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

[cooler]

[QUOTE=Loh]

i agree.
some people like to make it sound more complicated or knowledgable in a already non-simple game. In singles, basic tactic (offense vs defense) application on NSS or OSS tactic makes not much different in my opinion, just more attention (mental) to eliminate unforced errors and knowing(mental) your opponent strength and weakness. These are all about u, not them. It's a thinking game. If u have a preconceived plan to employ attacking tactic on all players and matches, i assure u won't go far. **
QUOTE]

Remember you were a participant in this discussion and you injected off-topic issues as well. You must therefore thank your lucky stars that none of the moderators had the mind of WWC, otherwise your "knowledgeable" contributions may be deleted too.

On your point of smart coaches and players who will not reveal their hand, it won't take long for opponents to find this out as they are permitted to use video cameras to record every move of their prospective rivals.

my occasional off topic remarks can be attributed to my in and out state of consciousness. Something that i have no control of.

Every sport (and warfare) training involve video now. No better training than watching your opponent's capability. I remember brandon was watching the HK open at the age of barely 2

[Winex West Can]

Remember you were a participant in this discussion and you injected off-topic issues as well. You must therefore thank your lucky stars that none of the moderators had the mind of WWC, otherwise your "knowledgeable" contributions may be deleted too.

Minor point/correction and is off-topic. I never said anything about deleting the thread but rather closing the thread as tends to happen when the posters wander off-topic for good number of posts.

[kwun]

this thread hasn't been closed as, despite the volatile concious state of some particpants, there are some really good and intellectually sound discussions going on. that's why it is preferrable to steer the discussion back on topic instead of wasting a very fine topic.

[cooler]

I congrats the mods for being sensible.
When a thread go off track to degradatory remarks, personal attack, political and or religious ranting, I think a pre-warning or outright thread termination is warranted. Going off topic but still within the realm of badminton, a reminder is suffice. Sometime one has to give a non badminton example or experience to make their point forward. Common sense is the best guide.

[taneepak]

Hmm, I know in Australia are a lot of good Chinese coaches - they may explain to you about the theories of service in badminton the way I learned it. When I studied badminton, I was under the supervision of a coach from China for 300H (yes, 3 hundred). Zhang Ailing and Chen Changjie, I heard were under this same coach too.

Never a single time ever was mentioned something like 'attacking' serve, if it exists then it must be added to the curriculum for the Chinese National badminton coaching course.

'Attacking serve', who is talking about attacking serve? A good low serve, especially in doubles, initiates an attacking mode. Any weak return that is put away is probably due to the good low serve. Oftentimes we applaud the smasher who smashes the winning point, ignoring the real hero who sets up and causes the weak or wrong type of return from the opponents. A good low serve is not unlike the unsung hero of this 'controller'.

[chris-ccc]

I think some adjustments maybe required but again they're mostly mentally based. Under NSS, serving becomes much more important. A bad serve will set you up for a losing rally, point lost. A really bad serve may get you hitting the net, too short or too long, or a bad service call, point lost again. However, once the rally get going, the players play to win using the same old tactic and skills as in their previous OSS ways.

Hi Everyone,

This is good. Our thread is now driven to the path of TACTICS, which was the path I planned to go initially.

We will now talk about Match Tactics for the NSS Singles Match, and not just narrowing it down to just some particular strokes or shots.

Under the NSS, many of us know how much more important the SERVICE has become. But let us break away from the subject of Service. Let us concentrate on the subject of Tactics for the NSS Singles Match.

I agree with cooler's statement... “However, once the rally gets going, the players play to win using the same old tactic and skills as in their previous OSS ways”

Most of us are familiar with the OSS Singles Match, so I will start from there...

But did you know there were 2 Schools of Thoughts on this matter under the OSS?

Please remember that what I am trying to say below is based on the OSS.

School #1:

When it is your time to serve(ie, to start the rally), RELAX AND TAKE CONTROL. You can release some mental stress. Try to play to win the rally with controlled play. If you lose the rally, you don't lose a point, you only lose your service.

School #2:

When it is your time to serve(ie, to start the rally), ATTACK AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE. Try to attack, if your attack fails, you don't lose a point. This is the best time to risk/gamble with your attacking skill.

============

But now, we are playing under the NSS. There is no such thing as to “You don't lose a point if you are serving, you just lose your service”.

Every rally awards a point now, under the NSS.

Based on the info I have received up to now(ie, for playing the NSS), it appears that School #2 (ATTACK AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE) tactics is more popular.

So guys, tell me what you think.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[taneepak]

Hi Everyone,

This is good. Our thread is now driven to the path of TACTICS, which was the path I planned to go initially.

We will now talk about Match Tactics for the NSS Singles Match, and not just narrowing it down to just some particular strokes or shots.

Under the NSS, many of us know how much more important the SERVICE has become. But let us break away from the subject of Service. Let us concentrate on the subject of Tactics for the NSS Singles Match.

I agree with cooler's statement... “However, once the rally gets going, the players play to win using the same old tactic and skills as in their previous OSS ways”

Most of us are familiar with the OSS Singles Match, so I will start from there...

But did you know there were 2 Schools of Thoughts on this matter under the OSS?

Please remember that what I am trying to say below is based on the OSS.

School #1:

When it is your time to serve(ie, to start the rally), RELAX AND TAKE CONTROL. You can release some mental stress. Try to play to win the rally with controlled play. If you lose the rally, you don't lose a point, you only lose your service.

School #2:

When it is your time to serve(ie, to start the rally), ATTACK AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE. Try to attack, if your attack fails, you don't lose a point. This is the best time to risk/gamble with your attacking skill.

============

But now, we are playing under the NSS. There is no such thing as to “You don't lose a point if you are serving, you just lose your service”.

Every rally awards a point now, under the NSS.

Based on the info I have received up to now(ie, for playing the NSS), it appears that School #2 (ATTACK AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE) tactics is more popular.

So guys, tell me what you think.

Cheers... chris@ccc

You have raised some interesting points. I still think it is too early to tell. The 'School #2 Attack & Take the Initiative' was apparent even in the OSS, especially in the low serve in doubles and the predominance of using the low serve over the high serve in singles from the old gold standard of using only the high serve in singles in the days of old. In the NSS, serving in doubles become even more critical, and as a consequence players will over time develop better serves, both low and flick-serve. In singles the low serve will continue to dominate, especially in MS, because it is better than the alternatives. However, the receiver in singles will hype up his mental state and may now even rush the serve, which is good if he can read the server's intention but disastrous if he is wrong. One thing is certain, the NSS will result in lower serve-error rate.
There will be new ideas and new tactics to exploit the NSS. For now let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend. Time, yes time will tell.

[asuncion_03]

this will really help attacking players.. i mean players who focus more on attacking..

[Loh]

You have raised some interesting points. I still think it is too early to tell. The 'School #2 Attack & Take the Initiative' was apparent even in the OSS, especially in the low serve in doubles and the predominance of using the low serve over the high serve in singles from the old gold standard of using only the high serve in singles in the days of old. In the NSS, serving in doubles become even more critical, and as a consequence players will over time develop better serves, both low and flick-serve. In singles the low serve will continue to dominate, especially in MS, because it is better than the alternatives. However, the receiver in singles will hype up his mental state and may now even rush the serve, which is good if he can read the server's intention but disastrous if he is wrong. One thing is certain, the NSS will result in lower serve-error rate.
There will be new ideas and new tactics to exploit the NSS. For now let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend. Time, yes time will tell.

I agree but not sure about Cooler?

[cooler]

I agree but not sure about Cooler?

what do u mean if i agree or not? taneepak basically reiterate what i had said earlier.

[Pete LSD]

I just don't see how a low serve in double can be an attacking shot to begin with. According to Coach Ng K. C. and Coach Chan K. N. plus various others, a net shot can be attacked even if it is slightly below the net.

[viver]

Attacking serve, attacking service or perfect serve are designations that I never heard of nor used. You know them much better than I do. My old teacher used to say, study to improve yourself, keep an open mind to learn new things, but always use reason and common sense. It's an old advice, but so useful today in this world of internet.

As a player all my coaches stressed the 'no initiative' situation of the server. In coaching courses/lectures is also stressed the defensive nature of the service stroke. In umpiring courses, it will tell you the rules governing the service and the specific area where it should land denotes the limitations imposed on the server, not the receiver.

Short and low serve, ahh that yes. A good quality short serve will give the receiver less options to attack, but the serving side still remains in a 'no initiative' situation. The serving side can only react depending the quality of the return.

Since you are such enthusiastic supporter of the 21x3, any ideas why is it shorter? Ever thought why it was longer with the 15x3? Only the server could score, right? If the server had the initiative, the advantage to attack, how changing to 21x3 would make the game much shorter? Any sense here? Or in 15x3 system, even the best players are lousy servers, rarely able to capitalize on the presented attacking opportunities. Makes one wonder....

Numbers have been provided regarding serve conversion rate, textbook lessons from badminton tactical basics been explored (regarding service and restoring match balance which does not necessarilly match yours), etc... In high level competition where the players skills are similar, how often the server has the advantage in the third stroke? Much of the training methods derive from here, and ability to discern this also demonstrates the ability of the coach.

Matches are now shorter, different requirements for the energetic systems, different tactical games and different player attributes: with 21x3 matches should be quick paced, more explosive players with emphasis on hard strokes. I am afraid the thinking game is less here.

Maybe it would be a good starting point watching matches between Yu Yaodong vs Liem Swieking; Liem Swieking/Luan Jian vs Morten Frost; Liem vs Han Jian; Haryanto Arbi vs Wiranata, etc... and more recent matches for comparison, just watch how Peter Gade played in the last few matches and how he played in AE, previous years AE, TC, etc.

Some of the matches are old, but I think they are good study material.

'Attacking serve', who is talking about attacking serve? A good low serve, especially in doubles, initiates an attacking mode. Any weak return that is put away is probably due to the good low serve. Oftentimes we applaud the smasher who smashes the winning point, ignoring the real hero who sets up and causes the weak or wrong type of return from the opponents. A good low serve is not unlike the unsung hero of this 'controller'.

[viver]

I just don't see how a low serve in double can be an attacking shot to begin with. According to Coach Ng K. C. and Coach Chan K. N. plus various others, a net shot can be attacked even if it is slightly below the net.

This same thing is also described clearly in manual used by retired Chinese national level players studying to be national level coaches in China.

But looking at it a bit more calm, the serve could be an attacking shot - if you are a 8 foot tall person.

On the more serious side, if the first 3 strokes issue is not understood and agreed, there's really no point discussing further. Starting with wrong premises will only result in wrong conclusions - be it in 15x3 or 21x3.

[Pete LSD]

Initially, I was more interested in stringing and string related threads. However, the claims that low serves can be an attacking shot simply perplex me . . .

This same thing is also described clearly in manual used by retired Chinese national level players studying to be national level coaches in China.

But looking at it a bit more calm, the serve could be an attacking shot - if you are a 8 foot tall person.

On the more serious side, if the first 3 strokes issue is not understood and agreed, there's really no point discussing further. Starting with wrong premises will only result in wrong conclusions - be it in 15x3 or 21x3.

[kwun]

Initially, I was more interested in stringing and string related threads. However, the claims that low serves can be an attacking shot simply perplex me . . .

imho, it is not completely an offensive shot. but relatively speaking it is. almost, remember this is a game. so shots are selected with percentages.

imagine your options: high service, or low service.

high service, you are almost 100% defensive right from the start, ok, maybe 90% if you have add deception and also a fast high service. but no matter how good your high service is, it is mostly a defensive service.

for low service, if you execute a good low service, sure, it *can* be attacked, but unless your opponent is very very good, it won't get attacked all the time. even if we watch the pros. i say 50% of the time it ends up being defensive. but that also means 50% of the time offensive.

so 10% vs. 50%. your pick...

[taneepak]

Just look at top level MD play and you will see the server serve, standing as close to the net as legally allowed, and the receiver standing as close to the net as legally allowed. The server of a low serve is trying to deliver the shuttle that will land in the shortest possible time, with the shuttle starting to fall immediately after it crosses at no more than 1/2" over the tape. The receiver will stand as close to the net as legally possible, and with his racquet hand pointing towards the net. This is vital for the receiver, because he can then put down a poor serve, and if the serve is good he will at least have the option to returning the serve with a net tumble or returning it a bit flat, but never down. It is technically impossibe to return a good serve with a downward stroke or shot, as that will only hit it into the net. If the receiver were to stand some way behind the front service line he can only return the serve hitting from the waist up-a disastrous stroke. The further away the receiver is from the front service line the less option he will have.
Some of the Danes doubles players have very long reach and can put pressure on the server who may feel that the tall Dane is but a foot away. But short doubles players have no such problem with such tall receivers, because of their good low serves.
Now, if the good low serve server has a flick-serve that every opponent 'respects', his low serve will give him and his partner an edge.
Under the OSS, the switch from high serves to low serves in MS is mainly to initiate an attack. In doubles, which is a more attacking game, the low serve has been the bread and butter shot in the OSS and even more so in the NSS.
In short, a low serve is an opening gambit to initiate an attacking mode.
To some it may seem I have turned things upside down. Have I?

[sendoh]

What happening now is something like this:

For example, you are now almost late for school and you have two options: run or cycle to school. I believe, MOST PEOPLE will choose to cycle to school instead of running because GENERALLY and with COMMON SENSE, cycling is faster than running.

But then, there are still some buggers in this world who always like to invite for troubles by saying things like... WHAT IF you can run faster than cycling? Or WHAT IF there is a shortcut, which is not accessible by bicycle, to reach the school faster? Or WHAT IF the bike broke down half way to school? Or WHAT IF...

With so many WHAT IFs, the conclusion is the arguments will end up ENDLESS. And I think it is really a waste of time talking to these people because they do not live in the GENERAL world like we do.