Although the word rotation is very popular in football especially in the media, there is still the old adage “Never change a winning team”. Looking at the root formation of FC Bayern, Mario M. has displaced the striker last season Mario G. – Coach Jupp Heynkes succeeds the media to the result this season better to use a large number of games to all divas enough mission time to treat. As long as the success is there, the cake is big enough for everyone and everyone gets a piece. In addition, failures make rotation also necessary and murmuring players fall silent. So it’s the mix of rotation and never change that seems to bring success.
But now it is in tactics in badminton go and once with the restriction to the area “not international top”. Here I observe, no matter whether it is about the district or regional league or the youth field, often deviations from a successful tactic and possibly then lost sentences or even badminton games. From “never change a winning tactic” is deviated so unscheduled here. Tactics can also be planned – but as long as this is the case, we are still in the “never change” area. These tactics can have several reasons, of which I would like to enumerate three here:
On the one hand, pure forgetting, disregarding or not perceiving the actual successful tactic. This can also be due to various things, stress, lack of experience or even lack of tactical knowledge. You play a successful tactic, but know nothing about it and then change crucial things during the game. As a coach, I have the opportunity to intervene precisely when stress or forgetting the route – is not a coach on the sidelines I should ask myself as a player, why the points with the opponent and not land with me and what I could change it, instead of quickly back to provide the next rally.
Another reason is often – especially in youth – the thought “the enemy could perceive the tactics”. Brad Gilbert in Winning Ugly also describes this often (not always) erroneous idea or rather the erroneous conclusion.- which includes many of these pragmatic tips. Ultimately, you put a thesis in the room and change because of this already the successful tactic? Often not the smartest. Furthermore, one must actually ask oneself here whether the opponent can change something – tactically and also technically / pyhsischs. Does he even have the tactical skills to develop a counter-strategy that also has disadvantages for me? And does he even have the technical means to solve this situation differently, let alone the physical means? For example, if I have a mixed lady on the other side, who always has problems accepting the shipping surcharge, then I will not change the strategy after five successful serves and points of either direct or indirect kind and then suddenly strike short. Otherwise maybe, if she puts herself a little further back or recognizable (!) puts her focus backward. But even then it must be explored whether it is then sufficient for the opposing lady to solve the situation accordingly better.
Point No. 3: own, I call it once “play instinct” – maybe also a habit. I think many badminton players will recognize each other here. One has a promising tactic in mind, but habit or automatism (à la I play the backhand always hard or clear) cause that one does not implement the actual tactics. Likewise, fall into this category trick or “Sunday strikes” – as long as they are not necessarily part of the tactics – it is usually only nice if they work out. Then you have to ask yourself what the goal is – fun and nice play – or win. Both can work as well – but usually not against an opponent at eye level (unless own strengths and automatisms match “100%” to the opponent with the same strength).
Another point that I would like to add, especially as a mathematician, is to look at the trend.
In many areas, trends are being surveyed – whether in the weather, in the economy or or-or. But also in matches, you should have the trend as a trainer and as a player in mind in order to be able to make adjustments, if necessary. Let’s say, as a player I lead to the start of the match 8: 2 and go 11: 9 in the set break. Then my opponent has had a run of 7: 3 in the last few points. Here is now caution and analysis required – if it would just go on, I lose the sentence 4-5 points difference.
At this point, I have to look closely – was it perhaps just simple mistakes, I can play with the proviso, “safer” perhaps make the sentence successful. In contrast, it may have been my adversary who has found a successful strategy that I could not fault or that I may not have recognized. This is something players and coaches have to worry about. This also applies to block breaks.
A typical example that is also very sporty psychologically very interesting, would be the following: The player is with a high deficit of 11:17 back and loses just under 20:20 with 20:22. Annoying? Could be – but the anger would not be conducive to the 2nd movement. If you look at the last trend, the result is an intermediate score of 9: 5 points – a very positive message to the player, which should be taken instead of the lost sentence – in the next sentence – finally you have in the last third of the sentence apparently a lot done right.
If you adore both thoughts “never change a winning tactic” and the trend, then some games can be different and possibly with a different outcome.