User Tag List

Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast
Results 103 to 119 of 449
  1. #103
    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 Everyone,

    As we are talking more and more about services, ie whether a service can be an attacking shot or not... we have to consider what is defined as an attacking shot.

    Different postings from different contributors tell me that we are not talking on the same wavelength. This could be because we are players of different skill levels, of different schools of thoughts, etc, etc...

    So until we can agree on a definition, we won't make any progress in this forum.

    My experience in coaching Badminton over the decades tells me that most players think that an attacking shot is a shot that is executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court. But now my trainees have learned something new from me.

    My trainees now know that an attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm to his/her opponent, and it is a shot executed for that purpose alone.

    Games like Pool, Snooker or Billiards are 2-dimensional games, length & width. I have played and enjoyed them. Badminton, on the other hand, is a 4-dimensional game. And I prefer Badminton better because of the extra 2 dimensions of height and time, although, Loh and taneepak, based on their postings, might want to add in another dimension, the 5th dimension, ie the human element... mental strength, feeling of being in control, toughness, psychology, etc, etc...

    However, I am saying that we can attack with 1,2,3 or all of the 4-dimensions, length, width, height and time.

    Please remember my definiton...”An attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm”.

    From my “first time to Badminton students”, a high service(in Singles) to the back tram lines is an attacking shot. This is because it pushes the opponent(also, first timers) to the back of the court. This is to do harm by moving the opponent away from the centre of the court. Of course, if Peter Gade is to serve high to Chen Hong, Chen Hong will not consider it as an attacking shot because it causes him no harm. Chen Hong can deal with it easily.

    From viver, an experienced player, the S-Service(which is now banned) is an attacking shot. It is because it is a very tricky shot to deal with.

    From Loh and taneepak, a good service or good netplay shot can be an attacking shot. It can force the opponent to lift or force the opponent into difficulties(time wise).

    Another example of an attacking shot is the shooting service that taneepak mentioned. In fact, at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne 2006, New Zealand claimed that Australia was cheating in their sevice when Australia played the shooting service.

    From cooler and KooGuy, an attacking shot is a shot executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court.

    From Chai, sendoh and chewablemorphin, any shot hitting upwards is not an attacking shot. I thought Loh hinted to us that PG beat BCL in the Singapore Open 2006 by attacking him with excellent netplay, but you did not see it that way.

    From jerby, not only can you attack the opponent's court, but you can attack your opponent's stamina(the 6th dimension???).

    From franxon and badrad, an attacking shot is good provided we are more careful to avoid errors. Here franxon and badrad tried to tell us that that an attacking shot is a tighter shot, a riskier shot to play.

    For me, an attacking shot is any shot that forces the opponent to receive it not only below net height but a shot that puts pressure on the opponent time wise.

    Here, I have 2 examples that hitting up shots can be "attacking";

    -------------------------------------
    1. I learned from Darmadi, the Indonesian National Champion in the 1960's, that you can attack your opponent with a upward shot. His example is the attacking clear(giving very little time to your opponent to react). I have played with him and learned from him.

    2. From the Sidek brothers, I learned the S-Service(now banned) is an attacking shot because it causes lots of difficulties to your opponent because the spinning and wobbly effect of the service.

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

    We can even attack a smash if we can return a smash with a drive(giving him/her less time) to a corner far away from the smasher. This is using all 4 dimensions of the game, correct length, correct width, correct height and with less time.

    Also we can now see that many players have learned to play a netplay shot with lots of spin and wobble. To me this is an attacking shot even though it is an upward shot. It can cause harm to your opponent. With the spinning and wobbly nature of the shot, your opponent might want to play safe and reply by lifting. But of course, your opponent can also spin it back to you, in other words, counter-attacking you.

    I have also mentioned that as we progress with Badminton, we will learn new things. Soon we will learn better ways to deal with the spinning/wobbling netplay. At the moment, I tell my trainees to learn to spin/wobble it back at the netplay to force opponent to lift. Or even gently hit the spinning/wobbling shuttle with their racket frame instead of the racket strings.

    So you see, an attacking shot can be performed with gentleness. Perhaps you can see my philosophy now, as Bruce Lee put it “You can attack your opponent with force or with gentleness”.

    So, for all of us in this forum, let us define what an attacking shot is before we go any further.

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

    I know exactly what franxon and badrad mean when they said “we have to be careful to avoid errors”. To play attack, we are subjected to more errors compared to if we play a safe/control shot. We can be risking errors if you play a harder smash, a tighter dropshot, a spinier netplay, etc...

    To me, even a deceptive shot that can wrong foot your opponenet is an attacking shot.

    When I started this thread, I was thinking of all the points that I mentioned above. But I realise now that I did not know that different people look at the concept of “attack” so differently.

    I apologise for it.

    Wow... what a long post.

    Cheers... chris@ccc

    You could twist the fact ....but

    For me; Shots = Strokes (example forehand low serve); and technically we classified the shots based on their usage in the rally.

    By the way, do you teach your children how to attack the service too ? would you teach them to deploy underarm shots (low serve or high serve strokes) as one of the options of attacking the service? It will be a good fun game of seeing who can lift the shuttle higher and further!

    We have been debated, at length, that when you serve; the rule restricts you to lift the shuttle upward and not downward thus giving the receiver the slight upperhand in dictating the rally; and most receiver has many options of "attacking" shots to choose to inflict the damage on the receiver.

  2. #104
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is net play an attacking shot?

    Can you use net play to attack your opponet?

    Or you could attack your opponent by using net play as a building shot and then follow by a killing shot ?

  3. #105
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I am having fun here.

    "We can even attack a smash if we can return a smash with a drive"

    Will that occur to you that it is also possible for your opponent to smash even harder and faster on your drive ?

  4. #106
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KooGuy
    Serving is very important for badminton and not many badminton players realize that. With the NSS, the more reason to do so especially in doubles where there is one serve. Just look at some of the players in a doubles game at the local club, how many of them can really serve well under pressure. It will be fun to watch those players who cannot serve well to play under NSS...

    Just how often do players practise serving? I would say not many..even during training session. Most of them just go to the club and start playing the game.
    I discussed this lengthy with some international doubles players.. And their stance is that even with OSS serving is EXTREMELY important in high-level MD/XD today.. The NSS change makes this very important shot.. grotesquely important.. It's not good for the game at all... The margins alowed are now so small so the element of chance will become a big factor in high-level play..
    a server 2 mm too high, 1mm off or on the line, a service fault-called, or an illegal serve allowed, or a faulty line-call will be enough to decide a game or even the match

    This is not a good development for the sport...

  5. #107
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    I discussed this lengthy with some international doubles players.. And their stance is that even with OSS serving is EXTREMELY important in high-level MD/XD today.. The NSS change makes this very important shot.. grotesquely important.. It's not good for the game at all... The margins alowed are now so small so the element of chance will become a big factor in high-level play..
    a server 2 mm too high, 1mm off or on the line, a service fault-called, or an illegal serve allowed, or a faulty line-call will be enough to decide a game or even the match

    This is not a good development for the sport...
    I am more concerned for the young kids who starting to play; will they get the fun of learning the game by playing? I have seen the games are over with both young beginner hardly exchanging any shots.

    Young beginners could easily lose the interest of the game; as it is real boring for the young beginner to practice the service.

    By the way it is much easier for young begineer to execute the overhead shots than executing underarm strokes.

  6. #108
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My apologies if I mentioned that the reverse spinning serve (to be more specific and separating from forehand spinning serve) was an attacking shot.

    Serve by nature (rules of badminton) is not an attacking shot and from my perspective (influence by my coach) including the reverse spinning serve. What the reverse spinning serve does is, due to its unpredictable flight pattern makes it difficult for the receiver to attack it efficiently. From a proficient reverve spinning serve player's point, the player knows the generated flight pattern and can easier attack the return shot. This would give the server undue advantage over the receiver, which is not desirable in badminton.

    Regarding the strokes, there are of course situations where same stroke could be defined as defensive or aggressive. A lift can be defensive or can be aggressive depending the situation that led to it - like Jarby's term which I think is most correct, you did a lift in a situation of 'with initiative' or 'no initiative'.

    Similarly, defending against a powerful smash, and able to place the shuttle in a spot that caught the smasher motionless, is this an attacking shot? To me it is still a defensive shot.

    My badminton experience is limited to Chinese coaches. As a player I only had Chinese coaches (provincial and national level ones). For badminton course also only Chinese coaches from provincial/national teams and Chinese sports schools. Not sure about others. How about yours?


    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc
    Hi Everyone,

    As we are talking more and more about services, ie whether a service can be an attacking shot or not... we have to consider what is defined as an attacking shot.

    Different postings from different contributors tell me that we are not talking on the same wavelength. This could be because we are players of different skill levels, of different schools of thoughts, etc, etc...

    So until we can agree on a definition, we won't make any progress in this forum.



    From viver, an experienced player, the S-Service(which is now banned) is an attacking shot. It is because it is a very tricky shot to deal with.


    Cheers... chris@ccc


  7. #109
    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 Chai
    I am more concerned for the young kids who starting to play; will they get the fun of learning the game by playing? I have seen the games are over with both young beginner hardly exchanging any shots.

    Young beginners could easily lose the interest of the game; as it is real boring for the young beginner to practice the service.

    By the way it is much easier for young begineer to execute the overhead shots than executing underarm strokes.
    True. Many players can clear but still challenged to do an underarm serve.

  8. #110
    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 discussed this lengthy with some international doubles players.. And their stance is that even with OSS serving is EXTREMELY important in high-level MD/XD today.. The NSS change makes this very important shot.. grotesquely important.. It's not good for the game at all... The margins alowed are now so small so the element of chance will become a big factor in high-level play..
    a server 2 mm too high, 1mm off or on the line, a service fault-called, or an illegal serve allowed, or a faulty line-call will be enough to decide a game or even the match

    This is not a good development for the sport...
    From what I understood from my friend who saw Li Yongbo's interview, it was more or less what he said. With the 21x3 a good part of badminton skills will not be necessary.

    21x3 defenders will tell you that players will need to improve their service skills.

    Personally I think service quality will eventually be irrelevant - also the defensive skills, since one can win the match as the receiver. Like how Peter Gade played his match with Lee Chongwei, Kenneth Jonassen: just good net play and deadly smashes.

  9. #111
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Taufik has perfected his game to a simple unplayable net tumble followed by a killer smash, irrespective of whether it is the OSS or the NSS. That is what we all should aim for, in both singles and doubles. It is the net that controls the outcome, for what follows is merely the coup-de-grace.

  10. #112
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    My apologies if I mentioned that the reverse spinning serve (to be more specific and separating from forehand spinning serve) was an attacking shot.

    Serve by nature (rules of badminton) is not an attacking shot and from my perspective (influence by my coach) including the reverse spinning serve. What the reverse spinning serve does is, due to its unpredictable flight pattern makes it difficult for the receiver to attack it efficiently. From a proficient reverve spinning serve player's point, the player knows the generated flight pattern and can easier attack the return shot. This would give the server undue advantage over the receiver, which is not desirable in badminton.

    Regarding the strokes, there are of course situations where same stroke could be defined as defensive or aggressive. A lift can be defensive or can be aggressive depending the situation that led to it - like Jarby's term which I think is most correct, you did a lift in a situation of 'with initiative' or 'no initiative'.

    Similarly, defending against a powerful smash, and able to place the shuttle in a spot that caught the smasher motionless, is this an attacking shot? To me it is still a defensive shot.

    My badminton experience is limited to Chinese coaches. As a player I only had Chinese coaches (provincial and national level ones). For badminton course also only Chinese coaches from provincial/national teams and Chinese sports schools. Not sure about others. How about yours?
    Is it not everyone follow Newton's and Einstein's mathematical models? The training methods from different coaches could be different but the principle of how to play game proper is universal, surely badminton is not a rocket science!

  11. #113
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    From what I understood from my friend who saw Li Yongbo's interview, it was more or less what he said. With the 21x3 a good part of badminton skills will not be necessary.

    21x3 defenders will tell you that players will need to improve their service skills.

    Personally I think service quality will eventually be irrelevant - also the defensive skills, since one can win the match as the receiver. Like how Peter Gade played his match with Lee Chongwei, Kenneth Jonassen: just good net play and deadly smashes.
    Good observation, may be you could explain explicitly, to the benefit of some, if Peter Gade has used the same tactic in the 3X15, will it be very effective strategy to win the game?

    In the 3X15; you could model the game in two phases.
    1. "Serve" to win a point, the priority is how to deny the receiver attack/initiate/dictate the rally. Mastering of the defending and counter attack strokes are essential.
    2. "Receive" to win a service; the priority is how to attack the server. Mastering of building and attacking strokes are essential.

    I hope the model is not so much different from your chinese coaches.

  12. #114
    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 taneepak
    Taufik has perfected his game to a simple unplayable net tumble followed by a killer smash, irrespective of whether it is the OSS or the NSS. That is what we all should aim for, in both singles and doubles. It is the net that controls the outcome, for what follows is merely the coup-de-grace.
    it maybe effective but it make Singles less exciting to watch.

  13. #115
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler
    it maybe effective but it make Singles less exciting to watch.
    Please; taufik is the most exciting player to watch, he could attack with ease; he could defend with ease too. His strokes are graceful, and he is very human too, i.e sometime he succumbs to making unneccesary errors.

    He could take you breadth away with certain moves and next make you feel so sorry for his unnessary indulgence and mistakes.

  14. #116
    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 Chai
    Please; taufik is the most exciting player to watch, he could attack with ease; he could defend with ease too. His strokes are graceful, and he is very human too, i.e sometime he succumbs to making unneccesary errors.

    He could take you breadth away with certain moves and next make you feel so sorry for his unnessary indulgence and mistakes.
    Only when his mind has not gone 'tiga susu'. When he is on high he can even make Lin Dan look silly with his trademark unplayable net tumble and then a put-away smash. But he is not always on high, especially when he has to fight so many demons in his mind.

  15. #117
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,903
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Only when his mind has not gone 'tiga susu'. When he is on high he can even make Lin Dan look silly with his trademark unplayable net tumble and then a put-away smash. But he is not always on high, especially when he has to fight so many demons in his mind.
    I thought when one is on 'high' as in hallucination, one is bound to see demons and ungodly disturbances from the nether world!

  16. #118
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Only when his mind has not gone 'tiga susu'. When he is on high he can even make Lin Dan look silly with his trademark unplayable net tumble and then a put-away smash. But he is not always on high, especially when he has to fight so many demons in his mind.
    I dont think you comprehend what I have said; the reason why he is exciting to watch including the way he committs errors too...If he is just a net play and smash player then it is just like seeing a robot in action! He is spoilted by too many options of shots/strokes he has...sometimes he just choose the wrong one...sometimes he chooses the shots that you dont teach from the manual!

    Times and times, he could turn from defensive position to offensive position in just one graceful stroke! That is how many people fall in love with badminton too; turning the tide...Didnt some one has said Liverpool vs AC Milan was one of the greatest match ever; coming back from 3-0 down?

    Do you know the mental side of why many player prefer to serve (other than winning a point?), it is the satisfication of winning a rally from the defensive position! yes turning the tide.

    Now why are we (new contributors in the forum) defending the 3x15; yes hopefully we could turning the tide!

  17. #119
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,748
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That summarize what I have learned in the theoretical lessons. Further to what you have mentioned, the coaches stressed the importance of the 3rd stroke as part of the game development. It is essential for the server to have very good overall game skills to keep the shuttle in play (attack/initiate/dictate the rally part), otherwise the server will not be able to balance (or reverse the trend) the rally.

    The big negative aspect of 21x3 to me, is this part (defending and reversing the role from the server side) will be taken away. If I were a coach, I would dedicate more time in reception and finishing skills. Defending will play a lesser part in the player skills development.

    As for Peter Gade's game, without taking any merit on his victories, I would assume he would not be able to sustain same pace in 21x3 for the 13x5. Similarly the match against Bao, PG again used his speed and power to win the match, which was very intelligent of him.

    Back in the 90's, China tried similar approach for players development - developing few specific strokes, and focus on speed and power. It did not work well with the 15x3 system (1st they could not sustain the high pace throughout the match; and players with good all around skills, i.e. Joko Suprianto, Hoyer-Larsen wore them out), maybe it could do the trick now since the game is much shorter - and 1 dimension.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    Good observation, may be you could explain explicitly, to the benefit of some, if Peter Gade has used the same tactic in the 3X15, will it be very effective strategy to win the game?

    In the 3X15; you could model the game in two phases.
    1. "Serve" to win a point, the priority is how to deny the receiver attack/initiate/dictate the rally. Mastering of the defending and counter attack strokes are essential.
    2. "Receive" to win a service; the priority is how to attack the server. Mastering of building and attacking strokes are essential.

    I hope the model is not so much different from your chinese coaches.

Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 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
  •