The other solution is to split finals into different days. Or even have different singles and doubles circuits.
Yes, 60s is the same interval length we see at 11 in the current 3x21 system. If you saw ads / slow motion reviews during the intervals before, you're going to see them with 5x11 as well.
problem with that is the extra expense of an extra day to present a tournament: personnel, officials and venue. it also makes back to back tournaments more difficult for the finalists. it gives them one less day of rest when travelling between them. it's too expensive to have separate circuits.
The PBL, premier badminton league, starting in January 2017, in India will in this edition have matches to 11 points. And as many players on the circuit will be participating, it will be a good experience, for players and also spectators.
I think there is not enough time to see enough slow motion replays. The Malaysian Purple league on TV has an interesting analysis. On the replays, they draw circles around the players' feet so you can see the movement around court. They also draw arrows showing the flight path. But they only do it at the end of a match where there is time. Part of the appeal of television would be for this sort of analysis during the match. So far, we see none during a match in progress and that is a shame. Such replays are very educational and enhance understanding of the viewer. 5 game format gives a great opportunity for reviews. We also need to create opportunities for advertising whilst still maintaining the flow of the game. To be honest, I cannot see the point of having a sixty second break. It's too short a time. Fastest racket sport in the world does not need to mean 'fastest finishing and shortest games' racquet sport.
I watched some of the PBL matches, and have mixed feelings. It's true that the current 3x21_30 can get too long or boring, but 3x11_15 is the other extreme. At this level, 3x11_15 isn't enough time for any kind of fatigue to set in, and has no form of endurance at all. No settling into the match. It feels somewhat superficial. I can see 5x11_15 being a better option, and it should marginally cut down on match times, but there's no need for a break at 6; that felt awkward in the PBL. I also like the sound of 3x15. You definitely get shorter matches, but the extra points give more time to develop each game than the 11-point system. Also, I'm not sure why we have the upper limit on scoring; a close nail-biting game is exactly the kind of play we want, so curtailing it seems unintuitive.
An upper limit on scoring prevents very very long matches. Sure, it's always worthy of an [article](http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2015-06-24/the_longest_match_in_history.html) when a match goes over multiple days, but it's quite a hassle for tournament schedules. In practice, this is quite unlikely in badminton though, but a situation could develop where the serving side has a disadvantage (for whatever reason) and then matches go into insane scores. Even if the match eventually ends at 125:123, countering the wish to have lots of rallies in close matches is that of somewhat uniform match length - the latter helps immensely for any kind of scheduling. It's also great to know that we don't ever have to request additional scoresheets, and that all software can be designed for double-digits only. That being said, I also think that the current limit of 15 should be raised. 5x11_17 would fit into the current scoresheets, but 5x11_21 or 5x11_30 seem fine too.
I think a fixed duration for the match is a possibility, like in football (aka soccer). Perhaps say 45 minutes (or 60 minutes) per match, with two intervals. would that work?
Fixed-length matches is typically for low-scoring sports (excepting basketball?). Even sports where the score gets high (like rugby), the actual scoring moments are quite few. I didn't spend too long thinking about it, so I could be completely wrong
No, that would clearly not work for badminton. Just imagine how much impact a stratigical (legal) delaying of the match would have if the score is close and the final minutes or seconds of the match have started. You would need to start/stop the match timer for the time of the rallies only which is also not feasible IMO.
If you take real time, as in football, it would not work at all. If a player is leading by a couple of points before the match, they would do everything to delay. In principle, they could feign an injury, wait until the match clock is done, take the red card, and then lose the last rally, but still win. If you use game time (like basketball), then you require significant infrastructure to play at a lower level, where currently matches can be played without umpires. At high levels, you also incur a lot of problems: expect a lot of discussions about precise fault timing - a shuttle defense going to the neighboring court is currently a fault no matter what. With game time, it may be vital whether the shuttle flies forwards or backwards (the latter is an immediate fault). The players from the neighboring court could then influence yours! The game would change a lot; in Men's Singles you may even see a lot of high forehand serves to the back of the court - after all, if there's just seconds left, the only way you can lose is if your opponent forces the shuttle on the ground. In case of injury of the leading player, they may decide to play out the match - even if they have no chance to win any rally, they still might win. You'd have irrelevant rallies just at the very end - if one side is leading by 4 points, but it's just 10 seconds on the clock, there is no way they're still gonna lose. But even if you somehow solve all of these problems that would complete change the sport and thus probably fork badminton into old-badminton and new-badminton), you'd still miss the actual goal; namely, boring matches would drone on for a long time even if the score is currently 30:5, and thus impossible to recover, even if the losing side start winning 100% of the rallies. Close and thus suspenseful matches would however come to a sudden stop. In summary, it is not sensible to switch to a time-based scoring system.
Before 2006, you could only score with your current serve. The scoring system was 3x15 with complicated setting arrangements. Other than coincidentally sharing the same number of points, @phorge's proposal and the pre-2006 scoring have nothing in common. In particular, with the pre-2006 system, match length can vary wildly because you can only score on your own serve. Assuming the players are evenly matched and serving is no particular (dis)advantage, then @phorge suggests about half the number of rallies per match as the pre-2006 system.
Yes, that's right. The 3x15_21 scoring system that was suggested is with the current scoring system where every point is reflected on the scoreline.
if we badminton fans [and bwf] want the sport to become bigger and more career worthy for the worldwide masses it obviously needs to generate more $. this is where tv comes in. without tv there will never be big $ in the sport. ask yourself: what is the only reason futbol, football, baseball, basketball, etc. have so much $? in a word, tv... which is why badminton needs to seriously consider television broadcast parameters. like i mentioned earlier, the sweet spot for a broadcast time slot is 3 to 3.5 hours. it makes selling advertising easier for them, and the viewers don't want to watch anything longer. networks know this. they've done the research. in my discussions with major networks in north america, asia and europe they are completely willing to buy badminton broadcast rights IF a broadcast would fit within the aforementioned time slot. so, yes, the scoring system must change. personally i don't want it to, but i accept that it should and will accept it when it does. unfortunately bwf is sloooooow to change. my idea: 3x17, first to 17 wins. implement a service countdown clock: must serve next point within 20 seconds. umpire has a switch to add 5 seconds for shuttle change/racket change. players can towel off/drink all they want, within the 20 seconds. slow players are the major causes of long games, not the long rallies. keep 60 second mid game break (need to allow time for network to sell advertising) problem: the testing of new scoring methods are relegated to lower tier tournaments. why? i don't know. networks don't/won't buy tv rights to lower tier events, unless it's a package deal. possible solution: designate 3 or 4 superseries & 3 or 4 gp gold events for testing. adjust rules based on test results. it would not surprise me if 3x15, first to 15 wins, becomes the ideal method to make it fit within a broadcast time slot. did i mention bwf is sloooooow to change...?
Just out of interest, do you have any numbers to back that up? I believe so as well, but - as a scientist - want to know the exact current state before expressing an opinion. Note that this maximum delay between rallies works irrespective of the scoring system, but may have a significant impact on its viability. Because sometimes, the new system does not work: Umpire, display or tournament software may break, intervals are too long or too short for comfort, the sets are too short for players to settle into the rhythm, etc. . Note the tournaments where experiments are tested first are indeed lower tier, but still with a similar player base and similar TO resources. For instance, your suggestion of 3x15_15 would rob the spectators of the most suspenseful points in a close match; setting is there to make the close matches more interesting. Maybe I am wrong in my assessment though. To find that out, there should be a couple of low tier tournaments so that players, TOs and spectators can experience whether an experimental scoring system works. That's a good thing. Even if you are absolutely convinced that you know the perfect scoring system, other people are as well, but of different systems. Every scoring system change creates further disturbance and alienates players and spectators. Therefore, I believe that we should be cautious in changing scoring systems.
Since there is some more activity in this thread again, I'd like to add another update. We have continued to play some matches now and then based on the new system 5x11_15 during training and in fact, all the testers came to like it in the end. As indicated earlier, it seems to be the perfect system for (non-professional) singles due to the lower number of rallies and hence a lower demand of stamina. It so happens that if I now ask someone to play a singles match, I get the response "Sure, but only if we use that other counting system!". And so far we haven't found a noticeable difference in the excitement level or in the overall course of the matches. One sided matches are over pretty quickly, close matches have all opportunities to stay exciting due to setting. And the best-of-five system gives enough chances for comebacks. So full score for the new system in that regard. For doubles it sometimes feels borderline short and strangely, it seems to create a certain hurry. But again, we have had equally exciting matches than with the old system, but one-sided matches can truly be over in an instant. Of course, you can see this as a win-win for both winners and losers - the winners save a little bit more energy, the losers are done with the pain a tad quicker. For the spectators however it might be a bit disappointing to watch a row of 12-minutes matches in worst case. The 3x11_15 system that was used in PBL definitely was too short, hands down. You take one normal length bathroom break and half of the match (or more...) is over.
That would fulfill BWF's requirement to shorten the match length, but miss the second one which was to create more highlight moments per match (e.g. game points). The 5x11_15 feels well balanced too and ticks both boxes.
