i have a friend who is visiting from Malaysia. back in the days he used to play state level tournaments and gotten good quality training in Malaysia as a result. we went for a game in the local challenge courts and played with some pretty good players. we were talking about the games and he says he is surprised that everyone seems to like smashing here in the US. he says when he used to train back in Malaysia, coaches discourage students from smashing too much. he says he was more encouraged to play position and only smash when necessary. while that is a ok type of tactic, coaches here (mainly from China / Malaysia) tend to prefer the offensive style of play. and then i realized that that really fits into the stereotype of Malaysian player, even all the way to the international level. Malaysian players have always had a great defensive game, from Cheah/Yap all the way to now KKK/TBH, they are all very skillful defenders. back few years ago CY/FHF never played well against Malaysian players as all their smashes eventually comes back and they ran out of ideas. it is interesting to see that style of play can potentially be something that is systematically widespread all over a country.
Is it possible that Malaysian coaches and BAM never adapted to the the current rally point system? The old style 15 point game was more about patience and control, whereas the new 21 point game is more about attack, attack and attack.
then what u gonna say about japanese women's doubles playing style. its not just in malaysia (if possible) if u ask me.
Attackers always win. My second coach said that and I think Lee Jae Bok said the same. Obviously defence is a must-have skill, but to me in any rally, your primary aim is to get on the attack and not have to defend at all. So to me it's a secondary skill only used when you lose control of the rally. You can't win just by defending but a good defence can get you back on the attack. The only difference in the style of play I have seen in badminton is that in the past 15-20 years western footwork seems to have mimicked asian footwork. I can't pinpoint what exactly the difference was, but it seemed to me that there was a significant change particularly in mens singles. Western MS players never used to jump smash as much either, probably because they tend to be taller than Asian players.
I just came back to Malaysia from Australia and have noticed what you say about defensive players here in Malaysia first hand. There is the odd offensive players (like myself) but more often players here tend to be more defensive. I think climate may have a factor on the play style because the humidity and heat makes it hard to be a really agressive player unless you are super fit. I have also noticed this on a few social badminton groups I've joined here who were more intent on clearing and pushing back and letting the opponents smash instead of setting up shots for your partner to smash or finish the point at the net. I've also noticed that although LCW does smash occasionally, he tends to try and outlast more opponents through superior fitness but that's just my opinion/observation.
I'd have thought the national squad would be training in air-conditioned environment. If so, the above shouldn't be an issue? Instead, coaches/players should focus on a style that give them an edge, if attacking in Doubles would be better than defending. At a lower level, without strong financial backing, I can understand an air-conditioned gym might be out of reach for most people, and the above conjecture might make more sense.
I think what lower level coaches are teaching in malaysia would be more defensive/out of date, where as higher level national coaches (often foreign such as Rexy , Frost etc) would be teaching a more modern offensive style. When some of our players trained at Malaysia with some of the national juniors the emphasis was very much on massive volume of work, physical strength,speed and endurance rather than advanced technique. With enough keen youngsters doing that sort of training you will turn out a number of exceptional athletes, but they must then later be honed into modern players?
What kwun wrote is totally true. I have 2 examples here in Sydney: one is a Malaysian coach (ex-national team player) whos famous for his method of training largely based on "footwork" and hence it is so obvious when I saw him play he always lacking that explosiveness and tried to win the game with patience and out position the opponent. Another one is a group of Malaysian players in my club, all I can say is that whenever they play you can expect they play or use the court longer than anyone. From my view there are many opportunities that they could have killed the opponent but just did not take it.
I guess it they way that Malaysian players learned since they start playing, and the style stick with them all along.
But I don't mean that their style is bad or wrong. I guess LCW is the best example of Malaysian style at it's best
yes. i don't mean good or bad either. just different style of play. esp at the recreational level, an old guy with fast feet and wall like defense will wear out any teenager with continuous thundering smash. i was merely just pointing out how coaches from different background / countries tend to have differing style and how we can see that reflected in top level players. someone mentioned Lee Jae Bok who came from Korea and Korea has always been known to have an all attacking style. esp back in the 80/90s where the players really just go 110% smashes from the first service.
How about Indonesian style? I have strong attitude towards them but maybe I'm bias (since I come from there)
In general the Danes and English seem to put far more on tactics than the Asian countries. Of course the greatest Asian players are also great tacticians, but you see many Asian players who are faster/stronger and have more options and strokes than Europeans but lose to them, but you see somewhat limited Europeans, not the fastest or hardest hitting playing way above their apparant level or causing upsets. You don't often see an Asian pair or player who are very tactical or just "awkward", or not great movers yet there are so many Euro players who are very tactical or not the fastest : Anthony Clark, Robertson, Persson, Jorgenson, Johansen As I implied above I think in Asian the volume of children playing and the style of play weeds out those who aren't great athletically, where as in Europe a more tactical player is likely to progress through junior ranks, even if not the fittest
Damn you just remind me how Natsir/Towi lost to Imogen in WC SF. The way I see that match is like watching Arsenal vs Man Utd, one is Wenger "the idealist" stubbornly believe on "the way and only" to play and on the other the motivated and pragmatic Sir Alex.
Most of the asian mixed pairs at world's tactics were poor/nonexistant. Adcock/Bankier played basic good mixed , mixing up the attack , setting up lady and not defending much. Adcocks serve wasn't great but Bankiers was, Bankier used "oldfashioned "cross court defence and was allowed to stay at net, Natsir constantly lifted playign into ENG hands and Ahmad made mistakes and got out of position constantly, certainly didnt look like a pair who had won SS this year!
In short, Imogen out played Natsir that night. And from a tactical point of view the INA pair should switch to defensive mode just for a while to gain back the momentum. But unfortunately, that's not they way they play and instructed. So Natsir continued to try dominate the front court and Towi just had smash and attack in mind.
That attacking (the Indonesian way) tactic should work (especially against the Chinese) but just not that night
Take Lee Chong Wei as an example, He drastically improved his injection of pace, and his attack after the 2008 Beijing Olympics, look at him now, the only player that can beat him is Lin Dan who has an even more aggressive attack.
