that.

:^)

I guess I am different than you or maybe you think the same. I always entertain the concept to win today but I also want to play better than I did yesterday.

What this means is, I am willing to drop some matches in order to conquer the level I am at down the road to be prepared to compete decently at the next level.

We're in violent agreement here. A good way to manage this is by having process goals and match goals (you've probably heard all this before). So a good process goal for the teams you coach might be at least 20 instances of two at net. This leaves your teams with a chance to win the match while improving their play.

Anyway, we are cool.

Indeed...we managed to have a good exchange of ideas, disagreeing with each other, all without flaming each other. A pleasure...

 

[Geezer Guy]

... I am also finding the Australian formations loses me more points than it gains me. Signaling poaches works great, but Australian . . . I must be doing something wrong.

Be sure the server stands close the the middle hash, and is ready to cover the down-the-line return. Personally, if I'm going to resort to Australian, I do it when serving from the Ad side. That way the server will get a forehand. Also, keep in mind that even though you may start in Aus, you can still poach. You've got to keep those returners guessing.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Why would I want a forehand? Isn't the backhand usually weaker? So wouldn't I want to use Australian mostly in the deuce court?

 

[vinouspleasure]

Why would I want a forehand? Isn't the backhand usually weaker? So wouldn't I want to use Australian mostly in the deuce court?

- Having the net person near the center hash is good advice
- I like to use it in the deuce court with a right handed receiver. We serve down the middle and make the returner change the direction of the ball with his backhand.
- One of the keys is to practice it before match play and use it selectively. My partner and I recently used it in a tie break. My opponent had grooved his cc serve return. At around 4-4, we switched to it and he hit return into the middle of the net.

 

[LuckyR]

Why would I want a forehand? Isn't the backhand usually weaker? So wouldn't I want to use Australian mostly in the deuce court?

I believe Geezer means that the server will be hitting forehands personally when serving to the ad court since he is responsible for DTL shots. Classically, the server will be hitting more backhands when serving to the deuce court.

 

[Geezer Guy]

I believe Geezer means that the server will be hitting forehands personally when serving to the ad court since he is responsible for DTL shots. Classically, the server will be hitting more backhands when serving to the deuce court.

Yes - that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clearer (more clear?).

The server will serve from the ad side, then immediately move over to the duece side to cover the receivers reply, which will usually be coming to the servers forehand.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Ah, OK. Got it.