Traffic

Hall of Fame
Just read "The Art of Playing Doubles" by Pat Blaskauer. If you do what it says, it will take you all the way to 4.5 easily. Way cheaper than a coach when it comes to doubles strategy.
I helped two players not too long ago. One has a competitive junior and is not a stranger to tennis but never played competitively themselves. Another one that was switching from racquetball.

I pointed both of them to the book. It really does provide good basic information. And especially at 3.0 level, it's more than enough information to chew on. It takes a while to even get into the habit of using the net strap and mirror your opponents for proper court positioning. Also, the roles of the partners as the attacker and the supporter.

Anything more advanced would be stuff you can go over on the court. Things like lunging for balls that are not attackable yet now you left an open court.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Things like lunging for balls that are not attackable yet now you left an open court.

Yes I try to tell people (and I'm guilty of it myself) to never lunge for a middle ball. You aren't likely to hit a winning shot, you'll be out of position and your partner was more than likely ready to hit a better shot from a better position than you. Lunging is for DTL shots because it's unlikely your partner has your back.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I think this is a great rule of thumb. But of course there are exceptions, one being when the baseline player is the stronger player (e.g. in combo) and is better able to realistically judge the net player's likelihood of doing something effective with the overhead. In such a case the baseline player should call for the ball early and clearly.

This is also predicated on actually having a baseline player. If you are 2 up, yelling "yours" as the lob sails over your head will just lead to some confused looks.

This is why i prefer staggered doubles where the responsibility of the lob is the CC person who is stationed a bit further back. Then there is no confusion. A lob goes up and if it can be smashed, the net person says "mine", if it can't be smashed the CC person is already on their horse tracking it down while the net person moves to the T. If you wait to here "yours" before backing up your partner, I think you lose too many steps.

Always assume 3 things in doubles point play:
1) The opponents ball will always land in
2) Your partner will miss the ball
3) Your opponents will always hit the ball back

If you always think pessimistically, you will keep your feet moving and be ready. Optimism is for between points.
 

1stVolley

Professional
The best doubles resource I know, bar none, is the book The Art of Doubles. It covers just about every aspect of doubles you can think of with clear and concise descriptions, humor and some great diagrams and cartoons. Regarding positioning, it goes way beyond the simplistic rules like "follow the ball" and presents a great case for the staggered formation and clear guidance on the roles of the net player (the "terminator") and the crosscourt player. Besides comprehensive treatment of strategy, there are drills and discussions about managing in a doubles environment.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
This is also predicated on actually having a baseline player. If you are 2 up, yelling "yours" as the lob sails over your head will just lead to some confused looks.

This is why i prefer staggered doubles where the responsibility of the lob is the CC person who is stationed a bit further back. Then there is no confusion. A lob goes up and if it can be smashed, the net person says "mine", if it can't be smashed the CC person is already on their horse tracking it down while the net person moves to the T. If you wait to here "yours" before backing up your partner, I think you lose too many steps.

Always assume 3 things in doubles point play:
1) The opponents ball will always land in
2) Your partner will miss the ball
3) Your opponents will always hit the ball back

If you always think pessimistically, you will keep your feet moving and be ready. Optimism is for between points.

This is good theory but reality sometimes dictates otherwise.

Especially for #2: I often take this path but it forces me to run a lot more than if I assumed my partner would get it. This can be a factor if my energy is in question.

I would propose a more efficient approach would factor in the ability of my partner: the lower the level, the slower the reaction time, etc., the more likely I'm going to assume #2. Playing with a peer with reasonable reaction time and court coverage and judgment [the most important of the 3], I more often assume they will get it.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I would propose a more efficient approach would factor in the ability of my partner: the lower the level, the slower the reaction time, etc., the more likely I'm going to assume #2. Playing with a peer with reasonable reaction time and court coverage and judgment [the most important of the 3], I more often assume they will get it.

You can still assume your partner will miss and not actually back them up. If it would get you too far out of position, or would be impossible to reach the ball anyway, it may not be worth it. But that doesn't change your assumptions or your first step. Where you go from there depends on those other assumptions you list.

Where I think the assumption of partner missing becomes incredibly important is on middle balls, drop shots and lobs. In those situations it not only is common for your partner to miss but it's also not uncommon for them to not even make an attempt. I've had partners not even stick out their racquet for a ball 3 feet from them. I've seen net guys that won't cross the centre line to get a drop shot even though its 6 feet away and you are back 6 feet behind the baseline. And these are not low level partners.

I think just like in pandemics, you try to mitigate the worst case scenario rather than assume the best case scenario. Too many people stop moving their feet assuming a point is won prematurely. It's not over until that ball bounces out or twice. Keep active until then is all I'm saying. It's not going to burn that much extra energy.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
You can still assume your partner will miss and not actually back them up. If it would get you too far out of position, or would be impossible to reach the ball anyway, it may not be worth it. But that doesn't change your assumptions or your first step. Where you go from there depends on those other assumptions you list.
I guess I do not understand this whole idea about "assumptions." Why is it such a burden for a lobbed player to just *call the friggin' ball?* Why should I have to assume anything when she can just use her words and tell me?

I don't think you can assume your partner will miss when a lob goes up and still do your job on the court. If the lob is going over my head, your job is completely different depending on what I'm doing. If I say "Mine," you immediately know I am going to hit that ball, and your job is to be on the same plane as I am (moving up or moving back to make that happen) and be ready for my smash to come back. If I say "Yours," your job is to try to cross behind me and play the ball, and there is not a second to waste while you try to read whether I am going to play the ball or not.

So what is with all of the assuming? Why are people so resistant to just calling the ball?
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I guess I do not understand this whole idea about "assumptions." Why is it such a burden for a lobbed player to just *call the friggin' ball?* Why should I have to assume anything when she can just use her words and tell me?

I don't think you can assume your partner will miss when a lob goes up and still do your job on the court. If the lob is going over my head, your job is completely different depending on what I'm doing. If I say "Mine," you immediately know I am going to hit that ball, and your job is to be on the same plane as I am (moving up or moving back to make that happen) and be ready for my smash to come back. If I say "Yours," your job is to try to cross behind me and play the ball, and there is not a second to waste while you try to read whether I am going to play the ball or not.

So what is with all of the assuming? Why are people so resistant to just calling the ball?

They expect their partner to read their mind. Or maybe they're trained not to say anything during a point. Who knows.

The point is that reality states that certain partners will not make the call. My job is to try and salvage the point.

I agree with your middle paragraph, which is why I adjust my assumptions based on my partner. I can't afford to be expending all of that energy and losing good court position by assuming things that turn out not to be true. it's a balancing act.
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
The best doubles resource I know, bar none, is the book The Art of Doubles. It covers just about every aspect of doubles you can think of with clear and concise descriptions, humor and some great diagrams and cartoons. Regarding positioning, it goes way beyond the simplistic rules like "follow the ball" and presents a great case for the staggered formation and clear guidance on the roles of the net player (the "terminator") and the crosscourt player. Besides comprehensive treatment of strategy, there are drills and discussions about managing in a doubles environment.

The Art of Doubles is a really strong reference for court positioning. However, it is pretty dated in some ways. For instance, it recommends against a 2-handed backhand and says it is easier to return kick serves with a 1-handed slice return. It also recommends against developing top spin ground strokes.
 

Allibaba

New User
If this alleged pro has connected brain cells, there is no way she meant to say switch, mine, and got it mean the same thing for covering a lob.

now, if she was teaching poaching at the net, then I guess you could yell those terms as you crossed. I might say mine or switch on a big poach. Like, i have a partner at baseline who never comes in, opponent throws up high, defensive shot to my partners alley, I cross to play that ball. I would say switch or mine to alert my partner that she needs to cross. Some people will just stand there otherwise, so now I say something if I think it will help.

thats pretty advanced for 2.5, so I don’t understand why this pro was teaching it. But I think there likely was a misunderstanding.

Cindysphinx, she did a practice drill with calling balls and lobs only, which is why I felt like I had to say something. She didn't go over poaching, but I can see how saying "Mine" or "Got It" would work, and since the baseline partner would see it.
 

Steady Eddy

Legend
I guess I do not understand this whole idea about "assumptions." Why is it such a burden for a lobbed player to just *call the friggin' ball?* Why should I have to assume anything when she can just use her words and tell me?

I don't think you can assume your partner will miss when a lob goes up and still do your job on the court. If the lob is going over my head, your job is completely different depending on what I'm doing. If I say "Mine," you immediately know I am going to hit that ball, and your job is to be on the same plane as I am (moving up or moving back to make that happen) and be ready for my smash to come back. If I say "Yours," your job is to try to cross behind me and play the ball, and there is not a second to waste while you try to read whether I am going to play the ball or not.

So what is with all of the assuming? Why are people so resistant to just calling the ball?
I call balls. But usually I'm the only one who does that. I wonder if the others are just too shy? Maybe that's why when a serve is slightly out they whisper out , after 3 or 4 more shots they say, "the serve was out". I'll say, "Could you call it please?" They say "I did". For all out serves I call it "out" loudly, and immediately. They probably wonder, "What's his problem?"
 

Allibaba

New User
I don't know: I could see how someone might assume that a lob over the net person's head followed by the BLer calling "mine" and "got it" automatically means a switch.

This isn't a good assumption because I've been the BLer crossing over and my net partner just stood there. Then I had to run all the way back to my original position to cover the next shot. I'm not sure if I called "switch" but it obviously was a case for switching. And he's a 4.0 [although admittedly not a doubles player].



The biggest problem there in general is not the ability of the 3.5 to demonstrate the shot but to explain why a certain strategy is to be followed [you're an outlier because you have a great grasp of the fundamentals of doubles, IMO; most 3.5s don't].

Your feeding skill is all on you, though. :)

Yep, S&V-not_dead_yet. When I heard about switching (shading/shuffling and communicating), a light went on in my head immediately. It makes complete sense, right? Why would you leave half of the court open at any time?
I play doubles with a gal on my team for fun and practice. I've been calling switch and she still stands there, so then I have to run back. She missed the lesson with the instructor, but I've tried to explain 3 times. The first time she said, " I think we should just trust our partner." I said, "No, because we should've switched and you didn't." She still doesn't get it. Practice is one thing, but I won't play in a league match with her.
 

Allibaba

New User
Agree but you need to develop a technical skill set before the strategy skill set. You wouldn't tell someone to take the return of serve 5 feet behind the baseline because some day they might face a 100 mph serve.

If you aren't at risk of facing a dipping topspin passing shot but are at risk of facing relentless moon balls and lobs, the strategy necessarily has to be different.



You have plenty of time to learn to play the net. In 2.5 it just means being lobbed, so you don't learn a thing. Other than how to say "yours" or "Switch". Learning to hit mid court volleys is a good skill to learn at 2.5 as it will be invaluable when you do start playing staggered doubles nearer the net. My wife is awesome at hitting balls out of the air from midcourt, far better than I, because she spent time at 3.0 ladies doubles hitting a lot of midcourt balls



My wife's weapon is that sharp CC flat shot. I don't serve out wide to her FH for that reason. Keep that skill up.

I find with 2.5-3.5 tennis is what people can do in practice is different than what they do in games that count. lobbing is such an effective strategy at low levels that it becomes ubiquitous in competition. I've seen it used extensively in tournaments even to 4.0 ladies dubs. There is a reason Pat Blaskauer dedicates a whole chapter to defeating lobbers and she was a nationally ranked ladies doubles player. Lobbers are the pushers of doubles tennis.

Basically, if you want to win low level competition doubles, you lob or you learn to defeat the lob. The positioning to defeat the lob is an actual skill that needs to be taught to all low level players. And that positioning is staggering about 3 steps beck from where you would normally stand. That's all I'm saying. You can stagger closer to the net when you face players that hit hard and flat. I just don't see much of that in the low level dubs I've watched. And being married to a woman's doubles player that's moved from 2.5 to 4.0 levels over the last 5 years, I've seen a lot of ladies dubs.

(y) Overheads and midcourt volleys. I sure need to practice those.
 

Allibaba

New User
I think this is a great rule of thumb. But of course there are exceptions, one being when the baseline player is the stronger player (e.g. in combo) and is better able to realistically judge the net player's likelihood of doing something effective with the overhead. In such a case the baseline player should call for the ball early and clearly.

Good point, Chalkdust. 99% of the time, our team doesn't go for or hit a good overhead.
 

Allibaba

New User
I helped two players not too long ago. One has a competitive junior and is not a stranger to tennis but never played competitively themselves. Another one that was switching from racquetball.

I pointed both of them to the book. It really does provide good basic information. And especially at 3.0 level, it's more than enough information to chew on. It takes a while to even get into the habit of using the net strap and mirror your opponents for proper court positioning. Also, the roles of the partners as the attacker and the supporter.

Anything more advanced would be stuff you can go over on the court. Things like lunging for balls that are not attackable yet now you left an open court.

Yes I try to tell people (and I'm guilty of it myself) to never lunge for a middle ball. You aren't likely to hit a winning shot, you'll be out of position and your partner was more than likely ready to hit a better shot from a better position than you. Lunging is for DTL shots because it's unlikely your partner has your back.

By lunging, do you mean poaching? I'm trying to visualize it. :rolleyes:
 

Allibaba

New User
This is good theory but reality sometimes dictates otherwise.

Especially for #2: I often take this path but it forces me to run a lot more than if I assumed my partner would get it. This can be a factor if my energy is in question.

I would propose a more efficient approach would factor in the ability of my partner: the lower the level, the slower the reaction time, etc., the more likely I'm going to assume #2. Playing with a peer with reasonable reaction time and court coverage and judgment [the most important of the 3], I more often assume they will get it.

#2 is why we try to back our net partner up and thought it's what we were supposed to do. I can see how it's not necessary at higher levels.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
By lunging, do you mean poaching? I'm trying to visualize it. :rolleyes:

I think what he meant by lunging is you stand further towards the center and dare the returner to try and hit the lower % DTL shot. Every now and then, they will hit a great one which requires you to lunge at full extension to try and volley it before it passes you.

If you play closer to the alley, yes, you avoid having to lunge but you give up pressuring the middle and the middle is where the match is going to be won.

A poach is a planned move; a lunge is a reaction move.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Yep, S&V-not_dead_yet. When I heard about switching (shading/shuffling and communicating), a light went on in my head immediately. It makes complete sense, right? Why would you leave half of the court open at any time?
I play doubles with a gal on my team for fun and practice. I've been calling switch and she still stands there, so then I have to run back. She missed the lesson with the instructor, but I've tried to explain 3 times. The first time she said, " I think we should just trust our partner." I said, "No, because we should've switched and you didn't." She still doesn't get it. Practice is one thing, but I won't play in a league match with her.

She's trapped in the mentality of "my side and your side". She doesn't recognize that sides are not fixed and can change, perhaps multiple times in one point.

Watch the point below:


Simon chips the return and approaches. The server lobs DTL. As soon as the DTL net man, call him Bob, on the Deuce court realizes that he can't get the lob, he should be calling for help AND he should be moving diagonally back to cover the Ad court.

Actually, Bob's first mistake was being way too close to the net just prior to the server hitting her next shot. It looks like he assumed she'd drive the ball. Notice that Simon reacts much more quickly [also, it's easier for the CC person to cover that shot because he can run diagonally rather than the DTL person who has to either backpedal, which is slow and prone to danger due to falling, or sidestep/crossover, which can be difficult, or turn his back altogether, and then you lose sight of the ball].

Simon, being the observant and quick-reaction player that he is, immediately sees what's happening and bolts to the Deuce court to run down the lob. But not even he can recover back to the Ad court to get the next shot. But if Bob had played the correct move, he would be defending the now open Ad court.

Ask your partner to look at the court configuration at 3:28: what does she see? Both players are on the Deuce court. Even worse, Bob is partially in the alley and Simon is headed off the court due to his momentum. What does that mean? That no one is covering the Ad court. Is this a good defensive configuration? Obviously not.

Seeing is one thing. Doing might cement the lesson. But she needs to be the one running so she appreciates the effort involved. Set up a point like in the video. You stand on the far court feeding. Have a 3rd person act as the DTL net man. And stick her in the CC position. Stand where the returner stood and lob over the net man and make her cross to get it. Then after she retrieves it, feed another ball [not the one she just retrieved] back to where she originally was.

Now re-run the play but have the net man play correctly by moving diagonally backwards to cover the open court. Before you feed the 2nd ball, tell everyone to stop and point out how much better this configuration is vs the other one where both her and her partner were on the same side.

And then see if the light bulb goes on.

Here's another:


In the first 7 seconds of the rally, there are 2 switches.

The need for this happens all of the time. Your partner is just not observing it.
 

1stVolley

Professional
The Art of Doubles is a really strong reference for court positioning. However, it is pretty dated in some ways. For instance, it recommends against a 2-handed backhand and says it is easier to return kick serves with a 1-handed slice return. It also recommends against developing top spin ground strokes.
Yes these are weak points although not entirely misplaced. For example people, especially club level players, who have a 2hbh typically have poorer volleys and often lack the slice bh. People who always hit with lots of top have somewhat poorer passing shots than those who can hit flat. Pros, of course, can hit flat at will, but there are club level players who are 100% wedded to top.

Regarding returning a kick serve, I'm not sure that a slice bh isn't better than a 2hbh at returns. I think it is easier to aim a high slice bh than a two-hander, but this issue is debatable.
 

st3

New User
If your goal is to win more 2.5 matches, your strategy needs to look very different than the strategy you're studying of higher level players. Most of the strategy you're seeing in videos and books assume core competency that you and your partners at 2.5 just don't have yet. Take a look at this video of USTA Nationals Championship 6.0 Mixed Doubles. These are the "top" 3.0 players; what 2.5 players aspire to be. See how often "correct doubles strategy" is not applied in the match. The lesson your coach gave you sounds reasonable for your current level of play.

1. When switching sides, say "Switch", "Mine", or "Got It". (Saying Mine or Got It doesn't necessarily mean there should be a switch!)
2. The net player is the "Navigator" and the baseline player is the "Captain" and both are responsible for calling a switch. (??? I got lost with the titles, but I thought baseline player calls the switch, because if the net player switches or poaches, baseline player would see it and should switch.)

Regular doubles partners will come up with their own (verbal and non-verbal) language to communicate with each other. When they expect each other to switch and what not. Until you do, it's better to over-communicate than under-communicate to avoid any confusion/frustration.

3. Server's partner should stand next to the alley about 3 - 4 feet away from the net when partner serves. (Doesn't this leave the middle of the court wide open for our opponents' return of serve and make it harder to poach? I was taught to start in the middle of the service box and then adjust later if they keep hitting alley shots.)

Look at where the server partners starts standing in the Nationals match I linked above. Server partner standing in middle of the service box is based of two assumptions. 1) Serves are difficult to return. 2) Net player can quickly cover the alley. 2.5 players have terrible serves and footwork. Serve returns are picked up closer to the service line than the baseline giving the service partner less time to react than serve returns at higher level tennis. 2.5 service partners have terrible (usually non-existent) split steps on serve returns so they wouldn't be able to react to cover the alley even if they didn't have less time to react on serve returns.

4. We aren't ready to learn shading, because we did a poor job of calling balls at the lesson, like "Mine" and "Yours". So she didn't cover shading at all. (What does communicating have to do with shading? We should be practicing all of these things!)

When practicing new technique, it's best to practice one or two new things at a time or your brain gets overwhelmed. Every time a ball comes, you have a huge checklist: 1) remember to split step, 2) where is the ball landing?, ... 10) call the ball, 11) where do I need to shade?, ... If your class wasn't calling out the ball like the instructor asked, it clearly means the class was overwhelmed already and isn't ready to add more things to confuse them.

5. It was my fault (at the net) that we lost a point, because my baseline partner thought I had the ball when I reached for an overhead shot, but missed. (Isn't the baseline player supposed to back the net player up?)

This is one example of why "correct doubles strategy" doesn't work at your level yet. 2.5 players need more practice reading incoming balls to anticipate where they're going to land. Whether it's in your reach or not. A lot of mistakes are going to be made by the net player thinking they can get the ball, but they can't. As a result, the baseline player spends a lot of time playing backup instead of the normally recommended strategy of always attack the net.

6. Each partner covers 50% of the court. (Somewhat true, but I was taught to go after a ball if you can get it, even if it's in your partner's "50%".)

Go after the ball if you're fairly confident you can put it away. If you're poaching and just aimlessly blocking the ball to volley instead of actually placing the volley for a put away, you will often put your team in a terrible position giving your opponent an open court for an easy winner.


My advice to you if your goal is to play higher level tennis is to play as few league matches as possible (eg. quit USTA) and focus on technique. Build the skills necessary to execute correct strategy. At 2.5/3.0, your goal should be learning how to hit all the shots and minimize unforced errors. Strategy wise, you'll need to adopt some bad habits to consistently win at 2.5 to move up. It's possible to unlearn those and pick up good habits later, but it'll take longer than if you just focus on technique for now and learn strategy once later. Either way, if you have fun doing it, you can't go wrong.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
@st3,

Great advice. But there is one thing I would suggest about “backing your partner up.”

If you back your partner up on a lob when they have not asked you to play the ball, then you will be training your partners to expect that you will back them up. This habit of them not properly calling a switch, or deciding to play the ball and then bailing out late, will never change.

When I was 2.5/3.0, I would tell my partners that if they didn’t call for help on a lob, I would assume they were playing the ball, and they could expect the same for me. Lob goes up toward partner, there is silence, I reposition to my partner’s depth, ball bounces behind partner for a winner. If my partner gave me a look, I could say, “I’m sorry, I thought you were going to hit it.”

It only takes a few unplayed, uncalled balls to train them out of the habit Of expecting me to read their minds.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I think this is a great rule of thumb. But of course there are exceptions, one being when the baseline player is the stronger player (e.g. in combo) and is better able to realistically judge the net player's likelihood of doing something effective with the overhead. In such a case the baseline player should call for the ball early and clearly.
Yeah, you reminded me of something: I never call mine or switch when I am the net player in 8.0 mixed with a 4.5 guy. There is no situation where I am permitted to hit a ball that doesn’t come right to my racket, there is no chance of confusion About who will hit a smash. So I mutely sprint from one alley to the other, staying out of my partner’s way.

It was more like dodgeball than tennis. This was not fun for me.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I used to captain a 4.0 USTA Men’s team and in my first year, I had a good coach do group drills with my team to teach doubles strategies. While the players enjoyed it and signed up enthusiastically, I found the benefit limited in terms of helping the lower-level players on my team improve - they could not execute the strategies during matches particularly at the net as they had bad footwork, bad overheads and imperfect volley technique. Most of them also were not fit enough to keep making explosive movements at the net or serve and volley throughout a USTA match.

Similarly, my wife participated in a lot of group drills focusing on doubles with her 3.0 Women’s team and I didn’t see any improvement in her game for more than a year. She started taking individual lessons instead this year to improve her serve (better slice), groundstrokes (more topspin and consistency), overhead and volleys and the improvement in her doubles game and ability to win matches is noticeable. Now, she is playing a lot of social doubles with 3.5 players during this USTA pause and is being invited to join one of those teams in the future. While she read “The Art of Doubles” two years ago, she didn’t have the game or technique to understand or execute many of the tactics then. This year, she is using many of those tactics to poach more, move better at the net, deal with lobbers, play Australian formation etc. because her general tennis ability is better.

I would suggest that the players on OP’s team spend their tennis budget on private lessons to improve their technique rather than on group doubles drills taught at the 2.5 level of technique. They will improve faster and have the ability to execute more doubles tactics later if they do so. On the other hand, many players enjoy the social aspects of group drills and want to keep playing with the same group at the same low level and if her team-mates are like that, just find a coach who runs “fun” drills.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
Yeah, you reminded me of something: I never call mine or switch when I am the net player in 8.0 mixed with a 4.5 guy. There is no situation where I am permitted to hit a ball that doesn’t come right to my racket, there is no chance of confusion About who will hit a smash. So I mutely sprint from one alley to the other, staying out of my partner’s way.

It was more like dodgeball than tennis. This was not fun for me.
Yeah that does not sound like fun at all!

My situation comes up in drop in play on Men's night, when I am usually the stronger player paired with a weak player. Some of the weaker players are let's say overly optimistic about their ability. I like that they are trying to be aggressive but it gets old seeing them attempt to take mid-depth overheads just to miss them all. So I call them off it early.
 

Allibaba

New User
I think what he meant by lunging is you stand further towards the center and dare the returner to try and hit the lower % DTL shot. Every now and then, they will hit a great one which requires you to lunge at full extension to try and volley it before it passes you.

If you play closer to the alley, yes, you avoid having to lunge but you give up pressuring the middle and the middle is where the match is going to be won.

A poach is a planned move; a lunge is a reaction move.

Oh, I see! Thank you very much for the explanation, S&V-not_dead_yet!
 

Steady Eddy

Legend
Yeah that does not sound like fun at all!

My situation comes up in drop in play on Men's night, when I am usually the stronger player paired with a weak player. Some of the weaker players are let's say overly optimistic about their ability. I like that they are trying to be aggressive but it gets old seeing them attempt to take mid-depth overheads just to miss them all. So I call them off it early.
One won't master overheads just by playing. You don't get enough practice. When alone, hit the ball as high as you can, let it bounce, then smash. It's one shot you can practice on your own, (sort of). The problem with practice with a friend is: 1)they get sulky feeding you short lobs, 2)they are poor at feeding, feeds go over the baseline, not over the net, way to your backhand and so on. I don't know why it's so hard to get a decent feed to practice an overhead. Also, you can rent a ball machine.

Hitting groundies won't improve your overhead. It needs to be practiced. But they aren't inherently difficult.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
One won't master overheads just by playing. You don't get enough practice. When alone, hit the ball as high as you can, let it bounce, then smash. It's one shot you can practice on your own, (sort of). The problem with practice with a friend is: 1)they get sulky feeding you short lobs, 2)they are poor at feeding, feeds go over the baseline, not over the net, way to your backhand and so on. I don't know why it's so hard to get a decent feed to practice an overhead. Also, you can rent a ball machine.

Hitting groundies won't improve your overhead. It needs to be practiced. But they aren't inherently difficult.
I'm quite comfortable with overheads, but some of the weaker players I get partnered with on social nights are very hit or miss. Mostly miss. I will pass your advice on. However, the odds of older, long term 3.5s going out on court specifically to drill overheads are slim to none.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I have never been able to drill overheads solo. Even trying to hit a ball high enough for it to bounce high enough to replicate a true overhead without sending it onto the playground is a challenge. And I tried the drill some recommend where you try to feed yourself overheads using the wall and also couldn't get the ball high enough.
 

Traffic

Hall of Fame
By lunging, do you mean poaching? I'm trying to visualize it. :rolleyes:
I suppose it could be an attempted poach. But it's a bad ball to poach on.

I see so often the net person diving for a low ball to the center of the court (and usually on their BH side). You can't attack it as you have to hit the ball up to clear the net. More than 50% of the time, the ball ends up in the net. As Dartagnan64 pointed out, you've left your court wide open so if it's not a winner, it will probably be one for your opponents.

The lunging for a DTL or a shot that no one has a good chance of getting is perfectly good tactic.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I'm quite comfortable with overheads, but some of the weaker players I get partnered with on social nights are very hit or miss. Mostly miss. I will pass your advice on. However, the odds of older, long term 3.5s going out on court specifically to drill overheads are slim to none.

You don't have to "drill" overheads but anyone that plays doubles competitively should be going out for hits with other people frequently. It's not an unreasonable thing to commit 5-10 minutes of that hit to overhead and defensive lob practice. My wife and I will frequently hit in the morning and since we are mostly doubles players, this is our routine:
1) Mini tennis 5 min
2) cross court ground strokes 5-10 min
3) volleys at net and volleys/half volleys from midcourt 5-10 min
4) overhead/lob practice 5-10 min
5) 1 set singles 20-25 min
6) 1 set one on one doubles 20-25 min

We are done in 60-90 min and have worked on a variety of shots. I'm sure it can't be hard to incorporate doubles-centric practice with any social hit. Especially if your peer group plays doubles competitively. Once I show people this kind of hitting session they often incorporate this into their other social hits and everyone gets better.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
You don't have to "drill" overheads but anyone that plays doubles competitively should be going out for hits with other people frequently. It's not an unreasonable thing to commit 5-10 minutes of that hit to overhead and defensive lob practice. My wife and I will frequently hit in the morning and since we are mostly doubles players, this is our routine:
1) Mini tennis 5 min
2) cross court ground strokes 5-10 min
3) volleys at net and volleys/half volleys from midcourt 5-10 min
4) overhead/lob practice 5-10 min
5) 1 set singles 20-25 min
6) 1 set one on one doubles 20-25 min

We are done in 60-90 min and have worked on a variety of shots. I'm sure it can't be hard to incorporate doubles-centric practice with any social hit. Especially if your peer group plays doubles competitively. Once I show people this kind of hitting session they often incorporate this into their other social hits and everyone gets better.
You don't need to convince me. I typically do 3-4 drilling / hitting sessions per week. Versus playing sets which I usually do only twice per week.
However, I would postulate that your routine (or similar) is somewhat rare in the 3.5 population.
 

Steady Eddy

Legend
You don't have to "drill" overheads but anyone that plays doubles competitively should be going out for hits with other people frequently. It's not an unreasonable thing to commit 5-10 minutes of that hit to overhead and defensive lob practice. My wife and I will frequently hit in the morning and since we are mostly doubles players, this is our routine:
1) Mini tennis 5 min
2) cross court ground strokes 5-10 min
3) volleys at net and volleys/half volleys from midcourt 5-10 min
4) overhead/lob practice 5-10 min
5) 1 set singles 20-25 min
6) 1 set one on one doubles 20-25 min

We are done in 60-90 min and have worked on a variety of shots. I'm sure it can't be hard to incorporate doubles-centric practice with any social hit. Especially if your peer group plays doubles competitively. Once I show people this kind of hitting session they often incorporate this into their other social hits and everyone gets better.
Most groups I've been in hit groundies back and forth forever, even for doubles. When everyone is worn out, someone says, "Should we start?" And then they start with 'first ball in' because no one has warmed up their serve. Why do they neglect serves, volleys, and overheads?

Golfers do the same thing. While at a driving range, they only hit long balls with their driver. They completely ignore hitting targets, chipping, and pitching. So they have a decent long game, but terrible short game. Yet still think they only need to work on length.

With tennis players they have decent groundstrokes, but when they come to the net, they can't finish off the point. But they never figure out what they need to work on, and get a ball machine and just hit forehands.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
You don't need to convince me. I typically do 3-4 drilling / hitting sessions per week. Versus playing sets which I usually do only twice per week.
However, I would postulate that your routine (or similar) is somewhat rare in the 3.5 population.

The secret is to invite some of these 3.5's to hit with you and run them through a session like this. You might open some minds.

Most groups I've been in hit groundies back and forth forever, even for doubles. When everyone is worn out, someone says, "Should we start?" And then they start with 'first ball in' because no one has warmed up their serve. Why do they neglect serves, volleys, and overheads?

Most groups I play doubles with are there to play doubles. The warm up is just to warm up the arm. Only in competitive matches do we spend time on serves. Otherwise its bang out a few groundstrokes and go "first in" on serves.
 

Steady Eddy

Legend
Most groups I play doubles with are there to play doubles. The warm up is just to warm up the arm. Only in competitive matches do we spend time on serves. Otherwise its bang out a few groundstrokes and go "first in" on serves.
I'd be fine with no warm-up. I'd prefer that to a stupid warm up. That last thing that seems useful in warm ups is hitting groundies. Seems they haven't noticed how different double is (or should be) from singles.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
The secret is to invite some of these 3.5's to hit with you and run them through a session like this. You might open some minds.
You're probably right. Perhaps if I were a better person. As it is, I have neither the desire nor the patience. My court time is precious!
I do admire any stronger player who would take weaker players under their wing like that (without getting paid that is).
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I have never been able to drill overheads solo. Even trying to hit a ball high enough for it to bounce high enough to replicate a true overhead without sending it onto the playground is a challenge.

Instead of trying to hit it high enough to bounce to an adequate height, how about hitting the OH on-the-fly, without the bounce? That allows you to hit the ball lower which will be easier to control.

Yes, the OH will be tougher because you won't have as much time. But you don't have to hit it 30' in the air. Just 15' would be barely enough. I guess you have to find a compromise height.

You don't even have to hit the ball up: you could toss it up also, just a significantly higher toss than for a serve [which again, will be harder to control].

And I tried the drill some recommend where you try to feed yourself overheads using the wall and also couldn't get the ball high enough.

So you hit the ball down a few feet in front of the wall, the ball bounces up, hits the wall, and continues on upward trajectory? The arc depends on how close to the wall the ball bounces. Is this what you're attempting? You shouldn't have to hit it *that* hard to get an acceptable height for the next OH.

Try standing closer to the wall, which will allow you to get a higher bounce with equal effort. I start out 15-20' away but then start backing up as I hit harder and the ball bounces higher [maybe 30-40'?].
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
@S&V-not-dead-yet,

So, uh. You know I'm a 3.5C, 5'4", 59 years old, female, and have arms that are starting to look like pool noodles, right?

Cindy -- who has neatly stacked on a shelf sets of free weights that are 3 pounds, 4 pounds, 5 pounds, 6 pounds, 7 pounds, and 8 pounds, but who is careful to clear them of cobwebs periodically
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
@S&V-not-dead-yet,

So, uh. You know I'm a 3.5C, 5'4", 59 years old, female, and have arms that are starting to look like pool noodles, right?

Cindy -- who has neatly stacked on a shelf sets of free weights that are 3 pounds, 4 pounds, 5 pounds, 6 pounds, 7 pounds, and 8 pounds, but who is careful to clear them of cobwebs periodically

In regards to hitting the ball straight up, that's a matter of control, not strength.

In regards to hitting against the wall, OK, I concede that strength does play a bigger role but by standing close enough, I would think you'd be able to get a high enough bounce to make it a worthwhile drill.

Actually, it just occurred to me that you don't have to hit the ball down so it hits the ground first: just hit a lob against the wall and then OH the rebound. The reason I do it my way is that every hit is an OH, which gives me a lot of reps. The modified way means "lob, OH, stop; lob, OH, stop", etc. which is way less efficient.
 
Top