yes - the BBC didn't have any trouble showing the whole mixed final (since the brits were in it) but as soon as the masters came alogn they were back to their old tricks.. starting later than promised, and just showing what they thought were the highlights. is it us? is it hard for us to swallow what are seen by the non-playing public as the interesting parts. is it part of the badminton playing psyche to want to see the build up to the crucial points of the match?
haha. let's submit that proposal to them. honestly though, i think the IBF should listen to badminton fans more and seek our opinions. i read through the analysis and discussions by seven, et al, quality stuff!
don't ask me why this just entered my head. This is not meant to offend anybody. I just saw the mention about badminton being seen as a mostly asian sport. now we all know that the US is really the place that badminton needs to take off in to make the sport truly global. this is where the big bucks are at. what is it, historically speaking, that the US don't like about the asian countries - one big asian country in particular... Communism. is it possible that america doesn't want to compete with china in a sport where it has no set up, where the whole sport is based in a country that america has opposed in the past. just a thought.. (think it's fairly unlikely tho...) Neil
Well, I used to be rather good in maths and statistics but I must admit it is getting far now... In my simulations, I only considered average results though, not the precise probabilities. (for ex : 30% chance of the score being 15-8, 28% of 15-9 etc...) This would be much longer and complicated to do, if we have a statistician with on BF he should be able to do that maybe. (provided he has enough spare time )
i don't think that is so. afterall, USAB is trying very hard to train athletes to win. imho, right now, it is less of a issue of wanting or not wanting, it is more an issue of capable or not.
what is it that you think they want to achieve by changing to rally scoring? 2 points is fine. I think the intention is for a match to be 3 games to 21, not 1x21. Maybe that is causing the confusion. One of the things the IBF want to achieve is to get matches to be of a more predictable length. And a bit shorter. I don't see how the proposal to remove the back doubles service line will change the game much. Maybe the receiver will have to stand 4 inches back from the front service line to allow for deeper flick serves. Instead of us talking and talking about how bad it all is, why don't we actually try these things out. You don't see many of us talking from experience of playing using the proposed rules. Play using 3x21 rally scoring. Play doubles with the serves allowed all the way to the back of the court. The only proposal I'm particularly against is playing singles in the doubles court.
i gave this one some thoughts. originally, i thought it was IBF's attempt to "dumbmify" the sport. <sarcastic mode on> i mean, gosh, all those confusing lines! would it be so much easier if it were just a rectangular box? <sarcastic mode off> but later on, i notice that it will have a fundamental impact to the doubles game itself. from what Neil says, the receive may have to stand 4inches back. that means it is now much harder to attack a service. if the receiver do not stand further back, then it is easy for the server to force a defensive lift by flick serving. again, nullify the receiver's ability to attack. what does that mean? does that mean there is now a higher advantage to be the server? meaning, the serving side will have a higher chance to attack. effectively means that the serve is less of a defensive shot.
I don't think it has anything to do about communism or not. And I don't like that people falls in the trap to believe in the all important US market. Football is the classic example that the US market is of less importance than others, so far and in the future. There is enough money in the european and asian markets to start with. Professional football has been around in Europe and made money in long time, and their most expanding market today is the asian. There is no need to have american teams and/or players to make it more popular in these continents. Compare the marketing value of the most known US vs. Japanese player. And both the present & potential *fan* base and *player* base are bigger in Europe and Asia, just do the math..... Exactly the same is true for badminton. So the trick is to make the companies in these areas to understand the large consumerbase that is available already. This is the responsibillity of all the clubs and federations (national and international). THIS is what needs to be fixed as a *start*. But I am not overlooking the importance of a growth on the american continent(s) either. Of course we want a bigger interest all over the world, to get more money for the players, more broadcasting for the fans and more competition from different parts of the world. Also more manufacturers to get more choices to spend our hard earned money / mats
hehe - i know what you mean - i wasn't much of a stats guy maths wise, more pure and mechanics. i'd imagine that there are a couple of equations with variables like the ones you've already used that could be used to graph out game length, serve/rally scoring, no. of rally etc. it's a bit difficult to build the model because somwhere in the set there is an infinite game length. hehe - i feel a great big spreadsheet coming on maybe with 3d graphs and everything..
some excellent math there seven to show that rally point system would be less suspenseful than the current serve point scoring system. Going to full blown simulation like monte carlo would yield similar conclusion anyway. I think i can live with a change to the doubles service line to the back line. This still present a neutral start of a rally as striking a shuttle below the tape level will still be a defensive shot. I dont think it would change the game tactic much as i see short serve as a preference still. The advantage i see is 1. easier for beginner and/or audience to follow the game 2. the server and receiver starts up a rally in an even term. I think physical ability of receivers have improved since 1893. Presently, with the current short service line system for doubles, the receivers are in a clear advantage, short drive on short serve and jumpsmash on flick serve.
i like to add to seven's scenario using real situation (from my limited game watching experience). Under the rally point system, i have questions whether taufik would be the gold medalist at athen since in both games, he was behind 6 to 7 points. Shon would also play differently if he only has 1 to 2 point to close a rally game. For a slow starter like taufik, his mental and talent wouldn't shine thru under the 7 or 9 point rally scoring system. Same thing in game in sudirman cup MS final, taufik was 0-4 before he woke up, and still reached 14-12 twice.
I'm a relatively new arrival to badminton, having grown playing tennis and just starting to play badminton when my son started playing. I think the main problems in appreciating badminton on TV have nothing to do with the scoring. The speed, precision and delicacy of the game is not captured well the way it is shown in TV. The telefoto lenses remove depth, and the speed of the game is hard to capture. Additionally, it is hard for people to relate to a game they have not played. What I'd like to see is exploration of ideas like: - Different TV angles. Maybe shots from the sides of the courts? - More use of radar guns. Show those smash speeds? - Some sort of real-time slow motion. Show that fake at the last minute. - Show how the slice changed the trajectory. Show the viable shots. - Show how some complex sequence of shots opened the opportunity for that kill. In a different direction, more marketing of individual players, cf. members of a national team, could help in some markets like the US that seem to focus on the individual accomplishments. Ultimatedly it is just about the viewer relating to the event on the screen. Regardless of the scoring system... (Just look at cricket, pool, or poker - all those are successful events) IMHO and all of that... - eduardo
Under 5x7, ladies doubles was enjoyable. The ladies would have to initiate attacks more throughout the whole match.
Some good ideas there. I think the current system of intervals during a match does not give much opportunity for the slow motion replays. For the complex sequence of shots, I'd love to see this. Maybe the TV men do not know which are the good rallies to show slow motion replays. So fro this part, they need some feedback from commentators. How about closer biographies of the players - maybe a 30-45 second clip of an interview?
Hear hear. I think you hit it right on the head. To make the sport more palatable for TV consumption, then package it in a more visually attractive format. (Read Eduardo's post above.) Also, look at the coverage of the last Olympic. I think it was the posh-est badminton tourney I've seen on TV. Good point about camera angles too. I noticed that in some tourneys, the main camera behind the court is much too high. Probably about 50 to 60 degrees in relation to the middle of the court? Wild guess, I know. But, the end effect is it makes the shuttle travel so slow on the screen. Compare that to the legendary 1997 WC where the main camera angle was much shallower. I'm guessing about 30 degrees in relation to the middle of the court? That and the wider angle lens caused the court to look deep and the shuttle to travel so fast. I agree with Eduardo, there's no problem with the game itself. It's the packaging and marketing. Leave the rules alone.
This is evident in the fact that they always replay the final smash (or the winning shot). They don't show the shot before ...the one which forced the lift. It is this crucial shot (often with elements of deception) that viewers want a replay of.
The receiver having an advantage is what causes the serve to change hands without points being scored. The more advantage receivers have, the worse serve-scoring becomes. As you say physical abilities have improved considerably over time. Service is supposed to be a neutral way to start the game. If it is neutral serve-scoring or rally-scoring can be appropriate. If server has an advantage, you need to force the change of service like in tennis or table tennis. Serve-scoring or rally-scoring can be appropriate. Some people say that tennis is boring when the server has too much of an advantage. If receiver has an advantage, serve will change hands automatically. Serve-scoring and rally-scoring will produce different types of game. Some people say that badminton is boring, maybe because the receiver has too much of an advantage.
look at volleyball before the score change to a rally point, the receiver has the upper hand in getting back the serve almost everytime and on and on it goes, back and forth. I think neutral service is good for serve scoring system. Rally point system works better for skewed service method like tennis and volleyball. That been say, current badminton service is still closer to neutral term than tennis, volleyball, ping pong, squash, racketball.
The best is still just modify it with fixed timeout. special towel down request only granted if both side + umpire agree, just like changing shuttles. With fix timeout, coach should be allowed to talk to player(s), just like any other sports. This improve the game in general as suspense built with audience 2nd guessing what new tactic is use after the time out, instead only after each game like now.
