maybe for singles, its easier. If you only win 30% of the time to that X guy, you accept that he's better. But, What about for doubles?? Is it when you are able to return his signiture smash with ease? Is it when you know how to force that guy to make a mistake? Also, in which instance does it make you value that X player less? When he cant kill the shuttle at the net? When he pushes the shuttle out when returning the serve? When?? ------------ Im asking these because it seems like everyone has their own criteria when it comes to evaluating. So, for instance, i think im better than this X player but that X player actually thinks hes better than me . I'd like to get as much feedback as possible. Aren't you guys also curious to see how others judge??
I'm also curious about what others think about this. Rising up the ranks from beginner to advanced beginner to lower-intermediate and so on is so clear, isn't it? But once you get to upper-intermediate/lower expert it seems like the line is so thin and yet so vast between levels. I guess in doubles it's just more or a feeling who is better? So much is dependent not just on partners, but how partners play together that it's too subjective to know for sure. Like, there is one top-level guy I play with that when we play together we are miserable. If you watched our game you would think he is a bad player. And yet he's one of the top players in the group. So you can't evaluate it just by watching them persay. I guess the only real way to know for sure is ask around and hope people answer you honestly.
The classic thing with 4 on a court is you play 3 games (or 3 matches if you're serious) with every pairing possible. Then the strongest player is the one who won most matches, and so on with the weakest player being the one who won the fewest matches. This gets distorted a bit when two players who complement each other well happen to play together, as they will generally beat off two stronger players who don't play so well together. However, once each of the stronger players gets paired with each of the average players, the scores will determine who is stronger. Often at high intermediate level doubles, it's not the player with highest technical skill who wins more often, but the one who is able to work with his partner, whichever style his partner happens to adopt. For example, I'm quite a strong player in my club due to my movement in singles. I work particularly well with players who like to force the opponent to lift. I work terribly with those who prefer a flat driving game. There are less technically able people in my club who can regularly win against me if we play with partners who favour flat driving/pushing battles, but partner me with someone who plays the smash/net/drop game and we will win most games. I would say I am therefore overall weaker than my opponent who is able to play with more partners, even if I am able to win most games if given the right partner.
Interesting thread. I think it's very hard to determine who is the better player in doubles, especially when the skill level is very similar. A few points why, in my opinion: - style of play has a huge impact on the synergy between you and your partner => just pairing too strong players together doesn't mean the combination will be strong (when playing against other players of similar level) - just because you are better at reading your opponent (who you probably play against in every training session) than he is doesn't mean you are the better player (he might do better in competition if he plays an opponent, who doesn't know him) - technical skills are only one part of the level of play (personally, I think in doubles tactics are much more important; in singles you can get away with wrong tactics if you have great technique, for example by being extremely fast due to good footwork) And because of these reasons a lot of trouble arise when a club has to put the players into different teams. Sometimes they just compare the players by their level of play in singles, but that's in no way a real indication of their doubles skills and a stupid idea in my opinion. And players begin to wonder why they have play below their club mates who they regularly beat during training. I've encountered two philosophies in doubles (simplified): - either the pair always plays the same style of play and tries to force it on their opponents (hard to do, only succeeds if you are a lot better, imo) - or the pair is very good at different styles of plays/strategies and able to adapt accordingly to counter the style of play/tactics of their opponents Now to get back on topic, for me a player that knows how to play different styles of play, shines in all areas (tactically, not only technically) or a player that has mastered one particular style of play that he is able to beat all other players (or at least most) with, is overall the better player. It's hard to judge and there are exceptions. For example, a player might be the best of the club and able to beat almost all players in singles and doubles but really struggles to beat one player (for whatever reasons). That doesn't mean he is the weaker player per se.
Thanks all for replies. I've read all. Ive never thought of this as deeply as you Robert. Thanks for sharing your info.
Friends , Its a question which is not in the subject you guys discussing. Can someone tell me where can I play badminton in tokyo. I stay in OMORI now.PLease suggest . Thanks
If any of you guys use wechat with your badminton group, their is a great competition app for playing doubles yet having individual winners. Each game you play with a different partner but you play many more games then people who are playing and it calculates both points won and games won and it comes out with a winner. It's really fun to use the app on a normal night of game play. Kinda adds a little edge to the day.
@Rob3rt Made great points. If I take the 30 male players at my club, my impression is that I just can play well, which means my favorite way to play and brings my strength into the best light, with 4-5 due thier style and having a synergy. For the females I would say that I just can play with 2-3 well in XD. Strangely we had a few years ago a chit-chat during training and it was very interesting that some players I can play well don't always can play well with each other. Saying that I can play well with S. and I. it doesn't mean that S. and I. can play well together. Paul made a great article a while ago: http://badminton-coach.co.uk/820/se...utscore-your-opponent-to-win-the-game-part-3/ I disagree on that that technique in doubles is not as important as in singles. Just take the smash. If you don't have the technique to vary your smash and can't get steep angles, you get counterattack quickly in doubles. In singles it's not as dangerous, because your opponent has to cover more area, will be slightly later there and can't risk to counter badly without sacrificing a huge part of his court. Also you need to play a variation of drop shots in doubles. Because 2 guys cover a slightly bigger court. You have due different positioning of your opponents much more points to be able to play to than in singles, because they are in singles a bad option. Having accuracy is IMO a part of a good technique. When I play singles I don't need all of these shots which I need in doubles or mixed doubles. FME it's not necessary to play such accurate in singles, because your opponent will always be later at the spot. I agree that tactics in doubles are more important than in singles. But I lost a bunch of singles matches because the opponent was just faster and didn't had a better technique or tactics than mine. He was just earlier there when he caught my shots, and I was later there to got his shots. It was just a fitness aspect and who is faster in each corner. If I play him in doubles or mixed doubles with partners at equal strength he has no chance, because he has not the tactics and even if he has he don't have the technique to play all shots as safe and accurate with variation as I. And this is IMO a technical aspect.
This bit is very typical of someone who has better tactics than you. You say they are more fit, therefore they get to shuttles faster than you. Fitness generally allows them to play any return, but not necessarily faster than you. I am much fitter than a 65 year old at my club, but he routinely gets to shuttles faster than me because he reads me like a book. Tactics includes playing certain strokes to your opponent and expecting a certain reply. E.g. he plays a short lift to your backhand and he expects you to play a smash, and is ready to punish you by making a crosscourt block. Singles tactics are also MUCH different to doubles tactics. I find it very difficult to embrace the idea of overcoming your opponent with speed via drives. I prefer to challenge them with movement pressure and make them twist and turn. Therefore my doubles tactics are terrible. Badminton is as much a battle of brains as it is physical fitness, and of technique. If you are to routinely beat someone with better tactics than you, you must have both fitness to get to shuttles, and technique to receive shuttles in suboptimal situations.
This offends me a bit. Because beeing slow and late at a shuttle cuts my options for tactics down and influence my selection. So he mustn't have the better tactics, he can use his tactics, regardless if better or worse better than I can use mine and this is a huge difference and related to a fitness level. I'm not talking about anticipation.
Didn't mean to offend - I'm attempting to state my argument rather than personally attack. Nonetheless, saying this person is clearly weaker solely due to fitness isn't necessarily true. If you are later to the shuttle than he is generally, and you are saying your racquet technique is superior, then the only thing it can be is footwork (which can be categorised as technique) or tactics - of which anticipation is absolutely part of. If I hit it to your backhand and I know you are only capable of a straight drop and leap at the net before you've even hit it, that is tactics at work. It may not be a tactic that works against a player who can play a crosscourt backhand clear, but it is a tactic that works against the weaker player nonetheless. Physical fitness is the factor if his play doesn't deteriorate as much over the course of a game compared to you. If he is more physically able to play a jump smash where you can only do a standing smash, I count that as technique.
You being slow and late in singles is a result of the quality and skill of the opponent making your movement inefficient. I am sorry to say, although fitness is important, you underestimate the importance of rhythm, timing and control of balance. This I would classify as technique and yours would be inferior to the quality of the shot and tactics of the opponent. It is only that you don't recognize where your own limitations are which is normal for most of us and why we get coaching. For example, being slow and late can be due to your inefficient positioning, standing up too straight, imbalance on the previous shot, not closing the area of the court. Need to also mention also footwork. Now, in doubles, it's a different type of tactics and techniques and you have a partner. So its different, just like the partners in doubles can either benefit or disadvantage a person. People can have an aptitude for either singles or doubles. So you can be better at one compared to another and this is absolutely normal. In the end, for doubles play, I never judge if I am better than someone. It's for other people to have an opinion. But I must be quite good if people keep inviting me to play in their teams and sessions
you offend me a bit by bashing singles...(offended because i am a singles fanatic (which does not mean i play a better singles game than doubles) You need to play with more accuracy in doubles? I strongly disagree! I hear that so often (not to me personally).."this guy can just run thats why i lose always in singles against him" Bullshit. Its annoying. Badminton players are so lazy athletes in my experience. Such a small court for 4 players... In my club i would think that most ppl would classify me as a singles player. The "funny" thing is. Im beating older heavier guys in doubles who I have big troubles with in singles. Im drifting offtopic..sorry
For my person I can just say that I have a bit on top like markis kido, so I must say that I can't be physical the fastest on court. A guy with overweight at the same level of a skinny guy will always be slower even with a slightly better footwork than a skinny guy. Get a light weight vest and give it a try and you will see what I mean. I'm not bashing singles. It's a total different game and require different aspects in a different amount. I respect people who can play decent singles and don't want to make them small! Maybe I'm just a worst singles player, because I never had so much love for it...like some of you. @OhSearsTower I agree and made a mistake. I'm not saying doubles is the king discipline and singles is like running. I was thinking about accuracy in a different dimension. Singles also requires accuracy, but IMO in a different way. To be fair, singles requires to hit consistent all 4 corners. I had called it consistency instead of accuracy, but can also live to call it accuracy. For doubles it's not as important as for singles. I don't wanted to offend anybody to make on discipline more superior than the other, just want to point out the differences, which I experienced. Not more.
yea its alright You pushed a triggerpoint because i hear or feel it here and there that "doubles players" think doubles need more skill. Triggers me every time lol. Well its another topic anyway, but its a little bit related to this thread because in singles you just play and see who is better. I see some players (mostly female) who never play singles partly because they fear getting destroyed. Easier for the ego to lose as a pair... In singles it feels harsher to get owned.. On topic: To find out if youre the best doubles player on court I think the nearest possibility is to play with all 3 combinations of the 4 players and see if you win all games. (which was already mentioned here) But I guess if you can win all regularely you have to be quiet a bit better and therefore already knew it anyway ^^
Vice versa it's easier to shine when you partner a very strong man in Mixed and only have to cover 25 % of the court...
In my club for singles I can beat most of the players thanks to my footwork and strokes and singles strategy which I have honed since I was small (i joined club since elementary school), but at the same time i rarely play doubles. So now at my current club, i even consider myself below some players whom im confident enough to be able to beat them in straight set in single match, consistently. It is completely different kind of strategy. I am still learning to be a better double player
I think that the main reason for prefering doubles instead of singles isn't to have a partner to blame. FME Men Doubles, Women Doubles, Women Single, Men Singles and Mixed Doubles have huge differences at lower level. I don't agree that a female XD player just need to cover 25% of the court. This is common in the fixed front to back all the time low level play, but if you play this discipline more serious you can easily notice which female is good at XD and which not and this is not always related to their skills in singles. IMO the structures of the games are very different. Playing the net and beeing creative during defense are something which not every female has. IMO we can all agree that the disciplines are different to very different and require a different amount of all attributes which very player should have. I came across just a few players who are equally good in all disciplines. For league the teams must have 3 MS, 2 MD, 1WD, 1WS and 1XD, here. I have respect for XD females. They are mostly underestimated. As a XD male player, I totally worship a decent XD female and to me it's not just a random crappy girl which I place at the net. I'm more a teamplayer and for me it's boring to travel to tournaments alone and sit there and wait for my games, so I prefer doubles also because of a social aspect and not to have a partner to blame. I also don't have the stamina to play 4-5 MS at competitive level on the same day. Now to the topic: I think that playing 3 doubles with 4 guys is a good advice, but I would add 2 doubles to challenge to verify. I sometimes came across the fact that one double which lost against the "better double" by this 3 games scenario can play a different opponent better that the other one. So I would advice following and do it in my team: We play 3 games, everybody with everybody while beeing 4 guys. Than we talk about who experience a better fitting to play as a fixed pair and why. Now I have the 1. MD and 2. MD for my team. To decide which is better, we chose to play 2-3 games against the same opponents and than decide together. This works good to built up the doubles for league. If you want to know that one guy is the better doubles player than just another guy, it's getting difficult. I can't play with all style of players and prefer an controlled/offensive partner. Some MD players have a higher tolerance than me and can play with more different types. If you want to create a Doubles Club ranking you need to organize a only club players "Schleifchen-Turnier" where everybody play a match with everybody as a partner, but you can also have the issue that you have players who just can play with 2-3 prefered partners very well and can't play at their best with a partner which don't fit with them. In singles it's not as extreme. If A mostly wins against B, you can't say that A is better than B in general. Maybe B is an easy player for A, while B can adjust his game much better on different opponents where A struggle? Who knows...I'm a bit careful with the sentence "Who is better..." to be fair it always needs an amount of opponents to play it out and rate.
It's also easier to shine in doubles, when your partner set you up with your all your strength instead of playing an unsuitable game for you which brings you always in situations to work mostly with your weakness. It's like dancing. You don't want a partner who step always on your feet or kick against your shin.
