Women's Doubles
and Your Doubles

Dave Hagler

When most people talk tennis, they talk about singles.  When most people play tennis, they play doubles.  With that in mind, I will make 3 statements about doubles that you may or may not agree with: 

1. Professional doubles (men’s and women’s), has changed as much or more than singles over the past 10 years. 
2. The return of serve is more of a weapon that at any time in the history of tennis.   
3. Changes in equipment and stroke production make doubles at all levels much more complex.  There are now more potential viable strategies.  Shots that at one time were low percentage or ill advised may now be very sound options.  

The Women's Model?

In an earlier article I suggested that modern women’s singles was often a better model for the club player.  I also believe that, in many cases, the same is true in women’s doubles, especially when it comes to the new options.  
The truth is that the world of women’s tennis is full of reluctant volleyers. For many players, their returns and groundstrokes are much better than their net play.  Women's teams have found ways to take advantage of these strengths, and minimized the need to rely  on their weaknesses.

Club tennis often mirrors these same strengths and weaknesses.  Most club players are much more consistent off the ground than at the net. Because so few club servers are overpowering, the return in club tennis, followed by the proper use of the groundstrokes, can often be even more effective than in the women’s game.

So t his is an alternative model to traditional doubles theory which advocates the advantages of the net and a purely attacking style.  As we'll see I do think there is room for both and the two styles can be mixed. (For a tremendous presentation of the theory of the pure attacking style from Allen Fox, Click Here.)

Return of Serve

If you read Louis Cayer’s article about men’s doubles (Click Here), you will see that the modern men’s doubles game now also features a variety of playing styles.  But the effect is even more extreme in the women’s game.  We can see this by comparing the differences in the percentages of service breaks.  In the 2008 Grand Slam tournaments, men’s teams broke serve 18% of the time.  The women’s number was almost twice that, with breaks occurring 35% of the time.

In 2003 and 2004, Paola Suarez and Virginia Ruano Pascal were the #1 team in the world.  Their strategy was predicated on hitting balls with lots of topspin and angle.  They hit aggressive returns and aggressive groundstrokes, and hit them on the rise with heavy spin. 

They used these shots to create gaps between or open areas around their opponents and to force weak returns.  Suarez and Pascal would then drive groundstrokes or swing volleys into the gaps creating winners and forced errors.  Or they would force weak replies and then move towards the net and volley in a more traditional sense. 

As a doubles team Suarez and Pascal were shot makers.    Their ability to take balls early and take time from their opponents created opportunities and pressured the opponents into making errors.  Their fast, heavy returns and groundies also made it difficult for opponents who tried to counter by moving into the net, as they frequently had to volley up on their first volleys.

This is not to say that there are not successful teams still playing serve and volley in women’s tennis.  Current world number ones Cara Black and Liezel Huber tend to play traditional, “classic” doubles.  Samantha Stosur and Renae Stubbs play much the same way.  These players almost always serve and volley, and come to net as much as possible after their returns.    

The point is that in modern women’s doubles you see a wide range of formations, alignments, and shot patterns.  These are all used to take advantage of team or individual strengths, to attempt to minimize areas of deficiency, to exploit weaknesses, or to negate the strengths of opposing players.

Club Applications

Almost all of these same points will apply in club play. Due to the rackets and strings,  club players can also hit groundstrokes with more pace and spin.  These types of balls are difficult to volley, making it harder for teams to be successful at the net. 

As in the pro game, the return has become much more important at the club level.  There are no stats for club tennis, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that successful club teams break serve at a comparable rate, or probably an even greater rate, than the top women.  Because club serving can be so erratic, focusing on strategies to break serve can have a huge impact on the outcome of matches.

Options

Club players need to realize they have a range of options.  There is no longer only one way to play--get to the net as soon as possible.  Teams have to evaluate their options, their own strengths and weaknesses, and also, those of their opponents.

Why not think of your returns as a weapon and learn to use them to create openings? If your groundstrokes are your biggest weapon, why not bring them into play in a way that may increase your chances of success instead of blindly charging the net in the service of classic theory? 

In doubles it takes fewer strong balls to force the action compared to singles.  This is why lower level club players can afford to be more aggressive off the ground than. In many more situations today, hitting stronger returns and staying back, even after your serve, may give you the chance to bring your best shots into play. 

1 Up 1 Back

At the top of the women’s game, it is not uncommon to see entire points, games, sets and even matches played with one player on the team at the net and one player in the backcourt.  This means that after the serve and return, the teams are basically exchanging groundstrokes, looking for an advantage that leads to a winner or an error from the opponent. 

When the goal of a team is to get to the net, it is not a good idea to hit a ball with a lot of angle unless you can win the point or force a weak reply.  Hitting wide makes it difficult for your partner to cut off a ball hit in the middle of the court.  

But in the one up one back formation, a player can use angle and spin because the baseline player can hit the ball with enough velocity to keep the net player from cutting off the ball.  The 1 Up 1 Back team can still go at, over or around the net player when the opportunity is there. 

When both teams are in this formation, t he most common exchange is power crosscourt groundstrokes.  When one team gets slightly ahead or the opponent hits too close to the middle, the net player can pick the ball off, split the opponents, angle the ball  off for a winner, or drive a volley directly at the opposing net player.  

Playing 1 Up 1 Back, there are other key patterns. Hitting low returns with topspin to incoming net players.  Hitting deep, heavy loopers to the backhands of servers who stay back.  Hitting hard returns down the line – especially when the ball is hit wide and the net player does not follow the ball by sliding toward the alley. Hitting hard returns directly at the net player.  Or hitting lobs over the head of an opposing player who ventures too close to the net.  The sheer velocity and angle of returns and groundstrokes means that the net person must take more risks and hit more difficult shots if they want to volley more balls--and that can lead to errors.

Attacking Options

This is not to discount attacking the net, including playing serve and volley and either driving or chipping returns and coming in.  These decisions should depend on your level, style of play and the style of play of your opponents.  How good is your serve?  Can you overpower opponents on serve, or consistently kick your serve up higher, out of their power zone?

Can you limit your opponents’ returns?  By that I mean can you either make them hit their returns where you want them to and/or with limited pace?  How well do you and your partner volley?  If opponents lob well, can you consistently put overheads away from ¾ court and in? 

If you can answer yes to many or most of those questions, then you are likely to be successful incorporating more traditional attacking sequences.  But my point is that for many players the use of the backcourt is more viable than ever before.

To help you understand all the factors that are involved and how they may apply to you and your opponents, let’s look at the range of possible team formations, starting with the traditional positions, what kind of points they yield, and then looking at the variations, including the rationale behind each. 

Traditional Positions

In traditional doubles, the server usually stands out further from the center service line than she would in singles, although there are variations.  A server might stand closer to the center to increase the possibility the return would be hit closer to the middle where her partner could volley.  But conversely a server might move out even wider to give her more angle to force the returner wide.   This can have the same effect, if the returner is unable to get the ball back sharply crosscourt.

In the traditional formation, the net player starts somewhere near the middle of the service box.  This allows her to move forward and at an angle when poaching and also makes it difficult for the receiver to hit a down the line lob return.  If the serve is sliced or kicked out wide, the partner can follow the ball, shifting in the direction of the serve placement.     

Traditional Returns

In the traditional receiving formation, the receiver stands somewhere near where she would in singles--the corner of the singles sideline and the baseline– although she can adjust and move wider if the server moves wider.

The net player stands about 3 – 5 feet from the center service line and usually just inside the service line, although some teams play slightly further back.  This position allows the net player to play defense.  

If the serving team net player poaches it is now more difficult to avoid the net player on the receiver’s team.  The receiving net player can also move forward from this position and poach a week first volley by the server.

On a second serve, the receiving net player usually moves farther forward and away from the middle, with the assumption the receiver will be able to attack the return or at least keep it away from the server’s partner. 

Traditional Variations

The most common traditional serving variations are the Australian formation and the “I” formation.  In the Australian the server stands very close to the center mark and the partner is on the same half (deuce or add).  The partner generally starts about a step to a step and a half further from the center than the server. 

The partner may then stay or poach to either side.  Sometimes the partner will also stand closer to or further from the net than normal.  Historically this formation was used when a player had a big serve or when the receiver was hurting the serving team with crosscourt returns. 

A traditional “I” formation differs from the Australian in the position of the server’s partner.  The partner starts down on one knee, straddling the center service line, or slightly over to one side, and ducking down.  Typically the partner stands further from the net than in the standard formation.   

Again, this formation disrupts the normal pattern of exchanges, with the serving net player intercepting crosscourt returns.  The opposing team can be forced to hit down the line groundstrokes, or try to go over the net player with the crosscourt lob. 

Modern Variations

If you watch women’s pro doubles, you will see a lot of players start in non-traditional positions.   In one common formation, the server stands closer to the center and the server’s partner is very close to the center service line and almost on top of the net.  It’s a less extreme version of the Australian or the I.

To make this work, the partner has to be able to hit reflex volleys against big returns.  The advantages are that the volleyer cuts off more angle by being closer to the returner (similar to a goalie moving towards the shooter in soccer) and more of the middle of the court is covered.  The volleyer is also less vulnerable to dipping returns hit with heavy topspin.  Usually with this formation, the server will stay back and only occasionally follow her serve to the net.   

Potential weaknesses of this formation are that it gives more room for big returns down the line, or for lob returns.  You also see this formation on the men’s side, and one of the world’s top five teams, Oliver Marach and Lukasz Kubot, play this formation almost exclusively. 

Crowding

A second variation positions the server’s partner at the edge of the doubles alley and very close to the net.  This protects against the strong down the line return.  But probably the main reason has to do with the lack of confidence of the net partner in her volleys.  You see this when the net player is reluctant to get into the middle of the court against heavy returns or groundstrokes.

This formation also brings the backcourt game of the server more into play.  It may seem strange to see teams play this way on the pro tour, but cheating towards the middle is now often considered a risky strategy.

Two Back

A third variation is two back.  This is with bothplayers at the baseline.   Although once considered crazy according to conventional doubles wisdom, there are professional doubles teams that play this formation with success.

Again the advantage here is to bring the groundstrokes into play, including the topspin lob.  Teams may feel that the net player is a liability and that the backcourt player is forced to cover most of the court with the partner unable to move confidently to the middle.  Moving the partner back means the team is covering the entire court using their stronger more confident shots.

It may seem strange, but Two Back can be the clear percentage play for some teams.  One reason is that it changes the patterns of attack for the receiving team, making them less familiar.  This is because the openings are now the sharp angles in the short court, rather than in the middle between the partners. Many teams are far less comfortable with these angles.

At the club level, “two back” can be equally or more effective than at the pro level.  If the server cannot serve to the backhand, or has a weak second serve, Two Back prevents the net player from becoming a target.  It allows the serving players to use their groundstrokes, which are frequently their best developed and more consistent strokes at lower levels.

Returning Team

Most of the modern variations in returning take advantage of positional weakness or lack of volleying skill and/or confidence of the server’s partner, as just discussed.  If the server’s partner is close to the doubles alley and/or unwilling to poach it creates opportunities for the receiving team. 

If the server’s partner is not going to poach then the receiver’s partner does not have to cover the middle of the court.  This means that she can move further in toward the net and away from the center.  This positioning will allow her to take advantage if her partner hits an attacking service return.  She can follow a wide ball and close or poach on the first shot after the return. 

Or maybe the receiving team just feels they can win the exchanges when both teams stay 1 Up and 1 Back.

Another variation is to have the receiver’s partner starts the point in ¾ court.  One reason for this is that on slower courts it is difficult to hit volleys that stay low.  A player may take her chances hitting a big groundie or a spinny groundie or swing volley from this position when she has slightly more time than from a position closer to the net. She may even venture to the net if her partner attacks the return.

Deciding

Keep in mind that the reason that women professionals play less traditional doubles is that they have better success with these options than doing something else more traditional.  All of the changes in modern tennis – slower courts, bigger groundstrokes and returns, more topspin and angle, less midcourt and net play, all make it more difficult to play traditional doubles.  

Since almost all women pros are some form of aggressive baseliner, the question becomes, “how should an aggressive baseliner play doubles?”  The answer is some of the options we’ve considered. 

So which is the better model for you?  Traditional doubles will still work better for many players and teams.  But ask yourself the questions listed above about your ability to serve and hit the other shots associated with an attacking net style. 

For players with the necessary shot mastery, the traditional model can still be completely valid.  But, this does not mean that if you have huge groundies and a big return that you should start to chip returns because you have heard about abstract classical doubles theory.

Because younger players have grown up playing a singles style in which they are less likely to go to the net, they tend to be less comfortable and skilled in the mid and forecourt.  At the club level you have to assess your skills as a team, those of your opponents and your ability to impose your game on that of your adversaries.

What seems to be happening in women’s tennis is a combination of shot making, pure power, taking groundies early and traditional doubles.  When the Williams sisters play together, you see all of these styles.  This can work for you and your partner provided you realistically assess your skills as a team and utilize a strategy which allows you to utilize them during your match.