NTRP and Mixed League

Chalkdust

Professional
The problem is if you include mixed matches, people will just throw mixed matches to save their same gender leagues.

I would rather people cheat in mixed than the same gender leagues. It's the lesser of the evils.
Indeed, but...
What they could do is calculate ratings for both same gender and mixed, which they probably do already... and then have your official rating be the larger of the two.
Then it doesn't work to tank either to get a low rating for the other.
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
As a 7.0 captain, I’m skeptical that ratings, especially adult ratings, tell the correct story when looking at a mixed match. A 4.0M - 3.0W pair can be very strong or mediocre, and it almost completely depends on the players. Let’s assume that both players are solid for their levels but neither is a self-rated ringer. If the woman is a 3.0 because she is slow and unathletic but plays steady womens’ 3.0 doubles, she will be a liability for most 4.0 partners unless he is really fast and can cover 80% of the court while still making decent shots. A guy who is 4.0 for reasons other than extreme speed & defensive skills can still easily be beaten by two decent 3.5s when paired with her. If the woman is athletic and likes pace but is inconsistent, she probably gets some flak on the ladies’ teams for missing easy balls and overhitting. But she will still be a much bigger asset to most mixed doubles matches because she won’t be as fazed by playing against guys and it’s easier for her to play against pace than generate pace. She can fit with a wider range of 4.0 men, and frustrate her opponents who will be surprised that they can’t just hit her off the court.
 

Creighton

Professional
Indeed, but...
What they could do is calculate ratings for both same gender and mixed, which they probably do already... and then have your official rating be the larger of the two.
Then it doesn't work to tank either to get a low rating for the other.

Agreed. That would be best.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Indeed, but...
What they could do is calculate ratings for both same gender and mixed, which they probably do already... and then have your official rating be the larger of the two.
Then it doesn't work to tank either to get a low rating for the other.

This would be better then the current situation. But everyone’s rating will be less accurate. Inaccurate ratings are a big problem in my area.
Usta should simply use both in a persons rating. If they did that and someone played 20 mixed doubles then, 3 non mixed doubles wouldn’t negate all of those games.
But to make that correction they really need a gender neutral rating system.
Without it mixed doubles will always be a mess anyway.

But before that will happen usta needs to care about adult rec tennis. So nothing is likely to change.
 

silverwyvern4

Semi-Pro
There's another guy on their teams who was a 3.5 who regularly goes undefeated in mixed 6.0 to 8.0 (going 10-0, 9-0, etc) who last year went 0-3 at 3.5, getting bageled in every match. He's the team captain btw. USTA just rewarded his hard efforts with a 3.0A.

He's been tanking for over 10 years. I guess he's just smart enough not to join their tri-level teams
Are 3.0s allowed to play 8.0 with a 4.5 or 4.0 partner?
 
Interesting. It looks like Tri-level and men's combo are not supposed to count for ratings in NorCal (at least TR does not think they count). So if USTA bumped them up manually based on results from those leagues it would seem to go against their written policy. Maybe they only do that in specific cases where players are on some kind of prior-offender or grievance list.

Then the next question is whether mixed league results alone would be enough for USTA to make a similar "manual" bump-up decision? Based on your second example, maybe not.
If this guy doesn’t have a list of grievances a mile long I’d be blown away
 

Chalkdust

Professional
Usta should simply use both in a persons rating. If they did that and someone played 20 mixed doubles then, 3 non mixed doubles wouldn’t negate all of those games.
Problem is that you are assuming all matches are being played in good faith.
Unfortunately this is not always true; what you are proposing opens the door to using mixed as a way to manage one's overall rating.
And it would absolutely happen. Many players focus on same-gender leagues and could care less about mixed, and this would provide an easy way to keep their rating under control - all they have to do is play and tank some mixed matches.
So the worrisome scenario isn't 20 mixed matches and 3 non-mixed, it's 10-15 good same gender results, and then 5-10 lopsided mixed destructions to keep from getting bumped up.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Usta should simply use both in a persons rating. If they did that and someone played 20 mixed doubles then, 3 non mixed doubles wouldn’t negate all of those games.

Problem is that you are assuming all matches are being played in good faith.
Unfortunately this is not always true; what you are proposing opens the door to using mixed as a way to manage one's overall rating.
And it would absolutely happen. Many players focus on same-gender leagues and could care less about mixed, and this would provide an easy way to keep their rating under control - all they have to do is play and tank some mixed matches.
So the worrisome scenario isn't 20 mixed matches and 3 non-mixed, it's 10-15 good same gender results, and then 5-10 lopsided mixed destructions to keep from getting bumped up.
@Chalkdust - the problem with your excellent reasoning is that it is 157th time it was pointed out to @Moon Shooter - yet he still somehow believes that using mixed results for ratings would be a good idea.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Problem is that you are assuming all matches are being played in good faith.

I don't assume that. But if someone is going to play in bad faith and create teams just to throw matches there is no way to prevent it. Your solution would just mean that someone would create teams for the type of play they want to sandbag in.

The thing is this person is presumably trying to win many mixed matches. The current system allows him to completely ignore all those matches and play 3 matches in a different system to circumvent them. We both agree that is stupid.

You say well take the higher of the two. I think that is better than the current system. But the problem is the median player only plays like 6 matches a year. So if someone plays 3 of each their entire rating is based on three matches. And it will be the better 3 matches as opposed to the average of the 6. With our current system where men and women have entirely different rating systems this will drastically reduce the accuracy.

My point is that it would be better to have all those matches where he is trying to win count.

If you really want to address sandbagging then maybe throw out the lowest performance rating matches or something. I think Schmke recommended something like that in the past. I don't remember the specifics but for example if someone plays less than 10 matches throw out the lowest performance rating. If they play over 10 then throw out the lowest 2. or something like that.

Unfortunately this is not always true; what you are proposing opens the door to using mixed as a way to manage one's overall rating.
And it would absolutely happen.

I don't deny it. But if people want to throw matches you can't get around it. And I would point out that in my experience women are far less likely to sandbag then men. You can't just sandbag singles matches in mixed doubles. You have to have a female player that is ok with you tanking her rating. I suppose there are areas with women like that but I don't think that would be easy in my area.

Of course if the lower rating didn't effect the females actual rating it would be easier to find women willing to go along with you throwing mixed matches.

Many players focus on same-gender leagues and could care less about mixed, and this would provide an easy way to keep their rating under control - all they have to do is play and tank some mixed matches.
So the worrisome scenario isn't 20 mixed matches and 3 non-mixed, it's 10-15 good same gender results, and then 5-10 lopsided mixed destructions to keep from getting bumped up.

I don't claim my experience applies everywhere. But I have not heard the stories of female teams sandbagging like I hear about the men. I am not sure how easy it would be to get women to sand bag with you. At least with mixed you have to get someone else to be fine with it, as opposed to same gender where the sandbagger can play singles.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
I don't assume that. But if someone is going to play in bad faith and create teams just to throw matches there is no way to prevent it. Your solution would just mean that someone would create teams for the type of play they want to sandbag in.

The thing is this person is presumably trying to win many mixed matches. The current system allows him to completely ignore all those matches and play 3 matches in a different system to circumvent them. We both agree that is stupid.

You say well take the higher of the two. I think that is better than the current system. But the problem is the median player only plays like 6 matches a year. So if someone plays 3 of each their entire rating is based on three matches. And it will be the better 3 matches as opposed to the average of the 6. With our current system where men and women have entirely different rating systems this will drastically reduce the accuracy.

My point is that it would be better to have all those matches where he is trying to win count.

If you really want to address sandbagging then maybe throw out the lowest performance rating matches or something. I think Schmke recommended something like that in the past. I don't remember the specifics but for example if someone plays less than 10 matches throw out the lowest performance rating. If they play over 10 then throw out the lowest 2. or something like that.



I don't deny it. But if people want to throw matches you can't get around it. And I would point out that in my experience women are far less likely to sandbag then men. You can't just sandbag singles matches in mixed doubles. You have to have a female player that is ok with you tanking her rating. I suppose there are areas with women like that but I don't think that would be easy in my area.

Of course if the lower rating didn't effect the females actual rating it would be easier to find women willing to go along with you throwing mixed matches.



I don't claim my experience applies everywhere. But I have not heard the stories of female teams sandbagging like I hear about the men. I am not sure how easy it would be to get women to sand bag with you. At least with mixed you have to get someone else to be fine with it, as opposed to same gender where the sandbagger can play singles.
I'm not following your reasoning, so perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

For the sake of clarity, this is what I am asserting:
1. More people care about same gender leagues than mixed, in terms of perceived 'prestige'
2. Therefore, a significant number of people would be willing to throw mixed matches as a way to manage their overall rating, were this an option
3. Your suggestion of including mixed results in the overall rating makes this an option

Now of course there are other ways to manage ones rating, but require patience and creativity.
This option would just make it much easier.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I'm not following your reasoning, so perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

For the sake of clarity, this is what I am asserting:
1. More people care about same gender leagues than mixed, in terms of perceived 'prestige'

that could be but plenty of people in my area play no single gender and obviously this thread is dealing with people who have decided to game the mixed league. So it does happen often. And combining the rating would mean that you would simply have more data to overcome by sandbagging. So the person would have to sand bag more matches to have the same effect on their rating.


2. Therefore, a significant number of people would be willing to throw mixed matches as a way to manage their overall rating, were this an option


Not as many women sandbag. And by and large other players maybe especially women don’t want to play with a guy whose goal is to tank his and her rating. Because it is “mixed doubles”. Not only would it be a bad choice for tanking because you would have to have a partner but you would also have to have a female partner.



3. Your suggestion of including mixed results in the overall rating makes this an option

yes but mixed doubles would be a poor choice for people to try to tank their rating for the reasons given above.

Now of course there are other ways to manage ones rating, but require patience and creativity.
This option would just make it much easier.

No it’s harder because you will either **** off your partner if you don’t tell her your plan before. Or you need to find some female player willing to cheat in this way as well. Socially that would be difficult. Most likely the sand bagging would continue to happen as it does as described. Guys will throw their singles matches or guys will partner with other guys and throw matches. But now not only will they need to overcome all the same gender matches theylegitimately played but they would also have to overcome the mixed doubles matches they played.

Women don’t want to sandbag their rating as often as men. I do t even recall anyone talking about a female team sandbagging. I’m not saying it never happened but it seems rare compared to all the stories of men doing this.
Here are a few more reasons a gender neutral and universal rating system would reduce sandbagging:

 

Creighton

Professional
I'm not following your reasoning, so perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

For the sake of clarity, this is what I am asserting:
1. More people care about same gender leagues than mixed, in terms of perceived 'prestige'
2. Therefore, a significant number of people would be willing to throw mixed matches as a way to manage their overall rating, were this an option
3. Your suggestion of including mixed results in the overall rating makes this an option

Now of course there are other ways to manage ones rating, but require patience and creativity.
This option would just make it much easier.

At this point, Moonie just refuses to admit he's wrong.

No it’s harder because you will either **** off your partner if you don’t tell her your plan before. Or you need to find some female player willing to cheat in this way as well. Socially that would be difficult.


lol. If I'm playing with a partner 1.5 levels below me, I can completely control the narrative of the match and make them have fun while also getting our butt beat.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
At this point, Moonie just refuses to admit h




lol. If I'm playing with a partner 1.5 levels below me, I can completely control the narrative of the match and make them have fun while also getting our butt beat.

Yeah the women I play with don’t have fun having their ratings get tanked because some 3.5 guy wants a double bagel for the glory of some 40 and over team. And they are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped.
 

Creighton

Professional
Yeah the women I play with don’t have fun having their ratings get tanked because some 3.5 guy wants a double bagel for the glory of some 40 and over team. And they are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped.

Of course, the players in your area are always different than the rest of the usta playing population.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Of course, the players in your area are always different than the rest of the usta playing population.

I don't think so. But people can decide for themselves if the women they play usta mixed with would like to have their ratings tanked by some 3.5 or 4.0 male who wants to sandbag his same gender league.
 

Creighton

Professional
I don't think so. But people can decide for themselves if the women they play usta mixed with would like to have their ratings tanked by some 3.5 or 4.0 male who wants to sandbag his same gender league.

My rating is currently being tanked by my captain just playing me with the worst guys on the team.

None of my partners are complaining about playing with me. They're actually wanting to play again with me.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
My rating is currently being tanked by my captain just playing me with the worst guys on the team.

I thought you understood the ratings a bit better than this comment suggests.

Your rating will go down if your partner's dynamic rating is inflated. Your rating will go up if your partner's rating is deflated. If your partner's rating is accurate then you playing them will not tank your rating. It doesn't matter what their actual skill level is it only matters how accurately their skill level is reflected in their rating.

None of my partners are complaining about playing with me. They're actually wanting to play again with me.

Lots of players want to play with stronger players so they win. But that does not mean playing with stronger players will help their rating or tank their rating. A decent way to make sure a self rated player avoids a dq is to pair him with a real high rated player and play them on a low court. Pairing him with a low skill player whose rating is accurate is a good way to get him DQed.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Yeah the women I play with don’t have fun having their ratings get tanked because some 3.5 guy wants a double bagel for the glory of some 40 and over team. And they are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped.
so you are saying that _the women in your area_ are perfectly fine with a male player taking over pretty much entire court and hitting 90% of the balls, and hitting those balls exclusively to the opposing female player. Because, since he is the most skilled player, that is the optimal way to actually win a match (i.e. _not_ to sandbag). Sounds like fun for all involved. :rolleyes:
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
so you are saying that _the women in your area_ are perfectly fine with a male player taking over pretty much entire court and hitting 90% of the balls, and hitting those balls exclusively to the opposing female player. Because, since he is the most skilled player, that is the optimal way to actually win a match (i.e. _not_ to sandbag). Sounds like fun for all involved. :rolleyes:


No that is not what I wrote means.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
No that is not what I wrote means.
Please elaborate then what you wrote means. My reasoning is as follows - maybe you can clarify where it is wrong.

if "they [i.e. the women] are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped." then it implies that
  1. they want to win by as large of a margin as possible because that will improve the chance of getting bumped. I think we can agree on that one, right?
  2. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible. Which means that the female partner does not get to hit too much because the male player should and will cover 4/5ths of the court. Don't you agree with that?
  3. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible toward the opponent's pair less skilled player - which most often is a female. Don't you agree with that?
if male player does not do #2 or #3 above then he is _not_ playing to the best of his ability. Which, according to what you wrote, is not OK with women in your area. I've concluded then that those women insist on male players to do #1 and #2, which in practice then means that female partner of a strongest male player on the court does not get to hit many balls, and the opposing female player (assuming she is the weakest) gets all the balls directed to her. And if that happens on the court then it is hard to see how it is any fun. But of course, _in your area_ the concept of fun on court is/may be different than anywhere else....... :)
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Please elaborate then what you wrote means. My reasoning is as follows - maybe you can clarify where it is wrong.

if "they [i.e. the women] are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped." then it implies that
  1. they want to win by as large of a margin as possible because that will improve the chance of getting bumped. I think we can agree on that one, right?

Yes agreed.
2. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible. Which means that the female partner does not get to hit too much because the male player should and will cover 4/5ths of the court. Don't you agree with that?

As "possible" might be a stretch. I mean as a 3.0 male I may have an easy overhead at the net that I will take, even though it is "possible" I could leave to to my 5.0 or 4.5 female partner to take as a groundstroke. But I definitely agree that the worse player should take a back seat. See my comments in the thread where someone is saying they will be playing with some better players in mixed doubles.

3. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible toward the opponent's pair less skilled player - which most often is a female. Don't you agree with that?

Again as many "as possible" might be a stretch but sure the weaker player should let the better player play the ball. And yes the better player is often the the male player but not always. I have played as a 3.0 with a 3.5A female in a 7.0 league and I would not say I was clearly better than her. I think the other side assumed that and paid for their assumption when they realized she could volley very well.

If I were to be super aggressive going for all the volleys and not letting her play that would not help either of our ratings.

if male player does not do #2 or #3 above then he is _not_ playing to the best of his ability.

This is where you resort to oversimplification. No the optimal strategy in doubles is absolutely not that the male should try to hit any ball possible regardless of his skill level relative to his partner. And yes mixed doubles even with the wonky USTA ratings can still have situations where the female player is more skilled than the male player.

Which, according to what you wrote, is not OK with women in your area. I've concluded then that those women insist on male players to do #1 and #2, which in practice then means that female partner of a strongest male player on the court does not get to hit many balls, and the opposing female player (assuming she is the weakest) gets all the balls directed to her. And if that happens on the court then it is hard to see how it is any fun. But of course, _in your area_ the concept of fun on court is/may be different than anywhere else....... :)

You pile assumption on top of assumption that I do not necessarily make. Plus all the assumptions you make are caused by USTA having 2 separate rating systems for men and women - which I say needs to be corrected. If the rating systems are truly unified then mixed doubles will not have any of the weirdness you describe. But even as bad as it currently is, it is not the case that the team will always be best served rating wise by the male player trying to hit every ball he possibly can. Sometimes the female player (even in the current separate rating system that I do not advocate) is the better player or at least as good.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I have played as a 3.0 with a 3.5A female in a 7.0 league and I would not say I was clearly better than her. I think the other side assumed that and paid for their assumption when they realized she could volley very well.
[...]
If I were to be super aggressive going for all the volleys and not letting her play that would not help either of our ratings.
[...]
This is where you resort to oversimplification. No the optimal strategy in doubles is absolutely not that the male should try to hit any ball possible regardless of his skill level relative to his partner. And yes mixed doubles even with the wonky USTA ratings can still have situations where the female player is more skilled than the male player.
[...]
You pile assumption on top of assumption that I do not necessarily make.
I'm not sure what to tell you. Arguing with you is really difficult. Why would you even say any of the above after I _clearly stated_:
[...]
  1. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible. Which means that the female partner does not get to hit too much because the male player should and will cover 4/5ths of the court. Don't you agree with that?
[...]

of course you can find instances here and there where male is not the most skilled part of a mixed pair. But in majority of cases the male _is_ the strongest one. And if you want a change in rating logic (i.e. have mixed results included) then that change should benefit the correctness of the rating _in most cases_ . So your entire post is essentially saying the opposite - that your idea of including mixed results in rating would only make it better in a very small percentage of cases (at most).
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure what to tell you. Arguing with you is really difficult. Why would you even say any of the above after I _clearly stated_:


of course you can find instances here and there where male is not the most skilled part of a mixed pair. But in majority of cases the male _is_ the strongest one. And if you want a change in rating logic (i.e. have mixed results included) then that change should benefit the correctness of the rating _in most cases_ . So your entire post is essentially saying the opposite - that your idea of including mixed results in rating would only make it better in a very small percentage of cases (at most).

1) The rating should be gender neutral. And 2) Usta should allow some coed play so the ratings are accurate between men and women. And 3) usta should include mixed matches in your rating. If usta did this and you tried to tank matches in mixed doubles matches so you could win some same gender league the women I know would not be happy with you as a partner. That does not at all mean I am saying what you claimed in post 272.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Please elaborate then what you wrote means. My reasoning is as follows - maybe you can clarify where it is wrong.

if "they [i.e. the women] are not so stupid that they can’t see playing with you tanks their rating and kills their chances of getting bumped." then it implies that
  1. they want to win by as large of a margin as possible because that will improve the chance of getting bumped. I think we can agree on that one, right?
  2. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible. Which means that the female partner does not get to hit too much because the male player should and will cover 4/5ths of the court. Don't you agree with that?
  3. when the male player is the most skilled player on the court then the best strategy for that male player is to hit as many balls as possible toward the opponent's pair less skilled player - which most often is a female. Don't you agree with that?
if male player does not do #2 or #3 above then he is _not_ playing to the best of his ability. Which, according to what you wrote, is not OK with women in your area. I've concluded then that those women insist on male players to do #1 and #2, which in practice then means that female partner of a strongest male player on the court does not get to hit many balls, and the opposing female player (assuming she is the weakest) gets all the balls directed to her. And if that happens on the court then it is hard to see how it is any fun. But of course, _in your area_ the concept of fun on court is/may be different than anywhere else....... :)
Strongly disagree on #2 and #3.

Winning in mixed doubles is about positioning. If I am a strong 4.5 playing with a weak 3.5, then I’m roughly 4 ntrp levels stronger than my partner. When I find myself in this situation, I like to station my partner with her racquet in front of her about 6” behind the net strap. I call this the “dunker” position.

With my partner near the center net strap, she is centered in the action, and she might get a lot of balls. But since she is right on top of the net, hitting at her is not necessarily the best strategy for the opponents, because she can hit downward on the ball — every shot can potentially be a “dunk.” They might be better off forcing to me to dig a low volley or roll behind her to opposite alley to hit an overhead. I like to take every ball out of the air when I play mixed.

And hitting at the opposing weaker player may not be my optimum strategy, especially if the opposing weak female is draped over the net as well.
 

Jonathyl

New User
Strongly disagree on #2 and #3.

Winning in mixed doubles is about positioning. If I am a strong 4.5 playing with a weak 3.5, then I’m roughly 4 ntrp levels stronger than my partner. When I find myself in this situation, I like to station my partner with her racquet in front of her about 6” behind the net strap. I call this the “dunker” position.

With my partner near the center net strap, she is centered in the action, and she might get a lot of balls. But since she is right on top of the net, hitting at her is not necessarily the best strategy for the opponents, because she can hit downward on the ball — every shot can potentially be a “dunk.” They might be better off forcing to me to dig a low volley or roll behind her to opposite alley to hit an overhead. I like to take every ball out of the air when I play mixed.

And hitting at the opposing weaker player may not be my optimum strategy, especially if the opposing weak female is draped over the net as well.

Its funny you talk about the "dunker" strat because I was playing against the exact guy this thread was originally made about, and not only did they do the strat you talk about....they did it to the extreme (but she didn't stand in the center, she stood near the alley). She actually stood right by the net and would occasionally cross over the net to dunk the ball before it even got to their side. Totally illegal, but it works, as I believe its their call to make. It was hard for us to spot it easily since we don't have the angle, so a several times it was very iffy, other times it was blatant, but regardless we're not allowed to make the call. Our team captain called the USTA official over, told them what was going on...the officials stayed for about 5 mins to observe, during that time she didn't do it. So the officials said her shots were legit, and left.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Its funny you talk about the "dunker" strat because I was playing against the exact guy this thread was originally made about, and not only did they do the strat you talk about....they did it to the extreme (but she didn't stand in the center, she stood near the alley). She actually stood right by the net and would occasionally cross over the net to dunk the ball before it even got to their side. Totally illegal, but it works, as I believe its their call to make. It was hard for us to spot it easily since we don't have the angle, so a several times it was very iffy, other times it was blatant, but regardless we're not allowed to make the call. Our team captain called the USTA official over, told them what was going on...the officials stayed for about 5 mins to observe, during that time she didn't do it. So the officials said her shots were legit, and left.
In my experience, a 3.5 gal standing 2 feet from the net is more valuable than a 4.5 gal standing 10 feet from the net.

The other advantage of having the gal so close is that I can cross behind her while still being fairly close to the net myself. So I can cross behind her and hit a volley from 8 feet from the net, where I can still be offensive. If she stands 6 feet from the net, she would get in my way.

Sometimes the opponents will hit at my partner and miss cleanly, and I can still volley it from behind her.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
In my experience, a 3.5 gal standing 2 feet from the net is more valuable than a 4.5 gal standing 10 feet from the net.

i was watching 2minutetennis Q&A session with Ryan and one of the questions was where should the returner's partner stand in doubles. The answer was on the service line closer to the center line, just the way I stand.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
i was watching 2minutetennis Q&A session with Ryan and one of the questions was where should the returner's partner stand in doubles. The answer was on the service line closer to the center line, just the way I stand.
Yes that’s where most players stand, because everyone teaches it that way. I believe this is the worst possible place to stand. You are neither close enough to the net to play offense effectively in the case that your returner makes his return, nor far enough back to play effective defense in case your partner hits at the net person. You are compromising yourself in both cases.

The better percentage play is to make your offense/defense decision pre-serve. If you think your partner is going to be likely to execute the return past the net person, then move closer up to the net.

If your partner can’t handle the serve well, start back further behind service line to be ready to defend a volley putaway attempt.

My league winning % increased after I switched to this pre-serve positioning strategy. My pro clients also do this. But most ITF level players do it your way.
 

romano

New User
I still believe if USTA would treat Mixed Leagues the same as Adult Leagues (Mixed 3.0, Mixed 3.5, Mixed 4.0, etc.) it would result in better competition for all.
 
Last edited:

silentkman

Hall of Fame
i was watching 2minutetennis Q&A session with Ryan and one of the questions was where should the returner's partner stand in doubles. The answer was on the service line closer to the center line, just the way I stand.

You stand in different spots on the first and second serve.
 

am1899

Legend
Yes that’s where most players stand, because everyone teaches it that way. I believe this is the worst possible place to stand. You are neither close enough to the net to play offense effectively in the case that your returner makes his return, nor far enough back to play effective defense in case your partner hits at the net person. You are compromising yourself in both cases.

The better percentage play is to make your offense/defense decision pre-serve. If you think your partner is going to be likely to execute the return past the net person, then move closer up to the net.

If your partner can’t handle the serve well, start back further behind service line to be ready to defend a volley putaway attempt.

My league winning % increased after I switched to this pre-serve positioning strategy. My pro clients also do this. But most ITF level players do it your way.

The service line is most commonly taught, and notably with some sense of rigidity...which is unfortunate. I don't necessarily agree that it's the worst place to be, that depends on the situation. For example, if your partner is returning a big first serve...it would be worse to be closer to the net, than on the service line (or better yet, on the baseline!). Generally, the mistake I see most players make is they are too predictable - they start in the same position, no matter what.

I'm not quite sure I understand your "pre-serve decision" play. Does this imply that the returners partner moves their position up or back based upon what the returner intends to do with the return?
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
The service line is most commonly taught, and notably with some sense of rigidity...which is unfortunate. I don't necessarily agree that it's the worst place to be, that depends on the situation. For example, if your partner is returning a big first serve...it would be worse to be closer to the net, than on the service line (or better yet, on the baseline!). Generally, the mistake I see most players make is they are too predictable - they start in the same position, no matter what.

I'm not quite sure I understand your "pre-serve decision" play. Does this imply that the returners partner moves their position up or back based upon what the returner intends to do with the return?
I mean, if for example, the server had a big first serve but an attackable second serve, then for the first serve you might be better off positioning yourself well behind the service line to be able to defend the net man’s interception of your partner’s return. Then if the server misses the first serve, you might be best off going all the way in to the net prior to the second serve, so that you can pressure the server’s shot after your partner places the return past the netman.

In both cases, you decide where to stand based on the probability that your partner will be able to execute a return past the net man.
 

am1899

Legend
I mean, if for example, the server had a big first serve but an attackable second serve, then for the first serve you might be better off positioning yourself well behind the service line to be able to defend the net man’s interception of your partner’s return. Then if the server misses the first serve, you might be best off going all the way in to the net prior to the second serve, so that you can pressure the server’s shot after your partner places the return past the netman.

In both cases, you decide where to stand based on the probability that your partner will be able to execute a return past the net man.

Gotcha, yeah I agree. Way better than just starting on the service line every look and just reacting.
 

Fintft

G.O.A.T.
These lopsided numbers favoring the unbalanced pair are mainly because positioning the weakest link gal 2 inches from the net creates an almost unfair advantage, forcing the opponents to channel almost every ball to the strongest player on the court.
Is it b/c she can easily block the balls over the net, or b/c the opponents avoid driving balls at her, in order not to hit her?
Personally in mixed I win with first strike tennis and I only drive the ball at the male net person.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Is it b/c she can easily block the balls over the net, or b/c the opponents avoid driving balls at her, in order not to hit her?
....

A bit of both. There is always the risk that you will hit at the net player in the face and look like a jerk versus the chance that they will hit it in the net or long. But with a female player that is effectively several levels lower that that concern is amplified.
 

Fintft

G.O.A.T.
A bit of both. There is always the risk that you will hit at the net player in the face and look like a jerk versus the chance that they will hit it in the net or long. But with a female player that is effectively several levels lower that that concern is amplified.
Yeah I hit away from her and only go around her, ocassionally, on sitters.
Now when the male is at the net, on the other hand it's time for DTL( after warning him to defend ).
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Yeah I hit away from her and only go around her, ocassionally, on sitters.

Yep winning is not worth hitting a female who is not that good at tennis in the face with a ball. But when the female players are actually just as skilled as all the men then the risk reward becomes more in line.

I play with a female player that is much better than me and I think she thinks the same. That is she thinks: I am not going to hit this older guy in the face with a ball just to win this match. But if I were a better player she would hit that shot if she thought it would increase her chance of winning the point.

It really has as much to do with the mismatches that occur in usta mixed doubles as it does with a male female thing. That is why I think having the same rating system for everyone would greatly improve mixed doubles.
 

Fintft

G.O.A.T.
Yep winning is not worth hitting a female who is not that good at tennis in the face with a ball. But when the female players are actually just as skilled as all the men then the risk reward becomes more in line.

I play with a female player that is much better than me and I think she thinks the same. That is she thinks: I am not going to hit this older guy in the face with a ball just to win this match. But if I were a better player she would hit that shot if she thought it would increase her chance of winning the point.

It really has as much to do with the mismatches that occur in usta mixed doubles as it does with a male female thing. That is why I think having the same rating system for everyone would greatly improve mixed doubles.
Or if the female is better, she'd rather win the BL rallies against me...
Personally I take no greater satisfaction in mixed than winning 1 against 2, the BL rallies.
 

!<-_->!

Hall of Fame
Heard from another captain that someone in NorCal rostered some ex D2 females (top 5 D2 program) as 4.0's. Anyone familiar with this team / captain? To my surprise, it wasn't the usual suspect.
 

!<-_->!

Hall of Fame
Don't think it was that person since they're a 3.5 self-rate. The story I heard was someone who should be a 5.5 at minimum self rated at 4.0. Played in and won at least 1 ITF tourney.
 
Top