21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?

[Chai]

*sigh*, not exactly what i meant.
1. i said taufik is a slow starter, this does not equates to tiring his opponents purposely from the start. To tire out your opponents, it will COST U ENERGY AS WELL. If it is that simple to do like what u say, I like to tire my opponents ALL THE TIME. I do not think taufik is an endurance player, so imo your logic is flawed. What and why taufik do what he does i'll leave u to figure it out. Just watch some of his video and u should know.

3. net play and smash works very well under OSS too, taufik, like u and taneepak said, use it all the time under OSS. If this work even better in NSS, then why taufik hated the NSS so much?? your logic don't drive.

Sorry I misunderstood your point, however more explanation and see if that will tie the loose ends.

1.Taufik has the skills to make his opponent tired; his footworks are efficient and economical and his placement of the shots are excellent. It is a tactical intent to be a "slow starter"; It seems he is slow in relative to his opponent in the opening set, as he has the ability to make his opponents to cover more space and at the same time taking their stinging shots out from them. These are the two basic tactic of tiring someone who has stronger in anaerobic and aerobic system than you. Of course Taufik himself has to have certain level of anaerobic and aerobic energy to carry out his strategy. It is not coincindence to note that both Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan are classified as slow starter too.


2. I believe Taufik is a natural, instinctive Cat and Mouse player with his game strategy; it is inherent in him; same apply to Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan too. In the 3X15 system, many players would deploy net and smash to win the service back at critical points, as you point out Taufik is not an "endurance" player; he will not able to rely on executing net and smash tactic throughout the tournement to win the games. It is physically too demanding; Of course he can do it but surely he hates it. I believe both Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan dislike the 3X21 too! If you watch Lee Chong Wei in AE, and Lee Chong Wei in ABC. You will see he has changed his strategy! LCW won ABC but I prefer his performance in AE, and he did say on the press that he didnt get as much joy of winning the games in the 3X21!

Have you ever make a cocky beginner, who is stronger and fitter than you;to nearly collapse on the court? Yes it has to be played using the 3X15 of course!

[cabatoz]

maybe its just cos the players think that attacking more might make their oponents make more mistakes?

[chris-ccc]

maybe its just cos the players think that attacking more might make their oponents make more mistakes?

Hi cabatoz,

You are correct to say that “attacking more might make their oponents make more mistakes”. Most contributors here would agree with this statement of yours.

But this thread is trying to examine/study/analyze the difference in the OSS and the NSS.

Is it really better for attacking tactics to be employed more, when we are playing in the NSS?

We will be grateful to hear your explanation as to why, in relation to the OSS and the NSS.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[chris-ccc]

Hi Chai,

To me a shot is not = stroke.

If I mention to you about "your stroke", I would be referring to "the transfer of your weight, your body movement, your arm action, your grip, your racket swing, etc,...". In other words, how you are hitting the shuttle.

But if I mention to you about "your shot", I would be referring to "the trajectory of the flight of the shuttle that you have hit, starting from the point of impact from the strings of your racket, over the net to your opponent's side".

When I teach my younger children(say age 6) to do an Overhead Clear(the stroke), they usually do the Overhead Dropshot(the shot). I hope you can see what I am trying to say here... because they do not have enough power(because they are younger and weaker), their stroke production for the Overhead Clear resulted in a Overhead Dropshot.

I laugh at them. And they laugh with me too.

But they and I know... as they grow bigger and stronger, their Overhead Clear stroke will eventually produce the Overhead Clear shot.

When I coach older children(say age 12) to do a Return of Service, I would teach them how to attack a service. I would teach him/her how to do a shot that could do harm(disadvantage or damage) to the server. I would teach him/her how to move his/her opponent away from the “base position”, for example.

But when I coach International players, I would suggest more other ways to achieve it, not necessarily by forceful and powerful stroke, but with gentle strokes as well.

Cheers... chris@ccc

Hi wwcbro,

From your post (#145), you are puzzled. Is it because of my Post (#144, quoted here)?

If you are, you must ask very specific question, because many contributors in Badminton Central can enlighten you.

I assume that you do not understand what I mean, about the difference between a stroke and a shot.

This example, perhaps, can illustrate what I mean.

Let us say, you and I are playing a game of Singles.

You did an Underarm Clear to my backhand corner. And I, under pressure, wanted to return a safe and controlled shot, namely the Overhead Clear, back to you.

So, in order to do the Overhead Clear(the shot), I would be preparing myself to perform the Overhead Clear(the stroke). But let's say I mishit the shuttle with my racket because of mistiming. My intended Overhead Clear(the stroke) produced an Overhead Dropshot(the shot).

Some spectators might think that I have performed an excellent Overhead Dropshot(the shot) on purpose, and they did not realise that I was actually executing the Overhead Clear(the stroke). It was by my mishit that the shot resulted as a Dropshot.

But players with experience will know exactly what happened with my stroke and my shot.

I hope that I have not confused you more.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[Chai]

Interesting. Is it a deceptive stroke? or, it is a disguise shot!

[chris-ccc]

Hi Everyone,

This match, LCW vs LD at the Malaysian Open 2006, has produced 2 of the many important factors that I wanted to examine/analyze/study so earnestly for the NSS.

1. Time factor: Their NSS match duration can be longer than most people think. I have yet to receive the official match time period.

2. Comeback factor: LCW at 13-20, came back to beat LD by 23-21 in the 3rd game. I have yet to watch the match and I just can't wait to watch it.

Or is this NSS match just a "freak match"?

Any comments from anyone who watched the match at courtside would be appreciated.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[cooler]

Hi Everyone,

This match, LCW vs LD at the Malaysian Open 2006, has produced 2 of the many important factors that I wanted to examine/analyze/study so earnestly for the NSS.

1. Time factor: Their NSS match duration can be longer than most people think. I have yet to receive the official match time period.

2. Comeback factor: LCW at 13-20, came back to beat LD by 23-21 in the 3rd game. I have yet to watch the match and I just can't wait to watch it.

Or is this NSS match just a "freak match"?

Any comments from anyone who watched the match at courtside would be appreciated.

Cheers... chris@ccc

not freak, it's possible but hard to do.
winning 7 points in a row error free under a match point setting is do-able but quite hard to do

[viver]

Chris,

I still am more interested in your experience and findings/conclusions working with the international players adapting to the 21x3 - is it better to attack?

Hi Everyone,

This match, LCW vs LD at the Malaysian Open 2006, has produced 2 of the many important factors that I wanted to examine/analyze/study so earnestly for the NSS.

1. Time factor: Their NSS match duration can be longer than most people think. I have yet to receive the official match time period.

2. Comeback factor: LCW at 13-20, came back to beat LD by 23-21 in the 3rd game. I have yet to watch the match and I just can't wait to watch it.

Or is this NSS match just a "freak match"?

Any comments from anyone who watched the match at courtside would be appreciated.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[Chai]

Chris,

I still am more interested in your experience and findings/conclusions working with the international players adapting to the 21x3 - is it better to attack?

I agree, It is about time we could learn from someone who has 1st experience in coachig international players.

[Loh]

May I just add to the following subjects raised by Chris:

Stroke versus Shot

Chris has given some very good examples.

If this may help some to understand better, maybe we could consider a stroke as the process and the shot, the end product.

The process is the entire sequence of action from start to finish in executing the shot, which is the outcome of the process or stroke.

Lee Chong Wei versus Lin Dan

In my opinion, the attacking strategy of these two opponents was brought to the fore at a terrific pace. Only the super fitness of these two athletes made it possible to sustain the pace in three games and at such a high level of concentration.

At this high level, I have perhaps seen for the first time that the 13-20 comeback from LCW so far behind could be possible. Hitherto, when a player leads at 17 points with a margin of about 5 points against his opponent, the match is as good as wrapped up. LCW debunked this notion and made us think again. So even a relatively shorter game as the NSS can provide lots of excitement. And I don't think this match is short either.

Who would have imagined a player scoring 8 points in a row to defeat the world's no.1 player, Lin Dan at such a crucial stage as match point for him?
Just one mistake from LCW was enough for Lin Dan to win the game and match!

So, the 'kampong boy" LCW has brought a new dimension to his game. Maybe the fear of losing his crown kept him going. But he remained focused and did not allow any hint of that to flow into his game. Instead he steadied himself and traded point for point with the 'almighty' Lin until Lin himself became frustrated and lost points with shots not clearing the net and wild smashes outside of court.

The mental strength of LCW has prevailed!

[chris-ccc]

Chris,

I still am more interested in your experience and findings/conclusions working with the international players adapting to the 21x3 - is it better to attack?

Hi viver,

Your question to me... ”in your experience and findings/conclusions working with the international players adapting to the 21x3 - is it better to attack?”.

The short answer from me, at the moment, is... “it will need to take a longer time to make a conclusion”.

This is why I started this thread. I am hoping to get information/ideas/opinions from as many people as possible.

Regarding working with International Players, I am not a full-time International Coach. And because of this, I am not exposed to the NSS International Arena as often as you might be thinking I am.

I was lucky to be asked to coach by one of the nations participating in the Commonwealth Games, Melbourne 2006. And, on that occasion, the NSS was used. Many of us coaches there were feeling/finding our ways into the NSS. The NSS was new to all of us.

From your previous postings, I find that you are quite interested in what/how Chinese Coaches think. Here is a short report on what I saw/thought about their training approaches for the NSS.

Out of the 18 nations participating at the Commonwealth Games, Melbourne 2006, 5 nations employed Chinese Coaches, namely Malaysia, Singapore, England, New Zealand and Seychelles. Without identifying them, I could say that 2 out of the 5 were training Singles Players for more attacking tactics. The remaining 3 were still training without many changes from the OSS, that is training for attack, control and defence quite evenly.

But interestingly enough, out of the 2(training Singles Players for more attacking tactics), one was training attack with force/power/speed(smashing, rushing with speed, not giving opponent time, etc... ), and the other was training attack with delicacy/gentleness/deception(using netplay, dropshot, softer but more deceptive smash, etc... ).

I hope this short report might be of interest to you.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[Chai]

May I just add to the following subjects raised by Chris:

Stroke versus Shot

Chris has given some very good examples.

If this may help some to understand better, maybe we could consider a stroke as the process and the shot, the end product.

The process is the entire sequence of action from start to finish in executing the shot, which is the outcome of the process or stroke.

Lee Chong Wei versus Lin Dan

In my opinion, the attacking strategy of these two opponents was brought to the fore at a terrific pace. Only the super fitness of these two athletes made it possible to sustain the pace in three games and at such a high level of concentration.

At this high level, I have perhaps seen for the first time that the 13-20 comeback from LCW so far behind could be possible. Hitherto, when a player leads at 17 points with a margin of about 5 points against his opponent, the match is as good as wrapped up. LCW debunked this notion and made us think again. So even a relatively shorter game as the NSS can provide lots of excitement. And I don't think this match is short either.

Who would have imagined a player scoring 8 points in a row to defeat the world's no.1 player, Lin Dan at such a crucial stage as match point for him?
Just one mistake from LCW was enough for Lin Dan to win the game and match!

So, the 'kampong boy" LCW has brought a new dimension to his game. Maybe the fear of losing his crown kept him going. But he remained focused and did not allow any hint of that to flow into his game. Instead he steadied himself and traded point for point with the 'almighty' Lin until Lin himself became frustrated and lost points with shots not clearing the net and wild smashes outside of court.

The mental strength of LCW has prevailed!

How did Lee Chog Wei managed to do that from 13-20 down? just purely mental strength?

I love to hear someone could analyse point by point from 13-20 onward and tell us his finding; i wonder if Chris would do that? It will be a good study of game strategy.

[Chai]

May I just add to the following subjects raised by Chris:

Stroke versus Shot

Chris has given some very good examples.

If this may help some to understand better, maybe we could consider a stroke as the process and the shot, the end product.

The process is the entire sequence of action from start to finish in executing the shot, which is the outcome of the process or stroke.

I like your explaination, does it make any difference to the debate of if the underarm serve (i.e you have to hit the shuttle upward below you waist and the racket head has to be below your hand; both legs cant leave the floor after the serve etc...) is a defensive shot or a defensive stroke ?

[Loh]

I like your explaination, does it make any difference to the debate of if the underarm serve (i.e you have to hit the shuttle upward below you waist and the racket head has to be below your hand; both legs cant leave the floor after the serve etc...) is a defensive shot or a defensive stroke ?

As I have said earlier, our discussion on attacking and defensive shots have made me rethink about the subject and thanks to Chris, I have now modulated my understanding.

Whilst a perfectly executed underarm serve, like a singles flick or high serve, starts off virtually as a defensive stroke per se, it could result in an attacking shot. Scenarios were given by Chris about the 'harm' a shot can either purposely or unintentionally do to your opponent in time, space and unforeseen circumstances such as an error of judgement or an unwelcomed distraction.

For example, if your opponent rushes forward thinking that the server is making an underarm low serve and was thus flat-footed, the serve became an attacking shot because either the receiver could not reach it in time for a reply or he was forced to return a weak shot for the server to kill.

In the recently concluded MO in Kuching, one could even witness low serves being attacked but the attacker hit the shot into the net and killed himself. I would assume that that low serve was almost perfectly executed which made it actually impossible for the receiver to kill without damagining himself.
Had he tried to play a safer shot then the critical third shot as propounded by Viver will be very important.

[asuncion_03]

yeah!! very hard to do to beat LD..

[Chai]

As I have said earlier, our discussion on attacking and defensive shots have made me rethink about the subject and thanks to Chris, I have now modulated my understanding.

Whilst a perfectly executed underarm serve, like a singles flick or high serve, starts off virtually as a defensive stroke per se, it could result in an attacking shot. Scenarios were given by Chris about the 'harm' a shot can either purposely or unintentionally do to your opponent in time, space and unforeseen circumstances such as an error of judgement or an unwelcomed distraction.

For example, if your opponent rushes forward thinking that the server is making an underarm low serve and was thus flat-footed, the serve became an attacking shot because either the receiver could not reach it in time for a reply or he was forced to return a weak shot for the server to kill.

In the recently concluded MO in Kuching, one could even witness low serves being attacked but the attacker hit the shot into the net and killed himself. I would assume that that low serve was almost perfectly executed which made it actually impossible for the receiver to kill without damagining himself.
Had he tried to play a safer shot then the critical third shot as propounded by Viver will be very important.

Just 2 questions.

Do you agree that underarm serve is a defensive stroke ?

Are you saying that a defensive underarm stroke could produce an attacking shot ?

[Loh]

Just 2 questions.

Do you agree that underarm serve is a defensive stroke ?

Are you saying that a defensive underarm stroke could produce an attacking shot ?

Answer is YES to both in general.

However, as I have given the example of the flick serve, whether done with the forehand or backhand, in certain situations, this could result in an attacking shot and possibly win a point. Eg the receiver rushed forward and was caught flat footed.

Another example, although more remote, could be when the player is forced to play a high lift from the net to the baseline and his opponent is too slow to get back to make a good return. Worse still, because of an error of judgement, he allows the shuttle to land 'in' thinking it will go out and thus lost a point.

In such situations, although technically speaking, the underarm stroke is a defensive stroke, it could turn out otherwise.

Most drives are played slightly underarrm but depending on circumstances and the quality of the drive, they become attacking shots when they are able to force your opponent into difficult situations and return a weak or totally bad shot. As Chris has suggested, anything that can do 'harm' to your opponent should be considered as 'attacking' and I now subscribe to it.