Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sudirman Cup 2003' started by Zhao, Feb 3, 2003.
The performance in sport IS Flash Light!!!
ranking nations on it's own is a hard job to do. the mechanism that IBF ended up with for the Sudirman Cup is strange, i agree, but perhaps instead of complaining that it is dump, Zhao you should instead suggest an alternative. there is not much use for us to sit here and complain. the most constructive way is to see what would be a better solution. and if you indeed come up with one, perhaps we can suggest that to the IBF.
anyway, to my orginal point. ranking is hard. and here are some bits and pieces of thoughts why i think it is hard, and why i think IBF came up with the system they did.
imagine, if nation A beat nation B, nation B beats nation C, but nation C comes around and beats nation A. then how do you rank them?
now, take the above scenario, and multiply the complexity to 42 nations.
the IBF is ranking nations only within a division. in order to rank all nations against each other, we must have all nations go against each other. with 42 nations, that would be 41+40+39+...+1 head-to-head matches. that comes down to around 840 matches. each match consist of 5 games, that's 4000+ games the IBF has to manage.
if you are going to suggest an elimination tree structure, a tree with 42 leaves will be around 210 matches. much better to manage. however, then you need to figure out how to rank a nation from different sides of the elimination tree?
further point on the elimination tree structure. for a poor team at the bottom of the ladder, they will need to travel to the competition venue, and most likely, they will play a match of 5 event (or may be even 3 events to 3-0) and they will lose and go home. as they are one of the worst team, the draw will put them against one of the better teams in the world.
with the current system however, they will be guaranteed at least 2 matches. and 2 matches against teams of similar ability (same division). as a result, they will have more fun instead of getting completely white-washed.
also, it is true that for a nation to go from division 7 to division 1 will take 12 yrs. however, think about actual strength and not the result of the tournament, to bring a nation from a division 7 strength to a division 1 strength takes more than 12 yrs. yes, it is probably possible, but i think the nation will have to resort "buying" players from the division 1 countries.
For individual, yeah. Most players can only stay in top form for several yrs.
For a national, at least, if it's been considered as a "power", should be much longer, as a group. A successful program should provide great player generation after generation, that's why the Div I and some Div II nations can capture titles (SC, TC, UC, and many other important individual ones) one after another through the decade(s).
The solution is to take the system of the European championship.
Only 2 divisions with 16 and 19 teams. 4groups of 4 in the division1.
And after that's another groups with the 4 first, the 4 second,...
At the end you can have a good rankink. All nations can win the title.
3 teams go down every time, the 14th,15th and 16th.
That's a fair system with 32 nations.
Thinking about the last soccer world cup.
Both Japan and Korea (ok, let's take out the "calls", they still much better than previous), finally "shine" in the world stage. They've been struggle for 20 yrs (5 world cup appearances) to really set their own "tones" in the world. So, to let a program to be successful, it's more important to really think a way to improve the skill, but not whinning about the ranks or seeds (hey, Asia used to only have 2 seeds, now is 3).
It's sad some nations' own "legends" never get a chance to perform due to its overall weakness. However, if they are really the "great ones", they should be able to win many individual title. Not all the past badminton legends won tons of SC or TC or UC, but we still remember their names.
It's same in every sports. Let me bring my old NBA example again. Stockton and "Mailman" only went to NBA title games twice, many times (recent years) they even can't pass the first round. As a team record, they never get a ring. However, who can ever say these two are not legends???
I agree this seems give more chance to all participants. However, this system has it's own problem:
1. How u rank them when u divide up the group? Can u prevent no one ever complain why he's the #3 seed in a particular group, but if u put him into another (easier/weak) group, he can be #2?
2. With 5 events, here are strategies with "mis match". I assume that u r chinese (sorry, if i am wrong), maybe u heard about the story of "sun bin horse racing". Therefore, different than signle event, the "mis match" will surely bring up more trouble. Ex: A against B, A can take MD, WD, XD ( relative blow outs), so A should go. However, A aginst C, A can only take MD, WD for sure, so, very possible lose. But B against C, B has the best MS, WS and better MD, then B wins. So, this still form the "cycle" as Kwun metioned.
3. With all the possible mis-match, the depth can go further. Certain group's #1 might need to put on a fight to survive, but other #1 can get easy blow outs (say, China can hide its weak MD, since their women team are superior, and MS are much better than most others). Therefore, still, not "fair" when the draw is finalized.
4. Since all the "med lvl" teams got "vanished" by different opponents, it's impossible to let everyone be satisfied, why i am facing this and that, but u can only face that then this...
5. With potential "each round", don't u see that we will lately come with the similar "Div" as SC's draw?
6. Maybe repeat of #4. If u play with similar ability opponent, at least, it's much easier to accept the result. However, if u lost to totally different opponents, well, even harder to convience the losing side.
Give me a break!!! IBF is just a very poor organisation.
Give me a break, too!!!
I am sick and tired being yelled by others!
If u try to calm down and have a reasonable discussion, fine... If just keep repeat ur own point, fine with me too.
Sounds like I own IBF something...
LB was merely pointing out the various permutations of a different system and how there may be weaknesses.
As a general rule, I have found if a person makes suggestions to change the system but cannot acknowledge the possible disadvantages, the proposal may not even be considered.
Our aim here is to have rational discussions and learn. Perhaps we always don't agree but we should acknowledge that other people do have different viewpoints on the same issues.
As the Poland was mentioned in this thread several times I couldn't refrain from making a comment.
I would be happy to see Poland beats China in the SC, however I don't expect to see this in the next xxx years.
I don't see the reason why traditional powerhouses should play the “weekers”, the sport value of this would be questionable. In soccer it is different, a match where one side wins 5:0 can be interesting, whereas five 15/11:0 matches in SC doesn’t make any sense.
From the other hand, I would like to see my team to fight every two years for the position they can rationally reach. This year the position of I or X is likely to be out of range, however if ZHAO is right saying that Poland should be XV, I would like to see my team fighting for at least this position.
Therefore, in my opinion the currents system is not fair due to the facts posted above. The ranking system should be reconsidered, allowing countries to play with others at the same level. I agree that it is difficult, but anyway possible. The new ranking system for SC could be linked with current IBF ranking (e.g. the sum of points gained by two best players in each of five categories).
I think this system wouldn’t change anything for powerhouses (CHN, IND, DEN, KOR, etc.); which is good – only they should fight for the title, but this would be more fair for other countries that are able to jump 10 or 20 positions in a particular year, but are not able to keep up the same level for required 4-8 years to receive the same promotion.
For those countries it matters if you are No 15 or No 24 in the world.
Additionally, it would be interesting to calculate how tight are the matches in the groups under first one. If it is the case that the results 5:0 are very often, we have another strong argument that seeding system is working bad and something (maybe the one above) should be done.
I agree with some of ur points. However, here are some my thoughts:
1. Sum of points gained by top 2 best players in each of five: hmmm... the problem will be, here are the two cases. Excuse me for making up #s, if they are not really reasonable. Nation A: 700 + 700, Nation B: 1100 + 300. For #, both nation should belongs to the same level in this particular event. However, only 1 match is count for this event, nation A has 2 average players, but B has a top one and a rookie. Average, both are close, but if only 1 match, B clearly has huge advantage over A. How u going to rank them???
2. Imagine the same problem involve with 5 events. Ex: A has superior WD, MD, XD, but really bad WS, MS; B is average in everything. Numberwise, maybe B is even better than A. But according to SC rules, A has a much better chance to beat B (3-2). How u going to rank them? Imagine this will involve 42 teams. I am not saying this will happen to every team, but kinda a popular question here and there. Think China's MD, Maylasia's female team, all could drag their rank down a lot. However, who can say they are not the leading horse in their Division now?
3. Jump postion of 10-20? According to current system, it's already possible for a jump of 12. Say, a Div IV team, rank last in it's current div, doing well, win the div and promoted to Div III. If this name doing well within the next 2 yrs, clearly, their rank will be protentially be the top one in div III. It's already a jump in ranking of (24 --> 13). However, 20??? That's more like a mission impossible to me. For example, if a team is ranking 25, (Div IV) somehow rank 5 or 6 next 2 yrs, it's already in Div I, and wish (and have the ability???) to take a piece on China, Ind, Korea, Den... Well, theory speaking, yeah, nothing is impossible, but do u think that can really happen? Jump of 20 mean, move almost 3 div in 1 yr (about 50% of all the participants)... Well, can't really agree.