Fast points - tactics in MS or WS

Discussion in 'Techniques / Training' started by JRMTL, May 30, 2004.

  1. JRMTL

    JRMTL Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Math teacher and coach at Univesity of Montreal
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Hi,

    there is a kind of rally in badminton that is useful: fast points. How can I describe it? You are trying to win the point by trying to find fast ways to make the point.

    My goal is to list a series of fast points you know. Perhaps to list as much fast points as Yonex serial numbers!!!

    Here is a first one:

    Righthanded versus righthanded

    Player A serving using forehand drive serve on the T at the baseline or in the left shoulder of player B.
    Player B will return 90% a blocked return at the net cross, so at the right front corner for player A.
    Player A waits for the kill or blocks tightly to the net.

    If B is wise enough, he will clear that shot in the middle of the court. But, that is when he is prepared...

    What are your fast points?
     
  2. Wizbit

    Wizbit Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Testing ladie's lingerie
    Location:
    UK - London, Birmingham
    Sorry but there are no easy winners in badminton, if there was everyone would be using them to win in straight games.

    If you want to win (or lose) the point faster then play faster!

    On the other hand, if you mean surprises and tricks to catch your opponent out...

    You should read up on deception.;)


     
  3. JRMTL

    JRMTL Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Math teacher and coach at Univesity of Montreal
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    False. Sometimes, you need these kinds of "faster", "tricks" points to help you to gain mental advantage on your opponent.

    Now, in level 3 of coaching in Canada (national level), they say there are 3 major fields to practice:

    a) technics
    b) tactics
    c) fast points

    Bobby Milroy (which is our best player now in MS) uses it. I saw him in Canadian championships a few years ago.

    I agree that there are no "easy" point in badminton. But those tricks aren't deception as a hold at front or back court.

    JR
     
  4. other

    other Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    8
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    the fast drive serve seems to work well in doubles as well....or i'm just crap....but still, instinctively most people block it back to the server, far too loose above the net and the shuttle gets killed.

    or just being prepared after shot serves to take the shuttle off the net....but of course that's hard, otherwise everyone would be doing that.
     
  5. Dill

    Dill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Lazy git (my coach can verify this)
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Surely a fast point is only viable if it works against everyone?

    If it only works against some people then it is just luck (or training), the problem arises when players do not return the shuttle in the predicted way which is why not all badminton players are alike.

    Wizbit is mostly correct in his statement but fast points are mostly viable when playing aginst someone of a far lesser level, to get fast points you do need to speed up your game to be in front of the other player so to speak, but does it last?
     
  6. JRMTL

    JRMTL Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Math teacher and coach at Univesity of Montreal
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Nope, not necessaly. I saw Milroy doing some fast points against players in quaters and semis of the Canadian championships!!!

    And the fast point I gave you would work in 80 to 90% of the time. Try it. I agree that you can't predict 100% of the time what the person would do, but you can "anticipate" more what your opponent will hit.

    Perhaps the translation is not appropriate, but it doesn't mean a deception. We say in French: "points rapides", which I would transalte as "fast points".

    So, I sign that wizbit is wrong!

    Ps: "deception" is the same word in both languages just FWI :)
     
  7. Dill

    Dill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Lazy git (my coach can verify this)
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Actually I use drive serves to great effect (backhand though), the majority of the time they do not even come back over the net, the main aspect to a drive serve for me is to take a step back from where you would normally serve and to hit it hard AT your opponent so they are forced to hit it and unexpectedly they usually totaly misjudge the speed and mis hit or slice it right out of the court.

    I'm not inferring deception I'm talking about plain basic play.

    Sheldon many players will instinctivly try to turn your attacking seve into a drive to attack you back, but the more wise among us would indeed block to the net out wide at the posts or infact play a lift to the back corner, which although gives the lift away it is a very acceptable alternative in a game of doubles, not many would smash from the back line because it leaves too much space for the partner to cover.
     
  8. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    298
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    At elite levels of doubles play, responding to ANY serve with a lift is unacceptable. You will almost NEVER see a top player do this.

    Obviously for the rest of us, it can be a necessary evil. We don't all have the skill to attack a drive serve. But it is something to aim for.
     
  9. Dill

    Dill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Lazy git (my coach can verify this)
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Any lifts are seen as a bad thing I know but at the club/league level they can be an importaint thing in the arsenal of the player.

    The reason was in the post I gave earlier in that many people shank or slice the shuttle out of the court leaving a lift the only other viable option.

    But you are right in that the drive should always be attacked if possible.
     
  10. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    298
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Absolutely. At my sort of level, many players forget that sometimes a prudent lift can be worthwhile. Result: they try to attack beyond their capabilities and get exploited by Crafty Old Guys :D
     
  11. Winex West Can

    Winex West Can Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Hi Tech
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I think JRMTL is saying that you can get "fast" points by playing to the fact that a lot of players are trained ("conditioned") to react consistently to same conditions. That is, if you serve deep and high to the back T in singles, there are replies which are most likely be used by your opponent so you can "anticipate" those replies 80 to 90% of the time.

    I would say that it is true but if your opponent is at or around your level, they will adjust rather quickly so that you might be able to get 1 or 2 points at the most.
     
  12. Wizbit

    Wizbit Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Testing ladie's lingerie
    Location:
    UK - London, Birmingham
    Anticipation? now that's interesting, if you are being taught how to anticipate at a high level, and how to attack an anticipated shot then please share it with us :)
     
  13. TheGr8Two

    TheGr8Two Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    At the intermediate level in UW's badminton club, drive serves are quite effective, especially when it's at their backhand side and they stand way too far to their right.

    But against advanced players..it's a crap shot. They can smash it right back, so partner and I have to be ready to defend it. I don't know if my partner gets upset if I do that though. So I use it only if they stand too close to the net.
     
  14. JRMTL

    JRMTL Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Math teacher and coach at Univesity of Montreal
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    The only thing is, if you are taking a step back, you are giving a hint to your opponent that you will do a drive serve.

    The best place for this serve, IMO, against a righthanded, is right on the T from the central line and the doubles line at the back of the court.

    That is what we talk about! :D
     
  15. JRMTL

    JRMTL Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Math teacher and coach at Univesity of Montreal
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    EXACTLY!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

    And, it is not only because they are "conditioned", but sometimes it is a physical fact.
     
  16. alzgodemort

    alzgodemort Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Quebec
    I know what he (JRMTL) and I agree with him. Also to a beginner/intermediate level can keep the other player from doing points by doing the following:

    (single right-handed vs right-handed, right (pair ) side of the court)

    he serve high, you go under the bird as fast as possible and then jump as high as possible, as if you were going to smash and you clear it to his bachand and wait for the weak return.
    kill
     
  17. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    41,041
    Likes Received:
    2,065
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    more about the concept of "fast points" that JRMTL pointed out.

    badminton is a game of chance. every shot we make, we want to maximize the chance of winning that rally. for every choice of a shot, the chance (or probability) is a function of two things, how well the shot was executed, and how well the receiver is prepared to return that shot.

    the scenarios can be:

    good shot execution, good receiver -> low probability
    good shot execution, bad receiver -> high probability
    bad shot execution -> low probability

    now, at the intermediate level that most of us are in, we are not as complete a badminton players as the top level / professional players, there are times when we are just not anticipating or not prepared for some shots. that will push us into the "bad receiver" category for the shot. and i think JRMTL is trying to exploit that, find the "surprising" shots, or fast point shots and see how much we can utilize those to our advantage.

    now of course, ppl are smart beings and we learn with experience, chances are if we use these fast points too many a time, the opponents (especially regular opponents) will learn it quickly. but that's how we all learn, professionals have already learned about most of the "fast shots" in the process of them advancing in their defensive skills and unlikely we will be able to pull one off against them.

    am i on the right track, JRMTL?
     
  18. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,793
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
  19. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    298
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    A note for anyone reading that thread:

    Kelvin's terminology is wrong (well, it's contrary to normal convention, which is as wrong as terminology can be). Specifically:

    • "A hairpin drop shot's definition is just that of a drop shot controlled, and very tight and low to the net."

      No. They are netshots played from nearer the bottom of the net, which must travel up to the tape before they can fall down. This makes them very risky; they should never be played in doubles if you can avoid it - an easy net kill will follow. The reason they are called "hairpin" is that the shuttle's trajectory describes the shape of a hairpin.

      Please remember the difference between a NET and a DROP shot too! It saves a lot of confusion.

    • "Wrist flick is used in the push as well."

      No. Push shots do not involve any wrist flick. Any shot that uses wrist flick is a tap or a whip, not a push. Push is the name both of the soft hitting action and a doubles stroke played from the sides of the midcourt to the same place in the opposing court. The stroke Kelvin refers to could be called an attacking lift.

    Thank God for Jake Downey, I say :D
     
  20. dlp

    dlp Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Accountant / Coach
    Location:
    uk
    As Kwun outlined what we are really thinking about here is the concept of risk. That is the risk of executing a winner versus making an error.

    There are certain tactics which on average may generate a shorter point. For instance in singles if a player has been serving high and uses a deceptive low serve/drive serve this may generate an error from the opponent or it may be loose enough to be killed. In receiving a low serve playing a very deceptive turned net shot may have a high probablity of securing a weak return or error but it may be that the % success rate for that shot is low.

    In receiving the high serve aiming a smash within centimetres of the line and rushing straight to the net may secure a winner whenever executed well but again the risk of error is likely to be far higher than if playing a clear or more conservative slice / smash further away from the line.

    A further area of risk taking in which we may generate shorter rallies is anticipation. If you serve low and anticipate a net turn and commit to the net you may well be able to kill the net shot, if the opponent doesn't play net and lifts your chance of winning the point is drastically lower than if you didn't try to anticipate.

    This leads on to what is an "error" and what is a winner. We can imagine a player has a range of consistency on their shots of 30cm (that is to say the shuttle will land 99% of the time within a 15 cm radius of their inteded target). Now if the player imagines the boundaries of the court to be 15 cm smaller than they are and plays to that he in theory will not make an error through inaccuracy. The player could play a match against a low standard player and by simply returning all the shuttles in the court he may extract many mistakes from his opponent and win comfortably. However against a better class of player he may find that his clears are to short and are smashed for winners, that his drops don't really pressure his opponent, that his net shots are too loose and are killed or rolled back over the tape. At any level playing singles without errors is great ability, however it may be that some errors are necessary in order to play to your best.

    Another simple example is the low serve in doubles. Some players hit the serve with enough pace to skim the tape and land in and successfully execute this serve a high percentage of times. Even at world class level a perfect low serve which skims the tape will increase the chances of winning the point greatly. However the pay off may be the occasional shuttle hits the tape and falls back. Compare with the player whose serve consistently clears the tape with a margin of a couple cms but whose lowest serves skim the tape and are in. Whcih is better? The "100%" serve which must always be returned or the 85% serve with many skimming the tape. As Kwun suggests the final factor the ability of the opponent decides this.
     

Share This Page