Etiquette of hitting at the net player in doubles

[Roforot]

It seems the only reason for a 2.5 league is to gently introduce people into competition. Having the shenanigans associated w/ going for state or nationals is just going to muddle things up. The reward for doing well in 2.5 should be escaping the beginner's league.

I'd also argue that on the other end, with 5.0 and 5.5s, you're getting to the point where most of those players have competed in college or bigger stages... If I were that good, going for a USTA trophy seems a big step backwards...

For the rest of us hackers who never got to live the dream, nationals is obviously a very big carrot.


Of course, I have to concede Tom's point about travelling w/ buds

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

just don't aim at the head or eye. if somebody hits me in the head, i would call the police immediately and file charges.

but if you just get hit in the hips or family jewel, i think it is fair play.

I would love to be your opponent's lawyer in the civil suit against you for unlawful arrest that followed.

[Nostradamus]

Originally Posted by beernutz

I would love to be your opponent's lawyer in the civil suit against you for unlawful arrest that followed.

That is not unlawful, dude. I got hit in the eye one time and had to rush into the emergency room. Lucky me, it was only scratched cornea. but it could have been far worse. That crazy sob went head hunting for no reason. I should have filed charges but didn't. I regret that i didn't file charges.
and i don't care if there is lawsuit. There is NO jury in the world that will side with psycho like that.

Life lesson is Don't ever go headhunting.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

That is not unlawful, dude. I got hit in the eye one time and had to rush into the emergency room. Lucky me, it was only scratched cornea. but it could have been far worse. That crazy sob went head hunting for no reason. I should have filed charges but didn't. I regret that i didn't file charges.
and i don't care if there is lawsuit. There is NO jury in the world that will side with psycho like that.

Life lesson is Don't ever go headhunting.

Maybe the life lesson should be for you to wear protective eyewear or to just stay off the courts entirely.

[edwincen]

I think it depends on how the hitter act after that shot, sincerely sorry is acceptable, but i used to be laughed over after hit by his ball.

[Mongolmike]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

That is not unlawful, dude. I got hit in the eye one time and had to rush into the emergency room. Lucky me, it was only scratched cornea. but it could have been far worse. That crazy sob went head hunting for no reason. I should have filed charges but didn't. I regret that i didn't file charges.
and i don't care if there is lawsuit. There is NO jury in the world that will side with psycho like that.

Life lesson is Don't ever go headhunting.

Shouldn't you have seen it coming? I mean, you are Nostradamus....

Guy went head-hunting for no reason? Sounds like just one half of the story.... and I'd be fairly confident that in a court of law an injury that occured from getting hit by a ball during a tennis match has a pretty good chance of being dismissed outright, or found not guilty by a jury (again depending upon what happened before and after).

It's a tennis match. He hit a legitimate shot. You got hurt. Getting hit by a tennis ball is not an unusual occurence in a tennis match. What, are you gonna claim premeditated intent? Prove it.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Mongolmike

Shouldn't you have seen it coming? I mean, you are Nostradamus....

...It's a tennis match. He hit a legitimate shot. You got hurt. Getting hit by a tennis ball is not an unusual occurence in a tennis match. What, are you gonna claim premeditated intent? Prove it.

That's what I've always thought too, he is Nostradamus!

The worst eye injury I've had was self-inflicted but with extenuating circumstances Your Honor. It was the first point in a match, I was not fully awake yet and doing what a "teaching-pro" had just taken my hard earned money and taught me to do--play tight to the net. That is walk up to the net, smack it and stand there with the words "YOURS" on the tip of my tongue. So I'm standing there, in a quasi-nocturnal state and the moron receiver returns it as hard as he could right at me. The ball glances off my racket and pops me in the eye real good--WHO DO I SUE?. I paused briefly, put some ice on it checked to see if I could still see out of it and kept playing. Next day it still hurt and was really blood shot, so I went to my trusted behavioral eye doc, who plays pretty good tennis himself to get it checked out. His verdict was no permanent damage, carry-on. I did learn this: PAY ATTENTION ESPECIALLY ON THE VERY FIRST POINT OF A MATCH!

This reminds me of when I stupidly did this against Meredith McGrath in a pro-am. She did kinda' say "whew" but fortunately she's probably used to club players acting like morons in pro-ams and did not take offense. I apologize Meredith and promise never to do anything like that again--unless I'm head-hunting because the clown on the other side has pissed me off. Meredith McGrath is quite beautiful and obviously very understanding and forgiving of moron club players, like me back then--and me maybe later today.

[IA-SteveB]

Originally Posted by Mongolmike

Shouldn't you have seen it coming? I mean, you are Nostradamus....

Guy went head-hunting for no reason? Sounds like just one half of the story.... and I'd be fairly confident that in a court of law an injury that occured from getting hit by a ball during a tennis match has a pretty good chance of being dismissed outright, or found not guilty by a jury (again depending upon what happened before and after).

It's a tennis match. He hit a legitimate shot. You got hurt. Getting hit by a tennis ball is not an unusual occurence in a tennis match. What, are you gonna claim premeditated intent? Prove it.

I have to agree with you here. Nicely put.

[NTRPolice]

The only thing I can say is that people seem to forget how dynamic NTRP ranges are especially under the 4.0 level. Once you get to 4.0/8.0 players start to more or less even out. It's the sub-4.0 level play that has a broad dynamic of players and/or abilities.

If you look at the 3.0 Caribbean team (who are all 3.0 computer rated players) you can see that they are well ahead of the other teams even at the national level.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Apples to apples, please.

The topic of this conversation is hitting at the net player in doubles and now we've taken a tangent and are now assuming that the weaker player is at the net and that the stronger player is hitting at the weaker player.

We're also talking about adult mixed doubles.

Adult league mixed doubles literally has the largest range of people and abilities than any other USTA league.

You arnt going to see a 3.5 super senior at nationals, but this player will be playing during the regular season and maybe may make a playoff occasionally. During the regular season this person could very well be up against a person half their age with twice their power and ability.

At the national level skills will tend to be closer, obviously, but during the regular season these players will have to play each other. During the regular season, it is "apples to apples" if I say that a nationals level player will play against a "never made a playoff". If both these players are the same NTRP, its even "red" apples to "red" apples.

[OrangePower]

In my opinion it's pretty simple:

If your intent is to hit a legitimate shot (intended to be in), and you are hitting it because it's the right one to hit under the circumstances, then there should be no cause for complaint.

(Which of course doesn't mean there *won't* be complaints, especially in mixed.)

On the other hand, if you are hitting a shot where your primary goal is to injure / intimidate your opponent, meaning that it's not necessarily intended to be in, and not the percentage shot under the circumstances, then you are a jerk.

[blakesq]

My primary goal is to win the point. My goal is NEVER to injure. But often my secondary goal is to intimidate the net player.

Originally Posted by OrangePower

In my opinion it's pretty simple:

If your intent is to hit a legitimate shot (intended to be in), and you are hitting it because it's the right one to hit under the circumstances, then there should be no cause for complaint.

(Which of course doesn't mean there *won't* be complaints, especially in mixed.)

On the other hand, if you are hitting a shot where your primary goal is to injure / intimidate your opponent, meaning that it's not necessarily intended to be in, and not the percentage shot under the circumstances, then you are a jerk.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

The only thing I can say is that people seem to forget how dynamic NTRP ranges are especially under the 4.0 level. Once you get to 4.0/8.0 players start to more or less even out. It's the sub-4.0 level play that has a broad dynamic of players and/or abilities.

Honestly, I don't see why you would say that.

Yes, there are more male and female players at 3.5 and below than at 4.0 and above. But my experience at 2.5-4.0 has been that there is a broad ranger of abilities within each rating level. I would not agree at all that players "start to even out" at 4.0. There are still lots of wonky strokes and jacked up mechanics at 4.0, yet players have learned to compensate. And if you take a player at the top of 4.0 against a player at the bottom of 4.0, the weaker player will struggle to win any games.

So I am not sure what your point is and why.

The topic of this conversation is hitting at the net player in doubles and now we've taken a tangent and are now assuming that the weaker player is at the net and that the stronger player is hitting at the weaker player.

We're also talking about adult mixed doubles.

Yes, you took us on a tangent with the wildly inaccurate statement that a 2.5 guy is lightyears ahead of a 3.5 woman.

When everyone laughed at this assertion, you tried to prop it up by saying that the 2.5 guy has to be of nationals caliber while the 3.5 woman has to be decrepit and elderly, thereby not comparing apples to apples.

You probably would do better just to admit you were wrong.

You arnt going to see a 3.5 super senior at nationals, but this player will be playing during the regular season and maybe may make a playoff occasionally. During the regular season this person could very well be up against a person half their age with twice their power and ability.

At the national level skills will tend to be closer, obviously, but during the regular season these players will have to play each other. During the regular season, it is "apples to apples" if I say that a nationals level player will play against a "never made a playoff". If both these players are the same NTRP, its even "red" apples to "red" apples.

No, that is silly.

When we talk about how this type of player (say, a 3.5 guy) will do against another type of player (say, a 4.0 guy), we find it most useful to compare players who are similar. We might choose in our hypothetical guys who are in the middle of their rating level and are computer rated. Then we can draw some meaningful conclusions (say, we might agree that the 3.5 guy should get double-bageled in singles).

If you start comparing players who are not in fact similar (say, a nationals-bound 4.0 male singles player against a 3.5 senior female doubles specialist), then you can't draw any general conclusions.

So maybe if you are going to make sweeping statements about who is lightyears ahead of whom, you should stick with discussing computer-rated league players who are similar in some way.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Honestly, I don't see why you would say that.

Yes, there are more male and female players at 3.5 and below than at 4.0 and above. But my experience at 2.5-4.0 has been that there is a broad ranger of abilities within each rating level. I would not agree at all that players "start to even out" at 4.0. There are still lots of wonky strokes and jacked up mechanics at 4.0, yet players have learned to compensate. And if you take a player at the top of 4.0 against a player at the bottom of 4.0, the weaker player will struggle to win any games.

So I am not sure what your point is and why.



Yes, you took us on a tangent with the wildly inaccurate statement that a 2.5 guy is lightyears ahead of a 3.5 woman.

When everyone laughed at this assertion, you tried to prop it up by saying that the 2.5 guy has to be of nationals caliber while the 3.5 woman has to be decrepit and elderly, thereby not comparing apples to apples.

You probably would do better just to admit you were wrong.



No, that is silly.

When we talk about how this type of player (say, a 3.5 guy) will do against another type of player (say, a 4.0 guy), we find it most useful to compare players who are similar. We might choose in our hypothetical guys who are in the middle of their rating level and are computer rated. Then we can draw some meaningful conclusions (say, we might agree that the 3.5 guy should get double-bageled in singles).

If you start comparing players who are not in fact similar (say, a nationals-bound 4.0 male singles player against a 3.5 senior female doubles specialist), then you can't draw any general conclusions.

So maybe if you are going to make sweeping statements about who is lightyears ahead of whom, you should stick with discussing computer-rated league players who are similar in some way.

We know that a top tier player of a certain NTRP is well ahead of someone at the bottom of that same NTRP. Even the NTRP guidelines describe the results of a "high end" player vs. a "low end" player resulting in 0-0 type scores.

Why do you still think that once you factor age and gender into the mix that somehow things become more balanced?

You do realize that a lot of "nationals level" players play at multiple levels and attend multiple national championships in the same year right? You also realize that a lot of those players are in fact computer rated right?

I know people on this forum think that people of NTRP's below them are absolutely terrible, but you'd be surprised how good some of these players are especially at the highest level of play. Type of rating doesnt matter either. I looked at the Caribbean 3.0 team this year and all of their players are C rated.

I still dont see how you fail to understand that "mixed" is the most diverse league in USTA and of all leagues to "assume everyone is in the middle of their NTRP" is just absurd. If we were talking only about adult league sectionals then you'd make a little sense.

Regular season play of adult mixed literally has "everything" and "everyone" playing in it.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

We know that a top tier player of a certain NTRP is well ahead of someone at the bottom of that same NTRP. Even the NTRP guidelines describe the results of a "high end" player vs. a "low end" player resulting in 0-0 type scores.

Why do you still think that once you factor age and gender into the mix that somehow things become more balanced?

You do realize that a lot of "nationals level" players play at multiple levels and attend multiple national championships in the same year right? You also realize that a lot of those players are in fact computer rated right?

I know people on this forum think that people of NTRP's below them are absolutely terrible, but you'd be surprised how good some of these players are especially at the highest level of play. Type of rating doesnt matter either. I looked at the Caribbean 3.0 team this year and all of their players are C rated.

I still dont see how you fail to understand that "mixed" is the most diverse league in USTA and of all leagues to "assume everyone is in the middle of their NTRP" is just absurd. If we were talking only about adult league sectionals then you'd make a little sense.

Regular season play of adult mixed literally has "everything" and "everyone" playing in it.

Let me try it this way:

Let's say someone claimed that women sprinters are lightyears ahead of male sprinters. They support this claim by pointing out that women's world record for the 100 meters is 10 seconds, but the best 80+ male sprinter does 100 meters in 14 seconds. So women are faster sprinters than men.

That would be *stupid,* right?

Well, you are claiming that a male 2.5 is lightyears ahead of a 3.5 woman. When everyone chortled at this, you say the male is national level whereas the woman is an overweight senior. Don't you see why this is fooling no one?

Why you keep bringing up the Caribbean male 3.0 team that competed at nationals is beyond me. I mean, who cares? We all know that players at Nationals are usually at the top of their rating level and as much as 1-2 levels higher.

Anyway, if we are going to compare apples to apples, I think you would agree with me that your 3.5 woman at nationals is lightyears stronger than your 2.5 man at nationals. Right?

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Let me try it this way:

Let's say someone claimed that women sprinters are lightyears ahead of male sprinters. They support this claim by pointing out that women's world record for the 100 meters is 10 seconds, but the best 80+ male sprinter does 100 meters in 14 seconds. So women are faster sprinters than men.

That would be *stupid,* right?

In "USTA adult mixed doubles", this 80 year old male sprinter could very well go up against a 17 year old female from Uganda, in which case she would beat him by 0-4 which would be "light years" ahead of him in terms of tennis and in the context of this thread.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Well, you are claiming that a male 2.5 is lightyears ahead of a 3.5 woman. When everyone chortled at this, you say the male is national level whereas the woman is an overweight senior. Don't you see why this is fooling no one?

If you read that as "any 2.5 male is far superior to any 3.5 female" then I really have nothing else to say to you. There's a reason why "spot" made my ignore list and you're pushing that threshold too. You're either really stupid for interpreting it that way, or you're just pretending. Either way, its these types of shitnanigans that turn me off from this forum.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Why you keep bringing up the Caribbean male 3.0 team that competed at nationals is beyond me. I mean, who cares? We all know that players at Nationals are usually at the top of their rating level and as much as 1-2 levels higher.

EXACTLY.

So if that 2.5 adult league nationals player is well ahead of his own "class", how do you think that transposes to the adult mixed arena? Very well in fact.

Who cares?

They're computer rated players. All of them.

The whole argument of "B" rated players are better than everyone else was shot down earlier this year. Hopefully your "I wanna see a C rated player..." type arguments will run out of air soon.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Anyway, if we are going to compare apples to apples, I think you would agree with me that your 3.5 woman at nationals is lightyears stronger than your 2.5 man at nationals. Right?

Yes, considering that age and type of game played are not a factor.

A 3.5 super senior female "doubles specialist" would not be "light years" ahead of a 2.5 adult league man in singles, but since these two will never play each other in adult league due to (probably) age and (definitely) gender they cannot be compared.

If you take a 3.5 female adult league national level singles player and put her against a 2.5 adult league national level singles player, she would definitely be well ahead of him.

[tennis tom]

Watching Michael Llodra vs DelPo at ATP Paris in a close exchange with both players volleying at the net: Llodra hits what looks like a warm-up volley in slow motion away from DelPo, that DP puts away easily: Aussie commentator says: "That volley should have gone straight THROUGH DelPo's chest but Llodra being too much of a Mr. nice guy here."

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

Watching Michael Llodra vs DelPo at ATP Paris in a close exchange with both players volleying at the net: Llodra hits what looks like a warm-up volley in slow motion away from DelPo, that DP puts away easily: Aussie commentator says: "That volley should have gone straight THROUGH DelPo's chest but Llodra being too much of a Mr. nice guy here."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PxEJ9n-mJM

It happens like that sometimes. That's a singles ground stroke too. Imagine if that was an overhead or a swinging volley in doubles.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PxEJ9n-mJM

WOW, brutal! I'm digging out my cup. Thanks for sharing.

[tennis tom]

Just getting around to watching my recording of the London Year End dubs finals and saw Bhupati poaching, nailing Grenollers squarely on the butt from close range. Gren waved it off, still in full retreat, communicating to Bhu "no offense taken". If you're gonna' play "new style", one-up- tight to the net-/one-back, and you're the net player, "You're gonna' be a target," like Jimmy Arias said, you better be alert at net, and maybe wear a full crotch and butt cup.