[MENTION=115680]nilesh123[/MENTION] You are welcome! Yes, I wrote the wrong dates, thanks, corrected it.
Even I saw that in morning iteslf!! I always notice that these ads always feature PK before and PVS before KS.. I am glad they didn't put JG on
your question has already been answered Okay I guessed your questions have already been answered. The answer is Malaysia is the winner in group 1D and Korea second in group 1D. Malaysia win against Korea 3-2. Malaysia win against India 3-2. Korea win against India 4-1. So the result itself shows that Malaysia is still powerful in badminton.
From my decades observation, the decision makers at BWF never have enough senses of logic and mathematics. The drawing of Sudirman cup is no exception. Basically, there are two kinds of competition: group competition (each team meets 1 time or multiple times) and knockout competition (winner advances). Both have advantages and disadvantages. For example, the champion in the knockout competition is the only one never lose, but the champion for group competition could have losing records. Therefore, the knockout champion is the true, convincing champion. That's the reason, NBA, MLB, NFL/AFL, including Sudirman need knockout stage to determine the champion. But the biggest disadvantage for knockout is the drawing. The runner-up is not convincing at all, he or she could be worse than half of the all players in the other half draw. The other disadvantage of knockout for organizer and participants, is that half of the competitors have to go home after each round. This is very costly economically. Therefore, many tournaments began to use combinations of group and knockout, such as world cup, sudirman. Some use double knockout, some use 2 stages: group then knockout, therefore, (1) each team has more than 1 showtime, (2) knockout draw will be based on group, so that the runner up has to beat indirectly more than half of the team. To enforce these benefits, the knockout needs to cross place the teams. Simply, it cannot pair with teams already competed in the group stage. The current BWF way, random draw, making China, Germany, Malaysia and Korea fighting again, violates 3 basic rules: 1) it makes the champion less convincing. Malaysia already beat Korea in group stage, now Malaysia lost to Korea in knockout stage, which team is better? Even a criminal case cannot be sued/trialled twice for the same reason. Statistically or mathematically, you cannot overwrite the previous results by another result. Even you want to overwrite, you have to play the best of 3. 2) It erases all the advantages of group competition, the advantage of group competition is to let each team to play more teams, so that the final runner up should be the one indirectly beat more than half of the team by cross drawing. 3) It invalids the previous victory, the group competition is to let the better team to pair with a weaker team from another group. Now BWF asks the same group teams play again, it invalids the winner's precious victory. ...... Summing up, BWF rules are just a foolish way to eradicate both the group and knockout advantages, but to showoff both disadvantages. They don't make any logic, mathematical and statistical senses.
Say Germany team. Assume Germany is the 2nd best, just after China, then knockout competition will make it the loser in the 1st round. This is the disadvantage of the knockout. By group competition, and then knockout, Germany should be drawn in different halves from China. So that if Germany is really the 2nd best, it has the chance to advance to the final. That's the advantage of the group competition, making the runner-up more convincing. Now the BWF rules (pairing China and Germany again just after grouping match) ruined all the benefits of the group competition. Same applies to Korea-Malaysia too. BWF not only invalided the group victory, but also ruled out the real runner up.
The current system is fine and fair. If Germany is one of the top four teams in the world, it would not be in the same group with China to start with. Why should Germany be treated as if it is a top four team for being drawn into the same group as China? Germany finished 2nd in the group. Germany did not earn the privilege to avoid China in the QF or SF. Germany should be treated equally as any other 2nd place finishers. Re-matching so soon is boring to the players and the fans. But it is the fair thing to do.
you didn't get my point. According to you, Germany's destination should be pre-arranged by draw. That's exactly the design flaw for knockout competition. You might fail to see clearly because of Germany's is not a really power house. Let's first assume all results are deterministic, and results are transitivity. If player A beats B, B beats C, then A beat C. Statistical fluctuation is another problem. Let me give you a real example, the latest combination competition was last year Dubai World Superseries final MS. There are 8 players, if using knockout all the way, then 1st day: Chen Long > Tago HK Vittinghus > Son Wan Ho JO Jorgensen > Tommy Sugiarto K Srikanth > Kento Momota then 2nd day should have been 2nd round Chen Long > HK Vittinghus JO Jorgensen > K Srikanth then we don't know which one is better between HK Vittinghus and anyone from bottom half. Assume Chen Long bt JOJ in final, then we only know: Chen Long > JOJ > Srikanth> Momota, Sugiarto (but don't know (Momota ? Sugiarto) ; don't know (Srikanth? Momota ) Chen Long > Vittinghus > Son WH Chen Long > Tago but we don't know (Vittinghus ? Tago) don't know (Tago ? Son WH) So the knockout competition can tell us Chen Long is the best, because he indirectly defeated all 7 other players. But we don't know who's the 2nd best, because the runner up only indirectly beat 3 players out of 7. In this case, we would not know what would happen if JOJ met Vittinghus, because there no transitivity relationship between HKV and JOJ. Then comes your argument, Vittinghus is not good in ranking so that he should be eliminated in early round, which equally say that JOJ should be in the final because of his ranking or drawing. In fact, we all knew that HK Vittinghus beat JOJ and advanced to the final, and lost to Chen Long in final. From group then knockout competition, we can apply the transitivity law to Chen Long, and know he's the best because he indirectly beat all 7 others (the same as pure knockout), we also knew Vittinghus was the 2nd best, because he indirectly beat all other 6 others, except Chen Long. Therefore, Vittinghus was much more deserved the runner up than JOJ, because he beat all 6 others including JOJ, directly or indirectly.
Exactly the opposite. Germany should be in a free draw with all other second place teams, as it was the case. Putting Germany in a different quadrant or half would mean that each of Korea, Chinese Taipei and Denmark would have a 1/3 chance of facing China, instead of 1/4 chance. What is the justification for penalizing these teams for the benefit of Germany? In comparison, Indonesia and Malaysia did not have to play China in QF for winning their groups. And Japan did not have to play China until the final for winning the group and being the 2nd highest ranked team by team strength. Germany earned no privilege to avoid facing China in QF or SF. There is no reason to put Germany in a more favorable position, other than for more variety in the match-ups.
Malaysia first faces Korea and win. Then in quarters Malaysia faces Korea and lose. What this means? It means that at important moment, Korea do better. The logic of sport is not the one 2cents explained, it is the logic of moment x and place y. That's why it is fun.
This is another issue. Not the original meaning of the credibility of the runner up. Ok, let's discuss your new issue, assume China is invincible, you are right, then Germany got a litttle bit advantage to avoid China in knockout, but other team, Indonesia, Malaysia can also avoid playing China in early knockout if they perform better. Germany got just better chance, while the pure knockout eliminates any chance at every round.
The fact is no body interested in such an more important moment. Even from this forum, all fans got bored when China / Germany and Korea/Malaysia at their more important moments, including the players and coaches. Please even ask any Malaysian fans.
I agree with that. I was considering the argument of "absolute" runner-up and its logic. But the boredom of repeating in the quarters the group match is indeed the biggest fault of this system.
This is a championship, not a league. The purpose is to determine the winner for the Cup, not to rank the teams. If the purpose is to rank the teams fairly, the ideal format would be a double round robin tournament with home and away ties. That's a different kettle of fish all together. Theoretically speaking, a group stage is not needed for the Sudirman Cup. The group stage is put in place to avoid the "one and out" situation for the benefits of the teams and their supporters. Given all the limitations of a championship tournament, the current format is fair to all the teams.
The prospect of a double round robin with home and away ties in badminton sounds great! But I suppose not feasible - the whole season would be devoted to it! Ideally, we could imagine a double simultaneous badminton season, one for individual titles, and one for team tournaments. But that is so far away from reality.
There is simply no perfect system practically ^:^ Moreover the chance for such same match-up as happens in the QF of 2015 SC is relatively small; in theory the probability is 25% but actual realization is much smaller. During the so many times of SC holding, how often this kind of the same match-up in the group stage and QF does occur? I recall it occurs three times so far incl. twice in the just completed tournament (I don't verify it, just what I remember). And since each system has its own pros & cons, no single system is perfect, therefore a change to the current drawing system is not necessary. We all must consider the interests of the organizer and participants as well, not just the 'boredom factor' of the viewers, in particular the COST FACTORS of both staging and taking part in the tournament.
Anyway, BWF has expressed they may look into reviewing the draw system http://www.thestar.com.my/Sport/Badminton/2015/05/14/Sudirman-Cup-draw-system-may-be-reviewed/ Another thing is for this year's edition of the Sudirman Cup, the usual order of play has been changed to start with MD instead of XD as in the past. Whether intentionally or not by BWF, it seemed to be targeted at CHN as MD is her weakest link which put Team CHN at a disadvantage. This point was hinted at by LYB, not without justification.
LYB was totally wrong on that. The order of play was dictated by Rule 13 in http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file.aspx?id=550402&dl=1 In fact, XD was the first event to play in the very first tie against Germany when two German players playing two events. In the QF tie, only Fuchs was scheduled to play two events, so the order of play was different. If LYB really wanted to play XD first, he could have two Chinese doubles players playing two events. It was a sad reflection of the sorry state of the badminton media. They didn't check the facts and just repeated erroneous information. The same for Malaysian media who reported Indonesia considering granting LCW a wild card when Indonesia had no wild card to give at all, according to the rules.
