User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 20
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default a poorly-executed shot to an unexpected place is much better than a ...

    a poorly-executed shot to an unexpected place is much better than a beautifully executed shot to a place they are expecting.

    A few months (years? ) ago, someone posted a shot of (gade? ramufussan?) executing a slice shot, purposely missing, and returning it to the opposite side of the court with a quick backhand.

    For no reason whatsoever, I decided to execute that shot today. I did it horribly. The return shot was high and slow. It should have been easily killed. And yet, my opponents were on the other side of the court scratching their hands, wondering where did the bird go.

    Their impenatrible defence returned tight not shots and drives with ease, and lost to a low lob.

    And to think, i've wasted all that time trying to develop tight shots when I should have been developing faky-shots.

    I know deception has been discussed quite a bit before, but I don't think it ever gets the respect it deserves.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,511
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heh! Execute it often enough and they just might smash it down your throat the next time. What happened with that situation of yours was just plain luck. You won't catch good players too many times with that. Trick shots like Gade's don't happen often and with good reasons. I don't think Gopichand would get caught twice with that. Consistent deception only comes with good form. eg. every overhead stroke is indistinguishable from another. I would say that successful flaky shots are more by chance than technique.
    Last edited by cappy75; 03-25-2004 at 02:08 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Absolutely. Shots like that can only ever make up 0.1% of your game. There's no surprise to them if they happen all the time! The bread and butter of well placed well executed shots however will never go away.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,972
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The shots we are talking about here are negative deception shots. This is where you sacrifice time - hit the shuttle later than you normally would - in order to confuse the opponent. These shots cannot be a significant part of your game, or they will be exploited.

    Positive deception, on the other hand, should be integrated into your game as much as possible. This is where you make every shot look identical until the moment of hitting - your opponents can't tell clears from drops and smashes, or lifts (cross or straight) from netshots (cross or straight).

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm talking about a postive deception shot.
    I.e. slice the bird to the right but miss, and swing the racquet backwards to hit it left.


    as for getting caught... well you wouldn't use it all the time. If you see them moving in the intended direction already, just miss and hit it elsewhere. If not, then hit a good shot where you were going to anyway. You've just took half a second off their response time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,972
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you miss the shuttle deliberately, and then hit it in another direction, then you must be using negative deception - since you could have hit it earlier!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boston, USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you swing early underneath the shuttle then you minimise the delay. It's shocking how many people follow the racquet and not the shuttle!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    85
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, it is one of the cooler things about badminton, that you can actually pull off these crazy shots and let your creativity run kinda wild. While yes, I agree with the evaluation that "negative deception" shots are a sure road to ruin, I believe that this is only the case in high levels of play.

    Truthfully, not everyone plays at a high level and most people will only ever be club players and, on the middle levels in most clubs, there's no reason why these shots won't work.

    Now if you're really not yet sure how good you can be, then play a straight game and use the tested shots. But if you already pretty much know that you're not going to get much better, then I suppose you can try to raise your game by being more unorthodox.

    I've seen plenty of average players become more effective by focusing on trickery and placement. It's a choice you're going to have to make though as you will be sacrificing higher level development if you start to change your orientation into this style of game. That being said, I can say that I have seen people pull off the weirdest shots and pull them off consistently enough to win when maybe the other team was stronger. That's really a part of badminton.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,972
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, absolutely - and even at the highest levels, negative deception can be useful occasionally. Witness the awesome Peter Gade cross-court net fake

    I've nothing against negative deception - like positive deception, it has its place in badminton. It's just that I think positive deception is a more effective way to play for most situations.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    neither positive nor negative deception should be overly used: if your opponent is at anywhere near the same level as you, he'll get the general whiff of things after a few shots, and using too much deception can slow down your game

    However, using some deception, then switching to your normal game, and suddenly reverting to deception again can really throw your opponent of his game. Frequent changes of tactics are sometimes much more effective then sticking to a very unflexible gameplan

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Negative deception really only works well on amateurs and old people. Chances are if you're playing someone good and you manage to pull one off and it works, for the rest of the match they'll likely be on their toes waiting for your shot instead of moving too early.

    Positive deception, on the other hand, is a by-product of correct stroke training, so you don't really need to work on anything special to achieve it.

    At a recent tournament, in a Singles match for no reason at all I decided to try a "deceptive," shot that I had never, ever, practiced before. The opponent played a net-shot to the front backhand corner and I came in with a full-speed swing like I was going to defensively clear it way high but I took the pace off and turned it into a fairly decent net shot. My opponent was heading backwards, so he got caught and was stuck at his base. I think the reason it worked so well (this guy is good, too, and I'm not) was because my stroke looked the same as a clearing stroke.

    Phil

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by Gollum
    If you miss the shuttle deliberately, and then hit it in another direction, then you must be using negative deception - since you could have hit it earlier!
    I believe you got it the wrong way around.

    Positive deception refers to doing a positive act, such as making a fake move. Negative deception refers to the absence of a postive act, such as making all shots look the same. Positive=action; negative=inaction.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by Phil
    Negative deception really only works well on amateurs and old people. Chances are if you're playing someone good and you manage to pull one off and it works, for the rest of the match they'll likely be on their toes waiting for your shot instead of moving too early.
    I think you are being overly harsh on the effects of trickery. One guy at my club has excellent deception. He can swing the racquet in one direction but change the racquet direction and stroke mid-stroke. He can also do double-strokes (first miss, then hit.) He very consistently beats all the varsity players at my school. Since we were #1 in badminton last year I presume that means he and his opponents are very good player. And yet they fall for it all the time.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by bigredlemon
    I believe you got it the wrong way around.

    Positive deception refers to doing a positive act, such as making a fake move. Negative deception refers to the absence of a postive act, such as making all shots look the same. Positive=action; negative=inaction.
    I think Gollum is using positive and negative in relation to the passage of time. Positive being earlier, negative being later. (negative = loss of time)

    Phil

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by bigredlemon
    I think you are being overly harsh on the effects of trickery. One guy at my club has excellent deception. He can swing the racquet in one direction but change the racquet direction and stroke mid-stroke. He can also do double-strokes (first miss, then hit.) He very consistently beats all the varsity players at my school. Since we were #1 in badminton last year I presume that means he and his opponents are very good player. And yet they fall for it all the time.
    I'm not saying negative deception is bad, but I do think that it is more beneficial to work on good strokes so as to improve positive deception before working on negative deception. In fact, improving these two aspects in this order, positive, then negative, should have a greater effect because a player who has not yet learned to make his strokes consistent may give away his intent to perform a deceptive shot because he will change something in his shot preparation. A player who has consistent looking strokes will be able to hide his intent until the last possible moment, even if they are performing a negative deception stroke such as the one you described (miss intentionally and then hit).

    The guy at your club's shot that you describe, the one where he swings the racquet but changes direction I think is still a form of positive deception because he is not losing time in this shot. This is a good shot to do in singles at the net when the opponent put up a weak net shot; to face the racquet to one corner but in mid-stroke to turn and push to the other corner.

    Phil

  16. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,664
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Question

    But overall, what would win most points in the game:?

    Consistent good quality basic shots.?

    Consistent poor quality deceptive shots.?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by Cheung
    But overall, what would win most points in the game:?

    Consistent good quality basic shots.?

    Consistent poor quality deceptive shots.?
    depends how good/bad...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    : 11-09-2011, 08:38 PM
  2. Black Knight Vortex Krypton XL: Poorly made or a fake?
    By Capnx in forum Identify Fake Racket (Price/Source/Serial/Photos are required)
    Replies: 1
    : 09-24-2011, 04:35 PM
  3. Place to place in Kitchener-Waterloo in summer
    By aznharold in forum Canada East
    Replies: 1
    : 06-07-2009, 07:35 PM
  4. Unexpected meet with Sylvia Ng
    By weeyet in forum Professional Players
    Replies: 7
    : 12-30-2008, 11:29 AM
  5. Expected ones disappointing, unexpected ones...
    By Yudhi in forum General Forum
    Replies: 2
    : 03-10-2002, 01:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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