My case for weak servers to play Australian full time

[spot]

So I have many tennis theories that go completely against conventional wisdom and I'll talk about one of them now. Australian formation should be the default formation for weak servers. When you are playing singles everyone knows that the high percentage return is cross court. It goes over the lower part of the net, you have more court to work with, and is all around the highest percentage return. When you are playing doubles, the normal formation gives up the high percentage cross court return in exchange for the net person being there to put away any weak returns that the returner was not able to put far enough crosscourt. But for weak servers there are no weak returns for the net person to put away- the net person would be doing more good for the team by taking away the high percentage crosscourt return and forcing the returner to go back up the line over the higher part of the net, with less court, and with no angle to work with.

I'll use 3.5 women as an example. (Even though Cindy and Topaz there are 3.5 women with very nice serves who can generate weak popups for their partner's consistently!) So often you see a weak server and the returner can over and over and over just return it back crosscourt and the net person is not an asset in the play at all. Sure ideally you would want that net person poaching and being aggressive as the opponents got more and more predictable with their returns but often that isn't what happens. The team is just ceding the highest percentage return available to the other team. To me this is a classic case where Australian is the stronger formation for the team. It doesn't mean that the net person cannot poach- Australian is a very strong poaching formation. The returns in this situation have to go over the higher part of the net, to a shorter court, with no angle to work with.

Anyway- For any weak servers out there (or who have partners or teammates who are weak servers) I'd go out and give this a shot. I think you will see a lot more success thinking about it this way.

 

[JRstriker12]

Hmmmm......

I think this only works if:

1. The returner has problems hitting DTL returns.
2. The server can place his/her serve.
3. The serve isn't weak enough to be a sitter.
4. The player at net is good enough to volley screaming returns.
6. Partner comes into net.
5. Partners have signals/communication.

In the cases where my partner had a weak serve, they usually also had problems with placing the serve and getting it deep enough in the box so the person at net doesn't get killed. To make matters worse, they didn't come into net or weren't very comfortable at net.

I don't know about you, but some 3.5's and a good number of 4.0's can usually hit a weak service sitter DTL. If I see that the returner has problems with the DTL return, then I'd switch - otherwise, I'd just try to poach from the standard formation.

 

[spot]

To me if the returner has the control to hit it DTL then they EASILY have the control to hit it crosscourt. Thats what I see in so many matches- by going on the standard formation you are giving the returner their preferred return all day long and the net players is not able to jump in and do anything with it at all. Its just constantly going deep into that corner and the serving team is always on the defensive.

I don't at all see why it would be easier to poach from the standard formation instead of poaching from australian. Considering there is no angle to work with, the player has to hit over the higher part of the net, and they have less court to work with, and people are just accustomed to normally going crosscourt with returns in my experience the returns are signifcantly weaker when going australian.

Particularly on the Ad side. (For righties) that means the net player can poach on the forehand and the ball has to go back to the server's forehand as well.

 

[JavierLW]

So I have many tennis theories that go completely against conventional wisdom and I'll talk about one of them now. Australian formation should be the default formation for weak servers. When you are playing singles everyone knows that the high percentage return is cross court. It goes over the lower part of the net, you have more court to work with, and is all around the highest percentage return. When you are playing doubles, the normal formation gives up the high percentage cross court return in exchange for the net person being there to put away any weak returns that the returner was not able to put far enough crosscourt. But for weak servers there are no weak returns for the net person to put away- the net person would be doing more good for the team by taking away the high percentage crosscourt return and forcing the returner to go back up the line over the higher part of the net, with less court, and with no angle to work with.

I'll use 3.5 women as an example. (Even though Cindy and Topaz there are 3.5 women with very nice serves who can generate weak popups for their partner's consistently!) So often you see a weak server and the returner can over and over and over just return it back crosscourt and the net person is not an asset in the play at all. Sure ideally you would want that net person poaching and being aggressive as the opponents got more and more predictable with their returns but often that isn't what happens. The team is just ceding the highest percentage return available to the other team. To me this is a classic case where Australian is the stronger formation for the team. It doesn't mean that the net person cannot poach- Australian is a very strong poaching formation. The returns in this situation have to go over the higher part of the net, to a shorter court, with no angle to work with.

Anyway- For any weak servers out there (or who have partners or teammates who are weak servers) I'd go out and give this a shot. I think you will see a lot more success thinking about it this way.

I have a sometimes partner that Ive tryed this with.

To describe him though, he is basically a retriever, he's one of those guys that just get's absolutely everything back and frustrates people. He can hit with some pace on his groundstrokes, especially if it's a passing shot, and he hits great lobs, but a lot of times he just floats everything back to give himself time. In singles I think though that he can beat almost any 3.5 singles player who you wouldnt suspect is close to belonging in 4.0.

But the absolute worst part of his game is his serve and I feel like from regular formation I am just sometimes way to close to the point of contact to do much of anything, and once the ball goes behind me, it's really not a whole lot of fun. (sure he might get every single ball back, but Im pretty much screwed up there since he's not necessarily hitting the shots necessary to keep me setup)

So Australian effects the game in a few ways:

1) Im further away from the returner so if they want to go at me, I have more time. Im a pretty decent volleyer when I have time, but Im not the quickest guy in the world so I sometimes have trouble covering space if I get rushed.

2) If it goes DTL, he's getting it anyway, HE'S FAST. Most of the time. Obviously if he can get his serve deep and more down the T that helps and he can aim it somewhat. (dont assume everyone who serves slow cant aim, heck half the time at 3.5 if someone serves it hard they cant aim, it just goes out wide at least in the Men's game)

3) Just like any other time you do Australian it takes the other team out of their comfort zone as far as their returns. You dont want to have a partner with a weak serve AND give your opponents tons of time to try the same return over and over again. (that being said though, you dont want to ONLY play Australian either)

Also at 3.5 it's not always a given that players are going to do more with a slower serve. Sometimes if they have to generate their own pace and actually swing at a ball, that's a good demonstration of how good they really are. (but if they see it enough they'll get it eventually)

We've done this for a whole set and won the set. (just total Australian everytime he serves)

But I think the longer you do it during the match the less effective it becomes because it is a weaker position, so it's probably better to mix it up.

 

[cak]

When weak servers play Australian I like to lob the net guy, as the server is already on their way to cover the down the line shot and the net person is normally in tight to cover the cross court. Best response I get off that is a weak overhead if the net guy is paying attention, or a scrambled short return lob.

 

[spot]

Javier- I don't at all understand why Australian is considered a weaker position. Its just choosing to take way the high percentage crosscourt return instead of the down the line return.

The main advantage of being in the normal formation is that the net person is there to put away any really weak returns. But if there are no really weak returns then the net person is better used taking away the return that the opposing team would prefer to use.

I don't think this is any sort of magic wand that will turn a weaker server into someone who will hold all the time- I just think that this is a stronger formation for a server that doesn't generate any weak returns.

 

[LuckyR]

This theory needs to be compared to what the weak server team would be up against if they played a different formation, not what would happen if they were stronger.

I do not have a problem with this theory. It is not a panacea, since it has a couple of weaknesses. The most obvious for the 3.5 women that spot speaks of, is that the netman is more vulnerable to lobs (a frequent weapon in that arena). The returner has a less advantageous position on groundstrokes, hopefully the serving team can still make up for the weak serve and win some points.

 

[spot]

In the standard formation the serving team is vulnerable to the high percentage crosscourt return. A sharply angled short return. And the lob of the net person. I think the server has more court to cover in the standard formation than they do in australian formation. Taking away the angle on the return of serve is key in my mind. Forcing the returner to hit back with no angle is a big advantage for the serving team.

One of the big disadvantages to australian is if someone has access to a lot of slice. They can make life very tough on a short serve because they can come in and make the server hit back up at them. But for someone who has access to that much slice- the crosscourt slice is just as devastating and then they have angle to work with.

 

[LuckyR]

In the standard formation the serving team is vulnerable to the high percentage crosscourt return. A sharply angled short return. And the lob of the net person. I think the server has more court to cover in the standard formation than they do in australian formation. Taking away the angle on the return of serve is key in my mind. Forcing the returner to hit back with no angle is a big advantage for the serving team.

One of the big disadvantages to australian is if someone has access to a lot of slice. They can make life very tough on a short serve because they can come in and make the server hit back up at them. But for someone who has access to that much slice- the crosscourt slice is just as devastating and then they have angle to work with.

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by weak serving team. Whomping on a weak serve DTL is not a big disadvantage in my experience. Also lobbing CC instead of DTL is a big advantage for the returners (assuming they can lob).

 

[JavierLW]

Javier- I don't at all understand why Australian is considered a weaker position. Its just choosing to take way the high percentage crosscourt return instead of the down the line return.

The main advantage of being in the normal formation is that the net person is there to put away any really weak returns. But if there are no really weak returns then the net person is better used taking away the return that the opposing team would prefer to use.

I don't think this is any sort of magic wand that will turn a weaker server into someone who will hold all the time- I just think that this is a stronger formation for a server that doesn't generate any weak returns.

It can be the weaker position because your partner who is serving is not allowed to stand on the side where the ball's likely going to get returned.

Sometimes when you are the returner just moving the server around on the first shot is good enough because it forces them to put up a more defensive shot so you can take offense.

Sometimes servers will stick themselves into starting positions that allow you to do this more easily. (like when in the regular formation, they lineup too close to the center mark, almost like they would in singles, that means right away you get to "move" them out into the corner)

In the Australian, you're automatically stuck into that sort of situation.

But ya sure, if you want to move that person as far as possible, it may not be as easy, you have a harder return and you may not be used to returning DTL if you're a doubles player, but if you let someone get a crack at a weak serve over and over and over and over again, they'll get it eventually.

So if you read my post, that's my point. It's not a very good long term plan. Maybe you can do it more then you would with a good server, but I still think you need to mix it up a little bit.

 

[spot]

Lucky- my point is that if someone can "whomp" on a return of serve down the line I think they can easily "whomp" on the cross court return- but the crosscourt return is no question easier.

Javier- I am just trying to make the argument that the australian should be the default formation for servers that do not generate easy balls for the net person. This isn't an argument that there is never a time to go into the standard formation or that poaching isn't an option- just that it makes more sense to take away the returner's preferred option on the return instead of being there for a putaway ball that never comes.

I guess maybe this is what it is to me. WHen I face a weak server and the other team is in the standard formation I have so many options available to me- the netperson is absolutely irrelevant because they are leaving the door wide open on the shot that I would prefer to hit. Taking away the crosscourt return makes the net person an asset where I think that most of the time in the standard formation the net person is not in position to be a significant asset for a weak server. You can say all you want to that a good poacher can be an asset in the standard formation but there is no reason at all you cannot poach from australian.

The question is where the net person should line up to hinder the opposing team the most. For a strong server you want the net person up there to easily put away any weak returns and end the point right there. But when there are no weak returns to put away I just think its absolutely clear taking away the opponents preferred return is the best option

 

[JavierLW]

Javier- I am just trying to make the argument that the australian should be the default formation for servers that do not generate easy balls for the net person. This isn't an argument that there is never a time to go into the standard formation or that poaching isn't an option- just that it makes more sense to take away the returner's preferred option on the return instead of being there for a putaway ball that never comes.

I guess maybe this is what it is to me. WHen I face a weak server and the other team is in the standard formation I have so many options available to me- the netperson is absolutely irrelevant because they are leaving the door wide open on the shot that I would prefer to hit. Taking away the crosscourt return makes the net person an asset.

Right we are on the same page with that. That's one reason why you play Australian formation.

However the title of this thread is "My case for weak servers to play Australian full time". Im not sure what you mean by "full time".

Im just telling you from my own experiments with an actual weak server that it really only works for a somewhat more limited time.

When we only played regular formation all the time that was rarely successful.

But when we decided to go Australian it did work for a whole set (which is a big deal to me) but then we decided to play more and eventually it wore out it's welcome. They got used to their DTL returns and they were able to move my partner across half the court and set themselves up at the net better. (of course that's assuming you're playing people who are smart enough to try to do that)

You're basing this entire thing on the fact that in doubles you mainly go cross court. Sure it's the easier return and you're more used to it and you may feel you have "tons of options", but you're also saying you're getting a "weak serve".

Doubles is a position game, and that's a weaker position, you may want to not acknowledge the obvious (you're leaving half the court wide open initially).

If you accept that, then the question becomes how easy is that to exploit?

It's probably not quite as easy so I think you are right about that, but Im saying if give almost anyone enough cracks at it, you'll be worse off eventually then going back to the regular formation. (so mixing it up is probably very important, if I had to do it again, I wouldnt do it on every point)

 

[bukaeast]

I've tried it as a weak server. I'm trying to get better, so we don't try it all that often.

That said.
We used it more like the I formation than a true Australian. Before the point, we would determine whether the netman would either stay and cover the cross court or switch ( not really a poach). By mixing that up, you get more mileage out of the formation and nobody needs to kneel down.:shock:

Worked pretty effectively but we were not playing high level players - 3.5 at most. There were not a lot of lob returns over the cc netman. But there never are many if any with the guys we play. Most returns were dtl and not drop shots, so the next groundie was not impossible.

I thought that it was pretty effective, but it is a casual league and like I said, I am trying to "play up" to improve. If it was a more competitive match, I would employ it more often.

Discalimer: I am a leftie and use as much spin as I can and that could have had an effect.

 

[LuckyR]

Lucky- my point is that if someone can "whomp" on a return of serve down the line I think they can easily "whomp" on the cross court return- but the crosscourt return is no question easier.

I agree with this post and as I said in my original answer: "I do not have a problem with this theory". One thing that is a very practical answer to the "weak server" is that by leaving the CC return open, the server's netman can be pretty certain that that is where the return is going. This info makes poaching a snap. Of course once you have poached a couple of times the returners are going to put on their thinking caps and the netman can expect returns to start coming their way. But that in itself is a small victory since the returner will start hitting lower percentage shots, as you originally described.

 

[spot]

Javier- I was going to title the post "My case for weak servers to play Australian to start out and most of the time until they have a good reason to change" but thought that was a little long. I agree that changing things up is a good thing. I just believe that many people have been taught "this is where the netperson is supposed to stand" without ever really considering why. And further when it makes sense for the net person to set up somewhere else. There are several instances when I think Australian makes sense. (And a pet peeve of mine are coaches who teach australian without going into why its effective or when to use it)

When you are getting killed on a sharp crosscourt return of serve.

For righties serving to the Ad court when their forehand is far superior to their backhand.

When the net player isn't getting any balls and the opposing team is just going cross court every single time unhindered.

Those are the big ones to me. I think that most players don't go to if for a couple reason. They think of it as advanced level doubles. The server isn't used to serving that way. They are just not used to it overall. But all of these would go away if players with weak serves started thinking of Australian as the way to start out and to go to a different formation only when they had reason to.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I agree completely, Spot. 100%.

Australian rocks, for the reasons you cite. Sure, the returner might be comfortable going DTL. Sure, the returner might lob the net player. None of that changes the fact that Australian turns court geometry to your favor.

There is one more thing that makes Australian work so nicely for weak servers. A weak server may be weak because her serve lacks pace. But if she can place it, she can force the returner to hit a technically more difficult shot. For instance, I play ad court. If a serve comes up the middle, I can hit my FH crosscourt all day long.

But if the receivers are lined up Australian, then I can't hit my favorite FH crosscourt. I now have to take my FH down my alley, and that is a difficult shot. Or I can run around my FH and take my BH DTL -- again, a difficult shot. I had a mixed opponent torment me last year with this -- he had his weak-serving partner just serve up the middle while he lined up Australian and poached or faked. It was torture.

I do have one quibble, Spot.

Please, do not tell the world about your theory. One reason it has worked so well for me is that returners become flustered because they do not see Australian often. If everyone buys into your theory, then some of the element of surprise will be gone.

 

[JavierLW]

Javier- I was going to title the post "My case for weak servers to play Australian to start out and most of the time until they have a good reason to change" but thought that was a little long. I agree that changing things up is a good thing. I just believe that many people have been taught "this is where the netperson is supposed to stand" without ever really considering why. And further when it makes sense for the net person to set up somewhere else. There are several instances when I think Australian makes sense. (And a pet peeve of mine are coaches who teach australian without going into why its effective or when to use it)

When you are getting killed on a sharp crosscourt return of serve.

For righties serving to the Ad court when their forehand is far superior to their backhand.

When the net player isn't getting any balls and the opposing team is just going cross court every single time unhindered.

Those are the big ones to me. I think that most players don't go to if for a couple reason. They think of it as advanced level doubles. The server isn't used to serving that way. They are just not used to it overall. But all of these would go away if players with weak serves started thinking of Australian as the way to start out and to go to a different formation only when they had reason to.

That's cool so we're both on the same page I guess.

Ive used it for another reason as in the past which may or may not make sense.

Sometimes you are in a match where you are playing one dominant player and one weak player who may be kind of shaky on his returns.

Ive used it when serving just to the weak player, it seems to sometimes force a 1 on 1 match up between the server and this weak player and it seems to isolate the stronger player. (because you dont have to hit your first volley across him like you are forced to do when you go cross court, he now has to cut in front of you if he wants to get more involved)

Plus it includes elements of the other reasons as well, the weaker player may actually get grooved into going cross court if the match wears on for too long. The weaker player might be more confused as well by seeing something new.

Anyways I think it's nice element to try in those situations as well.

I play 3.5 Men and hardly anyone I know plays Australian. Ive done it tons of times (when I have a partner that's on board with it), and I think Ive only been up against it once.

What is sometimes funny is sometimes I'll tell my partner to just stay on one side for the whole entire game (so we're only doing it against one returner), and the other team will get confused and think he's forgotten to change sides and will remind him of the score, etc..... Then I usually know that they are in big trouble because they haven't got a clue what's going on....

 

[jserve]

I would think the serving team would want to vary their strategy so that the returners never get comfortable hitting the same returns over and over. If you play an entire match Aussie, I would expect the returners to get better over time at controlling their returns down the line.

 

[magmasilk]

It can be the weaker position because your partner who is serving is not allowed to stand on the side where the ball's likely going to get returned.

+1

in normal setup, the server at most covers about 1/4-1/3 of the court to get to a return. in aussie, the server might have to cover 1/2 of the court to get to a return. There is a bigger opening for the returner against aussie. Of course they have to execute the tougher shot.

[edit: I am also assuming the more common cross court returns against the normal formation.]

 

[Cindysphinx]

+1

in normal setup, the server at most covers about 1/4-1/3 of the court to get to a return. in aussie, the server might have to cover 1/2 of the court to get to a return. There is a bigger opening for the returner against aussie. Of course they have to execute the tougher shot.

in my 3.5mens / 7.0mixed leagues, it has been some what effective against me since it is a diff look but if the team is desperate enough to try it then it probably didn't matter anyway.

In a traditional doubles serving formation, most people (myself included) tend to stand about halfway between the center hash and the sideline to serve. There are some who stand even more wide, but few who serve from next to the center hash. From that position, you have to run 3/4 of the court to reach a lob that lands in the far alley.

In Australian, you should line up as near the center line as you can. If it is a lob to either side, you pretty much have to run the distance of 1/2 the court.

For this reason, Australian can work well with serves with weak serves and no footspeed. It gets them a little closer to covering that lob (and puts them in the mindset that they may need to actually run). Now, they are vulnerable to a fast shot DTL that they can't get there to cover. But if they are serving up the middle as they should be, the returner may have her hands full just changing direction on the ball.

In one of my tri-level matches, the deuce court opponent had a wicked crosscourt return. When I lined up Australian, all heck broke loose. She simply could not yank that serve up the middle over to the alley and kept pulling it well wide. And she didn't own a lob. Finally, she took to just pushing her returns in, which was a huge victory for us.

There are a lot of One Trick Ponies out there, and you can smoke them out if you play Australian.

 

[Z-Man]

It works great, especially on the Ad side for right-handers. It's not just taking away the percentage return--if you stay back, you also get to play your forehand against the returner's backhand (if they don't come in). However, there are limitations. Tried this at ALTA AA3 (line 1) last week, and the returner pounded a point-blank 90 MPH forehand at my partner. He reflex volleyed for a winner, but I decided going straight up was better because it gave me better angle to find his backhand with my serve. But in general, as long as the returner can't brutally attack your serve, it's a good idea. You make them hit a DTL backhand--not an easy shot at any level.

 

[magmasilk]

In a traditional doubles serving formation, most people (myself included) tend to stand about halfway between the center hash and the sideline to serve. ... From that position, you have to run 3/4 of the court to reach a lob that lands in the far alley.

In Australian, you should line up as near the center line as you can. If it is a lob to either side, you pretty much have to run the distance of 1/2 the court.

true - if they lob the net guy, i'm assuming cross-court return which probably the most common return. OTH - a lobs are potentially easier to run-down so maybe that difference in distance isn't a big deal.

 

[marcl65]

Anyway- For any weak servers out there (or who have partners or teammates who are weak servers) I'd go out and give this a shot.

Doesn't this method assume that a) the net person can handle a ball blasted straight at them and b) the server has a good enough backhand (assuming right-handed) to handle the DTL shot?

When I've played with a weak server (or alternatively against a great returner who blasts the ball DTL), I usually go with the 2-back formation. In my experience it's just as easy to blast a sitter from a weak serve DTL as it is cross court. Of course the requirement here is that at least one of you can run down the drop shot.

 

[Topaz]

Spot, I think this makes a lot of sense. I'm retooling my serve at the moment (because it has been a weak spot since I moved to 3.5) and there are plenty of women who 'whomp' on my serve (even the ones that I think are pretty good!).

I hope I have the chance to try this out soon!

 

[JavierLW]

Doesn't this method assume that a) the net person can handle a ball blasted straight at them and b) the server has a good enough backhand (assuming right-handed) to handle the DTL shot?

When I've played with a weak server (or alternatively against a great returner who blasts the ball DTL), I usually go with the 2-back formation. In my experience it's just as easy to blast a sitter from a weak serve DTL as it is cross court. Of course the requirement here is that at least one of you can run down the drop shot.

I can speak for someone who doesnt necessarily like having the ball blasted right at me at point blank range:

In the Australian formation I am further away from the point of contact so I have more time to intercept it. That's a big advantage to me.

After all if they can blast it at me when Im cross court, they could of blasted it at me when I was right in front of them. As you say it's "just as easy" either way...

With the same guy from my example, everyone else that plays with him plays two back, it rarely works....

At least even in the regular formation, just standing there at the net accomplishes something. You're covering some part of the court at least, and you're a visual impediment.

Sure they may blast it right at you, but that's not really a long term solution, it's risky because you might block it back for an easy winner.

(when we play AGAINST my guy, we actually blast it right at the net guy on purpose sometimes just to encourage them to move back, usually we win easily once they do that)

Before I try any of this junk, if I have a partner who just happens to serve slow, I see if I can mention to them to not worry about it being slow, but to just aim it deep and if they can get it on the inside of the box that will help.

But at least if it's deep that gives me more time to react, if they fall short right directly in front of me that's when it's a huge problem.

 

[fast lefty]

Spot I totally agree with you. I for one hate it when my opponents do the australian formation on me. It definitely causes more service return errors having to go down the line or having to guess which way the net guy may poach. I'm playing mixed doubles tomorrow night and will definitely use the australian formation when my partner serves. It's typically harder for the woman to hold serve and by using this formation I can see how it will help me get involved in the points more easily and cause more errors from our opponents. Thank you for your advice. I'll let you know how it works.

 

[Cindysphinx]

In the Australian formation I am further away from the point of contact so I have more time to intercept it. That's a big advantage to me.

+1.

This is huge. Not only do you have more time if they go right at you, they are hitting a shot they are used to hitting with no one blocking their way. Now there is someone standing where they normally would hit crosscourt. They will probably hit it into the net.

I have one teammate who, when I have my partner shift to Australian when I serve, automatically pulls *her* partner off the net. This is because she knows she won't be able to control her return nearly as well and it might stray toward my partner.

I say play Australian, and don't stop until your opponents show you they can hit these uncomfortable returns.

I advised my entire 6.5 team to learn to play and defend Australian before Districts tomorrow. We will soon see who listened . . . .

 

[Tennisman912]

Spot,

While trying to think outside the box is a good idea, I don’t think Aussie formation will work long term to counter a weak serve. We are again speaking in 3.5 terms as per your original criteria. First, in a standard formation, how often is a 3.5 player hitting a clean winner return via a sharp angle the server cannot get too? Not very often. That sharp angle shot is hard for most to hit consistently well because they need good angle and lots of topspin. The server will get a reasonable shot at most returns. The server is also moving forward (presumably) to volley or at least slowly coming in to hit a groundie off the return. Key point being their weight is moving forward, a very good thing. Also, the net man at the net in the standard position only has to take a step to a step and a half to put away ( or hit) a return that is not well struck. The only shot this net person can’t cover is the sharp angle cross court, which again in my opinion will not be realistic consistently for the average 3.5 player. So the net player has more chances to get involved in the point from the normal starting position. Especially since most players will get big eyes on the weak serve, over swing and be late giving the net person more volleys than you might think.

Switching gears to if you start in the Aussie format, while it looks like you are better off than before you are not IMHO. Here are a few reasons why. First, you are only taking away that sharp angle cross-court angle that would be a clean winner by starting on that side (again a low percentage shot they will miss more than they make). The returner now has a much larger area to hit into which should not be a problem for them off a weak serve, even with the higher net up the line. Second, our server now has to move sideways to get in position to cover the shot on the other half of the court and depending on how good a return it is, may have a lot of ground to cover to get to a good shot up the line. Probably more importantly, because the server is moving more sideways than forward, he is not going to be able to do as much with a shot because his momentum is working against him instead of with him as in the normal position scenario. And as a 3.5, he/she will not have the timing or skill to consistently hurt the other team with his weight moving sideways. The better the return the more sideways their momentum will be carrying them, a bad thing for the server’s team. In any event, pushing or stroking a ball up the line is much easier as the net man is essentially out of position to poach on any ball except a very bad return near the center of the court. Less pressure from the net man equals better returns.

The next problem is now a lob over the net man is easier for the returner because by going cross-court you have more court to hit in to. If the server is moving sideways aggressively to cover the open space up the line, the team is even more susceptible to the lob so any lob over the net man put the returning team firmly in control and will win most points from this scenario. If the server tries to wait a split second before moving cross-court to cover the lob over his partner, he now can’t cover even a decent shot up the line.

The next problem is what if the net man wants to poach from the Aussie position? He has a lot more ground to cover and probably can't get to a good return up the line under the best of circumstances. Second and more importantly, the more sideways his/her momentum, the weaker his poach volley will be. A 3.5 cannot consistently put the ball away if they have their momentum moving sideways. The more sideways their momentum, the worse off they are. What will result is a weak volley most of the time that the other team can put away easily especially because you are now out of position. Another example of how the Aussie position more effectively takes the net man out of the point. This scenario is very prevalent no matter the starting position of the net man but is made worse in the Aussie formation because they have more ground to cover to hit an effective volley.

The last problem is how do you stop the weak serve being blasted at the net man in the Aussie formation? You have made this shot easier for the returners because they can go at the net man aggressively over the lower part of the net. So unless the net person is a great volleyer, he will soon be frustrated and missing more than ever. This is what I would do first until the net man showed he could handle shots right at him. If by chance he/she is a great volleyer, you still have plenty of the above options to hurt the serving team and as a bonus, take away the good volleying ability of the net person in the process, just putting things even more in the returner’s favor.

For these reasons, I believe you are better off in the regular starting positions. I am not saying don’t vary things and you should try anything you can think of to counter your partner’s weak serve. But against a decent, or more importantly smart team, you are in big trouble if your partner’s serve is very weak.

Best of luck. Sorry that is long. Just another point of view.

TM

 

[Cindysphinx]

Spot,

While trying to think outside the box is a good idea, I don’t think Aussie formation will work long term to counter a weak serve. We are again speaking in 3.5 terms as per your original criteria. First, in a standard formation, how often is a 3.5 player hitting a clean winner return via a sharp angle the server cannot get too? Not very often. That sharp angle shot is hard for most to hit consistently well because they need good angle and lots of topspin. The server will get a reasonable shot at most returns. The server is also moving forward (presumably) to volley or at least slowly coming in to hit a groundie off the return. Key point being their weight is moving forward, a very good thing.

A couple of things.

First, the two statements in bold contradict each other for the 3.5 play I see, for both men and women. The servers are not coming to net off of their serves. This is particularly so for weak servers, and that is who we are discussing.

Second, the weak server often is troubled by that strong crosscourt return. Sometimes it is a drop shot. Sometimes it is deep with pace. Sometimes it is a DTL pass or blast at the net player. And sometimes (but less often) is is your garden variety topspin sharp angle. Mobility can be an issue at 3.5, so even if some of these shots are not outright winners, they can force the server to miss that second ball.

 

[Topaz]

^^^I wouldn't necessarily say that.

I know, personally, that I don't tend to follow my serves in, my sometimes I certainly do, and I usually will if I get to smack a good return.

I've played against plenty of teams that charge the net regularly at 3.5.

 

[spot]

tennisman- maybe your experience is different watching 3.5's of weak servers but what I see is that the cross court return is virtually ceded to the other team and the netperson is often completely irrelevant.

If you think its tougher to poach from the Australian formation then I don't think you ahve tried to do it much. So often when I go australian the other team is taken out of their comfort zone returning and will end up taking a lot off the ball because they have to go over the higher part of the net to the shorter court. They know they are being "given" the down the line return and I think its a great opportunity to jump in. I don't at all get why you would think its harder to poach- maybe you are setting up too far away from the middle? I tend to set up right on the center line and if the other team can hit a wicked crosscourt angle basically across my nose then more power to them. I want to see them hit that shot.

And I really don't understand the talk of the server having to cover more court. In the standard formation the returner has all sorts of angle to work with that the server has to cover, in australian that angle is taken away and the returner pretty much has to go directly back towards the server. It can be a problem for some players who are used to hitting and watching the ball instead of moving into place but once again thats just becuase currently they don't play Australian much. Once people got used to serving and then sliding over I think there is less court to cover.

And Australian is vulnerable to the crosscourt lob. But think about that- you are forcing a lob return off of a weak serve. Right there thats an advantage over the returner being able to attack crosscourt. With a weak server you are usually just trying to neutralize the returner's advantage- getting a lob out of that situation is not a poor outcome.

As far as the netman getting blasted? Why is that different in standard formation. I think its easier to handle a blasted ball at the net in Australian. To me if the other team is giving you balls that you cannot handle at the net in Australian then you should probably be playing 2 back. The reason to be at the net is because its advantageous for your team- if you aren't an asset at the net off that serve then you probably need to go back. But once again I don't see why this is an advantage of the standard formation.

 

[Tennisman912]

Cindy,

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, this is just another point of view. Let me clarify a few points. First, let me comment in regards to the apparent contradiction. First, even a 3.5 player is better off getting to the net in a point than staying back. As they improve it generally becomes more important, it is easier to put a ball away at the net than the baseline and you have many more angles to exploit at the net as compared to the baseline. Give me a good 3.5 doubles match and my money is on the team that gets to the net more often because they will probably win, even without top-notch volleys. Not always of course, but the percentages are more in their favor. And the percentages are what this is all about. Of course if they can’t volley or won’t volley this is all moot and we know they won’t be moving up any time soon, especially in doubles. I see a fair amount of 3.5 players at least trying to get the net. Second, even if they are not coming into the net, they want to be moving a bit forward because the average 3.5 return is not pasting the baseline with returns so they inevitably have to come in a bit most of the time to hit a return, even off a weak serve. So in my opinion, they are coming forward a bit in any case if they are starting in the normal position.

Regarding the second point. If a server is troubled by a good cross court return (in standard formation), they have no chance to do anything with a ball when they have to move sideways if they are playing in the Aussie format. The key word in your second paragraph is sometimes. Sometimes a drop shot, sometimes deep, etc. Think percentage tennis. By moving forward at least a little or coming into net, you can cover almost every possibility except a great deep return at your feet. That you will miss consistently at 3.5. But I believe you are overestimating how often a 3.5 is going to hit a good deep return within a foot of the baseline (not consistently in my opinion). So you have 3 chances to hit a decent return and only one situation that will hurt you (the very deep return). Regarding drop shots, they aren’t necessarily not getting to drop shots because they are great drop shots, they are not getting them because they are standing flat footed at the baseline and react very slowly. If they are moving forward even a little, they will get to many more drop shots. Regarding a garden-variety topspin sharp angle, again IMHO, you are overestimating how consistently a 3.5 can do this (unless this is there favorite shot but again think percentages, most cannot do it consistently). Exactly because mobility is an issue you need to be moving forward to help end the point as quickly and expeditiously as possible. So in my opinion, you want to be moving forward at least a bit. Now as you say, if they can’t handle a ball in front of them (for the most part) from a standard formation, if they start Aussie and have to move cross court (with limited mobility as stated) first then try to hit a shot, they are worse off in my opinion.

Notice how often you miss balls even at the net when your momentum is moving sideways as opposed to forward (let along at the baseline). You will be surprised how often it is. Remember a while back when I was a bit skeptical about how accurate your serving was and you went out and realized you didn’t have near the control of the serve placement as you thought? I believe this is the same type of situation. I see a lot of 4.0s (computer rated) miss volleys above the net with their momentum moving sideways instead of forward. By misses I mean they may get it back in play but it is so weak as to effectively end the point for their team. I mean they aren’t consistently putting the ball away in these situations.

My only point was I believe you are better off in the standard formation as opposed to Aussie most of the time for the above reasons. Again, just my opinion and not any more valid than yours. I welcome all feedback even if it is to say I am crazy.

TM

 

[Tennisman912]

Spot,

First as I said with Cindy, this is just my opinion and not necessarily the only line of thinking on the subject. In reverse order of your comments here we go. I agree that if they can’t handle the volleys at the net in either position they won’t be there long. But you can consistently hit a ball at the net man consistently harder in Aussie because you are going crosscourt over the lowest part of the net as opposed to the more normal up the line position over the higher part of the net. Unless they are an exceptional volleyer (at 3.5 not likely), they won’t be able to handle pace at them in either position but it will be worse in the Aussie position IMHO for the above reason. I also agree that the net person is irrelevant with a weak server and decent returners, I just think he is worse off in Aussie.

Regarding the crosscourt lob return against Aussie formation as an advantage and a good thing if serving is faulty logic in my opinion. Don’t confuse the fact that the lob is a weak return compared to one they hit aggressively. You are worse off in almost any scenario if the return gets over the net man’s head. A lob over the net man is giving the returners’ the advantage in the point because both serving team players are now on the same side and chances are the lob is not going to be consistently excellent. Also a typical 3.5 team is not going to communicate and have the net man move to cover the now wide-open court and if they do, they won’t get in position consistently fast enough to close that gap. So unless the lob is consistently excellent, the point is consistently over. The other problem is this assumes the server just stood there hoping to get a lob (not necessarily smart). If the server is moving sideways to cover the up the line shot and gets the lob, they have to change direction and get back and then hit a good lob with their momentum probably moving sideways instead of forward (not good IMHO). If the server is aggressively coming up the line into the net and gets a lob, the point is probably over and the same scenario as just moving sideways is exacerbated in this instance.. So in most situations, the lob is great percentage play. Also remember, if the server stays put hoping for the lob, it won’t be long before the returners start hitting that shot up the line instead of the lob and again, you are in big trouble.

The server has to cover more ground in the Aussie formation vs. the standard for a couple of reasons. First in the standard formation, he just has to move forward for the most part, even if he gets that sharp angle crosscourt he is still moving more forward than sideways which is very important. (unless a very sharp angle return happens which again will not consistently happen at 3.5) But in the Aussie formation he has to move more sideways to cover up the line that is now vacated by the net man in Aussie position. Off a weak serve I expect the returner to be able to at least push the ball up the line effectively, even though it is the higher part of the net. But more importantly, you momentum is moving more sideways than forward, which means you are going to be hitting a weaker shot in return (see Cindy comments above). A 3.5 moving sideways instead of forward cannot get enough on the shot to hurt their opponents consistently IMHO. Pay attention to your play and you will see this. If the returners are good, now the server has to cover a respectable shot up the line and a lob over the net man in Aussie. You have also frozen out the net man because the returners will either hit a decent shot up the line or a lob over the net man. The server can’t effectively cover both IMHO.

Regarding that it is easier to pouch from Aussie I again disagree. You have too much court to cover. Only a bad team is taken out of their comfort zone or they don’t understand how to use the court geometry and their position to their advantage when they see someone in Aussie. Yes, they are given the shot up the line by your formation (as you stated) over the higher part of the net but that is not a particularly tough shot against a weak serve. It is a great opportunity for you to jump in and lose the point IMHO. From your Aussie position at net, you need to move 3 good steps to cover a decent shot up the line (which is likely against a weak serve). On a weak serve, you must leave pretty early to cover that much court. Even if you get there your momentum is moving very sideways and you won’t do much with the volley but get it back in play, then you are out of position and your opponents will hit the sitter to the open court depending on what your partner did while this was happening. In my opinion, no 3.5 (or 4.0 at least) can cover that much court AND hit an effective volley consistently. If you leave early, the weak serve gives them time to hit behind you relatively easily. From the standard net position, you can take one step to cover up your line, a step to a step and a half (at most 2 steps) to cover a shot up the middle so the only shot you can’t get to is that sharp angle cross court which as mentioned above, it not a realistic, consistent shot for a typical 3.5. I hope you can see how the percentages are in your favor by not being in Aussie IMHO.

Does this make sense to you? If the returner is smart, he/she will just pick their spot, hit the shot and ignore the net person all together. Just my opinion here but I welcome your input. This is so much easier to explain in person, especially showing it to you on the court.

TM

 

[Cindysphinx]

^^^I wouldn't necessarily say that.

I know, personally, that I don't tend to follow my serves in, my sometimes I certainly do, and I usually will if I get to smack a good return.

I've played against plenty of teams that charge the net regularly at 3.5.

I just watched six matches of 6.5 ladies doubles today at Districts.

I would say the servers followed their serves to net about 4% of the time. If that.

Players did come to net, but it tended to be following their returns or in response to something that occurred in the rally. But still, I'd say the percentage of points finished with two players at net was below 50%.

 

[Tennisman912]

Cindy,

May I suggest you go watch the 4.5 ladies play. How many of them come in? Watch the 4.5 men. How many of them come in consistently? The answer to both is the majority of the time. My point being if that 3.0 or 3.5 lady or guy won’t or can’t come in to the net, they will have a much harder time moving up the ranks than the ones who will learn to come in more consistently. Just because most of the people you see don’t come in doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or that they don’t in other areas. The ones who won’t come in just don’t move up and stay at 3.5 their whole career.

If I am not mistaken, I believe you played some 4.0 doubles on occasion as well if memory serves. I am sure you noticed and remember how much more frequently they came into the net and what happened when your team stayed back. So based on the above, you have to decide if learning to come in consistently is in your long term best interest. Just a few things to think about from another point of view.

Good tennis and have a great weekend all

TM

 

[Cindysphinx]

I agree, I really do.

But Spot was talking about 3.5 level play. At that level, I think Spot's idea makes sense.

I guess I'd say that playing Australian is a mighty nice way to win some points, games or even matches when you haven't yet honed your S&V to the 4.0/4.5 level.

 

[10sguy]

+1.

I advised my entire 6.5 team to learn to play and defend Australian before Districts tomorrow. We will soon see who listened . . . .

One days notice "to learn to play/defend Australian before Districts tomorrow?"

. . . you jest!

 

[fast lefty]

Spot!! Thank you so much for this thread. I just played a 8.0 mixed doubles match last night and with both the opponents being balanced at 4.0. We won 6-3, 6-2. We played traditional for the 1st set and til the 2nd set score was 2-1 with my female partner serving. My partner had lost serve 2 times up to this point in the match so I decided to do the australian formation. We won the first game at love and the second we won at 15. So we played a total of 9 points with australian and got 4 service return errors and 2 putaways by me at the net. I am now a true believer that this works after experiencing it first hand!! Still don't know yet if I should do it the whole match or if it would just be a nice changeup to do sometimes. Just wanted to let everyone knows that it does work, especially in mixed doubles with a weak server.

 

[Topaz]

I just watched six matches of 6.5 ladies doubles today at Districts.

I would say the servers followed their serves to net about 4% of the time. If that.

Players did come to net, but it tended to be following their returns or in response to something that occurred in the rally. But still, I'd say the percentage of points finished with two players at net was below 50%.

Cindy, how did it go? We want some updates!!!

 

[Cindysphinx]

One days notice "to learn to play/defend Australian before Districts tomorrow?"

. . . you jest!

No, I told them months ago, and some of us practiced it during recent team practices.

We did go to Districts, and none of my teammates played Australian for even one point. Two teams in particular should have tried it, and these are teams who learned to do it in team practice. At Districts, there were sets where they fell behind early and Australian might have been a nice way to break the momentum of the other team. They lost those sets.

I watched parts of other matches also, men and women. I saw no formation other than the traditional one.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Cindy, how did it go? We want some updates!!!

I think we are probably eliminated.

In our first match, we were playing the tougher team. On Court One, I had my strongest 3.5 with my weakest 3.0. I certainly wouldn't have wanted that pairing (because I believe strong plays best with strong and weak plays best with weak), but we are so riddled with injuries and other problems that this was all I could do. They lost.

On Court Two, I had my undefeated doubles team who was on an 11-match winning streak dating back to early 2008. They lost 7-6, 6-7, 1-0.

On Court Three, we had an easy win.

Then we played our second match and swept.

Trouble is, we now need help to advance. We need the team we swept to beat the team that beat us. I see no way this will happen, especially since the team we swept can do the math and see that they are eliminated.

So we are out, probably.

 

[Tennisman912]

Cindy,

I am aware we are talking about 3.5 tennis. But my point about watching those farther up the food chain should give you a better idea what skills you need to move up from your current level. So the 3.5s who are content to always stay back and think not moving in to the net or moving in to hit a shorter ball is ok and standard practice is the player who stays at 3.5 for the rest of their career. The player who tries to be more aggressive and works on the skills they need to move up will do so over time. Exactly because you haven’t honed your skills to the higher levels is why you really need to think about what you are doing and why. My only goal was to get everyone to think about this from a different angle.

That is too bad about districts Cindy. It is not over till the fat lady sings so you never know what will happen if you hang in there.

TM

 

[spot]

If the returner is smart, he/she will just pick their spot, hit the shot and ignore the net person all together

I think that the crux of the argument is right here. If you are going to cede a return to the other team I'd strongly prefer to take away the high percentage crosscourt return and make the returner hit the tougher shot.

And I couldn't disagree any more with saying that 3.5's should play like 4.5s or pros. There are massive differences in skillsets and the approach will be different. Telling people who don't have overheads to crash the net is suicide as one example. And to me this is another one- there is a REASON why the netperson usually starts out directly opposite the returner- its because the net person is there to put away any weak returns. If a server isn't generating any weak returns then i think the netperson woudl be far more useful taking away the preferred return of the other team.

 

[Cindysphinx]

The fat lady sang, and we are out.

Still, I have to give props to the team we were hoping would pull off the upset. They fielded a strong line-up and lost 1-2. The score on one of their losing courts was 6-7, 5-7. They most definitely didn't roll over, and once again we lost out on Districts by an eyelash.

 

[Nellie]

So how do you keep from getting hit as the net-person by a stinging cross court return?

 

[spot]

How do you keep from getting hit as the netperson in the standard formation when you are closer to the ball? I can see the argument for going 2 back as opposed to Australian but I don't see why the netperson is at more of a risk in australian compared to the standard formation.

 

[CrocodileRock]

Nice thread spot. I think that you are well, "spot-on". Another aspect that no one else seems to have touched on is that a weak server is likely to have strong groundstrokes, since if someone's serves *and* groundstrokes are weak, they are probably in the wrong level. One of my doubles partners is a classic example. His serve is the weakest I've ever seen at our level (4.0), but his groundstrokes are some of the best. All things considered, he's a pretty good 4.0. A stronger serve would make him 4.5. Anyway, I think I'll bring this up next time we play. I'd love to not only force the opponents to hit the harder DTL shot, but also hit it to his forehand. Our odds of winning the point go up dramatically. The other thing I like about Aussie is like Cindy said, so few use it, so part of a returner's effort is spent trying to get used to it, and less is spent hitting the ball well.

So spot, how about starting some other threads with your nonconventional strategies?

 

[Tennisman912]

Spot,

I suggested you think like a higher-level player, not that you could play like it. I never told anyone to willy nilly crash the net like a madmen. I suggested they just try to move forward more than just staying at the baseline. If they don’t aggressively attack toward the net (i.e. come in too far) they are still back far enough to handle an overhead. If they have a weak overhead they should practice it until it is not weak. You can’t avoid your weaker shots without trying to improve them and expect to get better.

And you said, “there is a REASON why the netperson usually starts out directly opposite the returner ***.If the server isn’t generating weak returns then I think the netperson is more useful taking away the preferred return of the other team.”

While yes the net is lower crosscourt the reason they return cross court is because that is where the net person is not. If the net person is in Aussie, their preferred return is up the line, AWAY from where the net man is. Granted the net is slightly higher here but I don’t think that is that tough of a shot for a 3.5 to execute well off a weak serve, especially to their stronger stroke they are running around to hit on the weak serve. My point is the net man is effectively out of the point on a weak serve in either position but now the server has more work to do to cover the opening as explained above.

I tried to give an alternate viewpoint but I have obviously failed miserably in getting that point across. Do whatever is best for you and your game. All the best.

There is always next season Cindy.

TM