Doubles in USTA league: Good, bad, and ugly

[rh310]

Several years ago I was playing a boatload of tennis: 4.5 USTA league, and in club-arranged tennis parties that had several former college players who were active and winning in the NYC 5.0 - 5.5 USTA leagues.

I was fortunate to be taken a little under the wing by a few of these guys in particular, who taught me how to really play doubles. It was an incredibly exciting and fun game the way they played it.

Life and a couple of injuries got in the way, and after a long break I've just starting playing again in a 3.5 USTA league, 1st singles / 2nd doubles. Lost my first match, won the rest, and as I'd hoped I'm starting to feel the confidence coming back.

I'm having trouble with adapting to what I'm being told is doubles at the 3.5 level, though. Instead of "steady player in deuce court / aggressive player in ad court" it's "better BH takes ad court", and instead of the receiver working his way to net if / as possible it's charge the net at all costs. I've politely resisted my teammate's and team coach's suggestions that I change the way I play (basically, as receiver I wait until I there's an approach opportunity before taking a net position, and I keep my feet moving and adjust constantly to where the ball and the three other players are), but it's really starting to get contentious during practice. I've been paired with a 3.0 who is playing up, who in the last practice started screaming at me that I wasn't playing right blah blah blah even though I completely carried his *** in our recent doubles match win in the 3.5 league.

I worry that if I keep resisting I'm going to get an rep as an "attitude" player, but the club doesn't have a 4.0 or higher team so I guess I'm pretty much stuck where I am until I win my way out and get moved to 4.0.

The coach has acknowledged that my grasp of doubles is how 5.0+ players play, but has insisted that what he's teaching is appropriate for 3.0 - 3.5 players and, basically, I should shut up and go along with it.

[Off The Wall]

Interesting.

Be a team player: play the way the team wants you to play.

That said, I wouldn't put too much stock in "doubles rules." Play where you'll do the most good. Even so, usually, you'll want the player who can hit a good back-across backhand to play deuce court.

Interesting also in that I would have thought that 5.0-5.5s would be the ones to follow serve returns to the net and 3.5s would stay back. But, hey, if 3.5s can get to the net and be effective -- great. Two up's the best style.

[rh310]

Originally Posted by Off The Wall

Interesting.

Be a team player: play the way the team wants you to play.

That said, I wouldn't put too much stock in "doubles rules." Play where you'll do the most good. Even so, usually, you'll want the player who can hit a good back-across backhand to play deuce court.

Well, that would be me.

Interesting also in that I would have thought that 5.0-5.5s would be the ones to follow serve returns to the net and 3.5s would stay back. But, hey, if 3.5s can get to the net and be effective -- great. Two up's the best style.

I think the idea is blind net-rushing is a bad idea regardless of level. If the server is following the serve into the net, and he knows the returner is following the return into the net, then the returner is going to be hitting his first volley from his shoelaces all day. That's very low percentage, no matter who you are.

In modern pro or high-level doubles, from what I've seen, the returner generally is working his way to net from no man's land first near the baseline, then near the service line. He may even line up pretty much behind his partner to pick up deep shots down the line or cross-court. Now maybe this is an adaptation because of the baseline orientation of the current crop of players, but my team wins a lot more points by my second shot being a strong groundstroke from just inside the court then it does by it being a half-volley from the service line. There's infinitely more control over placement, pace, etc. in the first scenario.

No doubt that two-up is a great position. The question for me is how you make that happen: Charge in like a maniac, or look for / try to create the chance to move up.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

First ... If you were playing 4.5 several years ago there is no way you should now be playing 3.5 unless you spent those several years in a coma.

Secondly ... This is adult tennis and as such, on a team of 20 different players there will be 10 different philosophies about how you should play. The coaches job is not to change your game to conform with others but rather to partner you with someone that compliments you and your style.

Finally ... no one in their right mind would suggest that you should refrain from being patient and taking a controlled approach to the game. Unbridled aggression is usually just bad and rarely leads to success for any length of time.

From my brief time in 3.5 and now as I move to the top of 4.0 the biggest difference I have noticed is that better players hit controlled shots with margin until they have an oppening to hit big shots. Quality players do not hit their biggest on every shot nor do they race to the net at the expense of of other strategies that will lead to better oportunities.

[J_R_B]

Find a different club and play 4.5 next year.

[bodieq]

If you were truly a 4.5 level player now playing 3.5....in reality you should be dominating on the doubles court whichever way you feel like playing and I doubt the captain (or any teammate) would say anything to you otherwise. But if you're losing 3.5 matches, and your team feels compelled to "coach/teach" you how to play stylistically.....then I think you need to let go of this misplaced concept about you having some 5.0+ level doubles mentality. Because regardless of whatever grasp of high level doubles you think you have....you apparently don't have the current skill-sets/stroke-mechanics to execute those 5.0 doubles strategies.

[rh310]

Originally Posted by bodieq

If you were truly a 4.5 level player now playing 3.5....in reality you should be dominating on the doubles court whichever way you feel like playing and I doubt the captain (or any teammate) would say anything to you otherwise. But if you're losing 3.5 matches, and your team feels compelled to "coach/teach" you how to play stylistically.....then I think you need to let go of this misplaced concept about you having some 5.0+ level doubles mentality. Because regardless of whatever grasp of high level doubles you think you have....you apparently don't have the current skill-sets/stroke-mechanics to execute those 5.0 doubles strategies.

If I were losing, you'd be right. I'm not losing, though. In the last practice, I was asked by a guy on the other side of the net why I didn't agree with the coach. I replied that maybe that was a good question. So the next six balls that came to me were hit, as groundies, on alternating sides of that guy for clean winners. At will. Then I said, "Maybe that's why I don't agree with him."

The problem, as has been pointed out above, is the mismatch of strategies. In a 3.5 team I'm a strong enough player to get a win regardless of what my partner does but it's causing problems in practice when I don't do what they expect. During a match, it's hard to complain with 6-1 6-1 our way.

I kinda look at it like someone just learning how to write their letters. The letter 'A' looks just like so, and it's made just like so. If you've already learned how to make the letter and are writing it in cursive, you're going to whack out some people who panic easily.

And I completely disagree that people won't try to "correct" you even if you're dominating them. Look up 'social leveling' -- a time-honored technique for normalizing those who are better than you.

[bcart1991]

I also agree that you should be dominant at 3.5 if you were remotely holding your own playing 5.0.

I (solid 4.0) don't usually S&V, but I do eventually try and get to the net. Any tactic like "rushing the net aggressively" will get my opponents peppered with shoestring volleys all day long, or lobs over their partner's heads now and then, especially if they don't have overpowering serves.

Staying with a strict tactical approach will get you beaten more often than not. Adapting to your opponents' style of play and changing your style according to their tactics will get you victories.

[spot]

There is plenty of bad advice given out at all levels. For instance "steady player in deuce court / aggressive player in ad court" is pretty ridiculous advice that you somehow seem to have bought into.

I don't think that advice given to 5.0 players should be the same as given to 3.5 players. But unless you are just annihilating 3.5 players I also think you may want to consdier that your game does have room to improve and trying things a different way is perfectly OK and then you can decide on your own what you thing the right balance is.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by rh310

Instead of "steady player in deuce court / aggressive player in ad court"

The way I was taught was, the aggressive, creative, shot-maker, player plays the deuce court, and the steady player, the ad court, because, the game is won or lost on the ad side. If you're behind on the score, the ad player should be the higher percentage returner to get you back to deuce.

Tennis, being a game of percentages, the match is won on your opponent's errors rather out-right winners. Therefore you want your steady, percentage player, on the ad side, to keep the ball going back to your opponents, giving them the opportunity to make an error.

As to your, predicament, yes you got it right--YOU'RE STUCK! I'm there myself due to injury. It's a lose-lose. You're talents will never be appreciated. Mediocrity, by shear numbers will drag you down to their level.

There's nothing like breaking your *** to win a practice set with a clueless team-mate, and then watch him abandon you, walking to the other side, to "round-robin", with no thanks or appreciation for the ***-breaking effort you just put in to save his cookies--this is usually the team captain to boot! (just my experience having played on numerous teams--I'm sure there's a hard-working, under-appreciated, self-less team captain out there--no offense to that one). They probably wouldn't be playing, except, they are good administrators and know how to e-mail. And, they selfishly pair themselves with the best player, so they have a chance of winning.

But, take heart, if you were Roger Federer, they would do the same, telling you how they want you to play. Dump the team and find a partner, and play Senior Age Group Tournaments. I would rather lose a thousand matchs there (and I probably will) rather than win for a clueless, unappreciative club-team, so I can quaff a beer and some California Dip and then be dumped off the team when another club player, with a better wine cellar or good pot, get's lowered from the lofty 4.0's. Or, the club gets a new soccer playing dish-washer, and they stick a racket in his hand and call him macaroni.

When you get to 4.5 or above, the players are more experienced, usually having played in college or as kids and the opportunities get better--you may be able to network a job as a stock-broker or in the ad business.

Those guys who figured out age-group tennis, with five year increments, knew what they were doing. Some of the older senior players think five years is too much of an age span and it should only be two. There's a reason Pro-Tour players are old at 28 and retire at 35. Nadal is starting to get old. It's stupid for an old fart to try to compete, head to head, against a kid with young wheels.

As they say on the internet, just my 2 cents. Soar with the eagles rather than fly with the ducks.

[gameboy]

Your team is way too serious if you guys are having shouting matches over tactics. Our team is pretty much all over the board when it comes to style. People play whatever is most comfortable to them.

Perhaps you should just find another partner.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by rh310

........The coach has acknowledged that my grasp of doubles is how 5.0+ players play, but has insisted that what he's teaching is appropriate for 3.0 - 3.5 players and, basically, I should shut up and go along with it.

Firstly I find it hard to believe that you played 4.5 tennis "several years" ago and are now playing 3.5 tennis unless "several years" means 30 years ago. I would think you would be bored out of your mind playing down 2 levels.

In any case it appears the doubles is not much fun with this team so why not play singles? You can play any style you like when it is just you on the court.

[larry10s]

my bad i did not read all the posts but if you know how to play doubles play your game. you will not have to play with the 3.5ers for long and you are working on your upper level skills.

[Cindysphinx]

This doesn't make sense to me.

First, I agree that a few things you have said ("aggressive player in ad court, better BH takes ad court") don't really sound like correct doubles advice. If someone has a bad BH, you don't want that player with the (1) BH in the middle, (2) needing to go inside out, (3) against the FH volley of the net player. I think weak BHs should hide on the ad court when possible.

Second, if you are 4.0-ish doubles skills, then you should be able to successfully execute staying back or net crashing. If your team wants you to net crash, then why not? I mean, I'm a 3.5. If I were playing against 3.0s (or 2.5s), I could net crash on every point and still win.

Is it possible that you have pretty good groundstrokes but your approach volleys aren't so hot, so that you get nailed coming in quickly in a point? Just wondering.

[tennis4josh]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

The way I was taught was, the aggressive, creative, shot-maker, player plays the deuce court, and the steady player, the ad court. because, the game is won or lost on the ad side. If you're behind on the score, the ad player should be the higher percentage returner to get you back to deuce.

I have heard this before and its better advice than "Steady player in deuce and aggressive player in ad". But none of these rules are universal. The most common doubles advice "The first team to take the net wins the most points", is true only when every thing else is equal.

Having done some homework, having worked on some patterns and signals, definitely helps. It gives you confidence to go into the match and also gives you some advantage until your opponents figure out your game plan. But ultimately doubles is a team work and there is no set "winning strategy". The game is played by 4 players, so you have to account for how each one them is playing on that particular day, plus other factors like wind, sun, and court surface. Sometimes you have to also factor in gamesmanship by your opponents.

To the OP:

I have captained a 3.0 team which made it to the nationals. As a Captain I always tried to pair up guys with complementary skills and attitude. And that worked out well. I have also seen people screaming at their partners and constantly teaching them how to play. But almost always that resulted in poor performance.

I think you are in wrong company. Find a different team before you loose the interest. I exclusively play doubles at 3.5 and 4.0. My experience is complete opposite of yours. Its fun and you meet lot of interesting people.

Other day me and my partner played against two seniors with somewhat restricted movements. As a team they were at least 50 years "older" than us. We lost 7-6, 6-7, 2-6 after a 3 hour battle. And after the match the older of the two opponents asked me to hit with him some more. That was quite an experience.

This is what USTA league tennis is supposed to be. There are all kinds of teams there. If you don't like your current team, just leave.

Good Luck,
-Josh

[rh310]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

Firstly I find it hard to believe that you played 4.5 tennis "several years" ago and are now playing 3.5 tennis unless "several years" means 30 years ago. I would think you would be bored out of your mind playing down 2 levels.

It's been a little more than 10 years since I've played competitively (in leagues or club ladders) and when I started doing it again I had serious "ring rust" and nerves problem. You know, typical king of the court during the warm up who loses 2 and 3. I figured I was playing around 3.5 once the score-keeping started, so...I figured the natural thing to do I was play 3.5.

In any case it appears the doubles is not much fun with this team so why not play singles? You can play any style you like when it is just you on the court.

I'll have a chat with the captain after I see how practice this weekend goes.

[WBF]

Haha, that's awesome. I love when other players try to teach their partners.

I'm an odd doubles player. Prefer to play back unless the situation warrants (sitter and other attackable situations, even on serve). Also, uncomfortable at the net.

I tell all my partners this. People who insist that I play traditional doubles are incredibly frustrating. When paired up with these players, I sabotage them and don't let them win. Of course, I do this while smiling and being friendly, so I never have the issue of being the 'guy with the attitude'. My better partners are good net players who let me play my game and take advantage of it.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by WBF

People who insist that I play traditional doubles are incredibly frustrating. When paired up with these players, I sabotage them and don't let them win. Of course, I do this while smiling and being friendly, so I never have the issue of being the 'guy with the attitude'. .

I'm with you, players play best when they are comfortable and relaxed and then the game is also the most fun too.

On the other hand, I've seen opponents do amazingly well when you get them really, really mad. Sometimes I have to piss 'em off to get any practice. In a real match, it's best not to make 'em mad and wake 'em up.

[SlapShot]

Originally Posted by WBF

Haha, that's awesome. I love when other players try to teach their partners.

I'm an odd doubles player. Prefer to play back unless the situation warrants (sitter and other attackable situations, even on serve). Also, uncomfortable at the net.

I tell all my partners this. People who insist that I play traditional doubles are incredibly frustrating. When paired up with these players, I sabotage them and don't let them win. Of course, I do this while smiling and being friendly, so I never have the issue of being the 'guy with the attitude'. My better partners are good net players who let me play my game and take advantage of it.

I'm on board with this. My strengths are from the baseline, and I do much better when I can approach net on my terms - not mindlessly crashing net.

[rh310]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

This doesn't make sense to me.

First, I agree that a few things you have said ("aggressive player in ad court, better BH takes ad court"...)

I wrote poorly. I wasn't saying "better BH takes ad court" as the superior way to decide; it's the way the coach says you select which side of the court is yours at the 3.5- levels. Rather than some idea as to whether one side plays more or less aggressively based on some play-to-the-score strategy.

...don't really sound like correct doubles advice. If someone has a bad BH, you don't want that player with the (1) BH in the middle, (2) needing to go inside out, (3) against the FH volley of the net player. I think weak BHs should hide on the ad court when possible.

Second, if you are 4.0-ish doubles skills, then you should be able to successfully execute staying back or net crashing.

You may have forgotten there are two people on the court. If I abandon my back-ish position to rush the net regardless of ball and player position, I've got a 3.0-playing-up on my side of the net who's going to get a passing shot or lob thrown at him.

All players and doubles teams, regardless of level, are capable of figuring out which members of the other team can cover their position / the court better / worse than the other.

If your team wants you to net crash, then why not? I mean, I'm a 3.5. If I were playing against 3.0s (or 2.5s), I could net crash on every point and still win.

Canadian doubles, maybe. Otherwise you're only part of the story on your side of the net.

Is it possible that you have pretty good groundstrokes but your approach volleys aren't so hot, so that you get nailed coming in quickly in a point? Just wondering.

Lots of things are possible, your suggestions among them.