Lets vote for New or Old point system.

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by terry, Sep 20, 2005.

?

Which scoring system do you prefer?

  1. Old 15x3 service based scoring

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. New 21x3 rally based scoring

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crosscourt

    crosscourt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Legal
    Location:
    Shanghai/London
    I see what you mean but on the Badminton England website it says this :

    Head coach Ian Wright said: “The shoulder and elbow injuries are a legacy of the Commonwealth Games. The drift in the badminton hall has caused these injuries. They are all a series of chronic niggles which could cause long-term damage if the players aren’t allowed to recover.

    There were a lot of problems with the air conditioning and drafts at the CG and I think this is the problem rather than the points system. I'm not suggesting that Punch Gunalan is right or wrong about the new system extending careers, just that these particular players had to withdraw because of injuries sustained as a result of a bad venue coupled with not having enough rest time before the next tournament.
     
  2. kanive

    kanive Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    crosscourt, at the time a 21 point game ends in the rally system, the winning player will have accumulated between 9 and 10 points on average per the regular system. So it is shortened (by just a little bit) even for women's singles.
     
  3. crosscourt

    crosscourt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Legal
    Location:
    Shanghai/London
    Hi Kanive, I remember reading an analysis of womens singles games at the All England and at the CG. The result was that the CG games were longer. I can't remember where I read this. I've gone to the Badminton England website in case it was there but couldn't find it.

    I might well be wrong though. Where did you get your stats from?
     
  4. kanive

    kanive Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    The hard way, I'm afraid. I kept notes while watching videos, of both regular and rally scoring games. Here is an example --
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=361603&postcount=307

    In most normal matches, it looks like halving the rally score is a good indicator of what the regular score would be, give or take a couple of points. (But strangely, it doesn't seem to work the other way.) I don't have a large enough sample to draw a firm conclusion, and I have come across some rather bizarre behavior of the rally scoring. (just for instance -- take the 3-setter that Taufik and Kenneth Jonassen played at Anaheim in the quarterfinal of the World Championships. Taufik won that 3-15, 15-10, 15-7. In the rally system, if we counted every single point, Kenneth would have won 21-13, 21-13! Taufik would squeak by if we stopped each game when the rally score reached 21 and started counting at the beginning of the next game again, 13-21, 21-19, 21-17.)
     
  5. crosscourt

    crosscourt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Legal
    Location:
    Shanghai/London
    That's interesting. I guess Taufik is probably a bit more cavalier when he has service. It will be really interesting to see how he fares in the T&U.

    So I guess if one of the main reasons for introducing this change in system was to shorten games then where does womens singles stand, as your stats suggest that it has changed little, if any, in duration?
     
  6. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    Are you sure it is 'fair'? In what sense? Obviously, the server is always in the inferior position than the receiver. No matter how good your serving technique is, like what chris@ccc said all the time, the shuttlecock must still be served upwards, this 'short' time is already enough for receiver to attack any where he likes.

    Isn't losing service is the same as losing point, which is also fair when someone makes mistake?
     
  7. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    Are you sure? So far, no player/team has said the current system is GOOD, except for the new IBF. Even Peter Gade said he likes it, doesn't mean it is good ok. Whoever watch Peter Gade plays, definitely know that he has the lousiest stamina than the other good players, and that's why he prefers this new system, which allow him to play to his best before he collapses on the court.

    And the rest of players said they are trying to adapt to this system in case this stupid system really replace the current one. Have you heard Lee Chong Wei saying he likes it or it is good? Though he won the last few competitions, he only told the press that he managed to adapt this new system.

    So the winning side may not say this system is good! And your statement also implies that the losing side will find this as an excuse if they lose duing TC/UC, PLEASE... this is only what you think, I'm sure they are mature enough to still know what 'SPORTSMANSHIP' is! If they said this kind of things in front of the press, it will only reflect they are just BAD LOSERS!
     
  8. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The new system is fairer than the old system in one of the most important fundamental 'rules of engagement'-you get a point for a rally won, irrespective of who is the server. Look at it in another way-with the old system if you can avoid losing a point in exchange for losing your serve, why not extend this 'privilege' by allowing for 2 serves should the first serve lose a rally? It would allow for even greater comebacks like you have never seen. But is this fair? The basic rules of engagement : a point won is a point won, simple as that, and the question of who is the server is simply fooling around with the rules of fair engagement.
     
  9. kanive

    kanive Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I think it is more that he finishes strong. During the early part of the game, he has lots of serve exchanges, until some threshold is reached, and then he suddenly becomes unstoppable.

    I think so. I haven't looked at any women's singles matches. It may be that they adopt a different strategy and play differently than the men. I do recall seeing an inordinate number of 3-setters recently, which are essentially equivalent to two 15-point games. Maybe that's how they can be longer in duration.
     
  10. kanive

    kanive Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    If that is fair, then why have the service change at all? Let just one side serve the entire game, and let the other person serve the next game. Heck, why stop there? just toss a coin at the beginning to see who will serve and let them serve the entire match!

    I have a compromise: you can keep the rally system, but have the game end only when somebody wins 15 rallies on their serve. :p
     
  11. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    YES, you got the point! In your doubles service, if you serve very good, your opponent will find it hard to attack, does that mean you are attacking? Afterall, you are still at inferior position when serving!

    If the average players are not good enough, why don't you just tell them to train harder instead? Or just find another player who plays the same level as him? And also, does giving two or three points make your opponent look better? I don't think this should be the issue when we are changing the scoring system.
     
  12. sendoh

    sendoh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    NA
    Actually my point here is the player will be at the disadvantage position whenever he serves because no matter how good he is at serving, he still has to hit the shuttlecock upwards. This will give opponent to start attacking at first shot. If you lose point like this, is this fair to the server?

    Kanive made a good point just now, by suggesting that one side should serve for the entire set and another side for the other set. This is obviously fairer than the new system.
     
  13. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The server is not at a disadvantage. If you add up the numbers of serves for the winning and the losing sides under the new system, the team who serves the most always wins. The team that serves less in a complete game is at a disadvantage because it never wins a game. Generally a serve is an advantage for a reasonable level of play. This is because the server decides the type of serve which the receiver doesn't have. In doubles, a good low serve is the most important shot in a doubles game. If executed well it sets up an ideal attacking opportunity. In singles the server will decide, depending on his style of play as well as his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, on either a low or an extremely high serve. Try to play with top players who consistently serve a low doubles serve to perfection, mixed with a deceptive flick serve, you will realize the real advantage of a doubles serve. You can never attack a good low doubles serve, only poor ones.
    The new system will punish poor servers, as it should. Players will now train day and night to perfect their serves, their concentartion and their focus, which are what the new system requires.
    One side serving the entire set or game or like in table tennis where one side serves twice each (used to be 5 times each side) are variations of the new system. However if the entire set is served by one side it may be a bit lacking in variation, not dissimilar to one side winning 21-0 without losing a single serve. Each side having two serves would be better. But I think the new system of winner serving somehow gives some flow to the game and is consistent with the server is always at an advantage. You want to win the serve, because at the end of the game this is what decides who is the winner as the one with the most serves.
     
  14. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Interesting quote, but I think at least this must not be have come from the Chinese coaches. Maybe I should re-learn some basic theories about badminton :rolleyes:.

    Changes have to be studied, researched and the impact assessed and understood. Have IBF done this and if they did can they publish the results? Changes jotted over the knee and without sound reasoning does not promote the IBF directors image well and is doing the sport a disservice.
     
  15. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    There are pros and cons of such detailed studies. Some such studies are sometimes used to slow or block innovations. Studies such as you proposed are good for solving problems inside the box. It will kill thinking outside the box.
    Only time will judge if the new system is better. Current players are still biased towards what they have been using. It requires real leadership to leap out of the box. He who does so will either be a hero or a villain, provided there is sufficient time to try it out and that the current 'political climate' does not put up too many 'studies, research this, research that' blocking tactics to kill the idea.
     
  16. viver

    viver Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    From what I can conclude from your post is, change is always good and let fate/chance determine the outcome. This is really a nice way to solve problems without spending too much time into the boring details. ;)

    Just too bad this approach does not work with my bosses. Would save me a lot of time and effort doing my job.


     
    #396 viver, Apr 27, 2006
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  17. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    This is a pretty silly statement. The side that serves most is the side that wins most points irrespective of who serves by definition under rally point scoring - and is likely to be the better side on the day.

    This does not mean that the server has an advantage, merely that the winners overcame the disadvantage and still won. This will always be true in rally point scoring.

    It has long been recognised that the server is at a disadvantage. And, of course, this is why the server has always been the only one allowed to score, in compensation for the disadvantage. The rally point system ignores the careful balances put in place by the existing laws.

    Crosscourt has it right when his analysis shows that Taufik is a bit more cavalier when he serves. Good players are coached to take more risks when they serve. They can do this because they only have the service to lose, not a point. The new system changes this balance and the logical result is that polayers will be as cautious when serving as when receiving under the rally point system.
     
  18. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    I have been arguing that a set of goals for the trial should have been drawn up to measure the trial against. This is normal and sensible - and neglected by the IBF (and Taneepak).

    "Thinking outside the box" is a tool for arriving at ideas for change - not to test them before implementation.

    Doing what the IBF has done risks losing the box, which is what any sane business boss recognises.

    But Taneepak has consistently supported the IBF blindly, irrespective of the sense of what they have done, leading to suspicion that he is one of them.

    What will he say if Punch announces that badminton will use table tennis balls in the future., I wonder?
     
  19. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    No, neither did I say nor mean that. It all depends on what is involved. Too much emphasis on studies, which are oftentimes nothing more than Parkinson's Law in disguise, can kill innovations.
    Do you know why Corporate raiders are so successful? It is because the Parkinson's Law disease in large enterprises is getting out of control. Very large enterprises like the government sometimes do work that cost a few billion dollars but benefits no one. Corporate raiders scout around for fat companies that do too many studies and have the bloated manpower to boot, to raid. They may not know the business, from an i to a u, but they can turn such bloated enterprises around just by chopping off the fat.
     
  20. badrad

    badrad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,651
    Likes Received:
    9
    Occupation:
    currently unemployed
    Location:
    Surrey, Canada
    parkinsons law... that explains your double posts... and content...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page