21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?

Discussion in 'Techniques / Training' started by chris-ccc, May 18, 2006.

  1. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Occupation:
    Semi-Retired
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Yes you are absolutely right! I meant the server and not the receiver. :)
     
  2. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    i agree that once the rally is ongoing, attacking or defending tactics of equal ability has no particular advantage.
     
  3. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Occupation:
    Semi-Retired
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    The server is not the one who is disadvantaged all the time for the reasons I have mentioned. Increasingly, although to be able to execute a perfect low serve repeatedly is not possible, the percentage goes higher as players put more time to practising the serve.

    This is more so in doubles than in singles as you have two players to cover the court. Somehow the court lines, especailly the short service line, are drawn such that it takes some time for the receiver to pounce at the net from a motionless/standstill position without being faulted. Then the possibility of being caught with a flick serve will remind the receiver to be more careful and not to overdo it. And a really good serve of the bird just sailing across the net, dipping at the tape thus making it impossible for the receiver to attack. Worse still the bird just go for the short service line and confounding the receiver who did nothing but let it land. Singles players are less adventurous and seldom kill the serve as they need to cover more court space! They normally stand farther away from the short service line than the doubles receiver.

    Even in the recent SO or in other international tournaments for that matter, how many times do you see the receiver making an instant kill on the serve? Most times the shuttle will be pushed back close to the net, to the midcourt sidelines between the opponents, to the server at chest level or driven flat to the backcourt. We are talking about professional players who need to react fast and keep the bird low to create opportunities for attack.

    The proof in the NSS is that only the winner gets to serve. The loser of the rally forfeits the serve and has the only option to receive. :rolleyes:
     
  4. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    not strong enough argument:p
    1. u r assuming everyone, including PRO's, make no error on serve in every game. Show me a game or match where a pro hadn't made a service error. Show me a game or match where a pro made perfect serve run. As a receiver under NSS, i stand collect points for DOING NOTHING while the server may serve into the net, serve short, or serve out. Also, server can serve too high as well which equates to dim sum shot for the receiver. The server stand to gain points with lot less downside risk than a holder of US government treasury notes or bonds LOL.(china is trembling because it's holding bucket full of US notes LOL)

    2. as a receiver, I DONT HAVE TO ATTACK AT EVERY SERVE to make u lift. I'll save my best attack on my 2nd or 3rd shot LOL

    sorry, I LOL alot.
     
    #84 cooler, Jun 12, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2006
  5. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Occupation:
    Semi-Retired
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Increasingly, although to be able to execute a perfect low serve repeatedly is not possible, the percentage goes higher as players put more time to practising the serve.


    I think you've not read my last post. Certainly the pros make mistakes as they are only human. But as my previous post with the above highlight has tried to explain, the pros are making it more difficult for their opponents and are certainly trying to reduce their own errors.

    But how many points can you stand to collect for doing nothing? As I've said there were times when the receiver stood still and let the bird land on the line and he lost a point for doing nothing! :D

    Sure, as a receiver you do have other options as I have enumerated if you can't attack the serve. So does the server!

    No, it is not possible to play a perfect game, to have a perfect serve (unlike a perfect game in bowling) all the way, but the pros are trying as hard as they can! :cool:

    On US treasuries and bonds, things will come to pass. Japan at her prime was like China once before. But could you imagine a financial world without the presence of the US? What would become of Canada? Can China and India combined replace the US? What would Europe and other US allies say? Are they in favour or will they continue to support the US? :D
     
  6. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    Please ask yourselves these questions first before giving opinions/ideas:

    1) Do you agree that the receiver has the TWO options of attacking and not to, no matter how the service is 'dictated' by the server?

    2) Do you agree that the server does not have attacking option when serving?

    If both your answers are YES, I don't think I need to explain more.
     
  7. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    yes, smart money managers already start imaging it already. Buffet and gate bought silver, shorted USD, years ago LOL:p
     
  8. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Occupation:
    Semi-Retired
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I think your thinking is too restrictive. There is no hard and fast answer to your Q1 as the options will have to depend on circumstances. If the shuttle is served almost perfectly, the receiver will be stupid to attack as his reply will most certainly be stopped by the net. His return shot must be taken below the net level. So in this case, he has no option to attack at the net to execute a kill! :D

    As for your second question, I must be mad to say that the serve is an attacking stroke as it has to be played below the waist which is below the net tape for all of us, unless you have a giant whose waist is higher than the net.

    However, a good serve will dip just after passing the net tape and make it impossible for the receiver to attack. Depending on how quick the receiver can get to the net with his racket, in most likelihood he has to take the shuttle when it is dipping. In other words, he is forced to hit the shuttle slightly upwards and not downwards.

    By being able to execute such a good serve, the server has now put him and his partner in a better position to counter the receiver's return shot. A poor return from the receiver will elicit an attack either from the server or his waiting partner.
     
  9. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    You are most correct to say 'counter the receiver's poor shot' which to me, clearly denotes the defensive nature of the server.

    However good the serve was, if the return is of good/high quality, the server is still in an defensive situation. The server side will have to work to re-establish the balance based on their defensive skills - therefore the importance of the third stroke.


     
  10. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    That is why I said the receiver has options of attacking and not to. If the service is TOO good (I mean those pass nicely over the net and drop on the SHORT line), the receiver may not have other choices but to lift. But can you tell me what are the chances of executing such service? If the shuttlecocks fall in favour of receiver, does that mean that the receiver can attack?

    Pardon me if this is irrelevant, generally in basketball, even the best shooter can only manage 40% to 50% basket-to-shot ratio during a game. Then what are the chances for a badminton player, who needs to use a racket, to make sure the shuttlecock falls nicely on or very near to the SHORT line? Yes, you may say that practices make serving near to 'perfection', but aren't the basketball players also training so hard to improve their shooting skills? Who knows, maybe they can achieve more with the help of even MORE trainings, technologies etc. But that maybe too far away for me to imagine and make wild predictions...

    However, I believe if the shuttlecocks fall two or three inches further from the SHORT line, you can also drive it far corners to backcourt right :)
     
  11. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    This is thing that puts great pressure to the server, specially in singles. The short serve can prevent a strong smashes, but the server on the other hand must have excellent court coverage to return the shots well. Otherwise the short serve will punish even more the server.


     
  12. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Occupation:
    Semi-Retired
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I think it all boils down to the quality of the shot and if the pros are making improvements all round, both in attack and in defence, it is a delight to watch. Not forgetting the human element that can alter the situation, how from attack it could change to defence and vice versa. Because of human frailties and imperfections, some room is available for unpredictable and unexpected results.

    But the fight goes on! And we spectators are the winners! :D
     
  13. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    In mens singles, whether under the OSS or the NSS, the low serve takes precedence for a very simple reason-to initiate an attack from the outset. The low serve is used less in womens singles because a woman's attack is not as powerful as mens'. All singles players must have excellent footwork.
    Now the question. Would you opt to serve in singles after winning the toss or would you choose to be the receiver, under the NSS? Check with the very top players choice of whether to serve or to receive. It would be interesting to back or debunk your theory. This is the acid test, isn't it? Why are proponents of receiving serve is best not supporting this comparison with the very top players who ought to know better? :confused:
     
  14. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    u r using singles as examples where short serves are more closer being neutral both sides. All high serves in MS can be attacked.

    In doubles, both high and short serves can be attacked.

    We are talking mostly doubles play situation.
     
  15. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    add to this: serving using feather shuttles are much harder to master for perfection because.... as i kept saying before about advantage of plastic shuttles- consistency.....which feather don't have because feather degrades and thereby flight profile changes with every shot. (even new feather out of the tube is still inconsistent) With plastic, i can play one entire game without much degradation, therefore, more predictable in serving. With a rubber basketball, ball characteristic don't change throughout the game. Even with that percentage of 3 pointer is still only 40-50% as u said.

    Loh said pro can practice and master the serve. Well, there are several grades, speed & brands of feather shuttles between training and competitons. I ask, which kind of feather shuttle to master???? (even if u have the luxury to ask for a new feather shuttle after every rally)

    yes, feather variability add to the complexity of the game of badminton.
     
    #95 cooler, Jun 13, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2006
  16. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    33
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Defining an Attacking Shot

    Hi Everyone,

    As we are talking more and more about services, ie whether a service can be an attacking shot or not... we have to consider what is defined as an attacking shot.

    Different postings from different contributors tell me that we are not talking on the same wavelength. This could be because we are players of different skill levels, of different schools of thoughts, etc, etc...

    So until we can agree on a definition, we won't make any progress in this forum.

    My experience in coaching Badminton over the decades tells me that most players think that an attacking shot is a shot that is executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court. But now my trainees have learned something new from me.

    My trainees now know that an attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm to his/her opponent, and it is a shot executed for that purpose alone.

    Games like Pool, Snooker or Billiards are 2-dimensional games, length & width. I have played and enjoyed them. Badminton, on the other hand, is a 4-dimensional game. And I prefer Badminton better because of the extra 2 dimensions of height and time, although, Loh and taneepak, based on their postings, might want to add in another dimension, the 5th dimension, ie the human element... mental strength, feeling of being in control, toughness, psychology, etc, etc...

    However, I am saying that we can attack with 1,2,3 or all of the 4-dimensions, length, width, height and time.

    Please remember my definiton...”An attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm”.

    From my “first time to Badminton students”, a high service(in Singles) to the back tram lines is an attacking shot. This is because it pushes the opponent(also, first timers) to the back of the court. This is to do harm by moving the opponent away from the centre of the court. Of course, if Peter Gade is to serve high to Chen Hong, Chen Hong will not consider it as an attacking shot because it causes him no harm. Chen Hong can deal with it easily.

    From viver, an experienced player, the S-Service(which is now banned) is an attacking shot. It is because it is a very tricky shot to deal with.

    From Loh and taneepak, a good service or good netplay shot can be an attacking shot. It can force the opponent to lift or force the opponent into difficulties(time wise).

    Another example of an attacking shot is the shooting service that taneepak mentioned. In fact, at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne 2006, New Zealand claimed that Australia was cheating in their sevice when Australia played the shooting service.

    From cooler and KooGuy, an attacking shot is a shot executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court.

    From Chai, sendoh and chewablemorphin, any shot hitting upwards is not an attacking shot. I thought Loh hinted to us that PG beat BCL in the Singapore Open 2006 by attacking him with excellent netplay, but you did not see it that way.

    From jerby, not only can you attack the opponent's court, but you can attack your opponent's stamina(the 6th dimension???).

    From franxon and badrad, an attacking shot is good provided we are more careful to avoid errors. Here franxon and badrad tried to tell us that that an attacking shot is a tighter shot, a riskier shot to play.

    For me, an attacking shot is any shot that forces the opponent to receive it not only below net height but a shot that puts pressure on the opponent time wise.

    Here, I have 2 examples that hitting up shots can be "attacking";

    -------------------------------------
    1. I learned from Darmadi, the Indonesian National Champion in the 1960's, that you can attack your opponent with a upward shot. His example is the attacking clear(giving very little time to your opponent to react). I have played with him and learned from him.

    2. From the Sidek brothers, I learned the S-Service(now banned) is an attacking shot because it causes lots of difficulties to your opponent because the spinning and wobbly effect of the service.

    -------------------------------------

    We can even attack a smash if we can return a smash with a drive(giving him/her less time) to a corner far away from the smasher. This is using all 4 dimensions of the game, correct length, correct width, correct height and with less time.

    Also we can now see that many players have learned to play a netplay shot with lots of spin and wobble. To me this is an attacking shot even though it is an upward shot. It can cause harm to your opponent. With the spinning and wobbly nature of the shot, your opponent might want to play safe and reply by lifting. But of course, your opponent can also spin it back to you, in other words, counter-attacking you.

    I have also mentioned that as we progress with Badminton, we will learn new things. Soon we will learn better ways to deal with the spinning/wobbling netplay. At the moment, I tell my trainees to learn to spin/wobble it back at the netplay to force opponent to lift. Or even gently hit the spinning/wobbling shuttle with their racket frame instead of the racket strings.

    So you see, an attacking shot can be performed with gentleness. Perhaps you can see my philosophy now, as Bruce Lee put it “You can attack your opponent with force or with gentleness”.

    So, for all of us in this forum, let us define what an attacking shot is before we go any further.

    -------------------------------------

    I know exactly what franxon and badrad mean when they said “we have to be careful to avoid errors”. To play attack, we are subjected to more errors compared to if we play a safe/control shot. We can be risking errors if you play a harder smash, a tighter dropshot, a spinier netplay, etc...

    To me, even a deceptive shot that can wrong foot your opponenet is an attacking shot.

    When I started this thread, I was thinking of all the points that I mentioned above. But I realise now that I did not know that different people look at the concept of “attack” so differently.

    I apologise for it.

    Wow... what a long post.

    Cheers... chris@ccc

     
    #96 chris-ccc, Jun 13, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2006
  17. jerby

    jerby Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    EU
    well. I think the term "attacking" is out of place. somehow the word 'initiative' seems better. 'attacking' shots are the shots you play to gain the upper hand in a rally. and then to finish it. and 'downwards' isn;t always the way to go to get 'initiative'. so 'attacking' isn't always the violence we imagine..and therefore, the term itself is misleading..
     
  18. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,811
    Likes Received:
    23
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    chris@ccc, ur conclusion on my attacking service return shot is INCORRECT.

    if u re-read my post #84, point #2 clearly stated my point.

    my definition of attacking return serve is any shot that put the opponents in harm(eg, racket clash), out of position or force them to lift because i got an upper hand or opportunity in making that advantage return shot.

    If i were to rally against a D- player, a good simple harmless clear is an attacking shot LOL
     
    #98 cooler, Jun 13, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2006
  19. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Your term 'initiative' is the most correct one. In coaching terms - at least the one that I learned, the server is in a position of 'without initiative'. If the serve is performed well, the server is still dependent of the receiver's return shot quality.
     
  20. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I am afraid we as spectators will become the losers in the long run.

    The 21x3 system takes one important aspect out of badminton, in my opinion - the server's need to master the defence and counter attack skills. We will see when the first real batch of 21x3 players.
     

Share This Page