Results 137 to 153 of 449
06-15-2006, 03:42 PM #137
Initiative or no-initiative is just a description of the situation when the player is hitting the shuttle.
A player in a 'with initiative' position have a choice to attack or play a less aggressive shot. On the other end, a player in a 'no initiative' situation does not have attacking options, either play a safe shot or try to surprise the opponent with an unexpected placement - which is similar when serving.
In 21x3 games, matches are shorter and players can play a high pace game through the match. Can watch the game between Bao and Gade in SO. Gade attacked everything and played in a very high pace. Wonder if PG could maintain the same pace in a 15x3 system.
Is it better to attack in a 21x3 system? Badminton is an attacking game, whether in 21x3 or 15x3. In my opinion, 15x3 allows you more varieties of play when compared to 21x3. Shorter games allows players to play mostly in a single pace - no gears change is necessary.
Originally Posted by chris@ccc
06-15-2006, 04:02 PM #138
kwun is right. Let us compare to FIFA Germany 2006Originally Posted by kwun
As kwun reminded us, the Question is "21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?". This is the essence of the question.
Under the NSS, the side that attacks and fails loses a point.
Because we are of different skill levels, it might be difficult to comment generally. I, as an experienced and skilled player, can keep lifting the shuttle(defensively) for my less experienced and weaker opponent to smash. He is attacking and I am defending, but I know I can do better and win the match.
May be, if I can throw in a different scenario, you might appreciate what I am trying to say.
Since most of us are all watching FIFA World Cup at the moment, I will use a FIFA scenario.
If team A allows the team B to have a shot at goal(on purpose, tactically), and if team B fails to get the ball into the goal mouth, then team A is awarded a point(a goal)... this is what the NSS is about.
I hope you know what I mean now. It might not be really better to Attack under the NSS.
This is a question of tactics between 2 equally skilled opponents playing each other.
06-15-2006, 04:10 PM #139Originally Posted by viver
06-15-2006, 04:13 PM #140Originally Posted by chris@ccc
06-15-2006, 08:37 PM #141
You can use Liem Swie King vs Morten Frost or Han Jian games to answer your questions. Usually if the match goes to 3rd game Liem loses. Watch what happened in the first 2 games and make your own conclusion.
PG games in AE, SO, he kept attacking at almost anything that came to his side of court. He smashed and was so fast to attack at the net. Would he be able to keep this high energy and pace in a 15x3 match?
Therefore, in my opinion 'really better to Attack under the NSS' is not a question. We can go back on history, the changes to badminton technical and tactical point of view from the 60's, attack was always first in their mind. This did not change much until today and will not change with the 21x3 system. What remains to be seen is, when the real 21x3 players emerge, how will they play the attack.
Shorter games will benefit players that are fast and strong, not necessarily the more skilled ones. Since 21x3 could be much shorter in terms of duration, a less skilled player has a much better change to beat a much better player relying only on speed and power.
If history serves as a lesson, go watch how the Chinese players played in early 90's - maybe the early Dong Jiong, Sun Jun, Luo Yigang, etc. I may be wrong, but I believe it would give us an idea of what to come.
Originally Posted by chris@ccc
06-15-2006, 09:41 PM #142
See if I could add more to what have been said by Viver and cooler.
In any game, you always “attack” the weakness of your opponent, likewise your opponent will “attack” your weakness.
The bottom line is you always “attack” regardless if it is the 3x15 or the 3x21.
At the professional level, what has been saying 1) When to attack; Cooler mentioned Taufik will tire his opponents and then go for the kill at the later part of the game. I saw Lin Dan and Lee Chong Wei had been using the same strategy; Cat and Mouse.2) The 3X15 allowing the Cat and Mouse strategy, as the cat could toy with the mouse for infinite if necessary, however with the 3X21 the cat has lost this “infinite” factor, and the mouse will be no longer tired and will bite the cat instead! 3)Viver and others including myself do believe that the new strategy to win the 3X21 is the strategy that is used by Peter Gade and the new generation of players will be primary focusing on certain strokes like net play and smash that will give them high returns –I sincerely hope we are wrong here!
06-15-2006, 09:46 PM #143Originally Posted by kwun
06-15-2006, 09:53 PM #144
Shot is not = strokeOriginally Posted by ChaiHi Chai,
To me a shot is not = stroke.
If I mention to you about "your stroke", I would be referring to "the transfer of your weight, your body movement, your arm action, your grip, your racket swing, etc,...". In other words, how you are hitting the shuttle.
But if I mention to you about "your shot", I would be referring to "the trajectory of the flight of the shuttle that you have hit, starting from the point of impact from the strings of your racket, over the net to your opponent's side".
When I teach my younger children(say age 6) to do an Overhead Clear(the stroke), they usually do the Overhead Dropshot(the shot). I hope you can see what I am trying to say here... because they do not have enough power(because they are younger and weaker), their stroke production for the Overhead Clear resulted in a Overhead Dropshot.
I laugh at them. And they laugh with me too.
But they and I know... as they grow bigger and stronger, their Overhead Clear stroke will eventually produce the Overhead Clear shot.
When I coach older children(say age 12) to do a Return of Service, I would teach them how to attack a service. I would teach him/her how to do a shot that could do harm(disadvantage or damage) to the server. I would teach him/her how to move his/her opponent away from the “base position”, for example.
But when I coach International players, I would suggest more other ways to achieve it, not necessarily by forceful and powerful stroke, but with gentle strokes as well.
06-15-2006, 11:04 PM #145
06-15-2006, 11:08 PM #146
I think it is still too early to say if it is better to attack playing the NSS. Different countries will try their very best to fully exploit to their advantage under the NSS, just like the early and pioneering Chinese who introduced the speed and power dimensions into the game. In every game you need technique, fitness, tactics, and your brain. It will be your brain which will eventually choose the best combination of the other three, and as always such a combination will be adaptable to the type of opponent you will face.
06-16-2006, 01:32 AM #147
Since you coach international players, you surely have prepared them for this 21x3 system. Care to share your training methodology under the 21x3 system.
Originally Posted by chris@ccc
06-16-2006, 02:13 AM #148Originally Posted by chris@ccc
When you teach the "attacking" clear stroke, do you tell them how to transfer their body weight? and the angle of the racket face when it hits the shuttlecock? Do you tell them that never hit the shuttlecock up into the air ? Do you tell them when and where to use the stroke? Well we do thing differently then for sure.
I wonder if I should use the term stroke cycle, with start position, travelling phase, stroke-move, recovery phase and new court position, but that is English coaching terminology(surely Jack Downey will be impressed!)
06-16-2006, 02:17 AM #149
Sorry, my last post has got nothing to do with the question of "Is it really better to attack?"
06-16-2006, 02:44 AM #150Originally Posted by taneepak
I wonder if you could share your thoughts on what type of tactic and strategy is good to play badminton.
06-16-2006, 03:16 AM #151Originally Posted by Chai
1. i said taufik is a slow starter, this does not equates to tiring his opponents purposely from the start. To tire out your opponents, it will COST U ENERGY AS WELL. If it is that simple to do like what u say, I like to tire my opponents ALL THE TIME. I do not think taufik is an endurance player, so imo your logic is flawed. What and why taufik do what he does i'll leave u to figure it out. Just watch some of his video and u should know.
3. net play and smash works very well under OSS too, taufik, like u and taneepak said, use it all the time under OSS. If this work even better in NSS, then why taufik hated the NSS so much?? your logic don't drive.
Last edited by cooler; 06-16-2006 at 03:19 AM.
06-16-2006, 04:12 AM #152
Thank you Chris for your illuminations and others too for your expositions.
Your ability to galvanize our thoughts and summarize them into an organized whole deserves our congratulations! I certainly have learned something from this discussion.
06-16-2006, 05:35 AM #153
what happened here, did spitko attack more than baht?Originally Posted by chris@ccc
Badminton: Bhat bows out of Malaysian Open
New Delhi, June 15: Arvind Bhat's irresistable form eluded him against Roman Spitko of Germany as the Indian lost in straight games in a pre-quarterfinal tie to bow out of the four-star Malaysian Open badminton tournament in Kuching tonight.
Bhat, who caused a major upset earlier in the day toppling world No.6 Kenneth Jonassen of Denmark, failed to make his giantkilling act count, going down 14-21 17-21 to the German.
Spitko, whose win against Bhat also avenged his defeat at the hands of the Indian in the Thoams Cup in April, will meet Lee Hyun II of Korea in the quarterfinal.
In the men's doubles, Rupesh Kumar and Thomas Sanave beat Malaysia's Yung Jin and Abdul Rahman Rafiz 21-17 21-19 to move into the quarterfinals, where they will meet another Malaysian pair of Lin Won Fui and Mohd Fairuzizian.
World no. 61 Bhat, regarded as a talent to reckon with but prone to choking in crunch moments, played a fiercely attacking game to cost for Jonassen.
The mechanical engineer from Bangalore showed scant respect for the reputation of his opponent, thrashing the fifth seed 21-16 23-21 to set up a clash with Spitko.
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