I do not have a good feeling about the newly propose system; it has nothing to do whether it is 7 points, 15 points, 21 point, 36 points or 100 points. It is to do with the fact that it has taken away the possibility of no one could win a point at the end of a rally. By taking away that possibility; I believe it has changed the fundamental part of the badminton game. The newly propose system will no longer provide the charm of the game that could go on for long duration (forever!) when no one could advance a single point! Have you ever hear the old story of Indonesian coach telling his ace players; Rudy Hartono or Muljadi to keep Malaysian new rising star Punch Gunalan on the court as long as they could? It is a well known fact that Punch Gunalan was an all out attacking player but he would be very tired and became erratic if you could keep him on the court for 45 minutes!(That is my own version of story!). If only we could have used this system in early 70’s may be Malaysia would have won more Thomas cup and All England! Recently I was watching Lee Chong Wai vs Cheng Hong at All England (I did wish Chong Wai a very good luck before the game as I did not know what he was eating before in a Chinese restaurant!). I remember 1st set Cheng Hong was attacking all over the court; and won the set easily; in the 2nd set Cheng Hong continued the same game plan and was leading with big margin at 13 or 14, well Chong Wai pulled back slowly and won the set. It was all over for Cheng Hong in 3rd set; I supposed mentally and physically he was drained by Lee Chong Wai. It was a perfect game strategy by Lee Chong Wai. The bottom line here is I have to throw away my book “The art of war” as it is no longer apply to badminton; I shall now study the game strategy of volleyball; the next question my kids might ask if they could dress like beach volleyball players to play badminton…in an indoor beach of course.
New Scoring system, 3x21. I posted a comment on this topic to another thread, and later found this thread. So many replies and so many viewers for this thread. So, I thought I will cut and paste my comment and post it here too. My comment is that I hope and wish that badminton will become a popular sport to watch and to play. I mean to play as a social and/or as a club activity, not just as a competitive sport. So, if you are asked to vote, please consider not just for the pleasure of watching Top International Matches, but for the playing at the social and club scenes. And before the Professional Players vote, they must not only think of becoming champions. They must also think of earning enough Prize Money during their career. I hope the 3x21 system will stay. When I play the new 3x21 system, I try to play my best shot/stroke every time. There is a lot of pressure... that is, if I want to win. It does not matter whether I am serving or receiving at the start of a rally, as I know a point will be awarded at the end of that rally. When I play the old 3x15 system, I need only to play my best shot/stroke when my opponent is serving... so as to prevent my opponent from adding another point to his score. I can relax a bit when it is my service to start the rally, for if I should lose that rally, no harm is done, as long as I get back the service. I think many experienced players share this thinking. And if this is true, then the player with more stamina(assuming same skill) is more likely to win with the old 3x15 system, because the fitter player with more stamina will try to prolong the game to drain to energy of the less fit opponent. So, the fitter player is more likely to beat the less fit player(assuming same skill). In my competition days, when I wanted to beat players of the same skill as with me, I spent hours in fitness & stamina training. By doing so, I could even beat players with slightly better skills than me. My question is “Do we want just skills(in terms of strokes, footwork, etc) to determine the better player?” Or, “Do we want skills and fitness(both combined) to determine the better player?” Let us rank the Skill Levels as S1(Lowest) to S10(Highest). Also, let us rank Fitness&Stamina Levels as F1(Lowest) to F10(Highest). Assuming all other factors are similar, in the old 3x15 system, Player A(with S5+F5) could be equal to Player B(S6+F4), or Player C(S7+F3), or Player D(S4+F6), or Player E(S3+F7), etc... Of course, this is very general, for in a match, there are so many other factors involved, namely; tactics, home ground support, accustomed shuttle speed, court surface, lighting, climate, etc... that we can go on forever... In the Social scene, I vote for the new 3x21 system. It allows better matches between man and woman, between father and son, even between grandfather and grandson, etc... In the Club scene, I also vote for the new 3x21 system. It does not allow better players to monopolise the court. We have seen better players playing against weaker players... their game lasting forever, because the better players control who to service and who to score points. So very unthoughtful of them. But, you guys might not realise this... if your club(say, playing a 3-hour session) is to use the new scoring system, you will still play the same amount time on court, that is... instead of playing 5 games of the old system, you might be playing 10 games of new system. Because the games are shorter, you will play more games within the same time-frame. And as I said about stronger players now not allowed to monopolise the court, you could even play up to 12 games each. However, in the Professional scene, it is up to the present Professional players to decide. They should vote how it should go, bearing in mind, their professional income. I support IBF in trying to make our Badminton more television-friendly. If there is allowance for television to have commercial breaks, like in Tennis, then Badminton will be televised more. Price Money for our Professional Players could be in the $Millions, instead of just in the $Thousands at the moment. May be Badminton could overtake Tennis, if we allow television money to flow into our sport.
What is Fitness to an Athlete? Could the best 100m runner win a Marathon race? Could the best Marathon runner win a 100m race? Who is fitter in Badminton game, a rabbit or a turtle? Badminton game needs both energy systems to perform at a very high level or low level; Anaerobic and aerobic; unfortunately it is depending on the genes. If you are blessed with anaerobic you could train to be a best 100m runner. In the past Badminton game has produced many outstanding champions. The classic are two former champions Liam Swee King, and Han Jian, they had contrasting styles that were shaped by how they used their energy system. Swee King was fast attacking player building his game on short rally as it suited him best whereas Han Jian was the 4 corner stroke player building his game to keep the opponent staying on court as long as he could. Han Jian won whenever he could keep Swee King on the court for a certain period else he was swept away by Swee King. With 3x21 system, I cannot see if we will be able to see players with playing style like Han Jian or even Rudy Hartono; he tended to use aerobic system to burn his opponents and then killed with his explosive anaerobic combination strokes in a rally. I think 3x21 could stay but for the team events like Thomas cup.
I feel the 3x21 rally point scoring is only suited to tournament play and is impossible to use if trying to teach a new player.... When trying to teach someone new, or a learning player, I'll obviously change my playing style to allow them to compete in a game environment but I tend to play 'easier' shots to test their skill and get them developing... I am sure many other people do this also.... This means that if the learning player doesn't have a perfect serve and tends to knock it out or into the net, I only win the serve and I can easily pop up a simple mid-court serve for them to start another rally and 'win' back the serve.... With the new scoring system, the learning player will give away a point every time they fault on a serve and therefore the game will be over pretty quickly without really playing 'Badminton'... It does emphasise the importance of a good serve, but I don't feel that it making badminton more exciting for the average player, only more tedious, constantly picking up the shuttle and playing service shots. I hope the IBF consider this aspect when they deliberate on the topic in May (AGM).
Hello Chia, Remember at Kuala Lumpur 1981, World Cup Finals. Prakash Padukone (IND) beat Han Jian (CHN) : 15-0, 15-3 Prakash with his excellent net skill beat Han Jian easily. Prakash used his attacking strategies by using his net-skill and wrist work. But don't get me wrong... I have great admiration for all-round players like Rudy Hartono, Susi Susanti, etc... and players with great footwork like Han Jian, Gong Zhi Chao, etc... I have also have great admiration for attacking players like Lim Swee King, Chen Hong, etc... I also have great admiration for players with great wrist work, such as Prakash Padukone, etc... What I am saying is that this new 3x21 point-rally system is still appropriate for all different types of players. If I can sense that this new 3x21 system is biased to only a particular type/style of player, I would be the first to say NO to it. I have coached many players with different styles of play, and I would not allow the game of Badminton to be dominated by just one special type/style of play.
--------------- I would like to correct a long standing error in the IBF records : In the 1981 World Cup Prakash did not beat Han Jian easily, the correct score was 15-0, 18-16, i watched the match on Tv but never recoreded it. It was the first time HanJian played Prakash after China joined the IBF . In the frist match Han Jian didn't have a clue what to do but he caught on in the second. Subsequently HJ lost to Prakash 1-2 times after that but eventually turned the tables after 1982. Many players say that deception can surprse but after people are used to it it becomes less effective.
Hi Scoobz Yes, the “First cut is the deepest”. Which shows that the first stroke in a rally must be perfomed with care and skill. Yes, I agree with you that it is hard for new players to enjoy badminton if they have to pay so much attention to learn about the service. But this is the same for tennis, table tennis, volleyball, etc... A new player, new to badminton, thinks that it is just a matter of hitting the shuttle over the net to the other side of the court. But when you can explain to them that skill is required to do a “good service”, and when they can achieve it, you should be able to see the joy in their faces. I usually do not teach my students about the service first. I would teach them how to do the clears and the dropshots first. The smash and the service come in later. But then, there are social players who just want to hit the shuttle over the net and laugh about it. Good for them... they are enjoying life with activities and exercise involved. If they do not wish to learn about the skills involved in “match” badminton, they fall into a different category. You cannot insist that they have to play “serious” badminton. You must realise that when a new player come to your club or your social group, his/her first priority is to get some recreational exercise. Younger players are sent to badminton because their parents think that they are too inactive, just playing computer games, etc.... Older players come to badminton because they think the need to be involved with some sort of exercise program or sport, for health reason, etc... Do not discourage them by teaching those strokes that are hard to do. Teach them the easier strokes first. You don't even need to keep the score for them. Just allow them to move and exercise. And, most importantly, to enjoy life!!!.
Many thanks for the reply and also for understanding my 'angle' on the situation. I do feel it will slightly change the way in which people learn the game if the new system is adopted. I was planning to 'teach' my wife badminton, as she played it a few times at school (when 14) but hasn't played since (she is 25 this year). She isn't the world's best with hand-eye coordination but she is a fast learner and would like to try playing the game. Firstly, so that she can benefit from the exercise (as you have suggested) but also so that she is involved in a social sport and one that she can do alongside me. I aren't planning on trying to get her playing in a league, just so that we can enjoy a gentle game together on occasions. I will take your advice on teaching her the basic and simple shots first to keep her interested and get some hand-eye going... Then, I'll move on to the serve and emphasise the importance of a strong serve in light of upcoming 'changes' to the scoring. I have a pretty strong serve and many opponents comment about it. My fitness is presently pretty poor and yet I can still win games against much fitter players (with reasonable skills) and it is often due to being able to put the shuttle in difficult positions from the serve. When I learned the game many years ago, my coach at school strongly emphasised the serve to me and it kind of stuck I guess. I now just want to improve the rest of my game to match.
At that time China had mostly young players and new to international scene. Prakash is not an easy player to play with especially if you are not an experienced player. Let's not forget, Prakash is not only good at deception but also a master of disrupting the opponent's concentration . Going back to the 21 point rally system, I do not support/like it. I also do not understand why you have to win the rally to get the service back with the rally system. To me it would make a bit more sense that the player(s) that lost the rally continue with the serve.
Hi viver, You said “I also do not understand why you have to win the rally to get the service back with the rally system. To me it would make a bit more sense that the player(s) that lost the rally continue with the serve.” Well, this what I think. This New Point System is really favoring the player the more skill. And I think this should be the case... as we say “May the better player wins”. Let us assume: You and I play in a game. And I am of less skill than you. So we should expect that you should be infront in the score near the end of the game, say 19-10 to you. And you won that rally, so the score is now 20-10 to you. Now, would it not cause more embarrassment to me, if I have to serve at that point of the game, at game-point. For, because I am of less skill, I can serve into the net to lose the game to you. I have played and watched many games played with this new 3x21 system, and to my experience, at the situation when the score is at 20-10(say), the better player, more often than not, serves to win the game. We should not make the less skill player to serve to lose the game.
Forgive me if I am taking this out of context, but that statement is definitely not true. I speak from watching, playing, and analysing -- the chances of a weaker player winning is much higher with the rally point system. Of course, one can argue endlessly about who the "weaker player" is and how can they be "weak" if they win. Essentially, slow starters have it tough in this shortened format, same as with 5x7. "more often than not" includes 51% to 49%. In my experience, about a third of the games I've watched (or played) ends on the losing player's serve. I would rather that we not make the less skilled player artificially win the game.
Hi Kanive, Your last statement, " I would rather that we not make the less skilled player artificially win the game". I do not know if you follow or watch soccer. When Soccer introduced their "Penalty Shoot-Out", many, many people said exactly what you stated above. This happens when one team is better the other team, and no goals were scored. So they have a "Penalty Shoot-Out". An if the better team loses in the shoot-out, many will say "The new Soccer Format has made the less skilled team artificially win the game".
Well all the debates are fine. Finally which system is going to stay new or old ? I guess the voting is mid next month.
Oh, that is completely true. The reason they keep it though is because they have nothing better. MLS in the US is trying out a "one-on-one" system where the striker takes the ball and dribbles in from outside the key. I think it is better than the penalty shootout, but as long as the English keep on mucking it up, the rest of the world will not want to change that system! Actually there is a lesson here. FIFA, having seen the US method, didn't simply dictate its adoption worldwide. They have basically said, OK, let's give it a shot, see how it works for a few years, maybe a few decades, and if it is good enough, it will get adopted anyway. Why couldn't the IBF have done that? Nobody would have objected to a tournament here or a tournament there using the rally-21 system. For that matter, even the 5x7 method. And if it had worked, and people had liked it, it would have become a plausible alternative. But no, in their infinite wisdom, they insist on ramming it down our throats. Any wonder why the voting in this thread is so lopsided against it? If IBF votes to make it permanent after the TUC, I think they will be ignored by the majority of the players of the world. The people will not follow them. They will become irrelevant. The game will splinter. This is not good.
It's nice of you to defend the 21 point system. But when there is 85% of badminton fans who actually like the 3x15 system better, are you actually trying to force them a 21p point system they don't like ? Do you believe in democracy or just some form of dictatorship, where you don't care what other people thinks, but only care about what YOU think is right? Do you actually think "Just try it and it'll work" method will make 85% people happy ? Why bother making a poll? If you were president of the IBF, I'd guess you'll still try to force this system on us right?
The ultimate aim is to make badminton more popular so in a sense our opinion, as badminton players is not the key voice because, let's face it, we'll all watch the tournaments anyway. I think the key voice are all those people who either don't play or might play socially a few times a year, they probably outnumber us 10-1 or maybe more!! If they like the new system and start watching more games, the tv companies will buy more tournaments and the new scoring system will stay. I'm not saying the rallypoint system will make the game popular but rather that the voice of badminton fanatics like us is not one that carries a lot of weight with the tv companies. Lot's of football players were unhappy with the introduction of penalties, but if you ask a non-playing football fan they'll tell you that they think a penalty shoot-out is the best part of a game. The non-players or purely social players will always be the majority and it's their voice (or willingness to watch an event) that will shape the future of a sport. Just my thoughts on this
-------------------- It's true that in that game in Stadium Negara 1981 Prakash used a lot of delaying tactics in between serves that by today' s standards would have earned him a stack of yellow cards.In the semis he beat Chen Chang Jie winner of the World Games in Santa Clara a few months b4. Strangely Prakash used those tactics only after 1981. Previously he had beaten Liem Swie King 2 and 10 in the 1980 AE fair and square. Now that's all history. If only someone has those matches to view, should be very educational.
Hi Chris@ccc, What I think about this 21x3 system, it does not favour the better players but increase the possibility of an upset by not so strong players. Shorter games always benefit the players that with not good all-around skills. Have you played the 15x3 system but using 21 points instead? As many already pointed out, there is not a basis for changing to this new scoring system other than demands by TV stations. But the big question remains, if this change will bring bigger TV coverage. Other sports did not change but are broadcasted here - curling, golf (we have a 24 hr dedicated channel here), tennis (how many hours you get with the Australian, Wimbledon, etc), fishing (we get hours and hours of fishing on TV here, you know ), and even poker . Don't know which of these activities appeal to you most, but I just wonder how these sports can have enough mass appeal without changing their rules dramatically. Why is badminton, the sport played by ?? of people and ranked xx place in the sports universe, according to IBF, needs to make this revolutionary - unpopular with many coaches and players to accommodate the TV stations? Need some enlightment here.
