From what I know (didn't check): in NZ, there are about 5 divisions (seniors under age 30). div 1 are the best in the country (represent NZ internationally). Division means an international league playing officially on a certain level. From what I heard, last time the Chinese div 5 came to visit, they wiped the floor with NZ div 1. The masters and veterans divisions have different age level. They also compete on a national league, I'm not sure if there are levels, and it seems like a zoo to me and more on a recreational level. If you want to see NZ tournament results and ranked players: https://bnz.tournamentsoftware.com/ (With effort and training, I could probably make it to the bottom of div 5, but I consider myself a club hobbyist.)
I agree we shouldn't get too angry over internet posts. Everyone has different opinions, some of which will of course be different from mine. As for Cheung's reply, I just wana clarify that I meant every 4th shot from the back, which is actually not very frequent because: you don't always get lifts to the back, and you don't always get 4 consecutive lifts. So in reality, having multiple chances to do big smashes in a row is not that frequent, and in turn, the 1 or 2 shots per game that you said is pretty accurate. Anyways, I'm not a big fan of always smashing straight like Zohar said. I still believe smashing to the middle is the safest and most consistent shot to do. But I also strongly believe that no shots should be off-limits. That is, one should be able to pull off straight down the line smashes just to keep the opponent guessing. I think maintaining a base-line level of shot variety is very important especially in badminton where there is a lot of mind-games going on
Variation should really be a given on all tactics discussions. Maybe it's worth saying anyway - I doubt any of us here believe that 100% of @Zohar situation strokes should be handled via a smash/drop to the middle - more that 90%+ of strokes should be a form of hitting over his partner. Variation is key in all aspects of badminton, the simplest example being the flick serve. We are drilled to serve to the doubles service line, but it's worth throwing in a flick or two per game (as a pair) to keep your opponent guessing. One flick every 4 serves would be a little much On the other hand, taking into account player differences in strength/weakness i.e. the "non-pro" argument, one may find 100% flicks against a particular player will work to give an advantage every time. Naturally, as players' abilities become stronger in county/div1/international level, such weaknesses become scarce. But one should always explore these avenues before dismissing the tactical effectiveness. As an example, one of the most effective strokes against me at the moment is a slow drop shot, simply because I am so used to fast/sliced drops and don't take the extra step forward...but very few people will discover that weakness because most people at my level assume it's just a terrible stroke to play!
Err. I think that is very frequent. Remember, I am applying the choice of straight smash according to the position of players indicated by the diagram that @Zohar gave earlier in the thread. Straight smash from the back and side tramlines in the court would be a pretty bad choice. We could even apply some statistics. @Zohar can ask a person to help serve 50 shuttles into that area and then @Zohar aims the smashes into the tramlines. Do a count of those shuttles that land left and right outside of the tramline. That will give a better indication of accuracy under semi controlled conditions. One can them assume the success rate directed into the tramlines will be lower during a game.
Well of course if he misses and it goes out, then it's going to be a bad choice! But if you assume that Z can hit the shot without missing it, and that the partner is familiar with the rotation to retrieve a cross-court that goes over him, then what's your view? For example, let's say we agree the rear player isn't going to be retrieving the cross court return.. and suppose a case of partners that play regularly and know rotations and have good communication. Is it still a bad choice of shot in your view? Is it still a bad choice because even with rotation, the potential flatness of the cross court return makes it hard for the non-rear player to retrieve?
Doubles is a game of percentages. In a game situation, we look at error rates. Some shots have higher error rates which dictate the tactics. Hence, from a tactical point of view, from the original post, it's a poor tactical choice (see previous posts). It's an even more poor tactical choice because of the possibility of hitting out.
Just to make it clear, this is an extrapolation of the original post. If we assume the players are in the same position as the diagram, the down the line smash should still be chosen with care and used judiciously. There is the risk of a) hitting out, b) the shuttle being very slow when it reaches the opponent. That would allow the opponent more shot variations instead of a straight block, straight drive or straight lift. The angles on the court are opened out because the net player now has to cover forecourt right and left and left rear court. This is a large area to cover for someone to cover from the net (running backwards is harder than running forwards) and the net player has also less time to make a decision. A flat cross court return can be a drive or block to the net. A crosscourt drive (returning the smash) should be cutout by the net player. So far at english league level, I would say the net player covering a cross court lift is a disadvantage because many don't have the movement backwards. At county level, you won't notice it so much because if the net player runs back to cover the cross court lift and lifts the shuttle due to suboptimum hitting position, his defence and movement is better able to cope with the subsequent attack by the opponents for a few more shots. Communication between partners is vitally important. Left and right handed partners may take up different positions and have different shot choices.
At county level, if the smasher was at a far side, and smashed more to the middle, would the net player still tend to choose to cover 3 corners?
Far side? It would be better if you can be a more specific on the position on court including the distance from the from the net of the smasher. All these have a bearing on decision making. Perhaps even making a new thread with a diagram(highly recommended) as the original post seems to have been thoroughly covered.
At county level, if the smasher was at a back corner, and smashed more to the middle, would the net player still tend to choose to cover 3 corners?
Probably not - in the case where you know your rearcourt partner will smash middle, as a front player, you'll either bias further forward (cover the two front net corners + pushes), or you'll bias slightly further back (cover the two front net corners less aggressive, and counter drives). This assumes you know your partner prefers to stay in the rearcourt and you are confident he can adequately cover both rearcourt corners. If you know your rearcourt partner prefers to rotate (e.g. you are normally the rearcourt player and your partner prefers front) or you don't feel he is capable of covering the other rearcourt corner*, then you'll bias slightly further to the left (away from your partner's side of the court), and you cover the far net corner (to your partner) and the rearcourt corner that you are on. In this rotation case, your rearcourt partner will expect to cover the straight net and the corner he just smashed from, even though he smashed to the middle. This is a less aggressive formation, as you'll almost be in a "sides attack" formation before you complete the rotation. *This might be simply because if a lift is landing close to the sideline, the rearcourt player has a huge distance to cover sideways, which might be impacted by hesitation/indecisiveness, or simply because footwork is not good enough...it is not easy to play a smash to the middle from the right sideline, and proceed to play a round the head shot in the deep backhand corner if your opponents can defend well. There are cases where you are unsure what your partner will do though, in in those cases, you may be covering 2 corners as minimum, and have in mind that you might need to cover the 3rd (but not aggressively).
Thanks, there's a lot of good info there. I might make take cheung's suggestion and make a new thread later, and I will take into account this response..
Interesting thread - sorry, i'm new to this forum and love the discussion. I personally rarely smash straight unless it's half court. If the shuttle is up high, there are soooo much time to see which opponent is not ready before making the shot. There are 4 corners to choose from and multiple speed to choose from there. anyway, it's a game and it's fun. Keep it fun.
@ralphz @Zohar I went to London and played around a few clubs. For men’s doubles, not at county level, I saw many many guys who should be covering the net hanging back trying to cover crosscourt lifts.
yeah I see it all the time they ruin it for the guy at the back and lift way too much at the net, was that a surprise to you that they are that bad?!
I wouldn't quite express it in that way. Hanging back means the front person is less likely to hit down and the net and more likely to lift, therefore giving away the attack to the opposing pair. No. It doesn't surprise me. I used to know the scene there very well and have also played in different parts of the country. I also watched some players in a county Gold tournament. It also had England players entering. Some good badminton played. Didn't notice the tramline straight smash for doubles used - if it was, then not in the matches I watched.
I think that you should select various course according to the situations. In doubles 1. Basically use the straight course In that case your partner will finish the rally in the front court. But if you hit the shuttle to the cross side often, your partner have no chance to finish the rally. 2. The opponent is not ready, in that case aim for the opponent's body. 3. If The opponent is ready, in that case aim for the spot between the opponents. 4. Sometimes If your opponent is careless, It's good to hit the shuttle to the cross side. Below movie is what I said.
