So most of us spend a preposterous amount of time watching videos of the pros. But how much are we getting out of this? Are we absorbing the tactical information, or simply being entertained? And how do the possible benefits of laboratory based perceptual training (basically, watching videos of yourself, your opponents, and/or pros) compare to the benefits of actually playing on court instead? 48 college students aged 20-28 years were subjects in a study comparing video-based programs for coaching anticipatory cues with real field training. There was also a placebo group. Both were tested with the Badminton Anticipation Test (BAT 1.0... I couldn’t find much information on this, and really have no idea what it entails. If anyone knows, please speak up... it’s intriguing!) before and after training. Results showed significant improvement in both training and placebo group at all measurement times. Differentiated analysis indicated why. The video group improved due to specific adaptation in the modelling of theirs or their opponents’ shots. They learned to improve their anticipation of the length and width of the shot (more aware of when the bird was in versus out). They also became more aware of the time window of learning effects, and were quicker to adjust to opponents’ changes in strategy. Great improvement was also found in ‘specificity of the movement demonstration’... but I don’t know what that means. So imagine those benefits compounded with those of the training group! Although I can’t imagine how or why watching badminton from a video perspective allows you to call shots more accurately, but hey, since it works, fantastic! Source: Hagemann, N. Memmert, D. 2006. Coaching anticipatory skill in badminton: laboratory versus field-based perceptual training. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 50(6): 381-393
Interesting! My coach told me the same thing awhile ago (to watch professional videos). Maybe its something subconscious that happens.
Sometimes, I watch videos just for entertainment. Other times, I will watch a video just for a specific thing, for example Gade's footwork to come to net. But both ways, I usually pick up little things everytime I watch. I would imagine, just as the study has shown, that by watching professionals play, one's anticipation must be much better, since professionals have the most deceptive strokes. Once we get onto the court, it becomes very easy to spot less-than perfect strokes, hinting at such a stroke or another.
Since my term started in sept, i haven't played badminton much because of all my work. i use to play 3-4 times a week. now it's just once every 2 weeks after a 3 month gap. during that 3 month gap , i examined atleast 15+ matches. Thing i looked for were the type of shots won in each rally and the reason why, examining the positioning at time of shot,etc, types of footwork and more. During my gap, i also did situps and pressups everyday. Since i returned playing last week, i've actually improved according to some people, and managed to beat a few usual players more comfortably. I think video's are a great substitute or source for people who aren't playing, it certainly helped me.
Some suggestions on watching badminton videos : 1. First, just watch the game in its entirety; 2. Watch a second time, this time around just focus on one player's stroke-making; 3. Lastly, watch it for the 3rd time but this time just watch one good player's footwork.
Of course watching videos can have a helpful effect, but that is assuming you know what you're looking for. I met a bunch of figure skating and curling coaches a few months ago, and the topic of using video in coaching came up. Those coaches mentioned that younger, first time users of video would spend most of their time gawking at the screen, admiring themselves on video. What those coaches had to do was identify the useful visual cues that are captured on video that can be used to help those players out. It's probably the same for any sport which uses video. On a slightly less related note, when I was younger my piano teacher discouraged us from listening to audio recordings of others playing the pieces we were preparing to play for competitions. Her explanation was that it is necessary for us to figure out how we wanted our music to sound like, working on our own internal principles. In the end, our performance would end up sounding quite a bit like those in the recordings, but the key difference is that every single nuance is performed because you want it that way, not just because so-and-so does it that way.
video's help? Hi, Video help to a certain extent but if u are looking at execution of techniques, I think this is obviously too fast for my liking. Slow motion will be better. This game needs good n fast co-ordination of footwork,arm,wrist, fingers in order to effectively execute some good shots. Coaching and explanation by trainers will be more beneficial. Lee
Though we are not pros, I find that filming oneself and watching how you play can be quite "enlightening". We always imagine we're hitting the shot this way or that (like the pros ) but when you see yourself on video, it may look way different from what you think! Also, it's good to spot and identify your own mistakes through the video as you can at least see where you go wrong. Sometimes hearing it from your coach / friend is not enough, you need to see it.
well, what I think is that 1) its entertaining to watch a good match, 2) you learn some tactics, 3) you can replay those slow motions and mimmick their moves but its not a good way to learn
i will have to agree with Notnimdab729 (about additional coaching instruc). it is interesting to know that watching videos is beneficial even to the subconcious. but it does help to know what to watch. eg. footwork, stroke, slow motion, typical eg of tactics
What about video coaching from experts? This is something else and is far better than watching videos of players or yourselves playing matches.
It's a good point but the original article seems to be referring to people watching videos of badminton rather than themselves playing badminton. Therefore, we assume these subjects are watching good players already. What you have heard those figure skating and curling coaches say refers to a different set of circumstances. It doesn't mean they are wrong - just what they say is not applicable to this setting. From what you have written, I think there are 3 groups, one placebo group and two intervention groups. Is that right? Equal numbers in each group? Can you rewrite the last sentence again? It's not exactly clear. It sounds like the groups all improved significantly but was that compared to the start of the study or from each other? At the end of the study period, were there differences between groups in their scores? If there were three groups, it sounds like they might have used a repeat measure ANOVA for analysis (assuming the BAT score is regarded as parametric data). Was that the case? Not sure if it is common practice for these studies but did they calculate the sample size beforehand? A bit naughty of them not saying what this BAT 1.0 is. They really should have given a reference for that! I wonder how they measured it. Were the observers who gave this BAT 1.0 score unaware of the group assignment of each group?
If you have access to an expert coach with the facilities to view at the same time. For the majority, I think this is a rarity.
I find that having knowledgeable commentators helps a lot too. To point out some stuff that we may have missed. If they can even do a quick analysis between games, that would be awesome. So many of the videos have such poor commentating that they are basically annoying. "Lin Dan just won a point!" Well, duhhh....
A bit naughty of them not saying what this BAT 1.0 is. They really should have given a reference for that! I wonder how they measured it. Were the observers who gave this BAT 1.0 score unaware of the group assignment of each group?[/quote] They did use ANOVA varient analysis. And you're right, I did mess up that last sentence... both the group that watched videos as well as the group that played showed improvement. I shall go back and correct that. As to the BAT, they referenced it, however, I couldn't dig up the reference... wasn't available on any of the databases I have access to.
Watching enough videos and you can subconsciously imbibe If you watch enough videos of your favorite player, you can subconsciously "channel" that player during your game. Case in point is the basketball player Magic Johnson. When he was battling Larry Bird of the Celtics, he watched enough of Larry Bird's play that he was actually able to become Larry Bird during the Lakers' practice sessions--he said he started making shots he normally would not make, he started playing like Bird. It's especially useful watching a player who's style is emulatable--of course limited by one's physical capabilities.