One of my biggest pet peeves is a doubles partner in the rear court who does not switch sides when the net player had moved across the center service line to poach. Countless times I have moved across to poach the ball only to discover that my partner has not budged from his position -- he is standing in the backcourt behind me. If I hit an outright winner, we are ok. Quite often, however, I will hit a poach shot that elicits a very weak x-court response from the opponent. If my partner had moved to the correct position, he could possibly have hit a winner on the next shot. Instead, the opponent will often get a free point with their weak reply because there is no one there to make a play the ball. Occasionally, my poach will not be as damaging as I had planned and the opponent is able to hit an easy winner because my partner has left quite a bit of the court open by failing to switch.
Another pet peeve is related to the first. In this situation, the net player moves across the center service line to poach the ball. Seeing this, I move to cover the other side -- I will sometime move across the baseline but usually I am moving forward to join my partner at the net. As I am moving to cover the other side my partner decides to move back across the center line toward his original position. Since I am further from the net than my partner (even if I am moving forward to take the net), it is not possible for me to change direction in time to effectively cover the side that my partner has just abandoned.
And then there is the net player who moves to poach the ball and then camps out on the center line near the net. As their partner I have no clue whether I should move left or right and we end up in an "I" formation. Now if the net guy has hit a very effective shot with his poach, he might be justified, in some cases, hanging out in the middle because he is absolutely certain that he can put the ball away with his next shot. Once in a while this backfires tho'.
Last edited by SystemicAnomaly : 02-08-2013 at 01:57 AM.
Reason: spelling error