j4ckie
Regular Member
There is a kernel of truth to it - the current consensus, as far as I'm aware, is that we are born with a certain ratio of muscle Fibre types and that ratio will not change in a significant manner, or at least not towards fast-twitch fibres. So yes, to an extent you can judge how fast a player may become.I agree with you. However, in my location in HK, the coaches have a different view.
Our kids between 8-9 year old, in a government subsidized elite training program, will undergo an assessment for promotion to the next level. From what I have seen, skills is not the most important asset. It's speed of footwork. There is a definite preference for faster players and skill levels are treated more flexibly.
It may be that speed is harder to develop whereas skills and tactics are easier to develop.
The coaches here have a lot of players in the pool to select and it may be the same in India. However European countries have a smaller pool of kids playing. I remember one coach from England telling me they are happy to have any kid who is interested in badminton because the number of kids playing is pretty small.
The flip side is - badminton isn't sprinting. Youre not looking for the gifted among the fastest percent. There's so many other aspects to badminton that goigg by pure speed alone as a dominant or sole parameter, you're sure to exclude a lot of potentially great players. There's fast players again and again that just aren't special. Anybody remember that Japanese guy? I can't remember his name rn, but he was an insanely quick singles player, switched over to doubles, is now coaching (Shoji Sato?). He was never truly special as a player because other parts of his game weren't up to par. He was faster than LD, faster than Taufik, faster than Gade. He couldn't even get close to their achievements. This isnt an attack on him, not at all, it just goes to show that speed alone isn't going to show what a badminton player is capable of.
Since we're in the Indian thread, let me give you an Indian example. I'd rather put a really good athletic coach on B Sai Praneeth, a slow, unathletic player by elite standards, than put my eggs in the basket that is Lakshya Sen (sorry if I misspelled that one). The latter is undoubtedly quicker, but hasn't shown much beyond speed and gritty determination. His technique is limited, he doesn't seem to have any special shot, he doesn't seem to be tactically aware. Being athletic is already more than just being speedy. Being a good (or great) badminton player is even more than that.
On a side note, since you brought up that selection process - early development programs and elite sports schools have been shown to be shockingly ineffective. There have been studies over here (with football players) that have shown that a kid training somewhat seriously (2-3x weekly) at a good local club will not be as good as the kid going to an elite boarding school, but will (on average, or correcting for talent) not fall further behind either. They can actually catch up at any point in time when they start taking their training more seriously at a later stage (say, 16-18yo). The most rewarding approach for the overall development of a kid (athletically/physically) actually seems to be to play several different sports with varying needs and challenges until an age of about 14, when most motor skills are pretty set, to develop as much coordinative skills as possible.
Sorry for long post. It's a very interesting topic to me
