Thread: Lee Chong Wei ( 李宗伟 )
01-06-2012, 03:31 PM #7226
Given that "technical" is taken to mean that one's game is built on the execution of shots that require more finesse and deception, as opposed to speed, power, or consistency, as far back as 2007, I would say that between TH, LCW, and LD, TH is the only technical player. His technical ability is very much shown through both his deception overhead and at the net, and especially so on his high backhand, where his ability to play a wide range of shots was basically unrivaled. LCW, from what I can recall, was still primarily a speed and consistency player, relying on his defense to frustrate opponents and then going for the attack himself. By the nature of that game, it is difficult to be deceptive. LD, on the other hand, preferred all out power attack to overwhelm opponents, utilizing more of interceptions, fast drives and smashes. While his smashes overhead were deceptive insofar that the opponents had difficulty guessing the direction, LD was far weaker when he came to the net compared to the other top players such as TH, PG, or even CH.
Over the years, I think both LD and LCW learnt from each other and incorporated some of the other's game into their own. At the same time, both of their technical abilities has also improved to the point that I think they are at least on par with, if not better than, TH's technical play in his heyday. Some memorable points that I can think of off the top of my head are LCW's forehand straight drop (played with a crosscourt action, caught out LD quite a few times in AE 2011) and his backhand crosscourt netshot, LD's forehand straight push from the net (his winning formula against LCW in WC 2011) and his backhand crosscourt defensive block. However, I still wouldn't classify either of them as strictly technical players simply because that is not their natural, most instinctive style of winning. While they are capable of this technical play, other aspects of their game are much more noticeable.
I think V1lau's point of view stems from the fact that LCW's game has evolved into one with greater aggression post-OG, such that nowadays he simply piles on the attack, which when combined with his natural speed, renders technical shots as unnecessary and superfluous against most opponents, and thus makes them less noticeable in most of his matches. LD's on the other hand, has become a more patient game of moving his opponent and waiting for the right opportunity, rather than his pre-OG philosophy of pure attack. Such a playstyle would naturally require more deceptive shots to pull the opponent out of position and thus makes his technical ability more obvious.
01-06-2012, 05:54 PM #7227
I'm a die hard fan of my countryman, LCW, but I won't go as far as to say he is a perfect human being and a perfect badminton player. He is a man with flaws. JUST LIKE THE REST OF US, LD NOTWITHSTANDING. Period. SO, let's not go into these "being ... fans" mode of argument now... it's too childish... too... unnecessary... why does BC always been flooded by these little kids, I always wonder. Is it too hard to keep an open mind? Be more rational? Too many provokers nowadays *sigh 10x*
Now back to the main issue... I really appreciate good arguments like yamsyams just posted, chris and some other, whose writings worth one's time to read them and have a thought about those without going berserk over them...agree to disagree, even... but in this currently discussed matter, if lcw having technical ability is determined by him not being on par with LD technically, then, all I can say is, it is not worth an argument. It is just BS. That's a one and truly anti-fan statement. That is just plain ignorant.
As for the original comment of LD not having technical abilities, I reserve my comment. I've seen him play, so I won't say he's totally a non-technical player. But to say LCW is not a technical player, judging by his footworks, for one, being not up to par? *are you kidding me?!?* I totally disagree. He has, if not the best, one of the best footwork and I admire that the most (no bias here). To say his shots did not completely fool his opponents? I disagree. He did fool his opponents, (LD notwithstanding) if not ALL of TIME (is he 'perfection'? duh!), well, everytime he got the best opportunities to do so...
In general, how can you play badminton without applying some techniques in it? *I questioned myself?* How can you even play sport without that technical ability? It's like asking how can I paint a perfect replica of Mona Lisa with just a brush and colors plate in my hand? Just by reading manuals or be born with the skill? *what??!!* *die*
I need to LEARN the right techniques, adapt to it, eventually it became my habit, my best practiced skill, my way of living, my technical ABILITY.
Don't get it, ok simple example, a baby learns to walk, few years later, given proper training and right technique, he finally got the technical ability to WALK handsomely... *ok, perhaps this is not necessary?*
NOBODY was born with the ability to hold a racket and make a great cross court net shot... *oh dear, that very thought sends me rolling*
Thus, the issue of a player not having a technical ability is actually, arguable. But that I let you guys, with more technical knowledge, to discuss. I won't go deep into it as I'm admittingly lacking in that area.
See, it's not that hard to not having too narrow of a mind, no?
That being said, I'm off to NV for some baddy session.
Btw, Good morning!
twobeer liked this post
01-06-2012, 06:32 PM #7228
01-06-2012, 07:00 PM #7229
01-06-2012, 08:43 PM #7230
All I can say is I am confused to read comments saying that LCW has little technical brilliance when he is our World No.1 BWF player.
I consider myself as a coach of Badminton techniques, and therefore this is a pet subject of mine. This is also to answer questions from previous posts (regarding Tang's training methodologies).
So, here is a little list for some of Tang's teaching;
When thinking of Footwork, think of not just moving to reach the shuttlecock. Think of our BALANCE (for every movement we make).
Regarding performing the Technical Brilliance of a stroke, it is the ability to hit the shuttlecock to any particular area on our opponent's court from any area on our side of the court. It's where we want the shuttlecock to land when we get to notice the weaker area of our opponent's court where he/she has difficulty.
If our opponent is not wrong-footed by our 'intended' deceptive stroke, then it is not wise to use it again.
A smash should be around 60%-80% power. And it is to set up for the next shot. A 'KILL' is the 100% power shot that gives no chance for our opponent to return it.
* Good Net-Play:
A good net-play is one that has lots of wobble/tumble/spin that falls very close to the net (best if it falls on the net-tape and then falls down from there) which only allows our opponent to 'LIFT' and/or to do a cross-court net-play reply.
* Speed of Movement:
When we can move faster, we return our shot faster. It gives the disadvantage to our opponent (less time for his/her to do his/her next shot).
* Time Factor:
Many players think of just the 3 dimensions of the shuttlecock' flight, namely height, length and width. The 4th dimension, 'TIME', is very important. Therefore, hitting a shuttlecock flat and/or downwards is always better than hitting a shuttlecock upwards.
* Holding Up The Racket-Head:
The nearer we are to the net, the higher we need to hold the racket-head. Why? Because we have less time to get the racket-head to meet the shuttlecock as it comes over the net.
* Game Plan:
Don't just play the way we like to play, but also play the way that our opponent doesn't like to play.
On different days, we find ourselves having different forms. On some days we have good touches, on other days we have more power. Some applies to our opponent. Therefore, play the way in which we feel comfortable, and to our opponent's discomfort.
* etc, etc, many more......
As I have said before, it would take a long, long post to give info on Tang's philosophy. If he himself does not write a book on it, then I wouldn't too.
Many of my trainees have told me to write a book on how to play 'Better Badminton'. But after training with me for some time, they realised how a demonstration of a particular point is so much easier to do, than to put them down in words.
It's time for us to rest and re-think about Badminton now.
Last edited by chris-ccc; 01-06-2012 at 08:52 PM.
01-06-2012, 09:30 PM #7231
I think you actually have to play against these top players to know their tecnhical skills. You have to be there in the court to receive the shot to experience it. I bet you will standing there flat footed, watching the shuttle land. Watching from the tv is not going to tell you what to anticipate. You just watch the shuttle fly from corner to corner.
On another note, I think LD plays differently against LCW and other players. No disrespect, he can just fool around like yesterday's match against JOJ. These players won't be able to beat him. So, don't read too much on LD performance against other players and to teach LCW how to counter them. LD and CHN team are not so stupid.
undeadshot liked this post
01-07-2012, 12:14 AM #7232
01-07-2012, 12:58 AM #7233
O.T. : hi Jason *wave* - I think I normally don't write this long... I'm not being my normal self this morning, I guess...
Well, Chris, good guess. But no, I was not in bed whole night thinking of it, more like in bed waiting the loading of MS round 16 video to complete and in the end the video watched me sleep . I got fooled numerous times on court today *sigh painfully*. Gosh, this one nice auntie soooo like to do drop shots, by the end of second hour, I wish someone could just drag me home *die*. btw, i think i saw HH when i arrived. That guy is tall, very tall, nuff said... And thank you for sharing on Tang's teaching chris!
LCW played superbly today. I was shocked at the margin in G1. DPY hard works burned to ashes *sigh*
oh and nokh88, yup agree with you. i also learn from my observation and do some trial and error on court of some of the techniques when i got the chance. and yes, when it comes to LD, team MAS really need to look beyond what's being displayed. Think outside the box. Don't believe your eyes (directed to MAS coaches)...hehehe
Last edited by eRa@에라; 01-07-2012 at 01:05 AM.
01-07-2012, 01:22 AM #7234
01-07-2012, 01:45 AM #7235
IMO, ZJH technical game is the best I have seen but ZJH lacks LD health and consistency. To beat LD in a major, be prepared to last 3 sets.
Because LD is taking a 'rest' before OLY12, people see him as slow but I said he is resting for the big game to come, and the 'real' LD is getting peak for OLy12 and his speed and the rest of his arsenal are coming back.
01-07-2012, 02:51 AM #7236
One more LD weapon, his mental toughness, opponents do not win the match until the last point is done. How many times LCW lost in the third set with match points and lead, and still lost. MO06 is of course, an exception.
If you make a list of LD game: mental toughness, speed, fitness/stamina, footwork, technical, jump power smash, defense, anticipation, etc, etc...where do you place his technical?
Then put his opponent, eg LCW, TH, CL, PG, etc to match up to LD list and see which area these players are on par or better than LD. Thats is why LD is a complete player, so hard to beat when he is focussed on the tournament that he wants to win (w.g. WC, OLY, AG, not SS) and the most successful player in majors and baddy history will remember him well.
When I said LD is never a technical player, I meant his technical ranks behind his other attributes and LD does not rely on technical to win.
If LD slips in his form and LCW plays top form, then LCW could win because the margin that separates them is not that far apart. If LD peak as in OLY08, game over, might as well may him his gold medal.
Last edited by OneToughBirdie; 01-07-2012 at 02:56 AM.
01-07-2012, 03:08 AM #7237
01-07-2012, 03:17 AM #7238
As for Chris post detailing Things training methodology, I am with you that Chris made the crap up There is no way that Chris could remember exactly what Thing presumably lectured that many winters ago, unless Chris taped Thing's lecture
Okay, Chris, time to own up and confessed, be honest lah
01-07-2012, 03:21 AM #7239
01-07-2012, 04:12 AM #7240
01-07-2012, 04:27 AM #7241
01-07-2012, 04:34 AM #7242
By cobalt in forum China Professional PlayersReplies: 684: 05-23-2013, 12:25 PM
By 2cents in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 43: 07-02-2012, 07:25 AM
By Han in forum China Professional PlayersReplies: 302: 06-06-2012, 10:12 AM
By Malaysianfan in forum Malaysia Professional PlayersReplies: 19: 06-20-2007, 02:14 AM