We are specifically talking about winning the tournament, not which tournament has easier early rounds opponents. So what if you can make the early rounds but stand little to no chance of even getting to the semis or finals ?
But if you're going to be fresher, then your main rivals are likely also going to be fresher, aren't they. At the end of the day, winning a major (in most cases) boils down to the very top players battling it out, so the "easier early rounds" line of thought is debatable.
This is only the case if both players meet the same class of players in the early rounds. But sometimes that's not happening.
Also, it's funny how we see these "winning majors is not that hard" comments mostly in Chen Long's thread and not in, say, Ahsan/Setiawan's or Ahmad/Natsir's threads. C'mon Chen Long may not be our favorite player, but please just be fair to the guy, he's a great champion.
Yes, then that at a major, you can meet your chief rival in the final after clearing a more difficult route than him, and when your main rival's fresher than you (think LD WC 2011). Being in that scenario and winning the major is pretty frickin' hard if you ask me.
Yes, indeed,Chen Long should not be underrated. We all know how hard it is for anyone to win a major. let alone three in successive years when Lin Dan and LCW are very much still kicking everyone's asses.
True, Lin Dan had a pretty tough route to the London WC 2011. Generally, the early rounds, R1 or R2, for the top contenders are merely sideshows, a formality. Ultimately, it's winning the title that counts and therefore any tournaments that feature the best of the best, usually the top 3 consistently, make it the toughest win it.
On closer inspection and thinking, I somehow interpret the rules for eligibility differently from yours. Max 4 in the top 8 means you can have four qualifiers if they are all in the top 1 to 8. Then max 3 ranked 9 to 24 means it doesn't matter how many you have in the top 8, as long as you have any number in the 9 to 24 bracket, it is max three including those already in the top 1 to 8. Therefore, in China's case, or any MA for that matter, CBA can have max 4 if they are all in the top 1 to 8 bracket, otherwise it's 3 in the 9 to 24 bracket including the number in the top 1 to 8 brackets combined. Hope I've not confused you or anyone. CMIIW. In the case when a wild card entry is awarded to an MA, the limit is still max 4 per MA, another rule applies. Imagine, if the above is not the case, how many MAs will be able to send 4 contestants in each discipline ? Say, you have 2 in top 8, and another 2 in the 9-24 bracket, or 1 in top 8 and 3 in the 9-24 bracket, or 3 in top 8 and 1 in the 9-24 bracket, the situation CBA is in now.
got it. you are correct. this would mean cba could send chen long in place of shi yuqi, tien houwei or lin dan (not likely), or if cba enters those 3, chen long is eligible for the bwf wildcard. well, for ms, 16, because you'd still have to be in the top 64. for other disciplines it would be 12 because you need to be in the top 48. i don't see that as a problem, but bwf doesn't want to give a team the chance to completely dominate... just moderately dominate, ha!
You are making it way too complicated, especially with the concept to 9-24 category. There are basically 3 rules: 4 out of top 8, 3 out of top 24, and 2 out of top 150. Each BA can use one of these rules. Common sense calls for using these rules in the most advantageous way, i.e. use 4 out of top 8 first; if you can't, move down to the next rule, etc. In theory, CBA is free to use the 2 of top 150 rule and select Lin Dan (WR#8) and Zhu SiYuan (WR#133). Instead of Zhu SiYuan, CBA may also select Guo Kai (WR#144) but Guo Kai would not get his spot because his ranking is too low. Currently, the lowest ranked player got in via one of three rules above is Zi Liang Derek Wong at WR#141.
I like the way you simplify it, basically correct. The 9 to 24 rule and the 25 to 150 rule are as given by BWF in the rules for eligibility. Noticed I described the first rule as simply max 4 in top 8 instead of ranked 1 to 8 which is the BWF rule. I take it there is a reason for it, say the 9 to 24 rule instead of saying top 24, as priority has to be given to the top 8 first, then the next 9 to 24 followed by 25 to 150.
Once you activate the second rule (3 out of top 24), top 8 status is no longer relevant. The only ranking implication is that if a lower ranked player is selected ahead of higher ranked players, all higher ranked players not selected will not be eligible for the Reserve List.
Thank you for your very helpful summary. The below is the ranking of the MS players of of now. So it is possible that Shi YQ, Tian HW and Qiao Bin would go to Glasgow, right?
As far as the rule goes, yes. However, neither Lin Dan nor Chen Long will be eligible for the Reserve List.
thank you very much for your answer. two more questions (1) Does that mean if those three young men are chosen, the two senior players Lin Dan and Chen Long cannot go? (2) CBA will decide which three players first and then BWF will decide the wild card later, right?
I understand what you mean, but as I've said, it's probably to do with priority being given first to top 8 (or 1 to 8), followed by ranked 9 to 24, then ranked 25 to 150. Otherwise if it's simply top 24, then the MA who say has 1 player in top 8 and three ranked 9 to 24, can simply picked the latter three without the top 8 player feeling aggrieved or that he was sacrificed or asked to make way for the three ranked 9 to 24 because the Head Coach can argue that the rule says top 24 and not top 8 followed by ranked 9 to 24. In other words, he can pick any three out of the four in any order, sacrificing the highest ranked top 8 player who has no grounds to complain he actually has priority over the next three and was asked or forced to make way for them. Take the case of CHN MS - three players in top 8, and two ranked in 9 to 24, with Chen Long at No.9 well ahead of Qiao Bin at 20-something (23 ?). BWF will first issue invitations to CBA for the three players in top 8. So if Chen Long is not granted a wild card, CBA may have to submit an application to BWF to replace any one of the three in top 8 with him. In fact, if CBA so desires, she can write to BWF to substitute Chen Long and Qiao Bin with any two of the three in top 8. Yes, you're right , of course, technically, it boils down to the same thing effectively. I originally asked myself why BWF phrased the rules the way they do, and my understanding is it's a matter of priority. The second part of your post is clear, no dispute, regardless.My apologies if I make it sound unnecessarily complicated or splitting hairs. Lastly, I strongly feel that BWF should just award Chen Long a wild card entry for reasons that I believe are compelling which I've stated elsewhere; don't want to repeat them here.
(1) Yes. (2) Don't recall the exact dates, they are in the invitation letter. This is likely the case. Tactically, even if CBA really wants to send Qiao Bin, it would say yes to SYQ, THW and LD first. If a spot opens up, just take out CL and let QB in. Or, take out LD to let both CL and QB in. If there is no drop-out at all before the deadline, CBA can then take out both LD and CL to let QB in.
The only deterrent for not following the ranking order is stripping off the Reserve List eligibility for the higher ranked players. It does not matter whether they are in the top 8 or not, all top 24 players are subject to identical rules.
Cheung started a poll in 2013: Lin Dan WILDCARD to the 2013 World Championships: Yes or no? http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...3-world-championships-yes-or-no.127280/page-3 I can't believe four years have past.
