We Need To Talk . . .

[stevenymets]

Ha! No need to apologize, as AQ says. Part of the fun of doubles is sorting out (and arguing on-line about!) matters of strategy and positioning. I will add onto your post, though, that I should have called "Switch" once it was clear my partner wasn't going to an overhead as promised.

Anyway, there is a heated debate (in the ladies 4.0-3.0 world, anyway) about how to handle lobs. There is the "Deep Player Can See Everything And Should Call Switches" view and there is the "Net Player Calls Switches" view. I'll make the case for the latter based on what my pro has been banging into our heads for years:

1. The most advantageous result when a lob goes up is that the net player hits an overhead. Only the net player knows whether she is capable of doing that, so she should call mine or switch. If baseline player does it, baseliner will call her net partner off of many balls the net partner could hit, thereby relinquishing control of the net unnecessarily.

2. Having the net player decide works better once teams are advanced enough to play two-up effectively. In other words, if a team is accustomed to having the net player stay mute and the deep player call switches, that team will have to make a big adjustment when they learn to play two-up because they will have to start calling/covering the lobs over their head -- why not doing that start now?

3. The baseliner already has a job when the lob goes up. If the net player says mine, the baseliner needs to position appropriately -- often coming up to form a wall with the partner. The baseliner should not be running behind her partner for exactly the reasons why I got into trouble in the OP.

That said, these ideas only work if players actually call mine when they are going to hit their overhead.

Let’s take this step by step. First off, if the lob was as described in the op, then no, you should not have to yell switch. Your partner needs to move. @Cindysphinx, if your partner is lobbed like you describe, with the ball going over his head, bouncing behind him, tell me, why is the onus on you to yell switch? Which is easier and more effective in covering the court? You hitting the ball, then reversing direction to go back to cover the other court, or your partner, as the lob goes over his head, moving to the other court because he knows you are going to have to retrieve the lob? Let’s all stop worrying about talking and start thinking tactically. Your partner needs to move, he should know this, I don’t care what level you are.....move.....your.....butt!

#1 Your tennis pro is smart, this goes back to the rule, if the person closer to the net can hit a relatively offensive ball, regardless where the ball is on the court they should, baseline person be damned.

#2 First team to take over the the net at any level is far more likely in doubles to win the point.....get up there! But come in behind quality stuff.....I like your tennis pro.

#3 Yes, but don’t move up in the court until you are sure your partner can hit the overhead, if they can’t, you need to fetch it and your partner needs to switch. If the partner can hit the overhead, get up there! More than likely you will get at best a reflex volley or half volley back, or it will be a winner. You want to be there ready to clean up any garbage that they might get back.

I like your pro!

 

[stevenymets]

Fair enough, I can imagine this when a slower ball is coming down the middle and both player are back. Even then it is much preferable to have a "mine" call from one of the players rather than a "yours" call.

The "yours" call should be made when one player cannot make an effective play - e.g. when beaten by a lob or unable to chase down a drop shot. The "mine" call should be made when both are able to make the the play, in which case the player who recognizes it first makes the "mine" call. If both partners hesitate until eventually one calls "yours" that's just bad play by both IMO.

This should not happen when one player is at net or they are "staggered" (one more forward than the other), since in these cases the more forward player has dibs and the further back player needs to be ready to react if the forward player is not able to make the play. There is not enough time for "mine" or "yours" to be useful in these scenarios.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

This is very well put!

 

[stevenymets]

Agreed on all counts. A "yours" call is pretty useless unless made very fast, and a player should know quickly when she has no play on the ball.

This whole mine/yours thing didn't really become crucial until my teammates and I were at 4.0 and were playing two at net most of the time (rather than one-up/one-back being the norm). At that point, the old expectations just didn't work. Like, who takes the middle ball is not an issue with one-up, one-back. But who covers the cross-court in a staggered net formation becomes a real nightmare if players aren't on the same page.

Discuss before you play, middle balls should be strongest volleyer or forehand volley, however, there is a reason why every coach in the world will tell you to go down the middle against a team who has taken the net, because it works, and as I have already discussed, if the ball is hit 30 mph, the team at the net has less than a second to react.... “YO.....” .......whoops the ball is past you. Communication rarely works, you are reacting, know beforehand who is going to take those balls.

 

[stevenymets]

Look, there are good tactics and bad tactics, doesn’t matter if you are a 2.0 or a 6.0. The difference is, higher levels tend to know them more instinctively and follow them. @Cindysphinx pro is right on, and he should be, he is a pro.

Baseline player on a lob can call the net person off if they feel they can run around the ball to hit a better overhead, but if they can’t, generally they should not call them off. Move as a team, following the ball on the other side of the net. Regarding switches, your partner moves over to the other court, most likely you should be switching, regardless if it is the net person or baseline person.

There is a reason why pro mixed teams, despite rarely playing together, don’t have to talk that much when they do play together, because hey all know “the rules of the road”.

And remember, there is an exception to every rule, so despite my pontification, the most important rule is just to have fun.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Discuss before you play, middle balls should be strongest volleyer or forehand volley, however, there is a reason why every coach in the world will tell you to go down the middle against a team who has taken the net, because it works, and as I have already discussed, if the ball is hit 30 mph, the team at the net has less than a second to react.... “YO.....” .......whoops the ball is past you. Communication rarely works, you are reacting, know beforehand who is going to take those balls.

SteveNYMets,

I was right there with you (well, except for all that math!) until we got to handling that middle ball.

I dunno about that "forehand takes the middle" and "strongest volleyer," see. We can't assume everyone's FH volley is stronger than their BH volley, and the strongest volleyer overall may not be in the best place for striking a particular volley.

I think it is easier to play that the player who is DTL covers the DTL shot, and the crosscourt player covers the lob and middle ball. Like, a staggered formation. And of course the player who is closer to the net can take anything she wants.

A lot of people play "forehand takes the middle," and a lot of pros teach it. The result is I, as a deuce court player, have partners telling me not to poach with my BH even though I think my BH volley is pretty solid. And I, as an ad court player, wind up having partners who force me to pick up a ball off my shins that was inches away from them because they have been told they should not play a BH volley. Oy.

 

[OnTheLine]

SteveNYMets,

I was right there with you (well, except for all that math!) until we got to handling that middle ball.

I dunno about that "forehand takes the middle" and "strongest volleyer," see. We can't assume everyone's FH volley is stronger than their BH volley, and the strongest volleyer overall may not be in the best place for striking a particular volley.

I think it is easier to play that the player who is DTL covers the DTL shot, and the crosscourt player covers the lob and middle ball. Like, a staggered formation. And of course the player who is closer to the net can take anything she wants.

A lot of people play "forehand takes the middle," and a lot of pros teach it. The result is I, as a deuce court player, have partners telling me not to poach with my BH even though I think my BH volley is pretty solid. And I, as an ad court player, wind up having partners who force me to pick up a ball off my shins that was inches away from them because they have been told they should not play a BH volley. Oy.

here I am going to pretty strongly disagree with you. I have never seen a player at the rec level show a BH volley stronger than their FH ... willing to state EVER. Some may have decent ones, but their FH is still better.

So many times the player on deuce court "poaches" a low middle ball only to throw it in the net or pop it up ... that same middle ball is either a neutral ball for the baseliner, or if the baseliner has moved up it is an easier offensive volley.

Perhaps at some point someone will prove me wrong, but until I see someone with a better bh volley than a fh volley ... FH takes the middle.

Or if you want the volley, start playing Ad side instead

 

[Cindysphinx]

here I am going to pretty strongly disagree with you. I have never seen a player at the rec level show a BH volley stronger than their FH ... willing to state EVER. Some may have decent ones, but their FH is still better.

So many times the player on deuce court "poaches" a low middle ball only to throw it in the net or pop it up ... that same middle ball is either a neutral ball for the baseliner, or if the baseliner has moved up it is an easier offensive volley.

Perhaps at some point someone will prove me wrong, but until I see someone with a better bh volley than a fh volley ... FH takes the middle.

Or if you want the volley, start playing Ad side instead

Ah, but maybe you're not asking the right question?

The question isn't whether Player A's FH volley is better than Player A's BH volley.

The question is whether Player A's BH volley from a position closer to the net (or position within the angle of return) is better than partner's FH volley from a position deeper in the court (or outside the angle of return).

I would say that my volley is equally strong FH and BH (or equally weak, as the case may be), and I would say that is true of many women doubles specialists at 4.0 and above. For example, if I am hitting a low approach volley from behind the service line, it doesn't make much difference to me whether it comes to my BH or FH. It's a challenge either way.

So when you say this ("So many times the player on deuce court "poaches" a low middle ball only to throw it in the net or pop it up ... that same middle ball is either a neutral ball for the baseliner, or if the baseliner has moved up it is an easier offensive volley."), I dunno. That same middle ball is probably easy for the baseliner who stays at the baseline, no argument there. But if you think that ball is tough for the net player, it is much tougher for the incoming approach volleyer as either a low volley or, God forbid, a half volley.

And based on my experience, it is quite easy to screw up a low middle ball poach on the FH or BH side. It's not the FH/BH issue that is the problem; it is the speed + height that causes those pop-ups and ill-advised busted poaches.

 

[OnTheLine]

And yes, I definitely had a pronoun problem ...

But, I would say nothing is easier than an approach volley and I really don't know why people think the half-volley is a challenge ... and in both cases if you are able to use your FH, the ball remains in front of you, whereas the person for whom it is a BH, that ball too easily becomes behind them, creating the disaster.

Going back to communication ... if I am on Ad side, I will call every single middle ball "mine" ... .if you are going for it, you had best make it a winner.

 

[Cindysphinx]

And yes, I definitely had a pronoun problem ...

But, I would say nothing is easier than an approach volley and I really don't know why people think the half-volley is a challenge ... and in both cases if you are able to use your FH, the ball remains in front of you, whereas the person for whom it is a BH, that ball too easily becomes behind them, creating the disaster.

"Nothing is easier than an approach volley?" Dang, girl. I've never heard anyone say that. I would say the approach/half volley is a contender for Second Hardest Shot In Tennis (with the winner being the OHBH overhead smash DTL).

Curious: What kind of BH volley are you hitting (one hand or two)? I don't understand how your BH approach/half volley can get behind you if your FH approach/half volley doesn't. If anything, I am more likely to err by taking a volley too far in front of me rather than behind me. Or I screw up by trying to take a backswing, which is also way more likely on the FH side than BH side for me.

But hey, you can have that middle ball on the ad side -- but you had better call it before I do, and I'm mighty fast with my call!

 

[OnTheLine]

"Nothing is easier than an approach volley?" Dang, girl. I've never heard anyone say that. I would say the approach/half volley is a contender for Second Hardest Shot In Tennis (with the winner being the OHBH overhead smash DTL).

Curious: What kind of BH volley are you hitting (one hand or two)? I don't understand how your BH approach/half volley can get behind you if your FH approach/half volley doesn't. If anything, I am more likely to err by taking a volley too far in front of me rather than behind me. Or I screw up by trying to take a backswing, which is also way more likely on the FH side than BH side for me.

But hey, you can have that middle ball on the ad side -- but you had better call it before I do, and I'm mighty fast with my call!

The approach volley is just something that the pros at my club always drill hard in every clinic, from both sides. If you drill it all the time, it becomes your friend.

Folks that visit the club (and hey it's Vegas, we have a LOT of visitors) always remark after they have done a clinic that they have never hit so many volleys before. Our head pro is perhaps a little insane when it comes to volleys ... he will get you really good at them from anywhere on the court.

I use a 1HBH volley and alternate 1H and 2H for BH groundstrokes (don't ask). Low volleys are almost always slice/chip and nothing is as pleasurable as a high BH semi-overhead.

The BH takes longer for most to prepare thus increasing likelihood of ball getting behind you.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Ah, but maybe you're not asking the right question?

The question isn't whether Player A's FH volley is better than Player A's BH volley.

The question is whether Player A's BH volley from a position closer to the net (or position within the angle of return) is better than partner's FH volley from a position deeper in the court (or outside the angle of return).

Bingo!

if I'm closer to the net and have a good shot at an offensive volley, I'm going for it whether it's my FH or BH. My partner who is playing S&V, might only be at the SL; no way he's going to put that volley away.

The problem is that these rules of thumb get developed and people follow them slavishly without understanding the thought behind the rule ["Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."]. In this particular case, the rule probably envisioned both players an equal distance from the net and a shot that was smack in the middle.

But there are all kinds of details that could throw off this rule; Cindy's example is but one.

 

[stevenymets]

Ok, getting the laptop out for this last posting from me on this thread, so things are getting serious.

Take a brief little journey with me, trust me, it is relevant. About 4 years ago, my friends and I decided to start a band, two of us had minimal experience playing in bands, the others had none, but we are all experienced players and are good on our respective instruments (upwards of 20 to 25 years playing our instruments each.) None of us had really gigged out at bars. We practice all of the time, and are a "good" band because of it, but we gig infrequently. Now, take a regularly gigging band who has been playing out at bars for 20, 25, 30 years, and they are going to be a lot more experienced obviously, they know aspects of gigging that we might not even think of, they can show up and set up their stage in half the amount of time, with little or no conversation, they know when to trade solos, when to get more quiet, get louder, take a break, change the set list, turn up the vocals, turn down the guitars, etc, etc, etc..... They have more experience, and no matter how much we practice, you can't replace experience playing live......

My thought process in posting here was simply to give some ground rules for people in hopes of helping them understand court positioning in response to @Cindysphinx original post. Yes....yes.....yes, there are exceptions to every rule, especially in a sport where variables change from one point to another, and no one is saying here that you should follow rules blindly. My point is, if you are having to say "mine", "yours", "mine", "yours" on the majority of points, this is probably due to a lack of court positioning experience. Now, if your team is comfortable playing that way, THEN DO IT!!!!!! Ultimately, whatever makes you better and more comfortable out there. There is no right or wrong if you are comfortable doing what you are doing, especially if you have success.

As I said, you can't replace experience, and like our band, who are all good players, we don't know what we don't know when it comes specifically to playing gigs, as we just don't have the experience. The challenge I have faced with people in doubles on the tennis court is that, even if they are very good players, if they haven't played a lot of doubles, or haven't studied doubles tactics, is that they don't know and thusly don't adhere to basic movement and positioning rules. @Cindysphinx original post gave some great examples of this. That guy isn't "bad" necessarily, he isn't ignorant necessarily, I don't know him, but if what @Cindysphinx said happened, then he shouldn't be so judgemental and he should be open to learning. Don't be presumptuous, be open minded.

The problem is that these rules of thumb get developed and people follow them slavishly without understanding the thought behind the rule ["Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."].

I actually find quite the opposite. I find many people don't adhere to any rules of thumb, or that somewhere they have come up with an "incorrect rule" and that is why they are having to say "yours", "mine", "yours", "mine". For example, people poaching when the serve is to the right handed receiver's forehand in the deuce court (worst time to poach, unless the opponents forehand stinks), or out of the corner of my eye watching my partner, who is with me at the net, slowly backpedaling ending up by the service line so they are constantly forced to volley up, "I am concerned about them possibly lobbing us".......yes, but by backing up, you are unable to hit offensive volleys and the lob becomes a self fulfilling prophecy..... or people poaching and not hitting the ball crosscourt, and following their poach in a switch (you poach, connect with the ball, you don't stop, you switch automatically, and your partner needs to cross behind you, you "follow" the ball.)

Yes, of course, there are exceptions to these three rules, to every rule dependent on where the ball lands, what the opponent's do, etc., but these guidelines help give a baseline to positioning and consistency of play, so your partner isn't caught standing on the same side of the court you are, bemoaning the fact that you didn't switch on the lob that was over your head when you were at the net.

I am not trying to be preachy, and at the end of the day, this is all fun, which is why, now that I am playing on a league team for the first time in years, I don't really care if my partner follows these ground rules or not, I just want to have fun and get a little exercise.

And I am not trying to claim I know all. Just about a year ago, I was playing doubles with a very good player who is a friend of mine. I threw up an offensive lob from the baseline while he was at the net, that if I say so myself, was pretty sweet (it happens so infrequently, just let me have this moment.) I knew the other team would be scrambling, I knew it was deep, and I knew when it bounced it would take off due to the topspin, so I came in baby, let's get offensive! My partner centered on the court kind of, shading to the side the lob was to bounce on, I came up alongside him, kind of wondering why we weren't positioned a little more equidistant apart. Our opponents threw up a high defensive lob, over my partner's head, down the line closest to him. He stood there, not chasing, obviously assuming I was back there, I turned to go chase, but it was to no avail. He then looked at me and asked, "what the heck were you doing up here?" I said, "hey, that was an offensive lob I hit, we had them pinned back, I came in behind it" ......and this is where I learned a valuable lesson. "No" he says, "offensive lob, you stay back for the very reason we will most likely get a defensive lob back. We center on the court, with me at the net, shading the one side a bit that the lob is on, and you at the baseline, doing the same." The theory? They will have to throw up a defensive lob, if it is short, the ball will be high enough and slow enough, that my partner can cover from alley to alley and hit an overhead for a put away. If it is deep, I will also have plenty of time to go alley to alley, and hit a more offensive ball than if I was having to retreat from the net to go fetch it. Lesson learned, schools out. We lost that point, but I won't soon forget that if I am at the baseline, and hit a good offensive lob, to not go charging in behind it, I will let my partner at the net clean it up if it is short.

Ok, fortunate for you I am done. There is a ton of great material available on double's strategy either online or in books. With four people on the court, the strategy and tactics double, and this is what makes doubles so much fun! But there are some commonly known rules that will help you "connect" with your partner better if you both know them. If you don't though, no big deal, just keep an open mind, don't be quick like @Cindysphinx partner to blame your partner, and maybe, like me with my buddy, you will learn something to make you a better player in the future! And most of all, this ain't life and death, it is recreational tennis, so have fun, don't worry, and be happy!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

And I am not trying to claim I know all. Just about a year ago, I was playing doubles with a very good player who is a friend of mine. I threw up an offensive lob from the baseline while he was at the net, that if I say so myself, was pretty sweet (it happens so infrequently, just let me have this moment.) I knew the other team would be scrambling, I knew it was deep, and I knew when it bounced it would take off due to the topspin, so I came in baby, let's get offensive! My partner centered on the court kind of, shading to the side the lob was to bounce on, I came up alongside him, kind of wondering why we weren't positioned a little more equidistant apart. Our opponents threw up a high defensive lob, over my partner's head, down the line closest to him. He stood there, not chasing, obviously assuming I was back there, I turned to go chase, but it was to no avail. He then looked at me and asked, "what the heck were you doing up here?" I said, "hey, that was an offensive lob I hit, we had them pinned back, I came in behind it" ......and this is where I learned a valuable lesson. "No" he says, "offensive lob, you stay back for the very reason we will most likely get a defensive lob back. We center on the court, with me at the net, shading the one side a bit that the lob is on, and you at the baseline, doing the same." The theory? They will have to throw up a defensive lob, if it is short, the ball will be high enough and slow enough, that my partner can cover from alley to alley and hit an overhead for a put away. If it is deep, I will also have plenty of time to go alley to alley, and hit a more offensive ball than if I was having to retreat from the net to go fetch it. Lesson learned, schools out. We lost that point, but I won't soon forget that if I am at the baseline, and hit a good offensive lob, to not go charging in behind it, I will let my partner at the net clean it up if it is short.

I've never heard that formation before; akin to badminton doubles where one is forward and the other behind.

What I've been taught is for both players to be up but not on top of the net; maybe around the SL. You're expecting a counter lob so either of you should be able to hit an OH if you start at the SL.

Mens' pro doubles seem to follow the "both at net" philosophy from the random clips I'm remembering.

Womens' pro doubles not as much as often; I do see the BL player staying back.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Well, it is certainly true that partners can decide how to play, convention be damned.

But there are certain conventions that are true, no matter if the partners decide they don't want to adhere.

In the example Steve gave, *of course* he should follow his offensive lob to net. The conventions being followed are (1)cover as much of the court as possible, and (2) take time away from your opponents when you get the opportunity. If both partners come to the service line in that situation, the opponent must hit an inch perfect lob to win the point if the reply is a lob, so convention 1 is satisfied. They have the front of the court covered and can be offensive if the reply is a groundstroke (step in and volley). If instead they position to bounce the lob as Steve's partner suggests, they have violated convention number 2 because they let their opponents recover and prepare to get back in the point.

Steve, being a gentleman, agreed to do it the way his partner wanted. That is one reason to ignore a convention. There are others, as OnTheLine said (partner has no overhead).

But when the rule (e.g. forehand takes the middle) is something not based on court geometry or basic strategy like taking away time but is instead an assumption based on the supposed deficiencies and abilities of the players, I think it should not be a convention. The players should be free to decide that they want to play forehand takes the middle, but pros should not be teaching it as gospel. And they are.

 

[stevenymets]

But when the rule (e.g. forehand takes the middle) is something not based on court geometry or basic strategy like taking away time but is instead an assumption based on the supposed deficiencies and abilities of the players, I think it should not be a convention. The players should be free to decide that they want to play forehand takes the middle, but pros should not be teaching it as gospel. And they are.

I’ve never heard this preached as gospel. Typically, the forehand is the stronger of the two strokes, but I often play with people whose backhand volley wins out on center balls, because it is superior. But I don’t suggest the forehand blindly, and I would be surprised at a pro doing that as well. Maybe because 90% of all players the forehand is dominant, and pros now are making the blanket statement.

Regarding the eye formation, this is for a specific use case, defensive lobs by the opponent, it doesn’t work pretty much any other time. Lobs have to be defensive to be able to cover alley to alley, and it protects against the Hail Mary lob people will throw up when they have no other choice. Try, it works great, assuming people are comfortable moving and hitting an overhead. Two people at the the service line is a bit scary on the off chance the opponent can get offensive, volleying from the service line sucks. In the eye, if they get offensive you are susceptible down the one line, but otherwise, the ball has to travel far enough cross court, that the deep player can usually track it down aggressively. Don’t do this if your shot doesn’t put the other team on the defensive though.

 

[stevenymets]

Mens' pro doubles seem to follow the "both at net" philosophy from the random clips I'm remembering.

I agree, maybe because of their ability to backpedal so effectively, trying to think of mixed on the tour, and I may have seen this in that context.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Regarding the eye formation, this is for a specific use case, defensive lobs by the opponent, it doesn’t work pretty much any other time.

After I posted, I thought of the same thing: the I formation when serving. So I see the value of this strategy although I've never seen it done deliberately [it has happened accidentally where the BLer lobs deep but chooses to stay on the BL, not because he's following the I formation idea but because he's not comfortable at net. And then the lob comes back weakly and the guy at the net moves laterally to put it away].

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Get both people to the net and dare them to let you hit overheads.

Fundamental doubles.

 

[spun_out]

I can't believe that this is so complicated. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains... If you are this concerned about maximizing your potential in doubles, then you should be able to find a way that doesn't involve writing a thesis. Even the Bryan Brothers go for the same shot. That didn't lose them the match. One should probably be looking at the missed returns to improve one's doubles.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I can't believe that this is so complicated. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains... If you are this concerned about maximizing your potential in doubles, then you should be able to find a way that doesn't involve writing a thesis. Even the Bryan Brothers go for the same shot. That didn't lose them the match. One should probably be looking at the missed returns to improve one's doubles.

For someone who plays mostly singles, it is so complicated because there are so many considerations that don't come into play in singles: the net man and communication with a partner being 2 huge ones. Haven't you ever played doubles with such a person?

Of course, @Cindysphinx's partner seemed to be a regular doubles player so I'm not sure what his philosophy on doubles is but it doesn't match mine; in order to solve that, we need to communicate more, not less.

 

[MathGeek]

For someone who plays mostly singles, it is so complicated because there are so many considerations that don't come into play in singles: the net man and communication with a partner being 2 huge ones. Haven't you ever played doubles with such a person?

Of course, @Cindysphinx's partner seemed to be a regular doubles player so I'm not sure what his philosophy on doubles is but it doesn't match mine; in order to solve that, we need to communicate more, not less.

I agree, but I've found that the most effective communication occurs before matches and between points, rather than during points. During points things often happen to fast for communication to register and partners to react. But once a partner and I figure out what to expect from each other, it can be very effective.

 

[Nostradamus]

Well, it is certainly true that partners can decide how to play, convention be damned.

But there are certain conventions that are true, no matter if the partners decide they don't want to adhere.

In the example Steve gave, *of course* he should follow his offensive lob to net. The conventions being followed are (1)cover as much of the court as possible, and (2) take time away from your opponents when you get the opportunity. If both partners come to the service line in that situation, the opponent must hit an inch perfect lob to win the point if the reply is a lob, so convention 1 is satisfied. They have the front of the court covered and can be offensive if the reply is a groundstroke (step in and volley). If instead they position to bounce the lob as Steve's partner suggests, they have violated convention number 2 because they let their opponents recover and prepare to get back in the point.

Steve, being a gentleman, agreed to do it the way his partner wanted. That is one reason to ignore a convention. There are others, as OnTheLine said (partner has no overhead).

But when the rule (e.g. forehand takes the middle) is something not based on court geometry or basic strategy like taking away time but is instead an assumption based on the supposed deficiencies and abilities of the players, I think it should not be a convention. The players should be free to decide that they want to play forehand takes the middle, but pros should not be teaching it as gospel. And they are.

True, if partner really doesn't understand the doubles court coverage and that is the 1/2 the battle, then yes you have to do more to compensate for that partner. People doesn't realize how critical court positioning is in doubles. 2 very good players that is often out of position will lose to 2 lesser players who really understand the doubles court positioning 8 out of 10 times.

I have come to accept this since I play with different partners often and I do my best to cover 70-80 % of the court. Only time I get frustrated is when I get injured doing this. and also if my partner just misses volleys at net for no reason, I can do nothing about those.

 

[navigator]

I have come to accept this since I play with different partners often and I do my best to cover 70-80 % of the court. Only time I get frustrated is when I get injured doing this. and also if my partner just misses volleys at net for no reason, I can do nothing about those.

I'm surprised you have to cover 70%-80% of the doubles court but you can't play singles. Odd, that.

 

[Nostradamus]

I'm surprised you have to cover 70%-80% of the doubles court but you can't play singles. Odd, that.

it's not odd. In doubles, I can serve and volley most of the time and make very quick points, NO long rallies. but in singles, you have longer rallies often on the baseline point after point. that is what you have at high level singles like 4.5. You should know this since you claim to play both.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I'm surprised you have to cover 70%-80% of the doubles court but you can't play singles. Odd, that.

Oh snap.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

it's not odd. In doubles, I can serve and volley most of the time and make very quick points, NO long rallies. but in singles, you have longer rallies often on the baseline point after point. that is what you have at high level singles like 4.5.

Unless you S&V in singles also. Possibly suicidal but a lot of excitement.

 

[navigator]

it's not odd. In doubles, I can serve and volley most of the time and make very quick points, NO long rallies. but in singles, you have longer rallies often on the baseline point after point. that is what you have at high level singles like 4.5. You should know this since you claim to play both.

You claim. I have evidence. Two entirely different things. Speaking of which - I know I'm beating a dead horse, but - have you gotten your name over to schmke yet? You wanted to join the TT 4.5 team but... you just gotta put your name in a message and press "send"... not sure what your reluctance is... unless...

[I've had long rallies in doubles and short rallies in singles. I've never played a 4.5 doubles match where I had to cover 70%+ of the court, that's for sure.]

 

[Nostradamus]

You claim. I have evidence. Two entirely different things. Speaking of which - I know I'm beating a dead horse, but - have you gotten your name over to schmke yet? You wanted to join the TT 4.5 team but... you just gotta put your name in a message and press "send"... not sure what your reluctance is... unless...

[I've had long rallies in doubles and short rallies in singles. I've never played a 4.5 doubles match where I had to cover 70%+ of the court, that's for sure.]

if that is true,,, I probably typed wrong in reverse. Everyone knows in doubles ,, points are very quick 2 shots, 3 shots at most...most of the time singles,,, 5-8 stroke rallies are common,, sometimes 8-10 strokes

 

[WYK]

GAH! Why do people resist communicating during the point and expect their partners to read their minds?

Judging by all the mental issues I see aired out on the adult tennis forum, the last thing I would want is to be able to read their minds...

 

[badmice2]

I played social doubles yesterday.

All this complaining doesnt change 1 thing....it was social doubles.

Sounds like you have issues differentiating between "social" and "serious". If you're going to be this competitive in a friendly weekend game, maybe you shouldn't have step foot on the court to begin with.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hey, he started it.

 

[Ronaldo]

Ever play social dubs and competitive, league tennis the same day?

 

[Off The Wall]

I like what stevenymets has been saying.

I'll add a piece on positioning that helps the down-the-middle coverers. Assuming an opponent is hitting a groundstroke from the backcourt. The hero's team is staggered with the player in front of the hitter forward in the service box. At least halfway in, maybe more. Whatever it takes so that just sticking your racquet out covers the middle. That way, to hit to the middle and around the closer net person, the opponent must hit to within reach of the back staggered hero.

 

[Sakkijarvi]

For me "social" doubles conversations are more like, "whassa favorite beer?" or "that jerk benched Manning and destroyed the streak". On another note, I almost never play mixed - so the first time in loong time I end up doing so, I reach up, hit an overhead - plonk - right off the forehead of the opposing woman. Didn't rip the shot and she was beyond mid court.

She hit a winner next swing she made so I assume no concussion. Now can you believe MacAdoo benched Manning?

 

[jmnk]

[...]

I have come to accept this since I play with different partners often and I do my best to cover 70-80 % of the court. Only time I get frustrated is when I get injured doing this. and also if my partner just misses volleys at net for no reason, I can do nothing about those.

I'm surprised you have to cover 70%-80% of the doubles court but you can't play singles. Odd, that.

it is indeed quite odd given the fact that 80% of doubles court is actually a _larger_ area than a full singles court. But hey, who are we to doubt.....

 

[Nostradamus]

it is indeed quite odd given the fact that 80% of doubles court is actually a _larger_ area than a full singles court. But hey, who are we to doubt.....

LOL................. I said,,, doubles, very quick points, singles often long points, long baseline rallies................ what part of that do you not understand ?

 

[stapletonj]

"I'm surprised you have to cover 70%-80% of the doubles court but you can't play singles. Odd, that."

doubles, vertical movement is key

singles, horizontal movement is key

 

[navigator]

LOL................. I said,,, doubles, very quick points, singles often long points, long baseline rallies................ what part of that do you not understand ?

Probably the part where you still haven't sent your name to schmke to be a part of the TT 4.5 team that you explicitly stated you wanted to join, which only makes sense if there's something you don't want folks here to know...