Give 'Em Enough Rope . . .

[Cindysphinx]

I had some team practice doubles today. There was one positioning issue that came up during the match, and my teammate Debra and I discussed it later.

The situation was this. Mid-point, I was deep in the deuce court; Debra was crosscourt from me at baseline. Both net players were in their service box.

I hit a sharp FH crosscourt angle. Debra returned it as a sharp FH crosscourt angle. I hit the next ball as a sharp FH crosscourt angle.

Debra ran outside her doubles alley to hit a groundstroke, a few feet behind the service line.

Freeze the action. Where should the net players be positioned when Debra is hitting?

Debra and I discussed this after the match, and we had different philosophies.

Debra's view is that because she has been pulled wide, her partner should shift over with her as though a six-foot rope connects them. Her partner should shift to the middle before Debra hits her shot. In this way, Debra says, the middle is covered.

My view is that partners should position based on what the ball is doing, not what their partner is doing. Debra's partner needn't do anything in particular before Debra strikes the ball in terms of covering middle or alley. Once Debra strikes the ball, Debra's partner positions depending on where Debra hits it. If Debra goes DTL, shift toward the middle. If Debra goes crosscourt again, stay in front of the ball and cover DTL, while Debra covers the middle. If Debra's partner moves closer to Debra before Debra has hit her shot, the partner may be badly out of position if Debra goes crosscourt, as the DTL FH shot will be undefended.

I understand this rope theory is popular in clinics, and I've seen it mentioned in some books (although other books like "Art of Doubles" Ed. 1 dislike it). Is there any value in it past the beginning level?

For those hoping to hear the conclusion of the story, Debra hit another crosscourt angled FH. I then hit a FH up the middle for a winner. Personally, I think the reason for this wasn't that Debra's partner didn't shift over. The reason was that Debra's shot was short and weak. Had Debra's partner moved to the T to be closer to Debra, I could have dinked a winner up the line anyway.

 

[sphinx780]

What, this isn't a thread about The Clash...that's misleading.

 

[OrangePower]

For ease of discussion let's call Debra's partner DeeDee and your partner CeeCee.

I hear lots of talk about what DeeDee was or should have been doing... but no mention of what CeeCee at the net was doing. Fact is, part of DeeDee's reaction should be based on what CeeCee was doing.

If CeeCee moved towards the alley to cover down the line, then DeeDee should initially move towards the middle to cover a potentially volley from CeeCee, and then if Debra's ball clears CeeCee, then DeeDee should move forwards and back to her side in preparation of your shot.

On the other hand, if CeeCee was leaning over to the middle for a potential poach (which she should have been doing), then DeeDee should have been moving backwards while remaining on her side, to get better court coverage should CeeCee cut the ball off at the net.

 

[86golf]

To each his own...

All I know, if I'm wide hitting a ground stroke and my net partner doesn't move over to the middle, we will be having a team conference before the next point.

Basically I believe this is part of playing as a team and each others expectations. Other teams may have a difference of opinion. Since Debra's net partner wasn't on your team then your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is if Debra and her net partner understood how to play this situation.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If CeeCee moved towards the alley to cover down the line, then DeeDee should initially move towards the middle to cover a potentially volley from CeeCee, and then if Debra's ball clears CeeCee, then DeeDee should move forwards and back to her side in preparation of your shot.

Boy, I dunno.

I think this assumes some very fast players or very slow ball speed.

If Deedee moves over to the middle, then she has some serious work to do to get back over to her alley if Debra takes her ball short-ish crosscourt. This is especially so if Deedee is supposed to stop/split step when the ball is being struck. In addition to the required lateral movement, we're also asking Deedee to move back while Debra is hitting (in case of a poach) and forward/diagonally again to cover DTL.

On the other hand, if CeeCee was leaning over to the middle for a potential poach (which she should have been doing), then DeeDee should have been moving backwards while remaining on her side, to get better court coverage should CeeCee cut the ball off at the net.

I don't know about Ceecee's lean to the middle. If I hit a short angle, I don't want my partner trying to poach off of that ball. She has some ground to cover to catch up with the crosscourt angle, and she is leaving the easy punch DTL wide open. Me, I prefer my partners to poach off of my offensive shots, so unless my crosscourt angle was a screamer (in which case I will be following it in), Ceece had best leave that middle ball to me.

I don't think you completely ignore the movements of the opposing net player, but I personally can't manage to do much more than move a bit here and there in terms of positioning in reaction to their positioning. If I split and keep my eyes on the opposing net player, I feel like I've accomplished a lot!

I'm pleased to hear no ropes in your analysis, though!

 

[Cindysphinx]

All I know, if I'm wide hitting a ground stroke and my net partner doesn't move over to the middle, we will be having a team conference before the next point.

Basically I believe this is part of playing as a team and each others expectations. Other teams may have a difference of opinion. Since Debra's net partner wasn't on your team then your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is if Debra and her net partner understood how to play this situation.

The four players are all teammates. We all are working on learning to play better with each other. Sorry, I should have mentioned that detail, as it is the reason Debra and I were discussing it later.

 

[blakesq]

you hit the ball up the middle for a winner. there you go, the problem was clear, imho, the middle was open because debra was out wide, and her partner was planted in the middle of the service box. Debra is correct, generally, doubles players should play like they are connected by 10 foot bungee cord, if one player has to shift way wide and outside of the court, her partner should shift to, in order to close up the big hole in the middle, and of course, the out-wide partner should move back into the court after she hits her shot, and her partner should also move back in to her normal position.

Maybe the down the line shot would have been available to you, but that is a tougher shot than simply going down the open middle, and anyways the partner who was near the T, should have been moving back towards her alley, since her partner was also moving back onto the court, thereby making the DTL shot even harder.

The DTL is always harder than the down the middle shot, because you have less room for error with the DTL shot (e.g. it is easier to hit the ball OUT wide, if you are hitting the down the middle its hard to hit the ball out wide) .

I had some team practice doubles today. There was one positioning issue that came up during the match, and my teammate Debra and I discussed it later.

The situation was this. Mid-point, I was deep in the deuce court; Debra was crosscourt from me at baseline. Both net players were in their service box.

I hit a sharp FH crosscourt angle. Debra returned it as a sharp FH crosscourt angle. I hit the next ball as a sharp FH crosscourt angle.

Debra ran outside her doubles alley to hit a groundstroke, a few feet behind the service line.

Freeze the action. Where should the net players be positioned when Debra is hitting?

Debra and I discussed this after the match, and we had different philosophies.

Debra's view is that because she has been pulled wide, her partner should shift over with her as though a six-foot rope connects them. Her partner should shift to the middle before Debra hits her shot. In this way, Debra says, the middle is covered.

My view is that partners should position based on what the ball is doing, not what their partner is doing. Debra's partner needn't do anything in particular before Debra strikes the ball in terms of covering middle or alley. Once Debra strikes the ball, Debra's partner positions depending on where Debra hits it. If Debra goes DTL, shift toward the middle. If Debra goes crosscourt again, stay in front of the ball and cover DTL, while Debra covers the middle. If Debra's partner moves closer to Debra before Debra has hit her shot, the partner may be badly out of position if Debra goes crosscourt, as the DTL FH shot will be undefended.

I understand this rope theory is popular in clinics, and I've seen it mentioned in some books (although other books like "Art of Doubles" Ed. 1 dislike it). Is there any value in it past the beginning level?

For those hoping to hear the conclusion of the story, Debra hit another crosscourt angled FH. I then hit a FH up the middle for a winner. Personally, I think the reason for this wasn't that Debra's partner didn't shift over. The reason was that Debra's shot was short and weak. Had Debra's partner moved to the T to be closer to Debra, I could have dinked a winner up the line anyway.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Blake,

I know a lot of players must follow that method. I know this because I play deuce court. And I constantly find myself thinking, "Dang, where is she going?" before I hit a medium-pace DTL FH for an easy winner. I mean, why would I go between the two players when I can go to the completely empty ad court in front of me that Deedee vacated for no apparent reason?

 

[blakesq]

why is the opposing net person leaving the DTL open for you, she should be moving back towards her alley.

Blake,

I know a lot of players must follow that method. I know this because I play deuce court. And I constantly find myself thinking, "Dang, where is she going?" before I hit a medium-pace DTL FH for an easy winner. I mean, why would I go between the two players when I can go to the completely empty ad court in front of me that Deedee vacated for no apparent reason?

 

[wings56]

my visualization skills are far too poor to provide any advice.

 

[cak]

Given teams AB and CD. If A hits a cross court to C that pulls her wide, C's most likely shot back will be to net person D, who will then hit it straight ahead. If B follows A over, they have a chance at D's shot. Otherwise, it's a winner.

On the other hand, if A somehow manages to hit cross court past a sleeping D back to C, and hits it soft enough for C can indeed change direction on the ball, yes AB's alley is open. But that's a less likely scenerio.

 

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by OrangePower
If CeeCee moved towards the alley to cover down the line, then DeeDee should initially move towards the middle to cover a potentially volley from CeeCee, and then if Debra's ball clears CeeCee, then DeeDee should move forwards and back to her side in preparation of your shot.

Boy, I dunno.

I think this assumes some very fast players or very slow ball speed.

If Deedee moves over to the middle, then she has some serious work to do to get back over to her alley if Debra takes her ball short-ish crosscourt. This is especially so if Deedee is supposed to stop/split step when the ball is being struck. In addition to the required lateral movement, we're also asking Deedee to move back while Debra is hitting (in case of a poach) and forward/diagonally again to cover DTL.

I'm assuming alert players that are reacting to all that is happening on the court. I don't think you can set rules on how a partnership should move with respect to each other without also taking into consideration the positioning of the opponents.

It's true that what I'm describing requires a lot of movement 'off the ball', but that's how good doubles is played.

On the other hand, if CeeCee was leaning over to the middle for a potential poach (which she should have been doing), then DeeDee should have been moving backwards while remaining on her side, to get better court coverage should CeeCee cut the ball off at the net.

I don't know about Ceecee's lean to the middle. If I hit a short angle, I don't want my partner trying to poach off of that ball. She has some ground to cover to catch up with the crosscourt angle, and she is leaving the easy punch DTL wide open. Me, I prefer my partners to poach off of my offensive shots, so unless my crosscourt angle was a screamer (in which case I will be following it in), Ceece had best leave that middle ball to me.

I don't think you completely ignore the movements of the opposing net player, but I personally can't manage to do much more than move a bit here and there in terms of positioning in reaction to their positioning. If I split and keep my eyes on the opposing net player, I feel like I've accomplished a lot!

I'm pleased to hear no ropes in your analysis, though!

Why? That's exactly when you want your partner poaching! Your opponent could hit a crosscourt angle, but by crossing and moving forwards, your partner is well positioned for the volley. It does leave the DTL for your opponent, but this is a hard shot - she will need to be changing direction on the ball at the last moment as she sees your partner cross, and that ain't easy. Also, you would be crossing to cover that as your partner crosses, and because of the angle, the ball would be coming into you rather than moving away, so you would have a good shot at it.

I don't mean to imply that you would win every point with this strategy - obviously, there is always a counter that your opponents could try - but the percentages are way on your side.

Oh, and no ropes. It might be a useful rule of thumb for beginners, but that's about it.

 

[Spokewench]

Let's see if I can articulate this. If I am the opposing net player and you (Cindy) and my partner are in a cross court angled battle. This is what I do. When my partner hits the shot, I will be near the T. As it travels to the other side towards Cindy, to the outside line, I move diagonally across the service box just inside the alley line. As Cindy hits the ball and it travels to our side of the court wide to the other side, I again move diagonally across the service box back to near the T. My partner will attempt in between shots to move back to the middle of the service box; and one step closer to the net towards my side. That is if she can and has not been drawn out too wide. So, when Cindy hits, she can cover the middle shot and I can cover the down the line and part of the middle.

 

[snowpuppy]

She is technically right. If you are playing against a one up one back, the partners 1st responsibility is to defend against the possible poach and then 2nd would be to defend against the opposition baseline.

This is more important in high level play because every net play WILL be aggressive. So, in this case the "ideal" maneuver for Debra's partner is to move to Debra as she is moving towards the alley to return the CC. Then upon seeing that your net person is not making the move than shift back towards the alley to defend that possible DTL.

Sound like a lot of work? Well it is. There are a lot away from the ball movement that low level doubles player take for granted and think it is pointless. Maybe you don't have to think about it now, but if you wanna take your doubles to the next level its good to be mindful of this.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I'm assuming alert players that are reacting to all that is happening on the court. I don't think you can set rules on how a partnership should move with respect to each other without also taking into consideration the positioning of the opponents.

Well, yeah. I mean, all of this gets tweaked based on the relative strengths of the opponents, etc.

I am not advocating flat-footed, immobile net play. I think there is a tendency to overcorrect, however, perhaps based on The Ropes.

In the scenario I outlined, Debra is outside the doubles alley. She is therefore 16.5 feet from the center line. The service box is 13.5 wide. If you use a six foot or even a 10-foot rope, Deedee is out of position if stays with Debra for the sake of it (as both of them will be in their deuce court with about 19 feet undefended on the ad side).

As far as this idea of poaching off of a short, sharply-angled FH . . . I don't understand this. I mean, people do not catch up with this ball when I hit it, which is precisely why I hit it. They have so far to go to reach it that they either take off soon enough for me to see it, or they don't make the distance. Now, what they can poach is a crosscourt ball that has some depth to it, because they have more time and can leave later.

I do have partners who try to poach off of my short crosscourt angled FH, and sometimes they get burned. It's OK, really. Their most effective poaches, IME, are when they wait for me to set them up a little better -- and deeper. But if they want to go for a bit more, that's fine.

 

[OrangePower]

I agree with you on the dangers of taking the rope thing too literally and generally.

Re poaching the angled crosscourt shot: Actually it's pretty easy for the net player to catch up to it, assuming their first step is forwards and towards the middle of the court. The opposing baseline player who is hitting the shot is being pulled out wide, and so to get the ball back into the court even assuming a sharp angle, the ball will be crossing the net at about midcourt. If the net player can get to it at that point, it's an easy volley. Of course if the net player is slow in moving forwards and can't there in time to cut it off, then they are toast Takes practice to time the poach right, but it's a good play in this situation.

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, I take most it back. I've thought about it, and I agree with OrangePower on the point about the significance of what the opposing players are doing.

I was thinking about how I position (when I am DeeDee) in this situation, and why.

I'm not watching Debra hit, so I am certainly not paying attention to the distance between us.

I'm not following the ball; the ball is on our side of the net.

No, I'm watching the opponents and trying to anticipate what they are doing. If I see the net player take off, I assume she is poaching. In that case I need to be in front of her and stay in front of her. If I see her position for an overhead, I need to back up. If I see her turn and run, I need to position for my own overhead.

Yeah, makes sense. You're playing defense at that point, and good defense responds to offense. Which has nothing to do with Ropes.

You know, I played with a Rope Player recently, and we ran into a problem. We were in the second set and losing. I decided to change tactics and start lobbing my head off. Big, high, topspin shots to the baseline on clay. Usually, this makes opponents hit high balls from deep in the court, setting up my partner for easy put-aways at net. I stay back and, if the opponent can get the ball past my partner, I will hit a better lob until they cough up a short lob.

We lost anyway. My partner did not finish off many shots, hitting weak or botched overheads from deep in the court. I kept imploring her to get up to the net -- assuring her I could handle any ball that she couldn't reach -- but I would look up and see her deeper than the service line.

Afterward, she said she wasn't comfortable with the lobbing because she didn't know how to position. She said that she's been trained up to stay 10 feet from her partner. When I was deep in the court (say, behind the baseline), she needed to be in no-man's land to stay close to me because of The Rope. Which meant she wasn't positioned to pick off the easy balls I was setting up for her.

The Rope. Ugh.

 

[Z-Man]

Cindy:
If I understand things right, you think the net player should wait to see where her partner hits the ball before moving into position. I just don't think there is enough time to change position after your partner hits the ball. Even if your partner is a soft hitter, the ball will cross the net in less than a second. If she hits it to the opposing net player, you won't have time to get in position to defend the middle.

Once the ball has passed the opposing net player, you should move into position to put pressure on the person hitting the ball at the baseline. If your partner hits wide crosscourt, you need to cover the alley (or fake like you are). If your partner hits more up the middle, you move more to the middle of the court and force your opponent to hit a small slice of court down the line. Not related, but in that situation, you really want to read your opponent's feet. Don't poach until they've set their feet. Or wait until your partner hits a deep ball that is likely to get a weak reply.

 

[Angle Queen]

Why? That's exactly when you want your partner poaching! Your opponent could hit a crosscourt angle, but by crossing and moving forwards, your partner is well positioned for the volley. It does leave the DTL for your opponent, but this is a hard shot - she will need to be changing direction on the ball at the last moment as she sees your partner cross, and that ain't easy. Also, you would be crossing to cover that as your partner crosses, and because of the angle, the ball would be coming into you rather than moving away, so you would have a good shot at it.

I've thought about Cindy's original scenario and read the replies and I'm still trying to play it out in my mind.

But OrangePower makes a good point, one I often remind myself and my partners of. Except for a few, well-known opponents, I'm content to trade heavy cross-court shots, be they deep or sharply angled -- and encourage my partner to step in/poach and take whatever they can regardless of where our opponents are. That change-of-direction DTL shot is one of the more difficult ones to make in the whole of the game. If they can do it, consistently, hats off to 'em and I/we'll likely lose for a whole host of other reasons too. I don't care how many volleys my partner misses over the course of the match, as long as she keeps trying them and it's a failure of execution rather than one of strategy. The fact that she has them to miss, means we're playing it the correct way.

I recently am having the fairly regular opportunity to play with another partner who is aggressive from that ad-side at net...and continues on to the deuce side, forcing me (at the baseline) to switch as well. It's been so successful, I'm gonna ask my regular partner to poach-and-continue as much as possible this off-season to see if we can nail down the timing.

 

[Off The Wall]

OK, I take most it back. I've thought about it, and I agree with OrangePower on the point about the significance of what the opposing players are doing.

I was thinking about how I position (when I am DeeDee) in this situation, and why.

I'm not watching Debra hit, so I am certainly not paying attention to the distance between us.

I'm not following the ball; the ball is on our side of the net.

No, I'm watching the opponents and trying to anticipate what they are doing. If I see the net player take off, I assume she is poaching. In that case I need to be in front of her and stay in front of her. If I see her position for an overhead, I need to back up. If I see her turn and run, I need to position for my own overhead.

Yeah, makes sense. You're playing defense at that point, and good defense responds to offense. Which has nothing to do with Ropes.

You know, I played with a Rope Player recently, and we ran into a problem. We were in the second set and losing. I decided to change tactics and start lobbing my head off. Big, high, topspin shots to the baseline on clay. Usually, this makes opponents hit high balls from deep in the court, setting up my partner for easy put-aways at net. I stay back and, if the opponent can get the ball past my partner, I will hit a better lob until they cough up a short lob.

We lost anyway. My partner did not finish off many shots, hitting weak or botched overheads from deep in the court. I kept imploring her to get up to the net -- assuring her I could handle any ball that she couldn't reach -- but I would look up and see her deeper than the service line.

Afterward, she said she wasn't comfortable with the lobbing because she didn't know how to position. She said that she's been trained up to stay 10 feet from her partner. When I was deep in the court (say, behind the baseline), she needed to be in no-man's land to stay close to me because of The Rope. Which meant she wasn't positioned to pick off the easy balls I was setting up for her.

The Rope. Ugh.

Roping is a guideline, not a rule. It was designed to help non-doubles players better cover the court without having to know the complexities of doubles.

Zman is correct. There is usually little time to wait to recognize what's just happened and then get over there, get ready and execute. So, starting point is very important. I think we all would agree that if we had prior knowledge of where a shot was headed, we would always go stand there. We don't. We have to put ourselves into the best position we can to hit back the highest percentage of all shots available to our opponents. That position changes with each shot.

 

[kylebarendrick]

If your partner has been pulled wide off the court, then you have to assume that you are now covering the whole court for the next shot (or at least most of the court). Even moving a step or two towards the middle gives you a chance to reach more of the court. Staying on your side to cover the line leaves the whole (relatively safe) middle open for your opponents.

 

[stapletonj]

imho - I've played a lot of doubles against a lot of people over the years and the situation you describe, that of what should the net man do when the opponent has been pulled completely off the court by a cross court shot to the opposing players forehand.

IF I am the opposong player, I don't care how well struck the cross court sharply angled ball is hit to me, if the opposing player's net man shades to the middle, then his partner (the person who hit the cross court to my forehand is completely out of position to hit ANYTHING I hit DTL. I literally bunt the ball DTL with my forehand and it is a clean 10 miles per hour winner, b/c it is past the net man before he can react and the other player is too wide to even remotely have a play on the ball.

Since I am pulled completely wide of the court, I don't even really have to truly change the cross court to a DTL shot (always risky), I just have to hit it back cross court, just a shallow cross court, a much easier proposition.

OR maybe I just play with really slow and bad players, I dunno.

 

[andfor]

This whole thing is getting painful. Maybe I'll make it worse.

If the out wide partner is forced to play a wide shot the non hitting partner moves to the middle. Depending on where the the out wide partner returns the shot to their opponents dictates the non hitting partners next move. If it's returned crosscourt over the center strap the non hitting partners recovery is minimal. If the out wide partner replays with a wide return to the opponents ally the non hitting partner has to recover further to be able to play the down the line replay.

The rope concept works when both players are either both up or back. The rope concept in doubles movement ALSO applies to both up and 1 up 1 back doubles.

Wish I had a whiteboard. Its not complicated.

 

[Z-Man]

imho - I've played a lot of doubles against a lot of people over the years and the situation you describe, that of what should the net man do when the opponent has been pulled completely off the court by a cross court shot to the opposing players forehand.

IF I am the opposong player, I don't care how well struck the cross court sharply angled ball is hit to me, if the opposing player's net man shades to the middle, then his partner (the person who hit the cross court to my forehand is completely out of position to hit ANYTHING I hit DTL. I literally bunt the ball DTL with my forehand and it is a clean 10 miles per hour winner, b/c it is past the net man before he can react and the other player is too wide to even remotely have a play on the ball.

Since I am pulled completely wide of the court, I don't even really have to truly change the cross court to a DTL shot (always risky), I just have to hit it back cross court, just a shallow cross court, a much easier proposition.

OR maybe I just play with really slow and bad players, I dunno.

I agree--at the higher levels people are so aggressive, they won't even bother to move along with their partner because if the opposing net man crosses first, the point is over. Instead, the net player hopes his partner gets it past the opposing net man. Assuming that happens, he is more focused on protecting the alley or knocking off the volley. The down the line forehand is an easy shot--especially when you are pulled out wide. In that situation, the net player who crosses first normally wins the point. Everyone knows this, so a good baseliner will go behind the net player (DTL) about half the time.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I agree--at the higher levels people are so aggressive, they won't even bother to move along with their partner because if the opposing net man crosses first, the point is over. Instead, the net player hopes his partner gets it past the opposing net man. Assuming that happens, he is more focused on protecting the alley or knocking off the volley. The down the line forehand is an easy shot--especially when you are pulled out wide. In that situation, the net player who crosses first normally wins the point. Everyone knows this, so a good baseliner will go behind the net player (DTL) about half the time.

Yeah, if I'm pulled wide on the deuce court and am doing a battle of the angled FH crosscourt, there is another shot that works perfectly: The DTL lob. Rather than try to predict whether the net player will try to poach, just lift the ball over her BH.

The player who is trading FHs with me is way, way too far away to reach any lob I can put into the back ad court. If her partner tries to crowd the middle hoping I am dumb enough to send my shot to her waiting racket, she cannot have a play even on a poor lob. If my lob is short, the net player still has to make a high BH volley or smash -- not easy. If her partner tries to run it down, she needs to catch up with it and then hit a running BH passing shot.

Topspin lob, flat lob, slice lob -- it's my point.

 

[Z-Man]

^^
Good call, lob over the backhand (and then come in).

 

[baek57]

Step towards the middle near the T. If the next ball clears the netman going crosscourt, you step back over to cover the line.

 

[i3602u]

I agree with debra you should move together

Also angles produce angles you wouldn't want to move all the way to the center. Deb partner at net should be in line with you because if you hit it up the line it's not going to be in the ally unless you were wide

 

[skiracer55]

She's right...

I had some team practice doubles today. There was one positioning issue that came up during the match, and my teammate Debra and I discussed it later.

The situation was this. Mid-point, I was deep in the deuce court; Debra was crosscourt from me at baseline. Both net players were in their service box.

I hit a sharp FH crosscourt angle. Debra returned it as a sharp FH crosscourt angle. I hit the next ball as a sharp FH crosscourt angle.

Debra ran outside her doubles alley to hit a groundstroke, a few feet behind the service line.

Freeze the action. Where should the net players be positioned when Debra is hitting?

Debra and I discussed this after the match, and we had different philosophies.

Debra's view is that because she has been pulled wide, her partner should shift over with her as though a six-foot rope connects them. Her partner should shift to the middle before Debra hits her shot. In this way, Debra says, the middle is covered.

My view is that partners should position based on what the ball is doing, not what their partner is doing. Debra's partner needn't do anything in particular before Debra strikes the ball in terms of covering middle or alley. Once Debra strikes the ball, Debra's partner positions depending on where Debra hits it. If Debra goes DTL, shift toward the middle. If Debra goes crosscourt again, stay in front of the ball and cover DTL, while Debra covers the middle. If Debra's partner moves closer to Debra before Debra has hit her shot, the partner may be badly out of position if Debra goes crosscourt, as the DTL FH shot will be undefended.

I understand this rope theory is popular in clinics, and I've seen it mentioned in some books (although other books like "Art of Doubles" Ed. 1 dislike it). Is there any value in it past the beginning level?

For those hoping to hear the conclusion of the story, Debra hit another crosscourt angled FH. I then hit a FH up the middle for a winner. Personally, I think the reason for this wasn't that Debra's partner didn't shift over. The reason was that Debra's shot was short and weak. Had Debra's partner moved to the T to be closer to Debra, I could have dinked a winner up the line anyway.

...you need to stay connected to your partner. You can't cover all the bases. If the opposing team hits a good shot, you have to do the percentage response and try to make something out of the point. If they outplay you, that's the way it goes. Any number of things can and often do happen; in this situation, if Debra's partner doesn't shift over with her, that leaves a hole up the middle, and a hole up the middle is a gimme for the other team...

 

[skiracer55]

I was trying to figure out...

I had some team practice doubles today. There was one positioning issue that came up during the match, and my teammate Debra and I discussed it later.

The situation was this. Mid-point, I was deep in the deuce court; Debra was crosscourt from me at baseline. Both net players were in their service box.

I hit a sharp FH crosscourt angle. Debra returned it as a sharp FH crosscourt angle. I hit the next ball as a sharp FH crosscourt angle.

Debra ran outside her doubles alley to hit a groundstroke, a few feet behind the service line.

Freeze the action. Where should the net players be positioned when Debra is hitting?

Debra and I discussed this after the match, and we had different philosophies.

Debra's view is that because she has been pulled wide, her partner should shift over with her as though a six-foot rope connects them. Her partner should shift to the middle before Debra hits her shot. In this way, Debra says, the middle is covered.

My view is that partners should position based on what the ball is doing, not what their partner is doing. Debra's partner needn't do anything in particular before Debra strikes the ball in terms of covering middle or alley. Once Debra strikes the ball, Debra's partner positions depending on where Debra hits it. If Debra goes DTL, shift toward the middle. If Debra goes crosscourt again, stay in front of the ball and cover DTL, while Debra covers the middle. If Debra's partner moves closer to Debra before Debra has hit her shot, the partner may be badly out of position if Debra goes crosscourt, as the DTL FH shot will be undefended.

I understand this rope theory is popular in clinics, and I've seen it mentioned in some books (although other books like "Art of Doubles" Ed. 1 dislike it). Is there any value in it past the beginning level?

For those hoping to hear the conclusion of the story, Debra hit another crosscourt angled FH. I then hit a FH up the middle for a winner. Personally, I think the reason for this wasn't that Debra's partner didn't shift over. The reason was that Debra's shot was short and weak. Had Debra's partner moved to the T to be closer to Debra, I could have dinked a winner up the line anyway.

...why this whole scenario bothered me, and now I know: It was yet another prime example of four singles players who temporarily occupy the same doubles court. Here's the scenario:

- You and Debra are exchanging sharply angled FH crosscourts...from the baseline. Why? I dunno, but if I hit a sharply angled crosscourt, either side, in doubles, it's because I think it'll force a weak reply that my partner will gobble up.

- Meanwhile, and I wasn't there, so I'm just guessing, but forget about the rope theory, because your respective partners aren't moving at all. They're cemented to the court, watching this baseline rally as the world turns.

Now, put me on the court...in either partner's position. As soon as I see two groundstrokes go cross court, I'm going to move over and cut off the next ball, because...wild guess...it's probably going crosscourt!

Put me on the court again, I'm the one hitting the cross courts. I hit one, my partner is doing an excellent imitation of Mt. Rushmore, I see yet another cross court coming back, I'll hit a ball down the middle and come in. This point never should have ended with a groundstroke winner up the middle, which was the conclusion to a dicey groundstroke rally. There were many opportunities to make something happen and end the point with a volley. I know "But if I move from my Mt. Rushmore stance at the net, maybe something bad will happen, like she'll go behind me. Think I'll just stay put and hope my partner has one more groundstroke in her..."

If that's the theory, then fine. Answer is that given that way of doing business, you're absolutely right...your partner should do whatever seems right, including standing still and hoping the ball doesn't come to her...

 

[Cindysphinx]

- You and Debra are exchanging sharply angled FH crosscourts...from the baseline. Why? I dunno, but if I hit a sharply angled crosscourt, either side, in doubles, it's because I think it'll force a weak reply that my partner will gobble up.

Yes and no.

When I am doing a FH crosscourt rally, what I am really hoping to do is be able to hit sharper angles than my opponent. Most women my level hit very flat. I can hit topspin. Therefore they will hit a ball wide before I will if they try to be aggressive with the shot. '

If they instead realize that their flat ball will sail wide, they may take something off and use gravity to keep it in. My partner can easily intercept these.

The smart ones, however, will try to go DTL. Their flat ball is more likely to stay in than the crosscourt ball because of the geometry. If my partner doesn't cover that shot (which is a mid-court ball for the opponent), she will get passed DTL.

I like my partner to be patient in this situation. Because I can hit that crosscourt FH a little bit better than most opponents I face, I don't want my partner taking off trying to poach because the one shot I cannot handle is the DTL.

This is just a matter of personal preference based on the shots I prefer.

 

[Off The Wall]

from the baseline[/I]. Why? I dunno, but if I hit a sharply angled crosscourt, either side, in doubles, it's because I think it'll force a weak reply that my partner will gobble up.

- Meanwhile, and I wasn't there, so I'm just guessing, but forget about the rope theory, because your respective partners aren't moving at all. They're cemented to the court, watching this baseline rally as the world turns.

Now, put me on the court...in either partner's position. As soon as I see two groundstrokes go cross court, I'm going to move over and cut off the next ball, because...wild guess...it's probably going crosscourt!

Put me on the court again, I'm the one hitting the cross courts. I hit one, my partner is doing an excellent imitation of Mt. Rushmore, I see yet another cross court coming back, I'll hit a ball down the middle and come in. This point never should have ended with a groundstroke winner up the middle, which was the conclusion to a dicey groundstroke rally. There were many opportunities to make something happen and end the point with a volley. I know "But if I move from my Mt. Rushmore stance at the net, maybe something bad will happen, like she'll go behind me. Think I'll just stay put and hope my partner has one more groundstroke in her..."

If that's the theory, then fine. Answer is that given that way of doing business, you're absolutely right...your partner should do whatever seems right, including standing still and hoping the ball doesn't come to her...

Cindy's scenario was that Deb's shot was a few feet behind the service line, outside the alley. The telling point about that is, Deb could have directed a FH over the net pole (or even around it) DL. A netperson would know that and necessarily would've had to slide over to cover that shot ... leaving CC open. So, I can see a CC rally.

I, like you, wondered how that scenario could have ended in a winner down the middle. If sharp angled CCs were being exchanged, even if the Deb's partner was guarding the alley, a FH up the middle should have passed right by Deb's partner. I guess it didn't ... she was probably too deep. So, Deb's partner's poor positioning failed to force Cindy's shot CC and simultaneously opened up the court for the subsequent winner.

 

[skiracer55]

Fine...

Yes and no.

When I am doing a FH crosscourt rally, what I am really hoping to do is be able to hit sharper angles than my opponent. Most women my level hit very flat. I can hit topspin. Therefore they will hit a ball wide before I will if they try to be aggressive with the shot. '

If they instead realize that their flat ball will sail wide, they may take something off and use gravity to keep it in. My partner can easily intercept these.

The smart ones, however, will try to go DTL. Their flat ball is more likely to stay in than the crosscourt ball because of the geometry. If my partner doesn't cover that shot (which is a mid-court ball for the opponent), she will get passed DTL.

I like my partner to be patient in this situation. Because I can hit that crosscourt FH a little bit better than most opponents I face, I don't want my partner taking off trying to poach because the one shot I cannot handle is the DTL.

This is just a matter of personal preference based on the shots I prefer.

...as long as you understand that you're playing singles while your partner stands there and waits for you to win the point (or not), I'm fine with it...

 

[Cindysphinx]

...as long as you understand that you're playing singles while your partner stands there and waits for you to win the point (or not), I'm fine with it...

Well . . . I don't agree with the premise that if the two partners are not working together at any particular point in the match they are playing singles. (I take it you mean "playing singles" in a somewhat derogatory way).

There are times when, for all practical purposes, one partner is out of the point. It happens. Unless your entire doubles strategy is premised on hard boundaries and zones where each player does nothing more and nothing less than defend her zone, I don't think the scenario I described is "playing singles" on a doubles court.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Cindy's scenario was that Deb's shot was a few feet behind the service line, outside the alley. The telling point about that is, Deb could have directed a FH over the net pole (or even around it) DL. A netperson would know that and necessarily would've had to slide over to cover that shot ... leaving CC open. So, I can see a CC rally.

I, like you, wondered how that scenario could have ended in a winner down the middle. If sharp angled CCs were being exchanged, even if the Deb's partner was guarding the alley, a FH up the middle should have passed right by Deb's partner. I guess it didn't ... she was probably too deep. So, Deb's partner's poor positioning failed to force Cindy's shot CC and simultaneously opened up the court for the subsequent winner.

The winner between Debra and DeeDee was not DeeDee's fault. Players have to be agile. Debra needed to hit her crosscourt shot and then *do something.* If Debra is going to stand off the court and not recover quickly, DeeDee cannot defend the whole court no matter how she positions.

When I see Debra backpedaling or trying not to fall into the curtain, I may try to put the ball between them, which takes advantage of any confusion about who is going to take that ball. Or if DeeDee has ropes on the brain, I can take the ball into the undefended open court in front of me.

 

[Off The Wall]

The winner between Debra and DeeDee was not DeeDee's fault. Players have to be agile. Debra needed to hit her crosscourt shot and then *do something.* If Debra is going to stand off the court and not recover quickly, DeeDee cannot defend the whole court no matter how she positions.

When I see Debra backpedaling or trying not to fall into the curtain, I may try to put the ball between them, which takes advantage of any confusion about who is going to take that ball. Or if DeeDee has ropes on the brain, I can take the ball into the undefended open court in front of me.

Okay, so you didn't hit the ball down the middle. It was CC to a vastly out of position Deb. (Who wouldn't recover from her own slow short shot.) To do that you'd still have to be hitting from the center of the service box to miss DeeDee. DeeDee should have been right in front of you.

 

[i3602u]

As someone else said you have to play the percentages

 

[Bud]

I had some team practice doubles today. There was one positioning issue that came up during the match, and my teammate Debra and I discussed it later.

The situation was this. Mid-point, I was deep in the deuce court; Debra was crosscourt from me at baseline. Both net players were in their service box.

I hit a sharp FH crosscourt angle. Debra returned it as a sharp FH crosscourt angle. I hit the next ball as a sharp FH crosscourt angle.

Debra ran outside her doubles alley to hit a groundstroke, a few feet behind the service line.

Freeze the action. Where should the net players be positioned when Debra is hitting?

Debra and I discussed this after the match, and we had different philosophies.

Debra's view is that because she has been pulled wide, her partner should shift over with her as though a six-foot rope connects them. Her partner should shift to the middle before Debra hits her shot. In this way, Debra says, the middle is covered.

My view is that partners should position based on what the ball is doing, not what their partner is doing. Debra's partner needn't do anything in particular before Debra strikes the ball in terms of covering middle or alley. Once Debra strikes the ball, Debra's partner positions depending on where Debra hits it. If Debra goes DTL, shift toward the middle. If Debra goes crosscourt again, stay in front of the ball and cover DTL, while Debra covers the middle. If Debra's partner moves closer to Debra before Debra has hit her shot, the partner may be badly out of position if Debra goes crosscourt, as the DTL FH shot will be undefended.

I understand this rope theory is popular in clinics, and I've seen it mentioned in some books (although other books like "Art of Doubles" Ed. 1 dislike it). Is there any value in it past the beginning level?

For those hoping to hear the conclusion of the story, Debra hit another crosscourt angled FH. I then hit a FH up the middle for a winner. Personally, I think the reason for this wasn't that Debra's partner didn't shift over. The reason was that Debra's shot was short and weak. Had Debra's partner moved to the T to be closer to Debra, I could have dinked a winner up the line anyway.

Your partner should have prepared to poach Deb's shot when she ran wide into her doubles alley (right before you froze the action). This would depend on Deb's normal hitting patterns, however.

If Deb wasn't pushed too hard wide and she likes going DTL then your net partner should have covered the line. You also should have been coming forward to volley, rather than staying back and choosing to hit a winner down the middle.

Deb's partner should have shifted to the middle to intercept your partner's volley (had Deb gone DTL to your partner) or to volley your poach on Deb's return CC.

 

[10smonkey]

take up bridge