Good defensive players could beat average offensive players easily . Perhaps, basically, play what/how you play best. Some are best at defending and some best at attacking. Good defensive players do not need to change their game; they could beat average offensive players easily. On the other hand, the other way around holds true too. And when good defensive players play against good offensive players, the defensive players could still win too. .
Well I do think that a good offensive player has a much better chance than a good defensive player. I recall that in the SS tournaments, especially in the finals, how a player who tried to play safe or defensive ultimately lost out to his opponent who was more aggressive in attacking and taking more risks.
Winning requires a combination of attack and defence. To say that 'attack always wins' is to stretch the point. A team that relies purely on attack dies swiftly if denied the chance to attack. Similarly, attacking when an attack is not warranted is the easiest way to lose the point. (Two recent examples are the 2008 Swiss Open MD Final and the 2008 India Open XD Final.) Simply put, defensive play can be very lethal against a poorly set-up attack -- the term 'offensive defence' might be an oxymoron, but it would surely be an apt description here. The great doubles teams have been equally adept at attack and defence. What's prized is the ability to opportunistically switch between the two - and therein lies the key to success. We could have a similar argument for singles play but Lin Dan's overlordship in the time of Lee Chong Wei and Taufik Hidayat aids the "attack-is-better" position
I generally agree point 1,2 & 4. The 30point cap was set to put in more 'oomph' for players to get there first should the game be dragged unnecessarily long and to keep spectators at the edge of their seats. As for the sport of badminton, I don't deny that stamina is required as that of tennis but even though the size of a tennis court is much bigger, don't forget that the speed and reflex required in the game of badminton is much more crucial as the shuttle reaches its destination faster than a tennis ball because the court is smaller. Same goes for ping pong, don't think that because the table size is so much smaller than a tennis court, it therefore requires less speed and stamina. In fact, it is vice versa because in momentum terms, a sudden short spurt of speed requires more power just like when you floor down your car's gas pedal. In in reality, these movements tires out and wears you down faster than when you run at a gradual constant speed. So putting the requirement to best of 5 games for professional is easier said than done in 21 point scoring system.
A NSS Singles game will last about 20 minutes (most of the time) . We have now found that a NSS Singles game will last about 20 minutes (most of the time). Therefore, if a Singles match is to go into the 3rd game, the match would probably finish in around 60 minutes (plus/minus 10 minutes). If the match was to be the best of 5 games, and the match is played to the 5th game, then the match would probably finish in around 100 minutes (which is almost the same length of a normal movie show). .
It's amazing how I found threads ranging as early as 2005 of how BCERs over here vehemently discredits the 21 point system whereas now, it's so normal and cool to watch the game in such quick explosive manner and within a short period of time you get to see the best of what players have to offer on court, or the lack of it.
There are also many other things good about the NSS . One of the things I like about the NSS (New Scoring System) is that our professional players are now able to play to older age. There are also many other things good about the NSS. That's why the NSS remains with us. .
The nature of the game has changed over the years and the NSS may have been the catalyst in how the game has been shaped. In the olden days, single players play the classic style of serving high and as far as the service line. You just wait for the opponent to drop, clear or smash. If your opponent can win a smash from your serve, he still has to serve to win the point. These days, single players are taught to serve low because of the advantages of forcing your opponent to net or lift. You want to attack first. In the olden days under the OSS, you can elect to play a defensive or attacking game. It is like a game of chess. These days it's all attacking game and Have you seen a high lob these days in professional championship? Almost never…. as it is too slow. Under the OSS, a doubles team can still win with a strong defence. The Sidek brothers in the 1990s had such strong defence that they can lift and lift all day just to get their opponent to smash into trouble. Today, you can watch four players smashing in a match because with one serve in doubles it is crucial to win at all cost. No need to defend…. Just attack. I have the privilege to watch good players in action in the past and now and certainly it has been a joy to watch the older version of badminton under the OSS. Yes… the game may be slower but it’s still a game of skill and hard work. Today’s NSS will never see Liem Siew King come back 1-14 to win the third set in a world championship tournament ( because of the many saves he made in the service over under the OSS) or the Sidek brothers lifting20-30 shots to invite their opponents to smash. Today’s’ game that we see today is so much faster and more of an attacking game. Keeping it low is the name of the game and don’t lift to avoid being smashed at 230kph. The badminton game these days is like tennis today….. a faster game and NSS will facilitate it.
Regarding a more attacking game ...... . Regarding a more attacking game, it's only when one can play with fewer mistakes. Perhaps, we go back to Post #7; From that post onwards, we received some interesting comments from some of our BCers. .
