Tennis Doubles Q & A: The Weakest Doubles Formation

Believe it or not, there is life outside of tennis, and I enjoyed a little of it last week :)

But it's getting interesting now, so I promise to pay attention.

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.

Technorati Tags: tennis