Van Zee’s Vault: How to build a winning program: Setting a lineup

Welcome to the third edition of the How to build a winning program series. Last week we covered scheduling and I enjoy reading the previews of the other bloggers referencing whether or not each coach has done a good job. This week I am going to discuss the importance of setting a lineup. The focus will be more on the doubles side of things, but I will talk a bit about singles as well. Before getting into any discussion, I want to make it clear that I am a staunch opponent against stacking a lineup. So all of my points only apply if the talent level of your positions are similar. While in a perfect world, it would be obvious who should play where, it doesn’t always work that way. Some players have the talent, but can’t compete well on match day. Some players don’t have the skills to win at certain positions while others do. I will start with doubles.

Doubles

• You don’t always have to pair your two best doubles players together.

When it comes to setting a doubles lineup, you have to start to consider where you might get 2 out of 3 points. The whole goal is to start singles ahead either 2-1 or 3-0. By pairing your two best doubles players, you are likely stating that you think you will have a good chance of guaranteeing one point and then hopeful your #2 and #3 can pull out a win. With this situation, I would say you are less likely to sweep, but might have a better shot at taking two of the three doubles matches. I will use Case Western from last year as an example of this. They had Krimbill and Stuerke at the top spot which is a likely win, but two weaker teams at 2 and 3. Whomever they put at #2 was weaker and the hope was that they could take down the #3 spot. I personally am a fan of having three very similar teams giving you a shot to win at every position, but it is definitely tough to pass up the guaranteed (or close to it) point.

• Pair players who have the opposite strengths and weaknesses.

No player has all of the tools necessary to carry the other outside of a few, but it is important that there isn’t a glaring hole equally in both player’s games. If it is clear that both players have weak backhands or overheads, the opponent will exploit that to the fullest extent. I will use myself as an example. My backhand was extremely poor in my playing days. I was able to hide it because I played the deuce side and balls down the middle were taken by my partner who had a very strong forehand. Obviously teams still tried to exploit my weakness, but we were able to neutralize most attacks (outside of my backhand return) with court positioning. Do you best to disguise a player’s weakness by either a huge strength of their own or their partner.

• Consider personalities and how they mesh on the court.

This is probably the most important thing when it comes to pairing players together. It is monumental that players get along on the court. Tennis isn’t a utopia where everyone will like one another. Different personalities will clash and some players may not be as receptive to playing with certain teammates. My best example I can use comes from my time at Earlham. My two best doubles players were cordial teammates, but had two very different on court temperaments. It ended up working in my advantage in the end as I was able to pair the better strategist (shout out to Santa Cruz transfer and All American Kyle Richter) with a player that had great skills, but not the doubles knowledge and was very receptive to Kyle’s coaching. That duo played #2 doubles and became quite the force as they moved through the season. Kyle’s doubles partner, Phil Locklear, later became a doubles All-American when he transferred to Whitman. I am pretty sure Kyle and I both took equal credit in that development. My other top doubles player paired with a player who had the biggest weapons at #1. He was a loud and boisterous player and brought a lot of fire to a guy who was low key, but could hit bombs for serves and forehands. They had a lot of success and balanced nicely on the court. If two players aren’t willing to work together in the same pursuit of winning, then they will struggle mightily.

• Doubles “specialists” can have a lot of success.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have the depth to ever have a doubles specialist with great success, but there are a ton of examples of this working. Teams like Emory, Kenyon, and Case have had players not in the singles lineup have great success at the top of the doubles lineup. One of my favorites is from a few years ago with Case. Nick Howe and John Healey were a dominant force. Austin Griffin from Kenyon was another doubles stud. Just last season, Rubenstein and Spaulding for Emory won all of their national tournament matches against big time teams like Trinity, Kenyon (eventual national champions Geier/Kaye), and Bowdoin. If a player or players knows that doubles is his way into the lineup and concentrates an entire season on practicing to be better, they can grow exponentially as a doubles player. This will take a lot of coaching and player development, but the dividends can be great. A doubles specialist can also take the pressure off a singles specialist moonlighting as a doubles player. Abishek Alla, my favorite player of all time, is the prime example. For three years, he played #1 singles and not doubles. While this is rather rare, it can play to a team’s advantage.

• The top spot needs to have a dominant part of their game to have success

The obvious answer to this is having a top doubles team with massive serves. I am not going to say that having that weapon for both service games is not a big deal because it is. If a team can hold every service game, they literally only have to steal a break or win a tiebreaker. Conversely, a team that has a dominant returning game can have just as much success. David Liu and Nick Chua from Chicago are a prime example of this. Neither have booming serves, but both have nasty returns. They have found success at the top spot in the past because they neutralize the usual weapon they face in bigger servers. The bottom line is, to play at the top spot against the top competition, you need to be great at one or the other parts of the game.

• Tinker early in the season, but find a lineup and stick with it

Doubles tandems take time to get used to playing with a new partner. Constantly switching up teams can have adverse effects. While I fully understand tinkering with teams early in the season, do your best to find a couple of duos that can be successful and stick with those. If an injury comes about, I would suggest keeping your other two teams the same (likely moving them up a spot) and only substituting where the new player is needed. There is no reason to shake up everyone when only one team needs adjusting. The more you play with someone the more you get comfortable and can anticipate what your teammate will do.

Singles

As I mentioned previously, singles is a bit more black and white in how you can set a lineup, but nothing drove me more nuts as to when a coach would justify stacking by saying, “Well he beat him at practice the other day.” I can say with full certainty, that my top player at Earlham won zero challenge matches during my time at Earlham. I can also say with certainty that not only was he my best player, every team we played knew it. All he had to do was hit one serve and one forehand and it was obvious. 20 minutes later, the match would be over. He just wasn’t motivated by matches that didn’t matter. It frustrated the hell out of me as well as his teammates, but when competition came calling, he was lights out. Where the decisions came into play in my lineup was from #2-#6. The talent at those spots was very close. On any given day, I could have thrown out any of the four players at #2 and he could have won. When I did settle on a lineup, a few factors were considered. Who will consistently perform? Who has the highest potential to upset someone better than them? What style of game can get results at #2 as opposed to #6? Again, I reemphasize that I am extremely against stacking. These questions are only considered when the talent and competition level are too close to call.

There you have it. My guide to setting a lineup. As always, I love getting feedback or more suggestions. I hope everyone had a great Christmas and looking forward to a New Year.