I have been misunderstood before, so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and give you a change to enlighten all of us - or at least just me - as to why you think each of your techniques is advantageous. Your methods as I understand them are: 1, running backwards, as in the simple reverse of how a biped might walk forward, and executing your move. 2, turning around 180 degrees and running towards the baseline - again as a normal biped might - turning 180 degrees again, and executing your stroke. If this is indeed what you mean to have said, then please offer some explanation as to why these methods are desireable, as opposed to doing proper chasse-step footwork, and ending with a block jmp or scissor kick. I myself have witnessed both of your methods (as I understand them), and find them likely to leave a player in a poor postion to get back to a ready position, let alone allow him/her to get back to the net. They are what you see when a player is taken off his guard, and doesn't have time to do his proper footwork.
hmm....sounds like the Royal College exam. Im no professional,obviously, but Im just sharing what works for me (or "advantegous" for me) in the hopes that it might work for him/her, or it might not. If they think it wont work for them, then they dont have to try it, no?
Fair enough What I was "testing" for in your "exam" is whether you have ever bene exposed to proper footwork before, as many people haven't. If you had said yes, then I would have followed with "why do you find your method more appealing?", ie, many people with knee problems can't do a proper chasse step because they will injure themselves. If you answered no, then I would have followed with "why not?" Everyone has there own way of doing things, and I have a very open mind to them, but I usually need some sort of evidence that one method is better than the other.
I have started to realize that the method 1 I mentioned in my earlier post is better. If one has to move from the net area all the way back to the far back of the court, method 1 is faster. I found it awkward initially, but after weeks of practices, it is actually pretty efficient.
I would say that X amount of practice can make anyone sufficiently good at anything. For example, I see many people at my club who are 40 years old and have been playing for half their lives. Which is why I find it interesting that they are holding their rackets wrong, as in the typical "beginner" pan-handle grip. It is also interesting, that despite displaying improper technique, thay can still put quite a smack on the shuttle, and have excellent returns of smashes, and so on. My point: it still makes me sad when I think about how much more effective they could be if they used proper technique, seeing how good they are using unorthodox tactics. I for many years was unaware of the accepted international footwork, and I would often find myself off-balance in the back court. I can't tell you how much nore "smooth" I feel on court now. There is a certain rythmn that can only be found with the chasse steps.
