# Thread: In my mind...

1. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2002
Location
Sweden
Posts
72
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged

## In my mind...

Just to help myself in understanding the balance of a game I usually look upon it like this:

The total skill of the two players are always "100".
No matter how good or bad they are.

A bloke I use to play against is currently at about "60" (in our last game) which leaves me at "40".
He is old and will not get much better.
If I improve myself "5" and he does not improve, then I will be "45" in our next game and he will fall down to "55". Then I might reach him cause theres always a variation in this skill during the game due to luck, fitness or whatever.

Is there anyone that understands anything of this!!!

What I try to say is that an opponent could feel much better than you because not only is he good, but he also has an easier trip if you are bad so he can dominate even more. But if you improve just a little it is not only that improvement that goes into youre game but also the fact that he gets it tougher.

Hmmmm... kind a hard to explain. Itīs all in my mind and it helps me get back when I meet a difficult opponent a second time. Itīs not much that does it.

The best games are at 50-50 +/- 5 but could easilly turn around if one player gets tired or has a period of luck.

Ignore this! I dont think my english is good enough to make this sound clever!

The POINT is that any improvement that I do is an equal loss for the opponent so the effect is doubled (unless he improves too.)

2. Regular Member
Join Date
Aug 2003
Location
Bedford, UK
Posts
191
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
I think I sort of see where you are coming from.

Given you reason your combined worth to be a 100. If you get 5 'better' the overall swing is of 10. Why? Originally it was 60:40, thus a difference of 20. If you improve 5 the ratio becomes 55:45 and thus the difference is just 10.

As you say, a net gain in your own skill of X results in reducing the difference between you by 2X.

I think it is certainly reasonable to rate opponents in some way in your own head. Because what is a good result against one player would not be such a good result against another.

3. Moderator
Join Date
Apr 2002
Location
Outside the box
Posts
11,810
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
17 Post(s)
Tagged
I understand!

If you both improve by 5, then the ratios are still equal, so you think you might not have improved.

4. dlp
Regular Member
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
uk
Posts
963
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Framerate,

In your ratio system I think it is useful for the player, since as you say the gap seems more attainable and any improvement is doubled. I find it hard to imagine in practice however. For instance if he was 60 to your 40 he is 50% better than you. I would suggest that is a massive gap?

I tend to think about the standard of players as a composite of different elements, all of which can be improved in small increments. (Physical, technical, tactical, mental elements adding to say 100) As you say performance on the day can cause a swing between players of similar levels.

However not all players can get to 100, regardless of training etc. Some players start on zero the first day they play , others on 5!

If you say that 60 is lower county standard (in England), I would say almost anyone could reach that standard with sufficient training, and most reach that fairly quickly. For instance you can improve from a 5 (beginner) to a 15 (social player) or a 25 (lower club player) within months. But once you get around the county standard there are far fewer players but they are all practising and to go past them takes more time, and if you ever get to the top of the game it takes hundreds of court hours to advance even a single 1%!

How do we think the population of badminton players would be distributed around such a model. I suggest the vast majority would be under score 50, i.e. perhaps 1 in 4 players are beginners or have not been taught or seen the game properly, then at least half would be social players and lower club players. Very few would be "serious" club players. Many would be veterans or children and so would again score low! The result : a pyramid with a very wide base but sharp point.

National players might make up the scores 80-100 , i.e. a top form Chen Hong or Xuanze (100) might lose to a top 15 player (95) but not to world 50th to 15th player (score 85-95) etc.

5. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2002
Location
Sweden
Posts
72
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
In your ratio system I think it is useful for the player, since as you say the gap seems more attainable and any improvement is doubled. I find it hard to imagine in practice however. For instance if he was 60 to your 40 he is 50% better than you. I would suggest that is a massive gap?
Well, I donīt blame anyone for not understanding me cause english is not my language, but in the example 60/40 the difference IS huge as the one is 50% better and that is the good thing!

Even if there is a big difference, it may not be that hard to reach this player in a game. Sometimes itīs just a little advantage that makes it.

If I have a weakness in my way to play. A good player can use it.

-5 to me +5 to him

If I can eliminate my weakness by getting better (+5) my opponent havent got any use for his skill in that matter any more (-5). So just a little improvement can really make a big difference!!

For example! I used to play to close to the net and I had big problems in getting in to a match because of that and I could not se it myself. Letīs say I played against X and in that case it was 30 for me and 70 for him. Terrible!!

When I realized what I did wrong everything just fell on place!!! Against that same X I jumped up to perhaps 45 and as he did not improve anything and could not take advantage of my weakness (and the sum is ALWAYS 100) he fell down to 55.

If X has got a bad day, I now can beat him.

Another example for the balance (nothing to do with badminton):

Two teams. 5 people in each. 5-5.
Hmmm... they are not equal let one member from team A go to team B.
Just ONE. But the result is HUGE: 4-6

That is the way I se the balance in skill in an isolated game.

Any game is always 100.

If I meet Peter Gade he would be "99" and I "1" = "100".

If Peter Gade plays against Chen Hong he would perhaps be "46" and Hong "54" = "100".

If Hong suddenly twists his ankle his advantages would drop (-10) and Gade would gain (+10) cause he could use his skills that Hong had a defense against before but not any longer.

Well... this is just my own way of thinking and I suppose itīs a way to find HOPE!!

The difference is not always so big as you might think or the points say.

The double effect is important because a slight hole in youre defence opens up for the opponent. If you reduce that hole you gain and he suffers!!

If I played against myself it would always be 50/50 in the beginning ofcourse but a few lucky birds could make one of me insecure and the other me selfconfident and suddenly I would beat myself...

Balance... never give anything away because the effect could be just what it takes.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•