Mixed doubles

[anubis]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

And the NTRP difference cannot exceed 1.0 between players. You cant have a 4.5 and a 2.5 playing 7.0 for example.

What is your record at 3.0 mens like? If your record is bad, I wouldnt play 7.0 because your 4.0 girl partner is not going to enjoy playing with you lol. Remember, as a 3.0 man playing 7.0 mixed you're going to be expected to play "even" with a 4.0 woman and not be a "liability" against a 4.0 man on a competitive team.

If you're just playing for "fun" and your team is for "fun" then go ahead and test yourself in 7.0. If that team is a competitive, going-for-it, team, I wouldnt even think about it unless you're at least 80% wins in 3.0, preferably at doubles.

To put this into perspective, you will be up against two 3.5 players who are likely 4.0's in ability once you get to the playoff level. In order for a 3.0 man, 4.0 woman, combo to work, your girl is going to need to play "at level" (meaning 4.0) and you're going to have to play up, way up, to a strong 3.5 or better to stand a chance.

4.0 is when players start to become much more "competitive" and a lot less "social".

Here, mixed is one of the most competitive leagues there are. You have "3.0's for life" here who go to nationals on a regular basis who play mixed exclusively.

My record this year in rated NTRP matches is 11 wins 4 losses, but I didn't get bumped up. I consider myself to be a strong 3.0. I want the matches to be competitive, i want to be driven to play better by my teammates. I feel like I'll be more challenged in 7.0 than 6.0.

Thanks for the advice all

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Nah. A 3.0 guy playing mixed will be expected to play like a 3.0 guy playing mixed. He will not be expected to play "even" with a 4.0 woman. This is because she is essentially one USTA level stronger and will be way, way more consistent.

A 3.0 man and a 4.0 woman playing mixed doubles are going to be the closest in skill level than any other combination possible. A 4.0 guy is going to be far superior to a 3.0 girl and since we know NTRP's are not gender biased a 3.5 man is going to be stronger than a 3.5 woman on average.

Also, doubles (especially mixed) is not about "consistency". Doubles is about setting up points and successfully closing out points.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

No matter what the 3.0 guy does, he will be a "liability" against the 4.0 guy. On account of how a 4.0 guy is two full USTA levels above him. The 3.0guy/4.0woman pair can still win by ruthlessly targeting the 3.0 female opponent.

Not a good 3.0 who is sticking to their guns and working as a team.

Sure, in singles the 4.0 would bagel the 3.0 guy all day long. In doubles, the 3.0 just has to not "lose points" or be "useless" and has to defer to his partner so she can finish the points. In singles, he doesnt have such a luxury.

-If the 3.0 can return the serve of the 4.0 without making careless errors or floating balls at the net he would be holding his own. He doent need to be able to rip BHDTL winners, but he has to be able to return the ball in the court without feeding balls.

-If the 3.0 can serve a decent ball without double faulting so that his net player is not getting killed by the 4.0's return, he would be holding his own. He doesnt need to serve aces, but he cant let the 4.0 just drill his partner without risk of error or double fault twice in a game.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

The job of the 3.0 guy will be to get his serves in and keep the ball in play. He should know he will see most of the balls, and he shouldn't try to do more than he can comfortably do. The worst thing he can do is try to play even with the 4.0 gal or guy, because he will go down in a flaming blaze of UEs.

That's exactly what "not be a liability" means.

He would get crushed on the singles court, but he can do much more on the doubles court by trying to set up his partner especially in areas where hes weak.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

A playoff-bound team will probably not want many 4.0woman/3.0guy pairs. If you get on such a team, it will be fine if your expectations are appropriate. Unless you and your partner are both at the top of your rating levels, you won't play much.

I'm at the top of my rating level and my partner is an ok 4.0. Although she went to 3.5 nationals for womens, she's been having a hard time in 4.0 womens which means we had a hard time in mixed.

We had an impressive year together. And we were the most dependable line out of all of the other lines. We lost in both playoff's however.

It's very hard being the 4.0 girl in a 7.0 combo. She was under a lot of pressure at net. My volleys are still terrible so my game was pretty much pound from the baseline and serve hard. I would only close in on balls she could not get to. I also stayed back to cover the lob, but after they see my overheads they didnt lob very much, lol.

The problem is, this type of brute force strategy doesnt work at high levels. They will just keep hitting balls at her and she could not put them away "almost every time" for the win. Even with this primitive strategy we still were very competitive even at the playoff level and completely demolished people in regular season play.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

The bold part is the problem: Who said anything about "playoff level"?

Most league tennis is played at the non-playoff level. If you view everything through the gauzy haze of what happens at districts/sectionals/nationals, you will give out a lot of questionable advice that only pertains to a small percentage of USTA league players.

Will the two 3.5 players OP will face be "likely 4.0 in ability?" Most of the time, no. There are plenty of 7.0 mixed players who are at the lower or middle range of 3.5. You will probably do fine against all but the strongest 7.0 pairs. Against those strong pairs, you will lose but the sun will still come up the next day, I promise.

Playoff level and above are what I consider the "real" level. It's the "benchmark" level and its averaged across the section/nation and is the greatest indicator of where you're at.

If I self rated as a 2.5 (or 5.0) I would be top of the district. Once I to go the section ill know exactly where im at. The same thing essentially applies to all ratings, its just that participation is more active in the middle levels.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Whether matches or teams are social or competitive depends on the local environment and team culture. There are plenty of individuals and teams at 3.0 and 3.5 that are very serious and competitive about their tennis, and there are easy-going, social 4.0 teams.

OP, I guess it all depends on how you define "social," but my experience at 7.0 was that everyone on the court wanted to win. From reading here at TT, I understand there are certain conventions that apply in league mixed (e.g. the guy should not crush his biggest shots at the woman at net unless she can volley), but you are perfectly within your rights to play to win.

And if you don't play to win on a team at the top of the standings, expect to be benched.

FWIW, I was bumped to 4.0, and that put an end to my 7.0 mixed career. I (and most of the 4.0 women I know) did not wish to play 7.0 mixed with a 3.0 partner. The reason is that we knew all balls would go to our partners. Some of us did not feel athletic enough to scramble and poach and somehow get in the point.

I do know one 4.0 woman who signed up for 7.0 mixed. She had a sandbagging 3.0 male partner, so they crushed the competition. The team earned a trip to sectionals. At that exact moment, the 3.0 male partner declined to attend or play any more mixed because he didn't like it. This left my friend sitting at home for sectionals because this guy was the only 3.0 guy on the team.

The serious 4.0 players I know will bean you in a heartbeat if they have to. They dont care. If you hit a sitter and you're standing net between them and a winner they are going to hit you. This doesnt really seem to be the same attitude at 3.5 and below even on serious teams.

There are players of all levels that are "social" and there are players at all levels that are "serious".

I just see more 4.0+ players who "play to win" because most people 3.0's to 3.5's just play to be social.

Originally Posted by anubis

My record this year in rated NTRP matches is 11 wins 4 losses, but I didn't get bumped up. I consider myself to be a strong 3.0. I want the matches to be competitive, i want to be driven to play better by my teammates. I feel like I'll be more challenged in 7.0 than 6.0.

Thanks for the advice all

With that kinda record I would try it out.

It's a whole different game, but you seem like a decent 3.0 so I dont see any problems with it.

If you were 4W-11L id say try out 6.0 first lol.

[NLBwell]

In our area we have .0 mixed (7.0, 8.0, etc.) in the spring and .5 (7.5, 8.5, etc.) in the fall.

That way you get a league where people one level apart can play together.

[Cindysphinx]

NTRP Police wrote:

Playoff level and above are what I consider the "real" level. It's the "benchmark" level and its averaged across the section/nation and is the greatest indicator of where you're at.

This could explain why we often disagree about what players at a particular level can do.

Consider this. In 2011, I was a 3.5C. I went to districts, sectionals and nationals. For 2012, I was a 4.0B.

I think it would be a mistake to say that in 2012 that I was at the "real level" of 4.0 because I was a 4.0B.

More accurate would be to say that in 2011, I was at the top of 3.5 even though I was a 3.5C. In 2012, I was at the very bottom of 4.0, even though I was a 4.0B.

So why is it that you keep suggesting that the playoff level is the real level?

This idea of considering benchmark ratings as the "real level" seems to be causing a lot of confusion and misstatements around here. People with B ratings are scattered throughout a particular level. In other words, if you gathered all of the 3.5B men in a room, you would find a wide range of ability. Some would be recent move-ups from 3.0, and others would be almost 4.0.

So why does it make sense to consider 3.5B the "real level?"

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I would suggest 7.0 mixed. You will get to face 3.5 and 4.0 guys, and that will be fun. You will have a 4.0 female partner.

I couldn't disagree more with Cindy on this.

If you are a legitimate 3.0 guy, don't play 7.0 mixed.

If you played 7.0 in our area, you will face 4.0 guys who also play up on 4.5 Men's teams, 8.5 and 9.5 combo (4.0 men with 5.5 men). We have a bunch of 4.0 men going to southern sectionals at 8.5 and 9.5 Combo. These are the 4.0 men playing 7.0 Mixed in our league year in and year out.

If your league doesn't have a bunch of strong 4.0 men, playing 7.0 Mixed, Cindy's suggestion might work. You would be destroyed in league with these type 4.0 men. The 4.0 guy will isolate you and hit to you as much as possible. The weaker player will see more balls.

If you are face 4.0 guys with strong 3.0 women, it isn't going to be fun for you at all.

My mixed 7.0 team went to state the last two years. The guys at state all play upper 3.5 or solid 4.0. Never faced a 3.0 guy at state. There is a reason 3.0 men don't play at 7.0 Mixed State.

Why? Because a 4.0 lady isn't carrying a 3.0 guy when facing a 4.0 guy/3.0 lady or a strong 3.5 guy / strong 3.5 lady

Furthermore, if your doubles partner is primarily a single's player, you are at a further disadvantage.

If you have never played mixed before, set up a social match with a 30 year old athletic strong 4.0 guy / 30 year old 3.0 lady then tell us how much fun you had.

Being beat down 0&1 ain't much fun on either end.

I lost in a 22 team 7.0 Mixed tournament final yesterday 7-6, 6-0 to my teammate and his wife. He is a strong 4.0 and he blasted 12 aces in five service games. It was a blowout in the second set and no fun at all. It was my first time playing with this 3.5 lady, and we got lucky to make the finals.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by g4driver

I lost in a 22 team 7.0 Mixed tournament final yesterday 7-6, 6-0 to my teammate and his wife. He is a strong 4.0 and he blasted 12 aces in five service games. It was a blowout in the second set and no fun at all. It was my first time playing with this 3.5 lady, and we got lucky to make the finals.

I always loved 7.0 mixed as an upper level 4.0. It was like killing flees with a bazooka when you played a 3.0 man / 4.0 woman.

I had one match where not one of my serves was returned in play ... it was a definite ego boost.

[g4driver]

When facing strong 4.0 men with weaker 3.0 women, the 3.0 lady moves to the net and straddles the inside alley.

A 3.0 guy / 4.0 lady will struggle to beat fast strong 4.0 guys playing in this formation.

Cindy, what age bracket did your team advance to to Nationals as Adult, Senior or Super Senior?

There is a large difference in speed, and level between Adult 3.5 and Super Senior 3.5

I am specifically discussing 18+ mixed 7.0 with very fast, hard hitting athletic 4.0 guys in my example above.

I've seen this formation at adult (now 18+) 7.0 mixed state, Level 2 tournaments along with the standard 3.5S

When you get to 40+ and 55+, the self rated BS seems to stop, and the speed of the players is radically slower

A 3.0 guy playing 7.0 18+ mixed, will get his hands full.

Now if he played, with a 4.0 lady who is at the top of the 4.0s, he might have more fun, but most of those 4.0 ladies are all playing 8.0 Mixed and 9.0 Mixed and not wasting there time with 3.0 guys

It is just a fact. Solid 4.0 women aren't playing 7.0 mixed if they can play 8.0 and 9.0 Mixed and improve their game

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

I always loved 7.0 mixed as an upper level 4.0. It was like killing flees with a bazooka when you played a 3.0 man / 4.0 woman.

I had one match where not one of my serves was returned in play ... it was a definite ego boost.

Dizzlmzwizzle gets it !

4.0 Guys who hold their own at 4.5 Men are going to crush 4.0 women / 3.0 guys.

This is just a bad idea if these type 4.0 guys are in your league.

[tennismonkey]

3.0M + 4.0F is not a good combo at the 7.0 level. especially when facing a 4.0M + 3.0F. and even worse facing a young, athletic 4.0 guy because it becomes really really hard to target the 3.0 woman.

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by tennismonkey

3.0M + 4.0F is not a good combo at the 7.0 level. especially when facing a 4.0M + 3.0F. and even worse facing a young, athletic 4.0 guy because it becomes really really hard to target the 3.0 woman.

My female 3.5 partner was lit up like a Christmas tree by three hard hitting 4.0s this weekend, just like the regular mixed season, local playoffs and at state.

They had no problem at all putting a bullseye on her.

We won two 10 PT TB against two of them, and lost in straight sets to the final pairing.

[tennismonkey]

g4 - that has been my experience as well. on the other end anyway. i am a new bump up to 4.5 but in 7.5 mixed as the 4.0 guy, i pick on the 3.5 lady all day and often the 4.0 guy too if he's low to middle of the pack 4.0.

i think dizzl hit on this earlier but the single biggest thing that the ladies from 3.0 - 4.0 have trouble with is spin. topspin and slice. i think in regular women's leagues they just don't see enough of it so in mixed it's like kryptonite.

at 7.5 i would still love for the usta to let ladies play .5 lower so a 4.0 guy/4.0 lady could play a 4.5 lady/3.5 guy. i've seen some 4.5 women ball and while they don't usually hit with crazy pace, the consistency is really amazing. and then 3.5 guy might lack consistency but they also won't be fazed too much by pace and more importantly by spin. so the dubs would look more like dubs and not a silly game of keep away.

[Cindysphinx]

G4Driver,

I played 7.0 mixed seniors and 18+, so I have seen both.

Actually, I don't disagree with you except on one thing.

IME, people who are at the top of their level tend to try to play up rather than down when they have the choice. For this reason, guys who are strong 4.0s (bordering on 4.5) don't like to play 7.0 mixed. To them, it is kinda lame. They prefer 8.0 mixed. 7.0 mixed tends to attract the lower half of 4.0 men (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

My experience at 8.0 mixed bears this out. When I played 7.0 mixed as a 3.5 woman, I could hang with the 4.0 man well enough. I could return their serves, more or less. They tended not to take the net, and their volleys could be a bit dodgy. They were not bad players, mind you. Not at all.

When I got to 8.0 mixed, however, I got to see the upper end of 4.0 mixed.

I grant that your league could be different. So I agree that OP should ask around a bit and see just how many upper end 4.0 guys are playing 7.0 mixed. I'm thinking it won't be that many.

[g4driver]

agreed tennismonkey, the USTA has got mixed all jacked up with the levels

mixed with the women .5 higher than the men, would look regular doubles.

4.0 guy / 3.0 lady vastly different than 4.0 guy / 3.5 guy in 7.5 Combo or even 8.0 mixed with 4.0 / 4.0

7.5 combo Doubles completely different game than 7.0 Mixed

If it was 7.5 Mixed with a 4.0 lady, it would have been more fun for sure.

[g4driver]

Cindy,

some of the best 4.0 guys I know play 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 all at 18+. I can name about a dozen guys doing this.

They play 4.0, then Mixed 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 then Combo 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5 combo and Tournaments, then play 4.0 and 4.5 in the fall.

They are solid 4.0s who make it to state on multiple teams. Several of them will be playing 8.5 and 9.5 Combo representing SC at sectionals

These guys play 7.0 Mixed and face similar players in playoffs and and state.

Based on my experience, a 3.0 guy/4.0 will not present any challenge for these type players.

dizzle is spot on in his assessment.

[Cindysphinx]

I don't doubt you.

There may be a reason why our experiences differ so much: There are a lot of better playing opportunities here for strong 4.0 guys.

In DC Metro, many people play in VA, MD and DC at the same time. If a high 4.0 guy wants to join a team, he can have three teams just by playing 8.0 mixed (in addition to his three play opportunities in men's combo 8.5). Who has the time or interest to take on a seventh team by playing Xtreme Keepaway in 7.0 mixed.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

IME, people who are at the top of their level tend to try to play up rather than down when they have the choice. For this reason, guys who are strong 4.0s (bordering on 4.5) don't like to play 7.0 mixed. To them, it is kinda lame. They prefer 8.0 mixed. 7.0 mixed tends to attract the lower half of 4.0 men (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

I think you are correct here Cindy .... When I was playing 4.0 I was clearly the best 4.0 in the league at 7.0. None of my upper 4.0 peers would be caught dead playing 7.0 and I only did it because my good friend was captain and my partner was hot... err I mean a fine player. I got lots of snarky comments last season about how I should not be playing 7.0.

I suspect the best teams out there do manage to get top level 4.0 men playing ... but for the most part you could not pay my 4.0 contemporaries to play at the 7.0 level.

[g4driver]

I think the fact these guys don't have the opportunity to play in three areas like DC, VA and MD is why they play 7.0

They are simply playing the only options they have.

7.0 Mixed is clearly the lowest level of tennis these guys play.

The OP just needs to figure out what the dynamics are in his area. If it like yours, 7.0 mixed would be great for him.

If it like our area, I would suggest playing both 6.0 and 7.0 if he can't determine that beforehand.

[NTRPolice]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

NTRP Police wrote:



This could explain why we often disagree about what players at a particular level can do.

Consider this. In 2011, I was a 3.5C. I went to districts, sectionals and nationals. For 2012, I was a 4.0B.

I think it would be a mistake to say that in 2012 that I was at the "real level" of 4.0 because I was a 4.0B.

More accurate would be to say that in 2011, I was at the top of 3.5 even though I was a 3.5C. In 2012, I was at the very bottom of 4.0, even though I was a 4.0B.

So why is it that you keep suggesting that the playoff level is the real level?

This idea of considering benchmark ratings as the "real level" seems to be causing a lot of confusion and misstatements around here. People with B ratings are scattered throughout a particular level. In other words, if you gathered all of the 3.5B men in a room, you would find a wide range of ability. Some would be recent move-ups from 3.0, and others would be almost 4.0.

So why does it make sense to consider 3.5B the "real level?"

The thing about the "B" rating is that it just means you advanced to a playoff that year. The "B" rating has nothing to do with a bump or staying at a level. If you're due for a bump, you will be bumped. If you advanced to a playoff, you will have a "B" rating.

B ratings really just have to do with a YER and nothing else. It just signifies that you advanced to a playoff the same way a "C" rating means you've played enough matches to lock in your rating.


I'm going to say most people who play tennis want to win. I really do think that most of the players who play just for "fun" and for "social" reasons do want to win to some extent.

Getting to a district playoff is a good indicator of top level play.

I'm going to say you're a top level 3.5 player because that is the level you "earned" your "B" rating at. You will just keep your "B" rating as a 4.0 because you also earned enough points to be bumped up a level.

[Mick]

i love mixed doubles because my regular hitting partner is a shot maker but most doubles players make the mistake of assuming she's the weaker player so they would hit the ball to her and pay the price

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

Getting to a district playoff is a good indicator of top level play.

This is the only bit I disagree with.

Getting to a district playoff does not mean top level play. It means either top level play, mid level play, or low level play.

Players who are not at the top of their level frequently play in the post-season. Captains sometimes put people into line-ups for reasons other than strength. If some top players are injured or unavailable, the captain will use someone weaker. Another example is if the team is eliminated from contention, the captain will often put in weak players so they will share the experience of post-season play.

Look at it this way. Let's say I captain a team that made it to Districts. At Districts, I find myself short on singles players. Even though I am a poor singles player, I might have to get out there and play singles. I would likely get destroyed. It would be nuts to say that my post-season participation was a "good indicator of high-level play." I mean, wouldn't you have to know my scores?

I mean, if you were putting a new team together and the only thing you knew about that player was that they played a match at Districts, would you assume the player would be strong for her rating level? I wouldn't.