The thing is that I know it is a mental thing but I just cannot get rid of it. But for sure I will experiment the 5 x 11 system as soon as we are allowed to play. I hope that's soon. My body is miserable without badminton.
You can. It used to be the same for me, building up rituals, that is different warm ups for practice and for competitions and rituals I do just before the match starts, helped a lot. Going into the match knowing that you'll screw up the start will lead to.... you screwing up the start. That can be a anything, even tying your shoes each game (that's not me though).
I am in the minority wanting to ditch games to 21. Too long and tedious early on, I think the original scoring to 15 is about right but not with scoring only when serving. Games to 11 are a bit short but 5x11 better than 3x21.
You seriously suggest to change the scoring during an ongoing tournament and depending who’s playing against who? No offense, but that is the weirdest idea concerning the topic yet. And by a significant margin.
I was reading this thread with a bit of skepticism as I am not really into 11x5... however the suggestion of Quentin11 got me thinking... May be the idea of having shorter matches for the main draw and than longer for the finals is not that bad?... Hmm.... I understand that changing the format during the the same tournament sounds horrible, however.... There are some sports that doing it, like in archery, were you have the main draw where everyone shoots 30 arrows at 4 ranges to get a general score and than when the finalists decided - you shoot one vs one to determine the best archer. I think it makes finals feel a bit more important and serious, even possibly epic? In some tournaments like world tour finals when there is a round robin in the beginning, often the same players meet each other in the group stage and out of the group and it looks a bit kind of silly? Didn't they already play each other? Wouldn't it be interesting to see them fight it out in a more demanding and challenging match in the final rounds?... Other positives are that players can keep a bit more energy in the first rounds when the matches are very close one to another. You can than have "proper" matches when you have more time to rest in between as in the finals. Also, players who are consistently in the finals will be a bit less exhausted and insured during long tours may be? Finally it can help getting through a bulk of the matches in the first rounds in busy tournaments and avoid the first days been too long because of that? Without making the finals less interesting... I am not saying I am really liking it yet but it is interesting to think about it... What would you guys say?
But isn't that achieved in a more natural way by this scoring system anyway. The assumption is that in earlier rounds, there's more one sided matches. Those will end in less games than the close ones. I do not know it, but to me that seems like one of the goals they want to achieve. It's 5*11 the best option? I don't know. Is 5*13 any better? Has it been tried? All I can say is that I want to get on court and try this new scoring system myself.
No, not without making finals less intense, at least for me... To say the truth, I might be more ok with 11x5 if we keep the finals to remain 21x3. That way big tournaments would not lose that epic resolve... I just cannot imagine LD vs LCW 2012 final or Sindhu vs Okuhara 2017 played in 11 x 5... Or any other epic matches we remember, no way!
I was about to disagree but have argued myself into a 180 about turn and now agree. Or, rather I don't have any reason to disagree, as long as they pick something. 11x5 or 11x7 in the final, I don't mind either way as long as the objective of the change is met. Snooker is another sport I never understood the huge value of (tobacco sponsorship used to be big) yet they have longer matches in the later and final stages. So, there are examples out there that appear to work although the only time I saw a snooker player sweat was when they had to run for a toilet break. Badminton just needs to appeal to huge TV audiences to entice sponsors to dig into their deep pockets. If the final is longer then it can't be bad but does it fit the profile that the BWF can sell. Which raises another question, can the BWF sell anything and is badminton popular enough to watch in the current tournament format where matches are spread over 4+ days before the final?
May be, I just really hope there is more to 11 x 5 other than trying to sell consistent 2 mins breaks for advertising... I laughed like crazy...
I just want longer matches because I love badminton and I love watching top players play each other. So @s_mair your comment on the harsh side isn't a necessity. We are living in an era where rules are being bent so why not? Ok granted the extension of the number of sets when top 5 players are playing each other are a bit farfetched but I don't see anything wrong with extending SF and F. Players would already be aware of that. It's not that they would suddenly be surprised ... oh ma gaad no one told me the Semi would be longer! ... Players would come prepared and it would even create more havoc! Anyway we comment here for the sake of sharing ideas and discuss with other badminton lovers. No one is going to actually change the scoring system by commenting here. Unless @s_mair can really make the difference if I come up with a detailed plan, study, analysis and implementation of a new scoring system for badminton and I will get paid for that. Damn.
Why would players have longer matches past a certain stage in the tournament? How does it benefit the sport? Not the viewer. The way I imagine it, it means a certain kind of player will adapt better and thrive, so there would be more disparity in the field. It also means only top players will get used to this format during tournaments and the occasional black horse who never did a final phase match format would be at disadvantage. Again it would only create a deeper difference between top and bottom players. We want more competition and adversity if this new 5x11 format is to be implemented, not more disparity.
I fail to see how his comment was harsh... As to want longer matches let's be honest, longer doesnt mean better. You can always watch all the matches of a tournament I'd you want to watch more badminton. Yet, who watch all matches of a given tournaments? That's already plenty of TV time to digest for us fans. I already did once for a super 1000 and it took me 2 weeks to finish watching all the matches broadcasted for MS category alone. If we apply a change to the sport's format it's not to create longer matches that would hinder the quality of the game anyway instead create more competition and adversity in order to level up the sport too. That + create more TV coverage opportunity for the sport.
You call the word "weird" harsh? Wow, you are a really, really sensitive guy. Here's what I don't get: You were complaining -sorry, too harsh- expressing your concerns about a scoring system that bottom line only reduces the maximum number of played points per match (without setting) from 120 (3 x 21:19) to 100 (5 x 11:9) and say that this is too much of a change. And all of a sudden you're suggesting far bigger changes with varying scoring based on WR ranking(!) of the players? Yeah, that is totally not weird. This exactly. Why not? Given that each game will have setting up to 15 points, there will be endless possibility to create drama and thrills towards the end of each game. Maybe it's just me, but I get the biggest thrills when a game goes into setting since pretty much everything can happen there within seconds. Would you change channels or peak into your Instagram at a 23:24 scoreline? If PVS vs. NO would have ended with an imagined scoreline of let's say 9:11, 15:13, 12:10, 11:13, 15:14 - why would it have been in any way less exciting? And by the way, that would be only 1 point less than the original match (21:19, 20:22, 22:20), so it wouldn't have been any shorter and both players would have been equally at the end of their phyical limit. On the plus side, there could have been five total thrill-peaks instead of three. Bottom line: It's possible that the match would have been equally exciting overall. A comparison with snooker for example is lacking since snooker is mostly a mentally demanding sport (and the longer matches are played over various sessions and even two days if necessary). I've watched snooker quite a bit when I was still in university and let me tell you that the later stages of the WC were a nightmare to watch. You'd have to wait a day before a match remotely got close to a deciding phase. If one player had a comfortable lead, it was normal that he took kind of a break for several frames and in fact giving them away to recover for the deciding phase. So no, snooker is not an example that's worth copying imo.
So, the first attempt (couple of years back) at 5x11 didn't have any setting, so a game would end at the latest at 11-10. The new suggestion from last year has setting until 15? Or is that just the bundesliga variant? At first I was sceptic, but now I'm looking forward to give it a try at our clubs free play times! Especially singles would be played a lot more, I think. Balanced matches would take close to as long while one sided matches will take a fair bit shorter. Although at tournaments I always like to learn as long as possible when facing a very difficult opponent. (so a 21-9 first game can become a 21-19 game in the second, I wonder how this will pan out with a 5x11.) (Also good for when they make us mix the top level players at the club with the beginners for 'fun', shorter will be more fun for everyone in this situation.)
I still remember that they were trying different setting variants before the final poll in 2018 and I've found this post by @Master that shows the final version that was up for poll: https://www.badmintoncentral.com/fo...coring-system-more.175454/page-2#post-2634532 So it was indeed setting to 15 in each game that made it to the poll, so I'm only guessing that this version would have the highest chance in a new attempt.
