|
Written by John Debnam
|
|
Thursday, 20 September 2007 11:45 |
Recently I say a post on a great tennis blog called Operation Doubles regarding the different formations in doubles, and which if any is the weakest.
The general idea of doubles as we all know, starts in the one up one back formation, at general club level.Once the ball is in play then certain styles and certain tactics dictate the formations during the rally, both up or both back.
Each formation has its weak points, but which one is the weakest?
The blog went like this;
"For now though, I thought I'd answer here a question about doubles that I hear a lot.
It goes something like this: Isn't the Up-and-Back Formation bad to be in?
I never quite know where to grab hold of that thing. "Bad?" As in, "Don't do that or the guys will think you're not a real tennis player."
The Plague (tennis ego) strikes again. Of all the reasons not to do something, that has got to be the silliest. It isn't a moral issue.
The weakness in the Up-and-Back Formation has been exaggerated, as if there's no way to keep your opponents from volleying through the angular gap between partners in the Up-and-Back Formation.
And the weaknesses in the other two formations are never even mentioned, let alone compared. Indeed, some will gasp "Heresy!" if you point out the weakness in the Both-Up Formation.
The rear in the Both-Up Formation is targetable by either opponent on every shot. The wings in the Both-Back Formation are targetable by any opposing net player on every shot. The angular gap in the Up-and-Back Formation is targetable only by an opposing volleyer kitty-cornered from your net player and only when he or she gets a whack at the ball, which should be seldom.
The leading candidate for "weakest" formation is the Both-Back Formation. No vantage points or angles. And it covers less territory than either of the other formations.
But even the Both-Back Formation isn't "bad." Sometimes it's the "right" formation to be in. Nonetheless, this is the one formation you should try to avoid having to get into.
NEVER get into it unless you have to.
If your partner is getting you blasted at the net because of his wimpy shots, don't go back to the baseline: threaten your wimpy partner with worse than whatever he's afraid of if he doesn't quit hitting those wimpy shots. Works like a charm ;-)
All three of these basic formations are good for what they're good for. Not one of them is "bad." In fact, it takes much more knowledge to play Up-and-Back correctly than to play the other formations, which are simple by comparison.
When two teams face each other in the Up-and-Back Formation, all kinds of variations can occur. You need to know what you're doing out there.
And virtually every point, at every level, starts just that way - with two teams facing each other in the Up-and-Back Formation.
When your net player takes root, thus remaining in their baseline partner's way - WHACK - a volley through the gap. But whose fault is that? The Up-and-Back Formation's? Or the rooted net player on your team?
When your net player doesn't watch the opposing net player during your baseline player's shot - WHACK - again, because your net player never saw the cut-off volley coming and was out of position to close and defend the gap. Again, whose fault is that? The Up-and-Back Formation's? Or a net player with a head-turning habit on your team?
And then there's the switching - WHACK - again. But whose fault is that? The Up-and-Back Formation's? Or the doubles players who don't know the Switch Trick and how to handle switching situations?
These situations just don't arise in the other formations. So, it would be fair to say that the Up-and-Back Formation is the hardest to play. You need to know a lot more to play it well. Playing Both-Up or Both-Back is simple by comparison."
So, don't blame the Up-and-Back Formation, when the real problem is that many players just don't know how to play it.
Every formation has a vulnerable area, and you need to know how to play that formation so as to minimize the risk of a shot to that vulnerable area.
The gap in the Up-and-Back Formation is targetble only by an opposing net player kitty-cornered from your net player. But how often does an opposing net player kitty-cornered from your net player get a whack at the ball? Compare with the rear in the Both-Up Formation. It is targetable by either opponent from anywhere on every shot.
So, which formation is really more vulnerable?
Just as you need to play both-up so as to prevent good lobs, you need to play up-and-back so as to prevent volleys through the gap.
What you CAN say about the Up-and-Back Formation is that is more complex than the other formations and requires more knowledge to play properly, but that doesn't make it a "bad" formation.
Unfortunately, everyone needs to learn how to play Up-and-Back properly, because it's unavoidable. It's the formation beginners use. It's the formation virtually every point, at every level, begins in - with both teams in the Up-and-Back Formation.
So, learn how to play it properly or suffer.
Do NOT avoid the Up-and-Back Formation. When it's called for, it's necessary. For example, wnd what if you're both-up and one of you goes back to chase a lob? What? Must both of you retreat to avoid the Up-and-Back Formation? Similarly, what if you're both-back and one of you can advance while the other hits? What? Must you wait till you both can advance on an approach shot, just to avoid the Up-and-Back Formation?
Ridiculous. The good thing about the Up-and-Back Formation is its versatility. It has an offensive mode and a defensive mode, and it enables you transition smoothly into either of the other formations.
Avoiding the Up-and-Back Formation makes no more sense than avoiding either of the other two would. They all have their use in the game.
Kathy Krajco Operation Doubles - click the link and sign up for the newsletter
|
Tweet me!
