Style: Asia vs Europe

[Magnus]

I recently read a book by Swedish 80's badminton champ Stefan Kihlstrom, and there he gives his views on today's badminton. He feels that the game has lost something. There is too much emphasis on physical training and technique and too little on tactics, of learning WHY a certain shot is better in a certain situation, whether it should be straight, cross-court, etc. His view is that the Europeans have been become "Asiafied". In Asia there has traditionally been a strong focus on the physical aspects of badminton, whereas in Europe the focus has traditionally been towards tactics and playing creatively.
(By the way, isn't this in accordance with the new scoring system, which is said to benefit an aggressive smashing style? Doesn't that mean that a lot of the psychological aspects of the game is lost?)

Often one feels that the Asians are dominating international competitions, but is it really true? In the current top 10 rankings, there are 7 asions to 3 europeans in the men's singles, 8 to 2 in womens' singles, 7 to 3 (pairs) in men's doubles, 6 to 4 in women's doubles, and 5 to 5 in mixed doubles. That's not domination to me, considering the (lack of) popularity of badminton in Europe, and how popular the sport is in Asia...

Knowing that there are a lot of Asians here, it would be interesting to hear what you think about this. Is there a European playing style? Is there an Asian style?

[Byro-Nenium]

I feel the European players tend to smash more often as opposed to the Asian players who have a certain style of playing. For example, watch Hendrawan, he moves his opponent around the court tiring them out until they make a mistake or he smashes them out.

I saw the Danish Open final between Flandi Limpele/Eng Hian against Jesper Larsen and his parter, whatever his name is. The danes tended to smash alot more then the Indonesians. The danes set up smashes by doing really low drops forcing the short lift so that they could smash it.

I'm a Singaporean and i'm asian and i've trained in Indonesia for a little while and i like to work my opponent around the court. With these new rules, all i have to do is smash.

[Byro-Nenium]

I feel the European players tend to smash more often as opposed to the Asian players who have a certain style of playing. For example, watch Hendrawan, he moves his opponent around the court tiring them out until they make a mistake or he smashes them out.

I saw the Danish Open final between Flandi Limpele/Eng Hian against Jesper Larsen and his parter, whatever his name is. The danes tended to smash alot more then the Indonesians. The danes set up smashes by doing really low drops forcing the short lift so that they could smash it.

I'm a Singaporean and i'm asian and i've trained in Indonesia for a little while and i like to work my opponent around the court. With these new rules, all i have to do is smash. Yes, i feel the feeling of certain parts of the game has been lost. Thats a shame. BTW, i still play the old rules outside of compitions.

[vince poon]

I don't know if there is a European or Asian style but I do know all top class player use some sore of tactics. Taufik and Peter G tactic is to force his opponent to lift the shuttle up by playing very close to the net. Sun Jun and Fung P tactic is to get into a long volley situation because they are more consistent, less likely to make an error. Anothe tactic Taufik use is get into a quick driving volley against bigger opponent. There is properly lot more tactic and strategy in double than in single, so the tactics is still there.

[cooler]

magnus say (By the way, isn't this in accordance with the new scoring system, which is said to benefit an aggressive smashing style? Doesn't that mean that a lot of the psychological aspects of the game is lost?).

Wrong, IMO. The old scoring system(3x15) required more fitness than the new system. One has to play to 15 point versus 7 or 9 points (i forgot what is the new system 5x7 or 5x9 ). That is why badminton has poor television coverage. Some rallies or games under old system can last a long time. I dont consider muscle bulk of smashing as fitness. Moving your weight around the court in long rallies is fitness. Yes, tactics important too, but tactics, accuracy, shot varieties are lost when one get tires.

Agreed with your second point. Asian really not dominating the world ranking
but i have to say asian dominate the game of badminton mainly because more of us play badminton.

In MS and WS, i believe europeans could do better if they were train under the chinese program. Statistically. europeans are taller than asian so that is a big advantage in singles.If all else are equal, europeans should be 7 to 3 and 8 to 2 in MS and WS over asian, but they r not because asian have better fitness and/or tactics. Look at mia audina and that swedish girl (a chinese), they r very short but still wins in top tournaments. Legends like yang yang, zhao, gong, han jian are all relatively shorter than europeans legend like M. frost, Erik L. Poulson, etc. Got the drift?

When i watch tapes, i only watch asian players for technical reason.


cooler

[Jaysee]

Someone told me that Asians have more "explosiveness" because of their muscle fiber structures or something. Im sure that this is a generalization but explosiveness would definately help in badminton.

[viver]

I have learned badminton from Chinese coaches only and as such cannot say about other Asian countries. I am already "indoctrinated" that Chinese made huge progress in badminton since the 60's because before they were not regarded as a powerhouse. Through a lot of hard work, trials and errors they came up with a few principles that guide the way they play badminton. These principles are applied into their training which covers the technical and tactical aspects of the game. In my opinion the Chinese made big strides towards the development of modern badminton.

Now about European style, I don't know. I can only look at the European players of the 80's (Jens-Peter Niehroff, Thomas Kihlstrom, S. Karlsson, Lene Koppen, Kristen Larssen, Kevin Jolly, Ray Stevens etc) and I would say they were behind the Chinese (Luan Jin, Chen TianLong, Han Jian, Zhang AiLing, Han AiPing, etc) technically. The Europeans had powerful strokes but they were not that successful in disguising them. Footwork was slower in comparison and not as efficient as the Chinese. I saw Morten Frost with the Danish team in China in 1981 for a friendly game with Chinese team. He was already a very good player then. Saw him later in TV, the 1983 All England final his footwork improved a lot.

Nowadays European players Hoyer-Larsson, P Gade, C Martin, Rassmussen play a different game style. Powerful strokes yet more deceptive and quick court coverage with matching footwork. Technically they made great progress and since there is a Chinese coach in the Danish technical staff, could it be possible that he had some influence?

[Mag]

Somebody told be that afro-americans have the rhythm in their blood.
Come on, you can't seriously mean that there would be a difference in muscle quality between asians and others? Don't believe everything you hear, Jaysee.

The difference lies in different training methods, of course.

[Mag]

Hmm. I thought that Thomas Kihlstrom (whom I accidentaly misnomed Stefan in my first post) was considered as one of the most technical, deceptive and slow players of his time?! In one passage of the book I mentioned, Kilhstrom relates an incident when he got told off by a Chinese coach for playing too slow against a very fast-paced (Chinese) opponent!

I'll agree that Nierhoff was a hard-hitting power player, though. I'll try to dig up some tapes of old tournaments and look into this further...

Anyway, we seem to agree on the fact that Asians and Europeans are closer today than in the 70's or 80's. It's only natural and logical I guess. It's all part of the globalization process, with people travelling all over and coaching or playing for other countries.

[viver]

My opinion is based on my perspective. My little knowledge in badminton as I mentioned comes from Chinese coaches so I see things from there. Kihlstrom was obviously 1 of the top players during the 80's. He had a very good smash, good defense and drives. For us common mortals his power and speed would be too much. For high level I think he could not be considered among the fastest but tactically he is really good.
I'd like to someday to be able to learn from European coaches and players: concepts and training methods.

About fast paced games you remind me of a Hong Kong Open men singles final back in the 80's. Players were Chen TianLong (China) and Prakash Padukone(India). Chen was technically better but Prakash deliberately slowed the match. Prakash when serving would drop the bird without hitting alleging sweat glued his fingers to the shuttle not allowing him to drop it efficiently. According to rules that is a let and he took full advantage of that. He did that several times during the game and succeeded in upsetting his opponent. Chen lost his patience and also the game. Probably Kihlstrom was trying the same tactics?

[cooler]

neat story. Viver, is the sweaty finger rule still allow today? thanks

[Mag]

Yeah, good anecdote Viver. Some people would consider this sort of behaviour bad sportsmanship, but I don't agree with that. On the contrary, badminton is a sport where the psychological battle between opponents can win a match. I think even more so than in tennis for instance, as you're closer to the other player... more eye contact, more of a duel.

Creating a break or disturbance in the game -- as Padukone did -- can sometimes be vital to get the opponent out of the rhythm. For instance, purposely (but invisibly) squashing the shuttle to force a replacement is a common trick to gain time. I am sure there are others... maybe we should start a new thread on the subject of semi-ugly tricks?

[viver]

If when serving you drop the bird without moving your racquet is still a let under the current rules I believe. I never saw another playing using the same tactics again.

You are right Mag. In high level competition players get there not only by technique. Tactical awareness is much more important and there I believe there's no Asian or European style. Tactics should be the same everywhere. The quicker you adapt to the circumstances of the game the higher the chance to win the game. Prakash was quick to notice that Chen was an impatient player so he did that on purpose to upset him and succeeded. And that is also why Prakash was regarded as 1 of the best tacticians in the game.

[Cheung]

Isn't a playing style a process of natural selection?
If a more physical game produces winning matches, then that person is going to get through! When the "tactician" brings his fitness level up to an equal par, then the tactics will make a difference.

Go back to the mid 80's and look at the Chinese team. There was the old guard (Luan Jin/Han Jian) and then Yang Yang/Zhao Jian Hua. There is such a difference in playing style. The latter two players had such a big impact on the game, it is only logical that coaches would study their movement and incorporate into the modern generation.

I have no doubt that coaches will study all the top players techniques looking for strengths and weaknesses to incorporate into tactics and the training of new generation players.

[viver]

I think we are agreeing on this: In high level competition the first priority is fitness. No fitness no tactics will work for you.

Luan Jin and Han Jian were not originally badminton players if my memory does not betray me. They started badminton late but were able to achieve success.

Zhao JianHua and Yang Yang were trained as badminton players since young. They had an excellent coach and later under the guidance of Hou JiaChang they excelled. Yang Yang had more success. Zhao JianHua I heard never fully recovered from the illness and that's why he was not consistent during tournaments.

After them Wu WenKai, Dong Jiong, Sun Jun and others did not have the same impact. In my opinion they were not in the same technical level as their predecessors. Only logical explanation is that coaches were wrong on the skills selection transferred to them.

[Mag]

Yes, I have also considered Asia to dominate badminton, with the exception of a few "accidental" Europeans in top ranks. But I'm beginning to wonder if this is really so. If we look at the top 100 instead of the top 10 of the world rankings, it looks like this:

Men's singles: 41% asians, 51% europeans
Women's singles: 37% asians, 55% europeans
Men's doubles: 47% asians, 46% europeans
Women's doubles: 41% asians, 51% europeans
Mixed doubles: 32% asians, 53% europeans

Actually, I myself was rather surprised by these figures. OK, men's doubles is a draw, but otherwise I'd say Europe is dominating.

If it's like you say, Cooler, that Asians are dominating badminton, how come that's not reflected in the world rankings? If Asia has more people playing the game, then that would mean that Europeans have either more talent, better facilities, better coaches, better training programmes, better sponsor deals, or any combination of the above. Or just take the game more seriously?

Or maybe Asia isn't dominating as much as we all think? This may sound provocative, and I know there are a lot of Asians here so I bet I'm gonna be flamed for this. But I still think it's worth discussing. Ask the man in the street in almost any country in Europe "are Asian countries dominating badminton?" My bet is that the answer would be "yes". But tournament results say "no"?

Does anyone actually have figures on how many people engage in the game (even occasionally) of different countries? That would be interesting to see.

[cooler]

mag, it's good to be cautious but i dont think u r flaming any asian in this case. Data dont lie when the range is specified. Just remember what i've said:

cooler: **Agreed with your second point. Asian really not dominating the world ranking but i have to say asian dominate the game of badminton mainly because more of us play badminton. **

On my second sentence, i should elaborate. It is more of a general statement. If i say world top 1,000,000 ranking, or even top 1,000,000,000 ranking, i'm sure, asian will dominate that list. That's what i mean asian dominated the game of badminton, in a broad context.

[Mag]

Yes Cooler, I would have thought so too. But my point was that there must be something wrong with badminton in Asian countries. If so many people play the game, why aren't there more players at the top? It doesn't seem to make sense.

[Mag]

Yes Cooler, I would have thought so too. But my point was that there must be something wrong with badminton in Asian countries. If so many people play the game, why aren't there more players at the top? It doesn't seem to make sense.

[Mag]

Yes Cooler, I would have thought so too. But my point was that there seems to be something wrong with badminton in Asian countries. If so many people play the game, why aren't there more players at the top? It doesn't seem to make sense.

[kwun]

Mag,

being good at badminton, esp being the very top, is very unlike lottery. even though there are more asians playing badminton at the club/mortal level, that doesn't neccessarily mean that asian country will create better players. world class players are created through many years of training, and not just any training, but training by good coaches who can guide the player to become the best.

unfortunately, there are only a handful of coaches who are able to do that, and i don't think the asia country has more coaches that the european countries. and that is probably why there are just as many european players at the top level.

also, the competition from asian countries are much more fierce. most players can't stay in the national team for an extended amount of time while having the luxury of going to many tournaments. the Chinese national team, for example, have 3 team levels, and even though the players at level 3 are already very good (the Chinese ladies are a good example), only the players at the top level are able to play in the international tournaments.

without going to tournaments, they can't accumulate points that easily to achieve high ranking. also, European players play a lot more tournaments than asians, and that give them more points also.

not sure if that explains anything... :)

kwun

[Adel]

I think when we say dominate the game, we mean that Asians tend to perform better at top-level competitions. At least that's what I mean when I say it. And I suppose the top 10 in world rankings is a good enough gauge for "top-level competion"?

[cooler]

Mag, Mag, Mag, since you have asked the question 3 times, you seem anxious to know. So i'll tell ya. First, i like to say kwun is correct in his qualitative explaination. In my book, higher world ranking points doesn't mean better quality player. This statement also apply to my local and provincal ranking too. Players can earn more points by playing more tournaments. Since you are still puzzled, i'll use the quanitative explaination:

Men Singles in points per international competition:
peter gade 37.4
taufik 46.94
Xuanze 38.9

Ladies Singles
Carmilla Martin 39.8
Gong 53.2
Ji Hyun 40.4

So, in my book, asian ARE BETTER players using my above analysis, quality wise. European players get more glory because they play more tournaments, especially tournaments where top asian rarely show up (i hope i'm not getting too personal). Look at 2000 olympic badminton, where no asian countries want to miss this highest profile sport event. This is where the best asian show up. Here are the results:

Men Doubles Gold Indonesia
Men Doubles Silver Korea
Men Doubles Bronze Korea
Men Singles Gold Xinpeng Ji China
Men Singles Silver Henra wan Indonesia
Men Singles Bronze Xuanze Xia China
Mixed Doubles Gold China
Mixed Doubles Silver Indonesia
Mixed Doubles Bronze Britain
Women Doubles Gold China
Women Doubles Silver China
Women Doubles Bronze China
Women Singles Gold Zhichao Gong China
Women Singles Silver Camilla Martin Denmark
Women Singles Bronze Zhaoying Ye China

Oh, Oh, Oh, what do we have here? Only 2 medals (no gold) for european and the rest went to asian countries. European got 13.33% of the medals. Point wise, european only got 8.89% of the total olympic points. That's pretty shabby in my book. No insult intented, Mag. The real badminton showdown result proved my point (and kwun too).

[Mag]

I just saw that my previous post had been entered three times. I am sure you all guessed that was due to a lagging error. Sorry about that.

About the ranking: OK, that seems logical. Playing many tournaments increases your chances of getting ranking points. I don't have any statistics to contradict your statement that Asian players seldom play international tournaments, so I'll accept that as an explanation for now. But what then is the reason for that? Don't the international competitions have enough prize money?

To me, the best player is the one who can maintain best results for a long time. Not the one who wins one important competition but doesn't care about the rest. That's just poor sportsmanship!

[Mag]

Kwun, I agree with you about the fierce competition and the ranking.

However, I never implied it would have anything to do with lottery. And I think becoming a world top class player takes more than thorough training: it takes a lot of talent too. My point was that if a larger part of the population plays badminton in Asian countries, the chance of discovering the real talents would be greater.

If the ranking system isn't a good measure of success, then what would be a better method? Any proposals? ;-)

[andy]

wot da hell r u talkin bout
look at da stats dat u just put up
if da majority of d top hundred players r mostly europeans, and d international tournaments r usually won by asians
then dat means dat asians dominate d game. U DUM @!#$ !!
cmon ! if europeans cant win @!#$ all when there r more of dem playing d game in professional level, then dat means dey r @!#$ !!!

[bc]

please ignore this rude person. in the future, posts will vulgar languages will be deleted. thanks.

[cooler]

and they say i have poor english :-p

[vince poon]

Oh, there you go again, jumping to conclusion just like that. It so you, Mag.

[knock-out]

I've just been reading through past statements and I saw this and thought I might comment. I traveled to Indonesia in the summer of 2000 and spent some time with my wife's family who come from a poor area of central Java. I had the opportunity to to go play badminton a few times in some of the nightly matches and I was amazed. I will concede that I am from the U.S. and we arn't exactly stellar in our badminton play, but I do buy and watch videos of the big worldwide badminton tourneys, so I know what is possible. My take on this isuue is that in a country that has the economic struggles that Indonesia seems to have, it is probably hard for some of the good players to be brought out of obscurity. I know that some of these guys who work a job all day for 12 to 18 hours, and then come and play at night in a beat-up old badminton shed could give a lot of world-ranked players a good run-for-their-money. I honestly believe that many of these players would find their place in the top 100 rankings if ever given the chance. And I only saw a couple of places; there are surely thousands more throughout the country. I'm sure Indonesia has scouts out looking, but when your population reaches the hundreds of millions, that could be a large task. I have other opinions, also, but I'll let them go, I seem to push some people past their comfort levels with some of my comments.

[cooler]

statistic now say peter gade is back to #1 world ranking