Discussion Forum
Hopefully everything will work smoothly for you – however, if there is something wrong, please take a moment to email us (forum@badminton-coach.co.uk) so that we can put it right !
Please do not SPAM this forum – anyone found posting non-badminton related messages or ADVERTISING without permission will be removed without notice and may be banned from using the forum in the future.
Membership of this Badminton Discussion Forum is FREE
To join, just click the Register button just BELOW on the right. Please note however that any strange email addresses (lots of random letters etc) with an obscure user name will be deleted.
Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS 
12:14 pm
February 15, 2011
Offline
A little while ago I was shown a tactic in doubles where you can create a 2 v 1 situation when attacking.
It basically means standard front/back formation with the rear player smashing and front player at the net waiting for a poor return to kill.
Even with a good net return the front player can play relatively easy net shots to force clears/smash opportunities.
I didn't like it as a tactic as I had no problem with an angled return to stop it being effective but I was training it against comparitively weaker players.
I've recently had it used against me by good players and the angled returns I thought were easy are all but impossible to hit effectively.
I was curious if this was a standard technique taught by coaches (mainly Paul).
It's incredibly hard to defend against so any advice on how to get out of it would be helpful too.
3:34 pm
April 6, 2011
Offline The standard attacking formation is to have one player at the back, smashing from the mid/rear court, and their partner at the front, looking to intercept any shots at the net.
It sounds like you're talking about a variant called the “channel attack” where the attack is focused on one defender, and both attackers are on that defender's side of the court (as opposed to the “wedge attack” where the front player positions himself more centrally, in order to cover the cross-court reply). This is a very aggressive tactic and requires total commitment to the attack, as it only really works if the rear court player can smash with sufficient power and accuracy to force a predictable, straight reply – otherwise the defender can whip the shuttle cross-court, often for a winner, as the rear-court player is still recovering from their smash.
To defend against the channel attack, it's a good idea to wait a little further back in the court, to give yourself more time to see the shuttle. Your best counter-attacking shot is going to be a fast whip cross-court, past the net player and away from their partner (a net block would be fairly suicidal). However, you must be patient – attempting this prematurely is likely to result in you playing a weak shot that just gets killed at the net. Instead, keep lifting the shuttle deep and high, until you get a weaker smash that you can attack.
5:16 pm
January 24, 2011
Offline I always thought “channel attack” refers to smahing in the middle, in between the two players to create confusion and limit the angles of reply? That's how Gillian Clark refers to it anyway. You're absolutely right on what you've said though.
<3 Badminton!
7:11 pm
February 15, 2011
Offline You've described it a lot better than me but that's exactly what I meant Sketchy.
I've found it easy to defend against players who aren't that good but really difficult against guys who are about the same standard as me.
I haven't had the chance to use it against players of the same standard or better but it seems very effective.
What do you think about its merits as a tactic Sketchy ?
1:41 am
April 6, 2011
Offline 
@Yves – same phrase then, but different context.
It's explained a bit better in Jake Downey's article, here:
http://www.badminton.tv/sites/…..pter-5.pdf
I think it's largely a matter of risk/reward. It puts the defenders under greater pressure – but it also leaves you more vulnerable to counter-attack, so if they're able to handle your smash, they can immediately put you in all sorts of trouble.
Generally speaking, if your attack is stronger than the opponents' defense, then it's probably a good tactic to use – but if your smash isn't good enough to force a weak/straight reply, or if your partner at the net isn't quick & aggressive enough, then it's asking for trouble.
As always, a little communication goes a long way – for example, if you've just played a smash and you're still a little off-balance, or if your opponents have been able to lift the shuttle too deep for your smash to have the required penetration – then you can call to your partner to help you out, and they can abandon the channel attack and position themselves deeper and towards the middle of the court, ready to cover a possible cross-court reply. It will take some of the pressure off your opponents, but more importantly, it should allow you to keep on the offensive.
11:36 am
February 15, 2011
Offline
So many good points here.
When an attacker smashes inside the defender (channel) and tries to find that sweet spot between two defenders there are obviously openings for both the defenders and attackers. A good attack may result in both defenders leaving the shuttle thinking it's thier partners, or not wishing to commit in case of a clash in racquets.They may also both go for the shuttle and pop up a weak return as a result of the clash in racquets.
Good defenders can cope with this kind of attack in a number of ways.
1) if the smash is directed inside the defender then they can pivot on one foot to change their angle of response. This is particularly effective when stood on the right court and they are right handed. The defender can pivot on their right foot, effectively stepping backways with their left foot, then hit the cross court block easily, or drive/lift cross court to great effect. They can also sell the dummy and re-direct the shuttle straight down the line as the body position suggests the cross court as the only return.
2) you can ask your partner to close in so they are in a better position to take the shot down the centre and hit with a different angle cross court or straight.
With each of these situations the defender that blocks the shuttle can simply follow in to the net and threaten the net return.
Hope this helps.
Paul
Most Users Ever Online: 676
Currently Online:
135 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Matthew Seeley: 391
Peter Warman: 239
Ed: 186
Dobbie98: 165
gingerphil79: 158
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 10
Members: 1529
Moderators: 1
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 8
Topics: 581
Posts: 4716
Newest Members:
ehsianturi, wkt_1, merlyn, Suzena, ManojModerators: Design: 0
Administrators: AngieS: 0, Paul Stewart: 1283
