I agree with you--the less tournaments the better. I don't think there is a need for BWF World Championships in the year where Asian Games and FIFA World Cup are held. They should go back to the system in the 1990s where world championships would be held only in odd-numbered years. The year-end SS Finals (or World Tour Finals) for the Olympic year should also be skipped.
I hope they won't change the current scoring system of 3x21 which is good. The rest of 5x11 or whatever are just not interesting. Or those with a time frame. Saw that on the Purple League and the players leading will stall for time.
That was just a Purple League peculiarity. Nobody is seriously considering a timeout rule for official badminton tournaments.
Have BWF actually considered to use a system of 3 games with 21_30, 21_30 and 15_21? Sometimes, I agree that the decider becomes less intense in the middle of the game due to fatigue, so cutting it down to smaller point while also helping with shorter TV schedule should work with this goal as well. Not helping much with the number of interval available for advertisement though. I am not a big fan of having only 11 points in a game and to have 5 sets though..... or at least I think......
playing only to 15 in the third set would cut of the best parts of good 3set matches imo i played and saw countless numbers of great 3 setters that would have not been so cool if played only to 15 but that option is currently not in the mix anyway
What's the difference having 15 points and 11 points in terms of 'cut of the best parts of good 3 set matches'? Also, what's the difference with 21 points?
the difference is: The best comebacks happens in the third set. You wont comeback from 4-11 when 15 is match over. Just last weekend in league game Womendoubles our girls fought back very tough from 5-11 to 18-18. Then lost it 20-22. These games are the best moments and will be over way too fast if played until 15! And I experienced a lot of them and they are the best battles and memories, even when lost. 5th set to 11 is of course even faster, BUT you had already a lot of tensed moments in the sets before! As you played 4 instead of only 2. So you might have defended a lot of matchpoints and/or have made a big comeback already when starting the 5th set.
what do you consider a big comeback though? If what you refer as big comeback is 'from 5-11 to 18-18', why comeback up to 11 points limit (e.g. from 8-4 points down) can be considered as big comeback? The amount of games is 2 more, of course. But then, is it a matter of 'big comeback small occurence' vs 'normal comeback more occurence' with equal 'total outcome of excitement' when we compare 3x21 with 5x11? Furthermore, do we prefer to have the biggest comeback at the last game? Or at the middle of the game more? Also, how big points difference can be considered as a big comeback? I say 15 because I was thinking the possiblity of big comeback of points 9-3 or 11-5, for instance.
Man, I feel the first time to 11 feels like just exploring the opponents play and getting in the zone. It'd be shame to already be 1 game down by then. Also, one requires only 33 won rallies to win a match under the proposed system, whereas now, it lasts at least 42. With minimums for full length matches at 55 and 63 rallies. I don't feel the matches are too long now, and having room for comebacks is really important. It might become that one or two mistakes will cost you a whole game easily. The game usually has multiple stages now, where players try different strategies and have mental ups and downs, and I really like it that way.
I cannot follow you completely. So its hard to answer your many questions. I have my experience with "3x21" and had/have great fun with it If i would have to decide to play "2x21 + 1x15" or "5x11" (both no experience yet) I would choose 5x11 because I can see more drama and hardfought comebacks with 5x11 (more not in sense of quantity, but quality!) also: a shortened 3rd set is just so unnatural for my taste. If a game is tied...should be somewhat equal opponents...why exactly then shorten it up? makes no sense to me (except for saving time, which is a very very bad reason to begin with anyway! but unfortunately what BWF wishes) Actually, theoretically, it would make much more sense to shorten games that are uneven!
You say the best comebacks occur at the third set, however you show it here that it is the best because of the margin So, what do you consider a big (or best) comeback though? If what you refer as big comeback is 'from 5-11 to 18-18', then why comeback up to 11 points limit (e.g. from 8-4 points down) can be considered as big comeback? With 5 sets, the amount of games is 2 more, of course. But then, is it a matter of 'big comeback small occurence (3 games)' vs 'normal (8-5 to 10-12) comeback but more occurence (5 sets)' with equal 'total outcome of excitement' when we compare 3x21 with 5x11? Furthermore, do we prefer to have the biggest comeback at the last game? You said yourself it is at the last game. Or at the middle of the match? Also, how big points difference can be considered as a big comeback? I say 15 because I was thinking the possiblity of big comeback in terms of points from 9-3 or 11-5, for instance. To continue with your new post, I am playing competitive volleyball and badminton seasonally, amateurly. Volleyball uses the 5 sets format with last set only until point of 15 instead of 25, like the previous 4. I don't see much difference in tension if it will be 15 or 25. It both has the element that big comeback may occur. On the other hand, there is always tendency, even more prominent when being a spectator, that the 2nd set is never as grand as if it is done in less sets because there are just more sets that can be won. As a spectator, I can sometimes say: 'Hey, I'll do somehing else first at this (2nd set) and join back at the 3rd okay'. Actually people will get back somewhere at the 15 point at the same set in case for volleyball. They basically don't really care with that set anymore. In badminton, the set will be gone completely. I can see the same bevahior will occur with badminton. Making the set becomes even more indispensable. The same of course can be said when 21 point in badminton is played. We can say: 'Hey, I'll go for a moment bla bla bla'. They will get back somewhere at 12 or 13. However, they can't miss the game, because the game matters a lot. On the other hand, since it is a game, you can't really miss half of it because the ship has sailed, the story has gone half through. This makes the whole match becomes more attracting for audience to keep on following the whole match. If you don't want to shorten the time, then just change nothing from the current game. This system has been very good, in terms of quality. I partially agree though that the reason should not be about time, only. My consideration is more on to maintain the highest level of performance throughout the entire match. In a sense, trying to decrease the possibility of seeing LCW-VA at last week Dubai Final as the final game becomes more anti-climatic.
i hope they change the format of Sudirman Cup as well. Right now, there is one match for each of the five disciplines in a tie. I don't think that is representative of the overall strength of a nation. There are six doubles players but only two singles players. After the new scoring system is launched, I think they should have two matches for Men's Singles, two for Women's Singles, one for Men's Doubles, one for Women's Doubles and one for Mixed Doubles in a tie for the Sudirman Cup. There would be four singles players and six doubles players, which would be more representative. Just a thought.
Jesus, not this again Doubles pairs are (and should be) treated as a single entity, and this way all disciplines are equally important. Overrepresenting singles does nothing to balance out the format - it is already as balanced as it gets.
nope, it should remain the same. And I am sure it will be like this, at least until the next century and yes, like @j4ckie said: not this again hahahahahaaa
I think they current system is already good as it is. It's not too long (like the older 15) and not too short (like the 11). Badminton is no ping pong after all. And I think the current scoring also gives you a good balance between match duration and excitement.
Can be different things. Depends on the circumstances, BUT can NOT happen in like 5 minutes! (as it would be in a single shortened set) I had a game in November where I came back from 14-19 in the second set to win it in the third. Because I was well helped by mistakes by my actually superior opponent, it didnt feel like a comeback. I stole the second set and we started at zero in the third set. HOWEVER in a 5x11 match of course it would be a comeback to win a match after being 0-2 down! Its a difference to be down 0-1 in bestof3 compared to being down 0-2 in bestof5 i would assume. You have played hell of a lot of Volleyball before the 5th set. So shorten it is absolutely a fine idea. Shorten a Badminton match after only 2 sets is way too fast for me! Which is actually my big (and only) issue in the whole discussion and problem with your original suggestion. yep well I would not change the recent system! :/ yes but BWF wont listen to me .. I think its okay to have ups and lows in a game. Tennis 5setters very often have breakdowns and rises of players in one game. But Tennis matches are the exact opposite of the discussions here - freaking long games and worse, unplannable timeframes.
Hey im kinda confused, i never seen the 5x11 recently in professional play but i noticed its now who gets 15 points in 2 rounds? Did they change it?
