Looks can be deceiving-in badminton a serve can be either defensive or offensive. This is because, unlike tennis, a badminton serve is not a one short winning rally. It either sets you up for an all out offence or defence. The choice is yours to suit your game plan.
These two are not related. Team or country strategies to gain an unfair advantage under the old system have been exploited from the days of Wong Peng Soon. Countries with many top players can play havoc with top players from other countries that do not have the quantity. Yes, seedings at least try to make this fairer by separating the few top seeds from eliminating each other early. But China has so many top players that it is now becoming common for their junior players to knock out other countries' top players. Do you think badminton will remain a popular sport if the AE have an all Chinese finals in all the 5 events? If all the Open Championships in the world see near complete dominance by the Chinese, badminton will be dropped from the Olympics for sure.
I don't think you are being sincere in apologising. Let us stick to the subject. Being of opposing views should not be a reason to be ungentlemanly. Why can't we agree to disagree?
As a matter of fact even the new scoring system's serve, still retaining some of the old, could be made fairer by allowing each side to serve an equal number of serves, like in table tennis, instead of the rally winning side always serving. This will mean each side will have an almost equal number of serves, with one side serving one more serve. Any change in the scoring system is hard on players who are reluctant to adapt or change. Not many players feel comfortable with anything new, not unlike why not many people can think out of the box.
you don't understand what i mean - in badminton, the serve itself can never be offensive. Unless your opponent is incredibly stupid you can't get a point with just the serve. Granted, if you're a really good short server you can almost always force a return that gives you and offensive - but that's on the return, not the serve itself as opposed to tennis where you can have an ace. When you say a serve can be either defensive or offensive you mean it can set you up for the offensive but by itself it could never be offensive. Maybe that would have been right with the serve where you hit the feather first but it's illegal. With the serve right now, any good enough player can return it - then and only then, after your serve is returned do you gain the offensive.
You need to clarify. Are you talking about tiring out an opponent on the court or tiring out a team by making it kind of like a relay. It is abolutely fair for any player to try to tire out and opponent during a game. It's the opponents loss if he doesn't have the stamina. But if you're talking about one team having so many players they can pit them against a smaller team and tire them out collectively then that's an entirely different story. shortening game length isn't the answer. We are talking about two individuals or in doubles, four, who are ON the court. If the other side has the ability to tire the opponent out during while maintaining their offense then i repeat, there is abolutely nothing unfair about that. If an older player is beaten because he couldn't last long enough, tough. He did the same to older players before and he would do it to an older player so why change the rules to suit him? and he had his run, he won his tournaments - if he can't hold on to the top spot then it's anothers turn.
We should remember that this is just a discussion. Nothing personal. Low blows should be out - besides, isn't badminton the "gentleman's" sport?
Are we missing the point. TV stations in Asia do not want to broadcast baddy on TV because it tales too much time which can be better devoted to Manchester United for betting or maybe Golf, wrestling with well heeled audiences or maybe darts or snooker in which the rich British are willing to invest heavily yo promote. If times are not cut down TV will just stop showing baddy to the poor penny pinching Asians and there will be no more coverage.If you were the TV station what would be your choice? Does the game need to make some sacrifice for the sake of more exposure? The Americans and the British are the best when it comes to promotion.
Yep you are right about that. But still there is a difference in that they are guaranteed serve for a certain period (in tennis in their own serving game and in tabletennis you get a certain numbers of serves in a row, used to be 5 in the old system think it's 2 now or 3). Best comparison must be volleyball: score point, get serve. Made up my mind now and am in favor of the new system all the way. Heard Mia say it has made her take less risks now but that's because they haven't played it that often. I expect it will force players to step it up even more, be more accurate, no more slacking and in the end create better players. What may seem a risky shot now might be the standard in a couple of years The only drawback left is it is very hard to make a comeback when someone is on matchpoint with a sizeable lead. On the other hand since every point will be crucial it could be more exiting for the crowd. Seems I already voted (probably for the old) but voting new/rally-point here.
personally i like the older point system cause like everybody has been saying theres more varity and theres the chance for comebacks, whats more intense than a match at 16-16 where the service has gone back many times and just watching each side go all out trying to win it...ok so that happened to me and my partner in doubles and it was great the 21 rally point system it would have been over long ago and without the excitement. So im all for the origional 15x3 point system and NOT the 21x3 rally point system.
But only as far as scoring is concerned. I am surprised how many times people compare volleyball to badminton. The relation between the serving and receiving sides is completely different. In volleyball, the receiving side is a huge favourite to win the ball since they get to spike their attack first. The serving side tries to counteract this, of course, by making the serve as difficult as possible - even by risking serving out or to the net. The advantage of the receiving side used to be so big that changing serves was a rule, and a point scored was an exception - especially before the jump serve was introduced in the 1980's. Not so in badminton, where there is no such huge advantage on either side. The service changes are generally due to an even and exciting, fighting game, not really related to the serve/receive situation itself. Ari Husa
To some the badminton serve may not look like giving the server an advantage. The serve in badminton, both singles and doubles, is an advantage. Unlike in the old days the singles short serve today is an 'attacking' opening gambit, forcing the receiver into lifting or netting, so that the server can attack with a smash or a net kill. In doubles the short serve is a 'weapon' of choice to mount an attack. An attack does not mean an instant kill like in a tennis serve.
The new scoring system will be used in all IBF tournaments carrying world ranking points from Feb. this year. It will also be used for both the Thomas Cup and Uber Cup. After 4 months of a trial period, the IBF will convene an AGM to vote on whether to reject or accept the new scoring system. I am sure all the five continental zones and their national federations will be fairly represented, and if not, at least more fairly represented than in the old days when the real badminton powers were sidelined. Whatever is decided should be accepted by all with grace, even by countries that were strongly for or against the motion. If not, there is a danger the IBF may go back to the divided badminton world of the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is not the way to end up with if badminton is aspiring to be the no. 1 racquet game or even to stay in the Olympics.
