User Tag List

Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 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 256 to 272 of 449
  1. #256
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winex West Can
    Nah, they would claiming that they need to make the game more exciting for TV and the N. American audiences

    I think that if the IBF decide to make it fairer for the server, they should do away with the doubles serve back line, opening up the court just like in singles. That way, you can be sure that the receiver won't be toeing the front line anymore.
    To me 21x3 is too big of a change. Now we still have the players developed under the 15x3 system.

    I would prefer to wait and see how the players more adapted to 21x3 will play. We may not get the spectacle that we are expecting.

  2. #257
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think comments from the thread http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=34191

    lin dan versus LCW from the taipei open kinda sum up NSS essense.

    Even though i haven't watched that match nor read the point by point narration, i think LCW's lost in the taipei open and his win in MO helped explain the NSS essence imo.

    Many posters have said LCW made too many errors in game 3 of TO final against LD and shoulda win if he didnt made those errors. Well, LCW isn't lacking concentraton, he beat LD from 13-20 in MO, this required pure mental concentration and determination which showed he had those quality already. LCW lost the rubber in TO , yes, due to errors because he was TIRED, pooped out from his attacking program he had chosen in his 2nd game to beat LD. That is why LCW resorted to more tricky trick shots and therefore too dependent on those golden trick shots to shorten rallies. There is no more neutral back and forth serving as breaks like in the OSS, if u relax, u error, u lose points in NSS. This time LD and LYB learned from MO and came prepared to deal with LCW. Yes, skill wise, speed wise, LCW is better but if he can't extend that for the 3rd game, LD just keep the shuttles in play and start collecting points. All these things I have said before.
    Last edited by cooler; 06-27-2006 at 01:45 AM.

  3. #258
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,662
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    Haven't been able to watch the match yet. Waiting for a chance to dl it.

    Did you have a chance to watch the game? Was Lin Dan using more overhead or underarm attack shots?
    No I haven't yet. Hope they'll show it over our sports cable TV soon.

    If their previous matches are any guide, both are fast "overhead" attacking players employing very little or no fast 'underarm' attacking drives or even the 'overhead' attacking clear, which PG seemed to prefer for attacking variation.

    But to counter 'attacking' shots and to 'initiate' or create attacking opportunities, both will use the 'underarm' very tight net shots quite readily although any weak net shots will be killed instantly or the players kill themselves if they're too careless, depending on the situation. According to the newspaper report, LCW purportedly wanted to engage LD more at the net, but it appeared that LD was faster on the day and instead took the opportunity to "attack" (I presume smash) much more.

    Curiously enough, it was LCW who complained of being more tired than LD despite the latter's attacking tactics. Maybe LD has forgotten about tiredness with his sole deadly purpose of taking revenge on LCW for his recent Malaysian Open unexpected and disastrous loss!

    Do they term LD's almost 'inhuman' action as "mind over matter"?

  4. #259
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    843
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    No I haven't yet. Hope they'll show it over our sports cable TV soon.

    If their previous matches are any guide, both are fast "overhead" attacking players employing very little or no fast 'underarm' attacking drives or even the 'overhead' attacking clear, which PG seemed to prefer for attacking variation.

    But to counter 'attacking' shots and to 'initiate' or create attacking opportunities, both will use the 'underarm' very tight net shots quite readily although any weak net shots will be killed instantly or the players kill themselves if they're too careless, depending on the situation. According to the newspaper report, LCW purportedly wanted to engage LD more at the net, but it appeared that LD was faster on the day and instead took the opportunity to "attack" (I presume smash) much more.

    Curiously enough, it was LCW who complained of being more tired than LD despite the latter's attacking tactics. Maybe LD has forgotten about tiredness with his sole deadly purpose of taking revenge on LCW for his recent Malaysian Open unexpected and disastrous loss!

    Do they term LD's almost 'inhuman' action as "mind over matter"?
    Well, Lin Dan is known for his fitness although gameplay-wise, he's a little boring.

  5. #260
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for your comments. So apparently LCW tried to use defensive net shots but was counter by LD offensive net shots, so in the end LD won.

    We also have to be precise about the 'attacking clear' - in can be classified attacking only if it scores a point, otherwise it will be defensive clear, no matter how flat it goes, right?

    I believe technically LCW is more creative than LD, but LD is stronger and the desire to win seems bigger. Maybe this is the difference between them, and also why LD wins more. I agree with you about this.

    But aren't we expecting more fast paced attacking play for the 21x3 format? After all the games are shorter, so the speed is up and fewer tactics variations. Isn't that what everybody wants?


    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    No I haven't yet. Hope they'll show it over our sports cable TV soon.

    If their previous matches are any guide, both are fast "overhead" attacking players employing very little or no fast 'underarm' attacking drives or even the 'overhead' attacking clear, which PG seemed to prefer for attacking variation.

    But to counter 'attacking' shots and to 'initiate' or create attacking opportunities, both will use the 'underarm' very tight net shots quite readily although any weak net shots will be killed instantly or the players kill themselves if they're too careless, depending on the situation. According to the newspaper report, LCW purportedly wanted to engage LD more at the net, but it appeared that LD was faster on the day and instead took the opportunity to "attack" (I presume smash) much more.

    Curiously enough, it was LCW who complained of being more tired than LD despite the latter's attacking tactics. Maybe LD has forgotten about tiredness with his sole deadly purpose of taking revenge on LCW for his recent Malaysian Open unexpected and disastrous loss!

    Do they term LD's almost 'inhuman' action as "mind over matter"?

  6. #261
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastDevil
    Well, Lin Dan is known for his fitness although gameplay-wise, he's a little boring.
    I think if we compare the actual badminton players to a track and field athlete, I would say that the badminton player is conditioned like a 400/800 M runner. With 21x3, though I am not sure, but we might be looking at 100/200 M runners style players.

    Fewer tactics variations, faster matches to come - speed and power will take priority in the tactical area, I believe.

  7. #262
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,662
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default It is the "Winning" shot that counts!

    We also have to be precise about the 'attacking clear' - in can be classified attacking only if it scores a point, otherwise it will be defensive clear, no matter how flat it goes, right?

    I would actually include all shots, whether attacking or defensive in nature, that can score a point that counts ultimately. We have seen how a delicate net shot that made it impossible for the opponent to return that can score a point, not necessary a powerful smash, which can also be countered to win a point for the opponent.

    So whatever shots that are produced, if at the end of the rallyl, they could not score a point, then it is useless. In the process, somehow the opponent was able to prevail either with better tactics, better shots, stronger will power or he was just plain lucky.

    In golf, they used to say that it is not one's beautiful drive that will necessarily win the hole, rather it is how one arrives and put the golf ball into the hole. "Drive for show, put for dough".

    It is the winning shot that counts in the end.

  8. #263
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I never disagreed that what counts is the winning shot. Maybe I know it much much better than you think.

    Like I said before, consider Han Jian playing tactics, you can't say he is a defensive player - he must be able to finish his rallies and score, otherwise how could he win his matches.

    The question is how you classify a shot. In an earlier post you classify attacking shots, all shots that score, whether if underarm or overhead. As long as it scores is an attacking shot.

    Following your logic, I have to be clear with you when I say attacking clear - 'attacking attacking clear' or a 'defensive attacking clear'; or an 'attacking smash' and a 'defensive smash', as per my understanding, the designation of the shots are based on the results.

    Going back to the example that started this, according to my description: Bao used an attacking clear. PG was wrong footed as he moved forward and had to scramble back to his baseline backhand side. PG somehow was able to return a low backhand crosscourt shot to Bao's forecourt and caught Bao by surprise as he was covering the opposite corner.

    My opinion is, Bao did a very job with the attacking clear, he had the initiative and used the opportunity well, but not good enough to finish it. PG did a brilliant defensive job, reversing an extreme 'no initiative' situation to his favour and winning the rally. PG did not create a situation where he could capitalize (that's why I do not consider this an attacking shot in any way) but succeeded partly due to Bao's error.

    Your opinion was that PG did an excellent attacking shot. Even though it was an low underarm stroke, done in almost full stretch, it was an attacking shot, because PG scored, correct?

    Can you then define, what is a defensive shot? What is also 'defensive nature' of the shot? Is defensive/defensive nature of the shot, shots that are returned to your opponent and never score?

    Again, I repeat, I do not have any problem with the concept that the shot that counts is the winning one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    We also have to be precise about the 'attacking clear' - in can be classified attacking only if it scores a point, otherwise it will be defensive clear, no matter how flat it goes, right?

    I would actually include all shots, whether attacking or defensive in nature, that can score a point that counts ultimately. We have seen how a delicate net shot that made it impossible for the opponent to return that can score a point, not necessary a powerful smash, which can also be countered to win a point for the opponent.

    So whatever shots that are produced, if at the end of the rallyl, they could not score a point, then it is useless. In the process, somehow the opponent was able to prevail either with better tactics, better shots, stronger will power or he was just plain lucky.

    In golf, they used to say that it is not one's beautiful drive that will necessarily win the hole, rather it is how one arrives and put the golf ball into the hole. "Drive for show, put for dough".

    It is the winning shot that counts in the end.

  9. #264
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    I think if we compare the actual badminton players to a track and field athlete, I would say that the badminton player is conditioned like a 400/800 M runner. With 21x3, though I am not sure, but we might be looking at 100/200 M runners style players.

    Fewer tactics variations, faster matches to come - speed and power will take priority in the tactical area, I believe.
    The question is with the 3X21 could we still "force" 100/200m runners to race in 1500m? May be we still could....

  10. #265
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    The question is with the 3X21 could we still "force" 100/200m runners to race in 1500m? May be we still could....
    Hmm, I am not sure...

    If we use the old matches as a measuring stick -- i.e. Liem Swie King vs Morten Frost/Han Jian; Luan Jin vs Morten Frost; Haryanto Arbi vs Wiranata -- it seems a bit hard to make a 100/200M runner to race a 800M/1500M.

    In 15x3 format, usually the faster/more explosive player wins the first set, leads but at the end loses the 2nd set and losing in the rubber set - could be similar to have a 100M runner running against a 800M runner in a 1600M race.

    In 21x3, it could the other way around. It could be a 100M runner vs a 800M runner in a 200M race

  11. #266
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,181
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    On the point of tiredness, physical tiredness is just one component.

    There can be mental fatigue which can affect the performance. Although I didn't see the recent Opens, I think there are very small margins between Peter Gade, Lee CW and Lin Dan (+Taufik if he's plyaing seriously). The difference is being able to focus mentally at crucial junctures. Lin Dan and Taufik are able to do these better wether 15 x 3 or 21 x 3.

    I think the ability to control the game at these crucial times is a bigger determinant of winning rather than the the 100m vs 1500m analogy.

  12. #267
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,579
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Under the NSS, it is 20-minutes per Game

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung
    On the point of tiredness, physical tiredness is just one component.

    There can be mental fatigue which can affect the performance. Although I didn't see the recent Opens, I think there are very small margins between Peter Gade, Lee CW and Lin Dan (+Taufik if he's plyaing seriously). The difference is being able to focus mentally at crucial junctures. Lin Dan and Taufik are able to do these better wether 15 x 3 or 21 x 3.

    I think the ability to control the game at these crucial times is a bigger determinant of winning rather than the the 100m vs 1500m analogy.

    Hi Cheung,

    Yes, I think I agree with your statement that “the ability to control the game at these crucial times is a bigger determinant of winning rather than the the 100m vs 1500m analogy”.

    Based on all matches under the NSS(up to now), I have found that it is 20-minutes per game.

    The Singles Final of the Malaysian Open 2006, LCW Vs LD, took 1 hour and 10 minutes.

    I don't think a 70-minute Match is equivalent to a 100m Sprint.

    Cheers... chris@ccc


  13. #268
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,662
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The question is how you classify a shot. In an earlier post you classify attacking shots, all shots that score, whether if underarm or overhead. As long as it scores is an attacking shot.

    I don't recall having put it this way. What I might have said was that a shot may start off as defensive in nature (say an underarm stroke) but once it crosses the net and begins to dip and more so if it puts the receiver in some sort of a difficulty, then this very shot can become an attacking one instead! Like the excellent example that you gave on the PG versus Bao match.

  14. #269
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think we are trying to split hairs in trying to 'define' what is an attacking shot. Basically there is but only one definition. However, if executed poorly or ill-suited to the opponent's shot, an attacking shot can be a death sentence. This, however, does not mean an attacking shot, i.e. attacking clear, is not an attacking shot just because it did not get the winning point. A powerful smash that is returned without reply also cannot be 'defined' as a non-attacking shot just because it has failed.

  15. #270
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,662
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    The question is with the 3X21 could we still "force" 100/200m runners to race in 1500m? May be we still could....
    In the decathlon, the athlete not only has to run both short and long races, he has to jump as well as to throw as far as he can to win. They certainly could!

    The decathlon is a 10-event, two-day miniature track meet designed to ascertain the sport's best all-around athlete. Within its competitive rules, each athlete must sprint for 100 meters, long jump, heave a 16-pound shotput, high jump and run 400 meters -- all in that very order -- on the first day. On the second day the athlete runs a 110 meter hurdle race over 42 inch barriers, hurls the discus, pole vaults, tosses a javelin and, at the end of the contest, races over 1500 meters, virtually a mile.

    The decathlon was first included in the Olympic Games at Stockholm, Sweden, in 1912, when it was won by American athlete Jim Thorpe.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    Top 10 performers
    Accurate as of January 1, 2006.

    Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date
    9026 Roman Šebrle Czech Republic Götzis May 27, 2001
    8994 Tomáš Dvorák Czech Republic Prague July 4, 1999
    8891 Dan O'Brien United States Talence September 9, 1992
    8847 Daley Thompson United Kingdom Los Angeles August 9, 1984
    8832 Jürgen Hingsen West Germany Mannheim June 9, 1984
    8820 Bryan Clay United States Athens August 24, 2004
    8815 Erki Nool Estonia Edmonton August 7, 2001
    8792 Uwe Freimuth East Germany Potsdam July 21, 1984
    8784 Tom Pappas United States Palo Alto June 22, 2003
    8762 Siegfried Wentz West Germany Bernhausen June 5, 1983

    Roman Šebrle (born 26 November 1974 in Lanškroun) is an athlete from the Czech Republic. Originally a high jumper, he competes in decathlon and heptathlon for team Dukla Praha. He is a world record holder in decathlon - in 2001 in Götzis he became the first decathlete ever to achieve over 9000 points and set the record at 9026 points, succeeding his compatriot Tomáš Dvořák, who scored 8994 points two years earlier. After placing second in the decathlon of the 2000 Summer Olympics, Šebrle won the gold medal in the 2004 Summer Olympics.

    World Top 3 Individual Events

    100 m
    Decathlete / Nation / Result / Wind Points Venue Date

    1 Chris Huffins USA 10,22 0,9 8546 Atlanta 21.06.1996
    2 Daley Thompson GBR 10,26 2,0 8811 Stuttgart 27.08.1986
    3 Dan O'Brien USA 10,31 2,6 8707 Knoxville 16.06.1994

    400m

    1 William Toomey USA 45,68 8144 Mexico City 18.10.1968
    2 Duane Ladejo GBR 46,12 7633 Kuala Lumpur 17.09.1998
    3 Dean Macey GBR 46,21 8603 Edmonton 06.08.2001

    1500m

    1 Robert Baker USA 3.58,7 7479 Austin 03.04.1980
    2 Herbert Peter GER 4.00,51 7127 Bernhausen 30.07.1978
    3 Vladimir Kuznetsov URS 4.00,87028 Zhitomir 25.08.1973

    Czech All-time List

    Decathlete Points Results

    1. Roman Šebrle
    Götzis 27.05.2001 9026 10,64 - 8.11 - 15.33 - 2.12 - 47,79 -
    13,92 - 47.92 - 4.80 - 70.16 - 4.21,98

    2. Tomaš Dvorak
    Prague 04.07.99 8994 10,54 - 7.90 - 16.78 - 2.04 - 48,08 -
    13,73 - 48.33 - 4.90 - 72.32 - 4.37,20

    3. Robert Zmelik
    Götzis 31.05.92 8627 10,62 - 8.02 - 13.93 - 2.05 - 48,73 -
    13,84 - 44.44 - 4.90 - 61.26 - 4.24,

  16. #271
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc

    Hi Cheung,

    Yes, I think I agree with your statement that “the ability to control the game at these crucial times is a bigger determinant of winning rather than the the 100m vs 1500m analogy”.

    Based on all matches under the NSS(up to now), I have found that it is 20-minutes per game.

    The Singles Final of the Malaysian Open 2006, LCW Vs LD, took 1 hour and 10 minutes.

    I don't think a 70-minute Match is equivalent to a 100m Sprint.

    Cheers... chris@ccc

    How many good quality 100m run you could do in 70 minutes?

  17. #272
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    I think we are trying to split hairs in trying to 'define' what is an attacking shot. Basically there is but only one definition. However, if executed poorly or ill-suited to the opponent's shot, an attacking shot can be a death sentence. This, however, does not mean an attacking shot, i.e. attacking clear, is not an attacking shot just because it did not get the winning point. A powerful smash that is returned without reply also cannot be 'defined' as a non-attacking shot just because it has failed.

    I dont believe you really understand Viver's view, as it all down to you and many have decided to class the underarm serve stroke is an attacking stroke; then later you again argue underarm serve stroke could produce "attacking shots".

    The winning shot can be any kind of shots that is produced by any strokes; but IS winnning shot an attacking shot? What is attacking shot?

    I can understand the reason of why Viver's has been written so rigorously about this subject as he has gone through the formal training and he has the right to question and pursuit the idea that is opposite of what he has learned formally. By the way serve, and return of serve is the 1st impression you made on your opponent (ok It is a page out of Badminton England here!)

Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 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
  •