3.5 Doubles - Poaching & Signaling?

[AceKing]

So my 1st season of USTA league play is nearing an end. Before this season, I hadn’t played a competitive doubles match since HS (15+ years ago). I was surprised to find that there was very little poaching and no one used signals, ever. Now this wasn’t just something that my partner & I didn’t do. . . I played 6 doubles matches & I had 5 different partners. Neither my teams nor the teams I played against used any signals ever.
The pre-match conversation between my partner & I usually consisted of deciding who would take which side & maybe a quick scouting report on the other guys we were facing. That was it.

Is this normal everywhere for the 3.5 level? At what level do you start seeing teams poaching & signaling?

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

I find only about 1 in 5 do any signaling in 4.0. I personally rarely signal but usually talk to my partner every other service point and tell him my intentions on the next two points.

 

[kendall22]

Agreed entirely, Ace. Doesn't happen. No interest generally in overcomplicating the situation by instituting signals. Quick scouting, then go out and play, a little adaptation in the middle of the match and that's it.

 

[JRstriker12]

So my 1st season of USTA league play is nearing an end. Before this season, I hadn’t played a competitive doubles match since HS (15+ years ago). I was surprised to find that there was very little poaching and no one used signals, ever. Now this wasn’t just something that my partner & I didn’t do. . . I played 6 doubles matches & I had 5 different partners. Neither my teams nor the teams I played against used any signals ever.
The pre-match conversation between my partner & I usually consisted of deciding who would take which side & maybe a quick scouting report on the other guys we were facing. That was it.

Is this normal everywhere for the 3.5 level? At what level do you start seeing teams poaching & signaling?

IMHO - pretty normal at 3.5 and 4.0 - especially when you have a different partner every week.

This year, at 4.0 I had a consistent partner, and while we didn't signal, he told me where he was going to serve and I told him if I was going to move or not.

 

[saigonbond]

I've never taught my players signals below the 4.0 level. Its just not necessary at that level.

 

[JavierLW]

I rarely ever seen signaling at 3.5. Ive only seen someone do it once at 4.0.

The problem is that it sounds all fine and well, but if you signal that you are going to "go" there is still a lot of skill to be had in how you execute that play.

I went the entire 2007 season with a partner where we signaled. It was a huge distraction on my serve, but I think it was just mainly the way he did it.

When I signal, I'll generally just hold the sign behind my back and leave it there until they say "okay". That means if they want it right away, it's there. If they have to shag down a ball or something, that's fine as well, they can serve at their own pace.

But this guy would wait and wait and wait, and then he'd move his hand very slowly across his back, and then finally he'd show me the signal. So I had to wait a very long time for him everytime and that got to be kind of disruptive as I have a definate service rhythm. (plus this clock alarm is going on in my head that we're going way past what seems acceptable to make our opponents sit around and wait....)

So no signaling with that guy anymore! I may do it with others, but like other people said, when you have a different partner every week and most of them dont do it, it's probably not going to happen.....

 

[rh310]

I don't see any signalling at 3.5 either (very much to my surprise). So instead, I just tell my partners I expect them to go for everything in reach and I cover the move I expect them to make.

I always congratulate them for going for the ball, regardless of how their shot or the point turns out.

After a game or two they're having a blast and I'm getting a good workout. Win-win.

 

[bodieq]

Hand-signals in general are stupid, inefficient, and unnecessary. Ideally, what doubles-partners "should" do is briefly confer with each other before each point in which the server indicates what type of serve he's hitting (slice out wide, kick down the T, etc.) and they also decide whether partner will stay-or-go. The importance of letting your partner know what kind of serve will be hit ahead of time is so they can have better anticipation as to what type of return to expect.

....But at the lower-levels, the players generally don't have enough variety and precision in their serves to really make this process work efficiently.

 

[Cruzer]

The level or play does not indicate whether or not doubles teams will use signals. Serious doubles teams will use signals or verbally confer before each point. My wife have used signals for years both when serving and receiving and it has undoubtedly been an advantage in many matches. In my years of USTA doubles play I can count on one hand the partners that wanted to use signals or even knew what any of them meant.

Most USTA doubles is usually just four players banging balls around the court with no one having any plan or set play to follow. On every shot there are three players on the court who don't know what the player hitting the shot is going to do. The majority of players play that way and if that is what they feel comfortable with then go for it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hand signals at 3.5 are awesome. Much better than a verbal conference. Since use of signals is so rare at that level, some opponents will wig out and miss because they are so worried about the signaling.

Alas, I haven't been able to use them much. When I am serving, my partners don't want to signal because they don't like (or can't) poach. When they are serving, they don't want the additional distraction of having to remember whether they must cross.

The one lady who is a big fan of poaching is injured, so we haven't had a chance to play together. I hope she gets well soon . . .

I have never seen signaled poaches at 4.0. I think part of the problem with signaled or planned poaches at 3.5 and 4.0 is that the serves are often weaker than the returns. Having a planned poach will require the poacher to handle some pretty hot returns.

Oh, and verbal conferences between points are really annoying and inefficient. We play timed matches, and a lot of these conferences go too long. And of course, having a verbal conference doesn't strike fear into the hearts of opponents the way a signaled poach does.

 

[TenS_Ace]

At a 3.5 level or heck even 4.0 level, players might have all the serves, BUT the serve placement is probably at best hit and miss. I think at these levels, you just put extra pressure on the server to place and probably just not get the serve you would like to poach on. So, I'm agreeing with a couple of the other posts, just go after it if you see it's poachable ball.

 

[Annika]

I think they use more hand signals when they get to Districts or play in Tournies.

 

[Jim A]

depends on who I'm playing with when it comes to signals

I have one partner who likes to use them and that's fine, others like to talk between points

however in the end it comes down to if we are in control of the point with the serve and if we are getting enough 1st serves in to be aggressive on their return

 

[larry10s]

below 4.0 rare to see signals used much. they are still struggling to get the ball in the court
at 4.0 you should start seeing it and at 4.5 men definitely since most will serve and volley 1st and second serve so signals and formations become more common.
for signals to work BOTH players need the required skill sets to do it and feel comfortable doing it. usually that doent happen until 4.0-4.5.
the 3.5s that are trying to improve want to do it because its "real"tennis. the ones stuck at 3.5 forever dont want to leave their comfort zone.
if you cant get your net player to poach a floater they are never going to want to do signals.
just my observations.

 

[larry10s]

i'll also relate this story
the first time in a match (this is a saturday mens group most 4.0-4.5) when i first started playing with them and wanted to prove i belonged
my partner (4.5) on my serve since i did not hold the first time serveing said lets do I formation.
i said "cool yea" weirdest thing having not practiced it much serving from the middle and seeing him crouched down along the center service line i was hoping not to hit him in the back of the head:shock:
this obviously did not help my serve at all
fortunately the guys have been patient with me and now I formation , australian , hand signals etc. are routine.

 

[larry10s]

At a 3.5 level or heck even 4.0 level, players might have all the serves, BUT the serve placement is probably at best hit and miss. I think at these levels, you just put extra pressure on the server to place and probably just not get the serve you would like to poach on. So, I'm agreeing with a couple of the other posts, just go after it if you see it's poachable ball.

when playing with people at that level and when i could not locate my serve that well we would sometimes say if your serve goes up the t im poaching.
this took the surprise out for the server and was random enough to throw off the returners

 

[JRstriker12]

Hand signals at 3.5 are awesome. Much better than a verbal conference. Since use of signals is so rare at that level, some opponents will wig out and miss because they are so worried about the signaling.

Alas, I haven't been able to use them much. When I am serving, my partners don't want to signal because they don't like (or can't) poach. When they are serving, they don't want the additional distraction of having to remember whether they must cross.

The one lady who is a big fan of poaching is injured, so we haven't had a chance to play together. I hope she gets well soon . . .

I have never seen signaled poaches at 4.0. I think part of the problem with signaled or planned poaches at 3.5 and 4.0 is that the serves are often weaker than the returns. Having a planned poach will require the poacher to handle some pretty hot returns.

Oh, and verbal conferences between points are really annoying and inefficient. We play timed matches, and a lot of these conferences go too long. And of course, having a verbal conference doesn't strike fear into the hearts of opponents the way a signaled poach does.

I wouldn't say one is better than the other as it's a personal preference thing. Some people like signals, some like to talk.

IMHO - I prefer to confer with my partner, that way I'm not wondering if he saw my signal and it's less of a distraction during serve since I already know what the plan is when me or my partner step up to the line to serve.

In addition it provides a good time to mention any observations or change up strategies without being obvious. If the other team hasn't talked for three games straight then all a sudden they meet up out of no where, you know they are going to try something.

As for time, it's not a conversation for the most part. My partner tells me where he plans to put the serve (wide, body, T) and I'll usually poach based on location. If I plan to poach, when it's not expected I'll let him or her know I'm going. - Only takes about 10 seconds max.

Granted, there's only 1 or 2 people that I've played with enough during the season that we could make talking or signaling work very well. Even if we don't signal, at the very least, if I'm going to poach, I'm going to tell my partner so they know what to expect.

Also - IMHO - a fair number of mens 4.0's do have a big enough serve to cause a weak return. I think the biggest reason why you don't see alot of signals, etc. is that alot of times your partners change, so it's really hard to be familar enough with their game to make it work well.

 

[JRstriker12]

I think they use more hand signals when they get to Districts or play in Tournies.

Played districts two weeks ago. Don't recall seeing a team using signals. Seems like most teams talked.

 

[AceKing]

When I played doubles in HS, we always used signals, as did a lot of the teams we played against. HS dubs isn't exactly high level tennis. . . we were probably low 3.5's. I thought it made life much more difficult when returning. I couldn't just groove returns crosscourt.

I'm actually surprised at how little variety I see overall. I think I've had a returner go down the alley at me only 1 time in 6 matches.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Is there an advantage in signaling versus talking?

I have used signals on a few occasions, and I have sometimes heard one of the opponents blurt out, "Oh, God. They're using *signals.*"

I tell ya, that fear factor is worth something. Usually what happens thereafter is the returners lack confidence in their crosscourt returns. They also "buy" a fake more easily because they are worried about running headlong into a signaled poach. They then start lobbing their returns, which is awesome because that is usually not their most practiced return and they start to miss.

In contrast, returning teams aren't the least bit frightened by a conference. If they haven't been conferencing before that point, the sudden conference usually just makes the opponents a bit more alert for a "trick." And if the serving team is conferencing after every point, the conference is more boring than frightening.

I remember one highly successful use of signals. It was a social match, and I was playing with a new partner. We were getting killed. In my first service game, I served and my partner took off to poach. Much too early. So they burned her up the line. This happened 2-3 times in that one service game.

The next time I served, I suggested we do signaled poaches. Opponents freaked out a bit just because we started signaling. The planned poaches allowed her to leave earlier and also allowed me to get a head start on covering the alley. After a bit of this, the opponents started lobbing. Cool. 'Cause I was S&V so I got lots of sweet high volleys and overheads to play. We did much better after that.

 

[goober]

Talking is way better. You can go in detail- if you need to and convey much more info than a simple signal.

As for poaching- I guess it depends. I see plenty of it at 4.0 and above. At 3.5 there is some, but much less. That is to be expected IMO. The lower levels you play the more lobbing, soft serves, two back formations (all the time) and less aggressive play *in general.*

 

[Tarboro]

If signals are unobtrusive I'd be hard-pressed to notice my opponent signalling. If they're so in-your-face that it's apparent to your opponent that you're signaling poaches and movement, you'll have to worry about them stealing your signals and anticipating your next move.

In my experience, a quick exchange verbally before the point is the best way for both the server and the net player to have a good understanding of what's going on. You'll notice pro doubles players often do both fwiw.

 

[ronray43]

We just talk for a couple of seconds between points instead of signalling. Works fine and lets us control the pace of the match as well.

 

[decades]

in 3.5 all the signalling is done by guys who dress and where their hair exactly like Borg circa 1980.

 

[bodieq]

Is there an advantage in signaling versus talking?

I have used signals on a few occasions, and I have sometimes heard one of the opponents blurt out, "Oh, God. They're using *signals.*"

I tell ya, that fear factor is worth something. Usually what happens thereafter is the returners lack confidence in their crosscourt returns. They also "buy" a fake more easily because they are worried about running headlong into a signaled poach. They then start lobbing their returns, which is awesome because that is usually not their most practiced return and they start to miss.

In contrast, returning teams aren't the least bit frightened by a conference. If they haven't been conferencing before that point, the sudden conference usually just makes the opponents a bit more alert for a "trick." And if the serving team is conferencing after every point, the conference is more boring than frightening.

I remember one highly successful use of signals. It was a social match, and I was playing with a new partner. We were getting killed. In my first service game, I served and my partner took off to poach. Much too early. So they burned her up the line. This happened 2-3 times in that one service game.

The next time I served, I suggested we do signaled poaches. Opponents freaked out a bit just because we started signaling. The planned poaches allowed her to leave earlier and also allowed me to get a head start on covering the alley. After a bit of this, the opponents started lobbing. Cool. 'Cause I was S&V so I got lots of sweet high volleys and overheads to play. We did much better after that.

I still maintain that as a server, it's important to let your partner know what type of serve you're going to be hitting on a given point, so he/she can anticipate what type of return to expect from an opponent, particularly if your partner will be moving/poaching. That's why I prefer the "confer" before each point (this is not some long-drawn-out conversation...it's literally 5 seconds only).

You keep mentioning this concept of "striking fear in the hearts of opponents." I think this only applies in certain NTRP levels. If you play 4.5 or 5.0 doubles, your hand-signals are NOT striking fear in anybody's hearts. However, the idea you mention about mixing it up and giving opponents different looks...this concept is effective at any/all levels.

 

[JRstriker12]

I still maintain that as a server, it's important to let your partner know what type of serve you're going to be hitting on a given point, so he/she can anticipate what type of return to expect from an opponent, particularly if your partner will be moving/poaching. That's why I prefer the "confer" before each point (this is not some long-drawn-out conversation...it's literally 5 seconds only).

You keep mentioning this concept of "striking fear in the hearts of opponents." I think this only applies in certain NTRP levels. If you play 4.5 or 5.0 doubles, your hand-signals are NOT striking fear in anybody's hearts. However, the idea you mention about mixing it up and giving opponents different looks...this concept is effective at any/all levels.

Signals are not going to strike fear at the 4.0 level - unless your poaching/play execution is effective.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Tarboro,

I *want* my opponents to know I'm signaling. There's no reason to do anything unusual, though. People catch on, fast. As soon as the net player lines up at net, there is a short pause and then the server says, "OK," you know they are signaling.

Part of the difference in our experiences, I think, is that players at higher levels perhaps need to talk because they have more information to communicate (stay or go, serve location, type of serve). I am in Signaling Kindergarten -- we don't signal anything other than stay or go, as none of us can place our serve accurately enough to justify discussion of serve location. I know if the signal is "Go", I'll serve up the middle, but if it is "Stay" I will serve wherever I want to serve.

 

[larry10s]

I am in Signaling Kindergarten -- we don't signal anything other than stay or go, .

signaling the fake poach(open hand wigglingh fingers) is something easy to add to your repertoire

 

[Angle Queen]

Like Cindy, I'm probably in Signaling kindergarten...but my regular ladies partner and I have used it this season (w/success). Neither of us poach much but we've gotten good enough at placing our serves so that's what's being signaled. Our favorite though, is a shrug of the shoulders which means "Surprise me" or "Server Surprise." Haha...

 

[Cindysphinx]

signaling the fake poach(open hand wigglingh fingers) is something easy to add to your repertoire

No need to signal a fake. If I'm not going, I fake every time.

 

[larry10s]

No need to signal a fake. If I'm not going, I fake every time.

if you are using signals and you signal stay and your partner knows you like to fake poach thats fine.(its great tha you fake poach)
when you play with new partners it could disrupt the server because they see you move and they are not sure to cross or not

 

[Annika]

Part of the difference in our experiences, I think, is that players at higher levels perhaps need to talk because they have more information to communicate (stay or go, serve location, type of serve). I am in Signaling Kindergarten -- we don't signal anything other than stay or go, as none of us can place our serve accurately enough to justify discussion of serve location. I know if the signal is "Go", I'll serve up the middle, but if it is "Stay" I will serve wherever I want to serve./QUOTE]

I played in a finals doubles tournie and my partner's hubby was a Pro.
The night before the match he decided to teach us how to use handsignals and how and when to do the "I" formation. We played against the #1 and 2 ranked ladies at our club. Um, playing in the final is not the time to learn how to do these things. Although we were getting killed, so we had nothing to lose.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I don't think I formation works very well at my level. I only tried it once, for a single point. I lined up on the center hash, having told my partner which way I was going to go.

I heard the server strike the ball, so I started coming out of my crouch.

By the time I had made it to my feet, the ball had already gone by me.

Apparently, I rise from a crouch about as fast as I get out of a chair. Which is not very fast. I think I am much too old for I formation.

 

[rh310]

I don't think I formation works very well at my level. I only tried it once, for a single point. I lined up on the center hash, having told my partner which way I was going to go.

I heard the server strike the ball, so I started coming out of my crouch.

By the time I had made it to my feet, the ball had already gone by me.

Apparently, I rise from a crouch about as fast as I get out of a chair. Which is not very fast. I think I am much too old for I formation.

Sorry to hear it. But because it's bad for you doesn't mean it's bad for all players at your level (whatever level that is) -- particularly based on the results of a single trial.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Sorry to hear it. But because it's bad for you doesn't mean it's bad for all players at your level (whatever level that is) -- particularly based on the results of a single trial.

I should have mentioned that lots of teams have tried I formation against me. It has never, ever worked. Not once. The serves are too weak. I either aim for the forehead of the player who is crouched -- you know the one place they will not be is in that spot. Or I lob. Or I aim for the BH side of the crouched side, on the theory that most people my level have miserable BH volleys when they poach.

Are you seeing a lot of successful I formations at 3.5 where you are? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I will say plain old Australian is more effective, IMHO.

 

[Ripper014]

I should have mentioned that lots of teams have tried I formation against me. It has never, ever worked. Not once. The serves are too weak. I either aim for the forehead of the player who is crouched -- you know the one place they will not be is in that spot. Or I lob. Or I aim for the BH side of the crouched side, on the theory that most people my level have miserable BH volleys when they poach.

Are you seeing a lot of successful I formations at 3.5 where you are? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I will say plain old Australian is more effective, IMHO.

To be effective with the I formation you need to be able to control where you serve the ball. My definition of the I formation is to have my partner straddle the center-line... and I will serve from the hash mark. It is manditory that I am able to hit an effective serve into my opponents backhand, forcing them to be able to hit a backhand return down the line... or a lob over my partner. Any return in the middle of the court is going to a put away by my partner.

I find this formation is extremely effective if you use it in key situations, where your opponent has not had the opportunity to see it. I like using it on set and matchpoints.

 

[larry10s]

To be effective with the I formation you need to be able to control where you serve the ball.
I will serve from the hash mark. It is manditory that I am able to hit an effective serve into my opponents backhand, forcing them to be able to hit a backhand return down the line... or a lob over my partner.
Any return in the middle of the court is going to a put away by my partner.

I find this formation is extremely effective if you use it in key situations, where your opponent has not had the opportunity to see it. I like using it on set and matchpoints.

serving to the backhand on the ad side for a righty means a wide serve.
usually with the i formation you want to serve up the t
if you serve wide you or your partner may not get that dtl return depending who is moving where and whether you ar s/v ing.

 

[rh310]

Are you seeing a lot of successful I formations at 3.5 where you are? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I will say plain old Australian is more effective, IMHO.

I only played one doubles match at 3.5, and the other team couldn't hit two forehands in a row let alone use formations. While we won, I don't know much about 3.5 doubles. I was just pointing out that extrapolating from a single personal experience is not a very strong argument.

As server's partner, I usually crouch on first serve when playing doubles, but at 3.5 I didn't change from the traditional position to do it. I just do it to keep from getting hit by the serve, and to let the server have a clearer field of vision to the service box. It worked out well in the one 3.5 match, for whatever that's worth.

What I think is important to remember is that 3.5 contains a wide range of player skills, confidence, and aggressiveness. I've seen everything at 3.5 -- from players with 2.5 strokes who win matches, to players with 4.0+ strokes who lose matches.

I've played a lot of doubles in team practice, and there are a couple of guys with giant albeit inconsistent serves, a couple of guys with very attackable puffball serves, and then the majority of guys with reliable medium-paced flat serves that they can place to the BH or FH at will. I have no idea how universal this distribution is.