What fault is it? Receiver fault?

Gain an advantage if the receiver moves first

.
weeyeh ... I have just returned from playing Badminton to continue with this thread.

Agree with the "caging" of the receiver behind the Service Line until the Service is struck. And you are correct on this matter.

My comment was about the earlier movement by the receiver, say by 0.1 second. I cannot see this movement an advantage to the receiver. In fact this movement can prove to be a disadvantage.

If one is to run a 100m sprint race, yes a 0.1 second earlier off the starting block would result in one reaching the finishing line 0.1 second earlier.

But in Badminton, the server is allowed to serve different Services, not just confined to one type. If the receiver moves to one direction, the server should do it to another direction. So why should we be bothered faulting the receiver when he does not have a clear advantage and when the 0.1 second time difference is so usually disputed between receiver and the umpire.

Perhaps, I see things differently because I am trained to watch the receiver's movement, and not the shuttlecock in my hand, when I do the Service. I gain an advantage if the receiver moves first.
.

 

All you're describing is someone whose serving ability is much better than the receiving abilities of people who actually play against him.

This quality of serve is no doubt a huge asset to his game, but the results would be very different if he were competing against the best players. Let's see how he fares against Kim Dong Moon.

Those receivers should practise their net shots, then. Don't forget about the angled net shot away from the server.

Actually, that experiment can't prove anything.

Suppose I try it and say, "I've proved it's false." Then taneepak just says, "The server wasn't good enough."

Then he tries it and says, "I've proved it's true." Then I say, "The receiver wasn't good enough."

But such experiments are unnecessary, when we already have a vast stock of footage of world-class doubles players. Just look at what actually happens in a game of doubles.

 

As convenient as not answering my objection? As convenient as referring to a player whom I've never seen? I would need to travel halfway around the world to see this man in action. Is this not convenient for your argument?

Then again, maybe I'm dead wrong. Maybe your man has a better low serve than any world-class player I've ever watched. I'll never know for sure, but I think I can live with the uncertainty.

My point was that the same objection can be made in both directions. Remarkably convenient of you to gloss over that.

If you like, we can continue to point fingers at each other all night.

...actually, sorry, we can't. I'm off to the pub. But feel free to finger-point in my absence; just try to imagine me returning the favour.

 

Since the server is allowed to move before the receiver returns it...

.
Loh ... A bit confused here.

This is what you said in Post#24 (in red):
"But if the receiver is allowed to move before the serve, then he will have a better chance to kill the shuttle."

And I said in Post#26 (in blue):
Let us reverse your above statement,
"But if the server is allowed to move before the receiver returns it, then he (the server) will have a better chance to kill the shuttle."

See if we can make it clearer if we call the server=S and the receiver=R.

In blue, I am not saying that S is allowed to move first before S's Service. I am saying that since S is allowed to move before R returns S's Service, S will have a better chance to kill the shuttle (following what you have said in red) after R's Return of Service.

Perhaps we can imagine that R's Return of Service is a Service. But time, S is allowed to move before R strikes the shuttle.

Don't know if we have made the story clearer or more confused.
.

 

How about let's first agree on exactly 'what an attacking shot should accomplish'?

In my opinion, it should be a shot that have the highest potential to finish off a rally, in short they are: smash, drop shot, tight tumbling net shot. All other shots such as drives, 'attacking' clear, 'regular' net shot, pushes, and etc are shots that CAN be used to set up an attacking shot, and the chance of such shots becoming an instant winner is very slim in comparison to smashes, or tight tumbling net shots.

If anyone agrees with my opinion above, then there should not be any argument that no matter how good a low serve is, it can not be an instant winner unless the opponent mis-judges it(either being out of the court or short from the service line). An excellent low serve may well be consider as a set up shot and not a defensive shot(compare to a lift or rear court corner under-hand clear), but an attacking shot???

Even at recreational play(in doubles at least), any player does have a huge advantage if a fault is not called on moving too earlier before the serve is completed(assuming just a bit too earlier that the serve has already begun to serve low)... it is ridiculous. That split of a second advantage can still be huge in a singles match... just imagine having to move just a second faster than usual as soon as you finish off your serving 'process' just to neutralize the advantage your opponent gained from breaking the rule + the surprise factor that brings to you knowing that your opponent just broke a rule.

 

Too late lah! Should have told me earlier when we last played on Christmas Eve so that I could attempt to attack his serve!

 

Okay I got what you meant now.

Much depends on S's serve. If is not good enough, especially when it is a bit high, R will attack it or push it flat past S straight down the alley. Then even if S moves immediately forward (I presume) after the serve, he could be caught. He will have to leave it to his partner to return the bird.

If S serves perfectly like Derrick, R may return with a net tumble, lift high beyond S's reach or even push low along the side line, mid court. It depends on the situation as it is dynamic.

In fact for men's doubles today, most times when S serves low, he is expected to move forward hoping for a weak R return to kill it. So your suggestion is not new. It is already being practised. But R can also return a net clipping cross court that can catch S on the wrong foot as he moves forward.

There are many possibilities depending on circumstances. But S's first serve to start the rally is very important for if he does its right, R will be left with limited options.

 

Bananakid has categorized shots more specifically into attacking, defending and setting up (I think).

Of course he is not wrong.

But there is also another simpler view. Attacking shots are those that you can execute above your waist and defending shots are those that you hit from below your waist. But such attacking shots may not be winners.

The contradiction comes in when even a so-called defending shot can turn into attack, such as a hair pin net shot when R takes it close to the net bending down, almost touching the floor. The shuttle then clips the net tape, drops over and makes it very difficult for his opponent to return.

Similarly with a perfect service. S first executes it from below waist level. But once released the shuttle just clears the net at its highest point and immediately dips over the other side making it impossible for R to attack.

I love to have Derrick as my doubles partner.

 

In response to the question of "whether a serve is an attacking shot or not..."

Let me just ask a few questions, if the serve is an attacking shot, then why is the 3rd shot in doubles so cruical? If the so-called "perfect" serve can always "attack" the receiver, then why would the server side has to work hard with the 3rd shot to gain the advantage??? if the serve is attacking and can force the lift or weak reply easily, then why don't we see such an ideal situation arise more often in professional tournaments?

 

I am trying to interest some advanced players in Hong Kong to go to Malaysia for enhanced training in doubles and singles sometime this year. I am not one of the would be trainees but would go along for a short vacation. If things go well, I might buy a Casio EX-FH20 high speed camera that can take pictures at 40fps or movie clips at 210 fps to 1,000 fps, specifically to record the doubles serve and return of serve by Chan Chong Ming, Chew Choon Eng, and Lee Wan Wah, the latter only if he is available. Meantime I am coordinating with their manager.
It will be interesting to play back the ideal serve. BTW, the camera is also useful to study all the strokes in badminton, the movement of the smash, drive, drops, backhand, etc and it would be a powerful tool for coaches as well as players who are serious about improving their game.

 

Actually the 3rd shot in doubles is not the only important shot. All the first 3 shots are crucial, starting with the serve as the no. 1. Of course a doubles serve is not by itself an attacking shot. What it is intended to do is to limit the options of the receiver to a defensive return, which in turn sets up an attacking mindset for the server's side. An ideal doubles serve is best returned with a very high clear because its other alternatives of net tumble or a jab can only be taken a bit late with undesirable consequences. A slightly less than ideal serve can be jabbed to the side or net tumbled. A poor serve, and that includes a serve that is otherwise good except that it lands more than 10" behind the front service line, is akin to an unforced error and a point lost.
The first 3 shots are the most important because they are the real battle ground to wrest the initiative for what is to follow. Just like in a war, neutarlizing the command center is top priority.

 

Do you see that the modern singles game uses the short serve almost all the time in MS and an increasing higher percentage of short serve in WS? I am sure some of you know why a short serve? After all a short serve is not by itself an attacking shot at the outset, but what lies behind the idea is certainly not defensive.

 

MO 2009 QF XD: KOR v MAS

I have an interesting picture of the QF match between Lee Yong Dae/Chin Eei Hui v Hoon Thien How/ Chin Eei Hui which the Koreans won 21-8, 21-12.

Eei Hui just served and Yong Dae was the receiver.

What salient points you can describe from the picture?

 

Sharp eyes you've got!

Well who ask LHJ to be so tall? At least CEH is more matching in height!