I saw for the last few years that many asian teams are playing now side in offensive position as in tennis doubles. They try to come both at the net putting a lot of pressure on the defense. The classic "I" position is to try to isolate a 2-against-1 on defense. Discuss.
Could you describe the positioning you've described a little more, perhaps with a small Paint picture? I'm not familiar with tennis doubles' positions. Thanks. Phil
i think what is different now is not the static positioning, ie. where they stand, but the dynamic positioning, ie. where they cover, or their coverage zone. in the traditional, and most simple type of position, the front/back courts are divided into two with a line parallel to the net. the formation is simple, person at the back takes all the rear court shots, person at the front takes all the front/mid court shots. however, as players evolve they become faster and have more choices in court coverage. the traditional style is unbalanced as the rear court player do much more work than the front. a way to make the workload more even is to divide the coverage zone differently, the dividing line is now more diagonal. the advantage is that now the players role are more evenly distributed. the disadvantage is that the dividing zone isn't as obvious, also there is a higher demand for the player to move back really quickly. however, i think it is easier to move fore/backwards than left/right. i specifically differentiate between static and dynamic positioning because i think where they stand isn't really that much different. one player is generally at the front and one behind. but since their coverage zone is more sideways, it appears as if they are standing side-by-side like in tennis doubles.
It's been a while since I've been around these parts, and it's good to see this site is as strong as ever. That's a neat diagram, Kwun. I think it explains things really well. The only thing I'd add is that I think the "traditional" formation is more suitable when you have a player who is very dominant up front. The last WC final (JR and LP vs Sigit and Wijaya) springs to mind. The "modern" Attack formation seems to be used more when the defending pair is quite comfortable against the attack. Cheers, Wayne
I remember after the WC 2003 MD Jonas said he and Lars were usig a different formation. I think he likened it to a machine gun. I don't know if it is similar to what I know as an All-Court attack formation. Or maybe even sides-attack.
Wow, I never ever thought about a zone delimited by a diagonal line. Shheesshhh... now I have to go back on court and rethink the whole game positionning for the next season!!! I will reply on it after a couple of days thinking and discussing about it as usual. JRMTL
let me review the tape! i do remember that JR/LP switched to some mixed-ish formation at the end where JR just crouches down in front to grab the flat drives and let LP take the shot at the back. what can we say, our World Champs shows flexibility and creativity...
It may have been in an interview after the semi-final against Sang Yang/Zheng Bo, but broadcast just before the MD Final.
This side by side attack has its disadvantages. Probably most of us 'lesser mortals' cannot drive the shuttle so well at the opponents in a way that the opponents cannot lift the shuttle over our heads to the back of the court.
I would think a side/side attack would be specifically drive and reflex driven versue smash and drop driven. Teams using such a tactic would have ultra fast reflexes and be able to contort their bodies to drive almost every shot back. I also think a great leaping ability would help, to cover the back for any lifts.
Well, the main idea behind this positionning is that it is easier and faster to move forward and backward than left to right. JRMTL
I am not a pro but personally it's easier for me to move from left to right, vice versa rather than front and back.
Just going back to that very illustrative diagram by Kwun. This is how my coach used to train us for mixed doubles. He would hit shuttles all over the court and we would have to move around covering the court using the diagonal coverage zone. The basis of which is that the both players can hit half decent clears,smashes and run backwards without falling over.
The older style mixed was more like this wasn't it? When the ladies were not as strong as they are today (at top level)
here is another observation i have made. if player A1 is attacking at the rear court close the sidelines, i think it is actually faster for player A2 to cover up the other rear corner. for two reasons. 1. A1 is near the sideline probably doing a sideways jumpsmash. it will take him time to land, recover/recoil and then change direction and move to the other side. 2. A2 isn't really at the front court, but at the middle of the court, for him to move to the other rear corner from A1 is actually at a shorter distance than for A1. and at the time, A2 isn't jumping away from the shuttle direction unlike A1. so i think it is faster for A2 to cover the far corner. quite interesting, but it requires better coordination between the two players as it is not obvious who should be taking the reply when it comes...
Rotation in doubles?!! I hear that the offensive rotation for doubles is that if the opponents lift the shuttle the person in the back will do smashing while the other partner will be in the front (this is talking in only GENERAL terms) trying to cut off weak shots, drops etc. But in my school badminton team, people don't agree; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who is actually into badminton in other countries and is crazy about it lol, and I think this rotation in doubles is correct. This is what everyone else thinks, including the coach: 1) You and your partner are standing in a defensive position, you on the right, and partner on the left 2) your opponents clear the birdie to the right, which is your side 3) you move back to smash, while your partner is somewhat in the front, but more in the middle of the left court,which is his side, next to you 4) You smash straight, but the opponents return crosscourt to the left 5) since you smashed on the right and the shuttle was returned crosscourt to your partner's side, you move to the middle of the righthand court and your partner then moves back to smash the shuttle that is traveling towards his side (left), and you are waiting on the right side of the court in the middle. In my opinion, this is not efficient, I believe it should be you smashing side to side and your partner standing in front of you to block off the shot...my teamates think I'm crazy and are just trying to "Show them up" what do you think, and what should I do? Srry if you guys don't understand, explaining on a court is better lol. I'd Appreciate the advise.
sometimes i rotate in that way too.. usually if my partner is way at the corner (right).. and doing a powerful smash.. which usually means he has no time to recover the return which is going in the opposite direction (left).. therefore i will have to cover him .. i think it's quite efficient ..if my opponents returns my partner's smash with a drop shot.. i am quick enough to move forward and return it efficiently..
In the situation you described, you should be the one smashing the cross-court lift, and your partner should stay up to threaten the net area. In fact, if your opponents stepped into the smash and drives it cross court past your partner who has started moving towards the T, it is your responsibility to go for the drive. That doesn't mean that your partner should hold at the T and let you tire yourself out. If he is confident enough, he should try cutting off fast drives and low clears. He should also try to find an opportunity to go to the back, and let you come in to the T to take a breather, whilst maintaining the offensive advantage.
if you're smashing from way at the corner, and your partner is still on the left, wouldnt that leave your side of the court open. you'll have to be pretty fast if your rotation is always like this and they constantly return it to the front on your side of the court.
