how do you teach someone to be smart during a game? i was playing with a friend yesterday. this guy is a good player. he has good basics and he can play fast and hard games, but his shots are too predictable. he doesn't use his head and he likes to smash and smash but always smash to the same places. and he tries too hard to smash and never vary his strokes. at the end of the game, he often exhaust himself and runs out of steam. then all shots are loose and mistakes all over the place. i tried to tell him not to try too hard smashing and vary shots during the game. but i try to limit pestering in the middle of the game. esp when he thinks he isn't playing well. i am also trying to "read" the opponent more and taking riskier rushes to the net. often successful, but inevitably at times he will end up getting stuck at the back and taking more of the physical work. anyway, i played with another partner later on and he isn't a particularly "power" player but he is smart. he can vary shots and read the game well, often manipulating the opponent effectively. he has much better placement as well, the opponents was less capable of reading his shots. i immediate found that he and i "clicked" and we agree the shots that we make and we ended up being a much better matched pair. another thing that i'd like to point out is that people we played against are people we play every week, some 2 or 3 times a week. we basically knows everything about each other, and sometimes we pretty much know what they are going to do before they hit anything. so being smart and vary the shots is very important in situations like this. anyway, that was the story. my original question is how to teach something like this? smartness and varying shots have very little fixed formula that one can teach, perhaps everything is supposed to be learned from the game by experience? are we stuck? or perhaps i am just expecting too much from my partners?
Kwun, You don't think your first partner might be lacking in confidence in his other shots? Other times, it could be that we are so conditioned to play a shot a certain way that there was no thinking involved and it was just reaction (instinct). Hence, sometimes, we can play certain shots to force expected replies from the opponents. Is he aware of the various strategies and possible shot selections? I think it is just a matter of making him aware other possible replies than just smashing. (Definitely not in the middle of a game but after the game when you both have to analyse what went well and what went wrong).
WWC, confidence is one of them, too reactive is the other, and i think both have a factor. in general, it is much easier to smash the birdie down than doing variations. smash has higher level of success, drops requires much more precision and control. however, smashes are also the easiest shot to return if you know that all they are gonna do is smashing. the most effective ones i find are the smash/drop mixture. even when we are doing just smashing, we should smash to different places, or else the opponent just stand there as if they are doing drills. another thing is drives. a lot of guys are prone to just drive as hard as they can, ignoring the fact that controlling the drive or just light hitting to empty spots is usually more effective. i haven't tried to analyse a game off-court. i don't know how to start talking strategy as sometimes it is so situation dependent. is there a way to generalize what one should do during a game? generalized enough so we can describe it concisely on paper, but specific enough so it is applicable instead of the 30000ft view of the game. or do we just need to learn from experience? as our brain is so tuned to doing so? i truely believe that when it comes to badminton at our level, strength and power do not replace the mind. i guess it is time to watch more women's doubles tapes.
hehe Kwun..the way you ask the above question reminds me of the Sarah Jessica parker's voice over from Sex and the City when she's thinking out loud.. I think in a way, you've answered your own questions. It's a mix of all the above. Often I think experience plays a big part in teaching a person (from his/her mistakes and also from trying out a new shot and found it works) to be smarter on the court. However, I think the kind of 'smartness' you're talking about also depends a lot on that individual and whether that person is a 'thinker' or not. It's like anything, you can either succeed by persevering and continuously working hard at something, or you can work out a smarter way of achieving the same result. As to whether you can teach someone to think on court and to be smart about the kind of shots they play (either by experience or by being told by another player), I think you can..but it again depends on whether you're teaching it to a thinker or a non-thinker. Obviously, by telling a person that it's better to hit X shot as opposed to Y because of this and that..making them understand why X shot is better than Y will teach them to apply this later on. However, compare these two different individuals, say Batman and Robin. For Batman, other than applying that new shot, that's it, he will go no further in varying his game, he'll simply add this new shot. This type of teaching is more of a 'push one step, move one step' type and Batman won't be able to progress any further or be any smarter on court. Now Robin, maybe upon the similar guidance as above, may realise that not only applying that new shot works, but it can also be varied, improvised and changed slightly depending on who he plays and the positions of the opponents on the court etc. to achieve further winning results. So as you can see, both Batman (non-thinker) and Robin (thinker) get taught the same thing but Robin will automatically be able to become smarter on court whereas Batman's smartness remains almost stagnant (but for learning that one new shot). I'm not saying that badminton players are either Batman or Robin, there will some that are somewhere between these two extremes, but in essence, smartness on the court is a mix of individual's inherent ability to think on court and the experience s/he gained. Finally, as to whether your expectation is reasonable or otherwise, obviously it's subjective isn't it Kwun? I mean it depends on your perception of how much does one has to do in order to be considered as a smart player on court? Again, you're right in saying that perhaps because you play with the same ppl all the time, you automatically expect that a 'smart' player would realise that constant variation of the game is necessary in order to win. However, I think overall, regardless of whether you play someone once in your life or ever week, you still need to have the ABILITY to vary your game and to think on court as not only can you vary your game, remember that your opponents can too! So e.g : If you play in a tournament and it's the first time u come up against this player. You start off playing your normal game and it works and you win the first set 15-7. Your opponent, then smartly changed his game in the second set, reading your game well and also able to confuse you with his new game plan. Then, you will have to be able to be smart and change your game plan to confuse your opponent so he /she can't read your game. So rather than whether you do change your game or not, I think it's more important to know WHEN to change it and HOW to do it.. hehe my 2 cents worth.. aDeLiNa
yes indeed. i very much agree with you. yes. game variation is important, regardless of opponent. i guess my point was, it is much easier to read opponent's play when you know the guy well. and thus varying your game is even more important as he too will know your game well. in this situation, pressure is lower as we are just playing regular everyday games. i guess trying to expect all my partners be Robin is too much, i don't think anybody can and i certainly am very far from it. but sometimes i expect people to hit more variations, playing badminton monotonously is rather boring. when i said "generalization" in my post, i was refering to being Robin. or at least, teach what Robin has learned. teaching one shot in one particular situation isn't very useful as you have pointed out. there must be some generalization to that. eg. always hit to the empty spot, or try to manipulate one of the opponents, etc. every game to me is a learning and thinking experience. well........ at least, only on the days when my brain is working, more often than i want to, my brain will decide to take vacation to fiji for a day or two. anyway, i disgressed. i always try to think where to hit the birdie, once in a while i'd find the correct shot and hit a winner, more often i would hit the wrong one and lose the rally. even then i will try to figure out what was the mistake and what would've been the correct shot to hit. yes. if you have been here long enough, you will sometimes find that i just babbles and babbles on almost indefinitely!
My 2 cents for your consideration, Kwun... I agree with WWC, being smart in court perhaps is about being aware of what is going on (well, at least to some extent anyway). Awareness of what happens to your side, what happens to your opponents and aware of possible shot selections. Thinking is probably done mostly after a rally; what happens during a rally is mostly reflexes. But if one thinks about one's rallies often enough, more possibilities could be called out in shorter time. After every rally, one should try to think about what just happens. Did one's tactic work? If it works, keep on smashing may well be the right thing to do. If it doesn't, something needs to change. Does your partner do this contemplation? Perhaps you can try asking your partner questions, let him think about what happens, and come up with his own verdict. Make him think about high percentage shots, and the lower percentage shots that are used to surprise opponents. Make him recognize that mixture of shots actually could make his smash, his primary weapon, that much more effective. When you guys watch other (possibly stronger) players play, point out (and see if he's aware of it) how the players mix attacking clear, and disguised drop shots into the games. You may also try to practise with him (do drills) that requires him to work on variations. Half court singles, for instance. Challenge him to fake you out. This could be a good way to break habbits. This would encourage him to think more of his shot selections. After that, you just have to give him some time and space to change the habbits. Gee... Kwun, I wish I get the same concerns from you about my games First you worry about your girl friend, then you worry about your boy friend
totally agreed with adelina76... good one....no wonder I can't win the same opponent twice. by the way adelina, got my private msg??if so.. didn't reply??
raymond, thanks. yes. thinking after each rally does work. but hard to generalize during the game. most thinking are for specific situations only. my partner only thinks about how much he sucks after each rally, which i think isn't true as he is a good player. mentality in this aspect also need to change. i tried to ask him to not try too hard and calm down, but that usually have little effect. but when i ask him to mix shots, that usually works. but still, the low percentage shots are well, low percentage shots. and unforce errors are higher than usual at that stage. perhaps there is a confidence issue after all the previous errors. and of course, only moderate talking can be done during the game, too much talking will pressurize too much and difficult to digest. well, raymond, i'd concern about you too if you are my regular partner. are you still playing? haven't seen you around for a while already.
Yes, I'm still "playing" these days, but mostly MX with my wife Sunday Morning at Gunn High. Also try to reduce game plays and do more drills. Perhaps sometime in Sept./Oct. I'd consider going back to Sunnyvale Tuesday nite's games. I heard Sunnyvale Gymn's floor was damaged, and is in repair. Are you guys still doing any drills these days or mostly game playing? And are you going back to H.K. this month? Li Ling Wei would actually be here.
raymond, i think the Sunnyvale gym is still closed, as i am still seeing the Sunnyvale players visiting Pleasanton over the weekends. has it been a month already? it must be damaged pretty badly. are you attending the Li Lingwei class? it sounds like a great way to learn from the best. but work has been tough these few months and there is no way i can spare 2 hours every weekday. 30ppl/class doesn't sound too good either even though the cost is rather low. we are still playing as much as we can, janet and i are playing on saturdays and sundays, either pleasanton or Gunn depending on which one is open. bit of drills, bit more of games, it is so hard to do drills when the gym is jam packed. i have gradually started to use what i learned in real games, trying to get myself to do the right strokes. but it is difficult to get over the mental aspect.
(Thought I would revive this old thread rather than start a new one!) Teaching smartness! I think all experiences on court contribute to a players abiltiy to be "smart". Anticipation is learned, moves within the game can become automatic. Some players need to be spoon fed, others can work it out for themselves. Examples: Practices that pose different problems: Play half court singles but you can't smash. Or you can't play net shots, or can't lift into backlines. Students hate these games, they find them frustrating. Good students however will work within the rules you set them. This helps to teach problem solving. For instance if you can't smash this may prepare you for the day you play with very slow shuttles, or with a shoulder injury, or against a player with great defence. Practices that replicate winning strategies: EG Player can hit smash down line and come straight into net to kill blocked return, this teaches "anticipation" and a winning tactic. Discussion/analysis of games. Where were the winners, the errors. Young players have a lop sided view of the psychology of the game. If you tell a player to serve high, they serve poorly and the shuttle is smashed for winner. So then they serve low and lose the game. The player may say serving high was a poor tactic, the coach may say it was poorly executed! The player may hit three winning smashes that clip the line and remember them, thinking he smashed to great effect. The coach may point out the four that missed the line for errors. Playing one of my youngsters today I played out the following rally. I served high and wide , I knew he would slice crosscourt from that serve, then I flicked it to his high backhand, knowing he would clear, finally I smashed onto his forehand, knowing it to be a weak spot since he defends very backhand side. I explained to him that I was ready for each of his shots before he played it! Even simple practices need to have a game relation. If you are playing drops are you looking to move your opponent, to deceive him, what are the likely replies that dictate the base you take after the drop, what margin for error is acceptable, etc
I think smartness can be gain thru experience from the game and also some advice and coaching. It also depends on the person. Sometimes people just don't learn no matter how you teach them.
The topic of smartness (awareness, perception) is an interesting topic, a tough one to discuss, and a topic that applies to every sport. Its almost part of the definition of 'sport'. The concept of teaching smartness is difficult. I played soccer for a long time very competively, and was never a fast running, a big shooter, or anything spectacular in that sense, however I was the team captain for many years straight because I was the 'best' at 'reading the plays'. First off smartness/awareness *is* an ability, and you *can*improve your ability. I'll use soccer for most of my examples since when I played I was an able player, coach, and referee. When you are on the field or court, you should be constantly thinking to yourself: 1) what is the active player (player with the ball/player about to hit a shot) doing? 2) what are players near that player doing? (what is his partner doing) 3) what are non-involved players doing? (what is my partner doing) 4) what am i doing? Your positioning and movement on the court when you aren't directly involved in the rally is just as important as your partners or your opponents. When someone is about to play a shot, you should be thinking to yourself: 1) What would I do in this situation? 2) What is their highest % shot? 3) What can I do to force them to hit a lower percentage shot? All of this is part of the 'smartness' aspect of the game. Oh, and for those of you who think smartness is directly proportional to one's intellegence, thats not entirely true. Maradona was a level above most of his peers on the field, but in life he failed miserably in most peoples opinions. So, none of this helps answer the quesiton at hand: how do we improve one's smartness. Here's a few suggestions: 1) As a coach, have your players play a game, however reserve the right to yell 'freeze' at any point in time -- your players must freeze in place. Then pick on someone and have them tell everyone what everyone is doing properly, or poorly. 2) In practice, before you hit a shot, yell out the apporpriate Drop/clear/smash phrase so everyone can react. keep doing this for a bit and then stop yelling out. This stimulates the brain, and you'll find your brain will start yelling in your head for you. 3) (In my opinion this one is the most important) Watch a rally....pick out the turning point in the rally...find the subtle shot that really changed the momentum of the point....and finally, learn to notice when that shot will occur in a rally, and make sure you are the one hitting it. 4) As a player, force yourself to THINK. When you are up at the net, dont just zone out waiting for the point to happen, THINK to yourself what your partner is going to do based on what you see your opponents doing. THINK what you would do in your partners shoes. Be READY to REACT...dont just zone out. 5) Spectate games your peers are playing. Comment to a friend on what you see happening, see if they agree or disagree. Players are only human, and human's make mistakes. The average players makes mistakes during the course of the game, and makes great shots during the course of the game. Learn to notice them.
For my own experience, I think the only possible "advantage" for not being coached over "formly trained" is the court awarness. With a trainer next by all the time, some ppl (especially young kids) tend to over-rely on the advice. Therefore, they just ask or even wait for the trainer's "solution". Sooner or later, once they are against more experience players, they will get into trouble to adjust their on-court strategy in a short period of time. Without a trainer, ppl like me might waste a lot of time to correct (to even realize) wrong forms. However, we have to gather experience purely on ourselves, because there's no one nextby to help. Survive by one self might be cruel, but it will push me to "learn faster" (assume not on the wrong path all the time). Little by little, the ones survived will have advantage in "analyze opponent". Overall, trainer should bring positive effect, but might bring "lazy habbit" as well.
I dont think smartness can be taught to someone, especially your partner. He will listen to what he wants to hear. Ulitimately, its how you guys gel together that will contribute to your success. For me, Im always open to suggestions to improve my game, but you have to be better than me to offer me any advice
Smartness must be something to do more with mental than physical. How about try to your opponent’s weakness as soon as possible, such as what type of shots he/she has most trouble during with.
here is some new random thoughts i have on the subject. i hope it won't end up being senseless mumblings. state of the rally in a game of badminton, we are faced with different situations/scenarios. the make up of one of these scenarios is a combination of the position of the players in both side of the court, the positon of the shuttle and direction of travel, as well as the perceived ability the opponent and self-awared ability of the player himself and partner. this scenario is of course different every moment but it allows us to identify the "state of the rally" at any instant in time. decision given this state of the rally, the player who has the right to hit the birdie will have to make a split second decision on what to do with the birdie, be it a smash, a drop, hitting it into the net, leaving it for one's partner, or leaving it to go out of bounds, etc, etc. the choice of the decision is what is in question here. a smart player will make a choice that will maximize the potential of winning the rally. eg. any player will choose not to give a mid-court lift so to give away a smash from the other side. or a smart player will always place the shuttle in the most hard to reach places for the opponent to force a weak return. observability the player needs to make a decision depending on the state of the rally. however, the state of the rally doesn't come for free. the state of the rally must be observed by the player. "court awareness" then comes into the question, if the player has bad court awareness, then he will lose the information regarding the position of the players on court, and only be aware of the state of the birdie itself and maybe the abilities of all players on court. with only partial information, it will be less likely that he can make the best decision. player abilities given the player has good court awareness, the ability of each player on court is also part of the "state of rally" thus will make a difference in the final decision. if one knows that the opponent has poor defence but good stamina, then a decision to smash through them will be a more optimal than to run them around the court. if the opponent has strong offence, then the decision to lift to them will be a worse than attack. on the other hand, self awareness also comes into player, if a player knows that he has poor quality drops and may end up giving away a loose net shot, he will be less likely to make that choice. on the other hand, if a player knows that he has a thundering smash, smashing through the opponent may be the best decision of the moment. plans and strategy smartness in choices also manifest itself not on every shot of a rally, but perhasp over a few shots of a rally. like what dlp said, he already planned out the next 3 shots against his student before he started the service. however, an opponent may not be as predictable as his student so a very smart player will adjust and modify his plans during the course of the rally depending in the state of the rally at that instance. if we move to even longer term plans, then we have our overall game strategy, a game strategy is formed before a game starts and is made based on the ability of the players on both side, the strategy is a general pre-defined guideline of what decisions are more optimal for the players involved. eg. playing against someone who has bad stamina your pre-defined strategy may be to run him to the ground, vs. against a strong attacker is to not let him have the chance to attack. am i making sense?
Makes sense to me....or at least as much sense as it could; the topic is fairly abstract. We are trying to quantify something that isn't easily assigned a metric. I think one of the problems is the idea of the 'perfect shot'. Given a time during the ralley, does there exist only 1 such shot that will maximize the potential of winning the rally? Thats really tough to answer since your abilities, your partner's abilities, and your opponent's abilities all effect what shot you should probably play. A more precise way of looking at it would be: we want our shot choice to be bijective....in order to generate result Y (us winning the point) we have to play shot X...and there is only 1 such X. The problem is the set of shots X to generate result Y is more likely to be surjective, or it might even be empty. Not to mention that we are very conceited in general, and we believe that our actions define the result of the rally, even though theoretically our opponents may make choices that make it impossible for us to win the rally....bleh, ok, Im just rambling here as well.
I agree the game really is infinitely complex and varied. However the mental side is absolutely crucial, especially at higher levels. In running if A is 1% fitter they will generally beat B unless they set off fast etc. However in badminton it is impossible to quantify all the parts that make up a player and their shot choice. This does not mean we cannot identify winning and losing situations and shot patterns. All of the points Kwun makes can be incorporated into training, if the training is game like. For instance if smashing crosscourt too often is losing you a lot of points and you practice smashing crosscourt you will find it hard to change. If however you construct a practice where you play a drop then smash onto the straight players hip this will most likely come out in competition.
to answer Maradona's point. yes. it is a dynamic rally and it is hard to concretely enumerate all situations as it will be infinite! as for the perfect shot, i don't know the answer to that either. perhaps if there is some way to assign a probabilty to each reply, we can say a certain reply is the "best" reply. however, since it is too complex for us to calculate the probabilities, we don't know if it would be the case. at least we can say, in theory, perhaps there is a perfect shot. as for the subjectiveness and our self view of the actions. the reason i put the "perceived ability" of the opponent and "self awareness" was to eliminate this from the equation. so taking into account what the opponent(s) can do and what the player (and partner) can do. that will give enough information to make a good decision... and perhaps it is better to *not* always have a perfect shots and not know what the perfect shot is. if the reply of each player is predictable according to some calculation and equation, then the game of badminton will start to become boring.
