Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by CLELY, Apr 20, 2020.
Looks like this proposal is back *sighs*
It was only a matter of time. Nice, bring it on!
Half the words are "peaks", and I have no idea what "peaks" means.
Also, in what way is 5 x 11 "easier to understand" than 3 x 21?
Reduce length of matches sounds like an own goal. Are we trying to increase the popularity of badminton by having less exposure?
Changing ends after six points in the fifth game sound ludicrous - remember we used to have to change ends after 7 points once upon a time ago and that system got trashed.
Majority of matches must be around only 40 minutes. How short do the powers that be want matches to be? 15 minutes max? Awful idea.
I’d highly recommend anyone who wants to form an own opinion on this to read through the whole thread. A lot of good arguments on all sides and a lot of examples to show the real difference in the expected length of matches (tight and one-sided ones).
Personally, I’d be excited to get started with that new scoring once we will finally be able to get back on court at all. It’s now ~5 months without badminton around here (no end in sight...) and it would be as nice bit of extra spice after such a long hiatus.
Let's look at the rallies played and call it n. And just read it as if the = was included when I write < or >.
2*21 = 42 < n < 177 = 3*59
3*11 = 33 < n < 145 = 5*29
That's 21% less in the shortest (boring matches) case and 18% shorter in the longest case. That's the reason why I asked earlier in this thread if 5*13 might be better (-> 39<n<... depends on when it's capped), but overall, I like this scoring system from my experience watching matches in the German Bundesliga and trying to play it myself.
As I understood it, the shorter matches are essential for media exposure if you want to include all 5 disciplines on one day of finals. I do think though, that this thought comes from a time where media exposure meant TV exposure... which is pretty much dead anyway. If you want a lot of people to still care about all disciplines (and that's one big thing that's really unique about badminton, at least to have all on one day), it will still be helpful to shorten that day.
These said peaks were first seen in the OP (of 2014?) with a bold ambitious title 'Enhancing Badminton's Future'
Briefly, the 3x21 format has a lopsided 2-game to 3-game ratio which was according to their presentation 61:39. Which means that 61% of all matches were decided within 2 games.
The 5x11 will bring this ratio 33:37:30 for matches finishing in 3, 4, and rubber (5) games.
In other words, thr rubber game ratio will be reduced from the current 39% to 30!
How this builds suspense, increases excitement, and shortens length of matches, only time will let us know.
See, 2 peaks with current 3x21 format.
Change to 5x11, and voila, 3 peaks!
They should get rid of the doubles service line, IMO - too many rallies are killed off within five shots of the serve.
Oh my goodness, what blasphemy!
That is a really interesting idea!
If only we were able to get on court. I would love to put this one to the reality test - at least on a recreational level.
4th game and 5th game combined together is 67%. That’s actually better
What I would like to see is better control by the umpires. Warnings without penalties are useless so let’s see better enforcing of warnings and better use of the card system. This would actually increase drama and suspense. Penalising those players who sneakily get towelling breaks without having a lot of sweat and lost the point would be interesting!
I want to know how they modelled to figure out the chances of a match finishing in 3-4-5 games are 33-37-30..
In my opinion, instead of changing points system. BWF(marketing team) really need to come up better idea on how to promote this sport.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
Is it really going to be fair? I would think that servers will get a bit of an advantage if receiver will have to stay more to the back... It is more or less balanced as it is with 1.15 serve... Perhaps change of serve height will be needed too?
Instead of 11x5...how about 3x21?
It is almost universally considered to be a disadvantage to be on serve, at the top level.
Wasn't it the original idea behind the servicing rules for badminton for the server scoring? It was "fair" for the server to work for the point.
I really do not have any suggestion/opinion about the changing on the scoring system other than thinking that the WBF not knowing what they are doing. The idea of changing the 3x15 server scoring to the current 3x21 rally scoring was to shorten the game time and make it more attractive for the media and tv sponsors. But the (top) players thought otherwise, chose to play safer and we had seen matches over the hour mark If we agree to have shorter matches just for the sake of the media, will I be expecting to see someday a 7x3 rally scoring match system?
I would challenge that idea.
The reason serving is considered to be a disadvantage is because any inconsistency getting punished right away. In a way you can call it "the right to make the first mistake". This serving disadvantage is not inherent to the way the serve is balanced by the rules, since a perfect serve still has a very good chance to win the point right away exactly as much as a bad serve to be punished. The only difference is that the bad serve can potentially be so much worse than a perfect serve. Don't forget that we never notice bad returns as much as serves as it usually gets punished later in the rally most of the time...
Yes, there is somewhat very minimal skew to make sure serve not being more advantageous, just to ensure that starting player will not have a winning streak at the beginning but it is not that huge as people make it out to be.
However if you force the receiver to move 20cm back in order to be able to cover the back line, he will have no possibility to make a flat return on a good serve giving opportunity to server to get on an attack or even score almost every single time... This should never happen as it is much more unfair to have it skewed towards receiver disadvantage, especially by that much...
That's a great idea! Why didn't we think of it earlier!!!