The same happened to LD at Semi Final China Open SS last week, he had to win over LCW in rubber set. Then Final would face CL, and LD still handle it beaten CL in straight set too only to be a winner..
I have not watched the matches jet, so what was the most interesting match(es) in therms of tactic and skill ? wd,md,ms,ws..day1-5. does not matter^^ (have slow web connection so i can not download all^^ )
...if he doesn't burn out before the future becomes present. His style is too physical (more so than even LCW) and his game has improved exponentially because of one fundamental difference from before: he goes down low, lowers his centre of gravity and can come up fast when required. Can he keep it up for more than a couple of years? Time will tell. Meanwhile, he will have played his part at the OG, that's for sure...
2011 SS Finals tournament is over . So, the 2011 SS Finals tournament is over with these results; http://www.tournamentsoftware.com/s...E237A5-B6A6-4BD4-88EB-30E421756AE7&d=20111218 I didn't find time to watch the matches, but reading the posts in this thread, the exciting matches appeared to be; * Wang Yihan-vs-Saina Nehwal * M.Boe/C.Mogensen-vs-Chai Biao/Guo Zhendong In our BC Polls, I have only 3 correct guesses (of winners), namely; * MS.......Lin Dan * WD......Wang Xiaoli/Yu Yang * XD.......Zhang Nan/Zhao Yunlei and I am pretty happy. In our BC PAW Game, I finished 3rd amongst our 32 PAWers. This, I am happier. .
Does that mean he's not as talented or skilful as Lin Dan (at least not yet) and so has to make up for it by his physicality? Then I hope and believe he will continue to improve his strokes or he might very well,as you've said,suffer burnout sooner than expected despite his relatively young age (not yet 23?).
. At the Semi-Finals, I had only 1 pick. I didn't PAW the LCW-vs-CL match, but picked Ko.S.H./Yoo.Y.S. to defeat M.Boe/C.Mogensen. Unfortunately, Ko/Yoo lost; Otherwise, I would have more points that CLELY and finished 2nd amongst our 32 PAWers. .
There is no question about his talent and dedication. It is his physical attributes that I was addressing, which could in the long run, either turn out to be a blessing or a curse. Being as tall as he is, he has no choice but to get down (comparatively) real low in order to be ready to pich the bird before it hits the floor. And then he needs to spring up equally fast. His joints are going to take a real beating over the next 2 years. So, either CBA wraps him in cotton for every 24 months (or more) of a 48-month cycle, or they discover a new lubricant for his joints!
I need someone to explain to me on this. Is that kind of volleyball blocking considered as a fault in badminton? I don't know it until yesterday.
Ian Wright said something about it just after the point had played out. Saina was not playing a stroke or returning a shot; she was blocking, i.e., pre-meditated positioning of the racquet in anticipation of return with the result of completely blocking out the return, at the net, right up near the shuttle. I think this may cover it: 13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;
ah, i got it! Thank you for the information. So I can call a fault on my opponents next time when they do this. Because my friends always do this when we are playing badminton.
I thought this law on obstruction would be the answer but I was told that the striker, ie. WYH, could have returned the shot cross court when she saw SN in front of her.
No, I don't think 13.4.4 covers it. Ian specifically mentioned not making a shot/stroke. No where in the law says you can't just put your racket up to block, as long as it doesn't obstruct your opponent's racket path. On the side view slow mo replay, Saina's racket was practically 6 inches away from the net. There's no way WYH's net kill stroke would bring her racket that far into Saina's side. And if WYH's racket never hit Saina's racket, how is there an obstruction in the first place?
Could it be distraction then? Maybe someone could ask the Malaysian umpire what the reason was for SN's fault.
It has been discussed . The answer from cobalt is correct; 13. FAULTS It shall be a "fault": 13.4 if, in play, a player: 13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net. It has been discussed in this thread (click on it); http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php/83324-Net-blocking-distraction Many players seldom have long follow-through of their racket-heads over the net. But not for me; My racket-head can go 2 feet horizontally over the net into my opponent's space. When Saina held her racket-head up about 6 inches away from the net, and if I were WYH, I wouldn't even play the stroke. I would tell the umpire that he must call a fault against Saina. And then, I would show the umpire (after the rally) how I would have followed-through my racket-head to clash with Saina's racket. .