Doubles: The more aces you serve, the more you will lose

Will on this podcast;
https://tennisfiles.com/will-hamilton-lessons-learned-greatest-podcast

You serve to setup your netman in dbs, no doubt.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Aces are overrated, in general. But, what works for pros doesn’t necessarily work for rec players. Take volleys as an example - put four average 3.5 players on the court and I can almost guarantee that their groundstrokes are better than their volleys. So the stat that there are 3 errors for every 1 winner at the baseline in doubles is neat. But the secret sauce of getting close to the net only works if the groundstrokes and serves pressure the opposing player sufficiently that it takes away easy balls down the line or lobs. IME, that really doesn’t happen at 3.5 and below consistently.

i play with some friends that have big serves.
when they go in, i cant return them in the open court, my returns usually go out or to the netman. my only hope of breaking them is to see a lot of second serves, which i can return consistently.

when i play usta league, i dont recall ever seeing services with this amount of pace. usually the serves from the league opponents are more about placement and starting the point

z

If that's the case, why does my team still lose when I serve no aces?

Doubles is about getting the first serve in. If every first serve you hit is an ace or winner but you can’t get more than 20% in, then you are in trouble in doubles.

I just played a Men’s doubles 50 + tournament. My first serve percentage was about 80-90% no aces. I was broken twice all tournament and always a deuce game where I had at least one ad in point. My partner’s first serve typically resulted in a winner if not an ace but he couldn’t get more than 10-20% in. He held serve only once all tournament.

High first serve percentage and placement wins especially over wild power.

Yes indeed. Doubles = get your first serve in, even if it is at 75% pace. You cannot allow the returner to get a look at a second serve.

TimeToPlaySets said:

Will on this podcast;
https://tennisfiles.com/will-hamilton-lessons-learned-greatest-podcast

Click to expand...

You should tell this to ALL the singles players that play doubles and blame their partner for losing............ This is a Must.

I agree with the importance of 1st server percentage. It is also important to hit a serve big enough and well placed enough to get your partner involved. The necessary pace and placement for this to happen is dependent on the skill level of your opponent. Sometimes, I have to hit a pretty big 1st serve to make this happen. If the opponents are good enough you cannot just roll in a 75% er.

justinmadison said:

I agree with the importance of 1st server percentage. It is also important to hit a serve big enough and well placed enough to get your partner involved. The necessary pace and placement for this to happen is dependent on the skill level of your opponent. Sometimes, I have to hit a pretty big 1st serve to make this happen. If the opponents are good enough you cannot just roll in a 75% er.

Click to expand...

Played some really good opponents in our first round defeat and you know what serve worked best for me? The 75% slice that got to the baseline about ankle level and made them move. These were good players but they had real trouble with it. Probably because my flat serve to the BH was kind of holding them back at the baseline and they couldn't just walk in to take it on the rise.

Variety is the spice of life. If you can hit flats to the BH and slices to the FH and make them move, its a good strategy in doubles. If you can bomb 100% flat serves into the body at a high percentage more power to you. What are you doing playing 4.0 doubles?

Dartagnan64 said:

Played some really good opponents in our first round defeat and you know what serve worked best for me? The 75% slice that got to the baseline about ankle level and made them move. These were good players but they had real trouble with it. Probably because my flat serve to the BH was kind of holding them back at the baseline and they couldn't just walk in to take it on the rise.

Variety is the spice of life. If you can hit flats to the BH and slices to the FH and make them move, its a good strategy in doubles. If you can bomb 100% flat serves into the body at a high percentage more power to you. What are you doing playing 4.0 doubles?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you and @justinmadison are talking about different levels. I can see your point but I can also see his from a different perspective. Against a 5.0, I must be more aggressive with both 1st and 2nd serves or else the return is coming back with interest. A 75% slice will not cut it.

S&V-not_dead_yet said:

Perhaps you and @justinmadison are talking about different levels. I can see your point but I can also see his from a different perspective. Against a 5.0, I must be more aggressive with both 1st and 2nd serves or else the return is coming back with interest. A 75% slice will not cut it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Serve strategy must consider the strengths and weaknesses of the returner. At my level, I face very few returners who can make me pay for a weak serve whether 1st or 2nd. And often, they don't move well. Often, my strategy is to move them out as wide as possible on the first serve to open up the court. I'm willing to risk the 1st serve being out wide to do it when mobility is a big weakness. The 2nd serve is most often a "just get it in" deal that starts the point - unless and until they prove they can make me pay. I only bring the heat when opponents have been lulled to sleep and are anticipating a relatively slow 1st serve out wide and start to lean or cheat that way. Then I bring the heat down the T. The heat ain't what it used to be and won't be an ace or a winner against players ready for it.

I've not listened to the podcast, but I'm going to assume this is sort of like a "clickbait" headline. Obviously serving aces doesn't hurt your game, but when people play low percentage tennis (by going for too much) it's never good.

In many respects you have more leeway with a serve in doubles. There is another human at the net to punish your opponents if they don't hit a good return after all. Again, this is just my assumption of what is being discussed.

Let's get down to the business of discussing serves though. You cannot just separate your first and second serves, as if they are completely independent things. The quality and consistency of your second serve will be one of the largest determinants of what you can "go for" on your first serve, behind only your opponent's ability to return.

I find conversations about hitting shots at "x%" to be misleading because of how people interpret that percentage. You should almost never go at 100% of your physical capability for a ball. It's an absurd goal because tennis requires a high level of precision (not talking shot placement, just general mechanics). It's very difficult to go all out and maintain that level of control. So I think when a lot of people say "100%" they're really talking about as hard as they can go while maintaining a reasonable level of control.

My perspective would be this:
If you're someone who has a weak and/or inconsistent second serve then a moderate first serve is critical. You have to minimize that weakness because it's a double-whammy. Your opponents will not only return it well, but they'll get a mini-confidence boost every time you miss that first serve anticipating the second.

On the other hand, if you have a good second serve that you can hit in with consistency then you've got a lot more leeway. Throw some math at it if you're unsure. In a perfect world, we'd all have access to our points won off 1st serve vs 2nd serve to help guide, but you can do some basic guidance on your own. For example, if you hit your 1st serve in 75% of the time and your second in 80% of the time, you're only double-faulting 5% of the time. If you're someone who can serve at those percentages with a serve that really dictates play, the 5% is worth it.

And the other challenge with this type of discussion is the tendency to focus on "serve speed". I only use a hard flat serve in doubles to "mix things up". Obviously that's going to be the faster ball, but it's often not as effective. Good players can handle pace, and really it'll allow them to hit a nice compact, controlled return. I hit "big" kick serves, and honestly I essentially do the exact same thing on first and second serves. This goes back to the math and opponent return ability, because either one is enough to control a point, so as long as my double faults are minimal then that's all I need.

justinmadison said:

I agree with the importance of 1st server percentage. It is also important to hit a serve big enough and well placed enough to get your partner involved. The necessary pace and placement for this to happen is dependent on the skill level of your opponent. Sometimes, I have to hit a pretty big 1st serve to make this happen. If the opponents are good enough you cannot just roll in a 75% er.

Click to expand...

I am not saying to always serve 75%. Rather, I am saying a 75% first serve is better than having them look at 2nd serves all day long. Even at 75% the mere fact that it is a first serve will keep them from pouncing on it. If you are serving up 2nds all day they are going to step in and rip it.

S&V-not_dead_yet said:

Perhaps you and @justinmadison are talking about different levels. I can see your point but I can also see his from a different perspective. Against a 5.0, I must be more aggressive with both 1st and 2nd serves or else the return is coming back with interest. A 75% slice will not cut it.

Click to expand...

These guys were 4.5's so I can't relate to a 5.0. But I suspect a 75% slice from a 5.0 player could keep another 5.0 on his heels as its far more likely to be a more formidable slice in the hands of a better player. My 75% slice can be troublesome up to 4.5 but no further.

Now my topspin second serve is another matter. Gives 3.5's some trouble but it gets hit pretty hard by 4.0-4.5 players. Still a work in progress. Good thing my first serve percentage is generally high.

2nd Serve Ace said:

You serve to setup your netman in dbs, no doubt.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That’s why I sucked in doubles
Can’t serve and can’t volley

In singles I had great speed and good consistency

I’ll listen to the podcast later, but the title of the podcast doesn’t add up to me. I can place my serve pretty accurately, so my goal is to ace as many opponents or get as many unreturned serves as possible. Whether it’s doubles or singles. I have to admit, I don’t really subscribe to the tennis social norms. I’ve been known to serve two first serves, ESPECIALLY when I see my opponent step in for my second serve. I’ve also served a second serve as a first serve before. I use the same service motion, so my opponent doesn’t know what serve I’m hitting until it’s too late. Part of my game/strategy is NOT being predictable when I play.

I more or less agree. In doubles it’s effective if you can hit both 1st and 2nd serve equally with heavy slice or spin. Most of the serves will be returned but not for winners so your partner has to be aggressive at the net.

TagUrIt said:

. Part of my game/strategy is NOT being predictable when I play.

Click to expand...

I think many of us are like that but use different strategies. My first service game aims to identify which return you are weak at. Then I’ll start going at that until you adjust, at which point I’ll slice to the other side.

Being unpredictable at all times is great if the opponent has no weaknesses. But if you can find a weakness, getting after it is a sound strategy. If they adjust bring out the unpredictable.

I’ve definitely played matches where I went at the opponents BH return every darn time. It was weak, they didn’t adjust, easy holds.

Dartagnan64 said:

I think many of us are like that but use different strategies. My first service game aims to identify which return you are weak at. Then I’ll start going at that until you adjust, at which point I’ll slice to the other side.

Being unpredictable at all times is great if the opponent has no weaknesses. But if you can find a weakness, getting after it is a sound strategy. If they adjust bring out the unpredictable.

I’ve definitely played matches where I went at the opponents BH return every darn time. It was weak, they didn’t adjust, easy holds.

Click to expand...

I'm with you: if predictable wins, I'll be predictable. It's higher % than being unpredictable, for one thing.