Maybe I should have eased up?

[doubleshack]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I think my partner and I won the first set 6-4. Next set we won 6-2, I think.

Really? 6-4, 6-2, what are you worried about? A double bagel is one thing, but this is a decent match. The weaker player probably loved the challenge (wouldn't you?). You did good!

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

...Everyone was smiling and laughing and joking.


...Where's the line, do you think?

As long as everyone was laughing and joking--no problemo.

The lines vary depending on the length of the footfaults.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by doubleshack

Really? 6-4, 6-2, what are you worried about? A double bagel is one thing, but this is a decent match. The weaker player probably loved the challenge (wouldn't you?). You did good!

lol, I think I've come to realize what to expect by Cindy's meaningful exaggerations sometimes.


"Guys, I played this match today and we like totally killed our opponents!!!" The score was 7-6, 7-5.

[tennis_ocd]

To wrap up, two 4.0s beat a 3.0/3.5 pair 6-4, 6-2 and are worried about keeping the foot down too hard.

[ian2]

Exaggeration is a literary tool, and Cindy used it to better bring the point across... as she often does No need to turn this into a conversation about scores of a particular match... especially a social match. That wasn't Cindy's point. The point was, what do you (as a stronger player) do in a social match when one (or possibly both) of your opponents are much less skilled? It was a valid question; anyone who plays both competitive and social tennis can easily recognize this, and most likely have participated in these kinds of matches, on both sides of the equation

Me, I'd still prefer to win, even in a social match. But I think I've learned to realize (lately... wasn't always the case) that social matches are mostly about all players having fun. Now, if I could only apply the same attitude to team practices...

[Cindysphinx]

Yeah, Ian gets me.

Well, the whole experience was new, as I was faced with a big disparity in skill in our two opponents, plus a disparity in skill in this lady versus my partner and myself.

The moral of the story is I will have a lot more sympathy when men who play mixed wring their hands about how to play.

Or not.

[LeeD]

I see little reason for a stronger pair to team up together.
Better than strongest play with the weakest, while the two middle level players play together.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I see little reason for a stronger pair to team up together.
Better than strongest play with the weakest, while the two middle level players play together.

I've organized/set up "draws" for a number of socials over the last few years. What happens, people request to be partnered with someone. It could be a spouse, a child, a friend, whatever. And quite often you get a 4.0 guy wanting to play with his "2.5" wife (meaning, a complete beginner), or something of that nature. I usually break the "draws" into two or three groups by skill level. But what about that couple? Well, if I have two groups, one 3.5- and the other 4.0+, I'll put this couple in the "lower" group. So, the 4.0 guy ends up playing against 3.0 or 3.5 ladies. Not good, but IMO better than the alternative: having him and his wife play against two 4.0+ players. Before the social starts I'd gently suggest to the 4.0 guy to be, well, gentle. Some would follow this suggestion and some wouldn't, to a rather comical effect sometimes. Still, it's all good fun

[Rumruner]

I missed the question. What was the problem?

[dcdoorknob]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I see little reason for a stronger pair to team up together.
Better than strongest play with the weakest, while the two middle level players play together.

This was probably how it was. The other team's 3.5 was a guy, who, by Cindy's reckoning, is closer to a 4.0 in his level of play. A 4.0 (or very high 3.5 even) guy would typically be the best player when the other 3 are 2 4.0 women and a 3.0 woman.

Anyways, I think there was nothing wrong with how things played out. Alot of it just depends on the personality of the person in question, but most of the 3.0 women I've played in social mixed (which admittedly isn't many) typically have wanted to see how they can do against my and other better players 'good' shots and expect nothing less.

[Anton]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

A teammate invited me to sub in for some social doubles. She is 4.0, as am I. We are hoping to partner this season, so I was delighted to have a chance to test drive the partnership.

Opponents were her husband (former teammate of mine who is rated 3.5 but has now improved to 4.0 IMHO), and a lady I hadn't met.

I do not know her level, but I would say 3.0. I say this based on the serve (high push 15 feet over the net) and inability to handle spin or pace.

Anyway, I played my usual game. That's lots of spin and aggression on finishing shots.

For instance, I had an overhead and she was at net. I did not aim "at" her. Instead, I aimed for her doubles alley and hit the overhead as hard as I could for a winner. She hadn't budged from the net, and instead turned and ducked, but I didn't hit her.

Another example: Sometimes I would smack her soft serve hard. Other times I would hit a topspin moonball that she couldn't time. And one time I, erm . . . hit a drop shot. On my serve, I hit my usual slice or topspin serve, which she often did not return.

And then there was that time when I had a BH sitter close to the net and (hoping not to miss it like I had missed the last two) I hit it hard in her general direction (again not hitting her but spooking her).

You get the idea. I did not take any groundstrokes down her line, finish points into her abdomen, or otherwise target her. We played her male partner, and there were some amazing rallies as he covered pretty much the whole court. Everyone was smiling and laughing and joking.

Here is my question: Do you think I maybe should have played in a more genteel fashion? Part of me thinks I should have just rolled my service returns back to her. The other part of me was there to practice the things I am learning in lessons, and it would look a little weird for me to push the ball to her but smack it when hitting against the guy.

Where's the line, do you think?

I think you need to occupy your mind more with thoughts of awesome new rackets and less with feelingz of some noobs

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by jc4.0

The difference in your game and a 3.0 game isn't so ridiculous that you should have to "play down" too much. Having said that - in a friendly match you shouldn't try to humiliate a clearly lesser opponent by playing your most aggressive, in-your-face game. I like to make sure everyone has a fun time, and if I see that one person is being creamed, I give them a break by hitting them some easy shots. If I'm really that much better than them, I should be the magnanimous one, and not worry about who's "beating" who.

And having said that, why would it occur to you that it would possibly be okay to wipe up the court with someone who ostensibly is your friend, just out to hit a few balls? Why wouldn't you always be a mentor, instead of a jerk? If you have to ask yourself the question... you probably know which one you are.

Silly girl.

Which is it? Am I so lame that my 4.0 game is indistinguishable from a 3.0 game, or am I a jerk for wiping the court with my 3.0 opponent with my superior 4.0 game?

Gotta think before you type . . . .

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

am I a jerk for wiping the court with my 3.0 opponent with my superior 4.0 game?

Humble brag has gone beyond control

[LeeD]

Well, as the superior player, you NEED to show them, at least once.
After that, you can take it easy on them.

[sureshs]

Cindy has exactly one anti-Cindy on this forum, and they have been going at each other for years! Cat fight time!

[JoelDali]

3.0 lady has epic spider veins. You can actually see the blue blood shifting in the vein while she serves. Hopefully she can get surgery to correct it because it looks horrific when she wears short sexi skirts.

[SwankPeRFection]

Blue blood huh? She must be an alien then.

[omega4]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

A teammate invited me to sub in for some social doubles. She is 4.0, as am I. We are hoping to partner this season, so I was delighted to have a chance to test drive the partnership.

Opponents were her husband (former teammate of mine who is rated 3.5 but has now improved to 4.0 IMHO), and a lady I hadn't met.

I do not know her level, but I would say 3.0. I say this based on the serve (high push 15 feet over the net) and inability to handle spin or pace.

Anyway, I played my usual game. That's lots of spin and aggression on finishing shots.

For instance, I had an overhead and she was at net. I did not aim "at" her. Instead, I aimed for her doubles alley and hit the overhead as hard as I could for a winner. She hadn't budged from the net, and instead turned and ducked, but I didn't hit her.

Another example: Sometimes I would smack her soft serve hard. Other times I would hit a topspin moonball that she couldn't time. And one time I, erm . . . hit a drop shot. On my serve, I hit my usual slice or topspin serve, which she often did not return.

And then there was that time when I had a BH sitter close to the net and (hoping not to miss it like I had missed the last two) I hit it hard in her general direction (again not hitting her but spooking her).

You get the idea. I did not take any groundstrokes down her line, finish points into her abdomen, or otherwise target her. We played her male partner, and there were some amazing rallies as he covered pretty much the whole court. Everyone was smiling and laughing and joking.

Here is my question: Do you think I maybe should have played in a more genteel fashion? Part of me thinks I should have just rolled my service returns back to her. The other part of me was there to practice the things I am learning in lessons, and it would look a little weird for me to push the ball to her but smack it when hitting against the guy.

Where's the line, do you think?

Your first sentence says it all:

"Social doubles"

You should have eased up.

League play would have been a completely different story.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Silly girl.

Which is it? Am I so lame that my 4.0 game is indistinguishable from a 3.0 game, or am I a jerk for wiping the court with my 3.0 opponent with my superior 4.0 game?

Gotta think before you type . . . .

Well, you need to remember this. 3.5M = 4.0W or better. Also, sometimes the computer rating the system gives doesn't reflect well on someone's ability to play. It reflects on their ability to WIN.

When I played mixed, I had several 4.0C women blame me for the losses. Funny thing is, when we'd play a singles match against each other, I'd win 6-1, 6-2, 6-0 (depending on how much messing around I'd do with some shots or if I'd let them hold a service game.) Canadian against two 4.0C women would be 6-4, 6-3, or 7-5 (depending on which girls were paired together). At the time I was ranked a 3.5 by the computer, so ya... it's not all apples to apples.

Play your game and see what happens. Unless you're playing a social match and you see that after 4 games (giving everyone a chance to serve) the score is a one way shutout, there should be no reason why you cannot just play and not back off. In social settings I usually don't worry too much about winning/losing. If we're playing doubles or singles and I'm better than the opponent, instead of winning 6-3 or better, I try and work on something else which would cause the score to be closer to a 7-5 or 7-6 scenario. When I say work on something else, I either work on harder shots I'm trying to get better at hitting (like service return winners, drop shots, inside out single handed backhand, etc. If I miss, I miss.) Sometimes I even let the score fall to 0-4 or 0-5 to get my mind in that (you're losing mindset) and then dig the set out as practice for my focus. If we're playing doubles and winning convincingly, there has been times where we'll win the first set, lose the second because we're messing around, and win the third in a close score just to make it interesting and extend the match.

Bottom line, I think in a social settings, it should be up to the better player to try and extend the match as much as possible so as to give everyone a chance to really play. No one likes to lose, but extending some points out at the right times makes for a really interesting time on court and everyone enjoys themselves.

[omega4]

When I play social rounds of golf, I try to keep the score as close as possible to make the match as fun and exciting as possible. Everyone goes home happy and can't wait to play another round of golf.

I'll do the same when I start playing social tennis and my tennis proficiency returns to my former level where I can do these things.