I think I saw a clip once where one of the Malaysian single's players would spar with 4 (!) opponents on the opposite court. Probably one of Misbun Sidek's coaching techniques. On a good day (and that is most days of the year, haha) LCW is invincible.

I suppose they thought it'll be an easy win for them, because as you said on paper the difference's huge. So they probably weren't focused and therefore their shots were probably missing that accuracy that you have when you're fully concentrated.

On the flipside of this, I've had a really huge match this weekend (playing a tournament with our second best team as a 15 year old) and I got destroyed by someone I normally beat (3-0 record before). I was so nervous (generally I'm not) I couldn't even think clearly and then a service fault cost me a point at like 18-16 down and the last of my nerves. But after the match, someone of our first team gave me a few tips, like that I shouldn't even be competing here (not in an offensive way) and that I should just play for my fun, to gain experience. In my second match of the day, I was then much more relaxed and really enjoyed it, I could've won but after it was clear that we were going to win, I just lacked that 2 percent of motivation so I lost in 2 very close sets. This whole experience just made clear to me that after all, we don't earn our living with this sport, so you shouldn't ever forget what it's all about: fun.

Paul said:

As you're all finding out, there's a huge amount to be said for the coaches and training staff behind players. Additionally, the world of sport has really opened up to the huge part psychology plays in winning/losing.

…

So why did we manage to score so many points against such a good pair? Why is it they didn't tear us apart? On a pure physical basis they were the fastest and strongest players on court. So exactly what was the difference?

Paul

I would venture to guess that forced and unforced errors played a big role in that game, on the side on the opponent. I think speed and strength is just one small component of the game; the ability to read the match and to implement tactics and strategies to beat the stronger pair and exploit their weaknesses would be another. The latter obviously comes with experience. Tactics also include purely psychological ones, i.e. slowing the pace of a game to wear down the patience of an opponent who likes to smash and attack. I think LCW did this to some degree playing against LD during the recent AE 2011 Finals, and LD made some unforced errors that were quite uncharacteristic of him. But LCW kept him guessing as well with some well timed and well placed smashes cross court and lobs to the far back court.

Paul said:

Ray

I haven't had the chance to watch the final yet!!

I'll take a look over the next few days andmake a few notes. Feel free to jog my memory again if I haven't responded by next Tuesday.

Paul

Looking forward to your comments Paul. If you have the chance, the previous Japan Open Final between the two is also an interesting match, drawn out to three exciting games. I would like to have your opinion as to whether LCW's tactics were justified in the 2011 AE Final, where I think he was primarily on the defensive (with some brilliant attacks here and there) but was also able to control the pace of the game and frustrate LD.

As for your comment (1) on game plan, how does one avoid being too predictable implementing it? Perhaps I am confusing tactics versus strategy. One strategy might involve going to the net more often since the opponent is weaker in net play; tactics would actually tell me where, how, and when I should make my net plays. I guess there is a subtle difference but it would be interesting if you could quote say an actual match from a Super Series Final (anyone of them really that we can reference on Youtube) and tell us what you think one player's particular game plan was. Sometimes I have a feel for what a player is trying to accomplish but things get quite fuzzy once they start adapting their tactics to a fluid and changing match environment. Looking at someone like Gade, for instance, he would invariably use his skills playing at the net to set up his attacks (so often as to be predictable). But using this game plan against someone LCW the plan would more often backfire due to the latter's superb defense.