I've tried searching but not able to find threads as the topic. I just wish to know how do we actually measure or rate the level of play for normal badminton players (not on the professional or national circuit)? Or is there even anyway we are able to do that?
Last edited by soccerking888; 04-10-2013 at 10:07 PM.
Let have some fun on this topic. There are 2 keys. 1st one is back hand. 2nd is people reaction. If your back hand return is weak, you are forever a beginner. If you can do back hand drop, you are at intermediate level. If you can do back hand clear from baseline to baseline clear, you are intermediate plus. If you can do back hand smack, you can beat 90% of the players. The fun part is people reacting to you on court. If everybody want to play with you, then you are the best in this particular club. If most players want to play with you, then you are at intermediate level. If only a few people want to play with you, then beginner is your label. If everybody leaves as soon as you step on court, you better bring your mother with you.
I think this is relative to other players in your club. You can be a beginner in one club and an intermediate in another. I always do an overhead on my backhand side, so I never really learn to hit a backhand. But I improve in other areas of my game, so other players want to play with me. I found what happens rather is that people who know one another well tend to stick with playing together because they are usually at similar levels.
It's difficult to quantify - and as rayvinly said it'll depend on the club. Where I play has a system with 5 grades, and the club pro/coaches use a set of criteria to determine who will fall into which grade.
I think the key areas to look for are:
Tactics/Controlling the game
Cleanliness of technique and shot quality
With each area being improved upon equally as one advances. At higher levels things like deception, power and athleticism become more important.
But more importantly, shoes and racquets - the more money spent on these, the better the player (obviously!)
We have to look the performance of the players is that good or bad.If they are playing nervousily then we have to know they are not playing properly or worse. From this type of feelings we can measure the Level mof play.
It highly depends on what you mean by "measuring."
If you want to select a team for competition, and future potential, then there are tons of test indicators you can use to judge the quality of a player. How fast can you run the four corners, for example, or what is your heart rate after three minutes of stepping up a ladder, and many other things.
Problem, of course, it takes a lot of effort to get these info, hence testing. A popular but scientifically completely invalid shortcut: smash speed, the faster, the better - simple, eh?
If you want to judge a player's level of play by hindsight, say, watching him on video, or live on court, you already can draw distinctions just by stature and physical look.
Lower legs and forearm muscles tell a lot. If you can see NO prominent muscles there, the player may not be too difficult. If you can see prominent muscles there, indeed, there are two types. Either, it is a body builder for sake of body building, then he may lack the training for speeding up his nerves and coordination - hence powerful but lazy and slow; or he truly is a quite threatening player of fast power-up ability. Tall players have a natural advantage, but they seldom jump and their jump abilites are quite weak. Skinny players are extremely enduring just by the nature of muscle-body relation.
And then there are tacticals ... too many ways, don't a simple shortcut to it.
Final point, Lee Chong Wei can do benchpressing with heavy weights similar to other players but 130 ranks below him! So, fitness is a must, but not a sufficient criteria, too.