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

**viver** · 07-06-2006, 01:58 AM

Hi Chris@ccc,

I think I also asked you before the books you used to get information on the attacking serve. I may have missed your reply, would you mind informing the titles and authors of such books. This information is greatly appreciated.

You know, I also like to get to a level to be able to understand your theories and thoughts.

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

Hello Everyone,

In Post#342, taneepak reminded me of this great ingenious player, Wong Peng Soon. He was one of the few players who had contributed greatly to the Evolution of Badminton. He was never satisfied with the “normal game of Badminton”. He was forever trying to introduce/inject new ideas, with new strokes and new tactics.

When he introduced the Drive Service performed from the outer tramlines, his opponents were taken aback and did not know how to handle it.

But it did not take long for the rest of the world to study and analyse his new skill/tactic, hence finding a way to counter it(and this was explained above by Pete LSD's Post#345).

But the source of honor and distinction is Wong Peng Soon. We need more new ideas and new skills to be brought into Badminton. Let us not play the 50-years-ago Badminton in 50 years time.

This thread is coming alive now. We are now moving into the realm of tactics/strokes/shots all combined together in a package.

And I hope to have a “Wong Peng Soon” in this thread here, who can introduce/inject new ideas, with new strokes and new tactics.

Cheers... chris@ccc

**viver** · 07-06-2006, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by DinkAlot

Ding! At lower levels, I think you can get away with it more but at higher levels, success is much more difficult.

Hmm, I don't know how you got to this conclusion, but it does really make sense.

**cooler** · 07-06-2006, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by viver

Hmm, I don't know how you got to this conclusion, but it does really make sense.

*cough cough*

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ht=drive+serve post #8

**viver** · 07-06-2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by cheongsa

What I am trying to point out is that the definition of a attacking/defending shot will get unnecessarily convoluted, and frequently self-contradictory, if we also try to factor the opponent's capabilities and intentions into the equation.

I think you somewhere pointed out that you are an academic/researcher.

Imagine yourself spending years of your time learning something under a known teacher/professor and assumed you knew the basics well. Suddenly comes a person stating the opposite of what you have learned. Would you be curious or not?

Service itself is a 'no initiative' shot by nature. There is no attacking service according to the Badminton Coaches manual. This same manual is used by the national/provincial level players in China to study and reference. This manual contains the results of years of research and experience of many coaches of one of the badminton powerhouses in this planet.

Here are contributors stating the opposite of what I (and also other contributors) have learned previously and also what is described in this manual. Would it be too much, asking for claryfication if what I have learned is already outdated? If what I have learned is really outdated, would it be also too much asking for references where I can update myself and improve my knowledge.

So far, other than arguing, I haven't seen any information on the above mentioned materials. There are no information of tests, development methods, technical and tactical implementation of the new concept - attacking serve.

Is this discussion useful at all? Or can we call this a discussion at all.

**viver** · 07-06-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

*cough cough*

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ht=drive+serve post #8

If you have practiced enough of your second stroke, this type of serve is not very useful. There is a very high chance of the server stopping the shuttle, but not with the racquet.

**cooler** · 07-06-2006, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Pete LSD

We really need to differentiate players into age group and degree of join mobility. These two factors greatly affect the type of serves employed.

yes, i had said similarly in post #98 of this thread too.
Any shots can be attacking or defensive, depending to whom or from whom.
That's why i haven't participate in latter part of this thread, i didnt want to get caught in this merry go around posting about what is an attacking shot.
-----------------------------------------------------------

06-13-2006, 10:51 AM #98
cooler

Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 8,999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chris@ccc, ur conclusion on my attacking service return shot is INCORRECT.

if u re-read my post #84, point #2 clearly stated my point.

my definition of attacking return serve is any shot that put the opponents in harm(eg, racket clash), out of position or force them to lift because i got an upper hand or opportunity in making that advantage return shot.

If i were to rally against a D- player, a good simple harmless clear is an attacking shot LOL

**cappy75** · 07-06-2006, 04:22 AM

It's clear enough to me that were the players similiarly capable in the game, they will move to gain the initiative. Whoever has the initiative is in an attacking position to hit an 'attacking' shot. Why do you think coaches are telling their charges to move into position early to take advantage of height and shot options. The game is getting faster because nobody would consciously want to take the shot below the net. They only take it because they didn't get there soon enough or that they made the wrong shot choice previously to force them to take it that way. Smash is an offensive shot, always will be. Done right, it'll always put the 'defending' side under pressure. It's doubly so in doubles where even a slight lift would be put away by a competent front player. If a smash failed, then the player probably wasn't in position to hit it in that manner anyway.

Originally Posted by cheongsa

There is a problem with the logic in these two paragraphs.

Let us say Taufik is having a bad day with his smashes, and Kenneth Jonasen is having a great day with his smash returns. Every time Taufik smashes, Kenneth returns the smash, the rally ends, and Kenneth scores a point.

In this match then, Taufik's smash has a 0% rate of scoring a point, and Kenneth's smash return has a 100% rate of scoring a point, ... except that it is executed underhand, and the shuttle travels upwards right after impact!

What I am trying to point out is that the definition of a attacking/defending shot will get unnecessarily convoluted, and frequently self-contradictory, if we also try to factor the opponent's capabilities and intentions into the equation.

I would suggest, once again, that the simplest thing to do is to leave out the opponent, and concentrate only on the player and his/her shots.

The next thing I would suggest, would be to relax the fix tags of 'attacking' and 'defending' on particular shots, since such a rigid definition does not actually take into account the complexity of the game itself, and certainly do not accommodate exceptional use of shots.

**Chai** · 07-06-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by viver

I think you somewhere pointed out that you are an academic/researcher.

Imagine yourself spending years of your time learning something under a known teacher/professor and assumed you knew the basics well. Suddenly comes a person stating the opposite of what you have learned. Would you be curious or not?

Service itself is a 'no initiative' shot by nature. There is no attacking service according to the Badminton Coaches manual. This same manual is used by the national/provincial level players in China to study and reference. This manual contains the results of years of research and experience of many coaches of one of the badminton powerhouses in this planet.

Here are contributors stating the opposite of what I (and also other contributors) have learned previously and also what is described in this manual. Would it be too much, asking for claryfication if what I have learned is already outdated? If what I have learned is really outdated, would it be also too much asking for references where I can update myself and improve my knowledge.

So far, other than arguing, I haven't seen any information on the above mentioned materials. There are no information of tests, development methods, technical and tactical implementation of the new concept - attacking serve.

Is this discussion useful at all? Or can we call this a discussion at all.

Just adding...(another page in my note book!)

First I think everyone here is agreeing to the fact that you could use any strokes/shots to gain advantage(causing damage) on your opponent(s) when you use it at the approriate situation. It is therefore redudant to merely equate a shot that inflicts damage to your opponent(s) is an attacking shot.

The question here is why is it so important to have lengthy debate and discussion about the nature of a badminton strokes and shots; especially service?

First I thought the discussion is a waste of time as we are free to our own opinion. On the second thought, when you have to introduce a badminton stroke to a young kid(may be a future champion!) then you will realise how critical it is to be precise with the nature of the strokes and shots. You do need to introduce to them the correct concept of attack, defence and building shots of the game.

kids have the right to learn and to be taught correctly that when they serve they will be open to the receiver's attack. Only then they will have the right frame of mind in term of learning mental preparation and the techniques of
1. How to prevent, minimise and weaken the receiver's attack.
2. How to position and defend the various options of the receiver's attack.
They could progress later in learning how to build and counter attack.

You could be very smart and very rightly too in proving to an adult that 1+1 = 1; but you cannot use that as the basic to teach the young kids (I have just expand someone's post on 1+1=1) mathematic.

Sometime you might come across a young kid asking few tips from you about service. It will be your choice of how you would want to leave the mark on him/her!

**cheongsa** · 07-06-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by viver

I think you somewhere pointed out that you are an academic/researcher.

Imagine yourself spending years of your time learning something under a known teacher/professor and assumed you knew the basics well. Suddenly comes a person stating the opposite of what you have learned. Would you be curious or not?

Yes, I am into research. And precisely because I am into research, I know I must hold nothing as gospel truth. In fact, in the spirit of research, one must frequently ask questions, and challenge standing assumptions, if there is any reason (or more accurately, any utility) to do so.

I believe the utility of relaxing the definitions of offensive/defensive shots in badminton is in deepening one's appreciation of the complexity of the game. In fact, since no player really execute a shot with purely offensive or purely defensive intentions, we can go beyond what I have suggested, and assign a proportion of offensiveness/defensiveness to a shot. But this will make it even harder to analyze and understand the game.

What I am proposing is the second level in a hierarchy of ways to view the badminton game. The first level would be to assign fixed tags to strokes, depending on whether they are used primary for offense or defense. This is a good picture for beginners to start appreciating how the game is played, and is inadequate for intermediate players, who can better appreciate more subtle variations in the game.

If we then go to the second picture, where we assign fixed intentions for each shot, intermediate players can build on their first-level appreciation of the game.

For advanced players, even this second picture will be inadequate, and perhaps the third picture in the hierarchy, where one assigns proportions of intentions, would aid them in further appreciation of the game.

Like the "revolutions" in physics, new pictures never really supplant old pictures, but enrich them when they become inadequate. For example, classical Newtonian mechanics is good enough for describing most mechanical phenomena, but when relative velocities approach the speed of light, we need to apply the special theory of relativity, to account for deviations from classical Newtonian mechanics. Or, when the objects in motion become too small, we need to invoke quantum mechanics. These three pictures are not contradictory, but complement each other.

Originally Posted by viver

Service itself is a 'no initiative' shot by nature. There is no attacking service according to the Badminton Coaches manual. This same manual is used by the national/provincial level players in China to study and reference. This manual contains the results of years of research and experience of many coaches of one of the badminton powerhouses in this planet.

Notice that I am not saying that these coaching manuals are rubbish, and needs to be discarded. I am saying that the understanding contained therein can be augmented.

Armies of the world maintain doctrinal documents as well, but good generals never really follow everything in them. Rather, they adapt the basic understanding acquired from these documents to the situation at hand, i.e. they move beyond the first-level of complexity captured in doctrine to the second-, and perhaps even third-, level of complexities in the prevailing situation.

One might then ask a natural question: why do the doctrinal documents not attempt to capture at least the second-level of complexity? There are many possible answers, I offer the simplest one here: that not all generals expected to fight according to a given doctrine are brilliant, and the hope is that a mediocre general will at least not screw up the prosecution of a clear and easy doctrine.

Similarly, the Chinese training system churns out thousands of players, and not all are expected to become Lin Dan or Bao Chunlai. The good Chinese players themselves will probably be capable reading the nuances of a game, and therefrom develop higher-level pictures.

Originally Posted by viver

Here are contributors stating the opposite of what I (and also other contributors) have learned previously and also what is described in this manual. Would it be too much, asking for claryfication if what I have learned is already outdated? If what I have learned is really outdated, would it be also too much asking for references where I can update myself and improve my knowledge.

I don't think there are any parts of what you have learnt that is outdated, but your asking for documentary prescription at the second level would be like a rising brigadier general asking for doctrinal instructions at the second-level of complexity. None exist, as far as I know, but someone can write it (perhaps JR, if he has time, or after he retires).

Originally Posted by viver

So far, other than arguing, I haven't seen any information on the above mentioned materials. There are no information of tests, development methods, technical and tactical implementation of the new concept - attacking serve.

Is this discussion useful at all? Or can we call this a discussion at all.

I in fact agree that the serve is special, because of the disproportionate ratio of receiver options to server options. My suggested way of viewing the game as a game of intentions will not capture this unique situation within the overall game play. I personally use a higher-level picture that better captures this 'server's predicament', but then I will have to write many long replies describing what I think `patterns' are. OO programmers who applies design patterns will probably pick it up quicker...

**Loh** · 07-07-2006, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

Hello Everyone,

Decathlon = 10 different events.

Badminton = 10 different strokes(approximately ???).

To me, the Decathlon pushes athletes to their limits of Skill, Stamina and Speed(the three “S”).

I think Loh is bringing/calling to mind by logic or association for consideration that Badminton pushes players to their limits of the three “S”.

And each player has different strengths and weaknesses in the three “S”.

I remember Kwun saying, some 2 years ago, that there are three most fundamental characters that a badminton player should posses. Kwun's three “S” are Strokes, Stamina, and Strategy.

Now, with Loh's injection of this idea into our discussion, he is making us think outside the box.

For me, I have always said that it is “The Art of Playing Badminton”.

We cannot look at Badminton as narrow as many Sports Scientists think.

Cheers... chris@ccc

Thanks Chris

You might like to add another "S" in your collection, this "S" is for Strength. The speed combined with the strength will give you the power. In the decathlon example, apart from skill, strength plus speed is necessary for the athlete to throw the discus, javelin and shot put much farther. In badminton, the deadlist weapon for many players is the big smash and this is possible when he exudes power, a combination of speed and strength.

**Loh** · 07-07-2006, 01:13 AM

Talking about knowledge, in the past, not a few un-truths, half-truths and so-called doctrines have been perpetuated and the truth held back to protect the interests of certain powerful groups.

For a very long time, mankind was led to believe that the earth was flat and no one dared to challenge this 'fact' until it was proven that the earth is in fact "round" or spherical.

In our modern times, much more discoveries and research have been made to uncover our planet's mysteries and the specialized and general knowledge on man's endeavours. There seems to be an endless stream of new knowledge and the answers are never quite conclusive in the sense that new discoveries, concepts and information will be unearthed sooner or later to add on, to improve, to debunk or to supplement the old.

It is with this open mind that I approach the study of the badminton game.

**viver** · 07-07-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by cheongsa

Yes, I am into research. And precisely because I am into research, I know I must hold nothing as gospel truth. In fact, in the spirit of research, one must frequently ask questions, and challenge standing assumptions, if there is any reason (or more accurately, any utility) to do so.

When researching, do you follow (any) rules to conduct your studies. Do you make use of any knowledge you obtained (either in school or later through other studies) to analyse, test and to reach your conclusions.

My point is - sorry, I really don't know your level of play or how involved you were with the game and don't take this as an attack. We have concepts that are passed by some of to the finest coaches of our time, who devoted countless of hours of trial and errors, experimentation, implementation, testing in tournaments, adapted, discussed and until they agreed on the findings/conclusions.

I myself feel that I do not have enough knowledge or experience to contradict what is already stated in the manuals. I am at best an intermediate level player, so high level stuff is foreign to me. On one occasion, my coach (who resumed his functions with the Chinese national team) paid us a visit, he brought with him a tape of the men singles finals between Zhao Jian Hua and Morten Frost. The detailed explanations of the shots, the possible options, the reasoning for selecting one shot over another is just mind boggling. I couldn't possibly thought of all the details and took my coach some time to explain the intrincacies as I was slow to catch.

Expressing an opinion, bringing forward a personal experience that might not seem to match what is being taught by coaches is really fine. It's also fine to bring topics to discuss that may/may not be in the books so we could learn from each other and enrich our knowledge.

This is a forum, and I believe honest discussions will just make it richer and better. Being of different levels is not a problem, as long there is intention to contribute honestly towards a good discussion.

**viver** · 07-07-2006, 01:30 AM

I agree that we should have an open mind to learn more. It's the only way to improve ourselves.

In my opinion, one can (and should) learn more with an open mind, but don't neglect the basics. We cannot cut corners, learning must be gradual. Can we teach in elementary school kids what is taught to university students?

To my understanding, (true) high level players and coaches do not always follow what is in the books. Reason being they are beyond the books. But are we?

Originally Posted by Loh

Talking about knowledge, in the past, not a few un-truths, half-truths and so-called doctrines have been perpetuated and the truth held back to protect the interests of certain powerful groups.

For a very long time, mankind was led to believe that the earth was flat and no one dared to challenge this 'fact' until it was proven that the earth is in fact "round" or spherical.

In our modern times, much more discoveries and research have been made to uncover our planet's mysteries and the specialized and general knowledge on man's endeavours. There seems to be an endless stream of new knowledge and the answers are never quite conclusive in the sense that new discoveries, concepts and information will be unearthed sooner or later to add on, to improve, to debunk or to supplement the old.

It is with this open mind that I approach the study of the badminton game.

**Loh** · 07-07-2006, 02:03 AM

I have also seen and noted that some coaches may be inferior to their trainees in skill and other attributes, even when they were at their prime, but not necessarily in knowledge to be able to help their trainees improve further.

So we can have a very good coach who may not be the best player in his days.

**viver** · 07-07-2006, 02:40 AM

True, a very good coach does not necessarily need to be an excellent player. For high level coach, having been exposed to high level environment helps.

**Chai** · 07-07-2006, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by viver

I agree that we should have an open mind to learn more. It's the only way to improve ourselves.

In my opinion, one can (and should) learn more with an open mind, but don't neglect the basics. We cannot cut corners, learning must be gradual. Can we teach in elementary school kids what is taught to university students?

To my understanding, (true) high level players and coaches do not always follow what is in the books. Reason being they are beyond the books. But are we?

High level players and coaches will always go back to the basics and trying to simplify the rules! Some could envisage a new rule; most will follow the rules; some just dont follow the rules!

Didn't a report last year quoting Lee Chong Wei saying that he went back to the basics to practice his footworks and strokes with Li Mao?

Can we try the layer approach on the service?

1st level Defensive stroke
2nd level The defensive shot(?) is open for the receiver's attack, however
the server could intent to "attack" the receiver using appropriate
options of serve (short, long or fast, angled) if the receiver
1. Out of position
2. has poor technique in taking shoulder height shot
3. has poor techinque in taking over head shot
4. has poor technique in taking the below shoulder shot
5. etc
3rd level ?
4th level ?
X level

I believe if you try the same exercise on the other strokes; you will see the 2nd level (intention of attack) for all the strokes are mostly common, i.e it is "attacking" on the receiver's weakness! From 3rd level onward, the stroke is not the variant anymore!

**cheongsa** · 07-07-2006, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by viver

When researching, do you follow (any) rules to conduct your studies. Do you make use of any knowledge you obtained (either in school or later through other studies) to analyse, test and to reach your conclusions.

If you are suggesting that I have to rely on prior knowledge to get my work done, then yes, I do have to rely on prior knowledge.

However, when trying to synthesize new understanding, I do not question all prior knowledge. Only philosophers do that!

Like Chai said, the basics are important. But we keep revisiting them not because we want to make things simple and keep ourselves sane, or stay proficient in basic stroke production.

If, while revisiting the basic premise of a stroke, we also question the validity of the premise, and explore various possibilities, the old understanding is not lost, but enriched.

I have a friend who is a mathematician. He once told me that a good mathematician always have many different proofs to the same standard theorem: there is the simple one that is taught to undergraduates, a few slightly more difficult ones that are taught to graduate students, and then a few really difficult ones that can be understood only among experts in the field. The reason why mathematicians keep revisiting simple theorems to find more and more difficult proofs is to enrich our understanding of these simple theorems.