What do you believe?

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Given you and opponent A are equal in level.

A third person (lower level) joins you to have a match 2 vs 1 against opponent A.

Obviously, you and your partner defend your dubs court and the lone opponent defends the singles court.

- Do you think your partner add value to your game?

- How much lower would the partner's level be before he becomes a liability? Or he's never a liability. He's always a plus.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
As long as he just covers doubles alley should not take anything away
ok, but you now have your own dubs alley to cover which is larger than the singles you otherwise need to cover.

Another thing, do you need to play like a doubles player now? You need to rely on the weaker partner that he withstands the assault by better opponent, no?

Can two 3.5 beat a 4.0 in this game format?
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
ok, but you now have your own dubs alley to cover which is larger than the singles you otherwise need to cover.

Another thing, do you need to play like a doubles player now? You need to rely on the weaker partner that he withstands the assault by better opponent, no?

Can two 3.5 beat a 4.0 in this game format?
We do this format in clinics, it can be tough on the lone player, especially when you purposely play to make loner run. Loner hits dtl, others hit cc. So two 3.5 can beat 4 if 3.5s can handle pace without running much.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
A third person (lower level) joins you to have a match 2 vs 1 against opponent A.
Obviously, you and your partner defend your dubs court and the lone opponent defends the singles court.
I call this "3 idiots on a court." I've heard it called Canadian, Australian, etc . . .

The form is bad all around. The singles player will hit to a doubles court, which would mess up his singles game. The doubles hit to a singles court, which constrains their doubles game.

Why not just have 3-man rotation? 2 man play, 1 man wait, count to 21.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
I call this "3 idiots on a court." I've heard it called Canadian, Australian, etc . . .

The form is bad all around. The singles player will hit to a doubles court, which would mess up his singles game. The doubles hit to a singles court, which constrains their doubles game.

Why not just have 3-man rotation? 2 man play, 1 man wait, count to 21.
Fair point about, well, the points you want to make!!! You're not wrong with those points but it's limited.

While it may mess up the singles, won't the singles play improve this dubs hitting?
Likewise, the dubs players improve their singles hitting?

The 3-man rotation would work if all 3 are relatively equal and have no preference. If one guy is severely bad in singles or prefer only (and only good in) dubs, is it desirable for him to play his singles turn?

2 guys play while 1 guy waits sounds nice but won't work one is impatient or can't play singles.
 

MajesticMoose

Hall of Fame
My partner needs to sit his candy ass down in one of the doubles alleys and needs to know his role and shut his mouth.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Player A strategy is to attack third person.
Depending how much lower the 3rd person is, he can quickly make it easier for player A to win points.

Im sure im better off 1 vs 1 against someone than if someone joins me unless he is equal level, but even then two players need to have some kind of understanding and good communucation and work well together to have an advantage otherwise its confusing for both not knowing what to do or which ball is theirs.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
"Well I, uh, I'm not sure how you pronounce it or anything, but I, uh, I believe it's Ménage à Trois?"
 

ONgame

Semi-Pro
Becomes a liability when more than a 0.5 level difference
Also becomes a liability when there are no communications if the difference is at or within 0.5. But this is mainly because I'm a singles player.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
Fair point about, well, the points you want to make!!! You're not wrong with those points but it's limited . . .
I am a chess player, both Western and Chinese chess. Chess players play from both sides of the board, black and white.

Somethings are not reversible. That's called chirality.

While it may mess up the singles, won't the singles play improve this dubs hitting?
Doubles hit from doubles positions not from singles positions. And it will mess up his singles hitting because you are not hitting to a singles court.

Likewise, the dubs players improve their singles hitting?
Singles hitting is from the singles court, to use a fancy word from a singles court parameter. Maybe it will improve there doubles hitting, but it will definitely mess up their doubles hitting.

When you switch something around, you have to be aware of chirality.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I am a chess player, both Western and Chinese chess. Chess players play from both sides of the board, black and white.
Somethings are not reversible. That's called chirality.
I'm not sure how that applies to Australian.

Yes, chess players play both White and Black. They are aware of the asymmetry and adjust accordingly.

Doubles hit from doubles positions not from singles positions. And it will mess up his singles hitting because you are not hitting to a singles court.

Singles hitting is from the singles court, to use a fancy word from a singles court parameter. Maybe it will improve there doubles hitting, but it will definitely mess up their doubles hitting.

When you switch something around, you have to be aware of chirality.
I play singles, doubles, and Australian and I don't see how one messes up another. For that matter, forget about Australian and just consider singles vs doubles: I don't carry my hitting patterns over from one to the other just like I don't try to castle Kingside with Black by moving to the right as I would with White. There is a context for each situation and I have to adapt.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
I am a chess player, both Western and Chinese chess. Chess players play from both sides of the board, black and white.

Somethings are not reversible. That's called chirality.



Doubles hit from doubles positions not from singles positions. And it will mess up his singles hitting because you are not hitting to a singles court.



Singles hitting is from the singles court, to use a fancy word from a singles court parameter. Maybe it will improve there doubles hitting, but it will definitely mess up their doubles hitting.

When you switch something around, you have to be aware of chirality.
Are there such things as doubles positions and singles positions in hitting?

What are they?
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Are there such things as doubles positions and singles positions in hitting?

What are they?
I hit from the same places in both singles and doubles. What's different is the position of my opponents. But I adjust depending on which game I'm playing. I don't see how playing Australian screws that up.
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
Given you and opponent A are equal in level.

A third person (lower level) joins you to have a match 2 vs 1 against opponent A.

Obviously, you and your partner defend your dubs court and the lone opponent defends the singles court.

- Do you think your partner add value to your game?

- How much lower would the partner's level be before he becomes a liability? Or he's never a liability. He's always a plus.

The only person benefitting from this is the lower level player. I'd play singles and rotate on and off. The lower level player is not going to improve by playing doubles. Furthermore, I'd let the lower level player play singles and use that as lesson of what to improve upon.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Singles is the inside border, doubles is the outside border.
That's important for ball position, not player position: if I'm playing singles and the ball lands in the alley, it's out. But just because I'm playing singles doesn't mean I won't ever have to move into the alley [or beyond] to retrieve a ball that bounced in the singles court.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Singles is the inside border, doubles is the outside border.
That's important for ball position, not player position: if I'm playing singles and the ball lands in the alley, it's out. But just because I'm playing singles doesn't mean I won't ever have to move into the alley [or beyond] to retrieve a ball that bounced in the singles court.
It's strange to me that LGQ7 doesn't understand this.

THE PLAYERS can be almost anywhere to hit the ball, regardless of doubles or singles.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
It's strange to me that LGQ7 doesn't understand this.

THE PLAYERS can be almost anywhere to hit the ball, regardless of doubles or singles.
There's a nuance you missed, again. That is the ratio of the time between the ball contacting the ground and the hit. You can be in the same position on the outside border but the time AND the distance of the bounce will be different.

Timing and distance is everything. Everything that is messed up in "3 idiots on a court". And that's distance in 3D space.
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
There's a nuance you missed, again. That is the ratio of the time between the ball contacting the ground and the hit. You can be in the same position on the outside border but the time AND the distance of the bounce will be different.
I still don't get it, nuance notwithstanding. In singles, doubles, and Australian, I can have the same ratio if the ball bounces in the singles area because that's playable for all games. Will there be times when the ball lands in the doubles alley? Sure. So I adjust. Whatever calculation I have to make, it's sub-conscious; it's not like I need to pull out my slide rule and manually calculate ratios.

Timing and distance is everything. Everything that is messed up in "3 idiots on a court". And that's distance in 3D space.
I agree that timing and distance are important [as are other factors]. But I don't see how that is messed up in Aussie. Nor why 3D matters as all tennis is 3D no matter which variation you play.

You obviously interpret things differently but you're unable to explain it in a way that I [or @user92626] can understand.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
There's a nuance you missed, again. That is the ratio of the time between the ball contacting the ground and the hit. You can be in the same position on the outside border but the time AND the distance of the bounce will be different.

Timing and distance is everything. Everything that is messed up in "3 idiots on a court". And that's distance in 3D space.
I would think that someone who has adapted to playing with 2 racquets simultaneously, a completely different game than what most people do, would have no problem adapting to Australian, a combination of two things you already know [singles and doubles].
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
Let me try again. The chirality is all out of whack.

The 1. Singles court on the defense, doubles court on the offense. It's not single to single, double to double. And there's 2 other players on the other side, messing up your timing, rhythm, and space.

The 2. Doubles court on the defense, single court on the offense. You have narrow your offense. And the offense to you comes from a different angle.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
I would think that someone who has adapted to playing with 2 racquets simultaneously, a completely different game than what most people do, would have no problem adapting to Australian, a combination of two things you already know [singles and doubles].
My 2 rackets mess people up in timing, distance (I have better reach), and angle of attack and defense. The beauty is I control the variable. To have variables, you need a constant. And the constant is the dimensions of a singles court (or doubles if I rarely play doubles). The court is the constant, I'm the variable.

In "3 idiots on a court", the court is the variable (it's different offensively and defensively), you are the variable because you have to adapt to new variables. Both you and the courts are messed up.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
An analogy.

The standard formation is 1 man with a sword and a shield. The wacked version is 2 man, tied to a chain, 1 with a sword and 1 with a shield, with different offense and defense.

 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
An analogy.

The standard formation is 1 man with a sword and a shield. The wacked version is 2 man, tied to a chain, 1 with a sword and 1 with a shield, with different offense and defense.

That is an interesting idea.

1 with both sword and shield vs. 2 (not chained together) but 1 has only a sword, and the other only a shield. There I just re-invented Canadian, Australian gladiating.
 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
That is an interesting idea.

1 with both sword and shield vs. 2 (not chained together) but 1 has only a sword, and the other only a shield. There I just re-invented Canadian, Australian gladiating.
I did it again! I invented something. Real Canadian, Australian tennis.

Singles court for both sides, 1 vs. 2.

1 can use both backhand and forehand.
2, (a) only 1 can use forehand, the other must use backhand. (b) both must be forehands, (c) both must be backhands.

Now that's more interesting.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
My 2 rackets mess people up in timing, distance (I have better reach), and angle of attack and defense.
Yes, it is different. I doubt it changes your game so much that it messes up my timing and spatial perception. But I've never played against someone using 2 racquets. It's also possible you're just better than they are so they would have a problem no matter how many racquets you used.

Other things that are different:
- short opponents
- tall opponents
- opponents who hit with a lot of TS
- lefties
- those who use the two-handled racquet

All of these things could be "different" from what I'm accustomed to. All of them could throw me off to some extent; it's my job to adjust.

I don't see how your 2 racquets would have a bigger impact than any of the above factors.

For me, the lefty would be the most difficult to adapt to because of the spin on the serve. The two-handled racquet player, while a lot rarer than a lefty, still typically serves righty. Their lefty FH has both of the factors you mentioned [reach and angle] but I haven't found that to be an issue nearly as much as the serve. And, while he has 2 FHs, one is usually weaker than the other so that's the one I attack.

The beauty is I control the variable. To have variables, you need a constant. And the constant is the dimensions of a singles court (or doubles if I rarely play doubles). The court is the constant, I'm the variable.

In "3 idiots on a court", the court is the variable (it's different offensively and defensively), you are the variable because you have to adapt to new variables. Both you and the courts are messed up.
IMO, you overestimate how much of an effect you have on your opponent by using 2 racquets.

Here's a thought experiment: say you videod yourself playing against Mr. A and did another video of someone of equal skill to you playing against the same Mr. A but with only 1 racquet. Edit the video to remove the opponent and just leave Mr. A: could someone tell which video was of the opponent with the 2 racquets? By your description, it should be obvious because of your superior reach and angle. I'm guessing the viewer would see no difference.
 

golden chicken

Hall of Fame
Once it becomes Canadian doubles, it should take on more of a social tennis feel than a competitive one. Then everyone involved should feel free to work on things they wouldn't normally get to work on, no matter their level. I'd be really pissed if two players were nice enough to allow me to join them but then one said stand in the alley and do nothing. Might as well not even play with them at all.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Let me try again. The chirality is all out of whack.

The 1. Singles court on the defense, doubles court on the offense. It's not single to single, double to double. And there's 2 other players on the other side, messing up your timing, rhythm, and space.

The 2. Doubles court on the defense, single court on the offense. You have narrow your offense. And the offense to you comes from a different angle.
Why would 2 other players on the other side mess up your timing, rhythm, etc.? They aren't feeding you two balls simultaneously. The ball is still hit by you once, then them, then you, ...

How would narrowing your offense or different angle be bad for you? If anything it's good thing because you're not allowed to be sloppy. You have to be more precise.

Everything you said just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I play a lot of 1 vs 2, especially when the two are much lower than me. I know how a competitive SINGLES feel like and TWO on the other side feels virtually the same if not harder. Eg. when I'm rushed or pulled out wide, my return has to be like dealing with a net rusher. It cannot be simply making the ball back.

When I really want to feel challenged, and I have done this, I play me vs 2 guys giving them my full dubs court to hit into. I really need to keep my shots deep and quality. Short ball begs for a wide angled put away which is tough to defend.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Why would 2 other players on the other side mess up your timing, rhythm, etc.? They aren't feeding you two balls simultaneously. The ball is still hit by you once, then them, then you, ...

How would narrowing your offense or different angle be bad for you? If anything it's good thing because you're not allowed to be sloppy. You have to be more precise.

Everything you said just doesn't make a lot of sense.
.
Reminds me of an anecdote told by Bolletieri: he was playing a tournament and a parade went by. After the match, the losing opponent complained about the parade and the distraction. When Mr. B was asked about it, he replied "what parade?".

@LGQ7 perceives that his two-racquet game is tremendously screwing up his opponents whereas the opponents might ask "what 2 racquets?".
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
I call this "3 idiots on a court." I've heard it called Canadian, Australian, etc . . .

The form is bad all around. The singles player will hit to a doubles court, which would mess up his singles game. The doubles hit to a singles court, which constrains their doubles game...
Don't knock it til you've tried it. Can actually be fun and present new challenges. I've done this with both tennis & badminton. I have even covered the whole doubles court a few of those times when playing the solo side. I can't see playing any of these 2-on-1 variations having any permanent damage on one's singles game. Most ppl who play 2-on-1 only do it every once in a while... not as often as they would play/practice their regular singles (or doubs).
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
...

In "3 idiots on a court", the court is the variable (it's different offensively and defensively), you are the variable because you have to adapt to new variables. Both you and the courts are messed up.
2 rackets = good, but 2-on-1 = bad??? You're an Odd one, Mr Grinch:

 

LGQ7

Hall of Fame
IMO, you overestimate how much of an effect you have on your opponent by using 2 racquets.
The logo of my Meetup is a Chinese chess set. My tennis club is run exactly like a chess club. Everyone is on the Elo rating system.

Elo Name

1634 me - 2 rackets
1568 player A (that I've been playing with exclusively in the last month, in a relatively expensive indoors court in the winter.)
1505 me - 1 racket

My 2 rackets is 1/6 higher in percentile than my 1 racket. My tennis Meetup is run with perfect mathematical precision.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
I've tried it. I knock it.
Guess this type of fun/challenge is not everyone's cup of tea. Doesn't make it an idiot's game. Have you tried a google (image) search on "idiot" lately?

BTW, I've played 2-racket tennis, badminton and ping-pong at a fairly decent level even tho I'm not a true ambidextrous athlete. Something of an acquired ambidexterity. Found this to be fun & challenging as well. Not the pursuit of an "idiot".
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
The logo of my Meetup is a Chinese chess set. My tennis club is run exactly like a chess club. Everyone is on the Elo rating system.

Elo Name

1634 me - 2 rackets
1568 player A (that I've been playing with exclusively in the last month, in a relatively expensive indoors court in the winter.)
1505 me - 1 racket

My 2 rackets is 1/6 higher in percentile than my 1 racket. My tennis Meetup is run with perfect mathematical precision.
All that means is that you are better with 2 racquets than you are with 1. Maybe you have a terrible BH, which you bypass by hitting another FH. Maybe it has nothing to do with better reach and angle.

Your ratings, while mathematically precise, do not measure reach and angle since there are so many more factors which could play a role.

And, back to the original point, I don't agree that playing Australian will mess up my singles or doubles.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
2 rackets = no change to the court
But if your argument is true that 2 racquets give you better reach and angle, that effectively changes the court geometry even if the boundaries haven't actually changed.

For example, if you're super quick [ie De Minaur], the court might effectively shrink for me because I have to be that much more accurate to hit a winner. Against someone who is super slow, the court might effectively expand.

2-on-1 = the courts changed
But it's the same change for everyone so how relevant is it?
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Guess this type of fun/challenge is not everyone's cup of tea. Doesn't make it an idiot's game. Have you tried a google (image) search on "idiot" lately?
@LGQ7 apparently believes that what he invents is brilliant but what he doesn't like is for idiots.

BTW, I've played 2-racket tennis, badminton and ping-pong at a fairly decent level even tho I'm not a true ambidextrous athlete. Something of an acquired ambidexterity. Found this to be fun & challenging as well. Not the pursuit of an "idiot".
I've played ping pong with 2 paddles and even have thrown in an extra ball to make it really hilarious.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
1. I watched the whole video. It looks like he is hitting to within a singles border, not doubles border. That's not Canadian/Australian.
2. That's may not be a good drill for the other 2 guys.
1- In the drill video I posted, the solo player usually hits into the singles court but sometimes hits into the alleys (looks like it's intentional).

2- Depends on the relative levels of the players. And the intent of the players doing the drills. Can be quite the equalizer if the solo player is somewhat stronger than the other 2. When I've played 2-on-1 in badminton with players of comparable level, the solo player can actually have a distinct advantage (assuming the solo player has the "wheels" for it). Can be quite a challenge for 2 minds to play as "one".
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I have to agree with you 90%. You are 90% correct.
Aah, but which 90%?

Or is it like Dr. Samuel Johnson commenting on a colleague's writing: "Your writing is both good and original. Unfortunately, the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good."
 
Top