Tenure fee for holding WR#1 - Interesting!! Interesting, just be aware that there's some weekly "tenure fee" for holding the WR#1,,, never read this scheme before, but i just follow thing very loosely so, why should he (who's still the WR#1) ever [consider to] resign early --> the paddy field is still very fertile, quite arable,,, the harvest is still very high
Luck? LD got a bad call on a smash that was cleary in shown in the replay and NEXT to the umpire. Then the umpire overules an in call against LD on the FAR side when even the replay wouldnt show a clear answer. so who was favored here? LD also won his final 6 points off brilliant smash and some shaky mistakes from LCW so how is that luck? LD would also not have played such a crappy 2nd game if it was a deciding game. LCW won the first game in 2012 OG, 2011 & 2013 WC Finals and only got 10, 14 & 13 points in the second games respectively. LD's record speaks for himself.
If LCW had won the first set, you can be assured LD would have played differently in set 2. Seeing the way LCW dropped in intensity in the third set, it is guaranteed that LD always had 3 sets in mind. Remember WC13 when he "outlasted" LCW ?
Nope, if LD lost the 1st set, he would take 2nd set for sure. LD was playing in a lower gear in the 1st set but decided to play for real when it was 16-20. How do we know this? He did the same thing against Hu Yun at 13-20 and came back to beat Hu Yun 22-20. What you saw was LD play in a lower gear in the first set until 16-20, then turn on 6th gear to win 22-20. Then LD saved his energy and played at a lower gear again in the second set (but he started to tire LCW out). LD then switched to the 6th gear again in the 3rd set to win easily. You may think it's luck that LD came back at 16-20 to beat LCW. But since it happened to Hu Yun at 13-20 in the exact same tournament, it's obvious LD only shifts to 6th gear when he needs to. Also, watch LD's match against CL. LD played in a lower gear to try to save energy in the first set. It didn't work and CL ran away with the 1st set easily. LD was then forced to shift to 6th gear in the next 2 sets. Fortunately, LD had enough energy to last through to the 3rd set against CL.
Timz, that is some hardcore denial. Any answer to this question other than "LD is a better player than LCW" is irrelevant. I don't like that truth, either. I cheer for LCW because I like an underdog, but that's everything you need to know: he is an underdog. It's not as much a matter of mental strength or competitive instinct or any of the other peripheral theories people come up with as it is simply a difference of skill. That is the only consistent, believable explanation for such a brutal 10-year head-to-head history. End thread. Go home, folks.
Lin Dan has some amazing attributes. Ability to change pace. Ability to hit very steep and strong smashes from slightly short lifts And the ability to reel off six points in a row at game point down. He's a very cool customer at game and match points. That's worth a psychological edge. His weakness? Sometimes he gets bored and loses to people that we expect him to steamroller.
All of the above is definitely necessary to consider. In addition, LCW definitely focused on the WC WHILE he was still recovering from injury. He didn't have a chance to properly train for the AG. Meanwhile, Lin Dan hasn't played a serious tournament since Australian Open (well, there was Taipei Open, depending on your viewpoint), and has had lots of time to train.
yes, it's all due to bad luck that wei wei lost. how can Super Dan be so great that he can play perfect badminton from 5 points down? 1 single mistake and wei wei would have won it.
Correct. Thread can be closed. LD is the best and the CHN fans are having a field day. LCW is the underdog and on the decline and will be very hard to beat those 2 Chinese players. He can forget about the majors because those 2 Chinese players will certainly be there. He can win those SS but JOJ, KT and a few others may stop him once a while but who cares about SS. Only GC is counting, as one member said. Perhaps, the Service Judge should have faulted him on one of the service, like in the final. But he would still take the second game and the match. I have already reached home.
Gets bored and hence loses?... lol. Highlight of this whole thread. You have given a new dimension to match outcomes... wonderful..
It was painfully obvious in the Asian Games that LD was totally and physically more superior than LCW. He has not played "competitively" for an ENTIRE YEAR and still made LCW look inferior. Imagine this - LCW was doing EVERYTHING to win the first set and STILL LOST. Then LD decides "what the hell" and let his buddy win the 2nd set by committing error after error.... so that it won't look like a one-sided contest. Come third set and BOOM..... he puts on Turbo mode and the result was 21-9.
Well, he played in the Australian SS, but you raise another good point. LD hasn't been in the swing of things and he comes back and no one can touch him. I don't even think we can say with a straight face that it's a close contest between LCW and LD anymore.
10 years before I was in school and dont know anything about badminton. That's not the point here. Nobody will lose just because he/she is bored. All of this sport is not about lindan. Fans should come down to earth before talking something unnecessary about the outcomes of the matches.
Ha ha.. did I use that word anywhere mr. Tutor.?. First come out of your dreams and reply to correct person. Lol.
After watching the MSSF of AG it is striking that Lin Dan's play-style is much more energy conserving than LCW's. I think for LCW to win against LD he has to play only short rallies. So avoiding the long rallies by playing a risky shot when it goes to long (like Hendra Setiawan is doing it in MD) In the long rallies LCW is the one that has to do much more than LD. And the speed of LCW drops for the next few rallies after a long rally while Lin Dan speed is more than less the same. But I have watched the match only once. That was the first thing that came up to my mind. So I did not analyzed it properly. So that I could be wrong.
