The problem with Gade is that he keep playing his own style and not learning from his defeat. The WC is just the repeat of AE S/F with Gopi. H is playing like Gopi. Gade always try to read his opponent's shot, get in position quickly and develop an edge. This tactic is good as long as your opponent's shot is somewhat predicable, like how he beat Chen Hong. But he is not learning (or his counch is not learning) like the Chinese did. Look at how Chen Hong beat Gopi in the WC S/F (15-10. 15-10) and Gopi never had a chance. If Chen Hong played against H in final, H will never have a chance.
quite true, he needs to develop some versatility, play it by ear and not to his gameplan where needed.
fatbird wrote: > If Chen Hong played against H in final, H will never > have a chance. And why is that ? If the Chinese learned so well, then why was he beaten so easily by Gade in the second set ?
Chen Hong lost to Gade becasue he lack the versatility at the net and Gade seem to be able to read his shot pretty well. Gade lost to Handerwan because he wanted to dominate the game with speed, tiring H down. Consequently he frequently jump started before the reply. With the decptive shots by Handerwan, Gade frequently had to jeek back and changed his direction (one can easily see the similarity when Gade played Gopi in the AE), resulting in lose shots. What Gade needed to do is just like what Chen Hong played against Gopi in the WC S/F, held back and use the speed and power to overcome the deceptive play. One need to know that deceptive play only work when it can mis-time your opponent's move. If your opponent stay alert (rather than jump started into "expected" position), deceptive shot will just like a normal shot. Your opponent can still move into position (albeit a little late) and choose his shot. Handerwan play like Gopi. Chen Hong can beat Handerwan because he know how to play this kind of game but Gade is not learning. Looking at how Chinese played against Handerwan in Asia Cup and Sudiman Cup, Handerwan style of play is well read by the Chinese. That's why I'm saying H has no chance if he played against Chen Hong in the final. It is important to understand the style of play between Chen Hong and Gade are pretty similar, coming out from the same mould. With the net dominated by Gade, Chen Hong has no chance of winning unless he can win back the net play.
Let us date back to the All england championship. I think gopi is not all that amazingly talented like Taufik or Gade.But he is a work horse and has a good range of deceptive shots.If u remember the Semi final between gade and Gopi u would have found out that gopi played a close to perfect game. gade gave him a scare even after a bad run in the all englabd championships. He was nowhere near his best and still took gopi to more than 15 points.That just goes to show u how talented gade is! Gopi was ta his best with his net dribblest. It was even better then the net game played by henderwan agst gade in the recently concluded world championships. In the final Gopi made so many mistakes agst Hong. Luckily for gopi Hong was tired after Rolim match the previous day. Hong is no great shakes.His repertoire is not anywhere as good as Gade or henderwan or gopi or taufik. I thinik the same thing happened to gade. He played very good agst Hong and thrashed him and then made so many unforced errors agst henderwan. I have not seen gade play as bad as this. All credits to Henderwan. There is no place for hong when u talk abt the best four. Gade, taufik, Roslim and gopi. I think Gopi Vs Gade is always the interesting match up and taufik Vs roslim plays second fiddle. i think Gade is the smoothest player in the circuit right now.
Isn't that what most people do..........playing his own style? If one tries to learn from his defeat, he can only succeed to a certain degree that is practicable to him & him alone.If he goes beyond that, it becomes unnatural not only to him but also to those ppl watching him play & that may become be his undoing . Maybe the Chinese try to learn too much from their defeat that's why their players look more unnatural whilst playing than say Taufik or Gade.And their games look more contrived & their variation from game to game with different opponents is greater as they' forget' whom they are playing with & hence they are more inconsistent as they are not truer to their usual selves than others They may succeed to score wins occasionally but later they return to their former selves.. E.g Xinpeng won the Olympics but subsequently lost in the early rounds of the J-Open, the AE and the W-C'ships.......... Juz my 2 cents.......
Yogesh wrote: > > > There is no place for hong when u talk abt the best four. > Gade, taufik, Roslim and gopi. > > Wow.... Roslin and Gopichand? That's something... I beg to differ. There are so many better players around. Top ten, maybe. But among the best four? Personally, no way... at least not now.
Taufik always play in his own style. Which round did he out in AE? Who he lost to in the Asia Cup and other tournments? The major difference between professional and ametuer player is that professional play to win, for himself and the country. In every match, he has to think how to win, not how to exhibit his style. That's why they need a strong mentality, disciplined approach.... Sounds boring and lack of personality. True, but if you can be in the national team, this is how it work. That's why so many good players shattered and few make it to the top and stay there. For spectators and rest of us, we can make so many comments that sound reasonable to us, like what's here in this forum. But in the National team, the life is totally different. Go and talk to the players in your national team and found out.
u knw so much, ever been in the national team??? if not, ...... ok i won't make some of my ruder remarks here.
A true top player should also show flexibility in handling new tactics or techniques. Just sticking to one playing style maybe largely successful for a variable length of time but new players always come through who have learnt how to combat an older player's particular style. This is all part of discipline and ambition to stay at the top. Morten Frost was largely successful at his own particular style of play until Zhao and Yang Yang came. To my rather untrained eye, it seemed that Morten would change his style when playing Yang Yang in the latter years. He suffered a straight sets loss in WGPF 1986 and yet in a later WC, took Yang Yang to a close set loss (I think 1989). I got the impression he played more downward attacking shots to minimise Yang Yang's severe attack.
I worked in the national team, not playing in. To train up a top player, he needs at least 4 to 5 playing partners with various styles to sharpen his skills and tactics. These playing partners were supposedly told to play with the top player to touch up their skills but in reality, they will never make it in the big scene. I was one of the playing partner. Therefore, I worked in the team but not played in the team. I acknowledge any remarks, rude or constructive.
I am happy to hear we have a expert in this place. I will come here often, try to learn more from you.
Nice to know that u have such a good insight of the game but has your main player ever got make waves in the international circuit or is he playing for UZbekistan? No offence meant! We need such great insights. Encore
