By flatter smashes, I dont mean exactly flat, but its higher than a steep smash. From what I hear, steep smashes are better, but how come more people return my steep smashes (which are faster than my flatter smashes) more often than my flatter smashes?
maybe because the flatter smash is going more towards the chest and face? i know i have a harder time defending smashes that go in that direction. maybe thats just me
They got your steep smash because you didn't place them properly and your opponents were expecting them. If you couldn't block a high smash, that's probably because your racquet's down when you're in no-man's land.
for doubles especially, flat smashes to the body are very effective. however, if the receiver is fast enough, it is usually easier to push back a flatter smash than a steeper one of the same power. for doubles, steep smashes may be to a certain extent not as effective as the receiver has room to swing his racquet and return the smashes. for singles however, because of the large space required to cover, it may be more difficult to retrieve than flatter smashes as the retriever needs to move fast enough to take it while a tall retriever can intercept the flatter smashes. in conclusion, you cannot say which type of smash is better. you need to a mix of them to instill variety in your play.
Agreed. In a mixed doubles match a while back between Robertson and Emms and a pair from Denmark, I forget their names, Robertson kept smashing very flat at the head and upper chest area of the lady on the opposing team. Sometimes the smash would be quite high, about a foot above the net when it passed, started to look almost like a low drive and she was having great difficulty in returning it and in the end got very frustrating (I think Robertson and Emms lost the match anyway).
I think it depends on the scenario. If your opponents have the ability to drive the bird really well, then I don't think flat smashes would work too well because they could drive it really fast, giving you hardly any time to recover.
