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

**viver** · 06-20-2006, 12:59 AM

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

My apologies, because I assumed from your post that you were actually working with international players. As we know, players in competition level would be quick to adapt to new rules.

Another question, again to satisfy my curiosity, you were asked to coach a team from a Commonwealth country. I may misunderstood again, is that participating country without a coach?

Lucky you that were able to discuss with other national team coaches. Maybe, just a guess, Malaysia maybe advocating for a stronger attack? It appears to me that these coaches were not prepared for the 21x3 system. Or, it appears to me that they were not expecting the 21x3 system would be implemented at all.

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

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** · 06-20-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

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.

It is good as we have agreed the basic.

I would like to ask if the below text is what you think?

The underarm serve is a defensive stroke, as it could be use by the server to inflict the “damage” on his receiver and thus it could be used to "produce" an attacking shot.

Examples of the direct damages are:
1. Receiver kills or smashes to the net
2. Receiver lifts the shuttle for the server to smash or kill.
3. Receiver fails to take the serve; either he is too late (time factor) or out of position (space factor).
4. Receiver hits the shuttle out

**viver** · 06-20-2006, 01:26 AM

I think this was during one of the recent matches between Bao and Peter Gade. In a specific moment Bao played an attacking clear that caught Peter Gade scrambling to retrieve a low backhand in the baseline. Bao went to the net to cover a straight return, but PG was one better, he hit a cross court to Bao's forehand front court that caught Bao totally by surprise. PG won the rally and the point. Do you consider this low cross court net shot (amortie) an attacking shot?

Is a flick serve an attacking shot if the receiver is deceived? How do you classify this same good quality flick serve, if the receiver anticipates it and returns with a smash to the server's face? Harakiri flick serve?

My coach once said that even Han Jian style is an 'attacking' style. But it is specifically Han Jian's style of attack, because he was attacking his opponent - physically and mentally with his shots. Do you then classify Han Jian high clears and lifts attacking shots?

Originally Posted by Loh

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.

**Loh** · 06-20-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

It is good as we have agreed the basic.

I would like to ask if the below text is what you think?

The underarm serve is a defensive stroke, (as) BUT it could sometimes be used by the server to inflict the “damage” on his receiver and thus it could be used to "produce" an attacking shot.

Examples of the indirect damages are:

1. Receiver kills or smashes in]to the net (unforced error)
2. Receiver lifts the shuttle for the server to smash or kill.
3. Receiver fails to take the serve; either he is too late (time factor) or out of position (space factor).
4. Receiver hits the shuttle out

(unforced error)

I have made some amendments to your text in highlight as answer. The above incidents for me are merely indirect damages as they are not the direct cause of the serve. A direct damage would be when the receiver was caught flat-footed with a flick serve. Your examples are mainly caused by the receiver's error of judgement or totally are unforced, in the sense he was not pressured by the server into making that mistake and that under normal circumstances he should not have made those mistakes.

**Loh** · 06-20-2006, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by viver

I think this was during one of the recent matches between Bao and Peter Gade. In a specific moment Bao played an attacking clear that caught Peter Gade scrambling to retrieve a low backhand in the baseline. Bao went to the net to cover a straight return, but PG was one better, he hit a cross court to Bao's forehand front court that caught Bao totally by surprise. PG won the rally and the point. Do you consider this low cross court net shot (amortie) an attacking shot?

"I consider PG as one of the better netplay specialists as he could return a very low net cross court, completely changing direction and confounding his opponents as in your example. I would consider this as an attacking shot as it put pressure on Bao and made him fumble."

Is a flick serve an attacking shot if the receiver is deceived? How do you classify this same good quality flick serve, if the receiver anticipates it and returns with a smash to the server's face? Harakiri flick serve?

"Yes for your first example and No for your second.

If the receiver is able to anticipate a flick serve and kills it, then it is not an attacking shot as the serve does not inflict any damage, pain or pressure on the receiver. This is the new concept I gathered in our discussion and I subscribe to it now! Somehow, the server is unable to outwit the receiver and to allow him to kill his flick serve would also imply that the serve might not be of good quality!"

My coach once said that even Han Jian style is an 'attacking' style. But it is specifically Han Jian's style of attack, because he was attacking his opponent - physically and mentally with his shots. Do you then classify Han Jian high clears and lifts attacking shots?

"Yes it is possible, depending on the quality of Han Jian's shot, the amount of "harm, hurt, damage and pain" inflicted on his opponent and the end results" And the harm inflicted could be both physical and mental!

We have seen how much damage a good quality attacking clear can do to the receiver, not necessary a smash or a fast drop shot!

So, much depends on circumstances and the outcome of the rally.

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

(unforced error)

I have made some amendments to your text in highlight as answer. The above incidents for me are merely indirect damages as they are not the direct cause of the serve. A direct damage would be when the receiver was caught flat-footed with a flick serve. Your examples are mainly caused by the receiver's error of judgement or totally are unforced, in the sense he was not pressured by the server into making that mistake and that under normal circumstances he should not have made those mistakes.

Many thanks for your corrections, and i am pleased that we are progressing in the right direction.

Now the next questions
1.The only "attacking shot" that a defensive underarm serve could produce is to catch your opponet's flat-footed by flicking the shuttle to the back?

2.The rest of the shots in the example are defensive shots?

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

Many thanks for your corrections, and i am pleased that we are progressing in the right direction.

Now the next questions
1.The only "attacking shot" that a defensive underarm serve could produce is to catch your opponet's flat-footed by flicking the shuttle to the back?

2.The rest of the shots in the example are defensive shots?

3rd question

3. Is it true that a flick serve could "produce" an attacking shot or not is determined purely by the anticipation of the receiver? The server just produces a shot, that is restriced by the rule, in this situation?

**Loh** · 06-20-2006, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

Many thanks for your corrections, and i am pleased that we are progressing in the right direction.

Now the next questions
1.The only "attacking shot" that a defensive underarm serve could produce is to catch your opponet's flat-footed by flicking the shuttle to the back?

2.The rest of the shots in the example are defensive shots?

If we agree that an attacking shot is one which can cause damage to the receiver, whether physical or mental, then the answer to your Q1 is "NO".

Have you seen how a receiver is completely baffled by the server's almost perfect sliced short to the side lines intersecting the short service line? Mentally the receiver is expecting a simple straight low serve to his forecourt which he intends to kill at the net. But the sudden change of
direction caught him by surprise and he either missed the serve enitirely, hit it into the net or mishit it totally.

Another example would be a beautiful straight low serve, perhaps just brushing the tape, to the opponent's forecourt and simply creating a doubt in the mind of the receiver whether it is going to be a fault service. But the bird touches the ss line and is a good one. If the receiver had stood still or made a last-minute attempt to salvage the serve but in the process made a mess of it, then the serve became an attacking shot.

I'm not quite clear about your Q2 as I have given abridged answers to your examples.

**Loh** · 06-20-2006, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

3rd question

3. Is it true that a flick serve could "produce" an attacking shot or not is determined purely by the anticipation of the receiver? The server just produces a shot, that is restriced by the rule, in this situation?

Not necessarily true. It also depends on the quality of the shot.

If the server detects that the receiver is not quite well positioned for a flick to his backhand and is able to execute a flat and shift 'shooting' serve just higher than the receiver's extended racket, close to the centre and base lines, the receiver may be caught and pressured into returning a weak shot.

Badminton is also a mind game and the player must try to activate his mental faculties to outwit his opponent.

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

Not necessarily true. It also depends on the quality of the shot.

If the server detects that the receiver is not quite well positioned for a flick to his backhand and is able to execute a flat and shift 'shooting' serve just higher than the receiver's extended racket, close to the centre and base lines, the receiver may be caught and pressured into returning a weak shot.

Badminton is also a mind game and the player must try to activate his mental faculties to outwit his opponent.

I think i lost the plot again! I thought we did agree as one of the indirect damages as per examples, it is the receiver's fault (space factor) and the receiver take it late (time factor).

**Loh** · 06-20-2006, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

I think i lost the plot again! I thought we did agree as one of the indirect damages as per examples, it is the receiver's fault (space factor) and the receiver take it late (time factor).

Yes you're right!

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

Yes you're right!

I do hope sincerely that the readers in this thread would be able to understand wisely now and making their own personal view in the mist of all these jargons and terminologies that have been used.

In the simple game of badminton it is anticipated the receiver to attack as he knows the server could only hit the shuttle up, and the server will try to prevent or ready to defend the receiver's attack.

One could always choose different way of thinking.

**cooler** · 06-20-2006, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

I do hope sincerely that the readers in this thread would be able to understand wisely now and making their own personal view in the mist of all these jargons and terminologies that have been used.

In the simple game of badminton it is anticipated the receiver to attack as he knows the server could only hit the shuttle up, and the server will try to prevent or ready to defend the receiver's attack.

One could always choose different way of thinking.

after all this and what u had said, a simple game?

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 05:44 AM

Simplicity is the eye of beholder, just like e=mc2!

**chris-ccc** · 06-20-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Chai

I do hope sincerely that the readers in this thread would be able to understand wisely now and making their own personal view in the mist of all these jargons and terminologies that have been used.

In the simple game of badminton it is anticipated the receiver to attack as he knows the server could only hit the shuttle up, and the server will try to prevent or ready to defend the receiver's attack.

One could always choose different way of thinking.

Hi Chai,

Many readers @Badminton Central enjoy playing Badminton as a simple game/sport.

And for those who are more serious at Badminton, they employ a qualified coach to teach them.

But don't get me wrong. Our group of Badminton Central contributors can still be a great source of information. It is just that it is sometimes difficult to teach “The Art of Playing Badminton” through written words.

Let me give you an analogy... Playing the Piano.

You can go and buy a piano and you can teach yourself to play it by yourself. There can be great enjoyment in playing the piano. And after many years, you would have learned lots of music.

But if you are really serious and want to learn to master music, you will need more information. You can get the info from books, articles, etc... But you will soon find that the written info can only teach “The Science of Playing Music”. You will have to find a qualified music teacher/coach to teach you “The Art of Playing Music”.

This is the same for Badminton. Learning “The Science of Playing Badminton” and learning “The Art of Playing Badminton” are 2 different things.

Many of my trainees often ask me question relating to techniques/training via email. And I hate answering their question with words because I need a thousand words to explain it. And even with all my effort in trying to explain it in words, they can still get a different idea as compared to what I am trying to tell them.

To me, a Demonstration is essential to teach “The Art of Doing Anything”, whether it is the Art of Playing the Piano, the Art of Painting, the Art of Cooking, the Art of Kung Fu, etc, etc...

So, after all that I have said above, don't worry too much about it. Enjoy Badminton as you have done in the past. But to learn the “The Art of Playing Badminton”, it is best to get a qualified coach to demonstrate it to you.

Cheers... chris@ccc

**Chai** · 06-20-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

Hi Chai,

Many readers @Badminton Central enjoy playing Badminton as a simple game/sport.

And for those who are more serious at Badminton, they employ a qualified coach to teach them.

But don't get me wrong. Our group of Badminton Central contributors can still be a great source of information. It is just that it is sometimes difficult to teach “The Art of Playing Badminton” through written words.

Let me give you an analogy... Playing the Piano.

You can go and buy a piano and you can teach yourself to play it by yourself. There can be great enjoyment in playing the piano. And after many years, you would have learned lots of music.

But if you are really serious and want to learn to master music, you will need more information. You can get the info from books, articles, etc... But you will soon find that the written info can only teach “The Science of Playing Music”. You will have to find a qualified music teacher/coach to teach you “The Art of Playing Music”.

This is the same for Badminton. Learning “The Science of Playing Badminton” and learning “The Art of Playing Badminton” are 2 different things.

Many of my trainees often ask me question relating to techniques/training via email. And I hate answering their question with words because I need a thousand words to explain it. And even with all my effort in trying to explain it in words, they can still get a different idea as compared to what I am trying to tell them.

To me, a Demonstration is essential to teach “The Art of Doing Anything”, whether it is the Art of Playing the Piano, the Art of Painting, the Art of Cooking, the Art of Kung Fu, etc, etc...

So, after all that I have said above, don't worry too much about it. Enjoy Badminton as you have done in the past. But to learn the “The Art of Playing Badminton”, it is best to get a qualified coach to demonstrate it to you.

Cheers... chris@ccc

I am sorry, i will not waste anytime on this subject.

**chris-ccc** · 06-20-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chai

I am sorry, i will not waste anytime on this subject.

Hi Chai,

As I have said in my post...

====start quote===

But don't get me wrong. Our group of Badminton Central contributors can still be a great source of information.

====end quote===

The most important thing is the Enjoyment of Playing Badminton.

Cheers... chris@ccc