To Cindysphinx and deluxe: are you saying that it's just not worth covering the DTL shot? If not, under what circumstances should the DTL shot be covered? Sorry if it sounds dumb, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
I don't see how one can separate the concepts of positioning and coverage as neatly as some here are doing. If I position myself on the center line, I do not have the alley covered. Your position influences or even dictates what your coverage will be.
I mean, isn't the "position" the place where a player does her splitstep in anticipation of the next ball, whereas what she can "cover" is, well, what she can reach from that position with her footwork, reach, reactions, and footspeed?
A stronger player will cover more court from a particular position than a weaker one, of course. But I don't see how one can divorce once concept from the other.
I don't see how one can separate the concepts of positioning and coverage as neatly as some here are doing. If I position myself on the center line, I do not have the alley covered. Your position influences or even dictates what your coverage will be...
"position" is an objective concept that we can all see and agree on. That's why 5623 doesn't want to talk about position. There's no question where the top doubles players position themselves on a wide serve. The only way for 5623 to maintain his claim was to say that even though the pros "position" themselves a large distance from the tramline, they still have it "covered". 5623 seems to think that Lisa Raymond has the whole of the tramlines covered from here:
great thread
if we're playing an exceptional case, we adjust. Combine this with consistent serving and consistent pressure applied by the net person, and the opponents return % usually drops.
I also understand the difference between coverage and position, which you "seem" to think is the same.
I would like to remind you that the initial statement was to cover the line, made by another poster who knew the importance of this and I agreed with their excellent tip. You were the one who made the ridiculous statement not to cover the lines.
If you don't have the lines covered adequately, you will get hurt there.
IF YOU DO have them covered well enough, you will minimize the damage they can do there to the extent of your skills.
I never tell my partner to position here or there, but will ask that he cover his line better if he gets burned there too often.
Lisa may feel she has that line covered due to previous tendencies, serve quality or just decided to take a chance based on score. There are so many factors to consider. Some show the I formation on serve, as this hides the coverage, but to you and Cindy, that position would seem to indicate where they cover.
Talk all you want about your ideas on position, but I ask you not to put your words in my mouth. I'm more than willing to discuss position and think it is quite critical in this game. I also understand the difference between coverage and position, which you "seem" to think is the same.
I would like to remind you that the initial statement was to cover the line, made by another poster who knew the importance of this and I agreed with their excellent tip. You were the one who made the ridiculous statement not to cover the lines. If you don't have the lines covered adequately, you will get hurt there. IF YOU DO have them covered well enough, you will minimize the damage they can do there to the extent of your skills.
I never tell my partner to position here or there, but will ask that he cover his line better if he gets burned there too often.
Lisa may feel she has that line covered due to previous tendencies, serve quality or just decided to take a chance based on score. There are so many factors to consider. Some show the I formation on serve, as this hides the coverage, but to you and Cindy, that position would seem to indicate where they cover.
I do think her position is poor to cover an out wide serve on that excellent returner and think it would not go well to do it too often on him unless her server is having an awesome day.
Many players will show softer coverage on the outside as bait and attempt to cover if the bait is taken. If they get hurt dtl, they will make adjustments and position to cover better.
Looked up Louis Cayers work and every ref I found on the server's partner discussed taking a position that covered the dtl and to adjust if you were beaten there too often.
Played a match against the #1 team in our league today that was sporting one of the best doubles teams around at #1 position (former college players). Playing in that one spot, we had all played college ball, but the other 3 had played college tennis (me football, lol). I was also the oldest on the court as well. A big part of our winning today (6-2, 6-2) was that we never got passed dtl, not once, BUT we both had several winning poaches each. They did try me dtl 2-3 times and gave up when I handled them well. They tried to be more aggressive with their position at net and paid dearly with each of us hitting successful shots dtl.
Our control of net coverage was the key in the strong win against this undefeated duo (this season).
I would concede that maybe we could have positioned more aggressively since we did not give up one single dtl pass during the 2 quick sets.
The phrase there though is "too often".
That's all I've been claiming. My argument is that being passed down line 0% of the time is too low a number. If your opponents stop trying to pass you down the line, I'd say you're not doing your job as the net man. You should be making the returner think about whether or not he will have to hit it down the line.
.
Yes, "too often" is an aspect of the term in discussion, " coverage". That is why he says it. Louis may in trying to describe the coverage to, say to leave part of the dtl open, but he clearly accounts for having dtl coverage and to make adjustments if you are getting beat there too often, just like we are saying. He would not make your blanket statement that, "dtl coverage is bad advise". sorry
My only claim is that there is *some* margin that you should leave because it is too low percentage for them to hit consistently.
There is no reason to leave any court uncovered in dubs with proper shift and stagger.
Why?
Why would you give up something coverable?
If you are playing it straight without called plays,
just follow the serve and you don't need to leave anything uncovered.
Not leaving anything uncovered and don't see why you would.
And mainly what I would say is that needing to get beat dtl several times to prove you were aggressive enough is nuts. Just cause a player is able to make the coverage in a match surely does not mean his position is poor.
The rate in which Lisa Raymond gets beat dtl does make me wonder if her position is poor, but maybe that is where she has to position being short and heavy?
I did say "cover your line" is bad advice,
who is 5ft5, 36 years old and perhaps carrying quite a few extra pounds, positions herself poorly in doubles.
There is no reason to leave any court uncovered in dubs with proper shift and stagger.
I can't get past this statement of 5263's:
Players hit winners in doubles. This is true from the top pros all the way down to people who just learned to play last week.
If players are hitting winners -- balls the opponents could not touch -- doesn't that disprove the idea that it is possible to cover the entire court with proper shift and stagger?"
Sorry, I just don't see what you're saying at all.
You say I try to cover the entire service box when opponent serves. Of course.
But I still get aced by a good server, right?
Which means that I didn't have a part of the service box covered.
Which means it is flat-out impossible to cover all of the service box all the time.
Which is why the very best player who ever walked the planet (Federer) still gets aced. 'Cause it is not possible to cover the entire service box.
I would answer it this way:
If your partner hits a weak, short shot into the alley, that might be a very good time to make sure you have the line "covered." By that I mean you are blocking that DTL shot a bit more carefully so that you cannot be beaten and you are mentally ready. If someone sends me a short ball into my alley when I am at baseline, I will see that as a good time to go up the line because the net player has less time to react.
In contrast, if your partner sends a great stroke deep and opponent will likely struggle, then you can pay less attention to cutting off the DTL shot. If the opponent tries to change direction on that ball, she might miss, for one thing. And because it is deep, you will have more time to react and can get over and cover the DTL to avoid the winner. It is this situation -- deep player has hit a great deep shot -- where a lot of people hug the alley when they shouldn't.
...
great thread
there used to be a site called Operation Doubles that did a good job describing the angles.
...
Has anyone mentioned the tip of the net man staying focused on playing shots that he can keep in front of him?
Often I see net players trying to chase balls that get behind them down the middle. Yes, you may get these balls, but it should be a much better look for the server behind you. He should be able to hit a better shot and join you at net with you in good position for a good wall axiom. When you chase back down the middle, coverage is hurt and the usual weak shot by the chasing net man leads to an easy put away.
On the dtl side it is a dif story, as you don't have help there, so do what you have to do to get something on that side.
If that is how you see it??
your comment accounts for nothing but getting it or not getting it. Common sense tells us there is much more to the story.
What if an easy lob serve was hit to any spot in the box; could you get it?
If you can, there was some coverage right? So it comes down to how thin or strong your coverage is, not about leaving coverage bare.
It's the reasonable person theory.
We cover the reasonable shots. When Fed gets aced (pretty rare even with Arod) the serve is above and beyond reasonable. Are you trying to suggest that Fed had decided not to cover the spot where those aces hit and that a 80 mph serve would have still aced him there or do you think he intends to cover everything, but only the best serves can get thru at times?
I know you are just trying to pull my chain, as even as only 3.5 ladies doubles player you must understand coverage better than this. Even deluxe's source, Louis Cayer says you must account for your dtl coverage.
I guess you forget that dtl stands for down the line?
This is a good point. Sometimes in doubles I get in the habit of volleying short to opponent's feet but this is a good reminder of the value of a deep ball. Just like in singles, deep balls limit options for opponents and give time to you. So a good doubles tip I think is when you are the back player and attempting to approach, its still important to make that first volley deep (unless of course you are playing a drop shot to force the back player in and make him hit up).
I'm not a fan of how often Lisa gets passed or her position, but she seems to be making the most of her skillset.
If you think you can position yourself to not cover 3-4 inches of line, while having great coverage from there on in, then Great that should work fine for you! To me, that is a beggar's belief, and a good excuse to offer when getting smoked dtl.
I'm just pretty sure coverage does not work like that and that if LC says something along those lines in his book, he was trying to get across a general concept.
Everything I've found he says on it accounts for dtl coverage; which was the original assertion.
My only claim is that there is *some* margin that you should leave because it is too low percentage for them to hit consistently.
That's all I've been claiming. My argument is that being passed down line 0% of the time is too low a number.
My claim has been consistent. There is some margin that you shouldn't cover because your opponent won't be able to hit it consistently. It varies from opponent to opponent and from shot to shot.
I just don't understand why anyone who actually teaches tennis would claim that it is possible for 100% court coverage, in singles or doubles. Heck, in my doubles clinics the pro spends a fair amount of time explaining to students why they should take this or that position -- guarding against the most likely or most high-percentage or easiest shot -- in recognition that it isn't possible to reach every conceivable shot an opponent can make.
But like you say, I'm only a 3.5 ladies doubles player, so I have to be wrong . . . .
Of course it does not disprove it. Players can hit winners right at other players. Winners are hit when players lean the wrong way. Does not mean coverage is bad or given up. Some shots are just too good, but doesn't mean I was not covering that area best I could. The list goes on and on of how winners are hit into coverage.
Shift and stagger covers the dtl and still has overlap in the middle for all but the crazy good/lucky shots.
And coverage does not mean you can get every possible shot to the edges of your coverage.
When you return serve, don't you try to cover the entire service box? I do except in extreme circumstances where the server proves I have to make some hard choices due to his abilities-- but I start and normally cover the entire range. Same with court coverage, I intend to get them all and do get most. Great shots can win points at anytime on anyone, but I make sure that it takes great shots to win points.
The serve is a great example. Coverage clearly is not just the area you can reach with your racquet from where you are standing... you are going to shift or lean or lunge one way or another based on your observation of the server's motion.
Against some servers with nasty slices, I find myself returning from way outside the alley after having taken a position two feet inside the alley. The intention is to cover the whole area to the best of one's ability. If a serve goes by at 120 MPH, I might miss it even if it is an area I can reach easily from my initial position - it doesn't mean I didn't try to cover that area.
OK, but do you move in or take a more aggressive position when he hits a second serve? You opponent has exactly the same range of shots available to him on the second serve as on the first serve.
Of course - but that doesn't change the argument, does it? I still have the area covered as best as I can, but I am expecting a serve with more kick and less speed, so it doesn't make sense to stand as far back as for a first serve. If the rascal throws in a first serve - which I look for in his motion, from past experience! - I will adjust as best as I can.
If I am reading Deluxe correctly, he thinks it is a good plan to leave the most low-percentage shots uncovered, and I agree.
^When that serve blows by you untouched, you surely *tried* to cover it. But you failed, right? You failed to cover it. You did not cover it. That area went uncovered. It was not possible for you to cover it, or you would have.
So can we at least agree that it is not possible to cover the entire service box and it is not possible to cover the entire doubles court?
Once we get to this (rather obvious) understanding, then we have to make decisions about what we will leave uncovered and what we will defend more vigorously (with our positioning and anticipation). If I am reading Deluxe correctly, he thinks it is a good plan to leave the most low-percentage shots uncovered, and I agree.
The point is, people stand in a different position to return second serves than they stand to return first serves. Certainly professionals do. Why is this? I say it is because that 120mph slice serve out wide is low enough percentage that although your opponent might hit it on a first serve, most of the time he's not going to risk hitting it on a second serve because the odds have changed because it's a second serve.
Going for a 120mph ace out wide on a second serve is not high percentage tennis. Most people will change their position when receiving a second serve to *not* cover a 120mph wide serve, but to have better cover for the kicker to the backhand that's not so close to the line. Maybe you give yourself a better chance to run round it and hit a forehand, maybe you give yourself a better chance to step in and take it on the rise on your backhand.
If your opponent hits that 120mph wide serve on his 2nd serve and hits an ace, you say "too good". If you're not playing Pete Sampras or Karlovic, its unlikely they're going to win the majority of points on their 2nd serve hitting that shot.
I have the area covered, but I have left myself vulnerable to some very risky shots by my opponent, talking specifically about the second serve. I never made a decision to leave any spot uncovered, for the simple reason the second serve can land anywhere in the box and have any kind of spin. In that sense, I disagree with your assertion that a decision was made to leave some area uncovered.
True. In this sense, everyone is right. But I also feel that we are using the term "coverage" in slightly different ways... of course, we need to give priority to the most probable shot. But there is a difference between that and leaving some area totally uncovered, is there not?
I think it's clear from the dozen or so screenshots I posted that at least on a serve out wide, the top doubles players in the world leave a substantial part of the tramlines uncovered when they are playing as server's partner.
But to be fair, yes, I do agree that some things just cannot be covered. If I get a short ball way to the right of my deuce court, and I run to put it away (talking singles here), I am leaving my ad side uncovered... my only hope is to get a winner. Again, as I pointed out earlier, I think what we are talking about is a matter of degree, and there is no major disagreement.
I think you're down to semantics. I say "uncovered". You say "vulnerable to". Fundamentally if Federer stays in the middle of the possible range of Karlovic serves, he's not going to be able to reach balls that hit the T or that hit the sideline. Is that "vulnerable to" or is that uncovered. I don't see how you could say it is wrong for me to say "uncovered" if he can't physically reach the ball. Just like Lisa Raymond wouldn't physically be able to reach a well hit down the line forehand off the wide serve in the screenshot I posted.
It determines the question of where you should stand as the net man. If you have to cover all down the line shots, even if your opponent could only hit them 1 time in 100, you'll have to stand closer to the tramlines than if you leave those 1 in 100 shots uncovered. If you cover those 1 in 100 shots dtl, you'll be able to make fewer interceptions cross court.
Missed this one...
What I am saying is that one should position oneself so that one covers the whole area "to the best of one's abilities", taking into account the probabilities of the various different shots the opponent is likely to hit (okay, I have half a second to calculate all that ). Thus all reasonable shots should have a finite probabilty of coverage.
Yes, I think we are down to semantics... Lisa Raymond will get to a DTL that is not well hit, right? She should have at least that much covered.
I will grant you this, deluxe - I will let the 1 in 100 shot go! But I don't want to stand so far in that a lazy slice gets past me... I don't know if I am making myself clear.
The principle is fundamental to good positioning in doubles. If you don't understand it, then you too will feel pleased with yourself after a match where your opponents didn't try to pass you down the line. If you don't understand it, you'll be confused by the classic "booby traps" you see set in top level doubles all the time.