Actually, I personally prefer to hear more about Singles (learning this for my kid ), but do fire away... As the players are all so good (e.g. LCW vs LD), I'm wondering, for this particular learning purpose, maybe I should watch games between 2 players with obviously different skill levels. This may help highlight the tactic and strength of the stronger player much better. So this would usually mean the earlier rounds of a tournament, rather the finals. Sometimes, the tactics used by a strong player is obvious and I feel I can learn something out of it, but a lot of time I can only watch with my jaw dropped. E.g. I like the Youtube clip in which LD was playing WCH. LD used a left/right strict alternating shot sequence to set up WCH mentally, and won that rally with a deceptive shot that broke the sequence. This is a good example of "conditioning" your opponent and when to use deception with effect.
In Singles, deception plays a BIG, BIG role . In Singles, deception plays a BIG, BIG role (much more than in Doubles). This is because only one player is defending one's court (not to allow the shuttlecock landing on one's court). Therefore, in Singles, a player usually tries to get his/her opponent 'wrong footed' by deception, in which I mean; to entice an opponent (to move to) to protect a section of the court, but send the shuttlecock to another area. .
- that is the only constructive thing said about strategy so far, IMO. (NB: I changed the bold) First strategy/tactic/operational is link togehter, if you use them separate it is useless, so dont forget even one of them. So what ever you choose to look at, there should be a touch of all the approaches. In business the idea that strategy is a long term firm plan for the next 10 years "the goal", bla bla bla, and tactics is more detailed "how to get there" plan (middle-management concern), is unfortunately very common. Its bull-**** and not usefull for serious business (but the very fine plans surely looks nice for investors). I have seen so many large companies suffering from this approach, and they dont seem to learn. With a classic business approach, the trainer/coach in badminton would be responsible for the tactics... (Another thing is that you can talk strategy for your carrier, tournament or one game. I guess we talk about the game here!).
Returning to this older topic, on what the difference between tactic and strategy is: I'd to include that a strategy is a chosen set of sequences of strokes, while the tactic is the chosen strokes in a sequence. In Badminton there are strokes, certain strokes in a sequence often produce a winner, like obtaining a lift (below net contact) from the opponent in order to hit a smash (strokes: push and then smash); a certain sequences do make the play of a player and the "style of play" is determined by these sequences. The big question is what sequences do have value given the opponent's ability? So, after some musing certain sequences are discarded, some become more doable, some are not. In the end, you have a set of sequences that may work in order to attain a goal, like ... In the first few minutes, certain sequences are there to test the opponents abilities. After the learning, the winning sequences remain while the rest is just not getting you anywhere. Given the learned winning sequences, the very choice to stick to these sequences ... which is very specific (a combinatorial thing) ... the set of sequences is a strategy. After having explained this ... a tactic, I think, is simply a sequence of strokes.
Returning to this older topic, I'd suggest in Badminton context that a strategy is the set of stroke sequences and a tactic is a particular sequence of strokes and little tweaks to your play. In Badminton there are stroke sequences. Especially if the opponent has handicap, a sequence of strokes that tries to exploit this handicap is a very well established tactic, like always in MD/xD shoot at the weaker partner's weakest hand, usually the backhand; or like playing multiple times towards the opponent's backhand rearcourt ... so that she adjusts and then you nail down the bird with a smash in the forehand's midcourt, both are tactics ... a particular sequence of strokes. There are many other sequences like left-right-left-right or front-back-front-back or drop-left--clear--right--smash etc. I suggest to call these tactics, because the very meaning of the word is "arrangement".
If you begin to devise these sequences to be played against a particular type of opponent you indeed become strategic. Yet, yet the term strategy is purposefully a thing of military affairs, politics and has a particular prominence in the arkane field of game theory which usually deals with military affairs, politics, and parlor games, too.
Strategy = attack his backhand. Tactic = clears/drops/drives to his backhand side. Strategy = tire him by making him move around alot Tactic = clears followed by cross-court drops Strategy = slow his movements Tactic = do a few deceptive shots to make him hesitate
I think the "devising/preparing alternate plans for contingencies and methods" have not been in it? I'd say, a strategy is more detailed than that as many pointed out here, so I try to synthesize: Example Winning strategy (set) = exploit the backhand, tire him and (but don't slow his movements) in 70% of times of a match; if he performs well, though, increase the speed and proportion of attacks (etc...); in defense never do xyz. Used tactics = see for strokes and tweaks in quote above and imagination. I don't think the game would be that easy like suggested in the quote above.
Sometimes it's simple...sometimes it's not. Just showing that strategy is the idea...tactics is how you do it.
