First of all, glad you are willing to talk to us - I am not in your level of knowledge in badminton since I assume the server in badminton is a defensive stroke and there is no shots that are irretrievable. You are a professional coach and maybe I'll learn more from you on this. Regarding cricket, and regarding my ignorance, I don't know who Kerry Packer is, and I am not a fan of cricket. When I see cricket being shown, I just switch the channel. I am ignorant of what changes the game have gone through. Table tennis went through a lot of changes since the times I watched it. With all the changes it went through, do you have any figures about its meteoric rise in popularity. Maybe we in Canada are behind the world, I barely see table tennis in TV. I guarantee you I see more fishing, poker championships, spelling bee (in sports channel??) contests in TV than table tennis and volleyball combined. Badminton scoring 3x15 is hard for people to understand - how easy is to understand american football, rugby scoring or basketball scoring? Does it make sense scoring like in tennis, going from 0 to 15, then 30 and 40, etc... Is this a logical sequence? Over-reacting depends how you see it. It's just a matter of perspective. I personally find this change not logical and detrimental to the game: - Not logical due the defensive nature of the serve in badminton (again this is my interpretation and may not be necessarily yours) and giving greater advantage to the receiver - now I am punished to being the server if I win the rally; - Detrimental, since the game is shorter, more power and speed is used to dominate the opponent. Until now, I am still confused what public IBF want to bring to TV. I assume that Asia has a lot of spectators already. If North America, I doubt changing the scoring will do. Like me, if it's cricket I change the channel and believe the common North American would do the same regarding badminton. I am in the opinion that the solution might be with the grassroot population. There is a lot of enthusiasm but level is not high. Badminton is not shown is schools by knowledgeable coaches and players here and the impression is just a 'sissy' sport. My son does not play badminton but football, and in his PE class he beat the badminton coach in a singles match. You can make your conclusions here.
Why its 3X21 rally instead of 3X15? The play is now 2times shorter! I think it should be 5X21 (as in volleyball) or 3X31!
why don't we play badminton the NBA way? 12 min, 12 min, 12 min, 12 min. only one final score. best of 7.
but i think most of us here are discussing what the best scoring system is for the professionals. so Mr. Chris@ccc, i think they are not discussing what a recreational badminton scoring system should be. i personally play 15 point doubles, singles as my opponent likes.
Will scoring format MAKE a difference - NO!! Viver has made a good point that some of us that are 'deep' into the badminton world have missed or taken for granted. The IBF have changed the scoring system "to attract TV audiences, increase sponsorship and therefore be able to spread the popularity of the game". However to the average Joe, the scoring system is not the feature of badminton that actually decides if people want to watch it or play it. An analogy - For people who don't like cricket, even the new 20-20 format (introduced as another competition to one day and test match) won't have much of an impact or attract audiences to cricket in places like USA or Canada. Badminton is a difficult game to show on TV due to the speed of the shuttle and camera angles etc used. It also does not have a popular grassroots base in western countries. Worrying about the scoring system used or trying to create alternative organisations is the last thing badminton needs as splitting up the resources more makes it weaker. I am sure the marketing experts at IBF are working hard to make badminton more attractive to people. Like Chris said, it does not matter really what scoring system is used for us social players. Sure if you are playing a lot of competition, most tournaments will now use the NSS because that is what the IBF have sanctioned, so it is wiser to get use to it at your club level. If the majority of your club don't like the scoring system, then you just play the old system, until a new generation of players replaces most of us at a club. Personally I prefer playing the old system but like watching the new system. I see the scoring system as having minimal effect in terms of reaching western audiences. Like Viver said, there are no coaches/good players in western countries (except maybe Denmark and others) who are actively going into schools and getting the students to participate and enjoy the game. You will always be left with the "sissy" style of play that all beginners do if no one can help coach or teach them the real method of playing badminton. Sadly I have seen in Australia, all juniors go to football, tennis, swimming etc. and the kids left who pick up badminton are not the most physically talented. From that small pool of juniors, some drop out due to no motivation and the rest that stay never hope to make a profession of playing the game, or be able to look up to players like Hewitt, Rafter, Cash in the tennis world to try and emulate. Grassroots of badminton in Australia is pathetic. The majority of juniors in the state teams are not even close to the standard of players several years ago. THis is why the scoring system really does not make a whole lot of difference, as the grassroots of badminton in western countries is a very neglected one. With no strong competition, there are no audiences, and no motivation for our best athletes to become badminton players. So I am trying to say for people who have an issue over the scoring please don't make it a big deal, because in the end there are much more serious issues of badminton we should face and put our energy into.
But we do make an issue out of the fact that IBF focus so much on scoring as an issue!! Especially since we don't find anything wrong with good ol 15x3 /T
I posted this on another thread. 15 pt and 21 pt are just 2 different displicines. It is like comparing 100 meter run to maraton. 100 m champions are not marathon champions. I am still puzzled, why they (IBF) change it. We all know, this is not the way to popularise the badminton sport, nor the means to make it attractive. Badminton sport can be popular in England, Denmark. We should study, why it is popular in these countries and then, implement them in less popular places. Some members have correctly identified the problem. The active IBF members are only interested in Badminton as professional, competitive sport. Some people are more interested to finance IBF, if IBF care for them in return. We should try different approach to make badminton more popular. 1) try to make it fun and entertaining for all ages a) support badminton in kindergarten and school b) organise badminton matches in different ages group eg 35 -45 yrs old, 46-55 yrs old or different weight group 85-92 kg, 93-97kg, or combination of both ! 2) bigger, better marketing a) more friendly exhibition matches b) gets endorsements from MEGA companies, eg Lee Chong Wei for Nike Promoter, or Lin Dan for Adidas c) approach mega movie stars ~ hkg or hollywood stars and directors to help marketing 3) get IBF to engage professional people (marketing, international organisation) Certainly, there are many other ways to make badminton enjoyable for all people.
Now that the scoring system has been simplified, the next big projects should be to spend more resources to bring Africa, South America, and other developing countries into the badminton scene. We want to be like soccer, a truly world-wide game, not like American football where there is money but no international participation. Key to this is the cost of playing badminton-if only it could be as inexpensive as soccer, a game often played in slums of developing countries. Perhaps, a new version of Yonex can produce racquets that will last a lifetime and cost only a dime each. Serious consideration should be given to use existing community multi-purpose halls, to reduce costs. A new shuttle, probably synthetic, that is acceptable for tournaments and that last at least 100 games, should be produced. Forget about spending too much time and resources in the already developed countries, because they probably have more resources and expertise than the IBF.
Are you the spokeman of IBF or that is your own personal opinion of the direction that IBF should take? By the way the scoring system has not been simplified, and the change has no impact to the grass root development. Yonex will market cheap racket and shuttlecock that could last 100 game? well you do have inside knowledge of their business strategy I reckon.
No, I am not the spokesman for the IBF. Yes, that is how I feel we should be heading, instead of spending too much time and resources to bring to big time the 'lost North America Continent'. We must go global. We want to see a Lin Dan or a Peter Gade coming out from Africa or South America or even Eastern Europe. The new scoring system has been simplified, relative to the old system. Now it is just one system for MS, WS, MD, WD, XD. Also the new rally point scoring is simpler for newcomers to the game. Re equipment, my aim here is to get rid of all the impediments to make the game of badminton affordable for the developing countries without taking their rice bowl away or starving them. The slums of many Brazilian cities do have impoverished kids kicking a soccer ball handed down from their grandfathers. We don't want to be like American football or even baseball, the former will never make it to the Olympics, for obvious reasons, and the latter will be kicked out from the Olympics.
Badminton is expensive because of the feather shuttles Hi taneepak, 1. Yes, all my new comers to Badminton tell me that the new scoring system is simpler to learn. 2. Unfortunately, badminton is one of the most expensive sports for us to play when we use feather shuttles. A new shuttle, probably synthetic, is the only way to make the game cheaper. I love sports & I have played many different sports. Badminton and Rifle/Pistol Shooting stand out to be the most expensive sports to be involved in. 3. But don't forget, taneepak... Badminton is only a Game. When we have no food on the tables in Africa, South America, etc... it will be very hard for our expensive badminton to be introduced there. 4. Even if IBF is willing to provide funds to pay for coaches & equipments and to build there, new venues suitable for playing badminton, our poorer countries would rather prefer food to eat and to build hospitals and schools first. Sometimes we take things for granted and we forget our priorities... you and I should be lucky that we can afford to play our beloved Badminton. Cheers... chris@ccc
Well, at least we should start thinking about recycling badminton racquets-why do you need so many racquets, including racquets you don't use?-to countries, without any charge, that need them but have no money. Also racquet factories in China can now make racquets much cheaper than ever before. But the really high cost item is the shuttle. We need a new breed of shuttle manufacturers to come up with a much cheaper synthetic alternative. Then and only then will current shuttle suppliers and manufacturers start scrambling to really compete. Look, if today's racquet strings can squeeze 5,000 filaments into the center core of a badminton string, coming up with equally fine synthetic feathers is just a new application of what is available.
I used to be very much against the 21-rally point system, but after talking to several friends of mine who are not badminton enthusiasts, I'm now willing to give it a try. My non-badminton-enthusiasts friends say that, to them, the games are now more "watchable" on TV. I still prefer the 15-point system though. I hope that after a period of time (maybe a year or so), the IBF will release a study or report that will show whether or not the 21-rally point system has improved the popularity of badminton.
I played a set of singles the other day using the old 15-point service-based scoring, we got to deuce and the other guy held up 3 fingers to signal a "set". Then something occurred to me about the rally scoring system. Badminton was probably the only sport where the players had a choice in when the score is tied down the wire. You can't choose whether or not to play overtime in soccer or basketball. There's no concept of setting or not setting in tennis, volleyball, table tennis and racquetball. IMHO, the choice of setting or not setting added a unique kind of tension to the game. Because one sort of prolongs the tension while the other brings it up to a whole new level. For instance, who can forget the Camilla Martin's gutsy decision to play straight through in the 3rd set of the 1999 WC final. I'm not saying which scoring system is better. I'm just noting a unique aspect of the game that's been, perhaps forever, changed.
My opinion on this change still maintains - it changed to the worse and not contributing to the least to what people are saying, to make badminton more popular. May I ask, more popular where?? Winning back the service in rally point system is not logical and does not make any sense. Working hard to win the rally to get the service back to get pounced by the opponent. Now maybe badminton is the unique game where you win the point to get yourself punished - except the experts that say the serve in badminton put the server in an advantageous position In this new absurd change, let's look at one scenario - players practice the reception to the perfection since the receiver(s) is in an advantageous position. Assuming that the receiver always wins the rally; the player that chose not to serve first will win the game. A scenario that could happen and making the outcome predictable. At the end, it seems that most people here agree that the scoring will not affect or make badminton more popular than it is. Then, why change it in the first place? If putting efforts in the wrong direction is IBF's objective, does we need to wonder why badminton is not getting more popular?
Let us wait for the 2008 Beijing Olmpics, where the new scoring system will be used, and see if the Olympic Games Committee will tell us if badminton has moved ahead or fallen behind in popularity. I am willing to wager with doubters, giving out a 2 to 1 odds, that badminton under the NSS will leap frog at least 5 steps ahead vs the 2004 Olympics in Greece. The IBF will then get much more funds than they received from the Olympics Council in the 2004 Olympics. More funds will mean more means to further popularize the game.
