There is always two players in singles, and to say someone is superior beceause of one-match win is really stretching it.. In AE2011, we don't know the form of LD, and he did play back-to-back German Open week before AE. So it's not only what form and play LCW put up, it is of course also a matter of the form, shape and motivation of his opponents. Anyone realize that CL has improved the level he is at now compared to his level in early 2011. So things can and will change.. LCW certainly has a chance of winning olympic gold. But with the statistics of 8-18 in head-to-head and also never been able to beat LD two times in a row. the odds seems stacked in LDs favor.
i think head to head is not 8-18 for LD, but 8-21 for LD. 8-18 from bwf website. 1 match in asian games final 2010 won by LD, 1 match from hongkong open 2006 won by LD, 1 match from "four kings match" won by LD in china this year. CMIIW
people lost hope with LCW for two reasons: 1. He had never won a big title... ie, OG, WC, AsianGames, ThomasCup and SudirmanCup... All England is arguably only the sixth most important tourney now... Some would argue that since the start of 2011, Korean Open and PSS Finals are more important than AE... 2. He lost to LD in the crucial finals of OG2008, WC2011, AG2010, TC2010...
1.Thomas Cup/Uber Cup/Sudirman Cup doesn't count as a major title. It's a TEAM event, and it is the major title for the TEAM. With the hopeless MAS squad, compare to CHN, almost impossible for any other country to have this 'major event/big title' then. 2. I would rate it like this : OG > WC > AG > AE > PSS > SS, Only the top 4 are 'majors' I love it how everyone said that AE is a major title before 2010 AE where LCW won, and after that the same people suddenly decided that AE is another small tournament. The AE is considered a major tournament because of the prestige in it, not because of the prize money or because it is a PSS. AE, IMO is the 4th most important tourney, more important than even Korean Open. This way, I would say LCW has won a mere 2 titles compared to LD's 11(?)!
Only OG and AG is 4 years once? The rest I wouldn't consider a major. AG doesn't involve 'other non asians' thus I don't consider it as a major. So, this left OG for me. So, the result is not much diff for most players. Only 1-0 or 1-1 for most. lol. Or either it can be said as, either you have it or you don't.
That is the reason why we'd love to hear more details about Tang Xinfu's training methodologies and philosophy in badminton. Patiently awaiting Chris's comments on this. I am looking forward for more exciting games between LCW, LD and CL. It will be interesting to watch CL's improvements and LCW tactical adjustments to counter them.
To me, now in 2012, only OG is considered major as it happens only every four years. It has evolved over the years. In the early years it was AE, then WC which was held every 3 years, I think, but now, other than OG most tournaments are held every year and has been downgraded. Maybe BWF should categorize which title is a major like in tennis where they have the 4 Grand Slams and I don't think tennis players consider the OG as a major.
Another negative about OG is it's restriction on entries. Most countries can submit a maximum of 2 players or pairs if they are in the world top 16. In singles, a player may be WR 4, but if your three teammates are ahead of you, too bad you will not have a chance to participate. So competition is restricted. The aims of the Olympics, unlike the SS, are different.
OG should have only 1 to participate from 1 country. Give chance to other countries to participate. The rest of the tournaments are open to as many as you want. So, a change is good.
I suppose we are talking about major tournaments for players . I suppose we are talking about major tournaments for players, and not for teams. My suggestion to BWF would be; Let's look through the records of past tournaments. Consider those as majors when: * They are organised for individual participants, not for teams. * They are able to attract a higher percentage of top world-ranking players to participate. Why? Because I find that: * Players in tournaments giving many walk-overs (by teammates to teammates) do not support how major the tournaments should be. * Players in tournaments selected by their teams' coach/management (to play or to rest) do not support their individual players' abilities, but their teams' abilities. After saying the above, it is really up to players and coaches to unite and to decide what tournaments are considered major. As soon as they think for team abilities (and not for individual abilities), then I would think that the tournaments should not be regarded as major tournaments for players. BTW, it has already been established by players and coaches that all the inter-nations CUPS (namely the Thomas, Uber and Sudirman Cups) are our inter-nations majors. We are now requiring to find our individual's and/or our players' majors. .
the five PSS are now the Grand Slams in badminton... but of course, OG and WC are still more important than PSS.... interestingly, it's already 2012, we still don't have a website for the OSIM Super series for 2012...
LCW's autograph http://badmintonmy.com/thread-5290-1-1.html Anyone knows if this book name in Chine will really be like this?? Very different from the English one... and a bit sarcastic IMO...
. IMHO, it is very sarcastic. Let's hope that LCW can prove to that person that he/she could be wrong. .
Don't think the book will be like that. That's just some sarcastic thread title from the sarcastic thread starter
that's the official title of the book i dont see any problem in it if one cant accept his own failure,he cant go far
You mean the title in Chinese direct translation is "Loser become King". English title is "Dare to be Champion"
