What Does "All Points Played In Good Faith Count" Really Mean?

Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
My teammates had a dispute recently. I was not there; I was not involved. Thank goodness.

Background: We play timed matches, and we have complicated rules for determining the winner when a match times out. To simplify, if you time out in the second set, it is disregarded unless a team is leading by two games or more. But if the teams split sets and are tied in total games won, then you play a sudden death point to determine the winner. Got it?

What happened is that my teammates Alice and Kim were playing opponents Susan and Dawn. Susan/Dawn won the first set 7-6. Alice/Kim were leading in the second set 5-4 when time lapsed. By rule, the second set would not count, and Susan/Dawn should be the winners because they won the first set.

Alas, Alice/Kim misinterpreted the rules and believed the teams were tied in games (11-11) and so should play a sudden death point. Susan/Dawn knew the rules and flatly refused to play a sudden death point because they believed they had won.

Alice then said, "Well, we can ask the league coordinator to tell us who is right. In the meantime, let's play a sudden death point just in case we need it. If you guys are right that you won already, then we won't need the sudden death point. But if we are right and we don't play the sudden death point, how will we decide who won? Surely we don't want to get into a situation where we have to come back someday to play just one point." The players played the sudden death point, and Alice/Kim won it.

The next day, Kim wrote to the league coordinator and explained the score and that the players had played a sudden death point. Kim did not mention the part about the sudden death point being played "just in case." The league coordinator replied that no sudden death point should have been played, but since the players played it, it counts because "all points played in good faith count." She declared Alice/Kim the winners.

Susan/Dawn were furious. Kim took the position that the players had agreed to let the league coordinator decide, and she had decided. After much heated discussion and implosion of friendships, Alice convinced Kim to concede the win to Susan/Dawn.

I have had discussions with the league coordinators about this (I'm on the grievance committee, so I am interested in their logic). Their logic is that if you are certain you are right, then you must refuse to play on and you take it to the league coordinators/grievance committee. If you agree to play the sudden death point, then this means you are not sure. You can't play it and then prevail on the league coordinators when you later learn you were right all along and shouldn't have capitulated. They also said the fact that the point was played meant it was a point played in good faith and so should count.

So. Was this sudden death point "played in good faith?"
 
I see what the LC is saying about Susan/Dawn, that they should not have played the point, but Alice/Kim eventually did the right thing as it was clearly agreed that it was conditionally played.

How should this have been avoided? The question to the LC should have been just a hypothetical question up to the 7-6,4-5 point and not included any information about the sudden death point having been played or not. The LC would have answered with the correct rule interpretation and then the score could have been entered correctly.
 
I think good faith ought to mean something.

Say I am playing singles on a very hot day. I am winning, but I am cramping. I say to my opponent, "I'm beating you, but I will make you a deal. We will play one point for the win, and I will play it with my non-dominant hand. If you can win that point, you win the match. If not, I win."

My opponent agrees and serves the ball. I smack a winner with my dominant hand. That is not a point played in good faith. I think if the opponent grieved this, the league ought to award her the match, even though we had tossed the rule book away by making this deal.
 
I really like the coordinator's reasoning and I fully agree with his ruling. Indeed, the fact that Susan/Dawn agreed to play the point means that while they were 99% sure about the rule they were not 100% sure. They actually tried to do 'double chance' for winning the match. To avoid the issue the players should have done the following:
Susan/Dawn should refuse to play the point because they are 100% sure they know the rules. If they are right they won the match. But if they are wrong in their understanding of the rules they should have lost the match - because they essentially refused to finish the match.

That being said obviously this is a recreational tennis. Since apparently all interested parties agreed on 'conditional' point than claiming a match by Kim was, well, pretty low-rent. However in general, since there's no proof of what the agreement actually was, how the conversation truly went, than it was correctly ruled as a match in favor of Alice/Kim. You can (and should) unfriend Kim - but it is really up to Alice and Kim to essentially petition the coordinator to reverse the verdict and give the match to the opponents. And if they were unwilling to do so - well, it's Susan/Dawn fault to some extend for creating confusion.
 
Cindysphinx said:
I think good faith ought to mean something.

Say I am playing singles on a very hot day. I am winning, but I am cramping. I say to my opponent, "I'm beating you, but I will make you a deal. We will play one point for the win, and I will play it with my non-dominant hand. If you can win that point, you win the match. If not, I win."

My opponent agrees and serves the ball. I smack a winner with my dominant hand. That is not a point played in good faith. I think if the opponent grieved this, the league ought to award her the match, even though we had tossed the rule book away by making this deal.
Click to expand...

In this case, the opponent likely should walk to the other side and say "ok, love-15". After all, if you are ignoring your friendly agreement to play the sudden-death point with your non-dominant hand, the opponent should probably ignore the friendly agreement to concede the match if they lose the one point. Treat it no differently than if you got in your opponent's head with trash-talk between points or something, finish the match, and probably refuse to play with that person again.

It's a weird agreement to offer and agree to anyway.

Anyway, in the original situation, I would absolutely side with Susan/Dawn. People can and should bend the rules to take into account that people have lives outside of tennis. In this case, the players agreed to bend the rules to prevent possibility of the dumb situation where four players would have to take time out of their days and drive to a match just to play *one point*, which would be ridiculous. They agreed that if the rules said they needed to play the point then whoever would win the point should take the match, if the rules say they didn't need to play the point then S/D take the match. It's a total jerk move on Kim's part to go back on that. This is ESPECIALLY true since she mislead the league coordinator when asking the question - she didn't mention what everyone on court had agreed to.

I can see why the league officials wouldn't see it that way, but if the four people on court agree on what the result should be, then they can always agree to report that result.
 
Startzel said:
This post makes me realize it would be miserable to play tennis somewhere where there were timed matches.
Click to expand...
Pick your poison.

My sister lives in Denver. They do not have timed matches. Instead, they have outdoor matches where weather cancellations are a problem. Singles players have to wait for the doubles players to finish before they can take the court. League tennis exists only spring through fall; you are straight out of luck in the winter. Players are limited to playing on one team per season -- capacity problems.

Here, we have league play all year, with every type of league tennis available to all. Singles leagues, age-based leagues, combo, mixed. The minute one league season ends, another one starts up. We never have weather cancellations because we play indoors. Join as many teams as you want -- one season I was on five different teams -- because our league has the capacity because everyone has to finish within two hours.

And if you cannot finish your match in 2 hours or less, you need to work on your point-finishing skills. I would guess that 90% or more of mixed matches and gender matches at 4.0 and up finish within the time limit.

The clock really isn't much of a consideration when I play a match. I am perfectly capable of getting my behind kicked in less than two hours.
 
it is just like playing a provisional ball in golf if you think, but are not sure, that you may be OB. You play a provisional, announcing it first, to save time, just like was done here.

what screwed up was the other team "lied by omission" by not including the fact that the sudden death point was played as a "provisional".

shame on them.
 
Cindysphinx said:
Pick your poison.

My sister lives in Denver. They do not have timed matches. Instead, they have outdoor matches where weather cancellations are a problem. Singles players have to wait for the doubles players to finish before they can take the court. League tennis exists only spring through fall; you are straight out of luck in the winter. Players are limited to playing on one team per season -- capacity problems.

Here, we have league play all year, with every type of league tennis available to all. Singles leagues, age-based leagues, combo, mixed. The minute one league season ends, another one starts up. We never have weather cancellations because we play indoors. Join as many teams as you want -- one season I was on five different teams -- because our league has the capacity because everyone has to finish within two hours.

And if you cannot finish your match in 2 hours or less, you need to work on your point-finishing skills. I would guess that 90% or more of mixed matches and gender matches at 4.0 and up finish within the time limit.

The clock really isn't much of a consideration when I play a match. I am perfectly capable of getting my behind kicked in less than two hours.
Click to expand...

My poison is having to wait for a court and paying for indoor courts. We have clubs with indoor courts that all USTA matches are played at. We do NOT have timed matches and I would not like them. Instead, when matches are scheduled back to back, one must wait. The club remains open till all matches scheduled that evening are finished. I have left a club at 12:30 am before. We also offer all types of leagues (men's, women's, mixed, +40, combo in the winter, ?). I have never seen a +55 but I think that is due to lack of interest.

Two reasons I deal with the wait and don't mind it. First off, I like being able to play tennis in the winter, so having USTA at these clubs even in the summer gives them year round business to keep them afloat. We have had indoor clubs close in the past and I hope the two closest to me never close. Second, I have lost the first set many times and come back to win. It would tick me off if I lost the first set in a tie-breaker (or one break difference) and was up a break or two in the second set and then ran out of time.
 
As far as your opening post, I think playing a "provisional" point was smart. And it eventually worked out but the league coordinator should have changed the ruling once he/she found out the point was played as a provisional.
 
Another problem that arises when folks don't know the rules. it all would have been avoided if both sides knew what they were supposed to do. I learned that lesson when I started playing club league and didn't realize at 5-5 we were supposed to play a tie break rather than at 6-6. After screwing that up, I made sure I knew what I was doing afterwards.

Hopefully Kim learned something other than a dose of sportsmanship. You need to be sure of the rules before you make strange suggestions like playing provisional points.

And the league coordinator made a proper ruling given the info she was given. Just goes to show you can influence the outcome by how you present your case.
 
Cindysphinx said:
Susan/Dawn were furious. Kim took the position that the players had agreed to let the league coordinator decide, and she had decided. After much heated discussion and implosion of friendships, Alice convinced Kim to concede the win to Susan/Dawn.
Click to expand...

Really? implosion of friendships over recreational tennis? How old are these women? Guess they've got nothing better in their lives to concern themselves with.
 
Cindysphinx said:
My teammates had a dispute recently. I was not there; I was not involved. Thank goodness.

Background: We play timed matches, and we have complicated rules for determining the winner when a match times out. To simplify, if you time out in the second set, it is disregarded unless a team is leading by two games or more. But if the teams split sets and are tied in total games won, then you play a sudden death point to determine the winner. Got it?

What happened is that my teammates Alice and Kim were playing opponents Susan and Dawn. Susan/Dawn won the first set 7-6. Alice/Kim were leading in the second set 5-4 when time lapsed. By rule, the second set would not count, and Susan/Dawn should be the winners because they won the first set.

Alas, Alice/Kim misinterpreted the rules and believed the teams were tied in games (11-11) and so should play a sudden death point. Susan/Dawn knew the rules and flatly refused to play a sudden death point because they believed they had won.

Alice then said, "Well, we can ask the league coordinator to tell us who is right. In the meantime, let's play a sudden death point just in case we need it. If you guys are right that you won already, then we won't need the sudden death point. But if we are right and we don't play the sudden death point, how will we decide who won? Surely we don't want to get into a situation where we have to come back someday to play just one point." The players played the sudden death point, and Alice/Kim won it.

The next day, Kim wrote to the league coordinator and explained the score and that the players had played a sudden death point. Kim did not mention the part about the sudden death point being played "just in case." The league coordinator replied that no sudden death point should have been played, but since the players played it, it counts because "all points played in good faith count." She declared Alice/Kim the winners.

Susan/Dawn were furious. Kim took the position that the players had agreed to let the league coordinator decide, and she had decided. After much heated discussion and implosion of friendships, Alice convinced Kim to concede the win to Susan/Dawn.

I have had discussions with the league coordinators about this (I'm on the grievance committee, so I am interested in their logic). Their logic is that if you are certain you are right, then you must refuse to play on and you take it to the league coordinators/grievance committee. If you agree to play the sudden death point, then this means you are not sure. You can't play it and then prevail on the league coordinators when you later learn you were right all along and shouldn't have capitulated. They also said the fact that the point was played meant it was a point played in good faith and so should count.

So. Was this sudden death point "played in good faith?"
Click to expand...
So that means all parties agreed that sudden death point will decide..... so in that case, just turn your PHone on and record them saying that they and You guys Agree to this, and all parties agree. and you have it on Recording on your phone. that is the BEST way.
 
Sounds like it allowed for both outcomes to become possible (either team A or team B could win).. which in turn allowed someone to make sure that outcome was in their favor which would not be 'good faith' or maybe I'm wrong.
Susan/Dawn played the pt they should've held their original stance..

How many used car sales people use 'good faith' or others...

A team in our league played a singles match one hour late it was predetermined that they were not DQ'ing them even though one player was arriving one hr later, the player and captain agreed to play the match.. but when they ended up losing the next day the team with the late player found out that it was all for nothing because they decided to DQ after losing the match. USTA ruled in the favor of the team that originally lost the match basically said 'we don't want to get involved'. It didn't cost sectionals or effect standing outcomes but agreeing to play without recourse of a DQ then going back because of the outcome is pretty lame.. same as in this case with 'Good Faith'..
Note to self: 'tennis good faith is like street three card monte' can't be trusted.. run away!!!
 
jonnyjack said:
In these timed matches, do people actually start on time and adhere to the 5 minute warm up time limit?
Click to expand...
We have a 15-minute warm-up, so actually 1 hour 45 minute for the match. People rarely sit on changeovers or dilly dally.

Still, it is rare for a 4.0 ladies doubles match to time out. Really, how often are there long rallies in 4.0 doubles? It is not unusual for players to finish with 20 minutes left and agree to play a practice set.

In 2015, I played 19 ladies and mixed doubles matches. One match timed out (a ladies 7.5 combo match).

In 2014, I played 40 ladies and mixed doubles matches. None timed out.

I remember that timed matches were much more common in 3.0 and 3.5 where people did not come to net much and there was a lot of lob-to-lob type points.
 
Cindysphinx said:
We have a 15-minute warm-up, so actually 1 hour 45 minute for the match. People rarely sit on changeovers or dilly dally.

Still, it is rare for a 4.0 ladies doubles match to time out. Really, how often are there long rallies in 4.0 doubles? It is not unusual for players to finish with 20 minutes left and agree to play a practice set.

In 2015, I played 19 ladies and mixed doubles matches. One match timed out (a ladies 7.5 combo match).

In 2014, I played 40 ladies and mixed doubles matches. None timed out.

I remember that timed matches were much more common in 3.0 and 3.5 where people did not come to net much and there was a lot of lob-to-lob type points.
Click to expand...

What the heck do you do for 15 minutes in the warm up?

That sounds awful.
 
Startzel said:
What the heck do you do for 15 minutes in the warm up?

That sounds awful.
Click to expand...

The same thing you do for 5 or 10 minutes: you warm up. [Was that a trick question?]

Some people warm up faster than others. I'd much prefer 15 to 5 minutes, especially if it's cold and/or my shoulder is not up to par. Then again, I try to get to the facility at least 30 minutes prior to match time and warm up with my team. But I still use the time with the opponent to try to get a read on his strengths and weaknesses.

I don't see how it's "awful": if you think 15 minutes is just short of eternity and better spent learning another language, just stop after 5 minutes and retreat to the bench [hopefully bereft of bags]. No one's forcing you to warm up.
 
Startzel said:
What the heck do you do for 15 minutes in the warm up?

That sounds awful.
Click to expand...

You know, it's ladies league. They can always figure out how to spend 15 min. Chatting about the new tennis outfit or the cute new pro or how little Susy is doing in piano class.
;):p

J/K of course. This is serious business, so I'm sure they are dialing in those second serve kickers.
 
Startzel said:
What the heck do you do for 15 minutes in the warm up?

That sounds awful.
Click to expand...
Folks at the club I play tend to start the warm up at the service line for mini-tennis and tend to do this about 5 minutes which I find very annoying and generally useless for my game. Add that in and it pushes warm up to about 15 minutes and I find myself getting antsy and ready to start by the end.

I agree 15 minutes is long, but 5 minutes like you get at districts/states and tournaments is too short. 10 minutes is the sweet spot in my opinion. 3 mins for groceries, 3 mins for his volleys and overheads then mine, 3 mins for serves, and 1 min fluff.

We came to play tennis, let's get on with it.
 
Having nothing better to do I'll waste some mental capacity on this trivial subject. Is this a group that takes advantage of the relatively lengthy warm up to use it as a mini practice session? Or being accustomed to having plenty of time, do people arrive on the dot and lose a few minutes pre- and post-warmup getting situated and making acquaintances? Or is it a somewhat laid-back warm up for the full 15? Inquiring minds...
 
Warm up times don't bother me, they are usually always 10-15 minutes. What bothers me is that if a match is supposed to start at 9:00 am, all players should be there on the court to start warming up at 9:00. It seems these days people wait till the last minute to arrive. By time they get on the court and get all their stuff ready to play it's already 9:10-9:15. After warming up the actual start time is closer to 9:30.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
The same thing you do for 5 or 10 minutes: you warm up. [Was that a trick question?]

Some people warm up faster than others. I'd much prefer 15 to 5 minutes, especially if it's cold and/or my shoulder is not up to par. Then again, I try to get to the facility at least 30 minutes prior to match time and warm up with my team. But I still use the time with the opponent to try to get a read on his strengths and weaknesses.

I don't see how it's "awful": if you think 15 minutes is just short of eternity and better spent learning another language, just stop after 5 minutes and retreat to the bench [hopefully bereft of bags]. No one's forcing you to warm up.
Click to expand...

Seems extremely wasteful for a timed match.

But it would be rude to not warm up your opponent. So I would never just go sit on the bench.
 
winchestervatennis said:
Folks at the club I play tend to start the warm up at the service line for mini-tennis and tend to do this about 5 minutes which I find very annoying and generally useless for my game.
Click to expand...

Wow, seriously? I would have a hard time not laughing at someone who wanted to do that. What happens if you say no?
 
RetroSpin said:
Wow, seriously? I would have a hard time not laughing at someone who wanted to do that. What happens if you say no?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I am serious. A few times I've tried just going directly to the baseline and the other guy still goes to the service line. That is even more awkward cause the guys stay at the service line. One dude even said, " shouldn't we start up here?"

To me it just means 5 more minutes of worthless warm up and not match tennis which I'd rather play. Oh well.

I don't fight it any more.
 
RetroSpin said:
Wow, seriously? I would have a hard time not laughing at someone who wanted to do that. What happens if you say no?
Click to expand...

I had this happen the other week, well almost happen. We got on the court against some older guys. One of their guys walked straight to the service line. I immediately went back to the baseline. He kind of shook his head and then walked back to the baseline. I think he had every intention for us to start warming up with mini-tennis. Warm up is short enough already, I'm not going to waste 5 minute or so playing mini-tennis. If someone says anything I'll just politely say I'd rather start warming up from the baseline.
 
brettatk said:
I had this happen the other week, well almost happen. We got on the court against some older guys. One of their guys walked straight to the service line. I immediately went back to the baseline. He kind of shook his head and then walked back to the baseline. I think he had every intention for us to start warming up with mini-tennis. Warm up is short enough already, I'm not going to waste 5 minute or so playing mini-tennis. If someone says anything I'll just politely say I'd rather start warming up from the baseline.
Click to expand...
What feels like even more of a waste is when both teams have had a chance to warm up for 15-20 minutes prior to the match time, and then the players want to warm up with their opponents from the service line when we get on our court for the official warm-up.
 
You can tell the rec players from the tournament players by where they start their warm-up. Warming up from the net was invented by club 3/3.5 women so they could catch-up on the latest gossip with-out having to shout it out and have everyone at the club hear them. The men are starting to do it too because they're whipped in this matriarchy. At a tournament you'll get 5,7 or 10 minutes depending on how the schedule is going. I drop down on my knees and pray for forgiveness if this sounds sexist--please don't Ray Moore me, I have a family to feed.
 
Cindysphinx said:
In 2015, I played 19 ladies and mixed doubles matches. One match timed out (a ladies 7.5 combo match).

In 2014, I played 40 ladies and mixed doubles matches. None timed out.
Click to expand...
Since only one match timed out in 59 matches, I think a 15 minute warm-up sounds great!
 
tennis tom said:
You can tell the rec players from the tournament players by where they start their warm-up. Warming up from the net was invented by club 3/3.5 women so they could catch-up on the latest gossip with-out having to shout it out and have everyone at the club hear them. The men are starting to do it too because they're whipped in this matriarchy. At a tournament you'll get 5,7 or 10 minutes depending on how the schedule is going. I drop down on my knees and pray for forgiveness if this sounds sexist--please don't Ray Moore me, I have a family to feed.
Click to expand...

I think when you all get older, you'll find warming up a bit with mini tennis will prevent all sorts of bad things. I've never had a coach yet that hasn't had us starting at the service line. It's in their best interest to not let us old farts get injured.

I warm up right at the net with some quick volley practice to get the hand-eye coord going, then step back to the service line to hit some short loopy backhands and forehands to get the low-high, brushy feeling down then move back to the baseline for fuller strokes. This all can be done well within the 5 min and still leave time for serves.
 
What a weird turn this thread took! Well, let's go with it.

In my world, it is difficult or impossible to warm up ahead of a match. We play at private clubs and are not allowed to take the court if we are non-members. And half the time it is too cold/dark to warm up outside. We had 5-minute warm-ups for a season where construction reduced the number of available courts in the county. The league changed it back to 15 minutes once the availability issue resolved, thank goodness. Don't know why anyone would object to 15 minutes -- it allows lot of time for serving. I always get in at least 12 serves in a warm-up, sometimes 18.

In 4.0 ladies, we have a 15-minute warm-up for league (but just 5 minutes for districts). Folks start with mini-tennis. I am OK with this -- I focus on watching the ball and moving my feet. I also work on gently spinning the ball to my opponent by brushing up the back of the ball, but I am not very good at this and tend to blast it. After a couple of these, my opponents propose moving back.

If your opponent wants to do mini-tennis forever (this happens in social matches where there is no time limit, ahem), then start with mini-tennis and take one step back with each shot. Eventually, you are at baseline and your opponent is at . . . well, it doesn't matter, just hit groundstrokes regardless of their position. They'll either warm up their volley or they will move back.

What I don't care for are doubles partners who do not come to the net at the same time. I am not going to take volleys while an opponent is hitting overheads -- too many people lack control to risk it.

And if you don't signal for overheads after your volleys and instead go back to the baseline to warm up my volleys, please don't demand to return to the net to warm up your overhead. You should have done that while you were up there.
 
Cindysphinx said:
What a weird turn this thread took! Well, let's go with it.

In my world, it is difficult or impossible to warm up ahead of a match. We play at private clubs and are not allowed to take the court if we are non-members. And half the time it is too cold/dark to warm up outside. We had 5-minute warm-ups for a season where construction reduced the number of available courts in the county. The league changed it back to 15 minutes once the availability issue resolved, thank goodness. Don't know why anyone would object to 15 minutes -- it allows lot of time for serving. I always get in at least 12 serves in a warm-up, sometimes 18.

In 4.0 ladies, we have a 15-minute warm-up for league (but just 5 minutes for districts). Folks start with mini-tennis. I am OK with this -- I focus on watching the ball and moving my feet. I also work on gently spinning the ball to my opponent by brushing up the back of the ball, but I am not very good at this and tend to blast it. After a couple of these, my opponents propose moving back.

If your opponent wants to do mini-tennis forever (this happens in social matches where there is no time limit, ahem), then start with mini-tennis and take one step back with each shot. Eventually, you are at baseline and your opponent is at . . . well, it doesn't matter, just hit groundstrokes regardless of their position. They'll either warm up their volley or they will move back.

What I don't care for are doubles partners who do not come to the net at the same time. I am not going to take volleys while an opponent is hitting overheads -- too many people lack control to risk it.

And if you don't signal for overheads after your volleys and instead go back to the baseline to warm up my volleys, please don't demand to return to the net to warm up your overhead. You should have done that while you were up there.
Click to expand...

I've never understood why people warm up overheads before their serve. It doesn't make sense because the muscle you use to hit an overhead aren't warmed up.
 
tennis tom said:
You can tell the rec players from the tournament players by where they start their warm-up. Warming up from the net was invented by club 3/3.5 women so they could catch-up on the latest gossip with-out having to shout it out and have everyone at the club hear them. The men are starting to do it too because they're whipped in this matriarchy. At a tournament you'll get 5,7 or 10 minutes depending on how the schedule is going. I drop down on my knees and pray for forgiveness if this sounds sexist--please don't Ray Moore me, I have a family to feed.
Click to expand...

I refuse to participate in this service-line warm-up stuff. It must have come along sometime between 1986 (when I quit tennis) and 2013 (when I started playing again). I stretch a bit before a match and if there's a backboard I'll hit against it for 10 minutes. Regardless, I'm not playing mini-tennis during the warm-up, either during practice or tournaments. I've asked the teaching pros I know about this (newer) routine and they've all said, "It really doesn't matter - some folks just like to do it that way."
 
Dartagnan64 said:
I think when you all get older, you'll find warming up a bit with mini tennis will prevent all sorts of bad things. I've never had a coach yet that hasn't had us starting at the service line. It's in their best interest to not let us old farts get injured.

I warm up right at the net with some quick volley practice to get the hand-eye coord going, then step back to the service line to hit some short loopy backhands and forehands to get the low-high, brushy feeling down then move back to the baseline for fuller strokes. This all can be done well within the 5 min and still leave time for serves.
Click to expand...

It's USTA not AARP
 
Startzel said:
I've never understood why people warm up overheads before their serve. It doesn't make sense because the muscle you use to hit an overhead aren't warmed up.
Click to expand...
Because an overhead is about your legs, not your arm.

Says Cindy, whose overhead is straight-up atrocious.
 
navigator said:
I refuse to participate in this service-line warm-up stuff. It must have come along sometime between 1986 (when I quit tennis) and 2013 (when I started playing again). I stretch a bit before a match and if there's a backboard I'll hit against it for 10 minutes. Regardless, I'm not playing mini-tennis during the warm-up, either during practice or tournaments. I've asked the teaching pros I know about this (newer) routine and they've all said, "It really doesn't matter - some folks just like to do it that way."
Click to expand...

To each his own. I also never learned MT when starting out but I like doing it now. I believe it's helped my control, especially on my BH. But if my opponent doesn't want to do MT, I have no problem with that either.
 
Startzel said:
I've never understood why people warm up overheads before their serve. It doesn't make sense because the muscle you use to hit an overhead aren't warmed up.
Click to expand...

The reason you start with OHs first, IMO, is because you can take an easy swing *downward* which is much easier on the shoulder, especially the labrum, because you're much closer to the net than a serve and you don't even have to use much leg.

Serving requires more leg, more core, an upward swing [unless you're Isner or Karlovic], which is harder on the shoulder, and you have to hit the ball further.
 
Cindysphinx said:
Because an overhead is about your legs, not your arm.

Says Cindy, whose overhead is straight-up atrocious.
Click to expand...

It's possible to hit a great OH without using much leg. Otherwise, how could someone hit a scissor-kick OH? Neither foot is on the ground [although they are using their legs for counter-balance]. Or, for that matter, a volleyball spike.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
To each his own. I also never learned MT when starting out but I like doing it now. I believe it's helped my control, especially on my BH. But if my opponent doesn't want to do MT, I have no problem with that either.
Click to expand...

I confess I also appreciate a minute or so of MT to exaggerate low to high action and get my topspin in a groove. I try to swing as fast as possible while still landing the ball halfway to my opponent. I find it useful... but my groundstrokes are the weakest part of my game and I really have to wake them up.
 
Nashvegas said:
I confess I also appreciate a minute or so of MT to exaggerate low to high action and get my topspin in a groove. I try to swing as fast as possible while still landing the ball halfway to my opponent. I find it useful... but my groundstrokes are the weakest part of my game and I really have to wake them up.
Click to expand...

MT has also built my confidence hitting short sitters with my 2HBH, something with which I was never comfortable prior to MT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
All points played in good faith...
Replies
4
Views
737
MiPeGr
M
roundiesee
Please help- who is right?
Replies
46
Views
4K
JavierLW
J
L
Give Me Liberty (from inconsistent Sudden Death rules)!
Replies
18
Views
2K
Cashman
Cashman
Cindysphinx
Life Or Death By Sudden Death
Replies
42
Views
3K
S&V-not_dead_yet
S&V-not_dead_yet
L
You make the call...timed out match
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
leech
L
Back
Top