Well spotted and right on. In this rally point type of game, either the winning or losing side could be serving for the match point.
You are really a guy with great determination. Hope you'll succeed in finding these classical matches - and don't forget me as you know, I am a great admirer of the older players. As for Prakash, as you noted, he started these tactics after 1981, maybe feeling age catching up? With the rally system, it would defenitely benefitted him under this circumstance.
-------------------------- Oh I have located the owners of those matches, the one in Holland is unable to get a machine to play the tapes, the other one in Ina cant get his tapes to play and three sources in England, Sweden and China cannot be contacted. Anyway many experts say magnetic tapes can outlast the dye type of data storage found in CDRs, so there is still hope of retrieving these tape in magnetic media.
Hi viver, If you can go to page 19 of this thread and find post #342. That's my post reminding people not just to vote for the benefit to themselves. We must look at the bigger picture and put ourselves in the minds of many others, eg... how non-players are viewing badminton as spectators how new comers to badminton respond to experienced players how woman players respond to male players how unfit players respond to very fit players how a young 10 year old responds to his/her 60 year old grandparent player how to encourage more players to play socially how low-skilled players respond to better-skilled players how new club players respond to clubs on their first few visits how not to allow experienced players dominate the game how we should allow professional players to earn more income how to encourage more players to play professionally etc... And I know... most people voting in this poll are experienced and better skilled players. The others are too shy to make any comment because they think they should leave this matter in the hands of experienced players. Loopy, in post #357, said that I am defending the new 21x3 system. If you read it very carefully in my post, you will detect that I am actually attacking the old 15x3 system. I think the old system was not encouraging enough new players to our beloved sport. As for me, I am a very experienced player, playing many, many years of badminton. I can remember many of the developments in the rules of badminton. Lots of debates everytime. Remember when you hit the shuttle with the frame of the racket instead of the strings and your opponent wins the rally(Funny that now, I am playing and coaching players how to hit the shuttle with the frame during net-play). Remember when you were allowed to do the service by hitting only the feathers instead of the cork(Funny that now, I am playing and coaching players how to hit the feathers and cork at the same time during service). Etc, etc... Because I am a good player, under the 15x3 system, I can easily beat an average player by 15-0. With the same player, under the 21x3 system and if we play to 15 points, I can usually beat him/her by 15-2 or 3. So the new system makes the average player looks better. I also consider myself of reasonable fitness. I have tried playing 15x3 system but playing to 21 points, as you have stated in your post. If you are fit, it is no problem. In fact, I have played badminton using the Tennis system when playing Tennis players, using Table-Tennis system when playing Table-Tennis system, using Squash system... etc,etc... You and I have talked about the doubles services before. My services are execellent... even Top International Players find it hard to attack my service. On this note, I consider that I have the advantage when it's my turn to serve(when we are talking about doubles service). But what I can do in my playing badminton is not important. It is just that in my opinion, the new 21x3 system can provide a better game for more people than for just a few experienced players.
There is no such thing as one "old" 15 x 3 system. There are actually 3 distinct "old" systems. To newcomers this could be confusing, although to old timers there is nothing confusing at all. When comparing the old systems-there are 3-with the new 21 x 3 system, pls specify which of the 3 old systems you are comparing with the new system.
Hi taneepak, You are right. I was not specific enough. What I was thinking was the comparison of rally-point system versus the point-scored-only-when-you-are-serving system.
You are doing your pupils a disservice, then, because this is a fault. Law 9.1.4 says "the server's racquet shall initially hit the base of the shuttle". The racquet must hit the base first and any strike on the feathers must be subsequent to the initial touch or it is a fault. Or are you teaching them to cheat? Perhaps this explains why your service is as excellent as you claim and why top players cannot attack it.
Hi CWB001, You just got me to bring out my racket and shuttle to examine the exact point of impact on the shuttle. No, not really hitting any feathers at all. My apologies in my badly written description. But it is hit at the cork nearer to the feathers. If the feathers were actually struck, the shuttle will swirl as it passes over the net. There is no swirling in my service. The service does not disobey Law as you have stated. But let us not talk about how good or bad we can play. Let us talk about how enjoyable we, with the rest of the new comers can play. I am saying that the new rally-point system can provide a more enjoyable and encouraging game for all of us players , whether newer, younger, older, less fitter, less skilled, less experienced, etc... can play against the better skilled and the experienced. Better players should not be upset if they find that their weaker opponents are now getting more points under the rally-points system. This will encourage newer players to return to play more.
Not how I stated - how you stated. You said that you are teaching people to serve by hitting the feathers and cork simultaneously, which is a fault.
OK, let us talk about how enjoyable rally21 is. When I am playing 3x15, I don't give up even if I am down 10-2 or 13-5 or some such ridiculous number. I can, and have, fought back and won (and also lost ) from seemingly hopeless scorelines. In contrast, with rally21, 15-10 is practically insurmountable. Speaking for myself, I would rather not play in that kind of system. For beginners, it may make more sense to keep track of rallies won, partly because that is a better measure of progress than constantly being beaten 15-2, 15-1, and partly because it will get them off the court faster and cut down on waiting times for courts. For non-beginners (that includes pros, dedicated amateurs, even the simply enthusiastic), I don't see how the rally system is preferable to the regular one. In fact, it may even be actively harmful. Invariably nowadays, when I switch back from rally to regular to play with those that have no use for the rally scoring, I get thrashed the first few games before I eventually return to my old level (which is not all that high to begin with, but still). This may of course be a failing on my part alone, but I kinda doubt it.
Hi Chris@ccc, You are a very experienced player by the description and surely your opinion should be respected - as any. Having said that, it does not mean I agree with what you have said. Social players that I have met, most don't care about scoring. Many don't know what is a legal serve, that there are service lines and serve tennis style. Just for good sweat and fun and will play regardless of the score, because they are not counting. Here badminton is quite popular in community centers. Most of the time is hard to find available spots in drop-in programmes. I went to play in community centers to play badminton and to ensure a spot to play, I had to stay in the line-up about 1h before the session started. But you won't see this crowd in tournaments. Even the crowd at World Junior Championship was poor - a few hundreds, compared with the then QF in a HK open. In China the crowd almost filled a stadium to capacity when the Danish team was visiting for friendly games. Do you think everyone in the crowd understood the rules of the game properly? IBF is giving me an image of 'incompetent' bunch of people. Everytime they change the game to make it more attractive, they go to the scoring system. Only to change it back again later. These actions are not good and does not project an image of people doing things seriously. About service - as a coach you surely know that no matter how good you are, the rules governing the service in badminton, gives you absolutely no advantage. You are in a disadvantageous position when serving. Why you want to win back the service when there is NO benefit being the server? From my point, getting beaten badly in any game will result in 2 outcomes: give up and don't play the sport OR try again and improve. Many of us here had been beaten badly but we persisted because we love the game. Every sport has their own enthusiasts/followers, changing the rules drastically will just turn the enthusiasts away - and not knowing if you will get enough new followers. After all, getting beaten 15-0 in badminton is not too bad. Getting 15 slaps in the face or 15 punches in a karate session is much more intimidating. Still there are millions of regular practitioners.
At http://www.ebyn.org they are having a poll. I choose the last option. Polls Do you like the new scoring system? Yes, it makes the game more fun to watch and play! Yes, I really love playing with it! I don't know, I like watching it but playing is not fun No, playing and watching is just confusing and adds nothing!I know it might lead to no change but at least we can try, so for or against, please take some seconds of your time and vote. The polls are on the right sight of the page.
no offence to anybody, just my point of view. i like the new system, its less draggy, quite fair, whoever makes a mistake loose point.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't seem to find 21 points system at exiciting, or fun, or that if favours new beginners. Its is now to easy to get points. One out, your opponent gets a point, no matter what. You serves, just out, your oppoenet get a point. You guys ever get into those weird games, where you and your oppoent hit it out, after one or two hits, or just of the serves, over and over. Before you know it, the game is over. For beginners, the grassroot tournaments, should be exciting, and fun. However, you can easily lose if you have a bad day of serving. How would you like to win a match, or a tournament, on a bad serve by your oppoenent. How would you feel watching it. To me, it would be anti-climatic. To chris@CCC. The 21 rally point system does favour the more agressive, attacking player. Endurance players are now at a disadvantage, as the games are meant to be shorter, they can't move their opponent around and move them. I am not all against the 21 point system though. Badminton does have to implement a scoring change that somehow units the 3 different scoring systems now - womens singles - 11, men's singles - 15, and doubles 2 serves, different court size for scoring. For beginners, this is odd and akward to grasp. To me, as stated before, IBF's wish to change to the new scoring system does not seem well thought out. A trial is good. But there also must be research, polls, surveys. What good is making badminton appealment to new players, spectators, when it alienates the seeminly majority of today's badminton athletes and spectators.
i still prefer the old point system...that's why we are still playing it...lol...no plan on changing it to the new point system in the foreseeable future.
Hi Terry, Unfortuately only one country can win the TC and another the UC. I bet the winning country/countries will say that new point system is good, while all the other losing countries will blame their loses because of the new point system. As you can read from all my previous posts that I am for the new point system (with explanations), but I know that we humans just do not like changes, even if good things can come out of it. Only a few professional players realise that the new point system can provide them with better income in the longer run, and that it can provide them with a longer lasting career.
This is another claim for the rally point 3x21 system that does not appear to be holding true. The English squad has been hit by several injuries which are identified by the team coach as caused by the tournament scheduling: England badminton head coach Ian Wright has hit out at "crazy" international scheduling after five of his squad for the Thomas and Uber Cup team championships which start in Japan on Friday were ruled out because of injury. Commonwealth Games gold medallists Gail Emms and Tracey Hallam were forced to pull out of the seven-strong women's squad for the Uber Cup along with Donna Kellogg, who won the women's doubles gold medal with Emms at the European championships earlier this month. Anthony Clark, who won a mixed doubles bronze with Kellogg and a men's doubles bronze with Robert Blair at the Europeans, is also out of the eight-strong men's Thomas Cup squad along with No 1 singles player Aamir Ghaffar. Emms has an injury to her left ankle, Kellogg has a back problem and Clark, Hallam and Ghaffar all have shoulder injuries. Head coach Wright said in a media release: "The shoulder and elbow injuries are a legacy of the Commonwealth Games. They are all a series of chronic niggles which could cause long-term damage if the players aren't allowed to recover. "It's all down to the crazy schedule with the players having to tackle three major championships in such a short time.
I think Ian Wright's comments are to do with the scheduling rather than the change in system. I don't think it's been suggested that the new system will result in injury-free players, just fewer injuries. We'll never know how many players would have been injured if they had been playing the old 3x15 system at the CG. Chris, your comments about the new system lengthening players careers doesn't apply to womens singles players does it? If it's true that the 3x21 games are longer than they were under the 3x11 the new system might actually result in the shortening of their career?
Yes, but we've had foolish people on these boards arguing nonsense about marathons and sprints and this illustrates that Punch's claims that the experimental (let it never be accepted) system will extend players careers are just so much hot air.
