Smash along the tramlines

From what I understand, and this has been mentioned here in another thread too, that rotation that you speak of(that may have been invented by the Danes), they don't go to a sides position. They remain attacking. The back player smashing, moves forward and the front player moves to a back position. And it's done when the shuttle was not lifted all the way to the back when the smasher smashed it. So then it's easy for the smasher at the back to move forward and to take the front.

 

I think we should avoid/ignore for any helpful discussion the argument scheme "Hey pros do it, how could it be wrong". It's absolut vital to just use logic, instead of "Hey XY did this at All England" etc. I agree with you that you should vary, but this just work when you partner a real familiar and fixed partner to have together the same understanding. Beside that pros have better technique, better footwork, are quicker...as long as we average players don't come close to it, we should use solutions which fit our abilities to get the best out of a pair, and not always think we should play like the pros, because we are for several reasons not. Also serious players use specific systems based on partner and strength and mix them.

Have you watch the posted videos from me? I don't think so. The cross counter from a tunnel system must be taken from the backcourt player, not the front court player. The front court player stand committed to the attack which is longline. If the smash get countered cross, which is indeed a more difficult shot, the smash is too weak or the defenders are strong. You can also have games where your attack is much weaker than the defence of your opponents. Who says that the opponent needs to defend with the backhand? If the smash is flat and you play a lefty opponent, he/she push or drive it cross court. Tactics should be useable for every opponent and not with the requirements that he/she can't do this or that or need to work with the backhand etc. There will come one day opponents which proof you wrong. Trust me.

What most of you do that you always think that your own attack is always stronger than the defence of the opponents and that you always have equally strong opponents. That's the culprit. I played many games against really strong defenders.
The cross counter come, backcourt player need to take -> attack lost. The philosophy of doubles is to maintain the attack. If you face good defenders or the backcourt player is not a big gun like Ko Sung Hyun or Praveen Jordan this system is not the way to go.

I linked my tuntenroman for the placement of drop shots and where the front court player should stand. Indeed smashing cross court is possible, like smashing straight or the middle, but it always depends which system you play (Front-back, tunnel or wedge). If backcourt player don't play according to the rules of each system, the blame is on him. The front court player tells it non-verbal by his positioning "Hey Backcourt player, we play this system" . Jesus Christ, is this sooooo difficult to understand or read/watch the efforts which other made to explain it properly? This is kinda disrespectful to ignore all efforts which I made here to explain or link and nobody care.

That's a simple rotation. Rotations come when backcourt player don't do what front court player tells to aim, very simple. What you discribe is just the scenario of the wedge attack.

WEDGE attack:

As you can see the attack is placed that way to involve the front court player best. That means the positioning (in a line, middle, other side) determines where the attack should mainly go. The rotation occur when the back court player shot selection differ, from the system, Each system has different areas which need to get covered by the front court player and back court player. You can't say "Partner is at the front and is responsible for every return to the front". That's not true

Sidenote: I don't know if wedge attack is the right common naming for the system. Please ignore the name, I just know the german name.

 

Yeah it's advantage is you maintain the pressure because letting the the front player cover sides means he can take the shuttle earlier than having the smasher recover and move back. Okay I should stop calling it the Danish rotation lol, no validity to the term....it's just something I use to distinguish it among friends

 

Well this is getting kind of off topic. We can make a lot of assumptions about player strengths, shot quality etc etc. Regarding the OP, I'm just saying smashing down the line is not always a terrible shot, and he may not be at fault just because his partner couldn't cover.

The wedge....that's a good term for it lol. It doesn't have to mean the back player is disobeying the front player, it can be a legitimate rotation as well

 

You simple don't understand or read any of my posts? this makes me angry as hell. Here are also player related assumptions that the straight smasher, can't get the block to the net. IMO this depends on player strength etc as well. An advanced player is able to do this. If OP not I need to mention weakness and lower skills. simple or not? And if he can't it there are simply many other things were he should lack.

When you play tunnel the straight attack involves the front player!!! I just made assumptions when tunnel work and when not. If front court player position middle and shuttle get lifted to one corner, they don't play tunnel. They play indo (video links) or a classic attack. That means that smashing straight, don't involve front court player well, so it's clearly his fault. he made the shot, front court player told before "smash middle" and he didn't. So he was unable to involve his partner. So partner struggle. All blame on him for doing this, non to the front court player. It's so simple.

If I play XD with my partner we prefer to play tunnel or indo, when I'm in the back. Depends on our opponents abilities. When she attacks from the back, we play a wedge attack. That's what I mean with different strength and skills.

So simple questions to you:

Do you understand now why attack straight, when you don't play tunnel is not a good idea? Otherwise I waste my time and discuss with somebody who never read and understand what I wrote here.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that.

And if celsum or zohar showed pros from there doing that then that'd be very interesting and relevant, but they haven't.

And of course if they were to, then one shouldn't conclude oh pros do it so it's fine. One should still use logic and reason as the ultimate arbiter But showing pros doing it would be bringing something significant to the table for discussion.

 

Yeah that's the diagram I was referring to. OP is Z smashing to B. That is not the most common shot but it is certainly not a "forbidden" shot. I'm also making the assumption that it is club player vs club player. Smashing down the line is a great shot for a club player because most club players don't stand wide enough and tend to face towards the center of the court. I'm not saying one should do this all the time. Just once in a while to keep the opponent on guard and prevent them from cheating-in towards the center

 

That's not what happened, read the post again lol.

Anyways I don't know why you are getting so angry lol. For all we know, maybe OP and his partner should have been playing "tunnel" for that shot. Or maybe they should not have. We weren't there and we don't know what shots they played before nor how they were positioned before.

 

In this situation, not involving the positioning of the front court player it is a big no-go in doubles.

So you make assumption and assumptions to make your argument valid. But these assumptions are not the case in OPs situation. There is not the one and only uniform club player who do everything equal. Maybe Z can't clear and move back quick, so a punch clear had been also a good shot under these assumptions which are not the case. Maybe opponents play front to back all the way like a crappy mixed, but this also didn't happen.

In general I tend to use a positioning and tactics to play any opponent on the world and cover the court most optimal, with the synergy and involving of the front court player. Second step is to exploit weakness of the opponents, but this scenario is pretty standard without any related weaknesses of the opponent.

Please read the whole thread, before you get naughty. The positioning according Zohar graphics display that it happend. Non verbal, by the position of the partner. Also afterwards due his partner.

Because I made the effort as non-native english speaking guy to help and explain. Nobody is refering to it and especially you rephrase "straight smash is a good shot in this situation." I made clear why it isn't, gave alternative solutions for both to play. Like others before, but nobody wanna hear. I also explain when the straight shot can be beneficial, but this didn't happend in the scenario. According to the situation of Zohar there are two solutions. His partner wanted b)

The sitations is pretty basic and clear. OP put in some effort to explain it to us. I brought the solution:

a) Zohar tells his partner, he prefer to play tunnel and straight attack. His partner should be committed to one side to cut off the straight block. Both agree to play tunnel.

b) Zohar see that his partner always struggle and decide that his shot selection is not purposeful. The feedback by his partner is that Zohar should place the attack more towards the middle, partner can cut off the replies without dangerous angles by the opponents. Both agree to play basic/indo attack in an ideal world...

But Zohar is stubborn and want to do what he want, but is angry about is partner. He ask BC for confirmation that he is right and partner wrong. This isn't the case, BC replies he is wrong, but he don't wanna listen. Communication with his partner is also not there, so he is trapped and deadend in this situation which will happend pretty often if he partner J.

 

If you look properly BC has a disorder to always debate with the pro argument.

Zohar tried to refer something with pro players on page 2. Cesium also refered games of professionals on page 3.

I agree, if we debate about professional badminton. But as long as the gap between OP and pro players is infinity the explaination could also be that they don't struggle so easy, move quicker, have better technique and so on to make it work. An Example: In pro MS there is more attacking and offence game, if you transfer it to the games of average joes, this might not work, because they get counter too easy and can't dig out the block because they are too slow. Copying blindly is not helpful, you should also count in if anybody has the abilities to do it - sucessfully.

 

It really depends on the opponent and some personal preference I guess. I don't really count but after every 2 or 3 back-court shots I will tend to either smash cross court or smash down the line. Depending on how well they defend either shot, I may do those shots more frequently. But of course, if the opponent is moving backwards or in the process of recovering from a shot, then smashing to the line is very effective because they are often not in a good position to defend it. So yeah, I guess every 4th shot if you really want a number. Again, this is just personal preference....

In the clubs I play at, usually it is accepted that the net the player will cover the front. There's not many "wedge" rotations, and teaching a club player "wedge" rotation on the spot will do more harm than good lol.

As for "when to choose down the line smash according to the position of the net player?" My opinion is that the net player should respond to the shots from the back. If the net player positions differently based on what shots he wants the back player to make, wouldn't the opponents see that as well? For example, when I play with friends, I expect my friend to do a "wedge" rotation from a "tunnel" position if I hit cross-court. They are explosive enough to do so. They are NOT gonna tell our opponents where I'm gonna smash by standing differently beforehand. Do you know what I mean?

 

The opponents don't play a role here for the logic behind the positioning tactics on the own side. Just look at you own side and what goes wrong (here positioning and involving the front court player) than you can nego about opponents and so on and adjust to it.

So you as a hobby player think, who plays in a loose attitude hobby enviroment is here qualified to teach others?

So the backcourt player has the freedom to do what he wants, totally ignoring to make the front court player struggle who has less time to react? At the front you notice as the latter what shot got played, but has the shortest time to react. Absolute nonsense that the guy with the most difficult task need to respond to anything, if it can work much better and well together.

How tall are you? I'm 1,78. The court is 6,10m width. So you can cover the complete net (whole width) with controlled netshots or kills with just one step, body turning and jumping all together within a split seconds reacted to shots the partner behind you made without knowing what comes to which area from your partner and that at club level? I would personally say that it is more 3,50m to 4m max at fast pace. And if partner hits to the 2m I can't cover well we have a huge problem and gap in our court.

No.

 

So you are telling me that there are other threads where some people have said that if Professional players do something then it has to be correct.. I doubt it and if they had then you can still prove them wrong, you don't have to convince them. Anybody reading can judge the argument on its merits. And the fact is that nobody has said it in this thread so it's a red herring.

Nobody has shown any Pro players in doubles smashing from the side tramlines straight down the side tramlines.

The video that Zohar linked to on page 2, was just basic front player biassing the side where his partner at the back is smashing from. And Zohar was making the point that his front partner should've been biassing that side. Zohar never claimed the video was anything other than that either. Zohar has not provided a video showing somebody smashing from the side tramlines, straight down the side tramlines, and he hasn't claimed to have, so he doesn't have that to back himself up..

Celsum has not shown any video, he just jumped in and asked questions people had already asked, he just expressed himself more clearly with words than Zohar and didn't need diagrams to explain himself. But he didn't point to any videos to back himself up either. Though Celsum suggests he has seen it a number of times.

Nobody is suggesting copying pros blindly. You write like you are a fan of logic but then you write like you fear that if somebody posts a video of a pro doing it then somebody might make some irrational conclusions. Let anybody provide their evidence and if they reason incorrectly then a correction to their reasoning can be posted..

What i've said is that a video clip of it would give something to discuss. And since you are such a fan of logic, you should not worry about such a discussion because under the light of logic, one couldn't rationally conclude the things you suggest people might (wrongly) conclude. And you don't have to convince somebody. If they plug their ears and say "la la la" then your case can rest. There's no need to keep bashing away. Nobody is going to be convinced by them, and your arguments stand on their merits and it's job done.

I'd be interested to see such a video that Celsum suggests he has seen.

 

Don't hang up yourself on a side note by me. It's a general problem which occur in the equipment section, but also in other subforums. You can disagree with me in this department and you have won. For the discussion it would be more vital if you reply to the other things I wrote which have more importance than a small side note about the forum.

That's right, but even thinking to refer that which is far away from the own abilities, abilities of the partner and the opponents is simple nuts. The video was not necessary and don't help.

But he claimed with one professional pair that the partner shouldn't stand in the middle. That's not true. There are even different systems to play which I explained well enough. Even in professional badminton. Not each level has uniform players, tatctics and one way to go.

To me this is also an unnecessary reference/comparison to professional badminton.

This is a warning by me, I didn't say anthing else. You write like you see huge problems in a side note between the lines totally ignoring anything useful I wrote and feel personally offended. What's your point to start here a fight about a small sentence? You also might be a fan of physicological judgement. I don't fear anything.

It seems that Zohar and Cesium even now didn't understand what went wrong. And since you are the white knight here who needs to involve without ever adressing anything to you speaks for yourself. Cesium is still convinced that the front court player can cover the whole net and the backcourt player can ignore the positioning of the front court player after things I explained. That's not true. My post is reaction to his reaction. You also started a textwall and endless discussion on a side note by me which muste be damn important for you. You can drop me a PM, with your disagreement and the job is done. It had been more helpful and beneficial if you had used your effort to write something to the topic, instead of attacking me personally. You have won anything you wanna win. I don't have any further interest to discuss with you about something so irrelevant for this topic.

 

Not sure why you are getting so irate. Nobody is attacking anybody.

My point is that a video would be useful. You've given some arguments to the contrary, as if to say that a video from them wouldn't be useful. I don't think the arguments you give are strong at all, and I addressed those arguments , and then you call your own arguments "side notes".

Also if you read the thread you'll see that I am not in favour of smashing down the side tramlines while at the far side.. so i'm not stating agreement with zohar of celsum on this..on the contrary, my differing with them is clear in this thread, and the phrase "white knighting" doesn't apply here and has nothing to do with a rational conversation, and i've nudged them for video examples of pros doing the shot, and you keep objecting to the idea of them providing such a video. (And no i'm not suggesting that a video of it would necessarily prove them right).

As for your main point it's already established that everybody(except zohar and celsum), have already made that point long ago and agrees with it. And i'm not playing the game of going round in circles so I haven't replied to that part of what you wrote, of not doing that shot, saying "yes I agree" 'cos that is already established.

Funnily enough if anything you seem to be in partial agreement with them as from what you've written it seems your position is that pros can do it 'cos they are so fast. Of course, if pros do it then maybe some division 1 county players also do it.. Zohar was mentioning "division players" and interestingly not even "masters players".. now, even masters players can be very good.. from what I understand masters means 35+ If by division players he means e.g. division 1 county level players, then maybe some of them are fast enough. And he said he's interested in that kind of level of play.

What i'd think would happen at a good level of play, is that if the back player is pushed out to the side then the front player moves central(or maybe off to the other side a bit), and a bit back and is ready to cover 3 corners. If the back player smashes straight down the sidelines, and if the opponents cross court it, then the front player just has to be a bit faster to reach that back corner than he normally would. Bear in mind that Zohar was not asking about typical club level play. He was asking about high level play. And it's a valid question he was asking and also a valid discussion. It's totally valid to discuss pro level tactics even if it is not recommended to do anything like that at club level and even if one were to think that it's not recommended even for county level. I don't like the idea of not having the discussion of pro positioning (or not seeing a video of pros doing it), for fear that somebody might do it at club level.

 

Don't put any words in my mouth. If you don't agree with my impression of BC in terms of the pro joker pulling, I'm absolute fine with it. I think that a video of professional badminton would exceed the speech of theory for several reasons. I find it hard to differ if professionals do anything because of a textbook which is a general guideline which you can recommend any player at any level, or is this something which is useful inside the partnership. If you watch professional badminton you have noticed that there is no ultimate and one way they do. They prefer to play different kinds of attack (which I introduced here by a coach at international level). Some players prefer a rotation in some situations others not. Watch LEE/YOO and you will discover that rotate in situations due personal strength. IMO it is more confusing for somebody who ask such pretty basic question.

Who introduce different tactics of attack and explained when a tram line smash can be a better selection and when not. I see me here as the first poster in terms of these topic, while you think I'm here late to the party?

Again, please don't pick what you want or place anything into my mouth what I haven't said. It's not only the fact that they are fast, they have superior technique, have a harder smash, put more effort into communication into a partnership, have better reading skills, better understanding of the game, can place shots under pressure more precise and so on. It's simple not true that they are pros because the are faster than you, me or anybody here.

Division players can be anything or nothing. The number declare the level of play. You assume that it is Division 1. I don't know. How it is in New Zealand, or England how you organize. Here you have 10 divisions. And number 10 is closer to hobby players than anything you describe. I don't understand your terminology what division 1 county level players or master players are. Can you clarify this how close or far they are to national level? It would also be helpful if Zohar clarify this. Otherwise we don't know if we all three mean the same level.

I disagree here a bit. The front court player tells the backcourt player that he thinks they should rotate. To rotate in this situation the straight smash, but even better cross court smash is a good shot to make the rotation work without leaving gaps for shuttles which travel a short time. It could be here that temporary the front court player is able to cover three corners, but how effective on a good and tight block close to the net to maintain the attack is a different topic.

IMO the movement of the front court player towards the other corner of the backcourt initiate the rotation. The rear court player become the new front court player. The previous shot should be made to have the longest distance to a lift into the same corner during the rotation and this means that the cross court smash is here the better tactical shot. Also explained in the wedge attack.

As it seems from the first post he describe a situation which happend to him in an enviroment where players partner randomly and don't talk much. That's not an enviroment of high level play. I don't play at a high level, but know that communication with a partner is a must. I also partner a few fixed partners due same philosophy and understanding of play. I can't imagine that this happen in a high level enviroment and if so, there must be coaches who can fix it locally instead of asking the internet.

Then please open a thread about the topic you are after instead of hijacking this thread here. I posted a series of videos where a international relevant coach explain tactics and different ways to attack and where the front court player should stand. That are basic things which can anybody do. He do also workshops here across the country which aren't cheap. IMO this is a much more better video source for something or the topic you wanna talk which is also relevant in club and pro level. Instead of watching a game of pro level badminton without knowing if this tactic is a personal preferred solution of this pair or the basic structure you need to watch douzens of different games to have a chance to eliminate the personal prefereed solutions. That's my point why I'm against a simple match video. Coaching videos are IMO a better source, because you will 100% know which part is the basic structure. I don't know how deep your or Zohars partnerships are, but I play with fixed partners for league and tournament and since we learnt the basic structures and different kinds of rotations and systems, we personally tailormade added things to get the most success out of it. I simply doubt that anybody is able to seperate the basic part from the personal tailormade part in professional doubles pairs. If you can do, you should think about to become an international coach of a powerhouse in badminton. I delivered the basic structure of professional badminton attacking systems in an explanation by Diemo Ruhnow. If you don't know him or he is below the level to be relevant for you, than it is your problem, not mine. I'm done here. If you get a boner and went panties to debate in your native language here about nothing, go for it old fart!