I don't understand you. In your post #451, I thought you were mulling over ZN 's comments and complaint about NSS being longer for her.And how was that possible, you seemed to ask? So I gave one mathematical illustration in ZN's case to indicate why NSS's truly tougher for her (compared to OSS) And then you want to generalise to MS.Did any MS complain about NSS being longer? Maybe you should learn from LD how to be super focused. He had to do it for one match.You just focus on one post at a time.
I like your idea of pressure points. However, I believe the number of pressure points is not as logical as 4 (2 for midway and 2 for ending).Pressure points result when there's a big point gap;this varies with players and with each match but definitely there are more pressure points,generating spectator suspense, in NSS than OSS. That's why NSS is more exciting.
but under the OSS, there are better chance of a come back than under the NSS, so OSS has its own kind of suspense too. Under OSS, u can't lose a game or a match with a bad serve. In NSS, losing a game or a match due to a bad serve is not that exciting IMO.
Actually, rally point system as used in volleball, table tennis, squash and badminton has continuous pressure point in every rally. Try to put yourself in the player's mental state before each rally. No more can you enjoy that smug feeling of no-point-loss when serving of the OSS: that special right is taken away and you are as vulnerable as the receiver under the NSS to lose a point. This is pressure point: table tennis has fine-tuned this pressure point system into a fine art. Also when you have to play deuce in the NSS it has a special tension, excitment, and suspense that reaches its height in pressure point. Did you see the match between Zhang Ning and XXF a few years ago that went to 29-30? This is the type of pressure point I am talking about. Also the mental state of the two players at the start of the match is under great pressure, simply because they know they must have a damn good start before it is too late. This is a new type of pre-match pressure point the NSS brings. In very important events, some players couldn't even sleep well. The NSS's pressure point is not confined to the court. That is why there is a great need for special trainers who "train" your mind now.
No, I am not as narrowly focused as you think. What I am trying to say that the NSS has actually seen a shorter game now, much shorter in MS tha WS. Against easy opponent the NSS is in my opinion shorter and not tougher than the OSS against weak players, whether in MS or WS. ZN's opinion was made when the NSS. Now I am sure any match against a weak opponent, whether under the NSS or OSS, will be a walk-in-the-park. How can it be tough under the NSS in WS against a weak opponent?
You are still blabbering around quite well, but sadly not provided any justifications to your authoritative affirmations. Still waiting.... Also like to hear your in-depth comments on how exciting and suspenseful the 21-point matches compared to the ones I pointed out. Come on, I am giving you a big opportunity to show your expertise. Contrary to what you are saying, maybe telling me that you really don't read properly, I played with what you called the NSS, over 30 years ago. I can say, I had a great coach who had various methods used for training and this what you called innovative scoring (well, we call it ping-pong score), were used on us for specific reasons. Reasons I can see how the game is played now. Well, I am still waiting for your authoritative dissertation on how the mental stress and mental toughness are oceans apart. Hey, don't let us down!!
Similarly, I also watched the games from early 70's, but I still like the 15-point format more - just my preference. There are things I like in 15-point format - even reaching first the 14-point mark, it is not sure that you will win. You need determination to finish the game, which is easier said than done. In 21-point system, if one have 2 or 3 points advantage, one can play conservatively and wait for the opponent to make mistakes. But I am old enough to understand, that decisions like this one is purely business, so... I agree completely agree with your observation for the 21-point format for social games, for I also voiced the same opinion. If in HK or Singapore weather you find it not enough for you to warm up, now you know my feeling here in Canada - and I am not talking about winter time yet. Using the 21-point system, I start the night cold and end the night cold and dry - but is better than winter, as I end the night dry and frozen. And players like us, make a lot of silly mistakes, in average we are just playing a 15-point, rally system games.
Talk about being suspenseful... ...well, maybe not as suspenseful or exciting or nerve-wrecking as the current NSS, but i noticed the total vote tally of this poll came within 40 votes of each other...
Let us hear from more players and spectators about the mental strength required of the NSS vs OSS. I have given my opinions and would like comments, opinions, or even rebuttal from a broader spectrum of people. Do not be discouraged by aggressive or even insulting counter arguements. Of course cordiality, civility, and some dignity are always desirable.
Still waiting for your authoritative dissertation on the above statement. Or like the usual way, evade and avoid your own affirmations? Still waiting to hear your in-depth analysis on the matches and hear your expert comments on the mental stress and mental toughness of the 2 systems being oceans apart. I am waiting to be convinced... I could not agree more with you about the cordiality, civility and also respect. You know, he who sows wind reaps whirlwind! Anyways, if you still want to avoid to justify your OWN affirmations, well, I will not ask your teachings again!
Against a weak opponent, how can it be tough whether under NSS or OSS? But I disagree that such a match would be shorter under NSS than the OSS.For ease and clarity,let me illustrate with an extreme example. Assuming the weakest opponent where the stronger player serves first and reel off points to the finish without any change of service for both games.The score will be 21-0;21-0 under NSS and 15-0;15-0 for MS or 11-0;11-0 for WS under OSS. So under NSS,the victor has to physically play 42 rallies to win but 30 rallies for MS and 22 for WS under the OSS.That's why ZN found NSS to be physically longer;she has to play almost double the rallies to take a match.(If I recall correctly, LCW's shortest match (vs Sato) was 16 mins under OSS but his shortest match under NSS is probably about 20 mins.Of course duration is used here because it is most easily measured as an indicator of physical demand.) Match duration is not logically shorter in NSS compared to OSS. Depends on the competitiveness of the match.Grading match competitiveness(MC) on a range of 1 to 5 ,where 1 is easiest and 5 is toughest,I would say that when MC is 1,match duration would be NSS>OSS.However ,if MC is 3 to 5, then match duration would be OSS>NSS. BTW, it would be great to know the reasoning behind your view that 'mental stress and mental toughness of the two systems are oceans apart'.You do have credibility that's why it's important to hear you out on this.If you can't because that statement was a slip, then just say so, so viver, you and those wondering, can move on.( All of us do get carried away once in a while and say silly things)
The NSS generally has on average a shorter duration which was one of the many reasons the BWF used to justify the switch-over, which was TV-friendly and hence money flowing in. You or somebody can check on the actual statistics todate. Look, I have talked about pressure points of the new system being higher than the OSS, starting from every rally. Under the NSS you are instantly under pressure at the start of the game, because of the importance to have a good lead. At every rally, it is either you win a point or you lose a point, a pressure point that is much higher than the OSS where the possibility of not losing a point even if you lose the rally somehow dulled the pressure on the server. The 21-point and the 11-0 minute rest are pressure points that the OSS seemed to be a bit short. OSS could last for 30 to 40 mins with the score still below 8, a long way from the pressure points of 12 or over, thus lacking the intense concentration that demands mental toughness. It became a game of attrition to wear an opponent out, in which case it was more phyisical fitness that won the day. It may be difficult to see the mental pressure on the players when they start a rally. Maybe a crude analogy nay help. Say you have two gentlemen preparing for a gun duel. Under the OSS, the chap who won the toss will have a bullet in his pistol and the one who lost the toss will have a blank. Visualize the mental stress, pressure, strength of this OSS. Now switch over to the NSS, the two gentlemen will each have a bullet in their pistols, regardless of who won the toss, of such a nature that the bullet that strikes an opponent first will also vaporize his opponent's incoming bullet, so that only one will be fatal. Now visualize the state of mind of these two gentlemen under the NSS. Which has a greater pressure point?
I believe the following were taken from the BWF re the NSS. 1. Length of matches will be shorter and more predictable, making it easier to schedule TV coverage, and thus increasing TV coverage of the sport. 2. Games are generally shorter in duration, thus putting less stress on athletes and reducing injuries. 3. Spectators will find the game more exciting to watch and easier to understand. I hope you fellows are not going to ask me to write a detailed justification for the above.
Thank you, taneepak. In other words,succinctly speaking,the NSS is more mentally taxing while the OSS is more physically taxing?
As a matter of fact badminton's NSS may benefit by doing a copycat of table tennis's serving rule. Badminton's NSS still keeps a bit of its past or tradition in the serve rule, in which the winner also wins the right to the serve. In a one-sided match the winner will serve many more times than the loser. Technically speaking, this is not a very level playing field. Table tennis is scrupulously fair where both contenders have an equal number of serves, bar the odd one that goes to the ultimate winner of a game when necessary. This equal serves rule will further increase some small pressure points, because it upsets a server's habit of getting into groove if he keeps serving for long periods. Upsetting this set pattern creates more random. This unsettles the mind relatively more than a set serve pattern. It also means the game is getting to be more mentally challenging.
Sorry to edit your posting, but just wanted to focus this part. I don't have any issue with whatever Taneepak's logic is. Honesty is very important trait for me when discussing here. Badminton Central used to be an excellent place to get advices and opinions. Today it still is, but really need to be careful what to take and what to ignore. Players mental toughness, in my opinion is not developed during the game - it is developed during the daily sessions the players receive during the years of training. Whatever the scoring format, the players objective is to win the match, so they will adapt to the circumstances. For the 21-point system we can the the shots selection differs from the 15-point format, and as consequence leads to longer matches. Stress can be detrimental by affecting the players performance. When stake is high, some players could falter and performance levels decrease. But to some, it could boost their performance. One example I was told is Li Lingwei. During training she usually lost to Han Aiping, but during tournaments the result is reversed. The question is, when we watch the tournaments as spectators, do we want to watch the players at their best or stressed players playing below their level? One could argue that competitions are always stressful, but if it is already so, why adding more stress? At the end of the day - is the scoring format that makes the match exciting or the participating players that make the game worth watching? If Zhao Jianhua were to play, I would surely watch independent of the scoring format.
What do you chaps think if the current NSS, say for singles, were to adopt table tennis' 2 serves for each server? This will ensure each player has roughly an equal number of serves. The player's respective positions would be the same as now, even for right side and odd for the left side, but with a special proviso that the server's serving side must reflect the position of the winner of the last rally. In other words if the score is say 0-0 at start with A serving to B from the right side; B wins the rally and point, score 0-1. A continues to serve (his last of 2 serves) from the left side (side of the winner of the last rally) and loses the rally, score now 0-2 but B now has the right to serve so the score is restated as 2-0. B will now serve from his right side, etc., etc. It is very simple to follow. Just follow the winner's position re where to serve, not the server's although the latter may by coincidence be standing where is score indicates. Should the score reach 20-20, the setting remains the same, but this time each player can only serve once alternately. I believe the above will put even more mental pressure on the players. The setting will be pure "gladiators" fighting to the very end. They will also make the game even more packed with unbearable suspense and excitment. It was already difficult enough to get rid of only-the-server-wins-point, this new idea of taking away a winner's right to serve and replacing with 2-serves each may be a bit too much to handle. But I see great merit in this. Any opinions?
I agree with you the quality of posts years back are better than now.The posters were very knowledgeable and showed healthy respect, rather than ridicule, for one another's differing opinions.But the BC population has grown multifold and usually quality, on average,goes down as a consequence.Yes, having a switch-off mechanism is essential nowadays. But I believe that training would not be a perfect indication of tournament outcome.Some players don't give their best during training but go all out during competition.This might be the case with LiLingwei.Why give her training partner sufficient practice playing her at 100% when the matches don't count? Spar at 80% and compete in tournaments at 100% so she always have the advantage in tournaments? I don't think mental toughness is developed inhouse.It's best developed by competing regularly against non-compatriots esp mentally tough and scary players like LHI.Again how fast this quality is nurtured depends on the player himself.Some are fast learners while some learn too little but many can be helped with professional expertise. But the most important factor to develop mental strength would still be regular competitive opportunities, with the right tournament mix.(eg MAS young guns should have more SS opportunities to motivate them to work harder and stir their imagination while Hafiz( of wonderful skills) should play minimum SS and more GP level to condition him mentally and physically for 6 consecutive matches. In NSS,it need not be as mentally tough or stressful as Taneepak claimed.This can be minimised with meticulous pre match preparations.Not only must the player have a game plan;he also has to visualise a lot of 'what ifs or hows' like what if his opponent changes his normal game, what if his opponent manages to deactivate his major weapons or tactics or how would his opponent do that,etc.This requires research and imagination but this kind of mental diligence is a key winning edge in NSS simply because NSS does not give time for thinking.When a player is superbly well prepared mentally, he won't lose his steering wheel and will know what to do to get back on track quickly. It's like going for an interview. If unprepared, the interviewee will likely go, 'er...',taking some time to answer and revealing a lack of confidence.When fully prepared for an extensive list of questions and well rehearsed with the answers, the interviewee will feel and come across calm and confident in handling the interviewers.
I'm not familiar with table tennis though I realise it's line judge proof but does it have service judges? If badminton were to follow TT in serve, the first danger is having the match decided by the service judge at the desired time.In OG08, both cai and fu were faulted by two sj.I can't imagine how far cai/fu will go in European SS since they don't seem to understand the service rule. Under the present badminton rule, if a player is victimised by a sj, there's still a chance for the victimised MD to win since they can lose one and win two.But under TT format, the victimised player may lose 4 points out of 4,one of which may be match point. Do you think there's enough pressure points now in NSS?
In Table tennis each player alternates with two serves. There are a minimum of 2 officials, the umpire and the assistant umpire. Yes, they do penalize fault services. In a 2-serve system the max. service fault server can commit is 2 before the service changeover. A service fault is a service fault whether it is in badminton or in table tennis. Alas, I don't see many members having any opinions so far. Maybe I have ventured into forbidden territory?
