Results 18 to 34 of 159
03-01-2007, 12:08 AM #18
I can relate to the statement that in badminton singles the game is being played more like doubles to an extent. Players serve small these days more often than high because they don't want to give their opponents the advantage to attack just like in doubles. We see more attacking clears rather than defensive clears. We also often see battle of drives and shots aimed at the body of the players unlike the long rallies from the old days. The singles game is also played at a faster and higher tempo similar to doubles. Having said that there are still differences between singles and doubles already mentioned by others here. The correct thing to say is that singles is played MORE like doubles rather than say singles is played like doubles.
03-01-2007, 12:59 AM #19
In the old days of Thomas Cup matches most of the top singles players also double up in doubles for their country. Even the great singles player Hartono played doubles for Indonesia. Today, singles players don't get to play doubles anymore. Surely, the widening difference between singles and doubles today must be a factor for this.
03-02-2007, 12:19 AM #20
I don't recall Rudy Hartono playing doubles in tournaments but I suppose he could have played doubles in team events such as the Thomas Cup against inferior teams. I can't see Rudy playing doubles in Thomas Cup against the top teams such as Malaysia or Denmark. I know that Liem Swie King played doubles at an elite level and won major titles with Christian Hadinata and Bobby Ertanto. If I am not mistaken Liem Swie King also sometimes played doubles and singles in Thomas Cup even against the top teams. To date as far as I know Liem Swie King is the only single player that I know who is also successful in singles and doubles at the elite level.
In my opinion the reason why players no longer play singles and doubles anymore is not because there is a widening difference between singles and doubles today but rather to the more competitive nature of badminton today compared to the old days. Badminton today is more demanding in terms of fitness, speed and power which leads to a higher degree of specialisation. In the old days it is not until the semifinals or finals that badminton is played at a competitive level. In the earlier rounds players like Rudy Hartono wins comfortably in straight sets under 5 points. These days more people from different countries play badminton and it is not uncommon for a top seed to lose in the earlier rounds (eg Lin Dan in the 2004 Olympics losing to Ronald Susilo from Singapore). The matches in earlier rounds are also more competitive. In light of this more demanding task it is foolish for a singles player to also compete in doubles.
In the old days doubles specialist like Christian Hadinata manage to play singles and doubles and do well. Christian made it to the All England finals in 1973 where he lost to Rudy in the finals relatively easy (under 5 in both sets if I am not mistaken).
Peter Gade was the World Junior doubles champion and became a singles specialist and has done very well. Recently we see Xie Xuan Ze an ex singles player playing mixed doubles but he only plays doubles when he no longer plays singles. It's not that singles players can't play doubles these days as a good singles players would be able to play doubles at a reasonable level but rather the more demanding nature and more competitive nature of badminton makes it extremely strenuous to play singles and doubles.
Why do you think singles players mostly serve small these days? A lot of them also serves small with a backhand serve usually most common in doubles. The basic strateggy in doubles is to keep the shuttle down to prevent your opponent from attacking (smashing). This has become the common singles strategy today. The players of old basic singles strategy (especially Euroepean players) is to rally and out manouvre their opponents by moving them to the four corners of the court. A smash is only employed as a coup de grace to end the rally at the right time. Although Rudy is one of the pioneers of an agressive style of play Rudy is only employs a smash at this very right time to end the rally and is better known as a master tactician rather than a truly agressive/attacking player like Liem Swie King. Smashing to the body in the old days is unheard of and you could hardly witness a battle of drives between players. Players serve long to the baseline because they know that this is the beginning of long rallies commonly seen in those days. Serving small is rarely seen in singles in those days and serving small with a backhand serve (ala doubles serve) is unheard of. Even the European players who traditionally is the rallying type plays an attacking style of badminton commonly seen in doubles in the old days. Peter Gade even serves small with a backhand serve when even the European doubles player of the old days serves with a forehand.
All these changes in singles are mainly influenced by not giving your opponent the chance to attack by hitting the shuttle down and not lifting the shuttle high which is the traditional tactic of playing doubles. Obviously there are still differences between doubles and singles but it is incorrect to say that there is a widening difference between singles and doubles today (this conclusion is not backed up with premises or explanations as to how one can come to this conclusion in terms of how doubles and singles are played today). If anything there is a narrowing difference between men's singles and men's doubles today as I already explained.
Last edited by sabathiel; 03-02-2007 at 12:27 AM.
03-02-2007, 01:18 AM #21
Some of the players who played both singles and doubles for their country many years ago:
-Denmark : J Skaarup, Skaarup, F Kobbero, E Kops, S Pri, Frost Hansen, etc.
-Malaysia : Ooi Teik Hock, Ong Poh Lim, Eddy Choong, Yew Cheng Hoe, Tan Aik Huang, Punch Gunalan, J Selvaraj, etc.
-Indonesia : Tan Joe Hock, FA Sonneville, R Hartono, Liem Swie King
-USA : Mitchell, R Williams
Today : Please fill in .................................................. ..
03-02-2007, 02:41 AM #22
I have given an explanation as to why players today don't play singles and doubles anymore. I also explained that there is a narrowing difference between how singles is played and how doubles is played. However, I have not come across to any explanations of the conclusion that there is a widening difference between singles and doubles. So if anyone would like to back up the conclusion with explanations or arguments as to how there is widening difference between singles and doubles I would appreciate that. To say that singles and doubles is different is one thing but to say there is a widening difference between singles and doubles is stretching the truth too far and in my opinion indefensible.
03-02-2007, 06:51 AM #23
The widening difference between singles and doubles is due to increased specialization on the different basic fundamentals of the two games.
Singles basic tactics are to run your opponent about as much as possible by playing to the four corners, using clears (both attacking and very high defensive type) and drops (mainly to the two front corners). On seeing a less than good return from your opponent you can then go in for the kill.
It will be silly to do this singles tactic of clears to the back and drops to the two front corners in doubles. Even the drop in doubles avoids the front sides like poison and opts for the centre instead.
The absence of top singles players playing top level doubles today is because singles players today will be very poor doubles players at the highest level. The same applies to doubles players trying to play singles. This is a fact, as shown in statistics. Of course you can try to rationalize the reasons for this, either one way or another way, but they are at best a lot of words that are subjective. Hard statistics are more objective, because they have no "colour".
The basic tactic is different. There is more undefended space in singles. Singles players have much better footwork and backhand, the latter very necessary for that big unguarded space. An attacking clear in singles is an attacking shot to move the opponent around. An attacking clear in doubles is plain silly.
03-02-2007, 11:29 AM #24
Just want to give my 2 cents..
..and chime in on this(if you guys don't mind me jumping in)..
Well, personally, the *only* "difference" i've seen in the current generation of competitions, esp. in singles play, to the old generation of competitions is the prevalent use of the.....short serve...
More short serves than one of those long deep serves, esp. in MS...Although in WS, nowadays, it's arguable that they still employ the long, deep serve..
As to why it's more prevalent in MS than in WS??...who knows..
Last edited by ctjcad; 03-02-2007 at 11:32 AM.
03-02-2007, 12:34 PM #25
Originally Posted by ctjcad
I think the whole idea of the short serv is because pros can smash near the line so there's no reason to make a long serve and lose the rally right away.
For average badminton players, I think a mix of short, long and flick serves is a good way to go.
03-02-2007, 01:07 PM #26
Sorry, meant to write..
"Well, personally, the *only* "difference" i've seen in the current generation of PROFESSIONAL IBF/BWF competitions, esp. in singles play, to the old generation of PROFESSIONAL IBF/BWF competitions is the prevalent use of the.....short serve..."
03-02-2007, 07:01 PM #27
Despite the apparent similarity of the low backhand serve you find in singles and doubles, they are actually different. To play it the same way for both games can be suicidal. Just watch more videos to find out.
03-02-2007, 07:28 PM #28
Originally Posted by taneepak
It is a common tactic in doubles in the past and today to move your smashing opponent from the two back corners of the court by lifting the shuttle (retrieved from a smash) into the backhand corner if the smasher was smashing from the forehand corner and vice versa. Hence it can be said that the two back corners of the court is also used as in singles. A drop shot to the centre of the court is often used however it is not unusual to drop to the front 2 corners of the court to avoid monotony especially if the corner is unguarded or to catch your opponent by surprise. Hence all 4 corners plus the middle court as well as the opponents body are legitimate targets. It is true in singles nobody dropshots to the centre but the body of the opponent is nowadays a legitimate target unlike in the past.
Clears from the back of one's court to the back of one's opponent court in men's doubles is rarely seen (but common in women's doubles) or even unheard of at the top level. Having said that at lower levels (ie non world level) the attacking clear is sometimes used in men's doubles to catch the opponent by surprise (as they would be expecting a drop or smash). I play A grade badminton in Australia and sometimes employ the attacking clear with some good effect as well as some of my opponents. This is because at our level if caught by surprise the only thing a player can do is to clear back and sometimes the result is a half court clear which can be smashed more easily. At world level the male players are way too fast to anticipate this shot that is why you don't see it played in men's doubles. An attacking clear is employed to force your opponent off guard in the hope he can't return the shuttle or if he manages to return the shot his return is weak so it can be smashed. This is the main aim of an attacking clear not to simply move your opponent around because a defensive clear can be used to move your opponent around also.
You mention statistics but I didn't see any statistics you provide. So the argument based on statistics doesn't help your case at all. if what you mean by statistics is the fact that no singles players play doubles and no doubles players play singles this fact alone doesn't lead to a conclusion that there is a widening difference between singles and doubles. It simply shows that singles players don't play doubles and doubles players don't play singles. My case is that the reason of this is because the more competitive and more demanding nature of badminton today compared to the old days which leads to specialisation. The players simply do not have the stamina to excell in singles and doubles at the same time. The abundance of pool of singles and doubles players at world level also mean it is not required for those players to play both singles and doubles. Having said that at a lower level I know that Tony Gunawan plays singles for the USA for the lack of high quality singles players and Tony is good enough to beat those lower level opponents in singles. At a national and state level in Australia it is very common for male players to play singles, men's doubles and mix doubles in team events and to a lesser extent in tournaments.
An attacking singles player like Liem Swie King is very good in men's doubles for the reason that he can be the more effective doubles partner playing the back court where he can leash his smashes. Paired with a partner who is good at the net such as his partner Christian Hadinata this can make a lethal combination. Even lesser attacking singles players like Icuk Sugiarto and Morten Frost Hansen can play effective men's doubles by playing the back court because a singles player can reasonably attack well from the back. So pairing these singles players with a doubles specialist who covers the net well is a good idea. Singles players of today who are even more accustomed to playing attacking games (often with sharp drives) will have no problem with playing men's doubles by specialising as the attacking player playing at the back. It is common in doubles to arrange the attacking player to play at the back and if he happens t be at the net during an attacking formation (front and back in contrast to side by side) the net player at the back would only have to smash cross court and let the attacking player at the net anticipate the high straight return to the back by moving backwards. The result is a reverse of position, now the attacking player at the net will be at the back and the net player at the back will be at the net.
You are correct in saying that singles players are better in footwork than doubles players (I don't know about the better at backhand bit). This is why singles players will have no problem in playing doubles but the reverese is not true. Doubles players will have problems in playing singles if he has no good footwork. Good footwork in singles is not a handicap in doubles where there is less use of footwork.
You have shown (with errors) how singles is different from doubles. With respect this is not the argument, the argument is whether there is a WIDENING difference in the way singles and doubles are played today compared to the way they are played in the past. My case is that there is a NARROWING difference not a WIDENING difference and I have elaborated this by analysing the difference of how the games are played in the past and how they are played today plus how a singles player can with reasonable comfort play doubles with examples. I wait for the required comparative analysis of past and present singles and doubles.
03-02-2007, 07:35 PM #29
Originally Posted by taneepak
03-02-2007, 08:49 PM #30
For starters, lifting a short singles serve to the back is ok. Would you do this in doubles? You could get away with this in doubles in the old days by lifting to the backhand corner, but not today.
Lifting to the two corners when returning smashes in doubles is all sound and fury but it doesn't change the fact that you have not changed the staus quo-you are still defending and your opponents are still attacking. The single major objective in doubles is to play every shot, every stroke, to force your opponents to lift. It is from these high shots that you and your partner have 'engineered' with all your cunning, teamwork, guile and skills to force your opponents to 'gift' you, that you are on a winning run. In singles, a high lift to the back when returning a low serve is not a 'gift'.
The two low serves look similar but they are different underneath.
There are also other differences. Perhaps you can volunteer.
03-02-2007, 10:08 PM #31
I just watched the finals of the Asian Games 2006 MSF between Taufik and Lin Dan and observed the principles of doubles mainly used in the match. It is rare where you find a player who clears to his opponent getting another clear back as a matter of fact I can't remember two consecutive clears used in the match. Everytime a player is forced to defensively lift from the net (due to the tightness of the net shot) or to clear from the back the opponent capitalises on this by either smashing or doing a drop shot like in doubles. The player attacking will not give away this advantage of attacking the shuttle by doing a clear. In the old days a battle of clears in singles is dominates the rally and is often seen but not these days at least not in the match I observed (Asian Games 06 MSF).
Most of the serves are low and short and many if not most of the return serves are net shots. If a player receives a small serve and wants to play the back court of his opponent he will most likely push it to his opponent's backhand or if it is to his forehand (rarely seen) it would be deep into the back forehand court to avoid an easy smash. A defensive lob from the net after a short serve is not seen unlike in the past due the reason that this would be seen as an invitation to the opponent to attack. Once a player is in an attacking mode (in a position of hitting the shuttle down) the best thing his opponent can do is to drive the smash or to return the shuttle to the net thus challenging the other player to a battle at the net. Taufik's superior net play and backhand at the back gave him the advantage over Lin Dan.
Although no doubt the game still has a singles principle (using the four corners of the court) this principle is less used compared to the old days and the doubles principle of not lifting to the back (hence keeping the advantage of being in an attackng position) unless one is forced to do so or the player does a deep push to the backhand side or deep forehand of his opponent. From this one can also conclude that a defensive lob from the net to the forehand in return of a small serve which enables the opponent to smash and hence be in an attacking mode can also be seen as a "gift". Prolonged rallies from the back court of the old days no longer exist particularly under the new scoring sytsem where the game is faster and come backs from behind are difficult to achieve. Thus players of today will not risked being on the backfoot of defending and will keep attacking as the chances of winning the rally is higher if one is attacking rather than defending. Maybe you have the match I just observed which I would say is today's typical strategy in men's singles.
I must say that long rallies from the back court is still often used in women's singles as the women's speed and strength are nowhere near the men's speed and strength.
In regard to the low/short backhand (or even forehand serve) the difference that I note is in the position of the server. In doubles the server serves right behind the T line at the front obviously because he has a partner to cover the back court. In singles today the server stands further away from the front T line of the court obviously since he has to cover more ground at the back court.
Hence the specific case of the Asian Games 06 MSF provides the proof that at least in that match there is a narrowing difference, not a widening difference, between singles and doubles today. I am sure other recent matches also supports the same conclusion.
03-02-2007, 11:02 PM #32
Originally Posted by sabathiel
03-02-2007, 11:33 PM #33
Try watching the match that I observed to see whether you agree or disagree with my match analysis.
But just because Taufik and Sony or Bao Chun Lai and Lin Dan aren't playing doubles don't necessarily mean they are not formidable doubles players. It is simply means that they don't want to play doubles not that they can't play doubles today. In any event combining two singles players together is unheard of at world level in any era to my knowledge. At least one of the player in the pair must be a doubles specialist. Why would the singles players of today play doubles when they are facing tough competitions in singles. You would have to be a superman to play both doubles and singles today. The chances of suffering an injury is very high. How often do we see players with ankle supporters or various other supporters in the old days. These days many players try to prevent injuries by using these injury prevetion measures. It goes to show of the very demading nature of playing badminton at world level today. Off course if these singles players want to retire from singles and concentrate on a doubles career this would be a different story such as in the case of Xie Xuan Ze.
Only countries that lack players field players in singles and doubles such as Mia Audina for the Nederlands and Tony Gunawan for the USA. I can't see why great doubles players like Tony Gunawan cannot perform well if paired with Taufik or Sony for the reasons I have already mentioned. Mind you earlier in their careers (junior level) all players play singles and doubles. Doubles players play doubles because they are not good enough to play singles but a singles player is good enough to play doubles. Remember when the great women singles player Li Ling Wei teams up with I think it was Han Ai Ping (another great women's singles player) and beats all the top doubles players in the 80s?
Another point to consider is that just because two players are great individually, either in doubles or singles, it doesn't mean that they will make a good doubl pair. They might not gel well together like Tjun Tjun who won All England 6 times with Johan Wahyudi in the 70s but doesn't play well with anyone else. Even if they gel well together they have to train together to familiarise themselves with each other's game. Without training no matter how well they play with each other they will lag behind the other pairs who train together as well as gel well together. So 2 great singles players won't necessarily make a good doubles pair even today where the singles game in my opinion is played more like doubles because they adopt the basic principle of doubles play. Can you imagine a singles player training in doubles and singles in national training camp. As I said only superman can do this in today's high demanding badminton.
Last edited by sabathiel; 03-02-2007 at 11:41 PM.
03-02-2007, 11:56 PM #34
Originally Posted by ctjcad
Just finished watching the AE final between Morten Frost and ZhaoJianHua, I wonder why this game cant provide me that kind of excitement i had before (used to be my favourite when i was small) when watching it mayb because after the exposure of the more agressive play of today's MS style.
And I couldnt agree more with Sabathiel, it's almost like my words coming out from his mouth, BUT of course in a more refined and well defined manner. Thats why a professional is professional.......
I have corrections to be made though, it should be "Singles is played MORE like Doubles" instead of "Singles in played like Doubles".
[Request] best double game ever playedBy djkalai in forum Badminton Tournament Video SharingReplies: 12: 07-17-2010, 07:37 AM
By ethelstan in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 21: 11-29-2005, 08:22 PM
By glide3dfx in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 1: 01-10-2003, 11:16 AM
By Sum in forum General ForumReplies: 2: 03-08-2001, 12:23 AM
By vince in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 14: 02-28-2001, 08:38 PM