What skills are most important for singles specialists?

[Cindysphinx]

I'm trying to identify who among my 3.0 ladies players would make a good singles specialist. We want 4-5 singles specialists, and I've identified 3 clear choices. That leaves two more.

Once we eliminate players with poor groundstrokes or poor fitness or no desire to play singles, we're left with many candidates.

How important is it in singles at our level to have a big first serve? Or a consistent serve? Or good footspeed? Or topspin groundstrokes? Or slice groundstrokes? A good overhead? Is it a deal killer if someone has a weak side (e.g. weaker backhand)?

Or is it as simple as using the weaker volleyers as singles specialists?

At the 3.0 level, I would say that the most consistent players should play singles. Consistency is huge at the 3.0 level.

[sue20852]

Originally Posted by Dunlopkid

At the 3.0 level, I would say that the most consistent players should play singles. Consistency is huge at the 3.0 level.

In addition, I would select strong players to play singles, only if they want to play singles. Strong players usually have more developed attributes like fitness, mobility, stroke mechanics, mental toughness, etc., than your average player.

Sue

[J011yroger]

I am a born singles player, and play dubs when I have to. So maybe I can help with this. I would say the most important thing would be that the person wants to play singles, that they enjoy it. I live for competition, for that time when you are serving down 5-6 in the third set, and need to hold to get into a tiebreak. If you have someone who is competitive, and mentally tough, not someone who plays for fun and to hang out with their friends, that would be my first criteria. I love the Roman gladiator aspect.

As far as strokes go, on groundies, I would look for someone who hits through the court well, I understand that this is 3.0 but you can still watch them hit. When I give lessons, without a word from the people during the first lesson, just by how they hit, I can tell singles players from doubles players. Volleys are probably the thing you have the biggest leeway with, If you have a poor volleyer, who is otherwise a solid player, that lack of ability will hurt you more in dubs than singles. Good overhead is the same, more important in dubs than singles. As far as serving, you can get away with a not so good serve in doubles, as there is less of an area for the opposition to hurt you, and they are already under pressure from your partner. In singles you will be in more trouble with a lame serve, and conversely if you have a good serve, you will only get to serve 1/2 of the games for your team in dubs, and you will get to use that good serve for all of the service games in singles.

J

[Topaz]

Consistency!!!! And some knowledge of strategy...corner to corner, put away short balls, and having a down the line shot (at least on one side if not both) will help. Also, a strong first serve, consistent second serve...or, someone who doesn't DF often.

[spot]

The person who can hit groundstrokes deep with consistency. If you do that you can win a ton of singles matches. People who go for winners get killed at that level because they aren't as good as they believe- Just find the person who gets to the ball early, gets it back deep, and can do it repeatedly.

[Cindysphinx]

When you say "hits through the court well", are you referring to achieving depth? Or do you mean whether they actually finish the stroke? Or something else?

Consistency is def the key at this level.

[J011yroger]

Hitting through the court is about more than just depth its about the ball carrying back after the bounce to force your opponent back. Doubles players especially have trouble with this, as their shots are hit with placement and angle to get them where they want them (Past a net player, low over the net, angled cross return) while singles players are more about forcing the opponent back, getting them out of position. Look for people who drive the ball, more than steer it (I am sorry if this doesn't make sense I am new to the boards and it is much easier to describe and show in person rather than convey in words).

[JHBKLYN]

You should have those who want to play singles play each other and see who are the better singles players. As others said, at this level, just getting the ball over consistently is enough to win matches.

[cak]

Good point JHBKLYN. It's easy to set up a singles ladder. The top two available get to play. People who really want to play singles can work on their game, and might even make it to the top by the end of the season.

(And I'm jealous, on our team the singles players are pretty much anyone willing to play singles. And that still leaves us with less than 4 or 5.)

[spot]

Cindy- don't you think that you are going way overboard by having singles "specialists" at 3.0? At that level let people go out and play and see who enjoys playing singles. There is just no need to have people on your team that only play singles unless you have people that only want to play singles.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by spot

Cindy- don't you think that you are going way overboard by having singles "specialists" at 3.0? At that level let people go out and play and see who enjoys playing singles. There is just no need to have people on your team that only play singles unless you have people that only want to play singles.

Well, no.

The idea of having singles specialists came from the advice on the subject from people here at TW. I asked a few months ago, and the consensus seemed to be that you need singles specialists to win team matches. If you can't win at singles, you must win all three of your doubles matches, which is a tall order.

Also, I was on a 0-12 team last season that didn't have singles specialists. Interested players kind of dabbled in singles. Despite being a doubles specialist, I was tossed out there at No. 1 singles for one match, with no practice at singles beforehand. I was whipped 6-1, 6-0 in 45 minutes. I felt like I was playing tennis on a bowling alley because the court felt very narrow to me. I was repeatedly hitting great angles to the doubles lines. I was astonished that my normally good doubles shots were being treated as "short balls" and punished accordingly. So yeah, there's much to be said for learning to play singles properly.

Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

If you're worried about hurting their feelings, then you probably won't end up with a winning team. Take it from me though, most of the people that beat me in singles have lousy technique, yet are able to simply block back all my shots so that I beat myself. Thats why I'd say their actual performance in singles is the only decent way to determine who is best for the job.

But if you really must base it on their doubles play, pick whoever is best at the baseline. Pick someone with consistent service returns that can hit cross court or down the line without getting poached.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Ace

Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

Heheh. I know who she is, I even spotted her on tennislink.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by raiden031

Heheh. I know who she is, I even spotted her on tennislink.

yeah....hahaha....me too. what would her teammates say....? ..."Hey! I'M that WEAK player she's complaining about all the time!!!!"

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Ace

Don't they read this?
You've posted enough to reveal who you are....hahahahah....your teammates will know if they read these message boards!

Hee!

I heard a joke once about this sort of thing.

There was a coach of a mixed doubles team who was expressing his displeasure. He said some of the players don't work hard, don't give it their all, need to work on their fitness, were the weak link.

All the women were convinced he must be talking about them.

All the men were convinced he had to be talking about someone else.

[rasajadad]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Hee!

I heard a joke once about this sort of thing.

There was a coach of a mixed doubles team who was expressing his displeasure. He said some of the players don't work hard, don't give it their all, need to work on their fitness, were the weak link.

All the women were convinced he must be talking about them.

All the men were convinced he had to be talking about someone else.

Good one! Not a lot of tennis jokes out there.

[JHBKLYN]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Regarding the idea of having the players play each other . . . we're talking about women here. Women who are friends. Women who wouldn't want it known that this or that teammate whipped them in singles and as a result was chosen to be a singles specialist. I think everyone will be happier if I just pick four people without saying why, so no one loses face. People will be free to imagine that they weren't asked to play singles not because their groundstrokes bite but because they are so invaluable in doubles.

Losing face? Are you saying people on the team don't know who the better players are? Unless they are in a state of denial, they should know who can play and who can't.

Despite how good someone's stroke or technique is, you can't force someone to play singles when they don't want to. By picking randomly yourself, you might make some players unhappy. I say get your team together, by a show of hands or racquets, have those who want to play singles be heard and then decide if they are worthy.

Your team also need to decide whether they want to win or just play and don't care if they come in last place. If your team wants to win, then get the best singles players out there, win your league, get that t-shirt and water bottle, and try to make it to the Nationals. If the games don't matter, then pick whoever you want and let them experience what is like to hit the ball by themselves and do a lot of running around.