Mixed Doubles struggles and ambivalences...looking for wise feedback

[RichVentura]

I just competed in my club's mixed doubles tournament in the finals. My doubles team won, but I struggled with this match.

We took the first set 6-1 and we dominated. I was able to play aggressively and impose my will on the other team.

But in the second set the other team stopped hitting the ball to me and attacked my female partner, and they made some good shots and my partner did not return them. Her confidence waned. The momentum switched. I grew frustrated and started making some mistakes, as did my partner. We lost the second set 6-3. Ignominious.

We then got our wind back and pushed hard (me more than my partner) in the super tiebreaker to win 10-7, and take the match. On match point I ran all the way across the court to her side and smashed a sitter. Relief.

It was frustrating. In men's 4.5 doubles everyone pretty much plays all-out all the time. Numerous times I have had my mixed doubles partner almost implode, and in men's doubles I rarely have to be "understanding" with my partner. My female mixed doubles partner once told me another man was an "understanding" doubles partner, and I have never heard a man praise that in his doubles partner -- most men have less of that need, I suspect. We just sort of play hard and win or lose. In mixed doubles it is more complicated, and I sort of dislike it.

It is even more complicated because my mixed doubles partner is a good friend and I really don't want to offend her. Is it unfair to ask her to play "more like a man"? To play more aggressively and just go for it.

Is it OK to just not play mixed doubles? We men and women share the same tennis community and have to get along, I guess. I suspect it would not be taken well if men just kind of refuse to compete with the women. On the other hand, most 4.5 men I know don't play mixed doubles, or kind of resist it and play reluctantly.

Most women I suspect don't want to play with the men. But the better female tennis players seem to like mixed doubles.

I would be happy and appreciative to hear any sensitive feedback from wise tennis veterans.

Before I went to sleep last night I was watching some professional mixed doubles on the Tennis Channel and the female commentator (a former pro) said, "The difference in mixed doubles is the woman. When one team attacks the woman on the other side of the net, the difference is how that woman responds to the attack." As a man, why play in this dynamic?

I suspect the answer is: just enjoy the tennis and social dimension without getting too competitive. But this is hard for me. I almost always play in USTA leagues with men where we play to win.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

lol, it took a set to start attacking the woman?
i'm guessing you're playing 9.0?
i only join for the social dimension & networking (so i have to like the people i'm playing with), but keep it limited (ie. only play if it's extremely convenient), and go in with the mindset that i'm not gonna get that many balls (except on my serve).
also, mixed dubs always have the best after match food and drink

the only expectation i have is the one i put on myself to s&v well... otherwise it's a crap shoot of whether i'll get many balls other than the one's i'm serving and returning, and occasional poach.

 

[RichVentura]

Yes, 9.0 mixed doubles.

And, yes, I have also noticed that women bring by far much better food and drink to USTA league matches. Maybe that is me typically as a "male" that I care much about the intensity of the competition, little about the food/drink afterwards.

My first introduction to intense, 4.5 mixed doubles teams that want to win sectionals was the following: "Hit to the chick! Hit at the chick!" And this advice was given to me by the women on our team.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Yes, 9.0 mixed doubles.

And, yes, I have also noticed that women bring by far much better food and drink to USTA league matches. Maybe that is me typically as a "male" that I care much about the intensity of the competition, little about the food/drink afterwards.

I'm with you... care more about playing good tennis than about the food/drink afterwards...
moral of the story... don't expect good tennis, but instead play because:
* it's for social & networking
* there's good food/drink afterwards


if you can, get on a 10.0 team, that level is solid (for us 4.5's!)... i've never played on a team (but have played quite a few 10.0 level "fun" matches), because they usually recruit 5.0+ guys. at 10.0, there's no such thing as "it's not gentlemanly to hit at the woman".... because they can all handle volleys from groundstrokes coming from the baseline.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Mixed is for networking and social aspects, not good tennis. Adjust your expectations.

 

[RichVentura]

I'm with you... care more about playing good tennis than about the food/drink afterwards...
moral of the story... don't expect good tennis, but instead play because:
* it's for social & networking
* there's good food/drink afterwards


if you can, get on a 10.0 team, that level is solid (for us 4.5's!)... i've never played on a team (but have played quite a few 10.0 level "fun" matches), because they usually recruit 5.0+ guys. at 10.0, there's no such thing as "it's not gentlemanly to hit at the woman".... because they can all handle volleys from groundstrokes coming from the baseline.

I'm with you... care more about playing good tennis than about the food/drink afterwards...
moral of the story... don't expect good tennis, but instead play because:
* it's for social & networking
* there's good food/drink afterwards


if you can, get on a 10.0 team, that level is solid (for us 4.5's!)... i've never played on a team (but have played quite a few 10.0 level "fun" matches), because they usually recruit 5.0+ guys. at 10.0, there's no such thing as "it's not gentlemanly to hit at the woman".... because they can all handle volleys from groundstrokes coming from the baseline.

Where I play there are few strong 4.5 lady players, and no 5.0 (with possible exception of club pro) female players. Alas.

 

[kingcheetah]

Mixed is more for fun than real competition IMO... trying to win by just smacking the ball at the woman is crappy and monotonous

 

[NTRPolice]

If you want to play mixed and win, then you're going to have almost a "professional" relationship with your partner. Casual mixed is the hardest thing to play and win.

 

[RetroSpin]

Mixed is more for fun than real competition IMO... trying to win by just smacking the ball at the woman is crappy and monotonous

I agree. You have to play on eggshells in a club tournament, particularly if you're a strong player. Open Tournament Mixed, different story. Women who play them know the score.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Maybe the game should be renamed to "Mixed Struggles".

 

[MathGeek]

I work really hard in MxD, but I don't expect much from my partners (except for my wife). I really enjoy the social aspects also. I try not to stress about the outcome, but just have fun and work to improve my own game.

I'm not good enough to pick on the female opponent. They are usually good enough to poach, so my main approach is to keep it away from the net person and stay in the point long enough for them to make a UE or an opportunity for a winner to be presented.

 

[fundrazer]

Ever see the movie Wargames? The only winning move is not to play.

 

[RichVentura]

Could be hard not to play all the time: women invite you to play, and it would look a bit ungracious to say "no" all the time.

I think I will just scrupulously reduce my profile in mixed doubles and smile, smile, smile and play nice.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Where I play there are few strong 4.5 lady players, and no 5.0 (with possible exception of club pro) female players. Alas.

i think the real issue is that on paper, 4.5M + 4.5F looks symmetrical.
in reality... a 4.5F is a mid to low 4.0M (which is why i really like UTR as a rating standard).
so really we should just have 8.5MX, where the combinations must be 4.5F+4.0M (or 5.0F+4.5M), but while more equal, and arguably more fun, i think that becomes less inclusive, and allows less people to participate.

 

[RichVentura]

i think the real issue is that on paper, 4.5M + 4.5F looks symmetrical.
in reality... a 4.5F is a mid to low 4.0M (which is why i really like UTR as a rating standard).
so really we should just have 8.5MX, where the combinations must be 4.5F+4.0M (or 5.0F+4.5M), but while more equal, and arguably more fun, i think that becomes less inclusive, and allows less people to participate.

True. Even my female partner with whom I won the club tournament often bemoans the fact that most "4.5" women she plays against and not really that good. They moonball and lob, don't serve and volley. They have not much pace on their shots and have a nothing serve. It seems like the lack of a really effective serve is the biggest problem for women at the club level...

 

[DuckServe]

The best solution is to pair up with an ugly chick.

It will make it feel like you are playing with a 3.5 dude and you can relax and play your game.

Now, if you want entertainment with a hot chick, go to a gentlemen's club. Mixed doubles is the wrong venue.

 

[Doc Hollidae]

I just competed in my club's mixed doubles tournament in the finals. My doubles team won, but I struggled with the outcome.

We took the first set 6-1 and we dominated. I was able to play aggressively and impose my will on the other team.

But in the second set the other team stopped hitting the ball to me and attacked my female partner, and they made some good shots and my partner did not return them. Her confidence waned. The momentum switched. I grew frustrated and started making some mistakes, as did my partner. We lost the second set 6-3. Ignominious.

We then got our wind back and pushed hard (me more than my partner) in the super tiebreaker to win 10-7, and take the match. On match point I ran all the way across the court to her side and smashed a sitter. Relief.

It was frustrating. In men's 4.5 doubles everyone pretty much plays all-out all the time. Numerous times I have had my mixed doubles partner almost implode, and in men's doubles I rarely have to be "understanding" with my partner. My female mixed doubles partner once told me another man was an "understanding" doubles partner, and I have never heard a man praise that in his doubles partner -- most men have less of that need, I suspect. We just sort of play hard and win or lose. In mixed doubles it is more complicated, and I sort of dislike it.

It is even more complicated because my mixed doubles partner is a good friend and I really don't want to offend her. Is it unfair to ask her to play "more like a man"? To play more aggressively and just go for it.

Is it OK to just not play mixed doubles? We men and women share the same tennis community and have to get along, I guess. I suspect it would not be taken well if men just kind of refuse to compete with the women. On the other hand, most 4.5 men I know don't play mixed doubles, or kind of resist it and play reluctantly.

Most women I suspect don't want to play with the men. But the better female tennis players seem to like mixed doubles.

I would be happy and appreciative to hear any sensitive feedback from wise tennis veterans.

Before I went to sleep last night I was watching some professional mixed doubles on the Tennis Channel and the female commentator (a former pro) said, "The difference in mixed doubles is the woman. When one team attacks the woman on the other side of the net, the difference is how that woman responds to the attack." As a man, why play in this dynamic?

I suspect the answer is: just enjoy the tennis and social dimension without getting too competitive. But this is hard for me. I almost always play in USTA leagues with men where we play to win.

There's a reason it's called mixed doubles, you can't really expect your female partner to perform or react like your normal male dubs partner. In my experience, mixed doubles and women's leagues tends to be a more social than your normal men's adult league teams. How many men's teams get color coordinated uniforms for their team each season?

I played one season of mixed doubles when I was a sandbagging 4.0 (8.0 and 9.0) and have never played again. I also turn down invitations to play casual mixed. Playing 9.0's was pretty fun for the most part, I was playing with a strong 5.0 woman who had previous played in college. In all our matches, except one, she more or less played like I would have expected a normal male partner to play. I didn't have to worry about covering for her or taking balls I normally wouldn't. She also knew when to let me take a shot over her, which is key in mixed. She was aggressive, had good shot selection, and understood how to move as a team on the court. The one match she didn't play like normal was against a male opponent she had previously faced in past mixed leagues and she totally psyched herself out even before hitting a ball. She was so psyched out that, the match was lost before it even started. For the most part, the season was enjoyable, but the psyching out part was a big turn off.

In 8.0's, the experience was completely different. The team environment was a lot more social. Every practice was followed by a spread and wine. My partner was a 4.0 and needed to be coached more. Instead of just playing my normal game, I found myself constantly keeping tabs on my partner and often trying to do more than I normally would. Not only did I have to worry about my side of the court, I also had to worry about her side. At the 8.0 level and below, it's basically a game of keep away and how well the female can return the male's serve. In most instances, just hitting a kick serve to a female in 8.0 mixed or below is a free point.

In the long run, I decided mixed doubles is just not an enjoyable format for me to play. I like playing tennis for competition, not to be social.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Mixed doubles should live in the land of intermediate tennis. There, few people bash the ball hard enough to get themselves in trouble for hitting at the woman. It's social, people don't get too serious about it, you applaud good shots, ignore the bad shots and win or lose, the apres tennis beer has far more attractive members.

 

[RichVentura]

Mixed doubles should live in the land of intermediate tennis. There, few people bash the ball hard enough to get themselves in trouble for hitting at the woman. It's social, people don't get too serious about it, you applaud good shots, ignore the bad shots and win or lose, the apres tennis beer has far more attractive members.

Well stated!

 

[RetroSpin]

Mixed offers a lot of opportunities for a good male player or even just a strong, athletic guy who is not that good to come across a real jerk. You have to develop the art of sending awkward shots to the other woman without looking like you are trying to bully her. Moonballs, lobs, low slice, heavy spin, these are your friends. Leave the Jack Sock FH in the bag. It's a bit like playing tag football with girls.

In real, ie Open Class, tournaments, things are a little less restrained, but I wouldn't test a woman at the net unless she had made a nuisance of herself.

Your ideal partner is a woman who can return and volley. If she can handle the other guy's serve, you should have a huge advantage.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Leave the Jack Sock FH in the bag.
/QUOTE]

Would that I had a Jack Sock FH to leave in the bag.

 

[NTRPolice]

Ever see the movie Wargames? The only winning move is not to play.

Total tangent, but not long ago people used to think you could play a kazoo into the telephone and launch nuclear missiles.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Total tangent, but not long ago people used to think you could play a kazoo into the telephone and launch nuclear missiles.

How silly! Everyone knows you have to use a harmonica.

 

[LeeD]

4.5 man should play with a 5.5 woman.
4.0 man should play with a 5.0 woman.

 

[tennis tom]

You sound like someone is forcing you to play. You have freedom of choice, if you don't enjoy it just say NO to mx'ed! Make up an excuse, tell them my wife gets insanely jealous when she sees me with another women, she runs on the court and chases them with a golf club. I know plenty of guys who only play singles, no men's or mx'ed. Who says you need to play. I just played rec mx'ed this morning with a lady who hasn't played for years and she was FANTASTIC! I'd say 4.5-5.0 at least and should be playing Age Group opens. She served and vollyed, angled off all her volleys naturally for winners and got all her overheads. It was great rec tennis! I'm gonna' sign her up for tournaments, she seems to have no idea how good she is.They were hitting almost everything to her--fools that they were. I wasn't warmed-up yet and missing my put-aways into the net and my serve wasn't dialed in yet. She was angling everything off for winners--I was the weaker player at the time. We were down love-3 and came back to win 6-3, after I got warmed up and started winning my serve and holding up my side of the court.

If you had a stronger partner who could carry her side of the court you would think it was fun and it would be. Get a stronger partner or don't play mx'ed if you're married and not looking for a date.

 

[LeeD]

But some guys need to be BMOC (Big Man On Campus), while other's can allow water to find it's natural state and other's again need to be dominated.
I know guys who need to be the dominate on court, while other's are happy to cruise around being second fiddle.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

i think the real issue is that on paper, 4.5M + 4.5F looks symmetrical.
in reality... a 4.5F is a mid to low 4.0M (which is why i really like UTR as a rating standard).
so really we should just have 8.5MX, where the combinations must be 4.5F+4.0M (or 5.0F+4.5M), but while more equal, and arguably more fun, i think that becomes less inclusive, and allows less people to participate.

The real problem is mainly that it's so hard to find females at this level to pair up for the guys at this level. I hardly ever see a girl I could comfortably say is around a 4.5 level without looking at juniors. Most I've personally met are 3.0 to 4.0. I have met a few monsters who are probably 4.5-5.0 female.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

i think the real issue is that on paper, 4.5M + 4.5F looks symmetrical.
in reality... a 4.5F is a mid to low 4.0M (which is why i really like UTR as a rating standard).
so really we should just have 8.5MX, where the combinations must be 4.5F+4.0M (or 5.0F+4.5M), but while more equal, and arguably more fun, i think that becomes less inclusive, and allows less people to participate.

played a tri-level match this weekend... the "4.5" line feature two teams with a 4.5M + 4.0M...
the 4.0's (who IMO were low to avg.. eg. not a strong bh, dink 2nd serve) played waaaaay better than any 4.5F partner I've ever had...
the aggression factor (attacking the ball/contact) was probably the biggest difference.
so I retract my previous statement... a 4.5F plays like a good 3.5M...
therefore 8.0mx should only be 4.5F+3.5M
if you're a 4.5M, and you care only about quality tennis, best to only play 10.0 or avoid mixed at all costs.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

The real problem is mainly that it's so hard to find females at this level to pair up for the guys at this level. I hardly ever see a girl I could comfortably say is around a 4.5 level without looking at juniors. Most I've personally met are 3.0 to 4.0. I have met a few monsters who are probably 4.5-5.0 female.

agreed, most (except 2) good females I've played, all played juniors, college, etc...
I've only known 2 females that started playing as adults and worked their way up to a solid 4.0M level.... and they were putting in alot of effort to practice/lessons/etc,... AND also had an athletic background in other sports (ie. their proprioception and ability to learn new movements was already well developed).
just so i'm not sounding sexist, i have gotten my butt kicked by two different 12y old girls in my life (1 went on to a top ranked D1 college, the other is currently top 100 on the tour). a buddy of mine (guy) who played at a top ranked D1 schoool, said he got beat by the top girls at bolletieri all the time (who are all very recognizable names on the tour today).

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

agreed, most (except 2) good females I've played, all played juniors, college, etc...
I've only known 2 females that started playing as adults and worked their way up to a solid 4.0M level.... and they were putting in alot of effort to practice/lessons/etc,... AND also had an athletic background in other sports (ie. their proprioception and ability to learn new movements was already well developed).
just so i'm not sounding sexist, i have gotten my butt kicked by two different 12y old girls in my life (1 went on to a top ranked D1 college, the other is currently top 100 on the tour). a buddy of mine (guy) who played at a top ranked D1 schoool, said he got beat by the top girls at bolletieri all the time (who are all very recognizable names on the tour today).

Yeah I can't imagine making it that far without an athletic background. You need that competitive drive to push you. If you'd rather be social or do it for fun, you're not going to get far. You can play respectable tennis, but that's the limit. This goes for both genders. But guys tend to be more competitive in physical competitions (due to hormones and social expectations), so you can imagine a guy who is inherently talented to pick up the sport and be good with less of a background. Like if he was inherently fast, flexible, has a strong core, and is the stubbornly competitive type.

 

[NTRPolice]

The real problem is mainly that it's so hard to find females at this level to pair up for the guys at this level. I hardly ever see a girl I could comfortably say is around a 4.5 level without looking at juniors. Most I've personally met are 3.0 to 4.0. I have met a few monsters who are probably 4.5-5.0 female.

Well, 4.5+ are already minorities. So finding them in general is going to be hard.

Our teams problem is that all of our 4.5+ women arnt doubles players. We have lots of 4.0 women who can play doubles... but our 4.5 women are young, played high school/college and dont pair well with any men for mixed. They are ok in womens league playing with another women who want to play net.

All of the 4.5+ women are already spoken for. They're usually older and just play doubles, so teams pick them up and keep them!

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Well, 4.5+ are already minorities. So finding them in general is going to be hard.

Our teams problem is that all of our 4.5+ women arnt doubles players. We have lots of 4.0 women who can play doubles... but our 4.5 women are young, played high school/college and dont pair well with any men for mixed. They are ok in womens league playing with another women who want to play net.

All of the 4.5+ women are already spoken for. They're usually older and just play doubles, so teams pick them up and keep them!

At 4.5+, they should have competent volleys. Just tell/drill them on where to aim. Volley at the net player's feet and drive groundstrokes up the middle. Other than that, teach them the concept of switching sides when the net player crosses (successfully), the backing up when a bad lob is thrown (and telling your partner), maintaining a set distance from your partner (basically following your partner when they're pulled wide), moving up together when given a short ball, and the proper procedure when covering lobs with 2 at net. (Anything else I miss? There's a lot of positional stuff in doubles.)

Yeah, it's a lot, but if you're a competitive team and not a social one, it's like 7 hours of drilling if you have 8 people. It's really not all that much. You could easily fit that in over 2-3 weeks.

 

[NTRPolice]

At 4.5+, they should have competent volleys. Just tell/drill them on where to aim. Volley at the net player's feet and drive groundstrokes up the middle. Other than that, teach them the concept of switching sides when the net player crosses (successfully), the backing up when a bad lob is thrown (and telling your partner), maintaining a set distance from your partner (basically following your partner when they're pulled wide), moving up together when given a short ball, and the proper procedure when covering lobs with 2 at net. (Anything else I miss? There's a lot of positional stuff in doubles.)

Yeah, it's a lot, but if you're a competitive team and not a social one, it's like 7 hours of drilling if you have 8 people. It's really not all that much. You could easily fit that in over 2-3 weeks.

The thing about highly skilled young players is they like to play singles. When you try to pull them into the doubles mindset, they have a hard time. Doubles at that level is very fast. The moves have to be instinctual. Yes, we can teach them to run plays on the serve. After that first move... they're lost.

When you take a pair of 20-something college grads who are used to playing singles and put them in a doubles match against a pair of 30-40 something 4.5+ players with 10+ years of experience, they get destroyed. This is why we try to take our new (young) players and pair them with a doubles veteran so they can learn the flow of the game. This is usually fine for adult league...

But, in Mixed, this doesnt work so well. In Adult league you can get away with a "half singles, half doubles" game, which is why we stick our new players there to get experience. Mixed doubles is a "full doubles game" if you want to win in the higher levels. You cannot be carried in the higher levels like you can in the lower ones.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Doubles at that level is very fast. The moves have to be instinctual.

That's what drilling is for...

 

[NTRPolice]

That's what drilling is for...

If the #1 and #2 singles players in the world played doubles against the #1 and #2 doubles players in the world, who do you think would win? Drilling cant solve everything. Drilling will not simply turn either of those into the other. At a certain point you need to play live points in a competitive setting. Since these are rec players, many are not willing to take years of losing in exchange for experience. Many people who have to self rate too high get turned off by tennis just for this reason. No one wants to be the fresh face on a team, one of the highest rated people on the team, and have a yearly record of 2W-22L. They may have to face records like that for multiple years before they can be bumped down. This is how a 22 year old sketchy 5.5 turns into a solid 44 year old 4.5 or 5.0 and plays mainly doubles. IF, and only IF they can keep playing for years.

I've known lots of 4.5 high school or 5.0+ college kids who think they are going to play their first year of league and **** on everyone. Much to their surprise, it wasnt the case. I'm way more scared of the older, skilled, experienced 4.0/4.5 female in doubles than I am a fresh 5.0.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

If the #1 and #2 singles players in the world played doubles against the #1 and #2 doubles players in the world, who do you think would win? Drilling cant solve everything. Drilling will not simply turn either of those into the other. At a certain point you need to play live points in a competitive setting. Since these are rec players, many are not willing to take years of losing in exchange for experience. Many people who have to self rate too high get turned off by tennis just for this reason. No one wants to be the fresh face on a team, one of the highest rated people on the team, and have a yearly record of 2W-22L. They may have to face records like that for multiple years before they can be bumped down. This is how a 22 year old sketchy 5.5 turns into a solid 44 year old 4.5 or 5.0 and plays mainly doubles. IF, and only IF they can keep playing for years.

I've known lots of 4.5 high school or 5.0+ college kids who think they are going to play their first year of league and **** on everyone. Much to their surprise, it wasnt the case. I'm way more scared of the older, skilled, experienced 4.0/4.5 female in doubles than I am a fresh 5.0.

The singles players would win. Easily.

In college, it took me a week or two of drilling to get the basics down, which was about an hour a day for 5 days a week. It's very simple when the guy yells at you what you should be doing and you commit yourself to doing it.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The singles players would win. Easily.

The closest experiment we've ever seen is Federer/Wawrinka. They're a great doubles team but they certainly didn't win all of the time and easily.

Williams/Williams also?

I would bet on the doubles specialists winning because doubles is an intensely team-oriented sport where good communication and understanding of your partner are paramount. The 2 top singles players would not have that [Williams/Williams are obviously exceptions]. They could certainly develop it over time but then they'd have to take time away from their singles and maybe by then they wouldn't be #1 & #2 anymore.

In college, it took me a week or two of drilling to get the basics down, which was about an hour a day for 5 days a week. It's very simple when the guy yells at you what you should be doing and you commit yourself to doing it.

Using just one data point doesn't prove much except that you are an outlier in terms of skill, ability, and commitment. The people NTRPolice was referring to aren't in college, don't have a coach to yell at them, and probably don't have the time nor desire to put in as much effort as you did. Some people need an immense amount of drilling [not just a week or two] just to get them to stop covering the alley when their partner is serving. And as soon as the chips are down, they move back towards the alley because it's their comfort zone ["Hey, at least I didn't get passed DTL." "Yeah, but look how much middle you are giving up and making your partner play."].

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

The closest experiment we've ever seen is Federer/Wawrinka. They're a great doubles team but they certainly didn't win all of the time and easily.

Williams/Williams also?

I would bet on the doubles specialists winning because doubles is an intensely team-oriented sport where good communication and understanding of your partner are paramount. The 2 top singles players would not have that [Williams/Williams are obviously exceptions]. They could certainly develop it over time but then they'd have to take time away from their singles and maybe by then they wouldn't be #1 & #2 anymore.



Using just one data point doesn't prove much except that you are an outlier in terms of skill, ability, and commitment. The people NTRPolice was referring to aren't in college, don't have a coach to yell at them, and probably don't have the time nor desire to put in as much effort as you did. Some people need an immense amount of drilling [not just a week or two] just to get them to stop covering the alley when their partner is serving. And as soon as the chips are down, they move back towards the alley because it's their comfort zone ["Hey, at least I didn't get passed DTL." "Yeah, but look how much middle you are giving up and making your partner play."].

I'll cede that I could be an outlier, but I wasn't particularly determined to improve in doubles. I just wanted to beat the guy on the other side of the net. And I was given easier ways to win points without changing my play style. Of course I'm going to take it. Then again, I am an all court player and was previously a serve and volleyer. I'm not scared in the slightest of being at net. I was also very well versed in passing shots. That could've helped speed things up a lot. Being told where is the optimal spot to be and where to aim made things super easy.

Prior to pairing up with Federer for the Davis Cup (and eventually the Olympic Gold), Wawrinka was hovering around 30 in the rankings. He was around 30-50 in 2007 and was around 30 before the Olympics. That's a far cry from #1 and #2. From 2005 to 2015, could you imagine Federer/Nadal, Nadal/Djokovic, or Djokovic/Federer? It would be so disgusting. Or even Federer/Roddick.

 

[NTRPolice]

I'll cede that I could be an outlier, but I wasn't particularly determined to improve in doubles. I just wanted to beat the guy on the other side of the net. And I was given easier ways to win points without changing my play style. Of course I'm going to take it. Then again, I am an all court player and was previously a serve and volleyer. I'm not scared in the slightest of being at net. I was also very well versed in passing shots. That could've helped speed things up a lot. Being told where is the optimal spot to be and where to aim made things super easy.

Prior to pairing up with Federer for the Davis Cup (and eventually the Olympic Gold), Wawrinka was hovering around 30 in the rankings. He was around 30-50 in 2007 and was around 30 before the Olympics. That's a far cry from #1 and #2. From 2005 to 2015, could you imagine Federer/Nadal, Nadal/Djokovic, or Djokovic/Federer? It would be so disgusting. Or even Federer/Roddick.

You mean like Djoker/Nadal losing to wildcard and not even top 100 Raonic/Pospisil?

Djoker and Nadal were like #1 and #2 in 2010. Both Raonic and Pospisil were not top 100 in singles or doubles. Raonic/Pospisil won in a 3rd set tie break.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Pro players are not a good analogy, because ATP singles players are just better overall tennis players and better atheletes in general than doubles players. So the analogy breaks down. As everyone knows in pro tennis, those that can... play singles, and those that can't... make a living playing doubles. Bryan brothers got smoked on the ATP singles tour. Jack Sock used doubles to make a living while beefing up his singles game. Pospisil cannot win at singles but makes a living playing doubles. Hingis can't move well enough at her age to win at singles, so she plays doubles and mixed with success. Paes is also an obvious case.

 

[stapletonj]

Of course an outliler, but in the early 80s the best doubles team in the world was John McEnroe and anybody. (No offense Peter Fleming)

 

[NTRPolice]

Pro players are not a good analogy, because ATP singles players are just better overall tennis players and better atheletes in general than doubles players. So the analogy breaks down. As everyone knows in pro tennis, those that can... play singles, and those that can't... make a living playing doubles. Bryan brothers got smoked on the ATP singles tour. Jack Sock used doubles to make a living while beefing up his singles game. Pospisil cannot win at singles but makes a living playing doubles. Hingis can't move well enough at her age to win at singles, so she plays doubles and mixed with success. Paes is also an obvious case.

The Olympics is a great example of why the best singles players clearly dont just automatically win. It's also why they simply dont choose the 2 highest rated men for mens doubles, or highest rated man and woman for mixed and win every single time.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

You mean like Djoker/Nadal losing to wildcard and not even top 100 Raonic/Pospisil?

Djoker and Nadal were like #1 and #2 in 2010. Both Raonic and Pospisil were not top 100 in singles or doubles. Raonic/Pospisil won in a 3rd set tie break.

Helps to have the big serves and net coverage that come with being 6'4"+.There are a lot of variables going into it. Top singles players just play doubles for fun. If it was worth anything, they'd actually try and would likely crush everyone. If they bothered to drill a bit for it, they'd probably do well. Who knows. Maybe these guys are anomalies too.