Receiving Serve Ready Position

Discussion in 'Techniques / Training' started by KazeCloud, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. KazeCloud

    KazeCloud Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Stockton, California
    Alright thanks. I'm willing to change to fit what is best. So with my left foot forward at returning. To shuffle to backhand I would take a step back with right foot, push off with my left and move it behind me? While for forehand I step back with right foot and push off with my left infront? Just wanted to make sure before I brand the steps into my brain.

    I'm also glad that after the service is over, its okay to stand with non racket foot forward. Thanks Taneepak.
     
  2. chickenpoodle

    chickenpoodle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    you shouldn't cross your legs.
    your non-racquet leg will be providing almost all the power upon the instant your opponent flicks the shuttle upwards.
    then you do your chasse/shuffle (one foot chasing the other, as some say), until you find yourself at the back.
    your non-racquet leg will stay infront of you the whole time, until after you've executed your stroke (where the scissors or whatever will carry your racquet leg forward).

    i don't see why you have to adjust your footwork for a flick that goes to your forehand or backhand... your toes are on the service line, you're standing relatively "neutral" to the server... you just push off and back up in the right direction, depending on where their serve goes.

    the moment you "step back" with your left leg, you have lost all your speed.
    the first step isn't a "step". its a huge push.

    well, unless i'm playing with the competive bunch, theres still a lot of people that get spooked when someone starts toeing the line. they lose all confidence in their short service (if they had any to begin with), and start flicking serves like theres no tomorrow. they keep doing it, even though it just gets smashed or goes long over and over...
     
    #22 chickenpoodle, Dec 13, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2007
  3. RichF

    RichF Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    54
    Location:
    EU
    Once again, when returning serve you shouldn't need to use your backhand, you haven't been forced out of position and as others have said you only need to cover half the court so you should be able to play everything with your forehand.

    Practice movements away from your receiving base to be able to play all returns forehand, including round-the-head shots when the opponent attempts to serve down your backhand side - a round-the-head forehand shot will be a lot more powerful than a backhand shot....with the possible exception of Taufik Hidayat! (but even he will elect to play round-the-head rather than backhand if possible)

    The only time I can think where I would want to play a backhand service return is when the opponent has served short to my backhand side in:

    a) The 'forehand' court where the opponent has served to the 'T' - I might want to create an angle to force the opponent wide on my forehand side (if you can picture that?) or I might be able to kill the serve.

    b) The 'backhand' court where the opponent has served wide towards the tramlines - a forehand shot would probably be impossible or (as above) I want to create a particular angle for my return or I can kill the serve.

    But not too much. You want to maintain a neutral stance when you're at your base so that your next movement can be in any direction, too much bias towards one foot forward limits your ability to move quickly in certain directions.

    If you want to learn how to stand after the service is over (i.e. during a rally) then IIRC in this video Peter Rasmussen talks a little bit about the 'base' stance and how to move to (in this example) hit a jump smash:

    http://www.badmintonsite.com/

    (It's in the instructional videos section)

    The serve is the exception where the bias is strongly towards having the non-racquet foot forward.
     
  4. RichF

    RichF Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    54
    Location:
    EU
    Not as much time as you'd have if you stood correctly.

    Imagine a right-handed player, receiving serve in the forehand side of the court, standing (as per your example) in the middle of the court. The opponent can aim to serve into four basic locations (I'm aware there's a plethora of variations but I think you'll agree that these four are the most common/basic!)

    1) Short to the T (the receivers backhand side)
    2) Short and wide towards the tramlines (the receivers forehand side)
    3) Long to the center line (the receivers backhand side)
    4) Long and wide towards the tramlines (the receivers forehand side)

    IMO only one of those shots might require a backhand stroke and that's the first one i.e. short to the T, the rest can and should be played forehand.

    If the player has stood with their racquet foot forward then they would need to 'reverse' their feet for 3 out of 4 of those serves to facilitate correct movement (given that they should be trying to play them forehand) and that is less efficient and a weaker strategy.

    I won't bother to go through that for receiving serve in the backhand court but the results are the same, i.e. with your racquet foot forward you will have to 'reverse' your feet for 3 out of 4 of the serves.

    nb. by "reverse" I mean switch the position of your feet.
     
  5. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Against a player who stands anywhere near the front, with the wrong foot forward: I would try a flick serve immediately. He would probably make a weak reply; if so, I would continue to use this serve against him, to the complete exclusion of all other serves, until he began to make effective replies.

    Always use your opponent's weakness. There's no sense using a low serve "because you're supposed to". If a flick serve gets you the attack, keep using it.

    It's a balance. "Racket foot forward" is faster for rushing low serves, but it's hopeless for flick serves. If your opponents are so clueless that they don't flick you, by all means keep your racket foot forward. Again, use your opponent's weakness (in this case, his inability to recognise your weakness).


    This is probably the most popular stance among pros, followed by both feet side-by-side. You sometimes see them serve with the non-racket foot forward, but it's less common. All methods are fine; what matters is what you do with your feet after you serve.
     
  6. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Strong convergence in pros' technique is good evidence for an objective advantage in that method (although this may not be invariant over ability level).

    In this case, the reason is straightforward. Leading with the non-racket foot incurs a small sacrifice for low serve returns, but confers a huge benefit for flick serve returns. In both cases the differences are more dramatic for doubles, but they still exist for singles.

    Let us suppose that a player, who leads with the racket foot, finds that standing distance X behind the short service line provides the optimal balance between covering low serves and covering flick serves. If he now changes his posture to lead with the non-racket foot, he will be able to stand farther forwards (say, X + one metre) and still cover the flick serve with equal effectiveness.

    Therefore, comparing the two postures, leading with the non-racket foot allows you to stand farther forwards. This is a considerable advantage, because you can more effectively return the low serve, with no reduction in the effectiveness of your flick serve returns.

    Although the flick serve is uncommonly used in singles, it can be a good option. Against an receiver who (incorrectly!) stands with his racket foot forwards, you should be able to pin him between flick serves and low serves. If he stands far back enough to cope with your flick serves, then his low serve returns will be weak. Use your opponent's weakness!
     
    #26 Gollum, Dec 14, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  7. RichF

    RichF Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    54
    Location:
    EU
    If you stand that way round (i.e. with your racquet foot forward) I'd flick you every time !

    But when you're receiving you're standing (hopefully) so close to the net i.e. almost on the service line, that you should be able to move quickly in for the kill from an orthodox stance, if not I recommend extra practice!

    Indeed, but the recommendations for serving and receiving serve are clearly not the same, i.e. they are not related.
     
    #27 RichF, Dec 14, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  8. Kiwiplayer

    Kiwiplayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Which, after all these many words, is exactly my point. It allows you to stand further forward without giving up the rear court. That's all there is to it.

    If you choose to stand further back (for some strange reason), then any foot forward will do. There's plenty of time. You could be sitting on the ground and it wouldn't matter.

    Wayne Young
     
  9. Kiwiplayer

    Kiwiplayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Really, how much time do you need? If I'm standing in the middle of the court and someone flicks, I'd almost have enough time to do a cartwheel before taking the shot, nevermind which leg is in front. Attacking the short serve is not going to be very effective, but then if you're so far back it won't be any good no matter which leg is in front either.

    Like I said before, non-racquet leg in front allows you to pressure the serve and not give up the rear court. If you're not pressuring the serve (which would be a strange thing to do), then any leg forward will do. Afterall, in an actual rally when you have far less time than receiving serve, do you stand like you do when you receive serve?

    Wayne Young
     
  10. RichF

    RichF Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    54
    Location:
    EU
    It'd still be quicker if you stood non-racquet foot forward and the earlier you can get into position to play a shot the better, gives you more preparation time etc.

    Against a good opponent with a decent amount of deception on the serve I reckon you'd be scrabbling for a few.

    I have enough time to hold my racquet in my left hand and switch to my right hand (including somersaulting the racquet 4 times!) before playing the return - doesn't mean I should do it !

    Cartwheel - I'd actually really like to see that, - video please ! :p

    You can't compare how you stand during the rally to how you stand to receive a serve, they are different situations and must be treated differently i.e. you adopt the optimum stance for the situation at hand and for receiving the serve it's non-racquet foot forward.

    It's not "any leg forward will do" it's about helping less experienced players improve their technique and the correct stance when receiving the serve is fundamental. Whilst the 'one rule fits all' approach doesn't work for all aspects e.g. some peoples serves are unorthodox but turn out ok, in this case I think the general orthodox approach should be encouraged. If a player continues with an unorthodox stance then as their other skills increase this aspect will become a limiting factor in trying to achieve a higher playing ability.
     
    #30 RichF, Dec 14, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  11. Kiwiplayer

    Kiwiplayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New Zealand
    That's how I like to help out. By making people think about it rather than just being told this way or that way. Maybe I'm just a rebel.

    As for how much time one needs, if you look at the pros when they are about to take a high serve in singles (which happens less and less these days), you'll note that they never rush back full speed. They usually just amble back at a leisurely stroll, no set footwork pattern. Many just walk backwards, really. Quite different to when they actually need to move with urgency.

    From the mid court, time doesn't matter. Of course, you'll never see a good player receiving from there anyway, so this is really just an intellectual exercise.

    Wayne Young
     
  12. stumblingfeet

    stumblingfeet Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Ottawa
    If a player uses an unorthodox technique which is now limiting his abilities, then at this point changing technique (especially something as simple as foot position) is not as difficult as you may think. You see, if the player has a good feel for what's "right", he'll realize very quickly that the "correct" technique works better.

    On the other hand, overstressing the details to a player who has no feel for the skill can be a waste of time. Often, some other aspect of the skill can cause variations in performance that can wash out any benefits of the technique change you want to teach.
     
  13. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    We're getting into a silly debate.

    I accept this. Your point is correct, but irrelevant.

    We must assume that the players are trying to win. We must assume that the opponent will attempt to exploit an obvious weakness. Otherwise, we have no basis for discussing techniques or tactics.

    Sure, any leg will do for the flick if you stand far back enough; but then the low serve is a problem, and your opponent should use it against you.

    Your wrangling over this is about as productive as saying, "Okay, so the orthodox technique is necessary when my opponent is skilful, but what about when my opponent is a moron and has no arms? What if I'm playing against a three-year-old child?"

    Again, this is completely irrelevant. A high serve is not the same as a flick serve. If your opponent only uses high serves, this is not a problem; but if he recognises your lack of mobility or backwards position on court, then he can use flick or low serves to gain an advantage. A high serve is a silly choice, if you can use other serves to gain a clear advantage.
     
    #33 Gollum, Dec 14, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  14. Kiwiplayer

    Kiwiplayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New Zealand
    My, my. Who's getting a bit touchy, then? Someone taking themselves a bit seriously, maybe?

    Stumblingfeet sums up my point well. Often, it's not the details that matter. It's the reasoning behind them that matters.

    Cut to the chase, left foot forward allows you to stand further up. That's it. Nothing else required. If you choose not to stand as close as can, then do whatever you want. It doesn't matter to me whether you win or not.

    Wayne Young
     
  15. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    No.

    But someone here is trolling. Forget it; it's not working.
     
  16. bananakid

    bananakid Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    business owner
    Location:
    Alberta/Canada
    How hard is it for people to understand that the fundamental(best) serve ready position is to have your non-racket leg forward???:confused: It is not rocket science, and there is nothing to debate about.

    If anyone want to argue about that point, please feel free to do so against a wall.:cool:
     
  17. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    It is really very simple, just using common sense in footwork. Receiving serve is restricted to one half of the court. With only one half of the court to cover, your forehand can cover almost all situations, including replying to a serve to your backhand. This requires that your non-racquet foot be in front. Having racquet-foot in front to receive a serve is a silly option-why would you want to cover the whole court when the serve is only to your side (one half) of the court? Why would you want to slow down your footwork adopting a stance that is only better for covering the whole court instead of the more effective non-racquet foot foreward in covering only half the court?
     
  18. KazeCloud

    KazeCloud Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Stockton, California
    I have read through all the post carefully and agree with the views. Just to clear things up when I say to my backhand corner I actually just meant the left back, I didn't imply that I was going to hit it with my backhand. Thanks for all the input. I feel much better about my stance now.
     
  19. extremenanopowe

    extremenanopowe Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,787
    Likes Received:
    118
    Occupation:
    Chief Coach. The best and still active.
    Location:
    www.extreme-power.org or xtremexn.blogspot.com
    wall..

    well said....'perfect de mundo'...:D

     
  20. Kiwiplayer

    Kiwiplayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New Zealand
    That's a shame. And here I was looking forward to another long lecture. Let's recap then, shall we?

    Me: Stand non-racquet leg forward unless you're not up close in which case it makes no difference which leg is in front.

    You and others: Yes it makes a difference because you have less time for the flick. You need to get there early. Look at singles players, they also stand left leg forward.

    Me: I think you have plenty of time no matter what leg is in front when you're standing further back

    You: Long lecture about... something. I'm too lazy to go back and read it.

    Is that about it?

    Wayne Young
     

Share This Page