Check out the men's doubles rankings for this week. No.2 and No. 10. No.10 is further evidence that a review of the ranking system is needed. Less emphasis should be given to team tournaments. Or is the present format designed to encourage more people to represent their team. I'm thinking of PE Hoyer-Larsen and possibly some Brits who one year were not fully committed to the Thomas Cup because more prestigious individual tournaments. (Something like that, anyway)
What do you mean by that? I know the number #10 team in the world...personally. It seems like you think that they are not strong enough to be in that ranking.
You mean you think Han & Bach are a top 10 pair? Personally I think they have quite some way to go before they belong there. The TC qualifiers has really messed the ranking up. It's always like that, though. It will straighten itself out. It's worth to note also that positions 4, 5, and 8 are held by pairs that don't even exist anymore...
I see Many problems in the rankings - and it seems that they are coming to the surface right now! No the current no.10 in men's doubles do not seem qualified to be no# 10. But though they get a great deal of points from the team events they stille average 147 point ind the 5 tournements they have played - which is pretty good. (and it does not matter who know who - mr. smashguro). However there are many people that average much more in the team events than in the normal tournements! Actually #6,7 and 9 from the traditional badminton nations Malaysia, China and England are much worse!! They have a truckload of points from the team events. and noting that no.4,5 and 8 do not exist anymore - maybe the Americans should be no.4 in the world?? I guess my point is - you are right Cheund - I also think team events give to many points - but the Thai and US pairs are bad examples!! Another problem is that the players don't get the points individually - but in pairs. That means that if you change partner - you lose points. If the two bast pairs in the world were to switch partners - they start at around no.100.000 on the rankings!
Individual vs notional ranking I have also thought about this before. Is there a reason why doubles points are awarded the pair instead of the individual? The IBF has the concept of "notional ranking" to seed new pairs for tournaments. For instance, according to the IBF formula, the notional ranking points of Jens Eriksen/Martin Lundgaard Hansen would be (198.64 + 235.09) * 0.4 = 173.5 points, which would give them a notional world rank of 11. If the players earned points individually then there would be no need for this compromise.
Re: Individual vs notional ranking Since, everybody is in the point of ganging up on me. I was trying defend my friends. I know how hard they have worked to get to that level and I think that they deserve to be there because of the results they have had. True, it's a little skeptical for a team not winning any major tourney to be in the top 10 in the world. But, we gotta give these guys credit also for reaching at least a goal that was far beyond their reach and now that they have acheived it..of course I as a friend I am happy for them. But, what do I get.. I get reemed at. But, oh well. Nothing is right in this world. Just live with it.
Re: Individual vs notional ranking I think the comment is that the ranking system is not quite right. Whether Kevin Han and his partner (sorry I didn't remember who) deserves to be there or not is besides the point. They got there via the ranking system and as pointed out some of the other pairs are no longer playing so that's moot. By and by, the pairings will eventually work itself out. Currently you get points for santioned events (and bonus points if you beat players ranked higher than you) so you could evenutally work it so that you play in certain events where the field is weaker thereby increases your chances of winning or finish high in those events. E.g. Bobby Milroy of Canada was ranked 50 (at one time) but is now ranked 66. He was ranked 50th because he managed to win or did well in a number of smaller events in Europe. I am happy for Kevin Han and his partner that they are currently ranked at #10. If Kevin can maximize his marketability in the US, the better as this will help highlight the sport in the US. BTW, Kevin (15) is currently ranked higher than Peter Gade (25) in singles. Do I think that Kevin is better than Peter? Definitely not! Once Peter recovers from his injuries and started wining, his ranking will be in the top 5 again.
Re: Individual vs notional ranking Hey, don't take it so personal! I just think that you could be slightly biased by the fact that you know them... And is there anybody on that list who isn't working hard? I'm not American, but it's a happy sight to see an American pair up there. It could help promote the sport in the US. I mean, the best thing that could happen to badminton at the moment would probably be if USA got a world #1! Imagine what that would mean in terms of media attention etc... whether one wants to admit it or not, it would affect the rest of the badminton world in a positive way.
Yes, U.S. should be #4, at least Ok, calm down everyone, I wasn't being serious about current U.S. players in the current rankings. I was just saying that badminton should be more popular in the U.S. (more places to play, more competition, occasional airplay on television.... drool, drool), it should receive much more coaching and financial support and we should be able to field players who are not only better than the current crop, but can compete within players from any country in the world. Sigh..... Wishful thinking right now. Maybe in a decade or two....
What!? There actually is an American pair in the top 10? I thought you guys were joking! I'll have to have a look at these rankings.
My reply. Remember I pointed out the No.2 pair as well. I also made the same comment a couple of years ago about an Australian pair who I had never heard of and they were ranked 12 in the world. They went to the Swedish Open (1 star) and were no.1 seeds. Well, the result was they got whipped in the 1st round. I'd just like to see a little more logic in the system. Maybe Gade is so low becasue he didn't play in the China Open, S'pore Open, HK Open, Thai Open, Danish Open, Dutch Open. But he did reach q/f Japan Open, s/f AE, final WC, win Korean Open. Compare that to the some players who didn't do so well. The US player has (for unfortunate reasons) the highest profile on website boards and is used an example. Please note that I have nothing personal against certain players. If they won the WC with a couple of q/f finishes at other tournaments and yet were down at no.15, I'd still be scratching my head wondering what was going on.
Re: My reply. IMHO, it's always difficult to improve if you are the best player in your geographical region and there are not very many players close enough to you in skills to push you. This might be the problem Kevin Han has. Consider also Camilla Martin. She clearly is the best WS competitor in Europe, but struggles against Chinese competition every time. The Chinese ladies, by contrast, have each other to train against, and all are close in skills: Gong ZhiChao, Gong Ruina, Zhou Mi, Dai Yun, Ye Xiao Ying - all have adnavced in every draw and often ended up playing each other. This relates to training also. How do the Danish coaches know to what level they need to train Camilla? [Just sticking to the example; besides, we always end up talking about Camilla anyway ) ] They cannot measure their training results against CM's performance on the European circuit, and she makes it to lots of big finals where she meets the Chinese ladies and sometimes wins.
Re: My reply. Since we've brought up the topic about Camilla Martin, I would like to raise the question about women training with men. Would it be to a woman's advantage if she can train constantly with men who are about her level, or maybe slightly better? I'm sure that there are lots of men in Denmark who are about Camilla Martin's level. Would it be to Camila advantage if the Danish coaches pay them and bring them in for practise so that they can train with Camila and play against her during practise?
Re: My reply. Marshall, Kevin Han has at least two other problems, both of which stem from lack of financial support for badminton in the U.S. First, he has to work a full or nearly full time job outside of badminton in order to support himself, leaving him with only a limited time per day to train, unlike most or all of the top pro players. Second, in order to gain any experience in top level international competition, Han must travel to either Europe or Asia from the U.S., which is expensive and renders it impossible for him to enter into the number of tournaments that the top Asian and European players play. Of course, this scenario is true for pretty much all North and South American badminton players.
Notional ranking in action I jus noticed that in the All England, three of the new Danish paring are seeded as 5, 6, and 8, despite they have no world ranking. That's an example of notional ranking.
Re: Individual vs notional ranking OK - maybee I was I bit hard on you! But further down in my last I stated that I thought that some of the other pairs had a much worse tem event/tournement ratio!! Jan
