Associations Between Standardized Technical Performance and Match-Specific Unforced Errors in Turkish National Badminton Players Aged 15–17 Years

1. Introduction

Badminton is a high-intensity racket sport characterized by rapid changes in movement direction, repeated accelerations and decelerations, high stroke frequency, and short decision-making intervals. Successful performance requires athletes to combine technical proficiency with speed, agility, coordination, tactical awareness, and appropriate decision-making under time pressure [1,2,3]. Consequently, competitive badminton performance reflects the interaction of technical, physical, perceptual, and tactical components within the match-play environment [4,5].

Technical proficiency is a fundamental component of badminton performance. Strokes such as the short serve, high serve, clear, drop shot, and smash have distinct tactical functions and require accurate control of shuttlecock trajectory and placement. However, technical performance during competition cannot be considered independently of the structure and intensity of match play [1,6]. Ivan et al. [7], examining qualified badminton players aged 15–17 years, emphasized the importance of objectively analyzing competitive activity and technical actions to evaluate technical preparation and inform the training process. Their findings support the assessment of technical ability in relation to how technical actions are expressed during competition rather than relying exclusively on isolated testing conditions [7,8].

Match and notational analyses provide important tools for examining competitive execution. Leong and Krasilshchikov [9] emphasized the value of notational analysis for evaluating technical and tactical performance and movement characteristics during badminton competition. In comparing elite and youth international men’s singles players, they identified differences in game structure across performance and developmental levels. These findings indicate that competitive characteristics observed in elite adult badminton should not automatically be generalized to developing youth players [9,10].

Standardized technical tests and competitive match analysis assess related but distinct aspects of performance. Standardized tests provide controlled information about stroke accuracy and technical proficiency, whereas competitive performance requires players to adjust positioning, anticipate opponents’ actions, select appropriate strokes, and execute technical actions under temporal, physiological, and tactical constraints [11]. Research on perceptual-cognitive expertise and representative task design further indicates that performance demonstrated under relatively controlled conditions may not transfer directly to open, dynamic competitive environments characterized by greater contextual uncertainty [12,13]. Accordingly, high performance in an isolated technical test may not necessarily correspond to consistent technical execution during competition. Combining standardized technical assessment with match-based analysis may therefore provide a more comprehensive evaluation of player performance [7,9].

Competition-specific analyses of junior badminton further demonstrate the importance of context. Coenga et al. [14], analyzing 124 matches from the Pan-American Junior Badminton Championships, reported differences in temporal demands and stroke dynamics according to event type. Singles matches involved longer match and rally durations, whereas doubles involved higher shot frequencies, shorter rallies, and more concentrated activity. Such event-specific profiles among junior players reinforce the need to consider competitive context when evaluating the physical and technical demands placed on developing badminton players [14].

Technical and tactical behavior may also vary according to competition format. Zhao et al. [15], examining junior men’s singles matches from the 2024 BWF World Youth Championships, reported differences in technical-tactical behavior and scoring patterns between individual and team competition formats. Individual matches involved greater use of net-based strokes, whereas team matches showed comparatively more conservative technical-tactical patterns. Differences in the occurrence of unforced and forced errors were also reported across competition formats [15,16]. These observations suggest that competitive errors may reflect not only technical execution but also the tactical and situational demands under which strokes are performed.

Unforced errors therefore represent an important component of badminton match analysis. In the present study, an unforced error was defined as an unsuccessful stroke occurring without sufficient direct pressure from the opponent to account for the outcome, resulting in the shuttlecock failing to cross the net or landing outside the court boundaries. Examining both error type and spatial distribution across the front, middle, and rear court may provide information beyond total error counts because technical actions performed in different court areas involve different movement, coordination, temporal, and tactical demands [8,15].

This relationship between technical proficiency and competitive execution may be particularly relevant in players aged 15–17 years. Previous research has demonstrated the value of examining the structure and technical content of competitive activity specifically within this age group [7]. Studies comparing youth and elite international badminton players have similarly shown that match characteristics vary according to developmental and competitive level [9,17]. These findings provide a rationale for examining technical performance and competitive behaviour specifically in youth badminton rather than extrapolating directly from adult elite populations.

Despite previous investigations of competitive activity, temporal structure, and technical-tactical characteristics in young badminton players [7,9,14,15], evidence directly linking standardized technical test performance with match-specific unforced error profiles remains limited. In particular, it is unclear whether higher performance in standardized short serve, high serve, clear, drop shot, and smash tests is associated with fewer unforced errors of different types and court locations during official competition.

Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the relationships between standardized short serve, high serve, clear, drop shot, and smash performance scores and match-specific unforced error parameters in Turkish national-level badminton players aged 15–17 years. Relationships were examined separately in male and female players to identify patterns of association within each subgroup. By integrating controlled technical assessments with observations from official match play, this study sought to clarify the extent to which standardized technical performance is associated with technical consistency during competition and to inform more representative approaches to technical assessment and training in youth badminton.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 20 Turkish national-level badminton players (10 males and 10 females), aged 15–17 years, participated in the study. All participants were competitive badminton players who participated in events organized by the Turkish Badminton Federation.

2.2. Study Procedure and Ethical Approval

Prior to data collection, the athletes and their coaches were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study, including the standardized technical performance tests and match-specific unforced error analysis. Participation was voluntary, and all athletes agreed to participate. Informed consent for participation was obtained from the athletes’ parents or legal guardians. The coaches responsible for the athletes during the competitions were also informed about and approved the data collection procedures. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Marmara University Institute of Health Sciences Ethics Committee (Approval No. 2017-165).

2.3. Technical Performance Tests

Technical performance was assessed using standardized tests of the short serve, high serve, clear, drop shot, and smash.

Short Serve Test. Participants performed short serves so that the shuttlecock passed through the space between the top of the net and an overhead cord positioned 50.8 cm above the net. Each participant performed 20 serves toward predetermined target zones. Each attempt was scored from 1 to 5 points according to the target zone in which the shuttlecock landed. Attempts that failed to pass through the required space or landed outside the designated boundaries received 0 points [18].

High Serve Test. Participants served the shuttlecock above a rope positioned at a height of 251.46 cm and located 152.4 cm behind the front service line of the opposite court. Each participant performed 20 high serves toward predetermined target areas. Each attempt was scored from 1 to 5 points according to the landing zone. Serves that landed outside the designated boundaries or failed to pass above the required height received 0 points [19].

Clear Test. Participants began the test 320 cm from the net. They were instructed to hit the shuttlecock over a rope positioned at a height of 251.46 cm and located 152.4 cm beyond the opponent’s short service line. A feeder delivered shuttlecocks randomly to different areas of the rear court, including the left, center, right, and corner areas. Participants moved to the appropriate position and performed a total of 20 clear shots. Each attempt was scored from 1 to 5 points according to the landing zone. Shots that landed outside the designated boundaries or failed to meet the required trajectory received 0 points [19].

Drop Shot Test. Participants began the test 320 cm from the net. They were instructed to direct the shuttlecock over a rope positioned 320 cm from the net at a height of 251.5 cm while ensuring that the shuttlecock passed below a second cord positioned 76.2 cm above net level. Shuttlecocks were delivered randomly to different rear-court areas, including the right, center, left, and corner positions. Participants adjusted their position according to the feed and performed a total of 20 drop shots. Each attempt was scored from 1 to 5 points according to the target zone in which the shuttlecock landed. Attempts that landed outside the designated target areas or failed to meet the required trajectory received 0 points [19].

Smash Test. Participants began the test 320 cm from the net. They were instructed to hit the shuttlecock through the target space between the top of the net and a boundary line positioned 106.68 cm above it. A feeder delivered 20 shuttlecocks to different rear-court locations, requiring participants to move to the appropriate position before performing each smash. Each attempt was scored from 1 to 5 points according to landing accuracy within the predetermined target zones [19].

2.4. Match-Specific Unforced Error Analysis

Match-specific unforced errors were analyzed across six competitions organized by the Turkish Badminton Federation: the Turkey U15 Championship, U17 National Team Selection, Turkish Badminton Super League, Turkish Badminton First League, Turkey Junior International, and a national selection event. In total, 55 official matches involving the participating athletes were analyzed.

For the purposes of the present study, an unforced error was defined as an unsuccessful stroke occurring without sufficient direct pressure from the opponent to account for the outcome and resulting in the shuttlecock either failing to cross the net or landing outside the court boundaries.

Three experienced observers conducted the match analyses using a standardized data collection grid. Each observer analyzed the matches assigned to them. Each identified unforced error was manually classified according to error type and court location. Error type was classified as either a net error or an out-of-bounds error, and court location was classified as front, middle, or rear court.

The match-analysis variables included percentage of unforced errors, total out error, total net error, error in front court, error in middle court, error in rear court, out error in front court, out error in middle court, out error in rear court, net error in front court, net error in middle court, and net error in rear court. Percentage of unforced errors was calculated as the number of points lost through unforced errors divided by the total number of points lost, multiplied by 100.

For each athlete, the remaining unforced error variables were calculated as the mean number of errors per match across all matches analyzed for that athlete. These athlete-level values were subsequently used in the statistical analyses.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for technical performance scores and match-specific unforced error variables. Associations between technical performance scores and match-specific unforced error variables were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs). Analyses were conducted separately for male and female players (n = 10 per subgroup). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Results

Descriptive statistics for match-specific unforced errors in male players are presented in Table 1. The median percentage of unforced errors was 43.24%. The median total out error and total net error values were 9.58 and 10.09, respectively. According to court location, the median error values were 9.06 in the front court, 3.33 in the middle court, and 8.06 in the rear court.

Descriptive statistics for match-specific unforced errors in female players are presented in Table 2. The median percentage of unforced errors was 48.76%. The median total out error and total net error values were 8.66 and 8.71, respectively. According to court location, the median error values were 6.92 in the front court, 2.23 in the middle court, and 7.39 in the rear court.

Technical performance test scores for male and female players are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The tables report the median, minimum, and maximum scores obtained in the short serve, high serve, clear, drop shot, and smash tests.

3.2. Relationships Between Technical Performance and Match-Specific Unforced Errors

In male players, significant positive correlations were observed between short serve performance and total net error (rs = 0.632, p < 0.05), error in the front court (rs = 0.669, p < 0.05), and net error in the front court (rs = 0.727, p < 0.05) (Table 5). No other statistically significant correlations were observed between technical performance test scores and match-specific unforced error variables in male players.

In female players, significant negative correlations were observed between short serve performance and error in the front court (rs = −0.741, p < 0.05). Clear performance was negatively correlated with total net error (rs = −0.843, p < 0.01), error in the rear court (rs = −0.809, p < 0.01), net error in the front court (rs = −0.752, p < 0.05), and net error in the rear court (rs = −0.884, p < 0.01). Drop shot performance was negatively correlated with error in the rear court (rs = −0.657, p < 0.05) and out error in the rear court (rs = −0.653, p < 0.05) (Table 6). No other statistically significant correlations were observed.

4. Discussion

The present study examined the relationships between standardized technical performance and match-specific unforced errors in national-level badminton players aged 15–17 years. The main findings revealed different patterns of association in male and female players. In male players, short serve performance was positively correlated with total net error, error in the front court, and net error in the front court. In female players, short serve performance was negatively correlated with error in the front court; clear performance was negatively correlated with total net error, error in the rear court, net error in the front court, and net error in the rear court; and drop shot performance was negatively correlated with error in the rear court and out error in the rear court.

The relationship between technical proficiency and competitive performance should be considered within the dynamic structure of badminton match play. Ivan et al. [7], who specifically examined the competitive activity of badminton players aged 15–17 years, emphasized the importance of evaluating technical actions within the structure and intensity of actual competition. Similarly, Leong and Krasilshchikov [9] highlighted the value of match and notational analysis for understanding performance characteristics in youth and elite badminton players. The distinction between isolated testing and match execution is also consistent with principles of ecological dynamics and representative learning design, which emphasize the importance of perceptual–action coupling in skill performance [20]. When environmental information and decision-making context are reduced during standardized testing, performance may not fully represent the demands of open-skill competitive environments [13]. Together, these perspectives support the view that standardized technical test performance and technical execution during competition represent related but not identical dimensions of badminton performance.

In male players, higher short serve performance was associated with higher total net error, error in the front court, and net error in the front court. Although this pattern may appear unexpected, it should not be interpreted as indicating that better short serve ability causes more errors. Standardized short serve tests primarily assess accuracy under controlled conditions, whereas competitive execution is influenced by tactical choices, opponent behavior, court position, and other situational demands. Zhao et al. [15] reported that competition format influenced technical-tactical behavior and scoring patterns in junior men’s singles, with differences in error occurrence across competition formats. Previous research has also shown that badminton match characteristics and technical-tactical demands vary according to competitive context and player characteristics [10,11]. Such contextual variation may provide one possible explanation for why higher short serve test performance was positively associated with some match-specific error measures in the present male subgroup. However, tactical risk, stroke speed, net clearance, and decision-making were not directly measured in the present study; therefore, the mechanisms underlying these positive associations cannot be determined from the current data. Accordingly, these correlations should be interpreted as associations rather than evidence that greater technical proficiency leads to more match errors.

The findings in female players showed a different pattern. Higher short serve performance was associated with fewer front-court errors, while higher clear performance was associated with fewer total net, rear-court, front-court net, and rear-court net errors. Higher drop shot performance was also associated with fewer rear-court and rear-court out errors. These findings indicate that, within the female subgroup, higher performance in several standardized technical tests was associated with fewer match-specific errors. Previous studies have reported variations in match characteristics and technical-tactical patterns according to sex, event type, developmental level, and competitive context [8,14,17]. In the present female subgroup, standardized technical performance was more consistently associated with several match-specific error measures. However, the present data do not establish that technical proficiency measured under controlled conditions transfers directly to competitive performance, nor do they identify the tactical or contextual mechanisms underlying these associations. Because the present study was correlational, these relationships do not demonstrate that improvement in technical test performance directly reduces match errors.

The relationships involving clear and drop shot performance are particularly noteworthy because successful execution of these strokes during competition depends on more than isolated stroke accuracy. Players must adjust their positioning and stroke selection according to the developing rally. Technical execution in the rear court occurs within the physical, temporal, and perceptual demands characteristic of badminton match play [1]. Research on perceptual-cognitive expertise also indicates that performance under representative competitive conditions may differ from that observed in less representative testing environments [12]. Previous match-analysis research has demonstrated the importance of considering the structure of competitive activity and technical actions in young badminton players [7], while differences between youth and elite players further indicate that match-performance characteristics vary according to developmental and competitive level [9]. Thus, technical proficiency should be interpreted together with the tactical and situational demands under which a stroke is performed.

The contrasting patterns observed in male and female players should nevertheless be interpreted cautiously. The present study analyzed correlations separately within each subgroup but did not directly test whether the correlation coefficients differed significantly between male and female players. Therefore, the findings demonstrate different patterns of association within the two subgroups rather than statistical evidence of differences between male and female players.

From a practical perspective, the present findings suggest that standardized technical testing and match analysis may provide complementary information. Technical tests can identify an athlete’s ability to execute a specific stroke accurately under controlled conditions, whereas match analysis can provide information on technical consistency under actual competitive demands. This distinction is particularly relevant for young players because competitive badminton requires technical execution to be integrated with movement, tactical decisions, opponent responses, and rapidly changing match situations [7,9]. Accordingly, standardized technical practice may be complemented by representative match-based practice incorporating decision-making and tactical demands [20].

Several considerations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. The study focused on 20 national-level athletes aged 15–17 years, with relationships examined separately in 10 male and 10 female players. However, match-specific error measures were derived from systematic observations across 55 official competitive matches involving these athletes, providing repeated observations of actual competitive performance rather than relying on a single match assessment for each player. Because the match observations were aggregated at the athlete level for the correlation analyses, the findings should nevertheless be interpreted within the characteristics of this specific national-level youth sample. In addition, contextual variables such as opponent level, rally duration, tactical risk, fatigue, and psychological pressure were not directly included in the analyses. Junior badminton research indicates that competitive context can influence technical-tactical behavior and error occurrence [15], while broader attentional-control research suggests that competitive anxiety may affect attentional processes and performance efficiency [21]. Future studies could integrate standardized technical assessments with detailed match-context variables and larger athlete samples to further clarify the relationship between technical proficiency and competitive execution.

5. Conclusions

The present study identified different patterns of association between standardized technical performance and match-specific unforced errors in national-level badminton players aged 15–17 years. In male players, higher short serve performance was associated with higher total net error, front-court error, and front-court net error. In female players, higher short serve, clear, and drop shot performance was generally associated with fewer match-specific errors.

These findings indicate that technical proficiency measured under standardized conditions does not necessarily correspond uniformly to technical consistency during competition. The positive associations observed in male players may reflect contextual and tactical factors that were not directly measured in the present study, whereas several technical test scores in female players were negatively associated with match-specific error measures. These patterns should be interpreted as within-group associations, as differences between male and female correlation coefficients were not directly tested.

From an applied perspective, standardized technical tests and match-based performance analysis may provide complementary information when evaluating young badminton players. Training programs may therefore benefit from combining isolated technical practice with representative match situations involving decision-making and tactical demands. Future studies involving larger athlete samples and more detailed match-context variables may further clarify the relationship between standardized technical proficiency and competitive performance.