Since BWF has included the points from WT100 and WT300 to Race to Guangzhou, I thought that the World Tour Final will have different format than SSF. But, the format is the same. Here is an alternate format of WTF that I have thought some time ago. There will be 12 players/pairs in each category I understand that the reason BWF includes the points from lower tier tournaments are to give the young and promising players the chance to compete at WTF. As a consequence, some of the top players will not be able to play to WTF if the quota for each category is the same. 12 players/pairs are ideal to me. 16 players/pairs are too much. At max 3 representatives per country in each category Since I increase the quota for qualifying to WTF (see the point number one above), the country representative should be increased. Right now, the maximum representatives per country is 2 out of 8 participants in one category. That makes the ratio is 1:4. Under this format, the ratio is the same (3 out of 12). World Champions automatically qualify and will not use any country representative quota. I strongly feel that the country who has the players as the world champion should be rewarded. With this, a country can potentially send 4 players/pairs in one category. Any players/pairs should collect at least 5500 points in at least one tournament. This means any players/pairs will have to reach at least one of the following. Winner in WT100, Runner up in WT300, SF in WT500, QF in WT750 and WT1000. This is done to prevent R1-R2 exiters from qualify. After all, the players/pairs who qualify to WTF should be a high quality players. There will be 4 group of 3 players/pairs Under the current format, there will be 12 matches in one category at the group stage. In this alternate format, the total matches played in one category at the group stage is the same like the current one. Players/pairs will just need to play 2 matches in group stage Due to the above format, the players/pairs will play with 2 other players/pairs. Under a group of three, two will play with each other while the other one has a free time in a day. This means each of the players/pairs have one day rest. This is good considering that the players/pairs that play in WTF are the top players. Country separation in group stage Since the country can send 3 or 4 players/pairs from the same category and there will be 3 players/pairs in a group, there is a possibility that a group consists of same country players/pairs. To me, there is no fun in it as some players/pairs will only get to play against their countrymen. Only one player/pair from each group can advance to SF This is interesting as every players/pairs will try to win every matches. One loss will most likely cause them to be eliminated. The semifinalists will not face the same players/pairs in the group stage Since all of the semifinalists in this alternate format are the group winners, they will face fellow group winners. Unlike current format which the players/pairs can meet the same players/pairs twice. That's all about my alternate format of WTF. Let me know about your opinion. Is this interesting?
This alteration of changing format and number of players would also change their financial budget significantly as they are to accommodate the players while they are competing. But here is my opinion to each of the point you posted : 1. 8 best players are enough. All they need to do is change the criteria and requirement to qualify. Super 500 and above would be the ideal to get the closest to the highest level of players quality every year 2. Max 2 players/pairs each country but WC should be excluded from the quota ONLY IF the other 2 players/pairs (besides WC) meet certain conditions. For example : - the other 2 are in top 3 with at least 3 titles (or at least 1 Super 1000 or Super 750) - total accumulated points exceeding 90,000 - the point difference between the two is less than 7,000 points. - all of the above 3. Automatic qualification for WC. 4. Exclusively for Super500++. (If they want to include Super 300 and Super 100, maybe only for the finalists or best of 3 lower tier tournaments?). And the rest of 5-9, the same format as we have.
Your criterias are basically an upgraded version of SSF's criteria. I wonder if the R1-R2 exiters will be qualified under your format.
I like these, with some modification: 2. The requirements of the other 2 to be in the top 5 of the ranking. 3. Automatic qualification for WC as long as stays in top 15. 4. The cumulative number of tournament that is being used for calculation is only the best 10 for tournaments 500--. This way, this will allow bigger star to play in lower tournament (if wants to get more points) without being limited for the points gained, in accordance to BWF to promote participation in lower tournaments. At the same time, those who participate mainly in lower tournaments can still get lots of points (10 tournaments). But if you want to get more, you have to participate in the bigger tournaments (if you can qualify without qualifitcation in 750++). 5. Rules for minimum participations in 500 should be scraped, since they already see 500 tournaments in the new calculation as part number 4. So if players really want to qualify, than they will participate in 500 anyway. Does not need to force them. At the same time, we have good differentiation between 500-- and 750++ because 750++ does not have qualification as well. 6. There you have 10 most important tournaments in a year (5 of level 750, 3 of level 1000, 1 WTF and 1 WC). Very good scheme I would say
Yes, because players who participate in Super 100 and Super 300 tournaments for the purpose of having the lower ranked players to gain enough points to qualify to Super 500 and above. And to look at the draws lately, some of R1-R2 exiters were actually great players who had the worst luck to face much stronger opponents. For example : Ginting vs Momota in R1, Lin Dan vs Momota in R1 TWICE in a row, Fajar/Rian vs Kamura/Sonoda and some others. Draws is not something players can change or control, so you shouldn't just take away their points just because they had bad luck in draws.
I am not talking about players who have bad luck or bad draw. I am talking about the players who frequently lose in early round. There is already the case like last year when Hsu/Wu qualified to SSF despite never reaching QF SS.
Still they qualified because they had the highest points after all the rest of Japanese or other WDs disqualified. They participated in all SSs and probably lost to the pairs in top 10 before reaching QF. Nothing wrong with that. BWF only wants 2 representative from each country and the most consistent participants all year long.
Just check this link. http://bwf.tournamentsoftware.com/p...-EEBC-457A-81C4-270B24FBC872/tournaments/2017 Just look at the SS(P) tournaments in 2017, you will know that they also lost to non top 10 pairs. I feel that to be able to qualify to SSP/WTF, a player should be at least capable of beating some of the top 10 players. I think some members here complain about it last year. I remembered @Cunning Linguist have pointed it out somewhere about how Hsu/Wu qualified to SSP. One strip below them was Greysia/Apriyani. They started their partnership midway and continuously get good result, even winning one SS last year. They have catch up until Final Hongkong SS 2017 where they need to win to qualify to SSF, but failed in the end. It is really ironic if I should say.
Nothing is more ironic than the 3 of the top 10 Japanese WDs not being able to qualify just because they are from the same country. This end of year Finals event are meant for those who had shown result for all one year performances. Those who started playing midway or just one or two tournaments but winning it not qualified is acceptable. But those who are not qualified after playing consistently good all year long are the one who suffered the most. What could we do if most of the best pairs are from Japan at the moment? Or until a few years ago from CHN?
Hmmm, maybe the country quota should be removed? But, if that's the case, there will be a possibility that one category consists of only same country players. Doesn't look good for me. Now think about it. badminton is very popular in Asia. We know that Asian people (especially the Asia Pacific) tends to put their nationality first. That's not the case with the Western. I don't think removing the country quota will give much benefit to BWF. It will be wonderful if the top players are from different countries like in tennis. I don't think nationality is a thing in tennis world.
No, I think the quota is justified. The only difference is last year we had CHN WD as the WC. This year we have a JPN WD as the WC. Both Fuku/Hiro and Taka/Matsu deserve some exception because they have been very exceptional this year in the World Tours. They have gained at least 95000 points each and so close to each other (less than 5000 points) and almost 30000 more than the #7 or #8. This event is about rewarding the most consistent and the most outstanding players in World Tour Tournaments throughout the year. I just think it's ridiculous to have the #1 and #2 (in the Race to GuangZhou) battling for the last JPN spot in WTF when they are obviously the best two. And also because World Championships is not a part of HSBC World Tour.
If only Yuki/Sayaka won the WC, they and TakaMatsu would have qualified long ago. I don't think BWF will change the way of qualification.
Well you can't always win and that's that. Even minions or TTY couldn't win the WC this year despite being so dominating in the world tours. They can't really say the best of World Tour Tournaments will battle it out in the Finals because no.1 or no.2 is not even there. I wouldn't feel necessary to say this if not for those 2 pairs are obviously the top 2 and truly deserved to be there. But yeah, whatever BWF wants.
Just make wildcard doesn't take country slot. So a country can have up to 3 players/pairs. 2 from points, 1 from wildcard
For me the current format and qualification system is alright.. The thing BWF need to adjust is the ranking points awarded to prevent extreme tanking
12 players/pairs quota make sense since BWF has applied players commitment for a minimum 12 tournaments for all top 15 MS/WS players and top 10 MD/WD/XD pairs. Players divided into 4 groups is also better than 2 groups which included the runner-up into the knockout round (no half effort to make them just to qualify for knockout stage since they have to be group leader).
Yes, I agree. I think with my alternate format, the controversial case like yesterday will not happen at all. I could be wrong though.
4 groups @ 3 players/pairs ---> 12 group stage matches per category. 2 groups @ 4 players/pairs ---> 12 group stage matches per category. That modification also didn't change so much in term of tournament duration since it will produce the same amount of group stage matches per category. Spoiler: not so important It will affect the classical issue of accommodation coverage for the additional 4 players/pairs (24 players overall) = 24 x $$$ /night of their hotels. Again, it will back again (and again) to this problem.
