anti-down the middle strategy

Well, part of it is communication and experience. Another part of it is your formation. I have found more and more often that playing side to side isn't really side to side, it's usually staggered in some way whether it be in accordance from where the smash is coming from or just personal preference. Another thing that i've noticed is that difference in peoples swing speed.

So, if you take these two things into account, in theory the middle shouldn't be a problem because in a slight staggered there is the person that is closer and if it's a smash then the person staggered in front should hit the bird first. Another way to do it is for the forhand person to take the middle, which works but is ineffective at times.

 

Side to side is often staggered with the player facing a straight reply being slightly back and his partner facing a crosscourt reply being relatively closer to the net. That way, both of you could have a swing of the middle shot and still avoid clashing racquets.

If in the face of a straight down the middle shot with both of you caught in a true side to side formation, you might wanna consider assigning zones between you and your partner. Maybe one of you take drops and the other take smash shots.

Like Dummey said, talk to your partner.

 

in addition to what dummey and cappy have said, another method is seeing how straight replies should be the primary concern of whoever is inline with the attacker.

the individual cross court from the attacker should have more responsibility seeing how he has more time to react. so therefore, most of the mid-space should be his too. you have to remember you don't have to worry about a few zones of the court since its not going to be vulnerable to attack.

straight guy deals with the biggest threat, that of the straight attack (smash, drop), and the cross court man will deal with anything cross-court, and to the middle (which in itself would kinda constitute as a cross-court shot anyhow).

 

In holland we (well, the people training doubles-defence) do a "slide along" system.

it's basically a way to distribute the court well, and cover all standard doubles-attacking shots...

in the diagram below it's explained. the two red dots are the players. the yellow dot is the shuttle being lifted. the blue dots are the common dropshots. the green dots the common smashes.

this is how we defend in holland it works well because the center is less defined, and the rolls are clear (the person standing straight receives the big boom, and straight/fastest shots. the other men covers the less possible angles)
the key element though is nót to lift to the middle, which is suicide anyway..
EDIT: maybe the straight-person stands back more, and the middle-court-man a bit more forward...

 

Good diagram. Yes, the cross court defender should stand further in. This way, the two defenders are actually more or less the same distance away from the smasher, and hence the distance travelled for the shuttle remains the same for both defenders.

Wayne Young

 

Jerby's diagram is excellent. It's a slightly extreme version, but you get the gist. Also keep in mind that when they're smashing down the middle, usually regardless of side, you want the player whose backhand is to the middle to get teh shot as backhand smash returns are generally more efficient than forehand ones.

 

yup, but the beauty of the sliding system (afraid to call it "my system") is that in 80% of the cases your opponent is afraid to smash at the center:
1) there's a dude standing there
2) all it takes is a lazy drive (not even fully crosscourt) to the other side to wreck havoc (either rotating while attacking, or getting a low shot)

the other 20% are fools, or creative people

btw, how is my diagram 'extreme'. I quite literally stand on the singelsline like that when defending the straight shots... when i'm the 'cross-buddy' I sometimes stand even closer (risky though)
again, the key is nót to lift to the center, but as far to the lines as possible...

 

Whatever "zones" you and your partner have, there's always going to be a boundary of uncertainty imbetween. The best thing to do is to both go for the shuttle, from my experience even if the rackets clash, one of us should still get the shuttle over the net, and i've never broken my racket before. The worst thing is for both of you to leave it, both going for the same shuttle is better than both leaving it.

 

sure, there'll always be grey area's...if there weren't how could you win/lose?

though the key to the 'zone agreements' is to minimize the grey area, and get a feel for each other...

though an "all go for it" policy hardly solves it, because that way you can't effectively cover the court, let alone rotate

 

Going all out for everything means taking your partner out of the equation. Like playing doubles singles style, it increases the uncertainty area because you can't predict your partner and vice versa. It's not effective and not efficient. I would never get caught playing seriously with a partner so insensible.

 

Yeah, for me what comes to mind when the "down the middle" strategy is mentioned is the strategy of smashing between partners, rather than actually in the middle of the court.

The way I see it, singles has fixed targets (e.g. lines) for you to attack -> almost any target you go for, the opposing player has to run there to retrieve the shuttle.

In contrast, I see doubles as having dynamic targets, which vary depending on positioning. This could be positioning on the court or how they're holding their racquets. Of course, the dimensions of the court provide strict boundaries on what shots are possible, but otherwise shot selection is based largely on relative position of the four players on the court.

 

i was watching a video, and a chinese national team player commented on that the player cross court to the shot should take it. but what happens when it comes down the middle??