The top committed players are obligated to play at least 12 WT500+ tournaments. They can only skip at max 3 WT500 tournaments or else they will get fined (Injured players are the exception). With this regulation, more players are bound to be tired. Many of the top players are not at their best at the end of this year. In WTF, several players got injured. After the WTF is over, Susi Susanti criticizes this regulation once again. She said that it's not just INA that criticizes this regulation, other countries do the same. A lot of injury and fatigue happens throughout this year. I also come across INA's local badminton forum. Some of the members there think that Susi made an excuse, thinking that she is not wise in making statements. They pointed out that some countries can adapt to this regulation well. After reading their comments, I realize that they are not wrong. Japan sends their players in a lot of tournaments. But, Japan consistently produces great results, winning 2 titles in one tournament more often than not. Furthermore, fatigue doesn't seem to be much problem for Japan as the Japan players are known to have strong stamina. From all of the Japanese players, Sakai got injured the most. KM did suffer injury at some point, but he can perform well this year. NO, who is injury-prone, completes this year's season without suffering any injury. I have the questions for this. Is it wise to blame BWF for the top committed players regulation that make the players more tired or get injured? Or the peoples should just stop complaining about this regulation?
Sport is inherently risky. If the BWF made it 50 mandatory tournaments a year, then you'd see more injuries. Likewise, if you made it 0 mandatory, then you'd have less injuries with some players only opting for majors. The statistic that would be useful to know is injuries per tournament. If the injuries per tournament is going up on a different schedule (whether increasing or decreasing mandatory requirements), then for player wellbeing, it would seem reasonable to put a limit. There needs to be EVIDENCE to show that this is the case though. If doubling mandatory tournaments leads to a doubling of injuries because the same players are competing in double the number of tournaments, as long as there are still players, then it I don't believe it is against player wellbeing to ask for more.
Really? Why would it be okay to force players to double their probability of getting injured? Odd reasoning.
You've misinterpreted my whole comment. I have literally said if the overall probability of injury forfany player in a tournament remains the same, but the rate of injury for the top 10 doubles, then it is fine. For example, let's say there are 50 injuries a year, and currently, the top 10 players make up 10 of those 50 injuries by playing 12 mandatory tournaments a year. If doubling the mandatory tournaments to 24 per year leads to a constant rate of 50 injuries a year, but the top 10 now make up 24 of those 50 injuries, I think that is fine i.e. they are not doubling their probability of being injured, they are simply playing more with the same risk of injury. What clearly would not be fine, is if the 50 injuries doubled to 100 injuries (which in all likelihood would raise the number of top 10 injuries too).
