Assume the smasher is at the corner on one side for the purpose of this discussion. I've run into 2 schools of thoughts: 1. Defending players each take up his own side (i.e. at about center of his side). The player directly in front of the attacking opponent should stand further back, while his partner should stand more to the front. The intention is to keep the distance between each player and the attacker the same. 2. The player directly in front of the attacking opponent should stand closer to the side line to cover the down the line shots. His partner would move to the center line of the court, thereby squeezing the space between the two players. His partner would cover cross-court attack. Furthermore, both players would use backhand defence, as it is believed to be more ergonomic. Comparing these 2 methods, #2 seems to leave less space in between to attacking side. However, it leaves the cross-court wide open. What do you think? Also, if you adopt #1, which partner should pick up the center line smash? Again there're 2 approaches: a. The forehand player (assuming both right-handed) b. The one best positioned to hit it. Does #a really make sense? If it were an overhead shot, yeah, forehand would be stronger. But I find often time, my forehand defence really is weaker than my backhand.
Options for defending really depends on the ability of the opposite pair to attack and also their positions. For instance, if you give a high lob allowing the opponent time to move into position, then they would be in a better position to play a cross court smash and therefore position (1) logically seems better. If you play a more attacking lob (lower, faster) that forces the attacking player to stretch sideways and backwards and unable to play a steep smash, crosscourt smashes are less likely and the defending position can change to position (2). Again, if your opponents have the ability, they may be able to play crosscourt smashes but they will have to be pretty good for this. As for centre court defence, I think people discussed this before. Check it out using the search function.
Cheung, Thanks for the pointer. I checked out a thread called "Smash Defence". It seems very controversial. But having heard all the verdicts, I think I flavor the backhand defence better than forehand, simply out of observation and personal experience. Unfortunately, it is not easy to settle this in a club setting. People are so used to playing defence on their own half court, and the "forehand guy should take the middle" school of thought. Oh well... As per your reasoning above, I've the following comments: 1. In an attacking situation, the front man on the attacking side usually stands on the same side as the smasher. This means the cross-court is by an large empty. A wide angle smash cross-court is gambling. I'd think the chance for this happening is low. 2. If the attacking pair can indeed trouble you with a cross-court smash, presumably the smasher's power is pretty strong. Wouldn't you have much more threat receiving smashes down-the-line and quite possibly the middle? If so, it would seem to make sense to "concentrate" more defence around that neighbourhood.
Here's my 2 cents worth: Most doubles players tends to go to the side/side defence when receiving smashes. I personally tend to favor my backhand to return smashes for more control but I know some folks hold their racquets in front so as to be able to move to back/forehand as required. The whole idea is to be in your ready position to return the smashes to the corners (front & back) or be ready for a drop shot. Usually, I find that cross court smashes are a gamble since the shuttle has further to travel than smashes down the line. As for the "forehand player should take smashes down the middle", this is generally true but it doesn't mean that the backhand player should just let the shuttle go by. If you are right handed and your partner is left handed, it could mean that smashes down the middle to be backhand for both or forehand for both. The idea is to be ready and call for it if you are not sure if your partner will either take it or leave it. Good doubles players tend to complement each other and thus usually have a feel for who is going take shots in the common areas.
Raymond "1. In an attacking situation, the front man on the attacking side usually stands on the same side as the smasher. This means the cross-court is by an large empty. A wide angle smash cross-court is gambling. I'd think the chance for this happening is low." I lost your point on the third and fourth sentence. Two hypothetical situations for cross court smashing. A. For the attacking pair, imagine a position when the person smashing is near the baseline and near the tramlines. A cross court smash will take more time to cross the net and will be flatter. The most likely defensive return is a straight drive and the net player has to cover the width of the court. Most likely the defensive pair can turn defense into attack at this juncture. B. Same situation but the shuttle is not lifted so well to the back of the court (perhaps 3/4 length). It would not be amiss to cross court smash as the steepness of trajectory will better. If the net player is still not expecting his partner to cross court smash, same problem as before occurs. The time when to cross court smash in this situation is largely decided by the net player. If the net player realises the defensive pair have put up a shorter lift, he can move a couple of steps to the side to allow his partner to cross court smash and then cover a straight return. Therefore, it is the net player's position (and thus the understanding between partners) that will dictates when a cross court smash is more feasible. Your second point "2. If the attacking pair can indeed trouble you with a cross-court smash, presumably the smasher's power is pretty strong. Wouldn't you have much more threat receiving smashes down-the-line and quite possibly the middle? If so, it would seem to make sense to "concentrate" more defence around that neighbourhood." In my experience, it's the accurate smashers rather than the powerful smashers who will cause more problems with the cross court smash. These players play a steeper angle smash (though not necessarily full power) to prevent the defensive player from playing effective drives. SInce the shuttle would be low and nearer the forecourt for the denfensive player, it is likely a high return of poorer length will result. Just to make it clear, these crosscourt smashes I'm referring to are smashes aimed towards the tramlines hope this helps. Regards
Hi Cheung, All my comments are based on an assumption that the defensive lift/clear is high and deep enough, and closer to one corner than the center line. A lift that is attackable at mid-court (i.e. a short lift) could give the defending pairs lots of troubles; they now have more space to cover (due to the possible steepness of the return), as well the smashes would be more effective/powerful. In the extreme case, the attacking side can do pretty much anything they want. Having said that, my point #1 is: attacking pair don't want to open up the cross-court position when they can close up and control a more focused portion of the court - the straight attacks and returns. Cross-court, if executed well and surprises the defending pair, the att. side may win the rally right away. But then a block defence would be a test to the alertness of attacking pair's front player. Of course a straight drive is also a possibility. In either case, their attacks would be neutralized (perhaps they may even lose the rally). Thus, it is a gamble. That's why this is a low percentage point. I however agree with your 2 scenario analysis though As for the last point, I guess you're probable right. But it's not something I need to worry about much these days, since I've yet to develop my games into using the shifted bias as I described in my first posting.
I was taught that method two was the preferred defence since straight smashes are faster, so the person in front of the smasher would have less time to move to cover the tramline than his partner, who should have time to move to the tramline even if they were half a step closer to the center than normal. Also, normal defence against good players, ie people that consistently can smash down and either away from you, or at your hip, is backhand, racquet pointing down, as all it requires to hit the shuttle is a slight wrist movement. Of course at standard club level, smashes come at all heights, and most people can't smash consistently just above the net (where smashes should be), so most people defend with racquet up. Finally, if the smash is sent down the middle from the sides, I was taught that the cross court person takes it. PS I've had two extremely good coaches, one who was possibly the most respected and decorated player in her time, singles and doubles (my uni coach), and the other, the assistant coach of our national team, and whilst I don't do their training any justice on the court (since I suck) I do respect their opinion.
Just for fun I thought I would throw in a few ideas on this subject. The aim of the defending pair should be to regain the attack as soon as possible, and to do this, they have to cut out the time to the opponents. From this point of view, the correct stance would appear to be one defender covering the straight (assumedly more powerful) smash and the other to come near to the centre, but not too close to the centre line, slightly forward so that the cross court smash and drops are covered. The smasher then has to play a steep smash, which should be intercepted by either player, or play into the open court whic is the cross court rear court. if this happens, the attack has been regained. As regards to picking up the centre line smash, I am sure you will find that in the majority of cases, the movement to defend on the backhand is more natural, and more powerful, so I would suggest that the person tih the back hand collects the centre smash. This, of course depends on the players ability and strength of the smash. Any ideas or criticisms will be read carefully, I am sure there are other ideas out there! Mark
I found this on Badminton Central's techniques section. It gives a very good description of how to play defense in doubles. http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/techniques/doubles-defense.php
There is no right or wrong answer here. Cannot be so clearcut as to say, person with forehand should take the shot. The following is not meant to be an antagonistic remark or disrespectful.. I notice that coaches teach different things to people of differing abilities. SO what tactics are taught at a lower level may not necessarily have so much emphasis at a higher level.
About the stance: this is the "schoolbook" formation, so I'd say you're dead right. And as to picking up the smash, there is really no solution (which is why the centre line smash is effective). The backhand defense is indeed more natural, but both players are covering with backhand anyway... If you look at top international players, they sometimes clash their racquets, and I'd say that 90% of these happen in receiving centre line smashes...
Different levels different advices. When high level players are playing sometimes what we learnt as basics do not work for them. I believe in doubles defence, the pair have to decide who is the dominant player. If that could be sorted out (sometimes not easy in amateur levels) probably the defence problem could be solved. I used to play against a very difficult doubles team. In singles either me or my partner did not have any trouble beating any of them. In doubles, both of them have good defence - one of them was good at smash and another was very fast at net interceptions. When we smash at the center the guy fast at net will never take it. He will always leave it to his partner and if circumstances allowing he would dash to net.
Also, normal defence against good players, ie people that consistently can smash down and either away from you, or at your hip, is backhand, *** racquet pointing down ***, as all it requires to hit the shuttle is a slight wrist movement. Of course at standard club level, smashes come at all heights, and most people can't smash consistently just above the net (where smashes should be), so most people defend with racquet up =========================================================== I've heard different theories about direction in which the racquet should point during defence. One says racquet should point straight directly from your belly button; presumably this is a reasonably good placement equal distant from higher flatter smashes and steep smashes. Another says racquet should be pointing a bit upward. This is to give an edge to defending flatter smashes; you need to overcome the weight of your racquet and in this regard, dropping it down is slightly faster than pulling it up. Not just standard club level ppl would smash at all heights. Height/steepness of smashes is an parameter one can manipulate tactically. So the bottom line is one needs to be ready for smashes of all heights.
