Results 103 to 119 of 449
06-13-2006, 05:00 PM #103Originally Posted by chris@ccc
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.
06-13-2006, 05:18 PM #104
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 ?
06-13-2006, 06:01 PM #105
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 ?
06-13-2006, 06:04 PM #106Originally Posted by KooGuy
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...
06-13-2006, 06:30 PM #107Originally Posted by twobeer
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.
06-13-2006, 07:12 PM #108
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?
Originally Posted by chris@ccc
06-13-2006, 07:18 PM #109Originally Posted by Chai
06-13-2006, 07:23 PM #110Originally Posted by twobeer
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.
06-13-2006, 09:03 PM #111
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.
06-14-2006, 01:33 AM #112Originally Posted by viver
06-14-2006, 02:00 AM #113Originally Posted by viver
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.
06-14-2006, 02:17 AM #114Originally Posted by taneepak
06-14-2006, 03:24 AM #115Originally Posted by cooler
He could take you breadth away with certain moves and next make you feel so sorry for his unnessary indulgence and mistakes.
06-14-2006, 03:37 AM #116Originally Posted by Chai
06-14-2006, 04:12 AM #117Originally Posted by taneepak
06-14-2006, 04:39 AM #118Originally Posted by taneepak
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!
06-14-2006, 05:01 PM #119
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.
Originally Posted by Chai
By wisdomcivet in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 12: 03-07-2011, 08:15 PM
By Break-My-String in forum Coaching ForumReplies: 0: 11-08-2006, 06:47 AM
By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 21: 06-05-2006, 07:03 AM
By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 50: 04-26-2006, 05:40 PM
By MoS in forum General ForumReplies: 11: 01-05-2003, 02:55 PM