Does King/Queen Of The Court Mean Anything?

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I don't play a lot of social doubles (defined as anything other than instruction, tournament or league match).

I've noticed something about social doubles, however. It seems that the protocol is to rotate partners at the end of each set. This often gives you a situation where you've played three sets and each player has partnered once with the others.

The part I'm not getting is that players seem to consider it a huge feather in their caps if they won their set with each different partner. I have even had players on teams I captain offer this up as proof that they are better players than the others (and therefore deserve more play time or whatever).

Is this attitude ("I must be the best player because I was on the winning doubles team in each set!") common and legitimate?

I guess I try not to view things that way when I play social doubles. If I didn't win all three sets, there could be many reasons for this. I might have been playing my weaker receiving side. I might have been playing my personal Plan B (e.g. stay back and hit passing shots). I might have told myself I will not under any circumstances hit a lob or will not bounce anything I can touch. Maybe I will execute these plans well, or maybe I won't. My goal in social dubs is to get out of my comfort zone, see what I can and cannot execute, challenge myself, test unfamiliar skills, and have a good time.

Also, is this a gender thing? I have heard of arguments, resentment and people just getting in a snit if they are on the losing end of all three sets in social doubles. This, of course, is a reaction to all of the preening that goes on by the player who did win all three sets.

Is that simply how it's done in social dubs?
 

OrangePower

Legend
It is decidedly uncivilized to preen if you are on the winning end. Just as it is uncivilized to have passive-aggressive resentment when you are on the losing end. It's just social tennis - enjoy it and take it with a pinch of salt.

Having said that, there is something to be said for a player who can win with a variety of partners. It does not necessarily mean that they are the strongest (relative to others in their preferred pairings), but it does mean that their playing style allows them to complement and be successful with many other playing styles. And that in itself is a skill.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I think it means very little in the end.
In our group, the best is always paired with the worst. Who wins doesn't favor either team, as two middle guys can always target the weak, and take the strongest out of his game.
It's just ego and chest bashing.
Some guys need to win every recreational fun match. Some use the matches for practice.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
If you are on the losing end in all you matches, you are the weakest link.

I think it depends why you are on the losing end.

It's social dubs, so different customs apply. I would never target the weaker player mercilessly in social dubs so the stronger player never sees a ball. That's no fun, and this is supposed to be fun. I play my shots according to what is the textbook correct shot (court geometry, high percentages). Nor will I tee off on the net player or hit an overhead in her direction deliberately to win a cheap point. Nor will I rip the weak player's weak serve at the net player to catch her napping. If I see my opponent is getting frustrated trying to deal with something I'm doing, I will change it up for the good of the group. [edit: Nor will I hit lobs for two hours, despite how effective this is.]

In a USTA league match, I will bounce balls off of the forehead of the weak player all day if that's what it takes.

I guess I don't much care if the weaker player in social dubs crows about it. I think she is deluding herself to think that she was necessarily stronger that day.

We can figure out who is stronger by looking at Tennislink.
 

andfor

Legend
We try to play 3 sets in and hour and a half or two depending on how much time we have. We rotate partners and try to win each set. It's social and competitive practice for us. Men's doubles, maybe it's different for men vs. women vs. mixed.

BTW. We do rip shots at each other and laugh about it and if you go 0-3 you get hazed. All in fun.
 

OrangePower

Legend
We can figure out who is stronger by looking at Tennislink.

Not really; Tennislink record is largely misleading since you can't know the DNTRP of a player's opponents. The same person could very well be either 8-2 or 2-8 depending on who the opponents happened to be over the course of the season.
 

Bagumbawalla

G.O.A.T.
In social doubles, I think that winning should be seen as secondary to having fun and playing interesting/exciting points and trying out new shots.

If playing with this particular player gave someone, who might not otherwise have the experience of winning, a momentary "thrill of victory"- well, that could be a plus. To boastfully draw attention to the fact- well, that would be a negative.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Not really; Tennislink record is largely misleading since you can't know the DNTRP of a player's opponents. The same person could very well be either 8-2 or 2-8 depending on who the opponents happened to be over the course of the season.

Mmmm, yes and no.

As a captain, if I pair Player X with the strongest player on the team and Player X then has a terrific record on Tennislink, that may or may not mean Player X is a strong player. Can't know how much heavy lifting Player X is doing, but I do know Player X is capable of being a good supporting player.

If I put Player Z in the line-up and over and over with a variety of partners against the weaker teams and she can never seem to win, Tennislink says Player Z is weak.

I don't need to know the ratings of Player Z's opponents. I've captained long enough to have seen Player Z's opponents and their partners, so I feel like I know what players/opponents are beatable.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
In social doubles, I think that winning should be seen as secondary to having fun and playing interesting/exciting points and trying out new shots.

If playing with this particular player gave someone, who might not otherwise have the experience of winning, a momentary "thrill of victory"- well, that could be a plus. To boastfully draw attention to the fact- well, that would be a negative.

If I might be so bold . . .

As I think about this and read the reply, I wonder if there is a correlation between players who are pleased to be King/Queen and players who don't improve.

I say that because the best way to maximize your chances to be King/Queen that day is never try anything new. If you never try anything new, you can't improve much if at all.
 

Maui19

Hall of Fame
If I might be so bold . . .

As I think about this and read the reply, I wonder if there is a correlation between players who are pleased to be King/Queen and players who don't improve.

I say that because the best way to maximize your chances to be King/Queen that day is never try anything new. If you never try anything new, you can't improve much if at all.

You're kinda all over the map on this one. IME, the better players find a way to win regardless of who they partner with.
 

mhj202

Rookie
If you are on the losing end in all you matches, you are the weakest link.

+1. To say otherwise sounds like justification for tanking or sucking. 0 for 3 is pretty clear cut, at least for that day.

If I might be so bold . . .

As I think about this and read the reply, I wonder if there is a correlation between players who are pleased to be King/Queen and players who don't improve.

I say that because the best way to maximize your chances to be King/Queen that day is never try anything new. If you never try anything new, you can't improve much if at all.

Nothing personal but again it sounds like you're trying to rationalize losing and/or being the weaker player, for whatever reason that might be- whether it's bc youre trying something new or otherwise. The fact is that, as someone above said, unless you play for a living pretty much all of our tennis is recreational/social/practice. Someone in a 4.5 league or any other sub 5.0-5.5 level could say that the reason for losing is simply that they were practicing something or trying something new- but that means that for that day, they were the lesser player. I'm always trying to improve and change things up but I'll do it in warmup, hitting sessions or here and there in a "recreational" match- but if I do it in a "match" and lose, then for that day and that match, I can admit that I was the lesser player.
 
Last edited:

damazing

Rookie
In social matches where we rotate partners it is always more fun when one person wins all three sets as long as they are challenging/fun sets.

The reverse of that - when one person loses all three sets is no fun for that person.

When I play with my family I usually am the one that wins all three sets, and you better believe I have to step up my game when playing with the weakest partner. For me its not about winning all the matches but making sure that one person doesn't leave the court dejected.
 

Angle Queen

Professional
During the Seasons, I don't play much "social" tennis. But this being the off-season (except for Mixed, which really doesn't count :p ), I've had the occasion to play it as you've described...mixing and matching of partners. I've never heard of King/Queen of the Court, though.

I will say, I'll notice (but never mention) if I was able to win with each of my partners although I couldn't tell you who was the 0-fer, if there was one at all. In those instances, I count myself lucky to be part of such a successful and well-skilled group of players. We're often teammates (past, present or scouting for the future) and, regardless of who won what, I walk away with a renewed appreciation of them as partners and opponents. I'm usually quite glad that I rarely see any of them on the other side of the net...in a real (USTA) match.

I also try very hard during these occasions to compliment my partner-of-the-set...and that really does force me to try different things -- perhaps by playing a different side, or back (instead of S&V or coming in). For several years now, I've had the pleasure and privilege of having the same, steady ad-side partner...but personal circumstances took her out of the lineup for much of last summer and I had to adjust. As OrangePower points out, that is in and of itself a (to me) desirable skill.
 

NLBwell

Legend
If I'm playing mixed or just for fun it doesn't matter if I win or lose. It does matter to me that I hold my serve because that is about the only measurable thing on whether I supported my partner properly. I feel I let my partner down if I lose my serve. (My serve is good enough that I shouldn't lose it at any level of tennis in doubles.) If I'm playing with my regular tennis buddies it matters if I win because we play to be competitive.
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
Can't you be competetive and have fun at the same time? When someone in our group wins all three sets I have no problem congratulating him and acknowledging he was the best man that day. I also have no problem acknowledging I was the weakest link when I've lost all three. We're all friends either way and will start over with a blank slate next time.
 

mhj202

Rookie
If I'm playing mixed or just for fun it doesn't matter if I win or lose. It does matter to me that I hold my serve because that is about the only measurable thing on whether I supported my partner properly. I feel I let my partner down if I lose my serve. (My serve is good enough that I shouldn't lose it at any level of tennis in doubles.) If I'm playing with my regular tennis buddies it matters if I win because we play to be competitive.

Unless your serve is unreturnable, which it may be, I feel that the ability to hold serve is almost as much a reflection of the ability of the me person (your partner) as of the server.
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
Unless your serve is unreturnable, which it may be, I feel that the ability to hold serve is almost as much a reflection of the ability of the me person (your partner) as of the server.

Not necessarily true. Even if the returner gets the ball back every time, a good serve will cause a floated, weak return, while a weak serve will result in a driven, aggressive return.

I've played games where every one of my serves came back, but the returns were so weak that my partner had an easy put-away every point. I've also been the partner hitting the easy put-aways off of weak returns. In both cases, the points were won because of good serves rather than exceptional net play.
 

mhj202

Rookie
Not necessarily true. Even if the returner gets the ball back every time, a good serve will cause a floated, weak return, while a weak serve will result in a driven, aggressive return.

I've played games where every one of my serves came back, but the returns were so weak that my partner had an easy put-away every point. I've also been the partner hitting the easy put-aways off of weak returns. In both cases, the points were won because of good serves rather than exceptional net play.

I think we're on the same page- but your partner needs the ability to put the ball away consistently or at least keep you on the offensive- that isn't always the case.
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
I think we're on the same page- but your partner needs the ability to put the ball away consistently or at least keep you on the offensive- that isn't always the case.

Well, I've only ever played one match where I was constantly setting up chances and still losing serve. But, it has to be said my partner in that match the worst net player I've ever played a real match with. For example, she hit an overhead (no stretching required and no mis-hit) that was so weak that the girl on the other side had time to stop, change her grip, and rip a winner past us. The only winning volleys she managed to hit all day were mis-hits that turned into drop shots.

But, she was an exceptional case. I've played plenty of mixed doubles (with women as low as 3.5) and men's with mediocre volleyers who were still good enough to put away the chances pretty easily (only the occasional miss, like anyone else).

A good net player can help a mediocre server hold in some cases, but a mediocre net player should be all that's necessary for a good server.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
If I didn't win all three sets, there could be many reasons for this.
Could be many reasons but I know where I'd place my money.

Real truth is some players just play complementary styles that make them a stronger team. Which leads to the real fun of social doubles: beating a team who start out honestly believing the rotation has now aligned them, the best two individual players, together for a match.
 

tennismonkey

Semi-Pro
nobody wants to be the guy who loses with three different partners. and it's a generalization, but typically they are the weakest link. goodbye.

zach_weakest_link.jpg
 
Last edited:

struggle

Legend
i play to win, but not at all costs.

at the end of a doubles session with swapping going on,
I want to have won as much as possible.

any other questions?
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Just to be clear . . .

I do not ask the question because I am the person who loses with all three partners. That doesn't happen much. I am not saying I'm Ever So Awesome. It is because I usually practice with my 7.5 combo teammates. Of that group, I am near the top in terms of relative strength.

No, I ask the question more as an exercise in psychology. The broader question, I suppose, is why people who play competitive matches in league and tournaments attach any importance to the *outcome* of a social or practice match.

There was a time in my tennis life when I struggled to win when I should win. Choking, failing to make adjustments. Those times are behind me. I no longer feel I need to practice "winning," although "winning" is a legitimate skill to practice.

What I need are opportunities to use and develop my weaker shots. I plan to play social dubs tomorrow. My game plan tomorrow is:

For serving, hit only kick serves and follow them to net.

For receiving, follow all returns to the net and take second serves on the rise.

For net play, try poach or fake on every ball.

For groundstrokes, don't rush and instead keep a good distance from the ball. No lobbing or moonballs allowed -- I have to hit passing shots if my opponents take the net.

If I can execute those things well, I will know it. If I don't, well, at least I got some good practice. Those tactics might or might not be the ones I would use if I were trying to win. At the end of two hours, whether I won three sets is utterly beside the point.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Since you mentioned King and Queen, I assume it is mixed dubs (I don't want to imagine anything else).

A really good player is expected to win irrespective of the partner by serving well and poaching aggressively. So, it is indeed an achievement to swing (the racquet) at a high level with several partners. It shows confidence in your game, ability to motivate your partner, and serving and poaching skills. Too often, players use weaker partners as an excuse, some going so far as to speak lowly of them in between sets.

That is why this King and Queen mixed dubs creates unplasantness for the people perennially stuck in the lowest court. They start talking philosophy or greet each new team with "Hey we are the losers" with fake cheer. Or some medical ailments appear mysteriously. Nothing is worse than to be seen by everyone as being on the same court for 2 hours.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Also, is this a gender thing?

It is. Though we have come a long way, real men are expected to compensate for weaker female partners. If they don't, they are looked down upon. It is part of our hunter-gatherer origins when men wore small loin clothes and rushed off into the forest with a spear to provide food for their family.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Since you mentioned King and Queen, I assume it is mixed dubs (I don't want to imagine anything else).

No, not at all.

I'm talking about four women meeting up for social or practice dubs. After two hours, one has won all of her sets, so she is Queen for the day.

I've heard this primarily used by women who play at country clubs a lot.
 

ohplease

Professional
Having said that, there is something to be said for a player who can win with a variety of partners. It does not necessarily mean that they are the strongest (relative to others in their preferred pairings), but it does mean that their playing style allows them to complement and be successful with many other playing styles. And that in itself is a skill.

Yup. Even when I've got people pledging undying doubles devotion to one another, the number of times both their schedules coordinate to allow them to actually play together is typically not high enough to justify not being able to play (and play well) with others.
 

x5150

Rookie
In social tennis esp mixed, it's common for the best players to take it down many notches just so no one gets hurt, physically or emotionally.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
In social tennis esp mixed, it's common for the best players to take it down many notches just so no one gets hurt, physically or emotionally.

Is it? I find that more often it is the case that those who play mixed social dubs are exactly what they seem and they find it challenging enough, though they do not admit it.
 
It is part of our hunter-gatherer origins when men wore small loin clothes and rushed off into the forest with a spear to provide food for their family.

How times have changed! Those tight men's tennis short shorts went out with Mac and Jimmy. Men are now wearing long inseam shorts, more akin to basketball players. It's the girls wearing the short gym shorts on the courts now. Saw a top ten women pro on TV recently in tight shorts tho' cant remember who she was.

I came across a new club/social custom recently I've never seen before. I was called to fill in with three women and they were playing "first good" serve on both the deuce AND the ad sides. I went with it since I was the guest. Thinking about it, it makes a certain amount of sense since in a real match you would warm-up serves on both sides. It was an interesting new regional social tennis convention--look for it, it's probably coming your way soon.

Later I filled in with another group, and when the lone woman announced: "First good on both sides", my curmudgeon partner nearly went berserk, saying, "This wan't tennis, play by the rules!" He's also the one who later went ballistic, not understanding the "one up rule", claiming my partner hit the ball on two bounces, (which she didn't).
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
We actually encourage an opponent to do FBI on both sides if the person has just shown up late, but doesn't want to hold us up with a warm-up, and is eager to start.

Sticklers for rules should not play social mixed dubs, or those who get upset with borderline (no pun) calls. It is not a courthouse.

Half the people FF all the time, you can go mad if you start tracking it.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Sticklers for rules should not play social mixed dubs, or those who get upset with borderline (no pun) calls. It is not a courthouse.

Amen. The next person who questions any line call in social dubs is going to get dragged across the net. I'm sorry, but I think that is really wrong. If you think someone is deliberately cheating in social dubs, you don't argue. You either suck it up or just don't play with them anymore.

I guess that is one thing that rubs me the wrong way about social dubs (and why I don't join groups to buy seasonal time). There is a subtle asymmetry. Some people are there to work on their games or have fun. Other people are there to win. So you get one side being generous and forgiving with line calls, lets, interruptions etc., and one side unwilling to give on anything. Add in the knowledge players acquire about weaknesses or injuries ("Becky's knee seems to be bothering her, so I'll hit drop shots until her knee turns to sawdust"), and you have an interpersonal dynamic that can get a little toxic.

In contrast, when you are playing a competitive tournament or league match, there is perfect symmetry: Both sides are going to do whatever it takes to win fair and square. There's no reason for hard feelings because there should be no expectation of anything other than competition.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I came across a new club/social custom recently I've never seen before. I was called to fill in with three women and they were playing "first good" serve on both the deuce AND the ad sides. I went with it since I was the guest. Thinking about it, it makes a certain amount of sense since in a real match you would warm-up serves on both sides. It was an interesting new regional social tennis convention--look for it, it's probably coming your way soon.

Oh, yeah. I've seen this too. First-in on both sides. Weird.

I really don't understand the logic of first-in. I don't think it saves any time or accomplishes much of anything. You have three people standing around while one person takes 3-4 attempts to put a serve in the box. Rinse and repeat for the first four games of the set. And now we're doing FBI on both sides, thereby doubling the standing-around time. Why don't we just do "Play the server's first serve no matter how far out it is" and get on with it?

Still, I'm always the guest, so I have to do what I'm told.
 

OrangePower

Legend
I guess that is one thing that rubs me the wrong way about social dubs (and why I don't join groups to buy seasonal time). There is a subtle asymmetry. Some people are there to work on their games or have fun. Other people are there to win. So you get one side being generous and forgiving with line calls, lets, interruptions etc., and one side unwilling to give on anything. Add in the knowledge players acquire about weaknesses or injuries ("Becky's knee seems to be bothering her, so I'll hit drop shots until her knee turns to sawdust"), and you have an interpersonal dynamic that can get a little toxic.

Off topic, but it sounds like you're hanging out with the wrong people. Working on your game, having fun, trying to win, and being generous with calls etc are not mutually exclusive.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Off topic, but it sounds like you're hanging out with the wrong people. Working on your game, having fun, trying to win, and being generous with calls etc are not mutually exclusive.

Correction: *Not* hanging out with the wrong people. :)

Really, I think it is the incestuous nature of seasonal contract time that causes a lot of this stuff. Everyone has their own little agenda, and it gets a little weird.

I'll stick with league matches, instruction, and lengthy hitting sessions, thanks.
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
Amen. The next person who questions any line call in social dubs is going to get dragged across the net. I'm sorry, but I think that is really wrong. If you think someone is deliberately cheating in social dubs, you don't argue. You either suck it up or just don't play with them anymore.
Funny, I am much more bothered by the people that manage to call every close ball "out" in social/practice tennis. Double faults, for example, don't add anything to the enjoyment or value of a practice match. "Close enough for practice" works for me.
 

OrangePower

Legend
Correction: *Not* hanging out with the wrong people. :)

Duly noted :)

I tend to play a lot of social tennis in the off-season with others on my regular Adult USTA team, so our goals are compatible. We have an interest in encouraging each other to improve, while at the same time we also have some good rivalries between us. And we enjoy hanging out and playing together, so there's never confict on the court, only good-natured banter. If someone calls a close (but probably out) ball out, we'll say something like "he's practising line calls for USTA!"
 
At whatever level of tennis you play you don't want to be the player losing 3 sets, but then again it is nice to win all three but I've never heard anyone get hung up on it. Esp in social doubles.

There are people who treat social tennis in exactly the same way as they treat match tennis though, and I think that is more to do with the personality of the player. I know a few people who seem to play tennis just for the sake of the winning, not for great (or even good) tennis. In many ways they seem to hate losing more than they even like winning.
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
I tend to play a lot of social tennis in the off-season with others on my regular Adult USTA team, so our goals are compatible. We have an interest in encouraging each other to improve, while at the same time we also have some good rivalries between us. And we enjoy hanging out and playing together, so there's never confict on the court, only good-natured banter. If someone calls a close (but probably out) ball out, we'll say something like "he's practising line calls for USTA!"

That sounds exactly like my experience...
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Funny, I am much more bothered by the people that manage to call every close ball "out" in social/practice tennis. Double faults, for example, don't add anything to the enjoyment or value of a practice match. "Close enough for practice" works for me.

I agree. Call the lines loose on your side, and accept your opponents' calls on their side in practice matches. If someone blows a call, let it go.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Wrong thinking here...
You play to win when you get paid for it.
You play to have fun when it's social tennis.
 

Rui

Semi-Pro
Does King/Queen mean anything? It would if those involved wouldn't know a good doubles player from a ballboy. If the Captain didn't know either, then all she'd have to go on would be the social results.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
No, your ego is cluttering your brain.
SOCIAL tennis means pickup games and nobody writes down the score.
Competitive tennis means trying to win at whatever cost you're willing to pay.
 
Top