A new approach to badminton for the 'Old World'.

[Starttimer]

To my way of thinking, it seems odd that for all the the time that badminton has been played in the U.K. it appears that 'New World' countries can just emerge and be serious contenders. Even Denmark, which seems to have been around for centuries, went from a standing start to an All England finalist in about a decade, admittedly just before the 2nd World War! Evolution doesn't seem to have favoured them but they do seem to have the means to take on the Asians, and this from a population of only 5 million.

More and more I am drawn to the conclusion that our basic approach to the game is wrong. We seem to have adhered to the 'gifted amateur' approach and just cranked it up.We are still locked in to the post-war top-down attitude. While we stand a reasonable chance in doubles, singles success eludes us for the simple reason that singles is a strategic game and doubles largely a tactical game. Singles should be at the heart of the game and doubles a development of the singles approach.

A tactic is a procedure to gain some advantage but it could equally be a procedure to avoid a disadvantage. Badminton in the UK has concentrated on the former approach and to succeed, the player seeking a tactical advantage has to have almost total control in the match. This is just not possible when we are up against an uncooperative opponent. The consequences are the pressure on our shotmaking to be too accurate, frenetic movement about the court and an increase in stress levels.

The alternative approach I would advocate is that singles and hence badminton as a whole should focus on avoiding a disadvantage. Keeping out of trouble is a factor within my control and I can raise the tempo when the opportunity presents. Given that the World Championships have recently been held, Lin Dan is an exemplar of this approach.

 

[asadafgs]

To my way of thinking, it seems odd that for all the the time that badminton has been played in the U.K. it appears that 'New World' countries can just emerge and be serious contenders. Even Denmark, which seems to have been around for centuries, went from a standing start to an All England finalist in about a decade, admittedly just before the 2nd World War! Evolution doesn't seem to have favoured them but they do seem to have the means to take on the Asians, and this from a population of only 5 million.

More and more I am drawn to the conclusion that our basic approach to the game is wrong. We seem to have adhered to the 'gifted amateur' approach and just cranked it up.We are still locked in to the post-war top-down attitude. While we stand a reasonable chance in doubles, singles success eludes us for the simple reason that singles is a strategic game and doubles largely a tactical game. Singles should be at the heart of the game and doubles a development of the singles approach.

A tactic is a procedure to gain some advantage but it could equally be a procedure to avoid a disadvantage. Badminton in the UK has concentrated on the former approach and to succeed, the player seeking a tactical advantage has to have almost total control in the match. This is just not possible when we are up against an uncooperative opponent. The consequences are the pressure on our shotmaking to be too accurate, frenetic movement about the court and an increase in stress levels.

The alternative approach I would advocate is that singles and hence badminton as a whole should focus on avoiding a disadvantage. Keeping out of trouble is a factor within my control and I can raise the tempo when the opportunity presents. Given that the World Championships have recently been held, Lin Dan is an exemplar of this approach.

In China, everyone solely trains singles. Those who are deemed to have little talent will train doubles. Cai Yun was actually one of the best singles players, but got injured and switched to doubles.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Cheung]

Singles will give good grounding in court coverage. Switching to doubles is then easier.

 

[Borkya]

Singles will give good grounding in court coverage. Switching to doubles is then easier.

While footwork wise I agree with this, tactically I do not. I hate playing doubles with someone who is a top singles player. I find their strategy at times baffling because it is different than a trained double players. (Also they tend to assume a shot is out but actually it lands in the doubles area, haha).

The prestige and glory of singles players is well deserved but has always kinda bothered me. The idea that so many people think doubles is for people who "aren't good enough" to play singles rankles me. Doubles is a different game, with different rules, skills and strategies. To write-off Cai Yun as an "injured singles player" is patronizing and de-values his Olympic gold and four world championships.

The reason the "old world" is behind asia I think comes down to money and methods. China gets them young and pours every resource into them. (I heard Lin Dan had 4 nutritionists available to him at all times). People in other countries don't get the resources like that and need to have other jobs or need to hustle to keep getting the large amount of cash required to continue their training (after all, the winners pots are chump change compared to other sports, so players can't survive on winnings alone.) Also, Chinese training methods borderline on abuse and I'm not sure a lot of people in other countries would put up with it.

 

[Cheung]

While footwork wise I agree with this

Thanks. To calrify, I was only referring to the footwork patterns and movement.