Hu, I'm not saying I don't believe it's that I just that for such a serious accusation I wanted to establish what information was available. It seemed one person was anecdotelly claiming foul play and everyone just jumped on the bandwagon and began presenting this claim as fact. All I wanted was a second opinion The BWF article helped, but it was somewhat diplomatically written, highlighting that there had been disputes but without making a judgement. This isn't the same as reporting Walkovers; sometimes they can be tactical, sometimes genuine. With repeatedly poor line calls there is no grey area, it's unambiguous cheating. Better to be sure with such a serious claim. best wishes
A walkover is too easy. A fake match can be mentally stressful for the uninitiated. Plus it disrupts their day. In any case, they should try and compensate with some fashion on top of the acting. Maybe BWF should do a survey asking fans to choose between walkover and acting, given CHN will persist with the cheating. For me, I used to prefer walkovers to acting. Now I want to pay to watch badminton acting. It s a new sport, a matter of changing the mindset.
My sentiments exactly;indeed,one must be circumspect and prudent about such or any accusation. But in this case, I'm with Huangkwokhau based on his personal acquaintance with a number of the non-Korean players, his inside scoop which sounds credible to me and circumstantial evidence such as today's WS final on TV court when Han Li protested a bit more than a player normally would and was duly slammed with a yellow card, as well as reinforced by the diplomatically-worded BWF article.
Then u must have missed watching the many exciting games between Nova/Butet and Flandy/Vita where each pair played to the max. The most memorable one was in the SF of Hong Kong SS 2007 and I was there to watch the game live with Hau-Ge. Now, take note of this....Zheng Bo/Gao Ling were supposed to face Xie Zhongbo/Zhang Yawen in the other SF, scheduled to be played one match earlier than the SF match involving the INA pairs. Guess what happened? Obviously Xie/Zhang WOed and let Zheng/Gao won without breaking a sweat in the SF. Despite knowing that the winner of the all-INA match wll be engaged in a tight and intense contest with Zheng Bo/Gao Ling (and it eventually did happen the next day), both INA pairs chose NOT TO CONCEDE WO, and they were stretched to the limit in what was probably the best match between these 2 INA pairs, a match that thrilled the whole crowd at the QE stadium. The scoreline reflected the intensity of the match, with Nova/Butet winning it 22-20, 13-21, 21-19! The Final between Nova/Butet and Zheng/Gao also went to the distance and the INA pair eventually won it also 21-23, 21-18, 21-19. What did these matches show? They showed that when it came to matches between team-mates, at least INA players tend to CHOOSE TO PLAY THE MATCH FAIRLY and SQUARELY. Of course, there are cases of Walkovers, but these are seldom (as compared to CHN) and I believe its mostly involving last minute injury. To suggest that players should simply resort to WO instead of playing when these 2 players are from the same countries is simply an act that LACKS SPORTMANSHIP and IMHO a DEPLORABLE ADVICE!
Well I think this is not fair to past greats like Rudy Hartono and perhaps greater players that may emerge in future.
Total nonsense! To think of it, ALL 4 pairs in the above scenario (HKG SS 2007 XD SF) were in need of points to qualify for the Beijing Olympics. By giving a WO to Zheng/Gao, instead of trying their best to win the match, it actually served Xie/Zhang a great disadvantage (which they eventually found out in the dates closer to the deadline of the Qualification). If they win the match, they would have added precious qualifying pts to their campaign. But alas, it turned out that they could not gain enough pts, even by the last tourney (BAC 2008) and Xie/Zhang was eliminated from qualifying by a small margin. It's the younger pair He Hanbin/Yu Yang who got the ticket and eventually won the Bronze at the Beijing Olympics.
I was about to say fair comment and respect your choice for preferring acting to walkover until I see the word "cheating". Do you mind changing the word to just "walkover"? Beacause to me, walkover equals not cheating, it's just damn irritating,unsportsmanlike,annoying,pissing-off. If it were not legal or allowed in the society at large then it's not acceptable in any organization, and a rule can be set to rule out walkovers and offenders duly punished - problem solved. For me,I'd rather players who have no heart to play simply withdraws and let the committed ones carry on, than to see two players put on a demo, a not-too-convincing exhibition or clown about on court for a few minutes in a first-class tournament. And,I repeat,those capable players shouldn't let their next round opponents' walkovers bother them at all. To each his own, we agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
Haha, I thought that magic machine will complete the word for you! But it may give you the wrong word or spelling and you're back to square one, like what I have been experiencing all this while.
You're talking about walkover strategies of players of the same nationality while I'm only referring to the mentality of foreign players who have to face their opponent's walkover - a different angle.
Some people still don't believe that Korea did some cheatings..I guess we could say that LD's incident in Korea was fabricated by lin Dan then...as not proof to show Korea was cheating???
Haven't I been stressing time and again that walkover equals lack of sportsmanship, where's the dissonance on this,other than that I'd rather they don't put on a false show?
Hau-Ge, if those ppl don't believe the cheatings by Korean linesmen, let them do so. Don't bother to waste any more time to argue with these ppl. Again, the solution for all these cheatings and walkovers is very simple. Just make it professional and all players are playing for themselves, not country! To take an analogy from Tennis, I think Roger Federer will find it laughable if he was given a walkover involving him and Stanislas Wawrinka in the SF of the Swiss Indoor Basel 2011, simply because Wawrinka was feeling patriotic and he felt Roger will have a better chance of winning it FOR SWISS esp if it's against Novak Djokovic, who's the favorite to progress to the Final in the other half as Novak reigned supreme in the first 8 months of 2011 by winning 3 Grand Slam titles! Or Wawrinka wants to give Roger the opportunity to earn more pts so that he can end the year at no 3 (instead of the no 4 ranking before the tourney). That is the common reason given in badminton anyway? Neither will Novak or the Japanese player find it "morale boosting" to them by having Federer earn a free pass to the Final while they have to slug it out among themselves in 3-sets. At the end, in Tennis, Federer and Wawrinka played to their maximum (esp in the first-set) and Wawrinka also did not concede a WO. It's really sad to see some ppl used various excuses to justify the reasons for walkovers. So much for the "Even if they don't walkover and actually play,how much energy do you think they would expend?" or "if my would-be next round opponent needed his teammate's help to conserve his energy by conceding him a walkover, I would be flattered and my confidence boosted - it shows how highly he regarded me and afraid of me, thus, giving me a psychological edge."
You're most right,it's not fair,that's why I've qualified my statement many times elsewhere that it's purely my subjective opinion and it would be a futile exercise to debate anything based on personal preference. Perhaps,using the word "of all time" is too far-fetched as it can only mean up to my time and ends on my passing. Peter Gade's using the phrase "in history" might be more appropriate as referring to the past until today, his day,to be exact; we really in no way can speak for the future - I'm sure all records will be broken one day in the future. As for Rudy Hartono, I'm sorry; to be honest,I've never watched him or Tang XH or Hou JC played simply because I was too young then, so it's difficult for me to relate to them except for what I've read about them in badminton history but I do believe they are all great players. Naturally, your contemporaries have more impact on you than historical figures ;however, I'd still like to pay tribute to each and every one of them. Just as in Chess, I regarded Kasparov,Karpov and Fischer as the greatest in that order and,at the same time,admire past greats like Capablanca,Alekhine,Botvinnik. As someone once said,the champions of today stand on the shoulders of past greats without whom they wouldn't reach such heights for we learn from those that came before us.
Did you read my post #263 where I said "I guess,it's only when these players are full-time professionals earning their own keeps and not supported by any organizations/associations, as in Tennis,that the problem will go away."? I felt misunderstood and quoted out of context (said tongue-in-cheek) Me giving excuses for walkovers when I was so pissed off by it, esp whenever my hero Lin Dan does it? Didn't you sense my air of resignation or despair, or at least read between the lines my tinge of sarcasm?
And allow me to add,the reasons why I regarded Lee CW as the 2nd greatest are : 1) He is the only player who came so close to Lin Dan in terms of skills and natural talent. In fact,after the Beijing OG when Lin Dan was cruising, Lee was sweeping and conquering all before him and maintaining an almost unbeatable record of winning or at least getting into the finals of every tournament he played in (and this record, I believe, should stay for a decade or two); and 2) It's not just that he won but how he wins, as if with disdain even against very strong opposition like Peter Gade, and his scoreline against everybody else, excluding Lin Dan, was clear and convincing whilst you ocassionally sees Lin Dan winning by a small margin or stretched to the limit; 3) This year,he beat Lin Dan in the All-England and came close to winning the world championship. To be honest, I was 70% sure,like Morten Frost, that he would at last break the jinx and achieve his greatest accomplishment(alas,that was not to be). I even shared Morten Frost's sentiment that it's just not fair to Lee CW who is such a fine player just because of Lin Dan who denied him time and time again. So,in conclusion,how can a player whom Lin Dan himself regarded as his greatest rival, someone who pushes Lin Dan to give of his best and excel, not to be almost as great as him? After all,a truly great champion needs an equally great opponent to bring out the best in him. It's my belief that Lin Dan and Lee CW needed and depended on each other to be what they are today;not forgetting that lately there is another rising super star, Chen Long, but that's another story and the script is relatively young and new. { Purely my own thinking,it's perfectly fine whether anybody agrees or not}
i think he dont know his god like idol throw racket toward li mao and almost have a fight hehe take it easy
That's just not the point; you cannot go about being an apologist for an action (inaction? ) that is patently designed to benefit another individual (surprise, surprise! ...your teammate!) and his/her rankings and chances of making the cut. Regardless of the hidden agenda, such an action will have some psychological impact and alter the state of mind of the next opponent to some degree. Large or small is hardly the point. The action itself is contrary to the spirit of any game or sport, and is clearly meant to achieve a purpose or goal through broderline legal (and sometimes outright unethical) means. The moment you begin justifying or finding some legitimate or other reason ("where's the harm?" etc) you're on a slippery slope. Where will it stop? You trigger a chain of consequences, and then where is everybody? Precisely where we are now: at one another's throats!
