User Tag List

Page 426 of 589 FirstFirst ... 326 376 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 476 526 ... LastLast
Results 7,226 to 7,242 of 10013
  1. #7226
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  2. #7227
    Regular Member eRa@에라's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    807
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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!

    Cheers!

  3. #7228
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    MALAYSIA
    Posts
    10,375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eRa@에라 View Post
    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!

    Cheers!
    Good morning, Era...........long writing in such a early morning......good for u !!

  4. #7229
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonmarc View Post
    Good morning, Era...........long writing in such a early morning......good for u !!
    .
    Era must be thinking about this topic of technical brilliance in bed the whole night, and therefore now going to try some of them in her baddy session at NV.
    .

  5. #7230
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    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;

    * Footwork:
    When thinking of Footwork, think of not just moving to reach the shuttlecock. Think of our BALANCE (for every movement we make).

    * Stroke:
    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.

    * Deception:
    If our opponent is not wrong-footed by our 'intended' deceptive stroke, then it is not wise to use it again.

    * Smash:
    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.

    * Form:
    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.

  6. #7231
    Regular Member nokh88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    8,441
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eRa@에라 View Post
    I'm a nontechnical casual baddy player and mostly just observe. I'm dumbfounded by this claim as well pbmMalaysia. If lcw is not technical player then what has he been showing us thus far? Not badminton? Circus trick? *faint*
    I too, also a nontechnical casual player. Most of us here are just watching the game from tv while some have very good skills and playing high level badminton. It is the latters' comments that we should accept where skills are concerned.

    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.

  7. #7232
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,766
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    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;

    * Footwork:
    When thinking of Footwork, think of not just moving to reach the shuttlecock. Think of our BALANCE (for every movement we make).

    * Stroke:
    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.

    * Deception:
    If our opponent is not wrong-footed by our 'intended' deceptive stroke, then it is not wise to use it again.

    * Smash:
    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.

    * Form:
    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.
    .
    thanks chris.... Wa!! it is one of the best post I have read on this forum...

    I need to think about every single sentence in this post.... but keep writing chris, we want MORE!!!!!

  8. #7233
    Regular Member eRa@에라's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    807
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  9. #7234
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Chris,

    Thank you for your time posting and sharing your ideas. But with due respect, I do not think they are Tang Xinfu's teachings or philosophy. Some of the information below are good points for playing badminton, for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    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;

    * Footwork:
    When thinking of Footwork, think of not just moving to reach the shuttlecock. Think of our BALANCE (for every movement we make).

    * Stroke:
    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.

    * Deception:
    If our opponent is not wrong-footed by our 'intended' deceptive stroke, then it is not wise to use it again.

    * Smash:
    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.

    * Form:
    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.
    .

  10. #7235
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V1lau View Post
    To all the LCW fans, where is LCW "technically" better than LD. It's definitely not at the net! It's definitely not his smash or drives! It's not footwork or clears! At best LCW is a push on some of these items and at worst he is far behind( net, smash, clear). Most of LCW recent deceptive shots have being performed by LD and TH for years now.

    I'm not saying LCW doesn't have good shots, but they aren't astounding and I rarely see his shots completely fool opponent or have them on the wrong foot. LD accomplish this a few times every dozen points.

    All the best players have/(or at least should have) perfect basics, so when I think of technical ability it is to add the extra creativity of disguise, pace, touch. I see this a lot of this in LD's game and I see a more basic game in LCW.

    You can be upset or "speechless", but you haven't even giving me a definition or any reason other than you can't believe someone could say this about LCW. To me the original comment of LD not being a technical player is just as laughable, but at least I give you reasons why and not just say "I can't believe it, LD Jia You".
    Must have touch a nerve here, got you excited lah! It is laughable and dumb to see you list LD technical game as his strong point. LD did improve on his netting but IMO (again, read this slowly, it is my opinion which we are all entitled to, just because you don't see people have rights of speech), LD's technical game rank behind his speed, stamina, fitness, run-and-gun, defense (he pioneered diving defense), jumping power smash (IMO, the best out there), and the one gift he possesses i.e. anticipating where the birdie lands, are his best weapons. With these attributes, LD is the best player he is. If LD technical game is equal or better than the afore mentioned, LD must be the best player in all department in the world, past and present. I am not saying LD technical game sucks, but is behind what I listed above.
    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.

  11. #7236
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  12. #7237
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nokh88 View Post
    I too, also a nontechnical casual player. Most of us here are just watching the game from tv while some have very good skills and playing high level badminton. It is the latters' comments that we should accept where skills are concerned.

    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.
    I too a very non-technical player, just able to not die on court and not getting ducks, survive a match without embarassing myself is an achievement. I only displayed my vast arsenal of technical moves when playing against my matured ladies friends, making them run all over the court like a magician waving a wand and LOL like a hyena...my wife said I am mean, I know I am bad

  13. #7238
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver View Post
    That's why I am so interested in Chris-ccc's comments on his training with Tang Xinfu. There must be something that XXZ does not have
    Thing commands RESPECT. We can call it LD arrogance but that is the way it is and how I see it.

    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

  14. #7239
    Regular Member extremenanopowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SG. Go for NCAP-L2 certified coach.
    Posts
    11,695
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol...................

  15. #7240
    Regular Member pBmMalaysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie View Post
    Thing commands RESPECT. We can call it LD arrogance but that is the way it is and how I see it.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 lectureOkay, Chris, time to own up and confessed, be honest lah
    You guys not paying Chris you think he's going to reveal those training methodology ...hahaha . Remember, guys what the thing taught Lin Dan may not be good for you, me or even lcw .

  16. #7241
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    685
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    wait a minute.... i also played at NV this morning....and i also played with a nice auntie (in golf shorts!) who likes to drop a lot...hmmmm
    Quote Originally Posted by eRa@에라 View Post
    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

  17. #7242
    Regular Member pBmMalaysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V1lau View Post
    To all the LCW fans, where is LCW "technically" better than LD. It's definitely not at the net! It's definitely not his smash or drives! It's not footwork or clears! At best LCW is a push on some of these items and at worst he is far behind( net, smash, clear). Most of LCW recent deceptive shots have being performed by LD and TH for years now. I'm not saying LCW doesn't have good shots, but they aren't astounding and I rarely see his shots completely fool opponent or have them on the wrong foot. LD accomplish this a few times every dozen points. All the best players have/(or at least should have) perfect basics, so when I think of technical ability it is to add the extra creativity of disguise, pace, touch. I see this a lot of this in LD's game and I see a more basic game in LCW.You can be upset or "speechless", but you haven't even giving me a definition or any reason other than you can't believe someone could say this about LCW. To me the original comment of LD not being a technical player is just as laughable, but at least I give you reasons why and not just say "I can't believe it, LD Jia You".
    I used speechless is not to upset you, pal. If I wrote what was on my mind reading your post earlier (which I didn't and shall not) you will be speechless not me. Please read carefully.

Similar Threads

  1. Li Xuerui ( 李雪芮 )
    By cobalt in forum China Professional Players
    Replies: 815
    : 06-30-2014, 11:50 PM
  2. Li Na ( 李娜 )
    By 2cents in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 43
    : 07-02-2012, 07:25 AM
  3. Li Yongbo ( 李永波 )
    By Han in forum China Professional Players
    Replies: 302
    : 06-06-2012, 10:12 AM
  4. To everyone especially those from China: I am 李宗偉,not 李崇偉!
    By Malaysianfan in forum Malaysia Professional Players
    Replies: 19
    : 06-20-2007, 02:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •