Another thing is for example...if LCW is seeded 1 and Simon ranks number 8...if LCW does not show up..Simon will replace LCW as seeded player and other player will fill Simon's place...currently other player will fill LCW's place.... Tenni has applied this and sadly some of BWF's officials denied that Tennis has applied that rule... This happens now in China Open.. LD vs BCL..as TH, Gade withdraws,..there is chance that BCL could be seeded next and replacing TH's or Gade's seat, not qualifiers.. This is Super series as the loser of 1rd does not get any money ( new rules that 2nd round losers get the prize money)....can you imagine if this is Grand slam,,you ranks number 9 and meets LCW or LD in first round then some seeded players withdraw and you are not promoted like in Tennis...this is just example how slow BWF adopts things even they just can pick and steal the ideas from tennis...they are even stubborn...they should know that Tennis federation did that for a long time and keep modifying the rules...
Sorry for being off topic, but just responding to Rudy's posts above Yes there are many issues and what Rudy has listed is, sadly, just some of them. The "old boys network" running badminton has to be disbanded. We need an injection of excitement and new ideas to drive the game towards professionalism. Badminton is crying out for forward thinking, media savvy individuals with no political motives. There has to be transparency and accountability to stabilize the sport and move it along. Lastly, it would be a good idea to attract former greats into the BWF to help promote the game. Use their star power to draw people to events. I think when Peter Gade retires he would make one hell of a great ambassador for badminton.
- How does one define mandatory?? what are the criterias? - If awarding ranking pts is the incentive for a mandatory tourney, how will it translate in the long run? how will BWF use that ranking pts as a mean for a bigger end/goal? - If a player for some reason can't make it, will there be a penalty?? if so, will it simply be just the loss of ranking pts??.. But, yeah, i do concur (and have suggested) with the idea of reducing the number of major tourneys in a yr (4-6 max.), yet making them more attractive (bigger prize money). How will that be done? that's the million dollar question...
You could still keep 12 SS events but make it mandatory for players to attend 8 or 9 of them. 4 of the SS events can be made into Grand Slam tournaments, with larger purses. I don't think it should be mandatory for players to attend a Grand Slam event though. If they choose not to, it's their monetary loss.
yup, they had already reached shanghai..lets hope they wont be the early round casualties. so, anymore last minute withdrawal?
Lets not talking about the heavy stuffs like bigger prize money and big changes. Maybe BWF can start from a small change like the draw. When Gade and Taufik withdraw, BWF should replace their place with two next highest ranking after the 8 seed, and not some qualifier. (Boonsak and Chen Long are the next 2 highest rank players) After Taufik withdraw, in his draw, only 2 Qualifier, Anand (INdia) and Du PY (China). ONe of them will guarantee a QF spot. And as we all know, LD, BCL and Chen Long all fighting for one QF spot. (And that after Hafiz withdraw)
this is totally out of logic... and luck would play a more than reasonable part in determining a player's WR due to such disgussing draw system...
It seems ranking point is the only fair mechanism to control participation. Mandatory tournaments are the designated events in which player can earn points. To that end, the values of ranking ponits should be enhanced. There are two easy ways to do that: (1) annual bonus pool divided by ranking points. (2) increase early round byes. For example, directly in quarter final for the top 4 and directly in the round of 16 for the top 8. This is fair, since the top players play more games anyway. This also does away meaningless early round matches and gives lesser players better chance to advance. By allocating mandatory tournaments properly, BWF can guarantee reasonably strong field for all events. To madbad, grand slams are made mandatory for everyone just to be fair. Since these are presumably high point, high prize events. As you said, skipping them would be their mandatory loss. If a player can't play in a mandatory event due to injury or other reason, this is no different from the current situation. It is just not feasible to give an injury pass since they all have some kind of injuries. Short of breaking a leg, it is just too hard to determine the severity of the injury.
The good news is Lin dan not withdrawing. Hooray! We need some competition after Gade and Taufik withdraw and LCW lost. On other hand CY/FHF still injured somehow since China Open few months ago. Sad.
Adding another 2.25 sens on these points.. - Mind expounding more on the "annual bonus pool divided by ranking points" idea? What kind of annual bonus? - If speaking of fair/unfair, if we give players like LD, LCW direct draw into the R16 or even QF, where would the fairness be since most likely they'll advance to the Finals Rd, if not win it all. Further, how would having to play directly in the R16 or QF equals to "playing more games"? - Yes, the lesser players would probably have better chance to advance further, but they would still play more games than say LD or LCW or CJ (who will most likely play in less matches in tourneys). - Yep, abt the injury excuse and how valid or how to determine the severity of the injury, there's been somewhat of a discussion in another thread. If "it's not feasible to give an injury pass since they all have some kind of injuries", then would you prefer to see a player playing while limping or in pain? Do we need to see a player being carted away on a stretcher to determine s/he is not fit to compete? Unfortunately, at this time, BWF can only determine & trust the severity of an injury by a player's request to withdraw due to whatever injury.
Instead of the meaningless Masters Finals, take that prize money and divide it among the players by ranking points. Top players play 3 to 5 matches week after week by advancing further into the draw. The lesser players play 1 to 2 matches a week due to early exits. Giving the high ranked players early round byes will (1) protect them from burning out; (2) significantly enhance the value of ranking points so they won't withdraw on a whim; (3) motivate lesser players to fight hard among their peers; (4) create more competitive match-ups in all rounds. The result will be more competitive matches and more attractive to the fans. Once the players are motivated to participate in tournaments, it will be less likely that injury is used as an excuse for withdrawal. If a player is really injured, participating will not yield good results anyway. It is a sensible thing to withdraw. However, offering make-up tournaments will open a big can of worms that it is better to do without. In my proposal, they can still earn prize money from optional tournaments at the player's choice, just not ranking points.
Couple more 2.25 sens.. - Will the yr end bonus payment apply only to those who’ve participated in the mandatory tourneys? Or it’s open to any player who participates in the mandatory tourneys as well as other optional tourneys?? And if we’re going to give $$$ at the end, what ranking is the cut-off line? Top 16? Top 32? And how much $$$ would we award the highest ranked player/pair? - Here’s the thing. There’s no guarantee top players will play 3-5 matches in every tourney (esp. if they meet as equally or better players/pais than them). And that goes the same with the lesser players that they will only play 1-2 matches in a tourney. Here’s a scenario on whether it's fair or not. With the proposal of putting top players directly in the QF Rd. (skipping the 1st & 2nd rds.), a lesser player could advance all the way from, say, the Qualification Rd. and end up meeting a LCW or LD or PG in the Semifinals. The former would have to play, 4 times more than a LD or LCW. - On the point of “more attractive to the fans”, some fans would like to watch the top players from the early rds. even if their opponents are lesser players (matches aren't competitive). - I think it’s always been that way, in that players will participate & generally be motivated if they’re injury free. But I see where your proposal is going. It seems like the idea is to propose & have 2 different classes/groupings of tournaments. One group will reward players strictly by ranking pts with the end result/goal of receiving a substantial amt of $$$ at the end of the yr. While the other group will receive the prize money by playing in optional tourneys & how they finish in those tourneys. What do you mean by “make-up tournaments”? Are they the same as optional tourneys?
After the last SS/GGP event, each ranking point is converted to a dollar amount, for each example, $1 per point or 25 cents per point. Point value multiplying by the point total is the annual bonus for that player. There may be a minimum qualification such as being in the main draw for 4 SS/GGP events. It does not happen every week. But the current situation is that, on average, the top players play too much while the lesser players don’t get enough chance to play. For the lesser players, wouldn’t it be much better to play LD or LCW in the quarter-final than in the first round? They would then have money and points in the pocket and got exposure for their sponsors. The success that they've got in the early rounds will give them experience, boost their confidence and motivate them to get better. In addition to not overwork top players, the main purpose of early round byes is to make the ranking points of real value to the players. This will help to avoid the situation that the best player is only ranked 5th in the World because he does not care enough about the points to show up at tournaments. He can earn more money in an exhibition event instead of playing a tournament but the value of points will keep him in the tournament. When the players take the ranking points seriously, the ranking will better reflect the relative quality of the players. This will further enhance the quality of the draws based on ranking and the effectiveness of the proposed system based on the value of ranking points. Unfortunately, there are not enough of these fans to support the tournaments. Besides, they will be amply rewarded with both competitive early round matches and later, matches between better rested and prepared star players. Not a bad trade-off at all. It is not two classes of tournaments. It is the same set of tournaments but managed differently to ensure high quality competition in all of them. To make this clear, let’s assume that there are 12 major tournaments in a year. It is not possible for players being at their best in all of them. The trick to have enough of well prepared and motivated players in each one of the 12 tournaments. BWF can do this by using a system that awards ranking points to a player at only the 8 “mandatory” events assigned to this player. To start, four high profile events (“grand slams”) such as WC, AE are made “mandatory” for all players. This is because these are the events all players want to attend and do well anyway. These are special events where no early round byes are offered. Then, BWF assigns each player to 4 of the remaining 8 events as their “mandatory” events. This guarantees the quality of these tournaments because (1) enough good players are assigned to each one of them and (2) the assigned players will most likely show up and be in good form due to the value of ranking points. In addition, players can choose to attend tournaments that are not mandatory for them to compete for prize money but not points. This creates an interesting opportunity for the event organizers to attract additional players without hurting other events because whatever they do, they can't offer the valuable ranking points to these additional players. The “make-up” events refers to the situation that a player cannot attend a mandatory event for whatever reason and is offered another event as a “make-up” mandatory event. While there are legitimate reasons for not playing an event, “make-up” mandatory events will not be offered. This is to ensure that integrity of system is not compromised by off-court maneuvers. If willing and able to play, a player can always compete in non-mandatory events for prize money and competition. In conclusion, the proprosed system balances the needs of the players and the fans/tournament organizers. It offers better protection for the player's sporting life and better competition to the fans.
Just adding another 2.25 sens to these points.. - That notion applies for the current draw system. But using the proposed idea of having the top players skip the earlier rds. and having them wait for the lesser players to reach the QF rd., how is that considered fair?? Back to my previous post for the scenario. Btw, in the current system, not all lesser players will meet/play LD or LCW or PG in the earlier rds; it depends on the draw. But having to play 4 or maybe even 5 matches before playing LCW or LD or PG in the QF Rd., who is most likely fresher..?!?!.. *If one wants to be fair, then how about awarding much bigger pts to those players who start from the Qualification Rd. and advance further. Bigger rewards pts for them, rather than awarding bigger pts to those already waiting in the QF Rd. - How would BWF assign/select which players are eligible to play in those 4 "mandatory" events? Through total pts? World Ranking? Remember also, those players who only participate in non-mandatory events will not receive any ranking pts. Thus, if they want to join the "mandatory" events, are they eligible also?
It seems we are going in circles. I just want to clarify two points. The privilage of skipping early rounds will appeal to the top players more than money because there is just not that much prize money to go around. The top players earned that right, like competent players earned the right to be in the main draw directly instead of going through qualification. Even without additional money, this makes the ranking points truly valuable to the players and therefore, empowers BWF to manage the participation in the tournaments. Mandatory status is for the individual players, not the event. Each event has its share of mandatory players who are required by BWF to show up to ensure a strong field. It may also have players who show up on their own account. The mechanism of assigning player would be mainly determined by ranking since it is the only fair measure. Currently, the ranking points are not taken seriously and the BWF has little power to manage its own affairs. This is to address these two issues.
Throwing away another 2.25 sens.. - It's for clarification on your point. Maybe it's not as clear, thus it seems "to be going in circles". - Top players entering the main draw, in the current system, is not the same as the one proposed by having them skipped all the earlier Rds. & be put directly into the QF Rd. In the current system, lesser players playing in the Qualification Rd. might only have to play a minimum of 1 to a max. of 3 extra matches before entering the main draw. Using the proposed system, guess how many more matches will those lesser players have to play in order to be in the QF to meet the top players? And that bonus money at the end of the yr better be enticing enough (thinking which sponsor will throw away their money??). Otherwise, you'll see top players trying to play in more "non-mandatory" tourneys to make up the financial aspect; and that's before a possibility of suffering an injury. - Current ranking system's main goal is for seeding purposes only. Yes, unfortunately, it can't be taken seriously, esp. to gauge which player/pair is truly deserving of the ranking.
BWF finding hard to follow the WTA's system . One important to note: Currently, Badminton players are participating (representing) their National Associations. Until we have Badminton players becoming truly professionals, like Tennis professionals, BWF can never follow the WTA's system. .
