NEW DELHI, Sept 17 (Bernama) -- The headquarters of International Badminton Federation (IBF) will be moved from Cheltenham in the United Kingdom to Kuala Lumpur by December this year.

The decision to shift to Kuala Lumpur was taken a year ago, said IBF marketing president Punch Gunalan in an interview in the leading English daily, Hindustan Times.

"We took this decision as we felt that the popularity of the sport, the fan-following and the sponsors were all in this part of the world," Gunalan said.

"I can tell you that by December we will be moving over to Kuala Lumpur, where a new building will be housing the IBF office," he said.

Gunalan also said a new 21-point best-of-three-game format was also in the pipeline to make the sport more television-friendly.

"The new 21-point format, used in table tennis, has a major advantage. Every time a player serves he stands to gain a serve. The current rule of time-out unnecessarily prolongs the game. To make the game more TV-friendly, we have to ensure that the duration of the matches is drastically shortened," he added.

On average, he said, a men's singles match if it went the full distance could be played for more than an hour and such an extended game did not fit the profile of a TV audience.

Asked about time-out between games, Gunalan said: "There is also a difference in time-out under the new system. For instance, now there will be a break of one minute after every eleven points. This comes in place of the two-minute break after 15 points, which is how it stands now. We hope that with this, players will recover faster.

"It must be remembered that modern-day badminton is one of the most taxing sports and exerts a lot of pressure on the body. The possibility of a player getting injured is much more now than ever before. Even the fittest of players, like Taufik Hidayat and Chen Hong, were sidelined with injuries.

"Therefore, it is in the larger interest of the game that we have decided to shorten the duration of the game. Otherwise, we feel the life span of an active player would be cut considerably. That is something which we have to guard against," he said.

what!!!! :mad: ... honestly.. that's stupid.. 21 pts... with ping pong rules... that's too fast...><... doubles games are gonna be like soo shorttttt...... but does anyone know when it's gonna be official??... like use in international games or anything?

Noooooooooooooooooooooo :mad:

omg. this is gonna suck! start a petition!!!

tennis is so much longer yet it is still popular!
keep to the current system!

tennis is so much longer yet it is still popular!
keep to the current system!So is soccer, American football, basketball, golf, cricket, rubgy :eek:

I hope they decide to test out the system in some low key tournaments first i.e. prototyping the system. Otherwise, they will suffer the same problems as computer system users...trying to implement a system where the user requirements are largely unknown.

Maybe they are leaking the details out to gauge reactions?

Badminton match too long??? Since when??? On EPL nights if I watch 3 matches its 6 hours of my life already! I might not even get to see a goal:crying: .

let me get this right.. 1 set of 21 points and at the 11th point.. there would be a 1 minute break.. is that it?

Start a petition and what? Like a little group of us is gonna stop punchy over there. He's such a retard.

EDIT: INJURIES?!?!? WHAT IN THE BLOOMING HELL IS WRONG WITH INJURIES. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE BADMINTON LOOK LIKE A PANSY's GAME!?!?!?

Pro Athletes are supposed to get injured. If they don't they're not trying hard enough. Geez punchy you've hit the nail on the head for this one.

NEW DELHI, Sept 17 (Bernama) -- The headquarters of International Badminton Federation (IBF) will be moved from Cheltenham in the United Kingdom to Kuala Lumpur by December this year.

The decision to shift to Kuala Lumpur was taken a year ago, said IBF marketing president Punch Gunalan in an interview in the leading English daily, Hindustan Times.

"We took this decision as we felt that the popularity of the sport, the fan-following and the sponsors were all in this part of the world," Gunalan said.

"I can tell you that by December we will be moving over to Kuala Lumpur, where a new building will be housing the IBF office," he said.

Gunalan also said a new 21-point best-of-three-game format was also in the pipeline to make the sport more television-friendly.

"The new 21-point format, used in table tennis, has a major advantage. Every time a player serves he stands to gain a serve. The current rule of time-out unnecessarily prolongs the game. To make the game more TV-friendly, we have to ensure that the duration of the matches is drastically shortened," he added.

On average, he said, a men's singles match if it went the full distance could be played for more than an hour and such an extended game did not fit the profile of a TV audience.

Asked about time-out between games, Gunalan said: "There is also a difference in time-out under the new system. For instance, now there will be a break of one minute after every eleven points. This comes in place of the two-minute break after 15 points, which is how it stands now. We hope that with this, players will recover faster.

"It must be remembered that modern-day badminton is one of the most taxing sports and exerts a lot of pressure on the body. The possibility of a player getting injured is much more now than ever before. Even the fittest of players, like Taufik Hidayat and Chen Hong, were sidelined with injuries.

"Therefore, it is in the larger interest of the game that we have decided to shorten the duration of the game. Otherwise, we feel the life span of an active player would be cut considerably. That is something which we have to guard against," he said.

puhleeeeezze!

If we wanna play like ping pong, we go play ping pong !

If the score format is like ping pong then ping pong MUST SURELY be TV friendly now! Let's just turn on the tv for a week and see how many times we get to see ping pong being aired!

The key to success is to MARKET the sport!

Can you say "fast games" anyone? :(

I think it could well turn out to be a huge failure, and soon after they will switch back, just like when they changed it to 7x5 scoring

I don't get how it could be 21 points and best of three? is it the first to 21 points? I was under the impression best of three would win by 2 games..unless he mean 3 x 7 points?

Someone give Mr Punch a...punch :eek:

LOL. Why stop at 21? Why not make it a 3 point game. They will be able to televise an entire tournament in half a day. I am sure the TV stations would love that.

puhleeeeezze!

If we wanna play like ping pong, we go play ping pong !

If the score format is like ping pong then ping pong MUST SURELY be TV friendly now! Let's just turn on the tv for a week and see how many times we get to see ping pong being aired!

The key to success is to MARKET the sport!

lol exactly....next they'll want to be having cheerleaders during the break....oh wait they already do

they dont make people play on mini golf courses to make it quicker...tennis matches go on for a really long time, and they get regular breaks...during which no ads are screened (maybe the BBC is special) so they want ads to be screened during these regular breaks they are trying to insert into badminton?
Anyway, the ads during the AE broadcasts are of hi-tec and some sports betting company. yay i mean even badminton manufacturers aren't getting ads in.

generally its all pretty stupid. we want to evolve the sport, not make a new one but still call it badminton. rally scoring is just dumb. at least in volleyball the serving side can be at a disadvantage since the other team should get the first spike in so if you had none rally system it would take forever to get to 25, and if u make the points needed less, it would look a bit pathetic to uninformed masses.

maybe this whole score only on serve things is confusing for everybody? maybe the commentators can't be bothered to expalin that little point during the game? I mean does anyone complain that the 0-15-30-40-D-A system in tennis is confusing and needs changing to 0-1-2-3 etc?

gah...use ur brain for once instead of trying to copy other people. badminton? oh thats the game exactly the same as table tennis but with a feather thingy and a bigger court. the main thing is that people don't indentify with the players as much as football (both types) and so dont support anyone in particlar, and so dont really watch it. its not that they get confused about the scoring system, or have problems in concentration and can't handle games for more than 30 minutes.

and what's that stupid stuff about injuries. yeah why not make rugby into contact-rugby.....way less broken noses and clavicles! oh no the cricket ball is so hard, it might hurt someone! lets make it lighter, or give the batsmen NFL armour. oh no, soccer players are always straining their legs. they must run too much, lets made the game 10 mins both ways so they wont get tired and injured and can play into their 50s. oh man the marathon is sooo long...they must get really sore feet and creaky joints. to save the cartilage on their joints and keep their soles really nice and soft, we'll let them only run 1 mile a day.

this is sport, its not acting.

tv doesn't show badminton becuase half the time the producers/editors/management think its a sissy sport or some backyard game. or they don't get enough viewers. A problem with adverts? OMG just chuck them in anywhere u want if that's the only problem. too hard to schedule? its ok, seeing as its live, then u can just stop broadcasting when the next program is on.

badminton needs more publicity in more countries, but that doesn't mean it needs to change so drastically into anther sport altogether. all i can say is that i think badminton is gaining publicity and popularity in england, not because the IBF are making headlines about how the women should be more sexy but because of achievements by the UK players. this is the list of different sports that have their own sections on the BBC webpage:

Football (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/default.stm)
Cricket (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/default.stm)
Rugby Union (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/default.stm)
Rugby League (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/default.stm)
Tennis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/default.stm)
Golf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/default.stm)
Motorsport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/default.stm)
Boxing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/default.stm)
Athletics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/default.stm)
Snooker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/default.stm)
Horse Racing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/default.stm)
Cycling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/default.stm)
Disability Sport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/disability_sport/default.stm)
Olympics 2012 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/default.stm)
Other Sport... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/default.stm)

Yup, so badminton is less popular than gold, motorsport, boxing, snooker and cycling. great. and by making rally system to 21, it will automatically become much more popular.

back to injuries....football, rugby and tennis are very popular. can you imagine the FIFA, WTA etc saying they will reduce the exersions needed to help players have less injuries.

scraping the barrel....try publicising badminton, if not by tv, then by setting up exhibition events, touring like they do at election time, liasioning with individual country badminton committees and organising events and shows.

surely anything better than daydreaming in the office:confused:

well sure ibf may have changed the rules, but that does not mean you have to follow them. even if you do decide to go with the new rules, what about the other club members? i am pretty positive that other club members may disagree on these new rules and just stick with the old one. i for one am with the old system, and i hope the other badminton players at the club decide to stay with the old system.

Dude Wtf!!!! Tennis Is Like 4 Hours Per Match!!! They Should Leave It As It Is! Its Good Enuf

Its better now, without any changes.

Badminton matches i think are alright in length.
And watching a tennis game is boring yet longer.

You get far more injuries in football than badminton and yet they dont change the length.

Shortening matches does not test the players mental strength in long matches.

i dont like this...

:mad::mad::mad:

I'm tired of reading this stupid bull**** again and again. Using the reason "making badminton fit the TV schedule" ? What is this? You mean it is the sport that needs to adapt? Why don't you do some statistics first, for example, that badminton is the second most popular sport after soccer? You're talking the second most popular sport in the world needs to fit to television schedule whereas the other 'stupid' 'stupid' (no offense hopefully intended) sports can stay like it is? What is this? Maybe a guy of marketing is not that clever after all. Just go back to school please because you do not look like you have gone to any at all.

I wonder what will be the real effect out of it.

If it works out (which) I doubt, Punch will be a hero but if it doesn't I think it's gonna hurt the sport really bad.

Someone give Mr Punch a...punch :eek:

LOL! I could not have said it better. :p

I'm tired of reading this stupid bull**** again and again. Using the reason "making badminton fit the TV schedule" ? What is this? You mean it is the sport that needs to adapt? Why don't you do some statistics first, for example, that badminton is the second most popular sport after soccer? You're talking the second most popular sport in the world needs to fit to television schedule whereas the other 'stupid' 'stupid' (no offense hopefully intended) sports can stay like it is? What is this? Maybe a guy of marketing is not that clever after all. Just go back to school please because you do not look like you have gone to any at all.

Is that in asia or in the world? I was under the impression basketball, tennis would be ahead.

They said that badminton matches are too long, but honestly what is the average match duration for badminton? for me 40mn, and matchs which go on more than one hour are very often good matchs between great players, with rhythm, intensity, spectacular shoots.

Playing in Tie-break... pfffffff what an s***** idea, the game will become so boring. None player will attack. What we gonna see: CLEARS,CLEARS,CLEARS and CLEARS (and smatches only for few players who can make the difference with that: Taufik, Lin Dan, Lee Chong Wei, maybe some other)

What a great future for badminton :mad: :mad: :mad:


(Sorry for my english :o )

Hi!


NEW DELHI, Sept 17 (Bernama) -- The headquarters of International Badminton Federation (IBF) will be moved from Cheltenham in the United Kingdom to Kuala Lumpur by December this year.

"The new 21-point format, used in table tennis, has a major advantage. Every time a player serves he stands to gain a serve. The current rule of time-out unnecessarily prolongs the game. To make the game more TV-friendly, we have to ensure that the duration of the matches is drastically shortened," he added.


I'm not sure if it is the case world wide. But Table tennis changed the rules in Germany a few years ago and they are not playing to 21 points anymore. They have a best of 2,3 to 11 points system. They are also playing in TieBreak modus and changing serves after 2 serves.

This rule is used quite a long time, so I think the IBF information is a little bit outdated:cool:

... table tennis is so much more popular than badminton in north america....? turning badminton into table tennis won't increase popularity. They think that people don't watch badminton b/c of its TV format appeal. PPL dont watch it b/c its not promoted in North America!!!!!

"We took this decision as we felt that the popularity of the sport, the fan-following and the sponsors were all in this part of the world," Gunalan said.

ITS ALSO HIS HOME TOWN HOW CONVENIENT

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=151869

is the part about younger people losing interest in the sport true?


The IBF deputy president, who was happy with the organisation of the World Championships here which ended on Sunday as well as fan support, also believed that the 21-point system could help organisers save on the use of shuttlecocks.

i guess thats true but still dumb

those ppl are stupid... they have NO idea how popular it is here in asia. basically everyone that is over 18 plays badminton, well tahts the case in taiwan. and they're GOOD at it too. not all but most are really good. they should look more at the WORLD and not just AMERICA. and DONT FORGET theres a lot of other boring sports out there that last like 3 times longer than badminton does. they should really rethink this descision... :mad::mad::mad:

so basically each game will only have 21 rallies

do each side also get 3 serves each n then alternate?

actualy, despite the fact that i don't like changes (especially major ones like this) i think this rule might make the game more interesting, since it might make players attack more. Since it's a shorter game, players don't need to save their energies. In most cases, players don't attack alot if 1. the opponent is Morten frost or other great defense players or 2. They don't have enough stamina to keep attacking and not get tired. So, it might create some more Boom and BAM in the game... not that i like changing rules like this ...

so basically each game will only have 21 rallies?

Nope. Like In volleyball someone gets a point after every rally. Games are usually won with scores like 21-18 (which has 39 rallies). I think this is still quite a bit shorter than a typical badminton game now, especially when serve is exchanged a lot.

hopefully within a month of IBF enforcing this new rule that they figure out what kind of morons they are and go back to the old 3x15 system. if the current badminton community like BC here disagrees with such a drastic rule change, what makes them think others will accept it. most sports do hope to attract new fans but they must think of their current fans first. it is those that have watched countless hours of tournaments that they should appeal to first. i'm all for the growth and spread of badminton but without the foundation of support from fans like us here, there will be no IBF.

ibf should closely watch some tennis.
some games last for more than 2 hours.

i am sorry to say the 21 x 3 rule is Stupid :mad:.

ibf should closely watch some tennis.
some games last for more than 2 hours.

i am sorry to say the 21 x 3 rule is Stupid :mad:.

the mens wimbldon match goes for almost 4 hours...

This is just so stupid... I was so glad that we changed back to the 3x15 system, after that dumb mistake to change it to 5x7.
Now again, we have to face a failure. I like it when matches are long, you can see great rallys, you'll see who has the best mental strenght, which we can forget now in this case :mad:

Really, ibf... Move if you want, but leave the rules intact [><]

can we all start a petition.this is stupid thing.i knew about this a month before the wc.inside info from my coach.and i got a shock because i thought my coach was joking.but as the truth sank in i think im sorry to say this but the thrill of watching long rallies and earning point will be not exctining at all already.and jus imagine 1 sided matches ending in 15 minutes.does anyone want to pay to watch such short games.is this what you call good marketing strategies.WE NEED A PETITION.

Tennis match and badminton match duration can't really be compared.

Although a tennis match may go on for 4 hours or more, the rules mean that there are a lot of breaks. Between each serve there can be upto 30 seconds - long enough for TV to show highlights of the previous point. Between each change of ends (after two games) there is a break of upto 90 seconds - again long enough for TV to show highlights or commercials.

Tennis is TV friendly. Also because tennis is already a popular spectator sport the TV broadcasters want to show the big tournaments.

Tennis was also changed to make matches shorter. There never used to be tie-breaks at the end of each set. Play would continue until somebody wa two clear games ahead. Even now Wimbledon is the only grand prix event that still plays the final set to two clear games. The other GP events play a tie-break, even to decide the champions.

In a badminton match, there aren't any breaks between points ('Play must be continuous' from the laws). There are only two guaranteed breaks - 90 seconds and 5 minutes - between the games. There's barely enough time for TV to show highlights or commercials.

In it's present form badminton is NOT TV friendly. Badminton is having to sell itself to the TV broadcasters.


In this thread - http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26947 - it shows what the general public think of badminton. Those same people probably wouldn't walk over a tennis court if there was a game on it.

Until the public start to think of badminton as a serious sport instead of just something to do in the garden while waiting for the barbecue, badminton must do something to attract the attention of the puiblic. The IBF feels that more TV exposure is the way to do this, and they're probably right, but the IBF also realise that badminton in it's present form doesn't make for good TV broadcasts.

I'm not sure if the 3x21 system is a good idea, but if it works and brings more people into the sport, then I see that as a satisfactory result.


References for tennis laws from -http://www.1stserve.com/newsite/trules.asp

if the insertion of advertising or commercials is needed to promote advertising dollars into the game and for broadcasting, changing the point scoring system is not needed. Just make one change to the badminton law that play must be continuous.

Make it to read -"continous, unless where required by network for commercial break - break period not to be longer than xx minutes- (whatever the longest commercials might be)."

Instead of dictating the points, and having advertisers have to worry about when the scores will logically give them a time break, the network can assign the times to the umpire and the umpire will call the timeout.

Actually this happens at football games, where the referee will break for 3 minute intervals while the networks show their commercials. Player get a break, time for coaching and strategy. The difference is that the cheerleaders come out and there is still some entertainment happening.

anyways, if the score system changes once again, it will only turn out to be another 5x7 fiasco.

An interesting observation at US Open this year. They hong the sponcer's logos on the end of the net. IBF should consider this to get some money. I also want to bring up the idea from football (or socer). They change the sponcer logos under the score every 1 or 2 min. Couldn't they do that during the live broadcast? Another thing is here in US, since the ESPN is broadcasting recorded match, they can replay as many time in between points or put in 5 commercials if they want. IMHO, IBF can increase badminton popularity just by putting up a big prize championship every year. Just compare the prize of US Open to WC this year. $1.1mil vs. $0.

Silent Heart: you bring up some very good points. :)

Silent Heart: you bring up some very good points. :)


I can use them on the court over the weekend.:crying:

highlights aren't needed in my opinion to make the game more tv friendly, sure slow mo of some line calls is ok, but surely they can at least pay attention to the game while its live. also, at the end of a massive rally, the players usually towel down, so thats a good chance to show the highlights if needed.

if the tv angles were changed to courtside, or basically anything lower than *the roof* then the general public may appreciate the sheer speed of the game, rather than see some strange effects of gravity as some current broadcasts make the game look. tennis has less a much less vertical component, yet still uses the court side camera a lot. surely the broadcasters could at least experiment with a lower POV?

for example when i saw the surdiman cup on eurosport (on a widescreen as well, that may have affected it) the whole physics of the game looked bizzarre, but when they showed some close ups down by the court then you really felt those smashes and clears (WC2003 comes to mind).

if punch and co go to badminton tournaments and wonder why there is little interest from the broadcasters, maybe they should try watching it on tv.

An interesting observation at US Open this year. They hong the sponcer's logos on the end of the net. IBF should consider this to get some money. I also want to bring up the idea from football (or socer). They change the sponcer logos under the score every 1 or 2 min. Couldn't they do that during the live broadcast? Another thing is here in US, since the ESPN is broadcasting recorded match, they can replay as many time in between points or put in 5 commercials if they want. IMHO, IBF can increase badminton popularity just by putting up a big prize championship every year. Just compare the prize of US Open to WC this year. $1.1mil vs. $0.

Good points, its all about money when it comes to TV. After all, people want to see a tournament where 1 million goes to the winner. I think the sport of badminton itself doesnt need much changes.

Also, in order for TV to provide coverage, commercials must be sold! For LIVE coverage, commercial is everything. Without slots for commercials at the most exciting part of the game, no company would pay big money to buy the air time. Currently badminton have very few time slots available for commercials and instant replays. The few spots available are all at the conclusion of the games, which isnt the best time slots since thats when TV audience take breaks and go to the restrooms or to get something to eat.

Once again, what makes other BIG sports successful are ALL lacking in badminton at this time, however, the scoring and the length of the game isnt one of them. In fact, everyone want to watch a game between their favorite players as long as possible. NOT as short as possible. Take one example, as those of us that watch NBA, we all know that the last min of the game sometimes can be played out into 10 or 15 min with all the time outs and commercials and free throws. I think the sponsors and TV stations can all enjoy a long extended coverage when audience are glued to the TV waiting to find out who wins. No one ever seems to be complaining the game is too long.

Once again, there is too little drama created by time-outs like in other sports, there are way too few major sponsors, too few slots for commercials, too few badminton courts, and programs in north america, too little of everything, but the game itself is not too long. How hard is it to understand ? Does it take anyone with even just a high school diploma to figure that out? Given all the problems facing badminton, all they could think of is change the scoring and making the game shorter? Is that all? LOL.

hi jumpalot,

i like your insult of the tv network exec. now i know those ceos are high school grad and they figure that out already. :D

The idea of sponsor logo at the sides of the net isn't bad.

I also wonder why they (IBF) doesn't makes a "tournament series" like tennis. With someone else than Yonex as head sponsor. Again take the example from tennis, the ATP have Mercedes as "tour sponsor" and then each single tournament have their own sponsor, like Amstel, American Express etc.

Wouldn't it be possible to get one of the big Japanese or Korean electronic/car companies to be head tour sponsor. Especially since badminton is quite a big sport in these countries.

Then try to get more "local" tournament sponsors, like Yonex for Japan Open, BMW for German Open etc. I mean it can still be multinational companies but they just need to sponsor the tournament in their "own" country.

Once again, why don't they fix what's broken = marketing, instead of trying to make the sport more "TV-friendly". In fact we all know what that means... as nude girls as possible, that's the only thing which works today, Has nothing to do about how many commercial breaks there are or how "attractive" the sport is. It's all about ***, makes for great respect and understanding of the sport:mad:

And please don't tell me that the sport is boring, matches too long and rules confusing. If the americans (no offense meant) can believe that NFL is the greates of all sports then I'd say people in more "normal" parts of the world certainly won't have any problem with badminton as it is today.

/mats

Good points made all round.

From my vantage point in the UK, the talk of badminton games being too long is a little strange. Millions of people here have just watched the Ashes Test Cricket series. Five days per match. Football matches are shown live - a bit shorter at 90 minutes plus extra time and penalties if required, but there's 45 minutes before any ads can be shown. Tennis, golf, rugby, the list goes on.

The point is, and I've said this before here, the marketing men in badminton have simply gone away and talked to the tv suits and asked them what makes good sporting tv and the tv suits have given some bs, hiding the fact that they haven't got a clue.

Compelling sport is about rivalry, passion, skill, excitement, high stakes, big personalities and a certain amount of tribalism, for want of a better word. It ain't about ad breaks. Or scoring systems.

agree with all of the above, all the major televised sports across the world haven't had their basic rules changed in order to pander to television. Simply its that the basic image of badminton as a sport is that it isn't.. it's that it's the game you play in you backgarden with a steel racquet and a rubber shuttle.

whats really annoyin is that everytime i go training with my coach the courts are stacked full of people who look thoroughly stupid trying to play, hell they look like me playing left handed.. some of the look worse.. this is 14 out of every 16 people.

if this is what the general public think badminton is then there is little if any hope of the sport ever becoming like tennis or football.

to be fair, the IBF have a hell of a job turning round that sort of image, the only way to get money into the sport is through television coverage so they have to pander to the tv stations whims, advertising means $$$'s

interestingly tho - there is a thread somewhere.. with some clever maths shown.. that built some stats showing game length and other stuff. and compared rally scoring with serve scoring. i'm sure if you search for rule changes you'll find it..

some interesting stuff in there..

Coops

From my vantage point in the UK, the talk of badminton games being too long is a little strange. Millions of people here have just watched the Ashes Test Cricket series. Five days per match.

It ain't about ad breaks. Or scoring systems.

Oh yes, I forgot about the Ashes Test Cricket series......wonder how the "TV-suits" are going to explain that one;)

Personally I'd be thrilled to once in my life be at Lords. Seems like I have an affection for oddities:rolleyes:

And golf.....don't start me on that one. Not to be political but the total global expense on golf each year is more than it would cost to feed everyone on earth so no one would die of starvation (and there is more than enough food produced, just not distributed due to economical theories/systems). And what for? An activity (I refuse to call it a sport) which only proves that we will never get our farming and gardening genes out, no matter how much we declare to be living in an "information society".

/ mats

IBF - start get sponsors! Stop messing with the scoring system and rules.

agree with all of the above, all the major televised sports across the world haven't had their basic rules changed in order to pander to television. Simply its that the basic image of badminton as a sport is that it isn't.. it's that it's the game you play in you backgarden with a steel racquet and a rubber shuttle.

whats really annoyin is that everytime i go training with my coach the courts are stacked full of people who look thoroughly stupid trying to play, hell they look like me playing left handed.. some of the look worse.. this is 14 out of every 16 people.

if this is what the general public think badminton is then there is little if any hope of the sport ever becoming like tennis or football.

to be fair, the IBF have a hell of a job turning round that sort of image, the only way to get money into the sport is through television coverage so they have to pander to the tv stations whims, advertising means $$$'s

interestingly tho - there is a thread somewhere.. with some clever maths shown.. that built some stats showing game length and other stuff. and compared rally scoring with serve scoring. i'm sure if you search for rule changes you'll find it..

some interesting stuff in there..

Coops

here's that other thread

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20334&page=16&pp=18

cheers

Coops

It has been interesting to see what everyone else thinks about changes to the scoring.

So far I have seen best of 3 games to 21 points rally scoring, 5 games to 11 points rally scoring, remove the back service line, and allow coaching during games (which was successfully tried out at the 05 Worlds).

I think another reason why the IBF may want to shorten matches is to shorten the length of an entire tournament. The world championships took what like 6 days to complete? :confused:

With the shorter scoring format, they may be able to complete a tournament in 3 days. Which means less costs of hotel, food, and facility time to host an event. :rolleyes:

Which could mean more money for development. :D

If an entire tournament took 3 days, maybe we could get more people to attend the entire tournament (e.g. Friday, Saturday, Sunday). From what I herd the Finals at the World Championships in Anaheim had a better turnout than Past All England Tournaments.

I don't know how I feel about other scoring systems :confused:

Take care All
Toddster

The IBF really needs to hire someone in advertising / business to take what they have and market it. They need someone who went to school and has experience marketing and selling! U aren't going to promote the sport as much by changing the rules as you would by promoting it. Seriously, they need commercials for tournaments. I bet Gatorade or All-Sport or maybe Red Bull would sponsor badminton if you layed out all the [talent / physical] requirements to play internationally

this is ridiculous. lol

if you just want to have more commercials into the game
why just don't say so

want more commercial = need more breaks
simple right? as somebody already said above just make new law to have more breaks,, easy

what is this crap about making game shorter, changing score system

it seems that this punch guy not only good in bull******** but also doesn't seem to know answer of relatively simple problem ( supposedly simple for a guy of his status and position)

what a mess of ibf

like this and you want americans to take the game seriously
lol , it is the ibf management that is not taking this seriously
do some more work and research pls don't just talk and talk and talk based on individual thinking

so ridiculous

I personally think we shouldn't simply write off IBF's latest attempts to make the game more attractive to the:

1. Players - points more defined; game generally shorter; better thought-out strategy to implement; possibly more energy for an all-out attack and hopefully, less danger of getting injured. Matches could turn out to be more interesting and focussed.

2. Advertisers - and this is the key, more attractive for them to advertise and contribute to IBF's kitty which hopefully will translate into more attractive prize-monies for players. Beter incentives will in turn attract a greater number of good players.

3. Public - a more simplified scoring system makes for better understanding of the game and retain interest better. If it is too confusing, newcomers get turned off quite quickly and easily. Better spectator and TV viewer support can certainly boost the game further.

4. Coaches - have more time during the TV breaks to discuss strategies and tactics with player and make the subsequent battle more interesting and not totally one-sided hopefully.

If the 21-point new scoring system can bring about such positive changes, I don't think we can accuse the IBF of killing the badminton game? For all you know, the game may blossom beyond our wildest expectations!

It is only human to resist change, but without changes in human history, where do you think we will be heading? Will we be where we are now if our forefathers had not the courage to initiate changes, unpopular some of these maybe?

I'm not saying that these proposed changes by IBF will definitely bring about the desired results, but please give them a chance to be tested in the courts, in the market place, in the homes, in countries where badminton is being played. Do not condemn these right at the very beginning without even trying. You may win some and lose others, but a win is a win. :D

someone brought up that we should get more sponsors. well singapore did that remember its the AVIVA singapore open. yeps. thats a lil headway there. unfortunately this doesnt seem to be happening anywhere else.

personally i dont wish to condemn the system right away. i might try to accept it and possibly play to such a system to try it out in the near future. there might just be the problem of getting my playmates to also agree to play to such a system though

but i dont like the explanation given by this punch guy. changes so that it would be more tv friendly? so that players dont get injured so often? what a dumb comment to make

Agree with Wirre, It's not what is shown, it's how it's shown.

Punch wants to take the one step back and two steps forward approach (we been there with score changing before), but we are thinking is it necessary?

Here's an idea; IBF should utilise badminton's fanbase, they should organise a competition to create a short promotional film about badminton, because they lack (a) creativity and (b) money. One for each country/region. Fans can show the sports true characteristics, plus it's cheap too.

Winners get a day training with the pros, and get their film made and broadcasted. Local sponsors can sponsor each country...

Someone give me a job at IBF :rolleyes:

I am ready and willing to sign any petition against this madness, as I said many times before it is not about making changes to the game to make it interesting. It is about the IBF getting of its backside and marketing the game better!

someone brought up that we should get more sponsors. well singapore did that remember its the AVIVA singapore open. yeps. thats a lil headway there. unfortunately this doesnt seem to be happening anywhere else.

personally i dont wish to condemn the system right away. i might try to accept it and possibly play to such a system to try it out in the near future. there might just be the problem of getting my playmates to also agree to play to such a system though

but i dont like the explanation given by this punch guy. changes so that it would be more tv friendly? so that players dont get injured so often? what a dumb comment to make

Thank you for not dismissing IBF's attempts right away. Maybe Punch likes to deliver his blows with a sharp and powerful 'punch' to generate greater interest and publicity but I'm sure his intentions are good and he wants to do his utmost for the game.

Now that you mentioned AVIVA, which is a new multi-dollar sponsor to Singapore badminton, even surpassing Yonex to become the lead sponsor, I can't help but think of how the UK could miss the opportunity of getting this giant British insurance company to sponsor the prestigious AE, which is only a 4* event, despite its colourful and illustrious history.

As Punch Gunalan has said, the move of the IBF Headquarters from UK to KL this December has a lot to do with Asia being able to attract more and bigger sponsors.

Agree with Wirre, It's not what is shown, it's how it's shown.


Here's an idea; IBF should utilise badminton's fanbase, they should organise a competition to create a short promotional film about badminton, because they lack (a) creativity and (b) money. One for each country/region. Fans can show the sports true characteristics, plus it's cheap too.

:rolleyes:

If my memory serves me right, years ago, I have seen a promotional tape on badminton made by the IBF. Of course, IBF has other promotional and training items as well.

On the subject of change, IBF might have failed in the 5x7 point system, but it does not necessarily mean that IBF will fail again with the new 21-point scoring system. not unless it has been put to the test and the results are negative. Furthermore, circumstances may have changed and even a failure in the past may prove to be reverse under the present situation. ;)

I hate the rally system :( I don't mind if they raise the endscore from 15 till 21, but keep the service system, not the lfasldjkfasldf rally system :/

TheStar Sept 20' 05

KUALA LUMPUR: The International Badminton Federation (IBF) have asked all their affiliates to try out a “rally point scoring system” in their home tournaments.

Rules on two scoring formats – 21-point best-of-three games and 11-point best-of-five games – were sent out to the 156 members yesterday.

And a decision on whether to use one of them as the official scoring format from January next year will be made during the IBF council meeting scheduled for Dec 7-9.

The IBF deputy president, Datuk Punch Gunalan, said that they wanted to get feedback from their members on the new scoring formats.

“We have set the rules for the two ‘rally point scoring systems’ and want our members to try them out in their local tournaments,” said Gunalan. “Under these formats, a point is awarded for a rally won and whoever scores the point holds service. There have been more positive responses to the 21-point format.”

He said that one of the objectives of the format was to shorten the duration of matches.

“In the traditional system, a match can last from between 15 minutes and two-and-a-half hours. Our experiments have shown that matches played with the new scoring format take about 35 minutes.

“It is our aim to be television friendly. We do not want to be called an old-fashioned sport. We are also very concerned over the injuries to players now that the game has become very demanding.”

Under the 21-point format, a match will go to deuce at 20-20. The side getting two consecutive points wins the game. If the game is tied at 29-all, the side scoring the 30th point wins the game.

A similar concept is used in the 11-point format and deuce will be at 10-10 and the maximum point is 15.

For the doubles, the winner of a rally holds service but there will be no second server.

The five-minute break between games has been reduced to two. And in the rubber game, a one-minute break is given at the change of courts at 11 and six points for the 21-point and 11-point game respectively.

“We anticipate that these scoring formats will make badminton more exciting,” said Gunalan.

So does anyone have the actual rules yet? I seem to have a hard time finding them on the net.

I've read view points of how it's meant to work, will work and the total opposite points. So I thought I've read enough and it's time to try it darn thing out.

So if anyone does have the rules can you please post it up.

So I can see the new marketing for badminton now:

Try the new BADMINTON LIGHT !! Now 30% less action, 30% less calories and scoring !!! New PING PONG scoring!!! everyone can finally understand Badminton Light now !! Watch it on TV today !!!

So does anyone have the actual rules yet? I seem to have a hard time finding them on the net.

I haven't seen anything official and when I mentioned this at the local club, people were like "Whatever" saying unless it's official-official and they make universal changes in all tournaments, they were going to stay with the current rules.

The rally system is confusing in doubles' play. When the first server failes to score, the second server serves in the same court where the first server served. When we tried it, we spend more time arguing where to serve. Whew!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:

So does anyone have the actual rules yet? I seem to have a hard time finding them on the net.

I've read view points of how it's meant to work, will work and the total opposite points. So I thought I've read enough and it's time to try it darn thing out.

So if anyone does have the rules can you please post it up.

You might have missed Ants posting just before yours. This relates to the proposed new scoring systems to be tested by IBF members and reported back to IBF by early December whereby a final decision will be made during its Council meeting from Dec 7-9. Implementation, if any, will be in Jan 2006.

As I understand from that post, two scoring systems are encouraged to be tried out for both singles and doubles. No mention of any difference for men and women, therefore I take it that they apply to both genders.

(A) 21 points (best of 3 games) (System 21) and
(B) 11 points (best of 5 games) (System 11).

Deuce:

(A) At 20-20 points, max 29-29 with final winning point at 30.
(B) At 10-10 points, max 14-14 with final winning point at 15.

Doubles - No second server (This makes it very clear now as there will not be any confusion on who will serve second at what point.)

Time Breaks

1. Between Games - 2 minutes
2. Changing Courts after each game and for the deciding game, at (A) 11 points for System 21 and (B) 6 points for System 11 - 1 minute

I guess this will make it easier for TV commercials to be broadcast. Coaches are more definite on the time allowed for discussion with players and for players to replenish liquids, etc.

i do not like the new system. I prefer old system!

You might have missed Ants posting just before yours. This relates to the proposed new scoring systems to be tested by IBF members and reported back to IBF by early December whereby a final decision will be made during its Council meeting from Dec 7-9. Implementation, if any, will be in Jan 2006.

As I understand from that post, two scoring systems are encouraged to be tried out for both singles and doubles. No mention of any difference for men and women, therefore I take it that they apply to both genders.

(A) 21 points (best of 3 games) (System 21) and
(B) 11 points (best of 5 games) (System 11).

Deuce:

(A) At 20-20 points, max 29-29 with final winning point at 30.
(B) At 10-10 points, max 14-14 with final winning point at 15.

Doubles - No second server (This makes it very clear now as there will not be any confusion on who will serve second at what point.)

Time Breaks

1. Between Games - 2 minutes
2. Changing Courts after each game and for the deciding game, at (A) 11 points for System 21 and (B) 6 points for System 11 - 1 minute

I guess this will make it easier for TV commercials to be broadcast. Coaches are more definite on the time allowed for discussion with players and for players to replenish liquids, etc.

Ooo thanks dude, I'm going to try this out when I get to the club this weekend.

so,

i thought they want more breaks for tv commercial

so why shorten the breaks times?

so,

i thought they want more breaks for tv commercial

so why shorten the breaks times?

I suppose apart from the official breaks, time is also available between matches (not games) to slot in any commercials. As being tested, it was found out that the proposed System 21 should generally be of a shorter duration (average 35 min) than the existing one of 15 points (System 15), therefore it is expected that there will be a savings in time for the commercials. Better planning can ensue to bring in the advertising dollars for IBF. ;)

BTW, when there is a deuce, two consecutive points will win the match instead of stretching to either 30 or 15 points.

It seems to me that the players themselves are getting kinda a bum deal out of this.
Its all very well being all nice and short and full of ads for the television, but what about people who are playing the game. They have to now play a game thats too back and forward. Wheres the skill involved now?
The people who come up with these rules are pathetic, we are not amused :mad:

It seems that most of BFer's don't agree with the changing of score system.
I think we may not judge that this new system is bad before we try it.

When IBF changed the system to 5 x 7 points. There were was also many comments and many countries agains it. But IBF had done it. After that IBF set the score system back 3 x 15 point, because 5 x 7 points didn't work.

Also this time IBF (especially Punch) tries to change the score system in the name of 'TV friendly', 'More attractive', 'For the populairity of Badminton', and so on and so on....

We should therefore wait and see whether this system will work to fulfil the IBF's needed.

My opinion is :
If IBF want to make 'TV friendly', 'Badminton attractive'. First thing has to be done is : let the lady wear a sexy outfit like tennis. So.... we -badminton fun- get Xie Xing Fangova, Zhang Ningova, Mia Audinanova, Tracey Hallamova, Kaori Morinova, and the others .....nova's.

Most of you guys will start a petition. How ? It is difficult.
My suggestion is : publish an e-mail address from Mr. P. Gunalan. Every one of you can send an email to him as a protest. If 10% of BF members send an email, it means total +/- 1000 mails will flow to his mailbox. And... you know what it means ;)

I think what they have to do first before changing allll the rules is to put some advertisments in stores, magazines, tv, radio etc. Then when people find out that its not some sissy backyard game, and they start getting into it then they should start thinking of this. This idea is 50/50 chance. If it works then great! But if not, it coould ruin badminton because if people watching it on TV arent completely satisfied, then they most likely wont give it a second chance. It has to work the first time.

We should therefore wait and see whether this system will work to fulfil the IBF's needed.

This is what i really dislike.. As when moving to 5x7 I think IBF is chasing windmills, and the worst thing is that this side-tracks waste time, effort, energy that could be put to better use to do REAL things that would actually help to grow badminton popularity and media coverage...

As i see it IBF is looking for "easy" fixes (something that could be decided in a meeting room and put into a document, that magically makes wonders for the sport...), as opposed to something that would require them to do actual "work" :-)

Of course, there is no rule changes that could act like "silver-bullets" in making a sport popular.. If IBF can't see that, I think they should resign immideately!!!

If they want to mess with the scoring system.. Why not start just in one area? For example US, and if they can grow the sports popularity there and media coverage by changing the scoring (fat chance, I am afraid :-( ), then they could go from there and start using it in other countries, once proven success..

Changing the scoring systems in countries where badminton is already popular, even runs the risk of confusing more, and making the sport less popular and attractive for media!! So I think IBF should be really carefull not to do to many not-so-well-thought-of changes to an already great sport!!!

my 2 cents,
Twobeer

twobeer, very good post. I agree with everything.

My post here general has north america in mind where badminton is not popular and I believe thats IBF's main goal at this time is to make it more popular in north america and perhaps Europe. I cant imagine any of the changes were desingned for the asian market since badminton is extremely well known and popular.

The main question for this topic I have is did IBF only listened to a few TV stations that probably have no idea about badminton? So when they provided coverage they only could think about that the game is too long and there is too little commercial spots for sponsors? Did IBF simply say well ok we will make it shorter ? Did IBF think about all the TV stations that have never covered badminton which is probably 99% of the TV stations? My next question Is: IS IBF looking to expand the market or trying to please the few T executives who probably know nothing about badminton? Obviously, I think we can all agree expanding the market is infinitely more important and changing the scoring and making the game shorter is probably NOT going to increase interest in badminton. Let me put it simply, there are TV programs and sports or games that could literally double in the length in time and people will still watch it on TV ( example : Olympics ). There are games and programs that can be cut in half the time and people still wouldnt watch it on TV ( use your imagination) . The key word is INTEREST. If there is interest then the program can be as long as possible while if there is no interest then the program could be 1 min and still much too long. Anyways, IBF needs to generate interest in badminton. For example, buy commercials for badminton for TV !! NOT just trying to expect free coverage and trying to change the game of badminton. That is my guess but it's probably whats happening. Anyways, changing the scoring and cutting the game short may have its benefits but its NOT designed to raise INTEREST. It will not change the image of badminton and it will not bring people to watch it on TV and I can guarantee you that TV Stations knows that.

Finally, Lets keep in mind that everything we see on TV is pretty much based on ratings unless its NEWS or Commercials. For a sport with no history of ratings like badminton, marketing survey must be done before TV stations will even consider it. In another word, the program has to have enough % audience that will watch it and must have enough sponsors that will buy the open slots for airing commercials. So for any TV execs to say that badminton needs to be shorter and whatever is pretty much BS there is no audience for it so there is no need to make it shorter. Now, The only reason badminton in USA got "some" coverage is that Americans won and made history. That is "interesting" ! NOT that badminton might have a rule change. The last time badminton had a rule change only the badminton world knew about it. Ask anyone who doesnt know anything about badminton if they heard about the rule change. Once again, after this rule change, ask people if they know about it and ask them if they care.

KUALA LUMPUR: Next year's Thomas-Uber Cup Finals in Japan will use a 21-point rally scoring format. Hong Kong celebrity Sally Yeh is now the world badminton's ambassador. And India will host the World Championships for the first time.



These were among some interesting decisions made during the International Badminton Federation (IBF) council meeting at the Istana Hotel here yesterday.

In an effort to popularise the sport and be television-friendly, the council decided that the new 21-point best-of-three games will be experimented with from Feb 1 in all IBF tournaments that offers world ranking points.

After the Thomas-Uber Cup Finals in Japan from April 28-May 7, the council will decide if the scoring format is successful and should be adopted for all their tournaments, including the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

IBF event committee chairman Paisan Rangsikitpho said: “We have decided to try the rally point scoring system from Feb 1 for both the men and the women. This is in line with our efforts to improve the presentation of the game.

“A final decision will be made on whether to use scoring format on a permanent basis at the next council meeting in Japan.”

“Under these formats, a point is awarded for a rally won and whoever scores the point holds service. For the doubles, the winner of a rally holds service but there will be no second server.

“There will be only breaks at the 11th point for all the events. Apart from that break, players will have to stay inside the court whenever play is stopped. Time will not be wasted and duration of a match can be shortened,” he said.

In an effort to bring in the crowd, the IBF have also decided to inject entertainment into the sport.

Sally has been named the new IBF ambassador.

“We also want our sport to entertain the crowd. Sally will be the right person to promote this game. She is loved by the public and has a great following,” said council member Eraj Wijesinghe.

Meanwhile, India have been named as the host for the 2009 World Championships, the first time the country will host the meet.

Spain is hosting the world meet next year while Malaysia will host it in 2007. Jakarta will host the 2008 Thomas-Uber Cup Final while the Sudirman Cup will be held in Guangzhou.

Abit late right? i've posted this already

Abit late right? i've posted this already

sorry......... :o
i just make sure anyone know the news. What do you think about the news?

lol..anyways...never tried this new scoring format b4..i shud try some times...i'm sure some on this forum have tried b4...can anyone comment on this new format?

Isnt this making it more like tennis? Where it doesnt matter who serves either side can get points?

Next thing you know they'll be allowing the "ball" to bounce once like tennis too >.>

sorry......... :o
i just make sure anyone know the news. What do you think about the news?

It stinks. :( I tried it a few times already playing doubles and within 5 minutes, everyone forgets the score. :p

IMHO I don't really like the new scoring system :mad:. How can a different scoring system popularize the sport. It might ease the comprehension of the game but does this change the person's interest in the game? :confused:

We've tried it several times, even before it was officially proposed. It stinks. Turns it into a percentage game, with no incentive to take risks or go the extra step. One of the biggest advantages of the 3x15 system is that it allows for stirring comebacks -- you can be down 0-14 and facing matchpoint, but you can still fight back and win. No longer. I mean, theoretically it is still possible, but in practice that facet has been completely eliminated. For all practical purposes, a lead of 5 by mid-game is crushing. Another thing -- it's been a mantra for decades, "you can't score points if you can't serve" -- that is a BIG part of what badminton is about, and the rally scoring kills it.

Also, the games go by far too fast. You barely break a sweat and game is over. Admittedly, it is better than 5x7, but should never be considered a replacement for 3x15. This is really bad for slow starters. And keeping score in doubles is a nightmare.

Why does IBF keep doing this kind of silly stuff? They kill careers by changing things so drastically. (Gopichand, for example.)

Did I mention this stinks? THIS IS NOT HOW TO POPULARIZE THE GAME! (sorry for shouting, but it really stinks.)

Agreed this "experiment" has to be one of the stupidest ideas in IBF:s history!!!

And I was planning to attend Thomas Cup in Japan this year.. With these badminton-rules I'll definitvely cancel the flight/tickets for the event!! I want to watch "real" badminton not this uninteresting scoring!!!

/Twobeer

We've tried it several times, even before it was officially proposed. It stinks. Turns it into a percentage game, with no incentive to take risks or go the extra step.

Agree wholeheartedly. When we tried the new scoring system, everyone was so cautious not to hit the shuttle out. The game was a bunch of boring clears. :(

We've tried it several times, even before it was officially proposed. It stinks. Turns it into a percentage game, with no incentive to take risks or go the extra step. One of the biggest advantages of the 3x15 system is that it allows for stirring comebacks -- you can be down 0-14 and facing matchpoint, but you can still fight back and win. No longer. I mean, theoretically it is still possible, but in practice that facet has been completely eliminated. For all practical purposes, a lead of 5 by mid-game is crushing. Another thing -- it's been a mantra for decades, "you can't score points if you can't serve" -- that is a BIG part of what badminton is about, and the rally scoring kills it.

Also, the games go by far too fast. You barely break a sweat and game is over. Admittedly, it is better than 5x7, but should never be considered a replacement for 3x15. This is really bad for slow starters. And keeping score in doubles is a nightmare.

Why does IBF keep doing this kind of silly stuff? They kill careers by changing things so drastically. (Gopichand, for example.)

Did I mention this stinks? THIS IS NOT HOW TO POPULARIZE THE GAME! (sorry for shouting, but it really stinks.)


Wholeheartedly agreed with you. IBF is not thinking of us badminton fans. They are only thinking of TELEVISION. I am going to refuse to watch any telecast with rally point system. No loss there, damned boring!!!

i think we should let them try it out, i hope that no sport would be dumb enough to change the rules without taking into account the affect it might have on the popularity of the sport in general.

if it works and badminton is televised more universally and becomes even half as lucrative as tennis then i will be pleased for the sport, because if it's interesting to watch, then it's got to be interesting to play.

give it a chance i say! don't be afraid of change - if it really sucks, then they'll put it back..

Coops

i think we should let them try it out, i hope that no sport would be dumb enough to change the rules without taking into account the affect it might have on the popularity of the sport in general.

if it works and badminton is televised more universally and becomes even half as lucrative as tennis then i will be pleased for the sport, because if it's interesting to watch, then it's got to be interesting to play.

give it a chance i say! don't be afraid of change - if it really sucks, then they'll put it back..

Coops

don't see the logic there.. Why not change to bigger racket, bouncing balls and bigger court.. and also change the name to Tennis, just to get more money and TV-air time :p

The whole reason for IBF to mess with these rules is to make games shorter. (which they THINK would be better for Television).. If they had half the brain they would understand that this is NOT the root problem, and that indeed tennis matches for example many times are much longer!!

To popularize badminton, one has to analyze WHAT makes a game popular.. What makes Tennis popular? Is it the simple to understand scoring? Is it the size of the court? is it the line-markings?

If you think deep enough you'll probably reach the conslusion that the poplarity and Telvision covery of the sport will not change dramatically by moving from service scoring to rally scoring.. redrawing court lines, rule changes etc etc..

These are just "diversions" from the real issue, and by wasting energy on this energy that could be put into greater use for the sport is lost :(

/twobeer

don't see the logic there.. Why not change to bigger racket, bouncing balls and bigger court.. and also change the name to Tennis, just to get more money and TV-air time :p

The whole reason for IBF to mess with these rules is to make games shorter. (which they THINK would be better for Television).. If they had half the brain they would understand that this is NOT the root problem, and that indeed tennis matches for example many times are much longer!!

To popularize badminton, one has to analyze WHAT makes a game popular.. What makes Tennis popular? Is it the simple to understand scoring? Is it the size of the court? is it the line-markings?

If you think deep enough you'll probably reach the conslusion that the poplarity and Telvision covery of the sport will not change dramatically by moving from service scoring to rally scoring.. redrawing court lines, rule changes etc etc..

These are just "diversions" from the real issue, and by wasting energy on this energy that could be put into greater use for the sport is lost :(

/twobeer

I'll have to agree with Coops on this one. Although I find the new system horrible and a nuisance, we should still give time to adjust and try it out. So far, I still think the new system sucks.

I'll have to agree with Coops on this one. Although I find the new system horrible and a nuisance, we should still give time to adjust and try it out. So far, I still think the new system sucks.

But what would be the point? Why not try 5x15 rally scoring? 5x9 std. 1x40 rally paus ever 10 point etc etc..

You can come up with all sorts of wacky scoring systems to try..

But if it aint broken why try to fix it????

If 3x21 rally-scoring isn't a success what should we try next year????

If the only thing IBF does for the sports is suggestion new rules to try out.. I don't think they are doing a great job of promoting the sport!!

/Twobeer

But what would be the point? Why not try 5x15 rally scoring? 5x9 std. 1x40 rally paus ever 10 point etc etc..

You can come up with all sorts of wacky scoring systems to try..

But if it aint broken why try to fix it????

If 3x21 rally-scoring isn't a success what should we try next year????

If the only thing IBF does for the sports is suggestion new rules to try out.. I don't think they are doing a great job of promoting the sport!!

/Twobeer

from what i remember the reason to move to rally scoring was that the general public found the scoring system complicated. The move to rally scoring should simplify it so that more people can understand what's going on..

personally i think we should increase the points to 25 and tie breaks up to 40... this would ensure a similar length game..

Coops

from what i remember the reason to move to rally scoring was that the general public found the scoring system complicated. The move to rally scoring should simplify it so that more people can understand what's going on..

Have never met anyone I couldn't explain the scoring of "first to 15, point only when serving" to in less than a minute.. If they think that's hard to grasp... How would you explain an illegal serve to them :)

It's a silly argument.. And we all know that most other popular games have more complex rules....

Why doesn't Tennis change from 15,30,40 game to 1,2,3,4 points... O those ATP managers must be sooo stuuuupid :rolleyes: ..think how much more popular tennis would be with simpler scoring :p

/Twobeer

Have never met anyone I couldn't explain the scoring of "first to 15, point only when serving" to in less than a minute.. If they think that's hard to grasp... How would you explain an illegal serve to them :)

It's a silly argument.. And we all know that most other popular games have more complex rules....

Why doesn't Tennis change from 15,30,40 game to 1,2,3,4 points... O those ATP managers must be sooo stuuuupid :rolleyes: ..think how much more popular tennis would be with simpler scoring :p

/Twobeer

i think it was the not scoring unless your serving bit that people didn't understand.. ie.. you win a rally, but it doesn't get you anything but the serve.. and the serve isn't exactly an advantage.

don't get me wrong - i'm happy with how the scoring is at the moment, but i have faith in the IBF to do the right thing. tennis and table tennis have both tweaked rules to make them more tv, spectator and player friendly.

it's cheaper to change rules than it is to try to market a sport, especially when the sport's image is so 'back-garden'. it would require a vast spend to get the sport anywhere near where it wants to be. And for a lot of people that's either not justified, or simply can't be afforded.

Complaining about it doesn't achieve anything. As my maths teacher once said - don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions..

saying ' we need to market the sport better' is not a solution. unless of course your willing to pay billions to get 'Play badminton' emblazoned on every billboard, bus, taxi, tv advert, sports superstar etc etc so that the sport get's into the public eye.

i respect the IBF for not giving up and doing everything they can to make the sport more popular..

Coops

saying ' we need to market the sport better' is not a solution. unless of course your willing to pay billions to get 'Play badminton' emblazoned on every billboard, bus, taxi, tv advert, sports superstar etc etc so that the sport get's into the public eye.

i respect the IBF for not giving up and doing everything they can to make the sport more popular..

Coops

My problem is that i don't think they by doing rule changes is doing "everything they can".. I think they are looking for "quick fixes" that they can put down in a document in an anual meeting without requiring any "real" work from their part...

I am not even sure marketing today neccessarilly need to be that extremely expensive... given New channels like internet etc. It will however require lots of work!

You can say, that I do not have the right to have an opintion on their work, as I do not walk in their shoes..
Or that it's easier to sit at the sidelines and shout than to actually produce yourself :)

Of course it is..

I can even sit and critizise some of the pro players and find misstakes in their game, techinque and tactics, knowing I will never in my life be even close to their abilities!!

It's not like Gades coach would be able to do a better job against Lin Dan, but I am sure Gade listens to his advices :).

If I where the IBF president.. Maybe I would also be looking for "the holy grail".. finding that one rule change that would instantly make the public start watching all games and sponsors running to get a piece of the action...
But I ain't, and however objective I try to be about it, I strongly feel they are barking up the wrong tree here!!

Lets just face it.. Lots of hard work, and lobbying and activities, actions to involve all players and fans, and the manufacturers of equipment clothing etc etc.. is needed for IBF.. But do the IBF board members want to put in that time and effort? Who would pay them?? What would be the incentives??

My proposal would be for IBF to do the following:

a) Try to form a Mens Single Tour (kind of ATP) and if possbile a mens double tour. try to negotiate with manufacturers and Sport-channels right from the beginning.

b) When supplying video footage etc to media.. make sure the way to the finals are covered.. not only the finals... The way up to the finals is probably more important than the final just by it self.. if you want some excitment..

c) Use the Internet as a marketing channel.. the IBFs web-site isn't that impressive from a marketing perespective :(
little money could go a long where here.. and commercial thinking would make it possible to fund things as well I beleive (sponsorship, ad's. etc etc.)

The Key is to think business... It's like when F1 started.. You have the product.. what IBF needs is sales-guys girls and a good sales process.. then sell sell sell..

/twobeer

My problem is that i don't think they by doing rule changes is doing "everything they can".. I think they are looking for "quick fixes" that they can put down in a document in an anual meeting without requiring any "real" work from their part...

i don't believe this - there are people on the IBF who are ex-players - simply this cannot be, they are looking for a fix that they can afford and can budget, we don't want an NHL situation where they missed an entire season because they couldn't pay

a) Try to form a Mens Single Tour (kind of ATP) and if possbile a mens double tour. try to negotiate with manufacturers and Sport-channels right from the beginning.
but if the image of badminton is back-garden why would people watch this on telly, or even go to the events? and if some people go / watch - do enough people go / watch for advertisers to make enough return on the serises?

b) When supplying video footage etc to media.. make sure the way to the finals are covered.. not only the finals... The way up to the finals is probably more important than the final just by it self.. if you want some excitment..
more footage means more money to show it on the channels....

c) Use the Internet as a marketing channel.. the IBFs web-site isn't that impressive from a marketing perespective :(
little money could go a long where here.. and commercial thinking would make it possible to fund things as well I beleive (sponsorship, ad's. etc etc.)

The Key is to think business... It's like when F1 started.. You have the product.. what IBF needs is sales-guys girls and a good sales process.. then sell sell sell..

/twobeer
totally agree with your last point :D

i'm sure the IBF does think business and this is probably the reason that we don't see badminton televised as much as we'd like - big mainstream TV channels in Europe and America simply won't pay for badminton to be aired when they can put something on that more people will watch.

while rule changes do appear like quick fixed, they are really the only 'free' thing the ibf can do, and if they can make badminton appeal to more people without spending a fortune then this can only be a good thing.

have faith my fellow badmintonite - they will come through for us :)

Coops

i don't believe this - there are people on the IBF who are ex-players - simply this cannot be, they are looking for a fix that they can afford and can budget, we don't want an NHL situation where they missed an entire season because they couldn't pay

have faith my fellow badmintonite - they will come through for us :)

Coops

I think there is a fallacy here. The IBF folks keep saying "oh, make the game shorter, make the rules simpler, and it will go on TV, and it will become popular!" I think that is silly, and not borne out by facts. For, why? Can they give us one good reason? People stay up past midnight to watch Agassi play a four hour match. Look at cricket and baseball. It is difficult to invent games with more complicated rules, and yet they are on TV all the time. Cricket Test matches go on for FIVE DAYS at a time, and nobody, but nobody, complains about them. Instead, they _cherish_ the eccentricities of their game. Admittedly, they have come up with shorter versions of the game, but the long version remains paramount. Nobody says the IBF shouldn't experiment. But they are the custodians of the game, and they should be doing everything in their power to maintain the integrity and spirit of the game, not selling out to TV executives in hopes of making a fast buck.

These rule changes they are imposing from top down make drastic changes in how Badminton is played. And the changes, as far as I have been able to tell, have all been to the bad. This is not the price I want to pay for potential increase on American TV.

And please, don't tell me about simplified scoring. I defy anyone to explain in plain English how this new scoring system will work in doubles.

okay - so if you don't want rule changes, then come up with something that is affordable....

i pity the ibf, nothing they do is ever going to please everybody, they are at least trying.

if next season the ibf launched a men's singles and doubles series, which had stages in all 5 continents and was coverd by Sky sports and ESPN and had the finals in the albert hall or something and then the next season they couldn't afford to give prize money for any events or even get any badminton on tv at all we'd complain then too..

if they launched an all singing all dancing website that had live results and video feeds, player profiles, ticket sales etc. etc we'd complain that it wasn't enough or that the site couldn't cope with the traffic it was generating.

so when they make what i think is a little change to the scoring system, (and playing to 21 doesn't count because we've done that for a long time in some places) all hell breaks loose.. this change in scoring in my opinion doesn't represent a wholesale changing of the way we play the sport. Give it time, see if it works.. the IBF have experimented before, and wouldn't unleash a rule change, unless they were sure that they needed too - especially given the mess other rule changes have caused..

Coops

KUALA LUMPUR:
In an effort to popularise the sport and be television-friendly, the council decided that the new 21-point best-of-three games will be experimented with from Feb 1 in all IBF tournaments that offers world ranking points.
i believe they will start testing the new scoring system in the Thomas and Uber Cups Continental preliminary stages.....and during that time frame, let's see what other significant or higher star tournaments will be affected:
-Philippine Open, Feb 01-09
-Thomas and Uber Cups Continental stages, Feb 08-22
-Aviva Cofco China Masters, Feb 8-12
-Commonwealth Games, March 16-25
-Asian Badminton Championships, March 28 to April 02
-European Championships , April 11-16
-Thomas and Uber Cups, April 28-May 07
http://www.worldbadminton.net/Portal/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=18
boy, that'll be an interesting turn of events... :p :rolleyes:

After the Thomas-Uber Cup Finals in Japan from April 28-May 7, the council will decide if the scoring format is successful and should be adopted for all their tournaments, including the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

phew, thank goodness they will only have to wait til after the Thomas and Uber Cups to make their decision....my hunch is, they will bail out from the new idea and go back to the previous scoring system..but who knows.. :p :rolleyes:

okay - so if you don't want rule changes, then come up with something that is affordable....

i pity the ibf, nothing they do is ever going to please everybody, they are at least trying.

if next season the ibf launched a men's singles and doubles series, which had stages in all 5 continents and was coverd by Sky sports and ESPN and had the finals in the albert hall or something and then the next season they couldn't afford to give prize money for any events or even get any badminton on tv at all we'd complain then too..

if they launched an all singing all dancing website that had live results and video feeds, player profiles, ticket sales etc. etc we'd complain that it wasn't enough or that the site couldn't cope with the traffic it was generating.

so when they make what i think is a little change to the scoring system, (and playing to 21 doesn't count because we've done that for a long time in some places) all hell breaks loose.. this change in scoring in my opinion doesn't represent a wholesale changing of the way we play the sport. Give it time, see if it works.. the IBF have experimented before, and wouldn't unleash a rule change, unless they were sure that they needed too - especially given the mess other rule changes have caused..

Coops

Well, asking me to come up with an alternative is useless. If they put me in charge, sure I will.:cool:

Actually, they have had a history of trying to mess with the scoring system. Didn't they come up with the 5x7 with barely any experimentation? My main problem with the IBF is that they are not holding to the paramount rule that they ought to be holding up: "First, do no harm!"

I think this kind of wholesale messing around is harmful. What they should have done was suggest the 3x21rally as an option and let it exist for a few years and if people thought it worked, then consider including it in some tournaments, and if it proved wildly successful, then switch over completely. It should have been a multi-year process, maybe even a decade-long one, not just a dictat handed down from on above.

Well, asking me to come up with an alternative is useless. If they put me in charge, sure I will.:cool:

Actually, they have had a history of trying to mess with the scoring system. Didn't they come up with the 5x7 with barely any experimentation? My main problem with the IBF is that they are not holding to the paramount rule that they ought to be holding up: "First, do no harm!"

I think this kind of wholesale messing around is harmful. What they should have done was suggest the 3x21rally as an option and let it exist for a few years and if people thought it worked, then consider including it in some tournaments, and if it proved wildly successful, then switch over completely. It should have been a multi-year process, maybe even a decade-long one, not just a dictat handed down from on above.


:D i'm sure the IBF appreciate suggestions from everybody..

some people would say by not making changes they are doing the sport harm already.

Your right, they screwed up changing the scoring last time.. and personally i think they have learnt their lesson and investigated this new change more thoroughly.

but having alternative scoring systems for different competitions is messy, and could lead to the sport becoming divided into different camps. This would also harm the sport.
The IBF haven't just said - this is the scoring system like it or lump it. they are trialling it till after the TC and UC. so they're not trialling it for long, but they are trialling it over a number of different tournaments at different levels. Let us see how it pan's out i say.. if it doesn't work, then we'll just return to the original - experiment over, no harm done..

Coops

okay - so if you don't want rule changes, then come up with something that is affordable....

Coops

Well since you asked :D

Here is a simple way to increase ad revenues by an order of magnitude. Bear with me, please, while I explain.

An average 15-point game lasts a bit less than 15 minutes in real time. If however you were to use a stop watch and measure the time that the shuttle is actually in play, it is only about 4 minutes. Seriously. Check it for yourself if you don't believe me. Let's give it some slack and say 6 minutes. This means, in every game, there is 7-8 minutes available for ads! That is, there is time for about 15 30-second spots!! The only problem is that these times do not come in well-regulated chunks, so it is not possible to simply interrupt the telecast at the end of a point and show an ad.

Unless: you adopt a TiVo-like technology to do the telecast. Suppose you have the ability to pause the telecast at will. Then, consider the following sequence --
1. start the telecast when the referee says "love-all, play"
2. show the first two points in entirety
3. pause the telecast -- continue recording the game, but show a couple of ads instead.
4. resume the telecast, but now only show recorded snippets that go from about 5 seconds before serve to 5 seconds after rally ends, until the recorded session has caught up to real time -- this will happen about 5 minutes into the game, about a third of the way in.
5. pause again and show ads
6. resume telecast as above, and when the recording does catch up with real time again, this time around the 10 minute mark, don't stop, but continue with uninterrupted real time telecast till the end. A win-win-win situation, where the ads get shown, the game doesn't get interrupted, and the end of the game, which is usually the most tense, doesn't get interrupted either.

I have no idea if that will work. But it seems to me that technologically speaking, it is possible. And maybe the extra revenue will make it worth somebody's while to test this.

Well since you asked :D

Here is a simple way to increase ad revenues by an order of magnitude. Bear with me, please, while I explain.

An average 15-point game lasts a bit less than 15 minutes in real time. If however you were to use a stop watch and measure the time that the shuttle is actually in play, it is only about 4 minutes. Seriously. Check it for yourself if you don't believe me. Let's give it some slack and say 6 minutes. This means, in every game, there is 7-8 minutes available for ads! That is, there is time for about 15 30-second spots!! The only problem is that these times do not come in well-regulated chunks, so it is not possible to simply interrupt the telecast at the end of a point and show an ad.

Unless: you adopt a TiVo-like technology to do the telecast. Suppose you have the ability to pause the telecast at will. Then, consider the following sequence --
1. start the telecast when the referee says "love-all, play"
2. show the first two points in entirety
3. pause the telecast -- continue recording the game, but show a couple of ads instead.
4. resume the telecast, but now only show recorded snippets that go from about 5 seconds before serve to 5 seconds after rally ends, until the recorded session has caught up to real time -- this will happen about 5 minutes into the game, about a third of the way in.
5. pause again and show ads
6. resume telecast as above, and when the recording does catch up with real time again, this time around the 10 minute mark, don't stop, but continue with uninterrupted real time telecast till the end. A win-win-win situation, where the ads get shown, the game doesn't get interrupted, and the end of the game, which is usually the most tense, doesn't get interrupted either.

I have no idea if that will work. But it seems to me that technologically speaking, it is possible. And maybe the extra revenue will make it worth somebody's while to test this.

IBF.. listen to this man!!!!!!
a thoroughly creative and well thought out solution :) your a genius..

altho i wonder what would happen when you get to the latter stages of a tournament and the games last closer to half an hour than 15 minutes..

i mean - you could even just shove in a mandatory ad break every 15 minutes of play, and like you said, cut the time that the shuttle isn't in play out..

great thinking man - i like it :)

Coops

I have no idea if that will work. But it seems to me that technologically speaking, it is possible. And maybe the extra revenue will make it worth somebody's while to test this.

Dealyed transmission is very common in the TV insudtry, so to "time-slip" sports-events in order to get comercial in, is a real possibility with current techonology..

I think these kind of "createive" thinking is what is neede by IBF.. isntead of just looking for the holy rule change that will sway the media over :)

/Twobeer

since we have all these discussions revolving around IBF, new scoring system, popularity, etc etc. Does BF/BC has any influence in IBF? Any of the members work for IBF/have "a say" in the decision making?

IF we sign a petition/online petition to IBF to keep badminton just as it is right now, will it work? will they even consider it? I'm pretty sure some one could organize an online petition or even a real one to keep badminton as it is.

okay - so if you don't want rule changes, then come up with something that is affordable....

i pity the ibf, nothing they do is ever going to please everybody, they are at least trying.

if next season the ibf launched a men's singles and doubles series, which had stages in all 5 continents and was coverd by Sky sports and ESPN and had the finals in the albert hall or something and then the next season they couldn't afford to give prize money for any events or even get any badminton on tv at all we'd complain then too..

if they launched an all singing all dancing website that had live results and video feeds, player profiles, ticket sales etc. etc we'd complain that it wasn't enough or that the site couldn't cope with the traffic it was generating.

so when they make what i think is a little change to the scoring system, (and playing to 21 doesn't count because we've done that for a long time in some places) all hell breaks loose.. this change in scoring in my opinion doesn't represent a wholesale changing of the way we play the sport. Give it time, see if it works.. the IBF have experimented before, and wouldn't unleash a rule change, unless they were sure that they needed too - especially given the mess other rule changes have caused..

Coops

You seriously think the rule change will work? It may be cheap, but surely no advantage there. All I know is that if you pay peanuts you will going to get monkeys!

You seriously think the rule change will work? It may be cheap, but surely no advantage there. All I know is that if you pay peanuts you will going to get monkeys!

i never said it would work - i said give it a chance...

:D i'm sure the IBF appreciate suggestions from everybody..

some people would say by not making changes they are doing the sport harm already.

Your right, they screwed up changing the scoring last time.. and personally i think they have learnt their lesson and investigated this new change more thoroughly.

but having alternative scoring systems for different competitions is messy, and could lead to the sport becoming divided into different camps. This would also harm the sport.
The IBF haven't just said - this is the scoring system like it or lump it. they are trialling it till after the TC and UC. so they're not trialling it for long, but they are trialling it over a number of different tournaments at different levels. Let us see how it pan's out i say.. if it doesn't work, then we'll just return to the original - experiment over, no harm done..

Coops

But I am puzzled how they intend to "eavluate" the trial..
What factors metrics will they use to measure success??? Will they poll TV-station managers? The players??? Us?? The attending public (I certainly will not attend TC/UC now when the messed up the scoring)...

Will they just see if players protest to much, and if not implement it???

To be honest I don't trust IBF have thought this trough...

/Twobeer

since we have all these discussions revolving around IBF, new scoring system, popularity, etc etc. Does BF/BC has any influence in IBF? Any of the members work for IBF/have "a say" in the decision making?

IF we sign a petition/online petition to IBF to keep badminton just as it is right now, will it work? will they even consider it? I'm pretty sure some one could organize an online petition or even a real one to keep badminton as it is.

our own BC/BF member GGsally is an ambassador for the IBF. It's safe to guess that she's been reading some posts here and there in her spare time.

Hopefully she's read this one!!

I certainly will not attend TC/UC now when the messed up the scoring

have you seen this new scoring system in action at the highest level to know that it doesn't work?

to refuse to watch without giving it a try is equivalent to a child not eating food because it's different to what they normally eat...

while some of us don't trust the IBF, simply refusing to try out their suggestions which i'm sure are well thought out given past lessons that have been learnt is simply childish..

Coops

have you seen this new scoring system in action at the highest level to know that it doesn't work?

Coops

Look at it this way. We know for certain that the matches will now be shorter -- that is the stated purpose behind the change, after all -- and we know from experience that the rallies will be more timid, and we strongly suspect the games will become vanilla. Less bang for the buck. What's in it for your normal badminton fan?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that people boycott these tournaments. (Even with all these problems, badminton is still badminton, and Taufik is still the most talented player on the planet.) Just pointing out that people may have perfectly valid reasons to reevaluate where to spend their money.

We've been testing out the new scoring system for a while now. The singles doesn't seem that bad, though we've found that high serves have gone by the wayside and that you take less risks.

The new format really favours counter punchers and defensive minded players.

The doubles was a total fisasco. I sitll haven't quite figured out how they plan to make any sense out of serving. The more I read, the more confused I get. I can telly ou form the few times we've tried it, we always lose track of the score.

I went on a rant on another board how Punch and his troops can go about makign this game better. It has little to do with scoring and everything to do with marketing and visual presentation.

First off, develop a three nagle camera system along the lines of tennis/squash that can show the action - this will likley mean venues that are built purposed for camera rigs.

Second - focus on the product - make it more attactive. Dicth the whole collared shirt thing - let the players play in whatever zany colors and get ups they want.

Get good commentators - goes without explanation.

Focus on maketing the players - hype up rivalries, if you have to, create a couple "bad boys/girls" of badminton. Think of all the characters in tennis, we need that in Badminton.

have on court radar guns to show just how fast the bird goes. Be spectator friendly. Sell it to the average person.

Sense a trend here?

Quite tinkering and develop a long term marketing plan to work from etsbalished markets and branch out.

have you seen this new scoring system in action at the highest level to know that it doesn't work?

Of course it "works" just as 5 set to 7 did.. yes. .You can have games shorter by playing only 1 set to 15.. Its Not "rocket science" to make the game shorter.. But Its not like I have to watch a pro play it before figuring out if the scoring is sound or stupid.. I didn't like the idea behind 5x7 either beacuse of it making the game so much shorter. If you propose to change the scoring to first and only point gets the win (1 set to 1 point) I will not like it regardless if they "trial" it.. No I won't "give it a chance" :mad:


to refuse to watch without giving it a try is equivalent to a child not eating food because it's different to what they normally eat...

Who said anything about refusing to watch.. I just don't wanna pay for sub-quality food... If the tomato looks rotten i don't "try" to eat it :)


while some of us don't trust the IBF, simply refusing to try out their suggestions which i'm sure are well thought out given past lessons that have been learnt is simply childish..

Coops

I think it's an adult respons to a) vote with yor feet b) explain why you think something isn't a good idea and c) help analayze the problem and its root cause d) help suggest more effective solutions to the problem. I think IBF is being childish just wasting time and effort to "fight Windmills"...

The only arguments for the new scoring I have heard put forward is
1) It is simpler to understand for people not familiar with the sport.
2) It makes games shorter and more TV-friendly (more action, less time).
3) It would force players to be more focused.

I think the first point is irrelevent as there isn't a problem to explain the current scoring very quickly (= not diffucult today so I cannot see this as a problem at all).

And I think that there could be more effective ways to accomodate TV's need for commercial breaks etc. without shortening the game and changing the scoring. It's not like a game of soccer, fotball, Tennis, Boxin etc etc is any shorter than a game of badminton...So I think the problem description is flawed, when they describe TV-coverage problem as being caused by too long games.

And I think argument 3) is ridicilous.. As if Lin Dan and Taufik Where not "focused" with current scoring in WC05 or Olympics etc :P, yeah right...

If IBF doesn't have any valid arguments for the trial.. Why support it??

/Twobeer

...
The doubles was a total fisasco. I sitll haven't quite figured out how they plan to make any sense out of serving. The more I read, the more confused I get. I can telly ou form the few times we've tried it, we always lose track of the score.
...

The latest article on WorldBadminton.net explains how the 3x21 rally scoring system works in doubles play.

The latest article on WorldBadminton.net explains how the 3x21 rally scoring system works in doubles play.

Yes they need about a full page to explain the simplified scoring :D OMG :eek:

/Twobeer

The latest article on WorldBadminton.net explains how the 3x21 rally scoring system works in doubles play.

Holy crap :eek:

That's one confusing simplified scoring system.

Hope I never have to teach it :rolleyes:

Holy crap :eek:

That's one confusing simplified scoring system.

Hope I never have to teach it :rolleyes:

I heard through the grapevine CalTech is introducing a new class, Badminton 901 for Badminton 101 scoring. :p;)

IMHO, the really confusing bit is figuring out where to stand. The where-to-serve-from is easy. But, adding the movement of the players into the mix can create confusion, especially to those of us with absolutely no short-term memory. (Just kidding there. No offence intended to those who really suffer from a short-term memory loss.)

okay - this definitely swings it - the doubles system is ludicrous.. even without playing it.. every game would need an umpire just to ensure people stood in the right places... while i can understand it, it makes a mockery of what i thought the main reason for moving to rally serves was, and that was to simplify the scoring system for the general public...

GROAN :(, it seems my faith is misplaced and i shall have to sit and watch and laugh at the poor pro's trying to make sense of whats going on..:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

but in a nutshell it's basically singles serving rules for doubles.. you only get one serve instead of two, you only swap sides if your serving and you win a rally, (which in the end means that if you get sort of lost in the middle of the game it becomes harder to figure out what the score is), and the person in the 'service' court (being the same as singles currently) gets the serve when you win the serve.

pretty convoluted if you ask me...

:confused::confused:

pretty convoluted if you ask me...

:confused::confused:

Agree about the convoluted scoring.

The only thing I do like about the new rules is the serving, singles style. This makes it a bit easier to serve as the server has more leverage with the flick and deep serve.

I think they can make it quite a bit simpler if everybody stand where they are and always serve from the same place. For instance, A stands on the odd side, B on the even side. Whenever the score is even (and they have the serve, of course), B serves. If they win that rally (i.e., the score is now odd), A then serves.

Then again, this sort of kills the doubles game because everybody always face the same person when serving and receiving.

:confused:

I'm sure the pros will have a lot of practice before this system goes into effect. So, they won't look silly on the court lining up on the wrong spot and things.

The only thing I do like about the new rules is the serving, singles style. This makes it a bit easier to serve as the server has more leverage with the flick and deep serve.

No, no, you only get one serve, but you still have to serve the same way. The description says "Back service line remains and the current rule applies."

No, no, you only get one serve, but you still have to serve the same way. The description says "Back service line remains and the current rule applies."

Doh! I'm all confused. But that's OK, that's nothing new. :p

Agree about the convoluted scoring.

The only thing I do like about the new rules is the serving, singles style. This makes it a bit easier to serve as the server has more leverage with the flick and deep serve.

You mean the doubles serve back line? I think that line stays. Unless I've misunderstood by "back service line."

From the article:

For doubles matches, the rules are:

- One service only

- Back service line remains and the current rule applies.


Anyone know for sure? :confused:

We've tried it several times, even before it was officially proposed. It stinks. Turns it into a percentage game, with no incentive to take risks or go the extra step. One of the biggest advantages of the 3x15 system is that it allows for stirring comebacks -- you can be down 0-14 and facing matchpoint, but you can still fight back and win. No longer. I mean, theoretically it is still possible, but in practice that facet has been completely eliminated. For all practical purposes, a lead of 5 by mid-game is crushing. Another thing -- it's been a mantra for decades, "you can't score points if you can't serve" -- that is a BIG part of what badminton is about, and the rally scoring kills it.

Also, the games go by far too fast. You barely break a sweat and game is over. Admittedly, it is better than 5x7, but should never be considered a replacement for 3x15. This is really bad for slow starters. And keeping score in doubles is a nightmare.

Why does IBF keep doing this kind of silly stuff? They kill careers by changing things so drastically. (Gopichand, for example.)

Did I mention this stinks? THIS IS NOT HOW TO POPULARIZE THE GAME! (sorry for shouting, but it really stinks.)

Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth... your exactly right.

the IBF has thier collective head up thier ass.

For the latest players' comments on the new rally scoring system.

http://www.intbadfed.org/Portal/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=10&ItemID=1902

Looks positive, so far.

The new scoring system has some pluses which will benefit the game. You can now win a point if you win a rally irrespective of whether you are serving or receving. This is an added dimension, a new opening and opportunity to win a point where there was none under the old system. More skills will be required. You will not have to play till you drop. With today's newer and more powerful racquets and strings, serious injuries will be drastically reduced. There will less of a Peter Gade or Ronald Susilo or Hafiz being side-lined with long term injuries. There will less of player burnout. If the rules are not changed the future game will be monopolised by players 22 years or younger, as newer racquets, strings, and an obsession with speed will take a heavy toll on players older than 22 years of age. The new rules may actually not benefit China with their emphasis on speed and super human fitness. Let us bring back some exquisite skills and strokes. The new system will bring forth more players like Taufik (I got it right this time) instead of top players throwing away some matches to save their best for matches that count (Taufik seems to be a master on this).
Even the game of tennis, which is less punishing than badminton, is not immune to injury problems brought about by newer and more powerful racquets. I think tennis will look into this injury problem and make some rule changes.
The game of badminton is evolving. Today's players and equipment are a far cry from those in the old days. But the rules, save the hit on the frame and the change in duece, have hardly changed.
In this respect you have an IBF that is at least not protecting the old boys from the club but has the actual guts to evolve and perhaps reshape the game. If it doesn't take off there is always a fallback. Now what is wrong with that?

You are kidding when you say speed is all there is to it, right?


In this respect you have an IBF that is at least not protecting the old boys from the club but has the actual guts to evolve and perhaps reshape the game. If it doesn't take off there is always a fallback. Now what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is, they are fixing something that is not broken. They are wasting their effort when they should be looking for real solutions. They are ruining careers by changing the game. They are making it less fun for us. (Yes, I've tried it.)

There are not many sports that still have only the server winning a point. Only international squash still maintains this scoring system, although the squash game as played in North America is also changing the scoring system to the rally point system. Both tennis and table tennis use the rally point system and they seem to be doing well.
After all the very idea of not winning a point when you have actually won a rally, just because your opponent is serving, doesn't make sense. A point reward should be given for a rally won. The reward of winning the right to serve, instead of the more immediate reward of a point, when you win a rally with the opponent serving, just doesn't make sense from a conceptually point of view. It is a delayed reward that may never materialize. :D

There are not many sports that still have only the server winning a point. Only international squash still maintains this scoring system, although the squash game as played in North America is also changing the scoring system to the rally point system. Both tennis and table tennis use the rally point system and they seem to be doing well.
After all the very idea of not winning a point when you have actually won a rally, just because your opponent is serving, doesn't make sense. A point reward should be given for a rally won. The reward of winning the right to serve, instead of the more immediate reward of a point, when you win a rally with the opponent serving, just doesn't make sense from a conceptually point of view. It is a delayed reward that may never materialize. :D


I am sorry for appearing to be so blunt, but that is a vacuous argument. Since when is not getting a point on winning a rally such a problem? For whom?

In tennis, you can win 3 rallies and still lose the point. You can win rally after rally after rally, and still lose 6-0. In baseball, you can get 9 hits in 9 innings and still score a grand total of zero runs. In basketball, you can score 1, 2, or 3 points in a single scoring shot! Isn't that confusing? Why don't they make it all 1 point per shot?

I look around me, and I don't see a single sport which has "simple" scoring rules. What is the problem here, really? Who is pushing for this rally 21 anyway? And why? Why don't they say why?

Is there a smiley to say "Bah, humbug"?

I am sorry for appearing to be so blunt, but that is a vacuous argument. Since when is not getting a point on winning a rally such a problem? For whom?

In tennis, you can win 3 rallies and still lose the point. You can win rally after rally after rally, and still lose 6-0. In baseball, you can get 9 hits in 9 innings and still score a grand total of zero runs. In basketball, you can score 1, 2, or 3 points in a single scoring shot! Isn't that confusing? Why don't they make it all 1 point per shot?

I look around me, and I don't see a single sport which has "simple" scoring rules. What is the problem here, really? Who is pushing for this rally 21 anyway? And why? Why don't they say why?

Is there a smiley to say "Bah, humbug"?

I am not with you here. If in tennis you win every rally point, shouldn't it be a 6-0 victory in your favour instead of losing 0-6?
For sports to evolve nothing should be sacrosanct. Sure, movers and shakers are in the minority, and it is lonely to be at the top of the pyramid. But just imagine what the world would be like if humankind is ruled by those at the bottom of the pyramid. :D
At least what the IBF is trying to do is to have the cake and eat it. If the new system works all the good for badminton, although there may be players who will give up the game in disgust. If it doesn't work out, then the system can be further fine-tuned or even dropped.

I am not with you here. If in tennis you win every rally point, shouldn't it be a 6-0 victory in your favour instead of losing 0-6?


I think kanive is saying that tennis player A can win 3 rallies each of the six sets, but lose each set 45-30 to player B. So the final reported score is 6-0 in favor of player B.

I am not with you here. If in tennis you win every rally point, shouldn't it be a 6-0 victory in your favour instead of losing 0-6?


I didn't say every rally -- I said 3 rallies. You have to win at least 4 rallies to register a game. Winning 3 takes you to deuce. You can go to deuce and lose the next two rallies in every game and lose 6-0.

Please don't say "oh that's a game, not a point". ;) That's just terminology. What matters is what goes up on the scoreboard.

Just got done playing 5 games with new scoring! I am 35 years old and started playing when I was 10 years old. I like the new system, just like what the AVP did to Beach Volleyball! Rally scoring, no long drawn out, boring games anymore! I found that you must really focus on serve first and then play shots to middle of court, not forcing any shots. Missed shots give other team points! Playing doubles as we did tonight, some folks took longer to get with the program! You just have to keep track of score and be loud and verbal after every point. If IBF gets large TV contract to show badminton in ASIA , then they get more advertising money$$$$$$$$. Don't be stuck in the past, enjoy a new way of playing! Start all over again, think more and use your skills.

Just got done playing 5 games with new scoring! I am 35 years old and started playing when I was 10 years old. I like the new system, just like what the AVP did to Beach Volleyball! Rally scoring, no long drawn out, boring games anymore! I found that you must really focus on serve first and then play shots to middle of court, not forcing any shots. Missed shots give other team points! Playing doubles as we did tonight, some folks took longer to get with the program! You just have to keep track of score and be loud and verbal after every point. If IBF gets large TV contract to show badminton in ASIA , then they get more advertising money$$$$$$$$. Don't be stuck in the past, enjoy a new way of playing! Start all over again, think more and use your skills.

well, i have stated my opinion earlier on before, it is worth the experiment, not much to lose and a lot to gain. IBF can switch back the 21 point system fail its objective. I think WD would benefit the most from the 21 rally point system. No more long drawn out rallies with no point scored. Now, the ladies have to give ALL OUT ASAP, no more save energy for the final match. We might even start seeing ladies doing jumpsmashing, woohoooo :)

In this respect you have an IBF that is at least not protecting the old boys from the club but has the actual guts to evolve and perhaps reshape the game. If it doesn't take off there is always a fallback. Now what is wrong with that?

Making the game shorter, does of course make it less demanding for the body (= less injuries ?!?).. But if a short game is the "goal" (Which I think not!), Then they could just have stuck with the 7x5 scoring.. (or even go 7x3 :P for "really shorte, injury-safe games)...

This is not "evolving" the sport. If New material make smashes faster etc.. It would more likely be shorter rallies than longer.. This is just making the game less demanding.. And I don't think less is more!!!

/Twobeer

After all the very idea of not winning a point when you have actually won a rally, just because your opponent is serving, doesn't make sense.

To me it makes perfect sense that you score only in your own serve (as it is a dissadvantage in Badminton to serve, which it isn't in the other racket sports I know). It's brillaint and so much smarter than Squash, tennis, table-tennis etc!!!

/Twobeer

If the new system works all the good for badminton, although there may be players who will give up the game in disgust. If it doesn't work out, then the system can be further fine-tuned or even dropped.

What constitutes "success" for the scoring here??

What exactly is the measurable critera that this scoring is more "succesfull" than the old?

/Twobeer

Making the game shorter, does of course make it less demanding for the body (= less injuries ?!?).. But if a short game is the "goal" (Which I think not!), Then they could just have stuck with the 7x5 scoring.. (or even go 7x3 :P for "really shorte, injury-safe games)...

This is not "evolving" the sport. If New material make smashes faster etc.. It would more likely be shorter rallies than longer.. This is just making the game less demanding.. And I don't think less is more!!!

/Twobeer

i think there was a previous post for scoring changes where i suggested it should be rally scoring best of three to 25.. since this ensured a similar game length. do you think this would work?

Coops

well, i have stated my opinion earlier on before, it is worth the experiment, not much to lose and a lot to gain. IBF can switch back the 21 point system fail its objective. I think WD would benefit the most from the 21 rally point system. No more long drawn out rallies with no point scored. Now, the ladies have to give ALL OUT ASAP, no more save energy for the final match. We might even start seeing ladies doing jumpsmashing, woohoooo :)

I'm just afraid we will get stuck with a poorer rally-scoring format, if not much protest are heard from pro players. IBF can just claim it was a succes because games got shorter (anyone with half a brain can figure out the games will be shorter, but we may not agree that shorter games "advances" the game of badminton) as there are no solid benefits that can be proved/dissproved during a few tournaments.

I would also like to point out that most Mens singel matches aren't that long, with todays scoring!

I don't think womens double play will change dramatically from this scoring.. It's not like they don't try to win the rallies quick as of today?!?!

What would lead IBF to conclude it was a failure??

/Twobeer

I'm just afraid we will get stuck with a poorer rally-scoring format, if not much protest are heard from pro players. IBF can just claim it was a succes because games got shorter (anyone with half a brain can figure out the games will be shorter, but we may not agree that shorter games "advances" the game of badminton) as there are no solid benefits that can be proved/dissproved during a few tournaments.

What would lead IBF to conclude it was a failure??The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?

i think there was a previous post for scoring changes where i suggested it should be rally scoring best of three to 25.. since this ensured a similar game length. do you think this would work?

Coops

Maybe that would work ok.. But Still I am dubious about the whole point of changing the scoring system.

To implement changes, I think first IBF needs to identify the problem and also try to suggest different solutions to the problem. If Scoring-change is found to be THE best solution to the problem, then so be it lets change it..

But I highly doubt, rally scoring is a big step forward.

I suspect IBF thinks they can solve complex problems (image, TV coverage, sponsor-money etc) by simple solutions like a rule-change in a board meeting.

I can also see risks with changing rules randomly..
a) Adding to confusion about rules and regulations.
b) Changing implies something is wrong with the sport. So people will natuarally assume there is something wrong with todays badminton. if we need to change it.
c) Tradtion. Traditiona isn't always bad.. it can also be good to show that the rules still stands the test of time!

As I mentioned before i think we need to establish what exactly is broken before trying to fix it..

And I do not think the "product" badminton is the problem, but the effectiveness of "selling" the product that is the key issue here..

My belief is that changing the "product" will have no or exteremly little effect on the popularity and media-coverage of it (may also have a negative effect). I beleive there are lots of actions IBF could do that would be more meaingful. I am afraid the real issues gets dimmed when putting to much focus and effort of finding a shorter scoring system.

my 2 cents,
Twobeer

And I think that there could be more effective ways to accomodate TV's need for commercial breaks etc. without shortening the game and changing the scoring. It's not like a game of soccer, fotball, Tennis, Boxin etc etc is any shorter than a game of badminton...So I think the problem description is flawed, when they describe TV-coverage problem as being caused by too long games.I agree that there could be more effective ways of adapting to TV. However, I am not prepared to concede that time is not a hindrance to TV coverage. One difference I see in badminton is that TV coverage today is more equitable than tennis coverage. How often do you see doubles of Grand Slam tennis events. Maybe it's just me but I can only remember a handful of times when I've seen something other than singles. In badminton, the networks that do cover badminton now cover everything (Korea is notoriously bad for showing only one or two matches on finals day but I believe it to be an exception) and I doubt that many of us would like to part with that easily. I watched 6 hours of badminton on finals day of the WC in August. Do you get that much coverage of Wimbledon finals? I remember seeing <=3h on Saturday for women's singles and <=3h on Sunday for men's singles and if one is over early, you get a snippit of some doubles but that's it. 6h on one afternoon or evening? Tennis might compete. Soccer doesn't. Canadian/American football doesn't. Not many sports demand that much time for a final day and when they do, they only get it when the sports have an audience. The fact that badminton doesn't now is the problem that they are trying to address. I personally don't think it will work.

The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?

But what are the "requirements" from TV media on the sport?

What are their requirments on commercial breaks here.. How many? how often? for how long?
How would 21x3 rally scoring satisfy this better than 15x3 std scoring.

When seing european coverage of badminton. I feel the biggest issue is that they focus on all disciplines in one broadcast.. Trying to cover MS,MD,XD,LD,LS is simply to much to be able to cover most matches from quarterfinals to finals in large networks.

I think Media wise it would be best to focus on a men singles tour or similar, to make the sport more known, and more frequently shown on TV. In the beginning I think media production should focus more on player-profiles and educating the public about competetive badminton, rather than try to show all finals in all disciplines for a few select tournaments to a broad public, that don't appriciate the game because they a) don't understand what they see and b) don't know who's who of the pro's...

/Twobeer

But what are the "requirements" from TV media on the sport?

What are their requirments on commercial breaks here.. How many? how often? for how long?
How would 21x3 rally scoring satisfy this better than 15x3 std scoring.

When seing european coverage of badminton. I feel the biggest issue is that they focus on all disciplines in one broadcast.. Trying to cover MS,MD,XD,LD,LS is simply to much to be able to cover most matches from quarterfinals to finals in large networks.

I think Media wise it would be best to focus on a men singles tour or similar, to make the sport more known, and more frequently shown on TV. In the beginning I think media production should focus more on player-profiles and educating the public about competetive badminton, rather than try to show all finals in all disciplines for a few select tournaments to a broad public, that don't appriciate the game because they a) don't understand what they see and b) don't know who's who of the pro's...

/Twobeer

i think i'd prefer them to focus on mixed doubles.. it would endear both male and female viewers, and the speed of doubles is easier to see for the untrained viewer, also the raw power and aggression in doubles is obvious too and there is a wider range of nationalities in the top ten than in men's singles. i doubt that the whole world wants to watch chinese men's singles finals over and over again

just my opinion of course :)

Coops

i think there was a previous post for scoring changes where i suggested it should be rally scoring best of three to 25.. since this ensured a similar game length. do you think this would work?

Coops

It is rally point scoring that will have precisely the opposite of the intended effect. The play will be cautious, rallies will be more drawn out, the server no longer has the luxury of being able to be that bit more aggressive.

The number of points in a game is of secondary importance.

Matches will certainly be shorter with rally point scoring but they will be of even less appeal to the TV audience.

Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time.

Rule nuances are likewise of little or no importance - you can use the same examples (most people don't even understand the offside law in football) and add rugby as an extra.

Advert breaks ARE all-important to most TV companies. This is what any changes should address and would make little difference to the sport.

Give the players a one minute break every 5 points for televised matches and that should do it. End of story.

The changes as constituted change the sport completely - they should call it worseminton and have a new governing body - and very much for the worse, even in the light of their own avowed goals.

Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time.

Baseball games last an average of almost 3 hours and if you go deep into extra innings, easily 4+ hours.

Baseball games last an average of almost 3 hours and if you go deep into extra innings, easily 4+ hours.This is missing the point. Twobeer and I already pointed out the lack of focus. Why are you comparing a 60-90 minute MS match to a 90 minute soccer game or a 3h baseball game when the norm is to broadcast all the finals in one afternoon for badminton?Advert breaks ARE all-important to most TV companies. This is what any changes should address and would make little difference to the sport.
Give the players a one minute break every 5 points for televised matches and that should do it. End of story..I agree. That is the easy part. That way, you'd avoid the Guangdong Sports compulsion to drop the first few points of games in order to show commercials.i doubt that the whole world wants to watch chinese men's singles finals over and over againYes. I lied when I said I watched all six hours of WC finals in August. If my opinion counted, women's singles and women's doubles would be at the end so that TV networks whose viewers had no interest in watching Xievs.Zhang or Yang/Zhangvs.Gao/Huang for the umpteenth time could cut to other coverage after the interesting matches are over. My opinion would only change marginally if the dominance of the Chinese women were diluted at all because the matches would still be less eventful. Even an all-Chinese men's singles final has fast running and jump-smashing and very aggressive play even if you don't have the national rivalry to add to the mix.

I am sorry for appearing to be so blunt, but that is a vacuous argument. Since when is not getting a point on winning a rally such a problem? For whom?

In tennis, you can win 3 rallies and still lose the point. You can win rally after rally after rally, and still lose 6-0. In baseball, you can get 9 hits in 9 innings and still score a grand total of zero runs. In basketball, you can score 1, 2, or 3 points in a single scoring shot! Isn't that confusing? Why don't they make it all 1 point per shot?

I look around me, and I don't see a single sport which has "simple" scoring rules. What is the problem here, really? Who is pushing for this rally 21 anyway? And why? Why don't they say why?

Is there a smiley to say "Bah, humbug"?


Good point!

It's all really about nothing but money.

I am not a youngster and I will really be offended if somebody tell me they change the rule to protect older people from injury or to give us a chance to win.

To play well and avoid injury, you must be fit and train to be fit. It is part and parcel of any physical game, not only badminton. I have seen 60 years old gentleman take on 18 years old school player and win!

I'm just afraid we will get stuck with a poorer rally-scoring format, if not much protest are heard from pro players. IBF can just claim it was a succes because games got shorter (anyone with half a brain can figure out the games will be shorter, but we may not agree that shorter games "advances" the game of badminton) as there are no solid benefits that can be proved/dissproved during a few tournaments.

I would also like to point out that most Mens singel matches aren't that long, with todays scoring!

I don't think womens double play will change dramatically from this scoring.. It's not like they don't try to win the rallies quick as of today?!?!

What would lead IBF to conclude it was a failure??

/Twobeer
i didnt quantify the ibf's term of failures because i didnt read the IBF's internal memos regarding their justificatio of change. However, from my point of view, failure of the 21 rally point system would involve:
- failure to make gain in north american and european's sport TV network coverage during this trial period
- the badminton fan base continue to show support of the original scoring system after about a year of trying out the 21 point system/

Can't say rally scoring will improve the sport in any way. I've followed volleyball at least for 20 years and must say that the side-out play is just too boring. Takes less (tactical) skill than before, just hammer it on....And fluke shots makes bigger impacts too.

What changes have tennis adopted since Hastings 1066? Well you can look at more flesh than before but then it is more appealing to watch porn....Big improvment of the sport:eek:

In what way is more marketing *not* the solution? That's the only solution. Yeah, lots of friends will start watching badminton now since the scoring system changed.....and the game is suddenly not "back-garden" since now you need a Ph.D to understand the new doubles serving system:o I'll tell that to everyone I see and expect them to be badminton fans.

Please explain to me in what way the common people will find the sport any more interesting than before. Simplicity of rules isn't any issue, I just say Cricket...Developing the sport isn't gonna happen since rally scoring means "side-out" play and that means more brute force than tactics. Shorter games means nothing, number of occations for commercials counts. The proposed "time-slip" system would be more interesting to give a go than rally scoring.

I agree with twobeer that IBF should start a tour like ATP/WTA. With a headsponsor *not* involved in sports (no Yonex, Nike etc), but a car, clothes, electronics etc etc company with interest to reach new markets.

/mats


i think it was the not scoring unless your serving bit that people didn't understand.. ie.. you win a rally, but it doesn't get you anything but the serve.. and the serve isn't exactly an advantage.

don't get me wrong - i'm happy with how the scoring is at the moment, but i have faith in the IBF to do the right thing. tennis and table tennis have both tweaked rules to make them more tv, spectator and player friendly.

it's cheaper to change rules than it is to try to market a sport, especially when the sport's image is so 'back-garden'. it would require a vast spend to get the sport anywhere near where it wants to be. And for a lot of people that's either not justified, or simply can't be afforded.

Complaining about it doesn't achieve anything. As my maths teacher once said - don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions..

saying ' we need to market the sport better' is not a solution. unless of course your willing to pay billions to get 'Play badminton' emblazoned on every billboard, bus, taxi, tv advert, sports superstar etc etc so that the sport get's into the public eye.

i respect the IBF for not giving up and doing everything they can to make the sport more popular..

Coops

Shuttlers et al.,

Attached is the feedback form that you may send to IBF, via your local baddy associations/clubs/organisations if necessary.

FYI: In the form, the question bordered with thick lines at the top of the table is given as an example. The pdf if not in a fillable format :( , so you will need to send the printed hard copy. The "Any Comments:" section is less than four lines, I am certain these will be enough!? :rolleyes:

For the latest players' comments on the new rally scoring system.

http://www.intbadfed.org/Portal/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=10&ItemID=1902

Looks positive, so far.

Keep in mind this article is completely biased in favour of the new scoring.
This is the official IBF website man! :rolleyes:

Making the game shorter, does of course make it less demanding for the body (= less injuries ?!?).. But if a short game is the "goal" (Which I think not!), Then they could just have stuck with the 7x5 scoring.. (or even go 7x3 :P for "really shorte, injury-safe games)...

This is not "evolving" the sport. If New material make smashes faster etc.. It would more likely be shorter rallies than longer.. This is just making the game less demanding.. And I don't think less is more!!!

/Twobeer


Shorter games means less stamina more power, this doesn't mean less injuries but probably MORE injuries, including injuries during training as players will need much more power training.

The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?

In fact trial will be conducted on all IBF events from beginning of february to mid-may.
Tournaments in january should still be playing in the current scoring.

IMO, this new scoring stinks. Why change a working system? 3x15.

This is missing the point. Twobeer and I already pointed out the lack of focus. Why are you comparing a 60-90 minute MS match to a 90 minute soccer game or a 3h baseball game when the norm is to broadcast all the finals in one afternoon for badminton?I agree.

I am stating a fact. That is all. Don't try to read anything more into it.

Under the old rules you have to win a rally to get the serve and then score a pint if you win the next rally. I am not so clear on the new rules when do you get to serve? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system?

I am still confused, when do you get to serve under the new rules? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system? Under the old rules it requires a player to win a rally first before he/she gets to serve and then may win the point when he/she wins the rally during his/her serve. What about under the new rules?

I am stating a fact. That is all. Don't try to read anything more into it.Fair enough, I was responding more to the previous post... Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time....which drew a comparison between single badminton matches and single matches of football, etc. Your fact served as a convenient quote for me to make my point. Apologies for reading more into it.

A tennis match is much longer than badminton. In men's tennis in a grand slam best of five match a match can go for 5 hours. The reason we don't see a complete broadcast of 5 events in a tennis final(ie MS, WS, WD, MD and XD) is because they are all too long to be broadcasted. Tennis often splits their final events to 2 days. The women's single final is always on a different day from the men's single final and the doubles finals are also split between 2 days. So what are they whining about in badminton when they can broadcast all the finals events in one day. If the they think the matches in the final are too long then maybe they should consider splitting the finals into 2 days like tennis. I think if people are not interested in badminton they won't suddenly show an interest just because the scoring format has been changed. If the reason is for TV broadcast then splitting the finals into 2 days is the way to go or maybe TV shoulds concentrate the broadcasts on the singles matches like tennis. One of the main points about badminton is the test of stamina and endurance of the players. Shortening the duration of the matches takes away this aspect and dimension of the game.

Under the old rules you have to win a rally to get the serve and then score a pint if you win the next rally. I am not so clear on the new rules when do you get to serve? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system?

Under the new system you get a point if you win a rally, regardless of who the server is. You don't get a second chance. The winner of the last rally will serve. It is unlike table tennis where each player will serve 2 times alternately regardless of who wins the last rally. In this aspect I think table tennis is better as each player will get as close as possible to an even number of serves. In badminton it is possible under the new system to have only one player serving all the time, as in the case of a 21-0 win. This is a bit lop-sided and appears to keep a little bit of the old system.

As far as singles is concerned there is no confusion as to who is to serve, since the winner of a rally not only wins a point but also gets to serve. Every winning point counts and there is no changeover of service as in the past. But in doubles, there may be some confusion.

At the Cheers Youth International tournament currently underway at the SBH, I had a chance to ask the Referee on this matter. For I was also thinking that unlike the old 15-point system, serving among the four doubles players may be uneven in the sense that one partner may get to serve more times than the other.

I was told that every doubles player will get a fair share of the service and this depends on the score. If the score is say 2-1, the right-court player (2 is even ) of the team that scores the point will serve. If the score is 1-2, the left-court partner (1 is odd) gets to serve.

It therefore means that the right court player will serve when his team wins the point, whenever the score is even in their favour, e.g. 2-1, 4-3, 10-15, etc. and he will continue to serve until his team loses the point, whereupon the service will go to their opponents. Conversely, his left-court partner will serve whenever the team wins a point and the score is odd e.g. 1-6, 5-6, 15-14, etc.

So in the new system doubles game, even (right court) and odd (left court) numbers still play a part in determining who is to serve. It depends on which court (right or left) you started with in your doubles partnership. :)

Hi guys.

I just heard that the changes are being tested in a major tournament ion China, so it seems that this is for real. I've played both badminton and beach volleyball (BV) on national level for quite some time. Here is my view of proposed changes based on experience from BV:
- scoring change in BV 8 years ago did nothing for the popularity of the sport as far as I'm concerned, and quite a lot of players of my generation (35 years or so) share my opinion. There are no more great come-back stories to tell - I remember a final match of a tournament when my partner and I were 14-0 down, and we managed to equalize to 14-14. We lost finally, but still I'll never forget that match. Then, in another tournament, we were 13-7 down and won the match, and it happened in the next match as well, so we qualified for the higher stage... quite cool! With today's rules this is totally impossible, unless your oponent breaks a leg, but tell that to your grandchildren and come out a hero...
- as a spectator, I've noticed that quite a few games turned out to be quite one-sided afair - the team that was trailing behind in a non-decisive game, saved energy for the next game.
-what did bring popularity though was presentation - big events are played in attractive locations in tourist resorts, lots of (nicely tanned) skin is exposed, there are people that heat up the atmosphere, music is playing between rallies, there are exotic dancers during breaks, money involved is reasonably high (not tennis or golf like of course, but still).

From that point of view I dislike the proposed changes. But I will give it a chance - I'll test it on the next practice session and get back.

And (maybe) a provocative question - it seems to me that everybody involved in this thread takes for granted that more TV coverage is great by default. Why?

TV is a mass media and a moving one at that. It is also a very good medium to bring in funds. Without funds to grease badminton will remain no more than a hobby, like in the old days when a national player had to quit his job or be fired just to play for his country.

TV is a mass media and a moving one at that. It is also a very good medium to bring in funds. Without funds to grease badminton will remain no more than a hobby, like in the old days when a national player had to quit his job or be fired just to play for his country.

Yes, but shorter games doesn't equal more funding..

I think IBF is making a BIG misstake if they think money will pour in or TV stations will line up, just becuase they keep changing the game scoring now and again!! Or just make games significantly shorter.. (maybe they want the badminton games to fill the commersial 30 sek spots eventually ;P )

Why not instead focus on how to sell and market the sport, instead of focusing how to change the sport itself (external activities, as opposed to internal activities)...

/Twobeer

I have one question: In the old system, it’s easy to keep track of which service court you’re suppose to be in by looking at the score; in this new scoring system, is there a way of easily determining w/c side of the court you should be?

I for one am extremely worried that they will go with this new format

I know its obvious the majority know this is rediculous - I just dont know if the IBF cares.


Sometimes the OLD system is hard to keep score in doubles - I mean its perfectly worked out system but sometimes players loose track of score and its a mess, but because of even and odd your usually able to figure out what the score should be -- sometimes I dont keep track of the score at all but I usually guess the score right anyway, Probly able to keep track subconsciously.

.... But the new system we'll be hopeless.


P.S. I'm going to put all these negative (21x3) comments together and send them to the IBF

okay- so maybe a lot of people are going to disagree with me, or maybe i've just not seen enough games yet..

i quite like the new format for doubles.. while the scoring is even more complicated yes the actual structure of the game is cool. the number of breaks being taken by players was getting silly - and while i understand that it was necessary to wipe the floor for safety sometimes it was every couple of rally's - it was as bad as american football where you could get a break every minute!!

the new format ensures almost constant play for up to 21 rally's, we've already said that the new format engenders quick fast play and i agree it does.. it put's a lot of pressure on the server too, altho i don't like the lack of comebacks - watching eriksen and lundgaard hansen vs cai/fu was a bit rubbish, but you get games like that anyway. i'm downloading some more men's singles and the men's doubles final.. here's hoping i enjoy the rest..

seems this new scoring system might actually work for spectators after all.

Coops

PS - please don't send me hate mail :D

okay- so maybe a lot of people are going to disagree with me, or maybe i've just not seen enough games yet..

i quite like the new format for doubles.. while the scoring is even more complicated yes the actual structure of the game is cool. the number of breaks being taken by players was getting silly - and while i understand that it was necessary to wipe the floor for safety sometimes it was every couple of rally's - it was as bad as american football where you could get a break every minute!!

the new format ensures almost constant play for up to 21 rally's, we've already said that the new format engenders quick fast play and i agree it does.. it put's a lot of pressure on the server too, altho i don't like the lack of comebacks - watching eriksen and lundgaard hansen vs cai/fu was a bit rubbish, but you get games like that anyway. i'm downloading some more men's singles and the men's doubles final.. here's hoping i enjoy the rest..

seems this new scoring system might actually work for spectators after all.

Coops

PS - please don't send me hate mail :D
IMO
actually, there is no right or wrong scoring system, (just like neither feather is better or worst than plastic shuttle :p ). It come down to what do u want. Each format favor certain style of plays. I know sigit/candra's style has a slow start because "

1. fine machine part requires longer warm up period.
2. some player/team like to wear out opponents first and willing to give up early points or even game 1 to calibrate their strategy on opponent weakness. In rally point system, there is less time to do all this.

I do like water break at 11 point, and ability for players to consult their coach.

It may come as a surprise to you to find out that the new doubles scoring system is easier to remember with far fewer mixed-up of the old system, and also more logical and equal? The key is even or odd, very unlike the old system of always starting your serve from the right side (even) even when your score is odd (3-2). Even 2-year old kids can understand and take to it right away. :D
Sometimes our prejudices tend to blind us. :)

The new scoring system for singles and doubles are more like twins. :D No more one set of serving rule for singles and another set for doubles. Ditto for mixed. It is now one grand alliance of different doubles and singles service rules into one.:D Don't you see what I see?

The new scoring system for singles and doubles are more like twins. :D No more one set of serving rule for singles and another set for doubles. Ditto for mixed. It is now one grand alliance of different doubles and singles service rules into one.:D Don't you see what I see?

Forgot to say that the above relates to where to start your serve from.

It may come as a surprise to you to find out that the new doubles scoring system is easier to remember with far fewer mixed-up of the old system, and also more logical and equal? The key is even or odd, very unlike the old system of always starting your serve from the right side (even) even when your score is odd (3-2). Even 2-year old kids can understand and take to it right away. :D
Sometimes our prejudices tend to blind us. :)

How is it more equal? Under the new system (and shouldn't you be calling it the trial system - wouldn't want to make the assumption that the IBF has already made up its mind, would we?) it is quite possible for one player to go through a game without serving. In fact this is bound to happen if his/her side loses 15-0.

Of course, under the old system the doubles serving system actually aids the players in remembering the score. How often have you seen or taken part in a discussion to resolve the score which involved remembering which side you served from? That won't be reliable any more.

I must say I don't know too many 2 year old badminton players who understand either system. Perhaps that explains how the IBF makes its decisions though.

It is simpler than you think. In doubles think like in singles when you are serving or receiving. If the score is 2-0 in your opponents' favour and they have the right to serve, having just won a rally point, they then serve to you or your partner from their even court-just like in singles. If you and your partner wins this rally point, the score is now 1-2 and you or your partner will then serve from the odd court-again exactly like in singles. It is a mirror image of the singles scoring system. The old system pigeon-holes each player with an odd or an even tag and uses only the even side for each side's first serve-a rather illogical and complicated system.
Let me ask you, is it simpler to score a singles or a doubles game under the old system? The old system's singles scoring system is worlds apart from its doubles scoring system, not unlike using both the double serve in tennis and the single serve in table tennis to score badminton singles and doubles. What other games have one serve for singles and two serves for doubles? It is too much rojak. :D The new system sort of unifies them, a sort of grand unifying universal law.

It is simpler than you think. In doubles think like in singles when you are serving or receiving. If the score is 2-0 in your opponents' favour and they have the right to serve, having just won a rally point, they then serve to you or your partner from their even court-just like in singles. If you and your partner wins this rally point, the score is now 1-2 and you or your partner will then serve from the odd court-again exactly like in singles. It is a mirror image of the singles scoring system. The old system pigeon-holes each player with an odd or an even tag and uses only the even side for each side's first serve-a rather illogical and complicated system.
Let me ask you, is it simpler to score a singles or a doubles game under the old system? The old system's singles scoring system is worlds apart from its doubles scoring system, not unlike using both the double serve in tennis and the single serve in table tennis to score badminton singles and doubles. What other games have one serve for singles and two serves for doubles? It is too much rojak. :D The new system sort of unifies them, a sort of grand unifying universal law.

I don't need it to be simpler. I made the point that the old system actually helps you remember the score.

I also said that you were wrong when you said that the serves are even for a pair since there is a strong possibility that one player will not serve at all.

It never ceases to amaze me how you manage to ignore points made by other posters and plug on with your own message. You are definitely either a member of the IBF or some other politician.

You are definitely either a member of the IBF or some other politician.


Naw, Eepak is just the Badminton Central Hero of Heroes! :p :D :D :D

CWB001, hope you now know how cunningly simple the new scoring system is. When scoring think like in singles but play like your usual doubles. The two doubles serves are now gone and are being replaced by just one serve-just like in singles. Now, what is good for singles is equally good for doubles. No more mixed-ups like who is odd or who is even. Odd or even doesn't follow the player anymore. It follows the side that serves, just like in singles.

All i read about this New Scoring Format is mostly negative. Any positive side of this new scoring method?
As human we have to adapt to changes. Without changes we might never improve. Of course not all changes can be the best solutions, but hey if things don't change, we might never learn from it.

As a famous quote says. If we do the same thing day in day out and expect different results that is called insanity.

.

Of course, under the old system the doubles serving system actually aids the players in remembering the score. How often have you seen or taken part in a discussion to resolve the score which involved remembering which side you served from? That won't be reliable any more.

Yes, under the old system you need to remember who is odd and who even. The new system is even simpler. It requires no such memory aid or tagging. When it is your side's turn to serve, you simply follow the singles way of serving. What can be simpler than that? The only problem is when you claim the score is 4-3 in your favour when the facts say 3-3, and you insists on serving from the even court. But this is not system fault.

The two doubles serves are now gone and are being replaced by just one serve-just like in singles.

Sorry, bit slow on this new scoring system. Singles no issue for me.

but for doubles, what are the things that we need to know in order to determine on which court should I stand (left/right) after the rally for the next serve (provided I know I start the game from which court)?

From the old scoring system, we can tell from the score and where you start the game from.

Thanks.

Does the player who just serve in doubles swap sides with his partner after winning a point on his serve or does his partner serve next without exchanging sides?

There are two points to observe in doubles. The only time you change courts with your partner is when you win a rally point when your side is serving. You stay put where you are, even if you win a rally point when your opponents are serving. You get to serve when you win a rally point and you serve from either left or right court as in singles, i.e. right court on even no. and left court on odd no.

hmmm.. apparently Kenneth Jonassen has been on danish telly and openly criticised the new scoring system. He believes it allows no opportunity for big comebacks.

.. heard this somewhere before anybody?

There are two points to observe in doubles. The only time you change courts with your partner is when you win a rally point when your side is serving. You stay put where you are, even if you win a rally point when your opponents are serving. You get to serve when you win a rally point and you serve from either left or right court as in singles, i.e. right court on even no. and left court on odd no.

Yes, it is pretty easy to tell *where* you serve from. How does one figure out *who* serves? That is to say, how does one tell, simply looking at the score halfway through the game, whether the person who started the game by serving at 0-0 should be in the right--half-court or the left--half-court?

Yes, it is pretty easy to tell *where* you serve from. How does one figure out *who* serves? That is to say, how does one tell, simply looking at the score halfway through the game, whether the person who started the game by serving at 0-0 should be in the right--half-court or the left--half-court?

i have to agree here - i'd be interested to know how umpires keep track of who should stand where, there should be an easy way to figure out where the players should stand based solely on the score and which side served first in the match..

Coops

Valuable experience for shuttlers with new system

BY RAJES PAUL

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia’s challenge in the invitational World Cup Badminton Championships in China ended but the shuttlers gained valuable experience playing matches adopting the experimental 21-point rally scoring system.

Singles shuttler Mohd Hafiz Hashim and the veteran doubles pair of Choong Tan Fook-Lee Wan Wah returned home yesterday after failing to make the semi-finals in the revived world tournament.

Hafiz played in Group B and he lost to Chinese opponents – All-England champion Chen Hong (21-18, 19-21, 13-21) and world junior champion Chen Jin (17-21, 16-21).

Tan Fook-Wan Wah won one of the three matches in Group A– beating China's Sang Yang-Zheng Bo 21-14, 21-19. They lost to Indonesian veterans Candra Wijaya-Sigit Budiarto (17-21, 17-21) and another Chinese pair, Fu Haifeng-Cai Yun (21-13, 14-21, 22-24).

The 31-year-old Wan Wah said that they struggling to adapt to the new format of scoring.

“It was quite confusing in the beginning. The format is not difficult. We just lack practice because we left for China immediately after the SEA Games (in Manila),” said Wan Wah.

“Every mistake costs us a point and we have to be alert at all times.”

He felt that the format did not give any advantage to players with certain style of play.

“It's a touch-and-go situations with all the players having a chance to win. The rallies are fewer in a match and the pace is much faster.”

He added that they should have beaten Haifeng-Cai Yun.

“In the rubber game, we were tied 20-20. The first pair to score two consecutive points win the match. At that moment, we forgot that the service does not change hands. We were confused and lost the match.”

The World Cup was the first international tournament to experiment with the format.

Officially, the IBF will use all their world ranking meets from Feb 1 to test the format, beginning with the Thomas-Uber Cup qualifying round in Jaipur, India, from Feb 13-19.

Most of the matches in the World Cup took between 30-45 minutes.

The shortest match of 23 minutes was between Candra-Sigit and Tan Fook-Wan Wah. The longest was 56 minutes between the Chinese women’s doubles pairs of Wei Yili-Zhang Yawen and Zhang Dan-Zhao Tingting (22-20, 16-21, 21-18).





SEMI-FINALS

Men’s singles: Lin Dan (Chn) bt Chen Hong (Chn) 21-14, 6-21, 21-6; Boonsak Ponsana (Tha) bt Shon Seung-mo (Kor) 23-21, 21-15.

Men’s doubles: Candra Wijaya-Sigit Budiarto (Ina) bt Tony Gunawan-Howard Bach (Usa) 21-18, 21-9; Fu Haifeng-Cai Yun (Chn) bt Jens Eriksen-Martin Lundgaard Hansen (Den) 21-14, 21-12.

Women’s singles: Zhang Ning (Chn) w.o. Yao Jie; Xie Xingfang (Chn) bt Lu Lan (Chn) 21-11, 21-19.

Women’s doubles: Wei Yili-Zhang Yawen (Chn) bt Kim Min-jung-Ha Jung-eun (Kor) 21-11, 21-13; Yang Wei-Zhang Jiewen (Chn) bt Zhang Dan-Zhao Tingting (Chn) 15-21, 21-9, 21-10.

Mixed doubles: Xie Zhongbo-Zhang Yawen (Chn) bt Sudket Prapakamol-Saralee Thungthongkam (Tha) 21-12, 21-19; Nova Widianto-Lilyana Natsir (Ina) bt Jens Eriksen-Mette Scholdager (Den) 21-15, 21-18.

FINALS

Men's singles: Lin Dan (Chn) bt Boonsak Ponsana (Tha) 21-14, 21-9.

Men's doubles: Fu Haifeng-Cai Yun (Chn) bt Candra Wijaya-Sigit Budiarto (Ina) 21-11, 21-18.

Women's singles: Xie Xingfang (Chn) bt Zhang Ning (Chn) 21-19, 21-16.

Women's doubles: Yang Wei-Zhang Jiewen (Chn) bt Wei Yili-Zhang Yawen (Chn) 21-18, 21-15.

Mixed doubles: Xie Zhongbo-Zhang Yawen (Chn) bt Nova Widianto-Lilyana Natsir (Ina) 21-19, 21-9.

even if Li Yongbo say he doesnt like the new scoring format , its all sweep by the chinese team in this year's world cup .

Badminton-New rules experiment fails to derail dominant China
Monday December 19, 9:14 PM



BEIJING, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Radical rule changes in badminton have done little to loosen China's grip on the sport as local players swept the first international competition to use the experimental new system in Yiyan at the weekend.
Even after notching victories in all five events at the Saiqi Invitational World Cup, however, the Chinese had very little good to say about the changes in scoring.

Under the new system under trial, points are no longer awarded just to the server and games are played best of three up to 21 points rather than 15 points as before (11 in women's singles).

"The 21 point game is not as nice to watch as the 15 point game because both sides emphasise attack, leading to fewer rallies," said world number one Lin Dan after his 21-13 21-11 win over Thailand's Boonsak Ponsana in the men's final on Sunday in the central Chinese city.

"Before, you could use wiping away your sweat or getting a drink as a break to pull yourself together, but under the rules, there are no rests until after 11 points, it's not too good," he was quoted as saying by the news website www.sina.com.

Supporters of the changes say the new scoring system will speed up the game and give it more flow, making it more attractive to television and live audiences.

China's head coach Li Yongbo said he supported reforming badminton to revive flagging interest, but thought the scoring changes were rash.

"I have expressed criticism to the International Badminton Federation, mostly that some of their decisions were too slapdash, they were not based on enough research," Li was quoted as saying by the China Sports Daily.

But China's powerful mixed doubles pairing of Xie Zhongbo and Zhang Yawen said the rules played to their advantage in their 21-19 21-10 win over Nova Widianto and Lilyana Natsir of Indonesia, which avenged their loss to the Indonesians in the final of August's world championships.

"We feel comfortable playing this new rally point system," Zhang was quoted as saying by on the International Badminton Federation's website.

"I'm short but fast and he (Xie) is tall and great at attack. I think it's this combination that helped us succeed."

A final decision on whether to permanently implement the rule changes will be made in May.

i have to agree here - i'd be interested to know how umpires keep track of who should stand where, there should be an easy way to figure out where the players should stand based solely on the score and which side served first in the match..

Coops
I don't know what the new rules are, but the simplest thing to do would be to have an odd and even person like you do now.
At the start of every rally, you stand on the side that matches your score.
You may have to change sides without serving though, because you can score points without serving.

e.g. Start of match, Team A server serves into the net. serve changes hands, score becomes 1-0. Team B now have serve and swap sides because they now have 1.
Team B serve and win a point. 2-0. A stay where they are, B swap sides.
Team B serve and lose a point. 1-2. B stay where they are, A swap sides.

a point is scored every rally, so one side or the other changes sides from their previous position every rally. At the start of every rally you take up position according to your score and whether you are odd or even.

It's only confusing at the moment because people are not used to changing sides when they lose a rally.

I don't know what the new rules are, but the simplest thing to do would be to have an odd and even person like you do now.
At the start of every rally, you stand on the side that matches your score.
You may have to change sides without serving though, because you can score points without serving.

e.g. Start of match, Team A server serves into the net. serve changes hands, score becomes 1-0. Team B now have serve and swap sides because they now have 1.
Team B serve and win a point. 2-0. A stay where they are, B swap sides.
Team B serve and lose a point. 1-2. B stay where they are, A swap sides.

a point is scored every rally, so one side or the other changes sides from their previous position every rally. At the start of every rally you take up position according to your score and whether you are odd or even.

It's only confusing at the moment because people are not used to changing sides when they lose a rally.

thats not how it works tho according to the rules - you only swap sides if your serving and you score a point, thats what makes it soooo confusing..

for the few and far between supporting this stupid change consider this:


We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!

We Don't Want Shorter Games!


GOT IT?

and why the F * * * would we? I Like that badminton is difficult .... after having to put up with years of people telling me badminton is a sissy sport ... dealing with that stereotype - This is the direction they want to move the sport in?....

thats not how it works tho according to the rules - you only swap sides if your serving and you score a point, thats what makes it soooo confusing..

Agree, so confusing, especially halfway through the game. First, you have to remember where was your last stand then who was the last server and who scored the point, then from there you can tell where you should stand for the next, can't solely depend on score anymore. To me, especially after long rally, I don't even remember where was my last stand, so if in the old system, I just ask what is the score, then I know where I should stand, but unfortunately it's not the case for the new scoring.

So, still a question, how the umpire keep track who should stand where. There must be some formula or something?

Tried out this new scoring system last weekend. The player I normally play against in singles is a very even match for me so most sets we play take 20-25mins to complete and would in about 30% of the cases go to 17pts.


With the new scoring the one major difference I noticed was how the opening part of the set has changed. In my matches normally the serve would change hands alot with neither of us gaining any advantage over each other and very little scoring. But with the new system we quickly hit 6-6 in about 2-3mins where as it would only had been about 1-1 in the old system. The first set only took about 10 mins to finish which I lost 16-21. I find with this new system I have to play within finer limits in my game. I have to think twice about taking the risky shot on my own serve as it will now cost me my serve and a point :( . I feel this will make for more defensive play in many competitions as players won't risk dropping points by being too aggressive when they have the serve.

The IBF may feel this will make the game more exciting to tv viewers but to me I feel it is a step in the wrong direction. many people in my country still see it as a game played in a garden in the summer months or as a "soft" game, they don't see as I do a game which demands the reactions of and F1 driver, the grace of a gymnast and the power of a boxer. The IBF would be better off promoting the game as a true test of a persons all round physical abilitlies that can be played and enjoyed no matter what the age or standard.

Yes, it is pretty easy to tell *where* you serve from. How does one figure out *who* serves? That is to say, how does one tell, simply looking at the score halfway through the game, whether the person who started the game by serving at 0-0 should be in the right--half-court or the left--half-court?

If your side was serving the last rally which you won, then it is the same player who will serve again but on different side of the court. If the opponents were having the last serve which ended in your side winning the rally point, then either you or your partner will serve. Your score will determine who, you or your partner, will serve. Odd number will mean whoever is on the odd side of the court will serve. Even number means serving from the right side. Unlike the old system, each player can be odd one moment and even another moment, simply based on which side of the court you are on. It is not as confusing as you think.
Why not try it out first? You may even fine-tune it by playing 31 points if 21 points is too short. You will notice that being able to win a point from your opponent's serve stirs up your predatory instinct, like fighting on two fronts now.

hmmm.. apparently Kenneth Jonassen has been on danish telly and openly criticised the new scoring system. He believes it allows no opportunity for big comebacks.

I agree with KJ, my biggest beef with the new scoring is that there really isn't any opportunity for a comeback. If it's 15-20, you're dead. :(

I would suggest you try out the new scoring system for at least 3 months. After that whatever opinions you form will probably carry more power than Katrina. Opinions in the heat of the moment are best kept in check.
If you have driven a left-hand drive car all your life driving on the right side of the road, like in Americas, Europe (except UK), try driving a right-hand drive car drving on the left side of the road in Malaysia. The change will even be more difficult to handle. An American friend of mine died near Port Dickson from a road accident, due to problems in handling the change slowly. This happened a long time ago. The example of the two cars, which basically are mirror image of each other, shades some light on why we find it difficult to handle change. But change will ensure our survival.
There is no such thing as a perfect scoring system in any sport, including badminton. This is troubling in view of some opinions here that seem to claim the old system as perfect. This argument is used to shoot down new ideas and new scoring systems that will promote the game, even before a trial period. What is more troubling is that there are almost no suggestions to fine-tune the proposed changes or at least other more thought-provoking ideas.

I would suggest you try out the new scoring system for at least 3 months.

Fair enough, Sir. Then I would suggest you try the new scoring system for at least 3 months as well before you become a proponent of it, making statements defending it and the IBF.

Agree? :)

I agree with KJ, my biggest beef with the new scoring is that there really isn't any opportunity for a comeback. If it's 15-20, you're dead. :(

I won't be surprised that players who lost would be more negative than players who won. It would be interesting to find out.

I won't be surprised that players who lost would be more negative than players who won. It would be interesting to find out.

For me, I look at it both ways, I like the idea I can comeback. I also like the idea if I'm ahead an opponent can fight back. It's more fun that way, for me. :)

Fair enough, Sir. Then I would suggest you try the new scoring system for at least 3 months as well before you become a proponent of it, making statements defending it and the IBF.

Agree? :)

Agree, but would like to clarify things here. I am not a bull-headed prpoponent of the new scoring system. I am a great defender of the right to innovate, to defend the right to have a trial/test period, and then through due process to decide. The decision should be taken and accepted in good faith by all. To say unprintable abuses and heap curese at people who cannot defend themselves is not what a gentleman would do.

If your side was serving the last rally which you won, then it is the same player who will serve again but on different side of the court. If the opponents were having the last serve which ended in your side winning the rally point, then either you or your partner will serve. Your score will determine who, you or your partner, will serve. Odd number will mean whoever is on the odd side of the court will serve. Even number means serving from the right side. Unlike the old system, each player can be odd one moment and even another moment, simply based on which side of the court you are on. It is not as confusing as you think.


Sorry, that explanation doesn't cut the mustard. I understand that even is right-hand court and odd is left-hand court. But my question was, if you have forgotten where you are supposed to be, how can you figure it out based on the score? Remembering the entire history of the match till that point is not an option.


Why not try it out first? You may even fine-tune it by playing 31 points if 21 points is too short. You will notice that being able to win a point from your opponent's serve stirs up your predatory instinct, like fighting on two fronts now.

Please, STOP asking people to try it out. I HAVE tried it out. I have tried ALL SORTS of formats. I have tried 3x9, 5x7, 3x7, 1x21, 2x15, 1x30, rally21, and even tennis (complete with deuces), and ping-pong (serves changing after 5) styles. I have even tried time limited games, with fixed duration, whoever is leading at the end wins (like in basketball). I have tried substitutions. I have tried volleyball-like serves from the baseline. I have tried more experiments than IBF can shake a stick at. I know whereof I speak when I say 3x15 is the best there is, and provides a platform for maximum variety in playing styles, physically lets you push the envelope of your abilities as far as you can take it, and promotes creativity.

While we are at it, bring back the setting-to-5 at 13-all!!:p

What is more troubling is that there are almost no suggestions to fine-tune the proposed changes or at least other more thought-provoking ideas.

Seriously?

Not.

TV probably represents the best hope to promote the game of badminton. With wide TV coverage, others like more sponsorships and bigger and bigger prize monies will follow. Identifying the major players is the easy part. Now how the hell are you you going to increase TV coverage on badminton, bring in more sponsors and increase prize monies to those of tennis? Lets say all of you BC Forum members collectively become Chairman of the IBF for a term, how would you go about it? Maybe this "bottom-up" management style will throw up some rare gems? Don't worry about hate emails.

I won't be surprised that players who lost would be more negative than players who won. It would be interesting to find out.

Then how do explain away the fact that the Chinese head coach has come out against the new system?

Don't worry about the new system being forced through. If it is acceptable to the majority of the more than 150 country delegate votes then it goes through. If not, it then shares the same fate as the 5x7 scoring system that was tried out before. BTW it was the powerful ABC, comprising of the badminton associations of China, South Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia that killed the old 5x7 system. But by the same token that the ABC recommendated that the 3x15 system be reinstated in rejecting the 5x7 system, it said that the reinstatement would be for the time being until a more acceptable system is introduced.

Then how do explain away the fact that the Chinese head coach has come out against the new system?

The Chinese XD champions seem to like the new system very much. They even commented that the system was ideally suited for them. Wonder what they would say if they had lost? Lin Dan doesn't seem to mind. All these feedback plus more to come in the next few months will be decisive. It is too early to tell. Also there were only 5 eventual winners and many more losers.

The Chinese XD champions seem to like the new system very much. They even commented that the system was ideally suited for them. Wonder what they would say if they had lost? Lin Dan doesn't seem to mind. All these feedback plus more to come in the next few months will be decisive. It is too early to tell. Also there were only 5 eventual winners and many more losers.

Lin said he didn't like the new scoring system. Taufik didn't like the new system. LYB didn't like the new system. Most of my baddy friend don't like the new system.

What are you tryign to say about more loser than winners? Loser or winner we don't care, they are all professional players and everyone has to be listened.

If you think this way, who else is more of a winner than LYB in this tournament? However, he still says he prefers old scoring system.

I will give this system a try for another 3 months (like you suggested), if I still don't like it, I hope this it die like 5x7.

Almost everybody here is focusing on the negative effects of this scoring change: shorter games (although that was a goal for IBF), less risk taking, no great comebacks, etc, and I agree with all that. But whining about the IBF being a bunch of half-brained losers (no protest from me there) is just not constructive. We have this scoring system now, and a final decision will be taken in May on its future. Either we "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing" until then and hope that it just goes away (it might not), or we should focus the debate on what is good with this system or how it can be improved. In other words, constructive debate.

I feel I've got enough 3x21 games under my belt now to give a first impression. As much opposed to this as I am, I tried hard to see some merits with this system, and after a while I did. Well, one merit: the mental game. The player really needs to be 100% focused all the time. Let's face it, in a 3x15 match, slacking off a bit if actually possible. Waste a few points in the beginning of each game just "to get started", sloppy/stupid risk-taking in your own serve, etc etc, you all know what I'm talking about. This also happens to be the kind of behaviour that calls for Big Comebacks, which is now much harder to pull off.

So, for the mental game, I think this scoring change is for the better.

However, there are several drawbacks. The one that I think has the most negative effect on the game is this: in most other sports with rally scoring, the serve is an offensive shot. In badminton, however, the serve is a defensive shot -- you can't attack your opponent with a serve. Instead, the initiative is with the receiver. The server counters this by taking risks when serving and really aiming for the lines, knowing that a lost serve isn't the end of the world. There is a power balance at work here.

However, under the new scoring system, there is really no room for errors on the server's behalf, so he/she is forced to play more of a percentage shot. Aiming for the lines is simply too expensive. And add to this that the receiver has all the more reason to attack -- the power balance is gone. (This applies mostly to doubles but also to singles.)

This fundamentally changes the way that badminton is played, and IMHO the other drawbacks are superficial in comparison. So, in order to be constructive, what can be done to regain this power balance? Well, if this scoring system is to become permanent, I feel it should be coupled with a modification of serving rules. The IBF also proposed this initially for doubles, by suggesting that the doubles service court be made bigger. At that time, I really didn't see why, but now I can see that they were trying to re-establish this server/receiver balance. But instead of focusing on the receiver, maybe it would be better to loosen the restrictions on the server? I'm not sure how, but one way might be to abolish the "racquet head under hand" rule? The shuttle would still need to be hit below the waist, but by allowing the racquet head over the hand there would be room for a few more tricks up the server's sleeve.

Thanks for listening. Now flame on. :p

I played first games according to the proposed new rules yesterday. Scoring in singles is really nothing to discuss about. In doubles I found out that parters take serves in turns - similar to volleyball (6 players in conseutive order) an exactly like in beach volleyball (2 players in turns). The position from where to serve is defined by number of points scored by the side - even or odd. Quite simple actually! But since IBF needed one full page to explain this, I wonder whether we have oversimplified something or IBF's explaining capabilities are that bad...

What is bad is that game lasts much shorter time. We were two equal strength doubles and first game that we played according to''old'' rules lasted 20 minutes, while second one according to ''new'' rules lasted less than 10 minutes. Of course it's not possible to make statistics out of that, but 10 minutes is definitely not enough in my opinion.

I played first games according to the proposed new rules yesterday. Scoring in singles is really nothing to discuss about. In doubles I found out that parters take serves in turns - similar to volleyball (6 players in conseutive order) an exactly like in beach volleyball (2 players in turns). The position from where to serve is defined by number of points scored by the side - even or odd. Quite simple actually! But since IBF needed one full page to explain this, I wonder whether we have oversimplified something or IBF's explaining capabilities are that bad...

What is bad is that game lasts much shorter time. We were two equal strength doubles and first game that we played according to''old'' rules lasted 20 minutes, while second one according to ''new'' rules lasted less than 10 minutes. Of course it's not possible to make statistics out of that, but 10 minutes is definitely not enough in my opinion.

i think ur right about taking turns when serving, i hadn't seen that pattern.. if this is the case it makes it a little simpler, since you can figure out where you should be stood based on the score and who served last.

Coops

Lin said he didn't like the new scoring system. Taufik didn't like the new system. LYB didn't like the new system. Most of my baddy friend don't like the new system.
I will give this system a try for another 3 months (like you suggested), if I still don't like it, I hope this it die like 5x7.

I thought this was what Lin Dan said : "This new system means we have to concentrate and be alert all the time, and be fast too. I am getting used to it." This is at odds with what you said. Did Taufik play in the World Cup? LYB as the Chinese coach will have a big voice when the time comes to decide.

I thought this was what Lin Dan said : "This new system means we have to concentrate and be alert all the time, and be fast too. I am getting used to it." This is at odds with what you said. Did Taufik play in the World Cup? LYB as the Chinese coach will have a big voice when the time comes to decide.

Not really on odds with his statement...Lin Dan could still be preffering the old system even with the "diplomatic"? statement "This new system means we have to concentrate and be alert all the time, and be fast too. I am getting used to it.". He doesn't say he likes it.. just that he is "getting used"..

The statement could be true even if there was the old 5x7 scoring discussed (or any shorter scoring for that matter)..

/Twobeer

TV probably represents the best hope to promote the game of badminton. With wide TV coverage, others like more sponsorships and bigger and bigger prize monies will follow. Identifying the major players is the easy part. Now how the hell are you you going to increase TV coverage on badminton, bring in more sponsors and increase prize monies to those of tennis? Lets say all of you BC Forum members collectively become Chairman of the IBF for a term, how would you go about it? Maybe this "bottom-up" management style will throw up some rare gems? Don't worry about hate emails.


No TV will cover a game that nobody want to watch. To promote the game we must make it more interesting, not more boring. No game is interesting if at 18-10 people start to leave or switch off the TV as there is almost no possibility of a comeback. The leading player at 18-10 will play the safest game he can as he knows the game is already in the bag. No safe game is ever interesting.

This topic creates such a heated discussion and I do not want to be left out here :) ......BTW, few people comment that players do not like the new scoring system but I do not get the impression from their interviews.

After World Cup, CCTC-5 interviewed the winners and asked their opinions about the new scoring system. I did not hear a single player making negative comments. Almost everyone said they got used to it after a while....maybe its because they were in front of TV. If they did complain about the new system elsewhere, I like to read about that......

I have not tried the new system yet, so I cannot tell its good or bad, so I am not taking a stand on either side at this point....

I have not tried the new system yet, so I cannot tell its good or bad, so I am not taking a stand on either side at this point....

While You're at it you should also try out the 15x5 rallyscoring system!! (I heard thats whats IBF gonna try if this fail..).. And also 10x3 rally scoring which will make the game even more high-tension and shorter (for a more exiting TV-friendly game) according to my sources inside IBF :p

/Twobeer

P.S. And don't forget to try out the use of single-service lines in doubles.. An interesting idea to make the lines easer to understand :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ...

No TV will cover a game that nobody want to watch. To promote the game we must make it more interesting, not more boring. No game is interesting if at 18-10 people start to leave or switch off the TV as there is almost no possibility of a comeback. The leading player at 18-10 will play the safest game he can as he knows the game is already in the bag. No safe game is ever interesting.

The jury is still out there on whether the new system will bring in more spectators than the old system, the sum total of the old and new because new fans and audiences are the future of badminton. It is money that speaks. More spectators, especially new fans, means TV broadcasters will come knocking on the door. TV broadcasters must make money for them to keep coming back. They can only make money when they can fill in the in-between games frequently. No commercial breaks, good for badminton die-hards but not good for TV. Without frequent TV, badminton will remain a village sport.

Guess what, LD will now take every title for 2006. Who can honestly beat him now? He's already the fastest singles player in the field.

The jury is still out there on whether the new system will bring in more spectators than the old system, the sum total of the old and new because new fans and audiences are the future of badminton. It is money that speaks. More spectators, especially new fans, means TV broadcasters will come knocking on the door. TV broadcasters must make money for them to keep coming back. They can only make money when they can fill in the in-between games frequently. No commercial breaks, good for badminton die-hards but not good for TV. Without frequent TV, badminton will remain a village sport.

Taneepak, Do you honestly think it will attract more fans by changing the scoring rules of the game slightly???? Wouldn't you agree that other factors are far more important in order to attract audience and fans? The poll in this forum indicates that >80% of BF-forum members disslike this (= risk of actually reducing viewers from current fan-base), Wouldn't you agree there is a substantial risk that more people turn away from buying tickets, watching/promoting the games, when rally-scoring is used.

I have already canceled my trip to Thomas Cup next year, and will not go to all-england, as I will not enqurage this scoring by buying tickets to these events..

Could we actually find a living person that says "I wasn't interested in watching badminton before when they had 15x3.. But now when its 21x3 I really (I actually did a freudian keyboard slip at first, typing.. "rally" instead of "really" :D ) enjoy watching badminton" ????? I think not...

/Twobeer

No matter how bad the current format is, i will still watch and support badminton.

Had a long chat with Hafiz yesterday after coming back from the World Cup.
The 21 point format is not good, he says. You can't go out after before 11-0 points. By that time, you are already so sweaty and maybe tired. It is a much faster game and you can't enjoy it much.
But changes is always there and we as players have to adapt to it fast. If not we will be left out. I hope i will learn to like this format.


After that i got a trashing from him.

Could we actually find a living person that says "I wasn't interested in watching badminton before when they had 15x3.. But now when its 21x3 I really (I actually did a freudian keyboard slip at first, typing.. "rally" instead of "really" :D ) enjoy watching badminton" ????? I think not...

/Twobeer

I have same opinion
I much didn't enjoy to see the World Cup Final matches (with 3 x 21 rally pts) in TV Broadcast not because who are the winners.
With so many service fault and some bad calls (TV has showed the ball on the line but umpire called out), one fault could destruct the play. I'm sure will born not real winner in badminton's future.
This new scoring system will send the badminton going down.

Just like only a few of you, I'm also of the opinion that we should let the new scoring system be tested for a reasonable period of time before we arrive at a final verdict. I'm actually glad to note that the professional players acknowledged that they need to make changes to their play to accommodate to the new system. It means they are flexible and willing to take the challenge.

The IBF is no fool but it doesn't mean that its Council members cannot make mistakes. Remember there are past badminton champions in ithe IBF Council, including Punch Gunalan and Rudy Hartono. But the fact that they are willing to make changes and have debated the issue of how to find ways to promote the badminton game internationally at great length and among other things, come up with this highly 'controversial' new scoring system is, IMHO, a positive move on their part. Lest we only how to criticize them, don't forget the good things that they have done - like the new International Training Centres that they have started.

As some posters have commented, the IBF had made known their goals and action plans for some time now and the best way to popularize badminton to the world is through TV. But the IBF needs the money to be able to do this effectively so there has to be some trade-offs. Sponsors need more TV time to introduce their products and services. It is hoped that the new scoring system can help solve this problem. But we need to test it out and make modifications if necessary to ensure its success.

Right now, it appears that the new scoring system is confusing for many of us social players, especially for doubles. But I'm sure over time, when we get used to it, it will not be a great problem. It is only natural that new things will need some time getting used to and often times any 'new' change is met with suspicion, reluctance and outright rejection. We have forgotten that there have been so many changes in human history and many of these changes have kept man on the move, bringing along new and wonderful creations for us to enjoy.

We should therefore be more positive and not prejudge any proposed changes. Let the system work itself out. There must be reasonable time for it to be tested. The IBF has its plans. If, at the end of the 'experimental period', the majority of those involved who count most gives a 'NO' signal, then the IBF will have to go back to the drawing board and think of better solutions. But so far, even within such a short time, there has not been an avalanche of negative feedback that necessitates the IBF to stop in its tracks.

Now players, especially if they are not as fast as Lin Dan, will have to play smarter and more accurately. They must be more focussed and can't afford to allow their mind to linger even for a second. The serve, which has always been one of the the most important tools of the game, now takes on greater significance. It has to be so good that the opponent can't kill it on the spot. It will appear that attacking players will have a decided advantage to shorten the rallies. But it will also force players to hone their defensive skills to perfection! The rallies could then last longer, though not as long as before.

Imagine what sort of 'movie' you will be watching - badminton played even at a much higher level! Oh the TV viewers will love it. The sponsors will love it. IBF will love it! :D

loh, i'll buy that.
good summary.

all changes bring griefs to some and benefits to others.
if 15x3 is good as we think, it will survive. Only changes can prove how
good (or bad) the 15x3 system really is. The 5x7, 5x9 have proved 15x3 was better. Another test would prove how good the 15x3 really is.

Personally i think better rackets and training have sped up the game already.
Any faster will leave me still holding onto my half eaten hot dog and that would be a waste :D

Personally i think better rackets and training have sped up the game already. Any faster will leave me still holding onto my half eaten hot dog and that would be a waste :D

Mmmmmm, hot dog! With extra onions and ketchup? :D

Not that i give it a lot of thought, but i was watching the Hafiz vs Chen Jin match and watching how close it was at some points and i wondered - why is it staying close?

and then it occured to me.. if you don't score with your serve you don't actually make any improvement in score. and i thought - it's just like 3x15, but accelerated somewhat. you need to win the serve back then win a point to actually get anywhere.

i think if the IBF increased the score to 25 or 31 and had ad breaks at 8 and 16 or 10 and 21 (depending on whether it was to 25 or 31) we could have a TV friendly system that had similar length games to 3x15.

comments anybody? (apart from - if it ain't broke don't fix it...)

Coops

Not that i give it a lot of thought, but i was watching the Hafiz vs Chen Jin match and watching how close it was at some points and i wondered - why is it staying close?

and then it occured to me.. if you don't score with your serve you don't actually make any improvement in score. and i thought - it's just like 3x15, but accelerated somewhat. you need to win the serve back then win a point to actually get anywhere.

i think if the IBF increased the score to 25 or 31 and had ad breaks at 8 and 16 or 10 and 21 (depending on whether it was to 25 or 31) we could have a TV friendly system that had similar length games to 3x15.

comments anybody? (apart from - if it ain't broke don't fix it...)

Coops

rally21 *is* broke. they *must* fix it! :D

What they could try is make it rally35, and force a win by 2 regardless of how long it takes, i.e., no artificial stops at 30-29. The increased length gives more time for a good fightback, and the win by 2 means you won't lose on a service fault.

Not that i give it a lot of thought, but i was watching the Hafiz vs Chen Jin match and watching how close it was at some points and i wondered - why is it staying close?

and then it occured to me.. if you don't score with your serve you don't actually make any improvement in score. and i thought - it's just like 3x15, but accelerated somewhat. you need to win the serve back then win a point to actually get anywhere.

i think if the IBF increased the score to 25 or 31 and had ad breaks at 8 and 16 or 10 and 21 (depending on whether it was to 25 or 31) we could have a TV friendly system that had similar length games to 3x15.

comments anybody? (apart from - if it ain't broke don't fix it...)

Coops

this sounds good to me, especially for double games. great idea ;)

rally21 *is* broke. they *must* fix it! :D

What they could try is make it rally35, and force a win by 2 regardless of how long it takes, i.e., no artificial stops at 30-29. The increased length gives more time for a good fightback, and the win by 2 means you won't lose on a service fault.

yeah, but they stopped endless tiebreaks in tennis because they were dangerous to the health of the players, and boring. mebbe you could just have an endless tiebreak in the third game... that would work.. i personally think rally25 is plenty, with a tiebreak of some sort up to 35 say in the first two games then endless in the deciding game..

sounds good to me.. can we send this to Punch for next years trial scoring system :)

Actually, the tie-break in tennis can theoretically go on forever if neither side can gain a mini-break or capitalise on one (i.e., got broken immediately).

Regarding a longer rally scoring system, IIRC, Poul-Erik Hoyer-Larsen also said that he'd prefer playing 5x21 rather than 3x21.

Actually, the tie-break in tennis can theoretically go on forever if neither side can gain a mini-break or capitalise on one (i.e., got broken immediately).

Regarding a longer rally scoring system, IIRC, Poul-Erik Hoyer-Larsen also said that he'd prefer playing 5x21 rather than 3x21.

aaah, yes... i'm thinking about final sets in tennis - where they don't bother with the tie break and insist that you win the set by two straight games, but thinking about it they have endless deuces don't they - altho i suppose the games only have 4 points don't they so this is reasonable.

sheesh 5x21.. sounds like a bit of a marathon to me.. mebbe you could do what snooker do - have 3x21 in the opening rounds then 5x21 in the semi's and finals.. but 5x21 all the way thru.. especially when we've seen even the shortest game in a pro tournament last almost half an hour for 2 games to 21 could result in a lot of long matches.. to the point where tournaments could be very very long.. 3x25 seems like a good figure to me..

Coops

Not that i give it a lot of thought, but i was watching the Hafiz vs Chen Jin match and watching how close it was at some points and i wondered - why is it staying close?

and then it occured to me.. if you don't score with your serve you don't actually make any improvement in score. and i thought - it's just like 3x15, but accelerated somewhat. you need to win the serve back then win a point to actually get anywhere.

i think if the IBF increased the score to 25 or 31 and had ad breaks at 8 and 16 or 10 and 21 (depending on whether it was to 25 or 31) we could have a TV friendly system that had similar length games to 3x15.

comments anybody? (apart from - if it ain't broke don't fix it...)

Coops

Well.. It's of course interesting to discuss optional scoring systems.. But still... We need to discuss the OBJECTIVE first.. and then the MEANS..

Also we need to agree on the OBJECTIVE..

For example... If the OBJECTIVE is shorter games, then 3x31 may not be good.... But then again.. do we WANT shorter games??? Will that make Badminton more popular? Or less popular? Will badminton be shown more if there is less playing per game??

If the OBJECTIVE is to have AD-breaks, then These breaks more or less can be put into ANY scoring system, right..just say ad-breaks at 8 in mormal 3x15 or every 5,10 or whatever..

If the objective is to Give the receiver an extra advantage then Rally Scoring should be considered... Ins't it a good idea that becuase serving in bedminton is defensive, the "carrot" is to be able to get points while having the dissadvantage...

As someone mentioned 5x9 (non rally scoring) seems to me more appropriate if we want to have more "fixed" breaks and still not make the game as short as 5x7 was..

But sorry... I'll have to finish off with... "if it ain't broken don't fix it" :D , but if it indeed is broken.. let us first establish WHAT is broken in 3x15 before trying to provide a solution..

/Twobeer

I hate the new scoring system.
Didn't even bothered to watch a game to the end.
When I go to see a game, I want to see good stuff, great play, great comebacks, players sweating it out till they drop.
I don't want to get my money ripped off by watching a 20 minute 3 games match.

So IBF, please change the bloody scoring, because I won't be watching badminton anymore, and you won't get any money from me.

My club has 10 courts in total. I will propose to the manager to reserve 8 courts for 15-points system and 2 courts for 21-points system. This gives every player a choice, the player who won a game can stick with the same system and the one who lost has a choice to switch to alternative system if he/she wants. This flexibility keeps everyone happy :D

I hate the new scoring system.
Didn't even bothered to watch a game to the end.
When I go to see a game, I want to see good stuff, great play, great comebacks, players sweating it out till they drop.
I don't want to get my money ripped off by watching a 20 minute 3 games match.

So IBF, please change the bloody scoring, because I won't be watching badminton anymore, and you won't get any money from me.

unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.

unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.

Yes, in the end money talks. How nice if all of us were as rich as Bill Gates, we can then go and tell the IBF to forget about the new scoring system, and we will help you to do this by pledging $10 billion from each of us, total 11,000 forum members, for the next 20 years. :D Problem solved. :D We tend to forget someone has to bring in the money. Now if TV broadcasters of badminton matches were to charge $1 for watching each match and another $2 for vidoe-taping each game on TV, you can keep the old scoring system. But let us be honest. How many of you would pay? :D

I still do not support the new system, but after testing it some more, I did find a good side to it. There will practically be no more 15-0 scores that are quite possible between two unequal opponents according to 3×15 rules. This could be discouraging, maybe even dismoralizing, for youngsters and beginners. With the new system, everybody will score at least some points in every game. This might help keep some more youngsters in the sport.

I still do not support the new system, but after testing it some more, I did find a good side to it. There will practically be no more 15-0 scores that are quite possible between two unequal opponents according to 3×15 rules. This could be discouraging, maybe even dismoralizing, for youngsters and beginners. With the new system, everybody will score at least some points in every game. This might help keep some more youngsters in the sport.

Also, newcomers would not understand why, under the old system, they still get thrashed 15-0 when they swear they have won at least 12 of the rally points. :D

unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.

My point exactly. If I don't want to see a game in real life, why would I want to see it on TV if it's even less exciting?

Also, newcomers would not understand why, under the old system, they still get thrashed 15-0 when they swear they have won at least 12 of the rally points. :D

If they don't understand, then it should be patiently explained to them that it is because they are not good enough. (What, do they think badminton is such a sissy sport that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can get a point off of a World Champion?)

I am not a good singles player, and I usually get thrashed at 6-15 or 7-15. With rally21, I find that I am not only competitive, but I even win games against people who are clearly better than I am. The reason seems to be simple. All you need to do is hang tough early on, get a 2 or 3 point lead (counting score the old way), and sit on it. That's it. That's enough to win you a game. This is not the badminton I know. And the number of games that are decided on the other guy's serve -- sheesh.

unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.

That is shortsighted for more reasons than already listed. In almost every successful sport, be it the MLB, the NBA, the NFL, you name it, gate receipts form the largest portion of the total income. TV deals contribute a lot, but they don't pay the salaries of a Manny Ramirez or a Phony Damon (yes, I am bitter! :mad:)

If they don't understand, then it should be patiently explained to them that it is because they are not good enough. (What, do they think badminton is such a sissy sport that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can get a point off of a World Champion?)

I am not a good singles player, and I usually get thrashed at 6-15 or 7-15. With rally21, I find that I am not only competitive, but I even win games against people who are clearly better than I am. The reason seems to be simple. All you need to do is hang tough early on, get a 2 or 3 point lead (counting score the old way), and sit on it. That's it. That's enough to win you a game. This is not the badminton I know. And the number of games that are decided on the other guy's serve -- sheesh.

interestingly there are few differences between the two systems for singles, you still need to win your serve and the next rally to actually gain any points on your opponent, in the same way you did with serve scoring.. the only downfall of this new system is the number of points, i think it needs to be more, make it 25 with ad breaks at 8 and 16... this should be perfect.. you could even make the deuce at the end of the deciding game endless to allow for some marathon finishes.. with breaks every 12 rally's... (not sure how you'd communicate this to players tho...)

Coops

interestingly there are few differences between the two systems for singles, you still need to win your serve and the next rally to actually gain any points on your opponent, in the same way you did with serve scoring..

Coops

Er, no. Rally point scoring means that all rallies move the score along, regardless of who is serving or whether it is singles or doubles. The serve changes hands if the non-server wins the rally as well.

The fundamental problem with the IBF trial system is just that - rally point scoring. The matches are too short and the play is more defensive (and therefore of even less interest to the TV people).

Why do they not just allow breaks for televised matches to the current scoring format? Hey presto! everyone is happy.

TV deals contribute a lot, but they don't pay the salaries of a Manny Ramirez or a Phony Damon (yes, I am bitter! :mad:)

Don't hate. The Yankees offered Johnny Damon $12 Million more than the BoSox would offer him. If I or any other person in their right mind were in that position, we'd do it too and you should too. You may talk about going over to the "enemy", but for Damon it's just a business, his livelihood. If the BoSox were competitive with their offer, maybe Damon would have reconsidered; but a $12 million difference? There's nothing much to consider.

And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Live in Framingham for 2.5 years pursuing my MBA in Boston. Gooo Pats! :D

Er, no. Rally point scoring means that all rallies move the score along, regardless of who is serving or whether it is singles or doubles. The serve changes hands if the non-server wins the rally as well.

The fundamental problem with the IBF trial system is just that - rally point scoring. The matches are too short and the play is more defensive (and therefore of even less interest to the TV people).

Why do they not just allow breaks for televised matches to the current scoring format? Hey presto! everyone is happy.

not sure if you missed the point here. think about it this way.

it's 5-all.. your opponent is serving.. you win the rally, now it's 5-6 and your serve.. if you don't win the next rally too you end up back at 6-6. the equivalent in the old system would result in the score being 5-5 instead of 6-6.. yes 21 points isn't really enough and i'd like to see it made to 25 or maybe even 31, but it's a fine balance between entire tournaments being lengthened by whitewash matches that take too long and games being too short to be interesting

i see two options if we keep with rally scoring.. (which i would guess the IBF will do since it makes ad break opportunities marginally more predictable without having to resort to timeslip technology (which btw i think is a much simpler less upsetting solution))
1 - increase the score to 25 / 31 and have deuce points up to 35 / 40
2 - stick with 21 but have an endless tiebreak on the deciding set..

Coops

unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.

Probably.. But I think TV audience numbers and ticket-buyers is likely to be linked.. So It is likely to assume Less TV-audience as well if ticket-sales are poor...

/Twobeer

not sure if you missed the point here. think about it this way.

it's 5-all.. your opponent is serving.. you win the rally, now it's 5-6 and your serve.. if you don't win the next rally too you end up back at 6-6. the equivalent in the old system would result in the score being 5-5 instead of 6-6.. yes 21 points isn't really enough and i'd like to see it made to 25 or maybe even 31, but it's a fine balance between entire tournaments being lengthened by whitewash matches that take too long and games being too short to be interesting

i see two options if we keep with rally scoring.. (which i would guess the IBF will do since it makes ad break opportunities marginally more predictable without having to resort to timeslip technology (which btw i think is a much simpler less upsetting solution))
1 - increase the score to 25 / 31 and have deuce points up to 35 / 40
2 - stick with 21 but have an endless tiebreak on the deciding set..

Coops

But if We use say 3x31.. I think an uneven matches will be prolonged uneccesary.. Even with 3x21 a totally dominant player would ned 42 rallies to win agains a "bad" player..And with 3X31 it would be 62!! Prolonging an uneven game does certainly not make it more interesting.. On the other end of the spectrum it is the even games.. That gets shortend by rally scoring... I don't see any logic behinf making uneven games longer and even games shorter.. Therefore I think Rally Scoring is "pure evil" :D

/Twobeer

Don't hate. The Yankees offered Johnny Damon $12 Million more than the BoSox would offer him. If I or any other person in their right mind were in that position, we'd do it too and you should too. You may talk about going over to the "enemy", but for Damon it's just a business, his livelihood. If the BoSox were competitive with their offer, maybe Damon would have reconsidered; but a $12 million difference? There's nothing much to consider.

No kidding. Reports coming out now say that the Sawx thought he had a 5 year deal with somebody else, and were completely surprised it was a 4 year deal with the Yankees. If he had even said one word that the Yankees were offering $52M for 4 years, I bet they would have matched the offer in a jiffy.


And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Live in Framingham for 2.5 years pursuing my MBA in Boston. Gooo Pats! :D

Amen to that!

But getting back on topic, I found this link to an old USA Today list that estimates the revenues for all major league baseball teams.. don't know how to make a link here, but here is the URL:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/stories/2001-12-05-focus-expenses.htm

The point being, TV deals look good in newspaper reports, but the lifeline of the sport is in putting butts into seats.

I am curious .. how much did the IBF earn from the World Championships at Anaheim? How much from ticket sales, and how much from TV deals?

It may not strike you as strange to learn that the old badminton scoring system is actually 4 different scoring systems? The new scoring system uses the same scoring system for MS, MD, MX, WS, and WD. One standard is better than 4 standards, especially for newcomers to badminton.
Now doesn't this make more sense? :D

It may not strike you as strange to learn that the old badminton scoring system is actually 4 different scoring systems? The new scoring system uses the same scoring system for MS, MD, MX, WS, and WD. One standard is better than 4 standards, especially for newcomers to badminton.
Now doesn't this make more sense? :D

Four different systems? If you are going to nit-pick that the number of points played constitutes a significant change to the system then I can see 3 systems here. But then I'd nit-pick that singles is always different from doubles because two players are sharing the serving and the court is different, so its 2 (trial) vs 3 (existing) systems really.

And playing to 11 is not actually a significant difference in terms of complexity and ease of understanding, is it?

That is also true in tennis, of course. Except that tennis has different numbers of sets according to the tournament, and different tie-break systems - so maybe changing the scoring system is not the golden bullet after all.

How do the scoring methods for MD, MX and WD differ from one another?

Four different systems? If you are going to nit-pick that the number of points played constitutes a significant change to the system then I can see 3 systems here. But then I'd nit-pick that singles is always different from doubles because two players are sharing the serving and the court is different, so its 2 (trial) vs 3 (existing) systems really.

And playing to 11 is not actually a significant difference in terms of complexity and ease of understanding, is it?

That is also true in tennis, of course. Except that tennis has different numbers of sets according to the tournament, and different tie-break systems - so maybe changing the scoring system is not the golden bullet after all.

How do the scoring methods for MD, MX and WD differ from one another?

You are right in that the old system has 3 distinct scoring systems vs the one unified new scoring system.
The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.
In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.
The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.
I was brought up with the imperial system of weights and measures but I found switching to the metric system makes life so much simpler. It is the same story with numbers. The Indian 0 decimal system replaced all the old Roman and other numbering systems a long time ago, but only after a great fight. :D

You are right in that the old system has 3 distinct scoring systems vs the one unified new scoring system.
The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.
In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.
The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.
I was brought up with the imperial system of weights and measures but I found switching to the metric system makes life so much simpler. It is the same story with numbers. The Indian 0 decimal system replaced all the old Roman and other numbering systems a long time ago, but only after a great fight. :D

As usual you have taught me all about something I know, but you didn't answer my question. What is the 4th system? How do MD, WD & Mx differ from one another? Why do you exagerate your case by making out that the trial singles is identical to the trial doubles? It is 3 vs 2. And irrelevant.

Anyway the question is about switching from serve scoring to rally scoring.
This has NOTHING to do with having differences in MS, WS and doubles.

You can keep serve scoring and decide there is only one service per doubles pair, this has nothing to do with rally scoring.

Personnally, I am not against any change to scoring system, I am simply against rally scoring and shortening overall match durations.

The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.

Are you seriously comparing a Singles game with a Doubles game? Are you drunk??



In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.

AFAIK, women are less endurant than men. Analogy: Tennis.


The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.


Not simpler to understand. More confusing.

This has NOTHING to do with having differences in MS, WS and doubles.

I am simply against rally scoring and shortening overall match durations.

I completely agree on both points.