Changing training trends in Indian badminton – Part 2

“Indians have certain natural advantages: the wrist is flexible, for instance, and that helps you play more deceptive strokes”

The one question nobody has been able to answer satisfactorily thus far is the question of race. Are East Asians genetically privileged for a sport such as badminton? Conversely, are Indians naturally disadvantaged? This question has a direct bearing on training, which we will examine in a minute.

To those who don’t believe in the nature-over-nurture theory, the question of race might seem irrelevant, perhaps even dangerous. But any top-level badminton player will tell you that race is the perhaps the single decisive factor in this sport. Just consider the evidence: if we take the All England (men’s singles) as an indicator, no non-Asian has won the title in the last ten years. Since 1980, when the game became truly international, only four Europeans have won the title – all of them from the traditional powerhouse Denmark. Most winners have come from China, Indonesia and Malaysia. This pattern holds true for all events in the sport.

In short, there is overwhelming evidence to show that, racially, East Asians are built for badminton – even a cursory glance will show that they are more explosive than any other race. Europeans, on the other hand, have their own distinct advantages, such as height and natural strength.

As Anup Sridhar, former India No.1, who played two seasons for a Danish club, says: “Europeans are naturally strong, while (East) Asians tend to be lighter. They don’t need to do as much gym work as us. Yet, I see them lifting very heavy weights these days. Like I recall Lin Dan was bench-pressing 65 kilos half-an-hour before his match in the Asian Games team championships semifinals.”

With the game becoming faster, even minor differences tend to get exacerbated, and for Indians in particular, the physical aspect of the game is a particular challenge. Sport science in India was for long a neglected subject, and it’s only in recent times that greater expertise is available. Methods have undergone a shift, and what was once considered absolute truth is no longer accepted without question. For instance, most assume that working with heavier weights tends to improve power and explosiveness, but this theory has its detractors.

Deckline Leitao, Performance Enhancement Specialist at the Padukone Academy, believes badminton players only need to work with moderate weights rather than heavy weights (‘moderate’ and ‘heavy’ being relative terms, of course) to minimise the chance of injuries. Deckline classifies heavy weights as those you can do a maximum of six reps; while moderate would mean up to 12 reps.

“The Chinese can afford to do heavy weight training because there are so many of them; if one breaks down, there is a replacement available. With us, that’s not the case. When I talk of moderate weights, I don’t mean a reduction in the intensity. The reps are moderate, the intensity is not. The question we have to ask is: ‘is the training relevant to badminton?’ We should be more concerned with functional strength. Building muscle and building strength are two things…. to build strength, you need higher weights, with lower reps. But we should be focussing on building power, because that’s a combination of strength and speed. We actually need power, rather than pure strength, because strength without speed is useless in badminton.”

Deckline advocates training that will enable a player to play at maximum intensity on court, rather than tire him off it and reduce his on-court intensity. Views vary with trainers too, and it’s hard for one philosophy to dominate. Players will gravitate to the trainer they are most comfortable with.

Increasingly, it is becoming evident that a common programme cannot work, because individuals have different body types, and therefore require personalised training. HS Prannoy, for instance, is cautious about advocating any one theory that will fit all players. The task becomes even more complicated if an injury occurs. Prannoy believes it’s hard to lay down one principle; that even heavy weights to build explosiveness might be counter-productive. “I used to do half-squats with 150 or 160 kilos,” he says. “But you find that, with heavier weights sometimes, you tend to get more bulky, and hence you might move slowly on court. Explosiveness is important, so it’s probably better to do half-squats with 80 or 90 kilos, but with quicker repetitions. I think it varies from one individual to another.”

Where does that leave Indians in general? The consensus is that Indians have neither the natural explosiveness of the East Asians, nor the height or strength of Europeans. All of this obviously means additional work required to build up the body to a level where it is capable of matching international standards. Few Indians have the knowledge or the experience to guide young players in this area.

Prakash Padukone, the first Indian to achieve success worldwide, was a votary of using native Indian strengths to offset the disadvantages. “No matter how much you train, you cannot match the pace or the explosiveness of the East Asians,” Padukone once said. “You obviously have to work hard physically, so that you can match at least 80 percent of their speed. Indians have certain natural advantages: the wrist is flexible, for instance, and that helps you play more deceptive strokes. So we have to use our ability in precision, courtcraft and deception to counter the difference in pace and explosiveness.”

Here’s the Part 1 of the series.