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

**cheongsa** · 07-01-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Chai

"Intention should be the entity defining the nature of the shot, and not the quality of the shot itself. The opponent's capability should not matter"

Interesting. Let us look at the beginning of a rally....

What would you think the server's intention "what is in his mind?" when he serves?

We cannot read the server's mind when he serve, of course, but barring fluke shots, it is possible, from the ensuing rally, to back out a good gauge of the original intentions.

I would like to highlight the fact that there is no one stroke that is always offensive or always defensive, and though we are not the players, it is possible to read off intentions after the fact, from the rally itself.

The complication lies with the fact that different players have different capabilities. In a game, a player is constantly making assessment on the opponent's capabilities, and each stroke (or sequence of strokes) is preceded by a decision process.

For example, in OG 2000 MSSF Ji Xinpeng vs Peter Gade, Ji mixes high serves with low serves with flick serves. Most of the flick serves were not effective, because Peter Gade is such a capable player, but Peter Gade was caught out of position twice in that match. He got away in the first occasion, but lost the point in the second occasion. But I think it is fair to say that Ji Xinpeng executed every single flick serve with an offensive intention, in response to Peter Gade being extremely aggressive with the return of serve.

Originally Posted by Chai

What would you think the receiver's intention when he returns the service?

I would say the intention ought to be to get the server into trouble, which would qualify the return of serve as an offensive shot. However, there might be players who adopt a neutral mindset to the return of serve, and wait for a later opportunity in the rally to inject an offensive shot.

**cheongsa** · 07-01-2006, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by viver

Can you explain in more detail??? If not in a good position and choosing to smash wouldn't it create more trouble to the attacker??

Perhaps it only applies to me, because I am not fast enough

But I sometimes find my opponent dictating the rally to the point that by executing the standard options with manageable risk, I get deeper and deeper into trouble because my opponent is reading my options so well. To get a reprieve from the rapidly deteriorating situation, I would sometimes execute a smash when I am not in position. My intention then would not be to produce a winner, but to simply produce a risky shot that disrupts the building up of my opponent's momentum.

Of course, when I get very very lucky, that smash might actually produce or lead to a winner, but the original intention of the smash was defensive in nature.

Originally Posted by viver

Returning a well executed smash is always a defensive stroke. Good defending is not just limited to return the shuttle but also intentionally placing it where it troubles the most the attacker.

So the saying goes, "The best defense is offense"

But let me offer a broader perspective: how did I end up having to defend a smash in the first place?

If I am building up the rally to my advantage through a judicious selection of offensive shots, then it is possible to deny my opponent any chance to smash.

If, however, I lost my script somewhere in the rally, and have been scrambling defensively for the past few shots, the smash must have represented my opponent's decision to commence reaping the profits.

A third possibility would be that I am in command of the rally, and intentionally elicit a smash from my opponent. When this happens, I can execute a smash return to attack the opening that my opponent smash inevitably creates.

The difference between the second and third scenarios lies chiefly with my intention in executing the smash return.

Originally Posted by viver

More details again? Are you referring to overhead or underarm drops strokes.

In both examples, the drop shots were execute with overhead strokes, though in the case of Ji Xinpeng vs Peter Gade, the shuttle has fallen way below the highest possible striking point.

Originally Posted by viver

High and deep lifts can never be offensive shots. Used as part of the tactics against an opponent is fine, but classifying the shot itself as attacking/offensive, hmm... In your example I don't know if XXF's fast lift was close to net height or much below the net. I about net height, XXF was in 'with initiative' position, so attacking was a definite possibility.

XXF's fast lift was from mid-net, and executed while XXF was in strong command of the rally. I feel it is more appropriate to classify that shot as offensive, because against a lesser opponent than ZN, that shot would probably have ended the rally.

Originally Posted by viver

Seems a bit contradictory. If a high and deep lift can be considered aggressive/offensive, how come a high and deep clear is defensive.

Like I said, it all depends on what the player executing the shot wants out of the shot. If the player intends to use the high and deep clear to elicit a weak smash from the opponent so that it can be attacked, then the high and deep clear can be considered an offensive shot. However, the effectiveness of such a shot may be questionable.

Originally Posted by viver

I am not sure if intention is enough. I could have every intention to attack but my position is very unfavorable to launch an attack - i.e. retrieving a low shot from the baseline in full stretch; still I return with a hard and low drive to which my opponent kills easily. Would you still classify my shot as an attacking shot?

No, as I have tried to explain above with the smash, the intention behind the drive is defensive.

Originally Posted by viver

Like you said, you can finish a rally with either an aggressive or defensive shot. I agree. In my opinion shots are either aggressive or defensive - it was played for a tactical reason, and if done successfully will lead to victory.

We are not really in disagreement. All I am proposing is that we think more carefully about applying a fixed tag to particular classes of shots.

**cheongsa** · 07-02-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

I suppose you are implying it is really better to attack in the badminton game! if you attack you will get your opponent into trouble.

I am not implying that, and I certainly think that statements like "attacking shots will get opponent into trouble" overly simplifies the game of badminton. In fact, a "defensive" player like Roslin sometimes trouble an "attacking" player like Peter Gade.

I noticed that in the modern MS game, when the opponent does a fast drop (commonly thought of as an attacking shot), a "defensive" player like Roslin would take the shuttle high, but instead of playing a net shot, would play a fast lift to the baseline. With modern MS players, a fast drop shot is frequently executed with both feet off the ground, so if the fast lift is executed while the opponent is trying to return to base, a lot of pressure is placed on the opponent to get behind the shuttle.

I would say that with an intention like this, a fast lift so executed can be considered an offensive shot.

Originally Posted by Chai

1. Would you think the receiver will always "intend to attack" when receiving the service?

2.If the data showing the chance of receiver could attack the server effectively is more than 50%, will that mean the server is at disadvantage?

The serve, whether low or high, must be considered distinct from other strokes, because the server has very limited options. Contrast this to the much more varied options that a receiver has. It is in this sense that the server is disadvantaged, because he/she has to guess what the receiver wants to do, but the receiver need much less work to decide how to return the serve.

**viver** · 07-02-2006, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Chai

Are you refering to the terms "zhu-tung" and "pei-tung"? It is the principle of 'The art of war" and use often in chinese chess's strategy I believe.

In badminton you could equate that at the begin of a rally server is in zhu-tung position while receiver is in pei-tung position! During the rally both side fight (regain initiative)to be in zhu-tung position in order he will be able to control and dictate the rally.

You will reason too that it is thus fair to impose restrictions on server's serve and thus allowing the receiver the better opportunity to be in zhu-tung's position from pei-tung's position and of course when the receiver won the rally then he will not get a point but a right to serve!

Hmm, I could agree with your comment on shot intention. But it would be hard to tell what really is in the player's mind.

That was what I was referring to - 'zhu tung' and 'bei-tung' situations.

**viver** · 07-02-2006, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by cheongsa

Perhaps it only applies to me, because I am not fast enough

But I sometimes find my opponent dictating the rally to the point that by executing the standard options with manageable risk, I get deeper and deeper into trouble because my opponent is reading my options so well. To get a reprieve from the rapidly deteriorating situation, I would sometimes execute a smash when I am not in position. My intention then would not be to produce a winner, but to simply produce a risky shot that disrupts the building up of my opponent's momentum.

Of course, when I get very very lucky, that smash might actually produce or lead to a winner, but the original intention of the smash was defensive in nature.

It's not defensive, and you had the opportunity to attack. Some people call this the 'killer instinct'.

Honestly, I can't see it as a defensive shot.

Originally Posted by cheongsa

So the saying goes, "The best defense is offense"

But let me offer a broader perspective: how did I end up having to defend a smash in the first place?

If I am building up the rally to my advantage through a judicious selection of offensive shots, then it is possible to deny my opponent any chance to smash.

If, however, I lost my script somewhere in the rally, and have been scrambling defensively for the past few shots, the smash must have represented my opponent's decision to commence reaping the profits.

A third possibility would be that I am in command of the rally, and intentionally elicit a smash from my opponent. When this happens, I can execute a smash return to attack the opening that my opponent smash inevitably creates.

The difference between the second and third scenarios lies chiefly with my intention in executing the smash return.

Returning a smash, I still say is defensive stroke. You are using underarm techniques to return the shuttle. Depending the situation, your return might finish the rally; or neutralize your opponent advantage (no initiative situation); return it as best you could (opponent keep initiative) or lose the rally.

You also need to exercise your options when defending. Finishing the rally or regaining the initiative are the best options if possible. Maybe just terminology here.

Originally Posted by cheongsa

In both examples, the drop shots were execute with overhead strokes, though in the case of Ji Xinpeng vs Peter Gade, the shuttle has fallen way below the highest possible striking point.

I can't comment on this one as I don't remember the stroke. However being an overhead stroke, it means PG had the initiative and ability to choose/ dictate the rally.

Originally Posted by cheongsa

XXF's fast lift was from mid-net, and executed while XXF was in strong command of the rally. I feel it is more appropriate to classify that shot as offensive, because against a lesser opponent than ZN, that shot would probably have ended the rally.

I am not sure, but I think XXF might have executed a push(?) and not lift(?).

Originally Posted by cheongsa

Like I said, it all depends on what the player executing the shot wants out of the shot. If the player intends to use the high and deep clear to elicit a weak smash from the opponent so that it can be attacked, then the high and deep clear can be considered an offensive shot. However, the effectiveness of such a shot may be questionable.

No, as I have tried to explain above with the smash, the intention behind the drive is defensive.

In nature, it is a defensive shot and you are giving back the initiative to your opponent. Tactically it may not be - if you remember i.e. Han Jian playing style you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by cheongsa

We are not really in disagreement. All I am proposing is that we think more carefully about applying a fixed tag to particular classes of shots.

Yes, I can see this too.

Maybe just perspectives or terminology.

**Chai** · 07-02-2006, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by cheongsa

I am not implying that, and I certainly think that statements like "attacking shots will get opponent into trouble" overly simplifies the game of badminton. In fact, a "defensive" player like Roslin sometimes trouble an "attacking" player like Peter Gade.

I noticed that in the modern MS game, when the opponent does a fast drop (commonly thought of as an attacking shot), a "defensive" player like Roslin would take the shuttle high, but instead of playing a net shot, would play a fast lift to the baseline. With modern MS players, a fast drop shot is frequently executed with both feet off the ground, so if the fast lift is executed while the opponent is trying to return to base, a lot of pressure is placed on the opponent to get behind the shuttle.

I would say that with an intention like this, a fast lift so executed can be considered an offensive shot.

The serve, whether low or high, must be considered distinct from other strokes, because the server has very limited options. Contrast this to the much more varied options that a receiver has. It is in this sense that the server is disadvantaged, because he/she has to guess what the receiver wants to do, but the receiver need much less work to decide how to return the serve.

I believe we do agree mostly.

There are certain rules(moves) of playing badminton just like playing chess. You have given one of the common rules; i,e counter the fast drop by returning to the baseline; others like counter the slow drop by net return and etc.

Sometime one could play outside the rule book to catch the opponent's off guard, Tauffik is very good in that; wherease in general Chinese and Danish players tend to play according to certain rules; may be due to their formal training at a very young age!

Regarding if it is really better to attack...
Roslin, Han Jian were very succesful; likewise Tan Aik Huang, Wong Peng Soong were very successful too. The secret is they maintain in "zhu-tung" poistion when they play their shots against "attacking players"; You will find that one could easily being sucked into "bei-tung" position by playing an offensive shot.

Also, the argument here(more on teminology sake); is it right to consider Roslin's "fast lift" as offensive shot while counter PG's fast drop. Technically it is a defensive shot however the shot has been played with the intention to catch PG's out of position and causing PG to lose his "zhu-tung" position.

**Loh** · 07-03-2006, 01:28 AM

I just love Cheongsa's post on "Intention Is The Key!"

**Chai** · 07-03-2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

I just love Cheongsa's post on "Intention Is The Key!"

I just love blue and sunny sky too!

**Chai** · 07-03-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

I think it would be better for everyone to see and hear it from the "horse's mouth" by seeing the dvd personally. In the dvd Prakash Padukone explains that he never, ever, executed a single low serve in his days and that the trend towards the low singles serve was for a ............, which the dvd explains very clearly. A summary from me will only generate a lot of unnecessary posts.

Just wondering if Prakash has said the trend is a very good and positive tactical change ? Why didnt he ever use it i wonder?

If the low single serve was for a .........., does the trend imply that most coaches are leaning toward "it is really better to attack" even in the 3X15 system?

**cheongsa** · 07-03-2006, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by viver

...

You also need to exercise your options when defending. Finishing the rally or regaining the initiative are the best options if possible. Maybe just terminology here.

...

Yes, I can see this too.

Maybe just perspectives or terminology.

I suspect one of the reasons this thread went on for so long is an unnecessary insistence on an certain overhead/underhand strokes being strictly offensive/defensive in nature.

Here's one way to think about it that would perhaps satisfy almost everyone: if we make out a table of strokes that looks like

stroke offensive intent defensive intent

high serve
low serve
forehand clear
backhand clear
forehand smash
backhand smash
forehand drop
backhand drop
lift
drive
net shot
smash return

and tally the number of times each stroke has been used with offensive or defensive intent, some strokes will be used predominantly in an offensive situation, whereas some strokes will be used predominantly in a defensive situation.

I have no clue what such a table of proportions will look like, but I guess the smash might very well be an offensive shot 99% of the time, while a lift might very well be a defensive shot 80% of the time. A smash return, then, might be used with defensive intent 60% of the time, and offensive intent 35% of the time (and 5% of the time with neutral intent --- the player is simply not thinking about the consequence of the stroke).

The other thing to keep in mind is that badminton is an evolving game, not the least because of the change from OSS to NSS. A stroke that used to be predominantly defensive might gradually become primarily offensive over time, and perhaps vice versa too.

**Winex West Can** · 07-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Very interesting observations but in most badminton books and coaching, there are three classes of shots; defensive, building, and offensive which to me usually mean in defensive, you are basically getting replies that are getting you in trouble and your only intent is to defend losing the rally in order to turn it around whereas in building shots you are eliciting your opponents to provide a weak return in order for you to do a put-away to win the rally/point. In offensive shots, you are basically trying to put away the rally/point.

For example, a flick-serve that catches your opponent off-guard is a building shot in that it is highly likely that your opponent will return a weak reply. A low-serve is the same thing if your opponent is not quick enough to attack the shuttle as it crosses the net.

As for cheongsa's on smashing when he's in trouble, that's an interesting concept coz normally you don't want to smash if you are not in position to as you will most likely be out of position to prepare for the return but potentially could surprise your opponent thereby catching him/her off-guard.

Originally Posted by Loh

--- the player is simply not thinking about the consequence of the stroke

I would disagree. If you are not thinking of the consequence of the shots, then you are not playing to win. For example, in order to elicit a smash from a player, you would lift to provie the opportunity and you would probably want to do that if your opponent's smash is weak and totally defensivable.

**chris-ccc** · 07-03-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by cheongsa

I have no clue what such a table of proportions will look like, but I guess the smash might very well be an offensive shot 99% of the time, while a lift might very well be a defensive shot 80% of the time. A smash return, then, might be used with defensive intent 60% of the time, and offensive intent 35% of the time (and 5% of the time with neutral intent --- the player is simply not thinking about the consequence of the stroke).

The other thing to keep in mind is that badminton is an evolving game, not the least because of the change from OSS to NSS. A stroke that used to be predominantly defensive might gradually become primarily offensive over time, and perhaps vice versa too.

Hi cheongsa,

You have made another good injection of ideas(a table of proportions) for the analysis of a shot, i.e. whether it is offensive or defensive.

Also, please refer to kwun's post(Post#219), where kwun mentioned about services with certain percentages.

But you, kwun and I know that players will tally different percentages, based on their different skill levels.

However, you have also reminded me of what I have said before, i.e. “The Game of Badminton is Evolving”.

Some of our contributors are still asking “Can the Service be an Offensive Shot?”

I think some of our contributors are still thinking along the same line of thought as it was proposed by the Inventors of Badminton, i.e. “The server must not be permitted strike the shuttle from above waist height, thereby the server cannot perform an offensive shot”.

This is the same for Table Tennis. The Inventors of Table Tennis thought, “If the server must hit the ball on the table on his/her side first before crossing the net to hit the table on other side, the server cannot perform an offensive shot”.

The Inventors of Table Tennis could not envisage that the Table Tennis Service has become one of the most difficult offensive shots(because of the different spins) to deal with today.

Cheers... chris@ccc

**Chai** · 07-03-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc