i go with the old system. i had been playing with my frens using the new system, i will never sweat because i havent even warm up, that's the end of game one. and i think using the old system, a match is more predictable. in the new system, anything can happen. the losing side can catch up very fast. which can be advantage or disadvantage. but i still stick with the old system.
You still consider the serve an attacking shot even though the receiver has time to reply with an attacking clear or a spinning netplay?? A good receiver can turn an attacking (perfect?) serve into a nightmare for the server?? So where is the advantage being the server?? I am REALLY confused
Re the importance of the serve, there is an interesting article by Tan Aik Huang in this very forum. Just go to Badminton Central, look up 'Articles' on the left and select 'Techniques'. Look for 'The Fundamentals Part I' and 'The Fundamentals Part II' by Tan Aik Huang. Out of the 4 fundamentals, one is the Serve, the other 3 being the Grip, Footwork, and Stamina. The return of serve is not one of the fundamentals. Also Han Jian, in his book, says that the low serve, if properly executed, will deny your opponent the chance to attack you, which is the opposite of what some of you are saying here. He also says the low serve is a good way to vary the game and shift your opponent's attention elswhere and to stop him from playing his normal game. The low serve is advocated by him to break the rhythm of your opponent and stop him from using his strong points like his smashes, chops and drops. He also says that from his many years as a player he has seen players of all levels struggling to return low serves until they don't know what to do. In that case you have no option but to return the shuttle to the baseline. This is why we see so many low serves in both singles and doubles today. Singles serve used to be 100% high serves. It is now close to 90% low serves. Well, there must be something attractive and rewarding about the low serve.
Of course there is. Although not an attacking shot in itself, it reduces the receiver's opportunity to attack, whereas the long serve puts the receiver on the attack straight away (albeit only from the baseline if it is a decent serve). I say it is not an attacking shot simply because no would-be attacker would play a shot from the T directly to the receiver beyond the short service line by choice. The laws so severely constrain the server that any legal serve cannot be an attacking shot. I don't agree that 90% of singles serves are low serves these day. It was more like 50/50 at the Commonwealth Games, which I saw quite a lot of.
At a social games level, we play old system to 21. We tried the new system, but it ends in like 10mins and there is no real "flow" in the game, due to constant points coming from forced and unforced errors. It is not unusual to see 3 ppl serve into the net in a row, imagine that is all points under new rally system!! So it is designed to finish the game quicker and you must be a better/faster attacker and consistent compared to the old system style of play. In the tournaments I played, we just did one set of 21 for singles, so again it is not a true stamina type game. As a player I don't like it, as I am slow to warm up and get moving and use my stamina as advantage. However to watch the game, I admit it is more exciting.
In my opinion, you are getting more and more confused. Never anybody here mentioned that the serve is not important. It is very important to have a good serve because it can limit the options of the receiver; because the serve is defensive by nature, you need to have it done properly. Use short serve to mount an attack does not mean the serve is an attacking shot. It's not much different from defending a smash; defending well will limit the options of the attacker; return it poorly, the attacker will finish the rally easier. If you can't understand the reasoning, well... PS: return of serve was not mentioned in the articles, did he mention smash, clears, net plays, fast drops, etc... if not maybe these skills are also not important, right?
I guess the more we watch the 21 points system, the more used to it we'll get. I mean, if it is enforced, and the new players coming through have not played the 15 point game, they will never know the difference and will be accepted. Not saying which one is better, but for me, as long as i can play badminton, any point system is cool.
Obviously you are following 'blindly' what Han Jian wrote in the book or what others wrote, and you never notice that there are so many changes over the years. Can you always serve low and expect your opponents to lift for you to attack next forever? So, in your opinion, you still very much believe what Han Jian said, serving low is an attacking move?
“In badminton the scale are heavily tipped in favour of receiver, because of the rules governing the server and the height of the net. You cannot make your serves more dangerous. You can make them more accurate. Variety of service in itself will be a hazard for your opponent. To put it in a nutshell: a poor service he doesn’t expect is likely to equal in value a good serve that he does” The Phoenix book of BADMINTON page 53 - Eddy Chong, Fred Brundle 1956. I hope that will clarify why many like Viver, CWB001 have tried to raise the awareness in this forum that the 3x15 is taking into account of the server disadvantage whereas the 3x21 is not. I hope the statement also clarify what is a perfect serve!
What you are saying applies to a poor server. BTW, do you know of any players in the recent Thomas Cup matches who did not opt to serve after having won the toss? Now, this is the real test, isn't it? I now play recreational badminton doubles only. If we win the toss I will never allow my partner who is a poor server to serve first, for obvious reasons, but I will instead execute the serve. If my partner is a very hard smasher and also an equally good server, I will be the one to serve, and our chances of winning are usually very high.
I picked old system awhile back, but after using it a few times and having watched the recent Thomas Cup, i vote to keep it in for abit. To test it out for a longer period of time. I liked how it created a lot of tense moments during the Thomas Cup for me as i watched my favorite players play !
I hate to get into personal but I have to say Mr Taneepak you are just arguing for the sake of arguing! I suppose even the wisdom of Datuk Eddy Choong will not deter you? May be you could try to read Basic Skills of Badminton Chapter 8 BasicTactics - Han Jian. I know I still owe Han Jian; as I did promise I will give some comments to his book, may be I should request him to be very explicit in his writing!
Continue.. Why choose to serve first when you have won the toss? Assuming there is no advantage on which side of the court. In the 3x15 format; you can only win the point when you serve so it is logical to serve 1st. In the 3x21 format, this “serve to win” rule is no more applicable; however you might decide to serve 1st if you believe you have the better chance of delivering a good service and forcing a weak return from your opponent.
We should initiate action if we are serious This belongs more in the "21-point system passed......" thread but since it is closed I am posting it here. There were suggestions that an alternative organization to IBF might have to be started to revert to the old 15 point scoring. I write to gauge how serious proponents of "alternative IBF" are. If we are serious we better start doing something about it. As I see it, we need to form alternative local/national organizations; since USA Badminton is part of IBF (and voted for the new system), it means a new national organization needs to be formed. Similarly for European, other organizations. Do we have the courage and can we marshall the resources necessary? How many professional players can we get support from? For e.g., Tony Gunawan has publicly stated that the new system will ruin the game. But will he support a new organization considering he plays in OCBC, the power center of USA Badminton? How about Taufik, Gade, etc? Oh perhaps the moderator should decide if this should be a new thread.
A "New" Baddy Circus? A similar scene was enacted more than a quarter century ago by a, Aussier chap called Kerry Packer when he single-handedly split the world cricket fraternity into what was endearingly labelled the "circus." Given the resources he had, viz., money and tv coverage, are the same ones that the current baddy bigwigs claim now. Ironical, but seems that that is the way the shuttle flies! So methinks your suggestion could work, provided there are players who would be willing to put their bread-n-butter on the line. It is difficult to envision that a player who was given a valuable property, or similar national-level support, would come to said organisation in two shakes of a goose's feather so to speak! Loyalty is priceless. However, at the most common level, for people who play for the joy of it, the matter is entirely at the local level, club or region, to conduct their show, 3X15, 3X21, 5X7, and whatnot notwithstanding! I had come across ABL, American Badminton League, mostly prevalent in the US Midwest but slowly spreading its wings to the nether regions. Is something like this what you have in mind?
IBF Membership Are we talking of Badminton as an active pastime/recreation or a staged sport? Many of us are overreacting to the new scoring system. IBF is trying to stage the sport to an audience(TV or Live), exactly what Kerry Parker, in Australia, did for cricket. We, who play badminton, are overreacting... of course, this is only based on what I see, because out of 100 players I play with, only 10 are registered members of IBF. The others just play for fun. They couldn't be bothered to pay IBF membership fees. When we play for fun, we can use any scoring system. In my previous posts, I have mentioned that we can play badminton with scoring system from tennis, table tennis, volleyball, etc... People who play badminton as a backyard/recreation sport and who are not IBF members can still continue with the old scoring system.
Are many contributors in this forum “are overacting” on the 3x21? Could I continue to play my fun badminton at my backyard using any systems I like even an Australian has changed the rule of Cricket? Of course I could! Likewise what IBF got to do with me playing any games I like at my backyard? If one really wants to defend the 3x21, one has to quantify its advantages over the 3x15.
Just wishing to clarify 2 points in my previous post. 1. I am saying that IBF is following Kerry Packer's way of promoting the sport. I love cricket and I live in Australia. I can say how it was felt here when Kerry changed the scoring system of cricket to suit television. Most Australians, including Kerry, love the Traditional 5-day Test Cricket. But for commercial television stations to telecast cricket, we knew we had to change the Traditional 5-day Cricket to the 1-day Cricket. Actually, it was Kerry Packer's own television that promoted the 1-day cricket, even though Kerry dearly loved the Traditional Cricket. Immediately, professional players started to earn heaps and more school children took up the sport, just because they were more exposed to it through television. More drastic changes were made to cricket for television, not just the scoring system. The changes include continue play when daylight is bad(they installed huge lighting systems for bad light and night play), changed the colour of the cricket ball(for better visual on television), etc... Similarly, in table tennis for television, they increased the size of the ball. I don't know how badminton players will react if the shuttles were made bigger and/or of glowing colour. 2. Many active pastime/recreation badminton players are not IBF members, and we should understand it. We will only want to be financial members of IBF if we can get some services from IBF. I made this point to reply to VegiSmash's comment. His comment was "There were suggestions that an alternative organization to IBF might have to be started to revert to the old 15 point scoring. I write to gauge how serious proponents of "alternative IBF" are. If we are serious we better start doing something about it." I was saying that IBF is trying to stage badminton for television. Pastime/recreation players can play with any scoring systems they wish. This is what I was saying about "overreacting". Personally, I think we can play badminton under any fair rules as long as both opponents agree to it(and enjoy it). When I mentioned about playing badminton in the scoring system under the tennis rule, I actually meant it in total... ie the server can serve with a smash, but from behind the back line of the court, and the score starts with Love-all, 15-Love, 30-Love, etc... Of course, it's best of 3 sets, each set is the first to reach 6 games with 2 games difference, and with tie-breakers if required. Try it, it is fun. I am a professional badminton coach and I love badminton. Just listening to the sound from my racket hitting the shuttle brings joy to me. Of course, when I coach, I do it the IBF's way. But when my tennis or table tennis friends(who do not know how we do the badminton scoring system) want to have a game with me, and suggest that I play to his rules/systems, I just go for it. If you say I am crazy... I can say I am not. There can be so many changes. In fact, I am in favour for smaller court size for older players, lower net height for younger/shorter children, longer points score(game to 51 points) for fitter/healthier players, etc... Trying to form an "alternative local/national organizations" is really overreacting. Cheers... chris@ccc
This is not entirely true, and the IBF differs from Packer circus in some very important ways. Yes, Packer promoted the shorter version of cricket, but (a) the one-day version had been around for almost TWO DECADES by the time he got around to marketing it for TV, there had even been two world championships that had been run for it, and (b) the ICC did not, and never has, switch over to the short version and abandoned the long version. Nobody here is arguing against putting badminton on TV. If they want to put in breaks at 7 or 8 points in every game for a TV timeout, sure. If they want to try innovative methods of recording and broadcasting, sure. If they want to make the women wear skimpy clothing, sure. The dispute here is about discarding the 3x15 system, which has worked wonderfully, for an untested, unpopular, unjustified rally scoring system that will make for a radical change in how the game is played. It is the IBF's job to safeguard the sport. In that sense, regardless of whether we pay dues or not, they are supposed to represent us. They have a duty to the sport that goes beyond member associations and olympic organizations. And they are letting us down.
