Yeah but they really werent THAT dominant in WD and MD, at least not after playing XD less than 3 hours previously...
I don't think anybody did well doubling up this year. I wouldn't consider it an issue. I find the current set-up for the Sudirman cup fine. There are 5 disciplines which are all weighted evenly.
7 matches to watch in one day is indeed too many. But current 5 matches in Sudirman Cup is too little. It is so rare to have all 5 matches played in the final. (Once in a decade I think.) In most cases, the whole tie would be over in 3 matches. If we have best-of-7 format, then having 5 matches played would be a lot more likely. The likelihood of having all 7 matches played is obviously very very low.
Not allowing double duty will disadvantage any team that lacks depth, besides, I don't see any difference it'd make in the current best of 5 format as opposed to my proposed best of 7 format. Furthermore, just doing away with double duty doesn't change the present situation of tending towards too many short ties without testing all five disciplines, which I feel fail to truly reflect the overall strength of any country/MA in a mixed team championships, with luck of the draw and strategic planning to avoid having their weakest discipline in the first three matches by resorting to using a player for double duty. As I've argued, the existing format of 2 Singles and 3 Doubles seem to favour strengths in doubles, and to make matters worse, when a tie ends in 3 - 0 without two of the disciplines contested does not give a clear indication of a country's overall strength and depth of talent. Isn't a mixed team event supposed to show us how good a country really is overall ? What's more, when all individual tournaments, WC, OG, PSS/SS. AG, BAC, etc allow double duty, it'll be strange and unjustifiable to disallow it for team events. Even so, I'm mulling over the idea of expanding the format to 4 singles and 3 doubles BUT without double duty for a best of seven format, taking into account the merits and demerits of such an arrangement. Interesting.
shouldn't the purpose of a team event showcase the depth of a team? allowing double duty takes away from that. if your team lacks depth in personnel, well, i guess you don't have the best team and do not deserve to win. the framework is similar. best of 7 adds the extra player to singles, whereas, no double duty in best of 5 adds the extra player to doubles. in your best of 7 proposal singles would be favored. is that more fair? i don't see it as a doubles vs. singles advantage. it's a competition of 5 distinctly different events, each representing equal weight of 1 point. by allowing doubling up it leans towards 'superstars vs. depth of personnel' not exactly. a team does not 'win' wc/og/ss(p) tournaments. a country may do well by winning the majority of events, but the team receives nothing for that result. having differences between team & individual tournaments is good for the sport. note the video posted by ms. desireless in post #429. do you think lu/huang would be as upset if it were an individually scored tournament, including the olympics?
If you lose 3-0 you were weaker in 3 out of 5 disciplines. Doesnt matter if you play out the last two and lose 4-1, 3-2, 5-0.....you were represented fairly, you lost and were weaker. It's a knockout stage. You can play all 5 matches in groups.
in best of 7 format, the most likely number of matches played for a tie are 5, 6, 4 and 7 (in that order). (a) If 5 matches are played, then 2 singles and 3 doubles would be played: XD, MS1, WD, WS2, MD (b) If 6 matches are played, then 3 singles and 3 doubles would be played: XD, MS1, WD, WS2, MD, MS2 (c) If 4 matches are played, then 2 singles and 2 doubles would be played: XD, MS1, WD, WS2 (x) If 7 matches are played, then 4 singles and 3 doubles would be played: XD, MS1, WD, WS2, MD, MS2, WS2
This mixed doubles pair is one of my favourites . I can understand the anguish and utter devastation they must feel for "letting down" their nation. To Samkool's question , it would not be the same level of despair if they had lost in an individual tournament .
Didn't manage to catch the finals. IMO, it would have been tough for Korea MS to beat CL regardless of who is playing (unless he is really off form). If SWH is burnt out from playing the earlier events, it would mean he stands a lower chance of winning CL. In addition, there is also a risk of picking up injury. If the odds for korea winning MS is low, it might be more logical to rest SWH and put in an another player (in this case JHJ). It is also a good opportunity for the youngsters to gain experience playing the top players. My two cents worth. Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
LOL, what about the play-order-- the only way for the play-order to even be remotely "fair" with more than 5 matches and repeat events would be a completely random draw to make it a "mini-tournament" in itself... but who wants to watch Kenta vs LCW/ LD in the knock-out stages again? Or must they be played according to World Ranking like in Thomas / Uber Cup... which is just another rule to FRONT-LOAD the important/ exciting matches and SHORTEN the duration of the tie? That's right-- the rules were written to FRONT-LOAD the important/ exciting matches and SHORTEN the duration of the ties because every match in the KNOCK-OUT stages is suppose to be nail-biting! SO. PLEASE. JUST. STOP. And learn about sports management/ organization before you dream up more ways of trying to stack the odds one way or another...
Professionals like Christina Pedersen & Zhao Yunlei double up successfully in the professional circuit like the Super Series circuit all the time: is the Sudirman Cup some sort of "Special Olympics" where "diversity/ representation" is more important than its professionalism? So that the Sudirman Cup would grant less ranking points, more like some regional tournament than a world championship? These professional players and their team/ coaches are comprised of MATURE ADULTS-- they can take the risks; and they can call it quits... So stop trying to take their FREEDOM OF CHOICE away But don't worry, the sorest losers with the cringiest suggestions are NOT in BadmintonCentral.com-- some Chinese fans and even players (#NOTALL) have "complained" that they would have won if 11-point games were played instead... LOL, won't anyone think of "muh feelings"-- can't wait for the World Championships where the younger Chinese & Indonesian World No.1s "stare down" each other like street gangs... Now that the millenials are competing, the era of professional rivalry where "what happens on-court stays on-the-court" (the 4 Heavenly Kings are friendly with each other and Cai/ Fu, Boe/ Mogensen & Lee/ Yoo would play together off-court) are truly over...
the issue is not a matter of a player(s) actually dominating consistently or not, but rather, the current rule makes it possible. i feel the rule minimizes the meaning of a team's depth. there can be, and should be, a distinct difference between individual and team tournaments in badminton. to not have a more team related set of rules is a missed opportunity for bwf. it's simply good for the sport. you can bet the nat'l associations will still participate with the same level of nat'l pride. look at all other major professional individual & team sports. they all do it with a specific set rules for their sport. tennis has their regular circuit + davis & whitman cup. pga has their tour & ryder cup. nba has a regular season and the fiba basketball world cup + olympics. mlb added the world baseball classic recently and the players & fans love it so far. futbol has, well, need i go on? so whether it best of 5 or 7 a no doubling up rule makes it way more interesting & captivating. we would get to see a teams current crop of stars and their emerging players. it would be like watching a mashup of a ssp+gp gold. who is with me?
That's the assumption. Once a team loses 3 - 0, both sides lose interest to play the remaining matches, so we won't know, the more so when they aren't played out. Besides, only three matches contested is too short. That's why to increase the likelihood of all five disciplines contested at the knockout stage, the only way is to expand the format as suggested.
You are missing my point. The comment is a direct reply to your statement that a nation isnt 'repredented fairly' when they lose 3-0, which is not the case at all. Seeing all disciplines contested is nice, but I'd rather see the better overall team win than have a singles nation win 4-3 all the time despite having absolute **** doubles. The format you recommend would suddenly make India a very dangerous candidate, despite them not having a chance in hell of winning a SS title in any of the three doubles disciplines in the coming year(s), yet they might very well win all 4 singles matches against a number of nations (Denmark, if they're lucky, for example, although DEN is overall significantly stronger).
