This line of arguement to prove that a serve is always disadvantageous, because it will lead to losing a match is a bit far-fetched. You are saying that the two sides are merely robots, programmed to lose a serve everytime, so that first one side will win 30-29, then the second side will win the second game 30-29, and then the first side, having lost the right to serve in the third game, will win the decider 30-29. I don't think this is very convincing to prove your point that serving is a lost cause.
Exactly; the game will be very robotic. I was watching the 2nd game of Lee Chong Wei vs Peter Gade in this year's TC semifinal. It is very obvious that Peter Gade had been "programmed" to attack at the 1st shot; i.e when Lee Chong Wei served low; he stepped in to drive/tap the shot down, when Lee flicked to the back, Peter Gade would smash. Comparatively Lee tended to attack at the 2nd shot; i.e when Peter Gade seved low, he stepped in to play net or push/lift back to Peter Gade's backhand. It is very easy to see the outcome of the game after a few rallies of the game. Please note that in the 3x15 system Lee Chong Wei would be more successful with his strategy, as Peter Gade will not be able to substain his "attack at 1st shot" strategy!
I agreed with some of you regarding the NSS, the server is in defensive position. You can do high or low serve and with low serve, be care don't serve into the net or you lose a point. Unlike table-tennis, one can serve to win with good spinning serve, however there is no spinning serve in badminton, it has been banned! I really salute the British who invented the badminton game and the scoring system back then. A 3x15 is just right if you count all the elements (clear, slice, smash, serve etc) in badminton game. In additon, the deuce at 13 is very exciting....Making a NSS for badminton look simple but not an easy task if you consider the elements of the game. IBF had failed on 7 point system, Europe had tried with 9 point system..Let see how long 21 point system will last... I could be wrong but I just can't see how NSS can promote badminton and attract more sponsorship....
i guess you may be a "glass if half full" sort of fellow.... With the NSS, players should be re-programmed to attack the server with higher risk attempts since they really have nothing to lose, and a point to gain. if their attack fails, they would lose the point anyways (regardless of OSS/NSS), but if they attack wins, they get both a point and the service. in the older system, the receiver would try to get the service back, but if they only gain the chance to get back the service, but stand to lose a point if the attack failed they may choose to take less risk in aggression. in the old system, the server had nothing to lose by losing the service. so viver's scenario could be very possible in a real life match.
After watching some TC and IO matches with the rally scoring system, IMHO, the men's games, both singles and doubles, need to be lengthened slightly. Because the new system makes the game so short it doesn't really allow for any on-court drama to develop. And what TV audience doesn't like a bit of drama happening on the court? For instance, the legendary WC '97 MS final, Pete Sampras' midnight marathon against Alex Corretja at the US Open a few years back, even the Candra/Sigit comeback against Cai/Fu at the WC '03 SF and countless others in many other sports. Personally, though it sounds brutal, I like to see some mental and physical struggles happening in a match. Whether the comeback happens or falls short, that's of a different matter. But, at least the tension is there, the moments exist for commentators to milk for all their worth. So, we've heard from Zhang Ning and Xie Xinfang that the 3x21 actually makes the women's games---well, singles, anyway---longer. May be the men's events should be changed to 5x21. I know other people have suggested this before. (IIRC, Poul-Erik Hoyer-Larsen even suggested 5x25!) If the main complaint about the old service-based scoring system is that it's unpredictable in length, then, all right, keep the rally system, but make it last a bit longer to allow some twists and turns to happen. It's difficult to have drama in 30 minutes or less. 60--90 minutes, IMHO, that's ideal. For example, the recent IO MD final. We know that Tony/Candra blitzed the younger Markis/Hendra in 2. But, what could've happened had they needed to win another set? Could their stamina have played a bigger role? Someone in another thread mentioned that Tony looks a little, er, prosperous these days. Could that have made a difference? Well, I still think T/C would've won anyway, but I also think it'd've been a little more interesting than it was. Anyhow, just a little constructive criticism, I hope.
What a joke! Now, did China praise this NSS? Next time, PLEASE use your brain before saying anything!
The above is viver's example of the weakness of the serve in the NSS, based on the assumption that the server always loses a point everytime. Now, let us have a look on the other side of the 'coin'-that the server always wins a point everytime under the NSS. The match will then be much shorter, ending in straight sets of 21-0, 21-0. This may be far-fetched but certainly much less so than the 30-29, 30-29, 30-29 example of receiving serve is best. A 21-0, 21-0 win is surely better than a 30-29, 30-29, 30-29 win.
I don't think you are addressing what chris@ccc is talking about, which is good food for thought, although you may not agree with his views. BTW, China and all countries voted for the NSS. There was no item on the IBF AGM agenda about praises for the NSS or OSS. That would be ridiculous.
If you haven't thought, well it needs a lot more effort and skills to win 21-0. For 30-29 needs much less effort and skills to wins, on condition that it's not the first to serve Having in mind the numbers Kwun gave out earlier - about 54% success serves in 15x3 system for top flight badminton, my scenario has a much higher chance of happening than yours. And most importantly: serve is a defensive stroke lah, you know
That would be changing the rules of both games. Based on your assumption that the server always loses a point everytime and the same assumption that the server always wins a point everytime, there is not a jot of effort with either case, apart from playing the only stroke, which is the serve. One preposterous case vs another equally absurd case.
China's players are still under National payments What I am saying is that an individual professional player should play for his/her prize reward from a tournament, and not from their Natioanal Badminton Association. At the moment, all National Associations have too much of a BIG SAY. You now see that many players get reward from their Country they are playing for. They get land, house, car, etc... Badminton is not a Professional Sport at the moment. May be if you compare professional players in Tennis, Soccer, Basketball, etc... you will know what I mean. A professional player could even elect not to play for his/her Country, if it interfers with his/her professional income/preparation, although most of them will play for National glory as well. We will need to wait for a few more years before Badminton Players become truely Professional Players.
Do you want to be another joker? "BTW, China and all countries voted for the NSS." - How do you know? You saw it? Or you just read and read those news coming from IBF side ONLY?! Who are the people voting? Only IBF?? Hahahahaha, so FUNNY!!! And you are even more ridiculous by bringing out what IBF AGM agenda stuff, did I ever mention that? Please open your eyes BIG and look at those underlined statements by chris@ccc, "I bet the winning country/countries will say that new point system is good, while all the other losing countries will blame their loses because of the new point system." Anyone from China TC and UB teams ever said that this NSS is good?! And did Malaysia, Denmark, Indonesia, Korea blamed this NSS for their defeats?! At the very least they still understand what SPORTSMANSHIP is, do IBF, chris@ccc and you understand? And based on past experience, they also understand that no matter how much they protest, nothing is going to be changed. Well, we will just sit, wait and see how this NSS are going to become another JOKE in the history of badminton.
I cannot see how this post is a plus point for the 3x21 system! and are we now implying it is a bad thing that Badminton does not have "professional" players? By the way, is amateur sport a dirty word for you ?
Going in circles Hi Everyone, I think this thread in going in circles because we have talked about so many things... We talk about Badminton; as amateur sport as professional sport for ourselves who have played it for years for new comers to Badminton for spectators for International Competitions for schools, social clubs, etc advantages of different strokes, such as services, attacking strokes, etc how to perform better under the NSS etc, etc... But the thread is for us to vote NSS versus OSS. When Chai mentioned to me “By the way, is amateur sport a dirty word for you?”... I had a good laugh because we have gone full circle. Chai has forgotten what I mentioned in Post#342 ===post#342=== In the Social scene, I vote for the new 3x21 system. It allows better matches between man and woman, between father and son, even between grandfather and grandson, etc... In the Club scene, I also vote for the new 3x21 system. It does not allow better players to monopolise the court. We have seen better players playing against weaker players... their game lasting forever, because the better players control who to service and who to score points. So very unthoughtful of them. But, you guys might not realise this... if your club(say, playing a 3-hour session) is to use the new scoring system, you will still play the same amount time on court, that is... instead of playing 5 games of the old system, you might be playing 10 games of new system. Because the games are shorter, you will play more games within the same time-frame. And as I said about stronger players now not allowed to monopolise the court, you could even play up to 12 games each. However, in the Professional scene, it is up to the present Professional players to decide. They should vote how it should go, bearing in mind, their professional income. I support IBF in trying to make our Badminton more television-friendly. If there is allowance for television to have commercial breaks, like in Tennis, then Badminton will be televised more. Price Money for our Professional Players could be in the $Millions, instead of just in the $Thousands at the moment. May be Badminton could overtake Tennis, if we allow television money to flow into our sport. ===end post#342=== So you see I think I am supporting the NSS for both the professional & amateur players. And I mentioned in Post#364 ===post#364=== That's my post reminding people not just to vote for the benefit to themselves. We must look at the bigger picture and put ourselves in the minds of many others, eg... how non-players are viewing badminton as spectators how new comers to badminton respond to experienced players how woman players respond to male players how unfit players respond to very fit players how a young 10 year old responds to his/her 60 year old grandparent player how to encourage more players to play socially how low-skilled players respond to better-skilled players how new club players respond to clubs on their first few visits how not to allow experienced players dominate the game how we should allow professional players to earn more income how to encourage more players to play professionally etc... And I know... most people voting in this poll are experienced and better skilled players. The others are too shy to make any comment because they think they should leave this matter in the hands of experienced players. Loopy, in post #357, said that I am defending the new 21x3 system. If you read it very carefully in my post, you will detect that I am actually attacking the old 15x3 system. I think the old system was not encouraging enough new players to our beloved sport. ===part of post#364=== But of course, everyone should vote differently. But our vote must be for the future of Badminton, not just for ourselves. Again and again, we have said “If we are playing socially, we don't have to follow the NSS”. And we don't have to play with the system that we vote for either. And we can always play the OSS if we enjoy it better. Many players are so worried that IBF is the “BIG BROTHER” dictating how we should play it. Forget IBF, stick to the system you like best. Cheers... chris@ccc
But sadly we do have to WATCH badminton played with the NSS. And we happen to think that it is BAD for the sport, taking the bigger picture into account.
When I was a little boy; my teacher was teaching us about how a frog living in a well and look up, and is wondering how beautiful the universe is!
I think the new system is flawed, because the serve becomes a disadvantage. In sports like tennis and volleyball they can have rally points because the serve is an advantage, taking the offense at the start. But in badminton they would have to switch to loser serves because no matter what, on the serve, you are going to be serving at an upwards angle.
