Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Super Series Final 2012' started by CLELY, Dec 14, 2012.
Li Xuerui looks great in slow motion.
The WS final will also be worth watching, definitely for me.
HKV is brilliant;he just have to be more consistent, easier said than done.
DPY deserved to be in the final. He played 4 matches and won all. In contrast, HKV only won 1 match against KT.
Agree... HKV needs to be more consistent.
Think he needs to work on the mental/emotional aspect of his game. It seems to me that he swings from one end to the other very quickly. He plays brilliantly with great heart when he is mentally up. Conversely, he plunges very quickly, giving away points so easily when he feels down.
IMO, on top of technical skills, consistency and mental toughness are essential qualities of a top player. My two cents worth.
Z/Z vs F/P again.
Hope it will be a tight match again.
i start feeling this Zhao Yunlei cs have a habit to ruin their teammates fun. 1st in OG when they loss the WD, and now in SSF when they loss the XD, both in wrong time.
when will Xu/Ma be able to beat Duo Z? worth to wait.
What is the name of the Danish coach that commentates with Gill Clark?
I think he does a good job, and his commentary is insightful. Apparently he reads these boards. I just wonder if he knows whether or not the Danish coaching staff purposely tells the players to hold the serve longer than necessary. It seems that its a common tactic among the danish doubles teams.
I dont know why the umpire doesn't put a stop to it, its incredibly frustrating to watch as a spectator. You can literally see the opposing player twitching and getting out of rhythm before the serve.
Some players have a mental process when they serve. something like: get into serve stance -> clear mind -> focus mentally on where you wanna serve -> ... It can really takes a while, i'm sure some of the badminton fans here have the same habit when serving, thus the slow serves for some player. It's not their aim to agitate opponents, it's just a byproduct.
Some players or team, however, do use slow serve as a tactic. While it's annoying to watch, I'm not sure you can fault it as tactic either, if the rule isn't against it, or it's unclear. At this level, gaining competitive advantage within the rules is important, regardless of viewers enjoyment. If it is against the rules, then, it is up to umpires to stop it.
All in all, it's a topic worthy of discussion. Simply force all players serve quickly might eliminate players using it as tactic, but it will also disrupt the serve processes some player have.
Agree, players are entitled to do whatever as long as it is allowed in the rules....
BWF should move in to stop the delay in service. Once both sides are ready, 3 seconds is long enough.
It is annoying enough to watch on TV. Some people even use this "technique" in recreational games The pros should set a good example.
It is former head coach Steen Pedersen (he did actually specifically mention BC once as a place for info when asked about the CBL at Denmark Open streaming) and secondly who are you/we to decide what is longer than necessary? Not allowed to completely focus anymore? Majority of players can be called casual in their serve preparation ("just" the start of a rally), others put more work into it to perfect it. Pedersen's serve (no relation afaik) has been called one of if not the best around now and she has definitely worked on it over the years. Reminds me of one of one young talent here in the national team who also plays doubles next to singles but can't serve for sh*t, kamikaze almost , pretty much puts his/her partner in trouble all the time but get away with it on talent on a national level.
I do understand what you are implying and your point of view. But as players, they are just trying to win games/tournaments, with every advantage they can get within existing rules. They are not required to see the game from viewers point of view, or even the overall good of the sports.
I'm not saying they are right, and again, I think it's worthy of discussion rather than rush judgement from a single point of view. But do keep what is it to be a competitive athletes in mind. Rightly or wrongly, their objectives are to win.
I think lots players will object to that. low serve is hard enough in stressful situation, it will be much worse with only 3 seconds allowed. lots errors will occur, or forced to serve with big margin for error, which gives receiver big advantage, and ultimately leads to less exciting games. If rule shall be changed, it should be a gradual process to let current generation of players get used to it.
The " set a good example" argument is sometimes raised, as if it is the wrong thing to do on court, trying to disrupt opponents concentration operating within rules at top level sports.
After 5 low serve, suddenly fire a flick serve, so your opponents off guard, mentally not prepared for it.
In doubles, focusing attacks or drives on the weaker opponent of the two, be it mentally/physically.
after observing your opponent is fatigued or not totally fit, you purposely running your opponents to gain advantage.
And, play with the timing of serve to gain advantage of your opponents.
More or less, At top level, it's about exploit all parts of the game piece by piece, little by little. A bunch of small advantages becomes winning strategy for a winning game.
So, why do people notice slow serve a lot more, or even consider it to be shameful practice, while it gives some players competitive advantages in order to win games, which is what they suppose to do. Well, simply put, it looks bad. people praise serve variety because it makes game looks good, so when players win points/gain advantage with a flick, people say "oh, that's smart.", "wow, that's sharp.", while fundamentally the same and offers similar advantages timing serve is often looked down on "it's boring" "that pair is so boring with slow serves".
Is sports mainly for winning? if so, why is gaining every little advantage you can, be wrong? Or is sports mainly entertainment for viewers? if so, everything gets the game boring, annoying should be removed. Surely, the answer is somewhere in between, so that some of the most annoying/boring aspects are removed/changed, and the viewers have to endure the rest of it.
Writing this on haste before going out. so, apologies in advance for the mistakes or the whole thing doesn't make much sense.
Of course that the players will do what they can get away with to win. It is up to BWF to do what is right for the good of the game. Annoying tactics that turn spectators off will not help the game.
3 seconds, counting from when both sides are set, is reasonable and sufficient.
Another problem that BWF should look into is the time used by players to get set. As the commentators commented, it is getting longer and longer.
We don't want exhausted players playing sloppy games due to very short breaks. At the same time, those long breaks are not going to promote badminton as a spectator sport and the players will suffer as the consequence. BWF needs to look into it and work with the players to find the right balance.
digging up a post posted years ago, any comments?
Time out is good. But with the upcoming line call challenge system, the players are getting them anyway.
For the service height, I would suggest a standard height. A line can be added to the net to indicate the height and the service judge can use an optical or electronic device to enforce the height limit. I think that this idea was talked about but was not put into use.
Time-out as used in table-tennis is a good idea but I think 60s is better - 30s is a bit short, the player go to the side and the coach walks toward him/her may take almost 10s off before they settle down to talk, then another 10s to get ready to play when the umpire sounds the alert. Of course,each side is only allowed one time-out per match, in addition to the mid-game intervals.
So the player and coaches will learn to use the time-out as a tactical device, say to help the struggling player to regather her thoughts, regroup or to try and break the leading player's momentum. I suspect most coaches/players will call the time-out when facing game- or matchpoint against them in a tight situation. May not always work or be good for the player calling time-out but more advantageous than not, I think. The player who already used up his/her time-out may benefit from the other player's time-out as well.
Indeed time-outs introduce another element into match play creating suspense, some uncertainty and excitement into the competition. This rule will have greater effect than the 10 & 3s service rule and the serving above the waist rule.
This fixed line concept will not work out for different players who are all in different heights.. Somebody is more than 6 feet. And somebody only 5 feet. This fixed line concept definitely wont be worked out... If a line added to the net, for example , that line may come above one's hip and very well below to some others(we also take into account men and women players..there is no any meaning in it otherwise.. Women players are shorter than men players..).. So, this idea wont work out..