Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2019 Tournaments' started by CLELY, Nov 4, 2019.
Yeah esp with Wang not in his best form.
Resting in G2 is a recognition that the opponent is too strong to be defeated in straight games. It may seem like a smart strategy but essentially cowardly. It s dishonest to hibernate in G2 so that he can up another gear in G3 but no rule is broken. It s called winning on the sly.
Why did Steen try and play shrink, commenting Victor lost G3 at the mental level. If that were so, Victor wouldn't have even taken G2. With Victor expending energy and Momota conserving energy in G2, it s not surprising that in G3, Victor s engine would be sputtering for lack of fuel even if he tried to mentally willed it to work.
Nah I still feel the Chinese pair will somehow defeat WatanHiga. The latter always choke against the Chinese.
I don't see anything cowardly in that approach. As long as the match isn't controversial, any strategy is okay.
Just watched pramel vs yutahiga, damn the japanese really defended well, praveen having a hard time killing the shuttle and arisa got the better of melati this time. not that many mistake from yuta either surprisingly, hopefully he could play like this against wang/huang tomorrow.
Country representatives in SF
6 - JPN
4 - CHN
2 - MAS, TPE, DEN
1 - INA, IND, KOR, CAN
It's players with strategies that make badminton such an interesting game. Axelsen and his coaches will be fully aware of what they are up against; as it is, their game-plan, as well as Axelsen's skill (stamina) level just weren't quite enough to counter Momota.
I have no idea how intelligent a man Axelsen is, but judging by your post, you seem to give him very little credit in this department.
Can anyone guess who that one player is?
Hint: need to click on the twitter to see what's after the hashtag Movember
so, like, in boxing, do you think rope-a-dope is cowardly and\or unethical?
An outlandish theory, rather hypothesis (how do you test it?) - adopting a smart strategy to win is cowardly, dishonest and winning on the sly but without breaking any rules?! Who cares what strategy you use as long as you win and abide by the rules, I should say.
As for Steen, I can understand why he made that 'mental thing' remark, considering the kind of mistakes Viktor committed in G3 after taking G2 convincingly and in the context of his preceding eleven straight losses to Momota. In my opinion, VA's level is quite close to Momota's, their one-sided H2H record in Momota's favour is considered an aberration between two top-notch players, for which the likely explanation is more of the intangible than physical. For me, his appearing fatigued in G3, a stamina issue, is more a sign of frustration. I mean, how tired due to accumulated fatigue can he - a 25-year-old in his prime - be in the quarterfinals when he started the tournament fresh?
My guess is that, possibly, VA was psychologically defeated even before the match started, and then when he equalized with G2 by a wide margin of 21-12, he probably still couldn't believe he would prevail in the decider, and it turned out to be the case though I'd think losing by 16-21 wasn't that bad. That's just my opinion.
The question is, when can VA end the string of defeats? I don't believe such an anomaly can go on for too long as, to me, the two are not really a class apart. We'll see.
Ya, good question. What about deceptive strokes, disguised or trick shots?
I guess all that matters in sports is winning. So, from that standpoint, all strategies are valid as long as they are "not against the rules".
You will often see the phrases : "what rule did ___ break?" And "if it was against the rules, why did the umpire/ BWF didn't do anything?"
I would rather see Axelsen and other players become players who are ready for everything, and capable of winning regardless or number of games and circumstances.
Not unethical but certainly boring to watch.
Do you prefer 12 rounds boxing matches that end with a decision or matches that end with a K.O. ?
From the standpoint of winning, it is certainly a sound strategy. From what I've learned from sports fans, anything is fair as long as you can get away with it.
agreed, cuz that's what being #1 is all about.
i don't care since i'm not a boxing fan, whereas, a boxing purist would appreciate any and all strategies.
i'm a badminton purist, but one who doesn't watch with emotional attachments to players, thereby inciting conspiracy theories and such.
If you don't care because you're not a boxing fan, then was there a point to your analogy?
What I said has nothing to do with being #1
only marvin in semifinal
And when did he do that? During a later match? Because he didn't in the match against Axelsen, at least not to my knowledge.
What Steen actually said:
(between 2-0 and 2-1, first game)
Gill Clark: "[...] but obviously, Viktor Axelsen has some sort of psychological problem, and perhaps technical problem, I don't know which. What do you think?"
Steen Pedersen: "yeah, I think it's more uh...the technicalities, technical and physical problems that are, sort of, like, turning into what can be interpreted as a psychological problem. He's just a very good matchup for Kento Momota, is Viktor Axelsen. Viktor's strength plays directly into where Momota is strong and, uh, Viktor's weakness is...is exploitable by Kento Momota, he's got the weapons to exploit them [...]"
(around 13-9 first game)
Steen Pedersen: "[...]The bottom line is, the shot quality of Axelsen is not at all good enough in my opinion. And that's why he's lost eleven matches in a row."
Gill Clark: "Wow."
I second Gill : "Wow."
Hope no one will start saying Steen wasn't right grammatically.
Marvin lost yesterday in QF against minions though.
I'd have to strongly disagree. In many sports, you will find tactical pacing where a player will slow the pace down OR speed it up. This is part of an overall strategy.
Ever heard of the idiom "win the battle but lose the war"? It's a good application in this scenario.
Which player would be synonymous to #NoNutNovember
Play hard. Train harder.