Hello all, Watching the World Badminton Championship had me thinking that most of the matches went into decider third set. Singles / Doubles / Mixed. Is it due to some strategic gameplan that is getting more popular among the coaches/players? Is there some science behind it which predicts better outcomes for the person winning the first set? Or simply that's how long tournaments are played at professional level. Because as a casual player going into third set creates more panic/confusion
Change of ends with change of drift will be a big factor. You don’t get that same effect with smaller halls unless the door / window is open to the outside or if there is air conditioning
There this thing that Anders Antonsen does. Where if he was the first set, and finds himself struggling in the second set. He would just give up in that set and fight for the third set.
I guess that one would find out during the first game how strong your opponent is. If he’s not strong and you win the game decisively, you can go on dominate the second game and bring things to a conclusive end. If your opponent is quite evenly matched with skill and fitness wise then it becomes a game of wits. If you lose the second game you still have the third game to try and outsmart your opponent…all things being equal.
No, I don't think that's what he/she meant. No player would want to play three games if they can win it in two. But when there is a strong drift, it's usually easier to play from one of the sides. That can be a contributing factor to why so many matches go to a deciding set. One player then has the advantage in the first game and the other has the advantage in the second.
The pattern with most singles player matches is that whoever won the first will win the third. If you won the first, and try to wrap it up in 2 games but fail, then you could be in trouble. The opponent now knows that they can beat you when you are trying your hardest, and if you really went for it, then both players likely spent a lot of energy. The player who lost the first must win the second. If they want to safely force a decider they will want to have a healthy lead throughout the second game and win it convincingly. To do that against someone who just beat you in the first, will take a lot of energy. In the first game that scoreboard pressure doesn't exist as much so players can play more freely and relaxed. Furthermore, if you lost the first, and the opponent fights hard for the second, but you end up winning the second, you have the psychological advantage. You know that when the chips are down and you are both going for it, you can beat them. They might not be so sure after having lost the second. But what if they just left the second for you? What if you got an early lead, and they just decided to give up on the second and go for the third? Now, even though you have won the second, who is more likely to win the third? It is less clear. If I had just won the second game like this from someone, I would expect the third to be much more hard fought than the second. Now both players need to win, and it is more difficult to tell who has psychological edge. If anyone, it will be the player who won the first and likely spend less energy in the second than the opponent. Most players know/feel this dynamic. So the player who won the first has a choice. Either go for it in the second game for a straight set win. Or let the opponent work for the second, and go for it in the third. Most players won't make a decision right after winning the first. They will see how it goes in the second. If they get an early lead, or at least keep the score close with not too much effort, they might go for the second, but if they find that they have to work hard to keep up, or the opponent gets a decent lead, the could let it go. Few players decide at the start of the second to not go for it. Antonsen has done it a few times, where he spent a lot of energy winning the first and knows that he doesn't have the fitness to win the second. The only player I know of that consistently defies this dynamic is Kunlavut Vitidsarn. He often loses the first before winning it in three. It happens too often to be coincidental. Maybe he takes a while to get into a good rhythm. Maybe he needs some time to figure out his opponent. Maybe he is just mentally stronger than his opponents, and that when the pressures get higher, he is able to play more relaxed and not tense up or get nervy.
