User Tag List

Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 222 to 238 of 449
  1. #222
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I once encountered one person asking his student this question:

    Person: What is 1 + 1 equalled to?

    Student: 1

    Person: ???!!! Why?

    Student: IF one raindrop adds with another raindrop, there will only be one raindrop.

    Person: ...

  2. #223
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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 . . .
    Good, curiousity is a prizeless asset, but there are others who disagree. A low serve, per se, is not an attacking shot, although there is a non-low serve called the drive serve that is an attacking shot. A good low serve is an opening gambit by the server to prepare his 'troops' for attack.
    Just watch a top level doubles game from an entirely different perspective-the low serve, return of serve, and the following shot, all have one common thing-to force the opponents to lift. Seizing control of the net is akin to attacking the chain of command at the top. All the noise and fury of thundering smashes and spectacular returns, you can use them to your advantage if you wrest control of the net area. The low serve sets this in motion. Without the low serve, and it must be a good low serve, how in Dickens can you initiate an attack?

  3. #224
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Witty observation, how could I not to add few more points with the post like this?

    1. When the boundary conditions are not defined, yes it is endless. As I could have said it is really better for me to attack in a badminton game if I have hot chicken curry rice two hours before the game. Why? Well I have to finish the game early as I tend to get tummy problem after the curry rice! With the 3X21 system may be I don’t need to eat Chicken curry rice anymore! Wondering what type of foods Malaysian players eat before their game now.
    2. It is argued if a serve could produce an “attacking shot”. In certain coaching manuals, you will see the term “building” shot is used often. It means the shot that might allow you to open out your opponent for you to attack in your next shot. Yes you could use all sorts of strokes (offensive, defensive, or building) to produce a building shot; when you were under attack or launching the attack. Now back to the service; the server always has in mind of trying to stop the receiver to attack his serve, and at the same time he is thinking of how to build an attack by “forcing” a weak return (poor, predictable choice of shots for example) from the receiver. We could have another thread if necessary to discuss in length the art of forcing a weak return from your opponents though!
    3. Mental side of service; in the 3X15 the server has upper hand, as the server knows fully well that if he wins the rally he will get a point, and he knows the receiver is anxious and will try additional hard to win back the service. The anxiety causes errors. Well, in term of mind game side of Badminton, I believe this will be missing in the 3X21.

  4. #225
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    382
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    that is TOO difficult a topic - attack becomes defense and defense becomes attack - a fast player against a slow player can be equal - the NSS is really based on who makes the most error, not the most attacking play. If 2 players make equally the number of errors, then you look at the cause of the error - normally u would think an attacking player will cause the opponent to make more errors due to the speed of the shots

  5. #226
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    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.

    .
    I don't not think the thinking game is any less, just slightly different as I said before most of the adjustment to NSS is mentally related. How? Before, players can be methodological because longer term strategy can be planned and employed. Under NSS, the strategic thinking/planning IS SHORTENED, your aim and goal is shorter and ready for quicker change if it doesn't work. Actually, i feel this change demands MORE mental concentration. It's almost like playing chess with no time limit between moves to chess games played under time limit.
    Last edited by cooler; 06-23-2006 at 11:31 AM.

  6. #227
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo77
    that is TOO difficult a topic - attack becomes defense and defense becomes attack - a fast player against a slow player can be equal - the NSS is really based on who makes the most error, not the most attacking play. If 2 players make equally the number of errors, then you look at the cause of the error - normally u would think an attacking player will cause the opponent to make more errors due to the speed of the shots
    good that u brought this up. I didnt brought this up because i was letting some here to think it out first. Yes, there are more rewards by eliminating unforced errors than just attacking more under the NSS. The attacking school (#2) theory is predicated on that the attacking side MAKES LESS ERRORS. I think this is true BUT initiating attacks required more energy. If you don't handle your pace right, your attacking can eventually eat u up and become tired. A TIRED PLAYER MAKES MORE ERRORS, no one can argue this. Under this scenario, a defensive player just need to keep the shuttles in the court and start collecting points from his opponents mistakes. IUnder NSS, u have to time it right because u have only 21 point duration to do this, not like almost forever under the OSS.


    What i had said before about not much change between nss and oss, yes and no. The fundamentals hasn't change i think, just some adjustment needed for its implemenation. What're the fundamental? Looking for opponent weakness and exploit them, pacing yourself in between attacks mode and the water breaks. If your strength is defensive, I can't see how becoming an attacking players would help u make more points. This of course is do-able only if an defensive player is willing to change his whole playing style, and retrain him/herself to become an attacking player.

    Analogy: In indy 500 or IROC racing.
    Would racers all pedal to the metal at the green starting light if only 1 gas fill up allowed during the race?
    Last edited by cooler; 06-23-2006 at 11:35 AM.

  7. #228
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Much has been said about the serve being an underarm stroke and therefore a sitting duck for the receiver to put away. Now let me take you on a shuttle journey. You, the shuttle, are being served by the server using a low serve, and you travel upwards towards the net. You then reach the top of the net, almost touching it, and then start falling downwards towards the front service line of the receiver. After entering enemy territory you are on a downwards trajectory. The good low serve starts as an upward shuttle, but insofar as the receiver is concerned it has become a below the net return for him to deal with. There is no way a good serve can be returned without the shuttle travelling a path that goes up, even if minimally.
    Now if the server, besides having a good low serve. is respected for his flick serve, his low serves will have a lower response time from the receiver. Why? The reason is the receiver is held on tenterhooks and is glued to the floor, not daring to make a fool of himself by over-commitment.
    The NSS demands better and higher quality and precision serves more than the OSS, especially in the low serves. I wonder whether Roslin Hashim, a typical defensive player who likes very high serves in the OSS, still serves as many high serves in the NSS? In certain circumstances a very high serve can set you up for an attacking game. But that is another story.

  8. #229
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this thread us way off topic and seems to become an argument weather the serve is offensive or defensive....

    Personally I think NSS will lead to more double type serving in singles (short serves and more flick serves than before)..

    I think putting more emphasis on the serve is bad for the entertainment value of watching and playing high-level games...(In double it becomes close to ridiclious as serving/receiving was so important even before the NSS).

    I think the argument that NSS would promote a more attacking game would be that it is more physically demanding to be "early" on the shuttle, do constant jumpsmashes and avoid overhead backhands etc..and the NSS being shorter, makes it "easier" to attain the fittness to be able to do this for a complete match. But this was also the case with 7x5.. So the way i see it its more an effect of having shorter games, and not an effect of the rally scoring..

  9. #230
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    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...
    Low and short serve puts a lot more stress to the server. Imagine yourself after a short serve, what would you do?

    If it is of good quality you have to guard the net, but the receiver also have the option to push it to the back. As an example, PG vs Bao, Bao serves a short, PG anticipates and rushes to net; Bao prepares to move back and PG returns a short cross court wrong footing Bao.

    Good quality serve - long or short is not enough. The server also have to surprise the receiver with placement, pace and timing. Similarly the receiver will 'try' to convince the server that he/she is going to attack the serve at net, but in reality is prepared to move back and attack. So whatever the server does, is really dependent how the receiver reacts.

    For a player to be successful with this short serve, he/she must have good court coverage skills plus corresponding strokes. If not, the player will find this type of game very difficult to play. You can compare the early 90's players with those of late 90's to current ones and decide which has better all around skills. It may not be 10% vs 50% in my opinion as the attacks to a short serve could be more subtle.

    My coach used this guessing game 'baiting the fish'.

    How the 21x3 change the way the game is currently played - if we could understand how the initial stages work, it should be easier to anticipate how the game will be played and also the preferred tactics.

  10. #231
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler
    I don't not think the thinking game is any less, just slightly different as I said before most of the adjustment to NSS is mentally related. How? Before, players can be methodological because longer term strategy can be planned and employed. Under NSS, the strategic thinking/planning IS SHORTENED, your aim and goal is shorter and ready for quicker change if it doesn't work. Actually, i feel this change demands MORE mental concentration. It's almost like playing chess with no time limit between moves to chess games played under time limit.
    You once said that a successful player in badminton, have to master a few strokes and must be strong and fast.

    I did not agree with you before, but with the 21x3 system I have to agree with your statement now. A player with the profile you described could be very successful in the 21x3 system.

  11. #232
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    I think this thread us way off topic and seems to become an argument weather the serve is offensive or defensive....

    Personally I think NSS will lead to more double type serving in singles (short serves and more flick serves than before)..

    I think putting more emphasis on the serve is bad for the entertainment value of watching and playing high-level games...(In double it becomes close to ridiclious as serving/receiving was so important even before the NSS).

    I think the argument that NSS would promote a more attacking game would be that it is more physically demanding to be "early" on the shuttle, do constant jumpsmashes and avoid overhead backhands etc..and the NSS being shorter, makes it "easier" to attain the fittness to be able to do this for a complete match. But this was also the case with 7x5.. So the way i see it its more an effect of having shorter games, and not an effect of the rally scoring..
    Yes, I believe serve will not be as important as in 15x3 as the receiver can also score. Also agree with you that since the game is much shorter on average, it will benefit players with a certain profile - not necessarily the ones with better all around skills.

  12. #233
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    You once said that a successful player in badminton, have to master a few strokes and must be strong and fast.

    I did not agree with you before, but with the 21x3 system I have to agree with your statement now. A player with the profile you described could be very successful in the 21x3 system.
    If you know you cant compete against the power and speed (pace) of your opponent, what would you do? In the 3X15 we know how it could be done but how about in the 3X21? (we know the faster runner win 100m; but it is not necessary a case in the 1600m)

  13. #234
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was hungry when posting -

    Quote Originally Posted by viver

    My coach used to call this guessing game 'baiting the fish'.

  14. #235
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    You once said that a successful player in badminton, have to master a few strokes and must be strong and fast.

    I did not agree with you before, but with the 21x3 system I have to agree with your statement now. A player with the profile you described could be very successful in the 21x3 system.
    I knew you would come around

  15. #236
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd like to ask a few questions for clarification:
    - Were you a player competing in the highest levels of competition;
    - Were you a player training at national level select team;
    - If not at national level, any formal training as a player;
    - Competitions you participated;
    - Were/are you a coach, and if you are which courses you went to and what manuals were you supplied with;
    - Any students currently playing in competitions?;
    - If you were/are a coach, what research were you involved in;
    - How much work did you do with serve (testing, experimenting, implementing in high level competition); i.e. flight patterns, trajectories, etc.
    - If not involved in research in badminton area; any communication with national level coaches (i.e. China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc) about any developments related to the game of badminton.

    I mentioned what I and some others described (i.e. Pete LSD pointed the names of some known coaches in HK) that the server is in a 'no initiative' situation. The same is mentioned in the China Badminton Coaching manual - used by national level players studying to become coaches (national level). Same concept was mentioned by many Chinese national and provincial level coaches and also by the players.

    I mentioned in the past many times that I only learned from Chinese coaches, as a player and as a badminton coach. I also mentioned many times that I would like to learn from other badminton schools too.

    Your opinion (and also Chris) differs from what I've learned in the past. I am trying to keep my mind open (as suggested by my past coaches) and learn new things to improve myself, so the above questions for you if you don't mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    You, the shuttle, are being served by the server using a low serve, and you travel upwards towards the net. You then reach the top of the net, almost touching it, and then start falling downwards towards the front service line of the receiver. After entering enemy territory you are on a downwards trajectory.

  16. #237
    Regular Member wwcbro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    16°50'N 3°0'W
    Posts
    223
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .......................................oops!
    Last edited by wwcbro; 06-24-2006 at 03:08 PM.

  17. #238
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Much has been said about the serve being an underarm stroke and therefore a sitting duck for the receiver to put away. Now let me take you on a shuttle journey. You, the shuttle, are being served by the server using a low serve, and you travel upwards towards the net. You then reach the top of the net, almost touching it, and then start falling downwards towards the front service line of the receiver. After entering enemy territory you are on a downwards trajectory. The good low serve starts as an upward shuttle, but insofar as the receiver is concerned it has become a below the net return for him to deal with. There is no way a good serve can be returned without the shuttle travelling a path that goes up, even if minimally.
    Now if the server, besides having a good low serve. is respected for his flick serve, his low serves will have a lower response time from the receiver. Why? The reason is the receiver is held on tenterhooks and is glued to the floor, not daring to make a fool of himself by over-commitment.
    The NSS demands better and higher quality and precision serves more than the OSS, especially in the low serves. I wonder whether Roslin Hashim, a typical defensive player who likes very high serves in the OSS, still serves as many high serves in the NSS? In certain circumstances a very high serve can set you up for an attacking game. But that is another story.
    A serve is a defensive shot in that it has to travel upwards. It can potentially be a building shot if you can catch the receiver off-guard, thereby forcing them to do a lift. By the very nature of the serve, which you described very well, it has to travel up and over the net (not down and over the net). The reason why receivers do not attack servers more often is the fact that the server do not have to serve low and short all the time. Mixing in flick-serves tend to keep the receivers on their toes.

    It doesn't matter how low you managed to serve if you don't have the right pace to the shuttle as I can be there at the net as the shuttle is crossing over and it's over for the server.

    With the NSS, the game is shorter and you can now win a point on your opponent serve so it does offer other alternatives that might not be viable under the OSS.
    Last edited by Winex West Can; 06-24-2006 at 04:23 PM.

Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2x21 rally, 12 rally scoring system in 3rd game to increase the excitement of game.
    By wisdomcivet in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 12
    : 03-07-2011, 07:15 PM
  2. 21 Rally Point Scoring System
    By Break-My-String in forum Coaching Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
  3. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
  4. Mixed responses to 21-point rally scoring system
    By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 50
    : 04-26-2006, 04:40 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    : 01-05-2003, 01:55 PM

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
  •