koo/tan advance to the wc final,let us heard what will the criticizer said?

Discussion in 'World Championships 2010' started by limsy, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. Aspire

    Aspire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Petaling Jaya
    Oppss!!! I thought someone make a statement saying that he wouldn't respond anymore!! Or he simply meant he wouldn't response to me... but what's the difference anyway:confused:
     
  2. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Would standing at the center, with rackets held high, stop the lifting?

    .
    Question: Would standing at the center, with rackets held high, stop the lifting?
    Answer: Yes.
    Standing at the center, with rackets held high, is for preparing to drive back the shuttlecock (as Aspire has suggested). But the problem with standing closer to the net is that there is less time to see the smashes coming at them.

    I have made a long post about 'Defining an Attacking Shot'. It is located at Post #96 of this thread (back in 14-Jun-2006);
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...-scoring-system-Is-it-really-better-to-Attack

    ====== * ====== * ====== start post ====== * ====== * ======

    Hi Everyone,

    As we are talking more and more about services, ie whether a service can be an attacking shot or not... we have to consider what is defined as an attacking shot.

    Different postings from different contributors tell me that we are not talking on the same wavelength. This could be because we are players of different skill levels, of different schools of thoughts, etc, etc...

    So until we can agree on a definition, we won't make any progress in this forum.

    My experience in coaching Badminton over the decades tells me that most players think that an attacking shot is a shot that is executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court. But now my trainees have learned something new from me.

    My trainees now know that an attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm to his/her opponent, and it is a shot executed for that purpose alone.

    Games like Pool, Snooker or Billiards are 2-dimensional games, length & width. I have played and enjoyed them. Badminton, on the other hand, is a 4-dimensional game. And I prefer Badminton better because of the extra 2 dimensions of height and time, although, Loh and taneepak, based on their postings, might want to add in another dimension, the 5th dimension, ie the human element... mental strength, feeling of being in control, toughness, psychology, etc, etc...

    However, I am saying that we can attack with 1,2,3 or all of the 4-dimensions, length, width, height and time.

    Please remember my definiton...”An attacking shot is any shot that can affect harm”.

    From my “first time to Badminton students”, a high service(in Singles) to the back tram lines is an attacking shot. This is because it pushes the opponent(also, first timers) to the back of the court. This is to do harm by moving the opponent away from the centre of the court. Of course, if Peter Gade is to serve high to Chen Hong, Chen Hong will not consider it as an attacking shot because it causes him no harm. Chen Hong can deal with it easily.

    From viver, an experienced player, the S-Service(which is now banned) is an attacking shot. It is because it is a very tricky shot to deal with.

    From Loh and taneepak, a good service or good netplay shot can be an attacking shot. It can force the opponent to lift or force the opponent into difficulties (time wise).

    Another example of an attacking shot is the shooting service that taneepak mentioned. In fact, at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne 2006, New Zealand claimed that Australia was cheating in their sevice when Australia played the shooting service.

    From cooler and KooGuy, an attacking shot is a shot executed with a violent force, in a hostile manner, with the shuttle being struck at above net height downward toward the opponent's body or court.

    From Chai, sendoh and chewablemorphin, any shot hitting upwards is not an attacking shot. I thought Loh hinted to us that PG beat BCL in the Singapore Open 2006 by attacking him with excellent netplay, but you did not see it that way.

    From jerby, not only can you attack the opponent's court, but you can attack your opponent's stamina (the 6th dimension???).

    From franxon and badrad, an attacking shot is good provided we are more careful to avoid errors. Here franxon and badrad tried to tell us that that an attacking shot is a tighter shot, a riskier shot to play.

    For me, an attacking shot is any shot that forces the opponent to receive it not only below net height but a shot that puts pressure on the opponent time wise.

    Here, I have 2 examples that hitting up shots can be "attacking";

    -------------------------------------
    1. I learned from Darmadi, the Indonesian National Champion in the 1960's, that you can attack your opponent with a upward shot. His example is the attacking clear (giving very little time to your opponent to react). I have played with him and learned from him.

    2. From the Sidek brothers, I learned the S-Service(now banned) is an attacking shot because it causes lots of difficulties to your opponent because the spinning and wobbly effect of the service.

    -------------------------------------

    We can even attack a smash if we can return a smash with a drive (giving him/her less time) to a corner far away from the smasher. This is using all 4 dimensions of the game, correct length, correct width, correct height and with less time.

    Also we can now see that many players have learned to play a netplay shot with lots of spin and wobble. To me this is an attacking shot even though it is an upward shot. It can cause harm to your opponent. With the spinning and wobbly nature of the shot, your opponent might want to play safe and reply by lifting. But of course, your opponent can also spin it back to you, in other words, counter-attacking you.

    I have also mentioned that as we progress with Badminton, we will learn new things. Soon we will learn better ways to deal with the spinning/wobbling netplay. At the moment, I tell my trainees to learn to spin/wobble it back at the netplay to force opponent to lift. Or even gently hit the spinning/wobbling shuttle with their racket frame instead of the racket strings.

    So you see, an attacking shot can be performed with gentleness. Perhaps you can see my philosophy now, as Bruce Lee put it “You can attack your opponent with force or with gentleness”.

    So, for all of us in this forum, let us define what an attacking shot is before we go any further.

    -------------------------------------

    I know exactly what franxon and badrad mean when they said “we have to be careful to avoid errors”. To play attack, we are subjected to more errors compared to if we play a safe/control shot. We can be risking errors if you play a harder smash, a tighter dropshot, a spinier netplay, etc...

    To me, even a deceptive shot that can wrong foot your opponenet is an attacking shot.

    When I started this thread, I was thinking of all the points that I mentioned above. But I realise now that I did not know that different people look at the concept of “attack” so differently.

    I apologise for it.

    Wow... what a long post.

    ====== * ====== * ====== end post ====== * ====== * ======
    .
     
  3. Aspire

    Aspire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Petaling Jaya
    This is one very intellectual and accurate post.

    One of the best I'd read through in BC.

    It serves different players at various levels.

    If you were to go on and on I wouldn't mind continue reading.

    Thank you.
     
  4. pBmMalaysia

    pBmMalaysia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    badminton coach
    Location:
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    yes that was long good educational post!
     
  5. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Yes with a "but"??..
    ..i guess the question should be asked this way:
    do you think KKK & TBH would be able to counter-attack those powerful smashes from FHF & CY without lifting, if they stood at the center of the court with their rackets held high, knowing they will have less time to see or even react to the smashes coming at them??..

    As mentioned before, of course, some would point to KKK & TBH's lack of defense in counter-attacking those powerful smashes. Maybe they just lack the reaction needed.

    Thus, perhaps, they should concentrate on their defensive training from here on out. Maybe:
    1. During training, have their compatriots launch bombs at them from the mid-court or even front of the court, while they stand right smack in the middle of the court and try to return their smashes without lifting.
    2. Or if that fails, they could hire FHF & CY for 2-3 weeks to do a Smash-fest (from the mid-court and front court) and train KKK's & TBH's mid-court defense/reaction so they will have the reaction needed to not keep lifting.

    *Btw, can you ask Aspire if he has shown that MD Final video (toward the end of the 3rd game) to a local coach and ask for the coach's opinion of his idea of KKK & TBH's moving to the center to counter-attack the smashes?..;)
     
    #185 ctjcad, Sep 6, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2010
  6. pBmMalaysia

    pBmMalaysia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    badminton coach
    Location:
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    especially for you ctjcad

    especially for you ctjcad,

    as i can't see your explanation going anyway:

    either you don't understand chris-cc explanation of 'yes' with a but...

    or simply, you just don't accept other posters opinions,

    in this case, from a professional opinion for a coach like chriss-cc?

    or you want to tell us something we don't know?

    also, you don't have to ask chriss-cc to tell aspire to tell the local coach

    otherwise any discussion with you inside is always going to be so loooong. (and gosh! you are everywhere!)

    instead i will quote just this once and let you read it slowly..

    ''in defensive mode, player must have sharp eyes on their returns:

    - if deep enough what should follows ....''​


    kindly note the key words here above in bold before you read the followings,

    in defensive mode, if kkk/tbh could return the 300kph smash by cy/fhf to the baseline (deep enough),

    what should follows?

    obviously if one of them moves fast enough to the center of the court

    the chances of them turning from defensive to counter attack is there.

    what tactical plan to be used in that very moment in time depends on one's sharp eyes and reflexes.


    this will answer your question below:



    "*Btw, can you ask Aspire if he has shown that MD Final video (toward the end of the 3rd game) to a local coach and ask for the coach's opinion of his idea of KKK & TBH's moving to the center to counter-attack the smashes?..;)"

    lastly, your post in red

    are this necessary?:p
     
  7. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    For Doubles, don't think of training of training to play defensive. Train to attack

    .
    I have spoken to Rexy Mainaky before, when he was here in Melbourne for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

    For Doubles, don't think of training to play defensive. Train to attack. :):):)
    .
     
    #187 chris-ccc, Sep 7, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2010
  8. Aspire

    Aspire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Petaling Jaya
    ctjcad, I am here. I can see your post and you don't need a messenger. Btw what can I do for you?

    For chris-ccc and pBm, you guys have gone great length trying to get the message across and in-between those lines of yours I pick-up some useful tips as well. Thank you once again.

    But sorry to say, they are many kinds of forumers here with different intellectual level in badminton and like what you'd pointed out different "wavelength". So to me at this point of time, I understand why they are still people grinding the same flour over and over again.

    But that is not all, most importantly one are willing to read and learn with an open heart in order to improve knowledge wise but sadly they are some......:(

    So ctjcad, to answer your question:- I've not shown the video to anybody and even if I do, its not for the purpose of proving my point to you pertaining this discussion. I rather save it for my self-improvements. Why, because you would't be able to understand to be dead frank.

    I'd said enough even to the point of over stressing at certain parts, so this shall be my last reply to you here.
     
  9. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    ..so, do you have an answer to this particular question? thanks!..:cool: :
    do you think KKK & TBH would be able to counter-attack those powerful smashes from FHF & CY without lifting, if they stood at the center of the court with their rackets held high, knowing they will have less time to see or even react to the smashes coming at them??
     
  10. jug8man

    jug8man Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    MultiTasked guy, Stress Addict, Leisure Bum, mad c
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Empty our cups ppl and receive.

    If you dont like the tea they are pouring, try not to spit it out in front of the host. :D
     
  11. pBmMalaysia

    pBmMalaysia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    badminton coach
    Location:
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    how could i have missed this.....

    how could i have missed this.....

    sometime i read your post and most of them are readable

    probably this one above you may have missed the point aspire tried to convey

    after we have summed it up for him

    and don't mind me saying this is the same case as ctjcad's ...

    your point: no matter what, cy/fhf is simply good in attacking.

    fyi, from your suggestion above let's say you put yourself, aspire and me against kkk/tbh

    i think a 10 yr kid will laugh crying...

    the whole point: if your opponent is attacking strongly

    even when your defenses are deep enough

    and stepping further into the center after each good return

    you still can't get the control back, something seriously is wrong here!

    simply you have to change your tactic to avoid such an occurrence again,

    continuing to do so is just like sitting duck.

    badminton is a game of tactic and strategy!

    you run out of it, you run out of winning points

    i hope we can keep it simple as i hate long discussions!;)
     
  12. jasonmarc

    jasonmarc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    10,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    MALAYSIA
    Move on guys, move on.....for a better tomorrow.....!!
     
  13. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    21
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Move on guys, move on....

    .
    Yes, jasonmarc is right. Move on guys, move on. :):):)
    .
     
  14. ERTHK

    ERTHK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Professional Designer
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Just to provide some info from my own playing experience,

    I'm mostly a front court player in doubles, & when I'm forced to do defending, that's due to 2 factors:

    1) Me & my partner were unsuccessful in forcing our opponents to lift the shuttlecock in the very first place
    (There are so many reasons for that to happen...like your pace is not fast enough or your opponent is very good at the front & just played a very good net drop, forcing u to lift...and etc etc)

    2) Me & my partner were losing control from the front of the court.
    (By surrendering the front court possessions to your opponents, there's only one outcome - u are being pushed to your own rear court)

    I agree that u can change defend into attack by driving the shuttlecock back instead of keep lifting them. In doing this, u "might" force your opponent to lift the shuttlecock, thus creating chances for u to attack.

    But driving the shuttlecock back might be a little bit tricky as u might think, u will need to be aware of your opponent's front court player. He'll be waiting in the front, ready to pounce on any loose shot u make, or simply just do a soft block & force u to lift the shuttlecock again.

    In my experience, if the smash is not steep and sharp, I can drive the shuttlecock back with wrist flick.

    On the other hand, if my opponent's smash is very powerful and steep & their front court player is already racket head up waiting...

    9 out of 10 times, I will choose to lift the shuttlecock to my opponent's back court smasher...u might wonder why?

    because I don't want to risk driving the shuttlecock back, only to be intercepted by my opponent's front court player for an easy net kill.

    My double's coach always remind me of gaining the net play, because by gaining the front court possession, u will also gain attacking opportunities. This is easier said than done, u will need to be physically & mentally stronger than your opponent, in order to execute your strategy well...because your opponent will also try to do the same towards u.

    Let's put it this way - Mens doubles is about u pressure your opponent into making mistakes, u pressure your opponents to lift the shuttlecock for u to attack....NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND

    However, if unfortunately, u are the ones who are forced to lift the shuttlecock, u can always find chances to turn your defense into attack, by driving the shuttlecock back towards your opponents - at an flat angle with pace......providing that u can survive your opponents smashes.

    But my advice is, always trying to gain control of the front, creating attacking chances & win points by attack...even if u are in a defensive position, u can still turn defend into attack....remember - U win games by attacking and counter-attacking, not by defending.

    Thanks for reading.
     
    #194 ERTHK, Sep 10, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  15. undeadshot

    undeadshot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,410
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Malaysia
    The most intelligent answer and detailed answer so far. Thanks you ERTHK!
     
  16. pBmMalaysia

    pBmMalaysia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    badminton coach
    Location:
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    that was a good one from erthk!

    ''its better to attack & counter attack than to be defensive''.

    besides the drive shots as mentioned by him

    there still a number of skills which can be used to counter a strong attack.
     
  17. george@chongwei

    george@chongwei Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    29,923
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    MIA
    This is da KEY WORD;)
     
  18. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,966
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Umm... but isn't that already tacitly understood? :confused:

    I think this was already mentioned several times a few pages back. And I think that we all know that we ain't gonna win points if we don't aggressively attack when given the chance.

    Even the badminton bible mentions this in the doubles section.
     
  19. pBmMalaysia

    pBmMalaysia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    badminton coach
    Location:
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia

    even though it may sound familiar and easily understood

    it is still very broad ........

    for example when it comes to attack, naturally every player would think and use their smashes aggressively or play aggressively!

    in fact there are more and anything that can cause confusions, discomfort, loss of rhythm etc towards your opponent

    is an attack!

    in todays world standard double, one just don't play simple attack and hope to win points for the fact every players trains a lot and would be able to be defensive when they are under attack and counter attack when they have the chances.

    its all about the quality of one's building shots and of course their winning shots as well. if they are easily read they have to act fast.

    in the case of kkk/tbh, what lies in their 2nd and 3rd sets was probably technical though we could see them a bit slow.

    this could be they were too defensive and giving opportunities to the china pair aggressively attack and this tells us the latter are fitter?

    here i don't think so..
     
  20. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,966
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Very good points you've given, :) especially re building shots and winning shots. Especially at high levels of play, any weak attack is easily counter-attacked, so one has to be careful in selecting shots that have a higher chance of building up an offensive position. Thus hopefully leading to a vicious cycle of greater attack for you and weaker returns for your opponents.

    Re various types of attack, again a good reminder. Chris-ccc's post from the previous page is excellent in reminding me that I don't need to always power smash in order to attack; because a well placed drop or net shot is also an attack if it puts extra time pressure on my opponent.


    In my mind, I classify attacks into 3 types, depending on the type of pressure it puts on the opponents.
    1. Time pressure.
    This will take advantage of your opponent's footwork, or lack of it.
    Examples are well placed drops or half smashes when you opponent is near the baseline expecting a smash. Or even a sudden deceptive clear to the back if you see that your opponent is rushing the net thinking you're about to do a net shot.

    2. Power pressure.
    This will take advantage of your opponent's strength, or lack of it.
    Examples are clears or drives to an opponent's weak backhand.

    3. Reaction pressure.
    This will take advantage of your opponent's reaction time, or lack of it.
    Examples of this include smashes to the racket hip that makes it hard to return, and also drives directed at the head as it makes it difficult for your opponent to judge the bird's speed and react accordingly. Also included is the obvious power kill smash into the open court or down the middle in between the doubles players.

    These are the types of attack that go thru my mind when I know my opponent's weaknesses. Eg tall players, I find, are difficult to time pressure because of their extra reach, but are susceptible to reaction pressure, like drives to the head and body, probably due to their arms being longer and heavier and slower to move.

    Anyways, just imho...:D
     
    #200 visor, Sep 11, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010

Share This Page