Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: Singles Strategies.
09-23-2006, 12:20 AM #1
I have been wondering as a Defensive Singles Player, do many players tend to do more clearings when blocking an opponent's smash? Or do they return it with a light drop? Because I have been trying to play as more of a Defensive -style player recently and I haven't have much sucess of being one.
Duing my games, I have been blocking smashes after one another and hopfully the opponent will eventually miss the smash...
Any suggestions to improve my game..?
09-23-2006, 12:22 AM #2
why limit yourself to one type of return?
sometimes lift it all the way back, and then sometimes block it to the front court. make your opponent run back and forth. that's the key to the defensive player, variations.
09-23-2006, 12:26 AM #3
depends on how good you are at blocking a smash. If you have an over 80% sucsess rate, then clear more and be ready for the frustrated drop for you to quickly kill or the clear for you to clear back and frutrate further.
Because you are obviously not in the highest levels of play yet, a defensive style is still a viable straagy, although it is almost always better when your opponent has a huge repotoire of tricks and shots to 'attack' more then to defend.
Think of it this way. Try hit more shots that go 'down' that go 'up'. As in more smashes, drops, drives than clears lifts and netshots from below your waist.
09-23-2006, 05:02 AM #4
All the variations are useful, but the block to the net is the most common reply to a smash in singles. If the smash is very flat you could drive it back for a winner, but this is a high-risk shot.
The block should be your standard reply because it is easy -- you just have to get your racket onto the shuttle -- and because it forces the smasher to move very fast to reach the shuttle.
Opponents may anticipate your blocks, however, so be aware of this and vary it when necessary.
09-23-2006, 07:25 AM #5
just a question, that might clear somethign up (for me)
do you define a defensive player as a player who:
-léts the opponent attack (excessive lifting/clearing) and then take advantage
or -makes an effort not to let the opponent attack, but never cheases initiative
09-23-2006, 08:05 AM #6
Originally Posted by jerby
These categories lead most players to call themselves "offensive players", because they think that is more advanced (like the top players who can smash really hard).
A player's self-assessment in this matter is almost always based on feeling and ego, rather than anything rational.
To be a good player, you must be able to attack and defend, and choose the right time to do so. You must also be aware that many "defensive" strokes can become "offensive" in the right situation.
I don't believe that anyone can be a complete player without developing these abilities, but many players like to cover up their weaknesses by saying: "Well, that's my style of play. I like to smash"; or "Well, that's my style of play. I like to place the shuttle with defense."
If a player has a powerful smash but weak defense, that does not make him an "offensive player". It just means he has weak defense and needs to improve it. Calling him an "offensive player" makes his weakness sound like a good thing.
Alternatively, some players use these labels to describe their tactics: "I'm an offensive player because I like to win rallies with smashes"; or "I'm a defensive player because I like to use clever placement to win rallies".
This is also a damaging way to think. In any badminton situation, you have tactical choices. You should make a tactical decision based not on how you like to win rallies, but on what is most likely to win the rallies. This will often depend on your opponent.
If you style yourself as an offensive or defensive player for tactical reasons, then you are limiting your tactical development. You are trying to make badminton rallies fit your "style", when really you will my more successful if your "style" is broader and more adaptable.
I recognise that it's valuable to be aware of your strengths and weaknesses when making tactical decisions, and also the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents. But I believe that these crude categories of "offensive" and "defensive" players are harmful because they make your badminton too simplistic and prevent you from developing your game.
Take me as an example. I can smash quite well, but my smash defense is weak. I also prefer to play smashes, net kills, and net shots -- attacking shots -- rather than lifts. Sometimes this makes me lose rallies because I try to play an attacking shot that isn't tactically sound.
But I would not describe myself as an offensive player. I just describe myself as a good player with some technical and tactical weaknesses that must be addressed if I want to get better.
It may seem like arguing over semantics, but I believe these "offensive" and "defensive" labels are often used by players who are in denial about their weaknesses. Since they never recognise their weaknesses, they never improve -- and they just play the same, tired, old, incomplete style of badminton forever.
So stop saying, "I'm an offensive player."
Say instead, "I need to work on my defence."
Stop saying, "I'm a defensive player."
Say instead, "I need to work on my smashes."
Last edited by Gollum; 09-23-2006 at 08:15 AM.
09-23-2006, 08:48 AM #7
amen, that cleared up a lot.
(in terminology, not personal)
as my coach told me: "you have all the basics, you cover the court well, you backhand might need work, you're aroudn the ehad is good, you have all the fundamentals, that's your strength" (skipping the other 9 minutes of his speech) to wich I replied "so I'm not really good at anything" he:"erm..yes but that's not a bad thing"
back to terminology: offensive/defensive could also be taken a level higher: Initiative, gameplan.
Then you coudl state offensive player take charge of a rally, and defensive pakyers are more "oppertunitists" (can't fidn a better word...perhaps 'lazy')
Lookign at it that way, the smasher might be defensive, and the 'placement player' actually very offensive...
This way it's a lot more vague, and a broader term..
09-28-2006, 11:44 AM #8
Well, I guess just play how you normally play and spot the weaknesses of the player. And attack it!
10-02-2006, 06:12 PM #9
vary your shots, block some fast, some slow, drive some to the sideline or to the body, if you really need to clear high and deep
10-06-2006, 09:16 AM #10
Originally Posted by Gollum
By LuckyBoy in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 4: 04-08-2007, 09:36 PM
By tneiba in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 3: 04-09-2006, 12:30 AM
By quik_silver in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 3: 12-26-2005, 06:22 AM
By shiann_88 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 1: 03-03-2003, 01:46 AM
By jkusmanto in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 4: 07-11-2002, 10:13 AM