After watching today's Commonwealth Games, from a spectator point of view, I feel that 21-point is more exciting.

But, I like to see those 'come-backs' when a player is trailing 8-13, 9-14, I think this is hard to happen in the new point system

After watching today's Commonwealth Games, from a spectator point of view, I feel that 21-point is more exciting.

But, I like to see those 'come-backs' when a player is trailing 8-13, 9-14, I think this is hard to happen in the new point system



Can't agree.....but everyone has their own oppinion.

I hate the new system......I was a spectator at the games a few days ago.
Games were finnished too quickly.

Personally I would not like to play with those new rules myself.:(

Without the safety of having the serve and the opponent at match point and denying him the chance of winning in the next rally and maintaining serve........:confused:

It just isn't 'Badminton' but I know alot of people who like it.

i agree with longreach.
sure, it makes sense to make game times more predictable for tv schedules, but i think the game loses its magic from these changes.
i can still see a side trailing 14-8 reach duece, but in the same situation, say 20-14, i would have to say game over.
1 small, silly mistake, and you're gone ...

my main concern is the length, rally points are way too short, take WMC and Tracy's game for example, it would've been easily 90 mins long with fitness determining the winner, but eventhough each wins a rally, the points keep adding up and it finshed in only 60mins

And Aamir only had less than 25mins on camera becoz of the rally points system...**Rolls on floor and cracks up laughing
It wouldve been 15-2 15-2 on the old system, he rarely wins 2 rallies in a row...and i love the look on his face after LCW calmly pushes his net smash back with him half clenching his fist already
LCW must be like WTF? lol coz im sure Lin Dan and gade wouldnt do that and he would expect the rally to go on lol

i agree with longreach.
sure, it makes sense to make game times more predictable for tv schedules, but i think the game loses its magic from these changes.
i can still see a side trailing 14-8 reach duece, but in the same situation, say 20-14, i would have to say game over.
1 small, silly mistake, and you're gone ...

I agree with longreach and Dreamzz as well.:)

For controlling time, I think, bout-piont system should be much better than old point system. But I think 5x15 is better than 3x21 under bout-piont system. More time for ad. and timeout of every game is after 8 points (11 points under 21 points).

Don't worry about "come back" problem, I think, it will appear (like under old point system) as soon as players are familiar with new point system.

Table Tennis uses 7x11 point system now, many many "come back" visions appear during playing.

For controlling time, I think, bout-piont system should be much better than old point system. But I think 5x15 is better than 3x21 under bout-piont system. More time for ad. and timeout of every game is after 8 points (11 points under 21 points).

Don't worry about "come back" problem, I think, it will appear (like under old point system) as soon as players are familiar with new point system.

Table Tennis uses 7x11 point system now, many many "come back" visions appear during playing.

:confused: Table Tennis using 7 x 11 points now? If not my mistake, it still uses 5 x 11 points at this CWG right?

BTW, I think this new scoring system would be better if 3 x 25 points. 21 too fast especially doubles.

I think the magic has gone - The games in Melbourne don't seem at all rivetting - exciting comebacks could be a thing of the past now:crying:
They should rather work on some dynamic photography to increase TV audiences (like tennis)

Don't worry, if 21-point system is not good enough then IBF will go back to the old 15-point system after Thomas Cup. Just give players more time to adapt to the new system. Lets wait and see.

With all due respect to members here, I think the spectators enjoyed the match regardless. Now stop your b*tching and lets play / watch more badminton

With all due respect to members here, I think the spectators enjoyed the match regardless. Now stop your b*tching and lets play / watch more badminton


With all due respect, this is a thread about discussing the pro's and con's of the new point system. It is interesting to hear everyones feeling on this, it is not bi**ching just an exchange of views on the matter.

I ask many people in the crowd at the games........people i knew and people I didn't.................not one person said they enjoyed watching with the new point system over the old.

after watching a few matches with the 21 point system, I really didn't feel the the middle parts of games felt any different to the 15 point system.

where i felt a bit let down was when the score neared the 20 point mark, and in several matches, the game sort of simply ended... some of the matches did not end with any big bang, but more of a whimper.

i think that feeling is generally consistent with most spectators that are expecting a bit more suspense in close matches.

the new scoring system sucks! I tried it once and reverted it to the old system. i wonder if the change will create the desired effect i.e. attracting more ppl to badminton. But what's for sure is that it's disappointing hardcore badminton fans .

after watching a few matches with the 21 point system, I really didn't feel the the middle parts of games felt any different to the 15 point system.

where i felt a bit let down was when the score neared the 20 point mark, and in several matches, the game sort of simply ended... some of the matches did not end with any big bang, but more of a whimper.

i think that feeling is generally consistent with most spectators that are expecting a bit more suspense in close matches.


Good description. Trying to make it more exiting I feel has done the opposite.:( I am no longer watching the games badminton............I am going to watch the boxing....lol.......seriously.

:confused: Table Tennis using 7 x 11 points now? If not my mistake, it still uses 5 x 11 points at this CWG right?

BTW, I think this new scoring system would be better if 3 x 25 points. 21 too fast especially doubles.

7x11 for individual events, and 5x11 for team events.

I think, to badminton, best of 5 games should be better than best of 3 games.

Good description. Trying to make it more exiting I feel has done the opposite.:( I am no longer watching the games badminton............I am going to watch the boxing....lol.......seriously.
lol.
Maybe because scoring in boxing is closer to badminton's 15x3 than the 21 pt system;) . In boxing, u only score points for good hits and no point to your opponent if u miss your punch. Imagine a fight where u duck or parry all his swings and u can't or didn't land a single punch on the guy, YOU WIN!!!! ding ding ding ding.!!!!

lol.
Maybe because scoring in boxing is closer to badminton's 15x3 than the 21 pt system;) . In boxing, u only score points for good hits and no point to your opponent if u miss your punch. Imagine a fight where u duck or parry all his swings and u can't or didn't land a single punch on the guy, YOU WIN!!!! ding ding ding ding.!!!!

Very true!

I watch both: boxing and badminton........they are in the same complex...........spewing cause all tickets are sold out so I can't go to anymore:( I should have pre booked. ah well I saw boxing twice and badminton once.
I love low round fights.......more action in less time.....it is also better for the health of the fighters.........and usually less blood thirsty.

In western kickboxing you lose a round by not throwing at least 6 kicks in a round. Even if you are winning the round! You must throw out 6 even if they don't connect.

If you got points for your opponent missing you......the fighter 'Prince Azim' if spelt correct would be the ultimate 'evader' and champion......he hardly got hit in fights. His reflexes were amazing.

With all due respect, this is a thread about discussing the pro's and con's of the new point system. It is interesting to hear everyones feeling on this, it is not bi**ching just an exchange of views on the matter.

I ask many people in the crowd at the games........people i knew and people I didn't.................not one person said they enjoyed watching with the new point system over the old.

Dude, I just said to watch more badminton and enough whining. The forum has been overpopulated with hate posts in recent time just because the IBF decided to try something new.

Upsets are gona flow all over the place with the new scoring, mayb not for the top 2 seeds but for lower ranked players it happens a lot...
Just like both the indian 2nd singles doing much better than their 1st singles...
And even beat aamir lmaoRofl.....:D

in the flaming department, fend is the leader.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20971&highlight=cork

you bark alot but then raise a 'be nice plea' flag when cornered.
when coast is clear, u go back barking.

Longreach, as a new member in BF, u have good judgement of character. I think your bow hunting skill has something to do with it;).

in the flaming department, fend is the leader.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20971&highlight=cork

you bark alot but then raise 'be nice plea' flag when cornered.
when coast is clear, u go back barking.

Hey cooler. 'Sup? Time flies you know mate, I've matured a bit more over that period of abscence from this forum and am trying to reduce immature postings on my side of it.

From players' point of view, we know the new system benefits those who can be aggressive from the beginning but not durable, but is a bad thing for those who warms up slowly but fitter. Can you guys list out players that belong to the two extreme categories? We can take it as a prediction of the rises and falls of players in the long run should this system be permanently adopted.

in the flaming department, fend is the leader.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20971&highlight=cork

you bark alot but then raise a 'be nice plea' flag when cornered.
when coast is clear, u go back barking.

Longreach, as a new member in BF, u have good judgement of character. I think your bow hunting skill has something to do with it;).



Yeah, I only shoot people who are rude to others!.......lol:D

Nah just joking....if that was the case i would have a trophy room full of them.hehe.

[quote=cooler]in the flaming department, fend is the leader.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20971&highlight=cork

you bark alot but then raise a 'be nice plea' flag when cornered.
when coast is clear, u go back barking.

quote]


lol.....I like that saying very fitting.
Yeah, i think from now on i will just ignore him.......unless ofcourse he has something decent to say.

From players' point of view, we know the new system benefits those who can be aggressive from the beginning but not durable, but is a bad thing for those who warms up slowly but fitter. Can you guys list out players that belong to the two extreme categories? We can take it as a prediction of the rises and falls of players in the long run should this system be permanently adopted.

INA taufik is a slow starter. Ex. athen olympic MS final.
MAL Ong Ewe Hock alway start with flare and pistol shooting but whimper out later.

Yeah, I only shoot people who are rude to others!.......lol:D

Nah just joking....if that was the case i would have a trophy room full of them.hehe.

don't be shy, tell us that you nail the target's head and then u cook and eat your kills on the spot. Seriously, bow hunting is alot tougher than rifle hunting.

don't be shy, tell us that u cook and eat your kills on the spot. Seriously, bow hunting is alot tougher than rifle hunting.bow hunting takes skill too, as well as strength and discipline. so if longreach is into that, kudos! also extremely ballsy if you are staring down a charging grizzly with just one arrow...

bow hunting takes skill too, as well as strength and discipline. so if longreach is into that, kudos! also extremely ballsy if you are staring down a charging grizzly with just one arrow...

Aussies are blessed with no grizzlies:p or the grizzlies die off long ago due to heat stroke, hehe

Aussies are blessed with no grizzlies:pmaybe some crazed 'roos? or a rabid koala?

maybe some crazed 'roos? or a rabid koala?

didn't i just said longreach has good judgement of characters around here;):)

INA taufik is a slow starter. Ex. athen olympic MS final.
MAL Ong Ewe Hock alway start with flare and pistol shooting but whimper out later.

Okay, we have two names now (except that OEH has been out of action for so long ... don't tell me he will grab this opportunity to come back - a bit too "old" anyway).

Anybody else? Or the rest of the top guns belong to neither categories but just in between?

On the other hand, would such an "effect" or "phenomenon" less likely in doubles events?

After watching today's Commonwealth Games, from a spectator point of view, I feel that 21-point is more exciting.

But, I like to see those 'come-backs' when a player is trailing 8-13, 9-14, I think this is hard to happen in the new point system


I started playing 21-point scoring since last week and yesterday (2 sessions). In total I played 5-6 games of 21-point on each sessions, previously when using 15-point, I only can last 3-4 games each session (8-12 midnight). Yesterday we had a game with the scoreline of 30-28. I was a spectator. I did not support any of the pairs but just to have a record of maximum score I cheered for the trailing pair to get even. At the end it was a exciting match to watch. At one point the losing pair was leading 19-12, just with one serve the winning pair managed to level at 19-19 all (taking 7 points with one serve).

In 21-point systems, when a pair is leading more than 4 points before the score reach 10, the leading pair have better chances to win the game. When you are trailing 4 or more points early in the games, ones has to start chasing and not when your oponent is at 17 points and above.

Average games is 10 minutes, so in 4 hours we used up 2 dozens of shuttlecorks. Each game entitled for 1 birdie, additional birder, losing pair will pay RM2.00 each. Surprisingly all the games end up with 1 birdie (due to shorter time spend on each game, and the trailing pair usually requested for the used shuttlecorks instead of new shuttlecorks to avoid paying extra if they have no confidence of winning. If no used birdie, they have no choice but have to use new birdie).

We have 13-14 average to advanced regular players, patiently waiting for next games in one and only badminton court in town :crying: . Everybody happy because the waiting time is shorter. Everybody no longer playing with fancy strokes. My last game ended with 26-24, what an exciting game to play!!!

The new system is going through a trial period. In May, 2006 a decision will be made to either adopt or drop it. The old system has been with us even before most of us were born. Players of all shades have adapted, crafted, strategised, and some even 'cheat' under the old system. Right now, most competitive players are slowly adapting to the new system, some fully committed, others not completely, because its adoption has not been finalized yet.
Once its finalized, that is if they can get the 2/3 votes, we can expect to find coaches and court-craft strategists devising and exploring a thousand and one strategies and tactics to get optimal performance from the new system. Right now it is too early to say who will benefit and who will lose out under the new system. Players will find concentration and the ability to stay focused at all time will stand them in good stead.

thats crazy how can the 21 point system be better.it has only made badmiton worst.i was watching the republic of male vs jamacia action on court 2 on channel 5 before i left for school.i noticed that the points were played very quickly due to both players constant attack.resulting in lesser rallies and more power smashes to win.and both players defending were not that good resulting in really less exciting game.

Once its finalized, that is if they can get the 2/3 votes, we can expect to find coaches and court-craft strategists devising and exploring a thousand and one strategies and tactics to get optimal performance from the new system. Right now it is too early to say who will benefit and who will lose out under the new system. Players will find concentration and the ability to stay focused at all time will stand them in good stead.

So let me rephrase my question: (Instead of asking who will benefit ...) who need less efforts to adopt themselves to the new system as their original playing styles fit the new system perfectly ...

thats crazy how can the 21 point system be better.it has only made badmiton worst.i was watching the republic of male vs jamacia action on court 2 on channel 5 before i left for school.i noticed that the points were played very quickly due to both players constant attack.resulting in lesser rallies and more power smashes to win.and both players defending were not that good resulting in really less exciting game.

mmm. You may have a point with it being more smashes. But isn't that part of badminton? Isn't that the goal of the IBF to promote the sport as an aggressive sport and kill the stigma of it being a backyard sport which has hardly any action.

What do you guys mean there are less rallies. Do you guys rather see no movement in points? Please elaborate as I recall that the top class matches have an average of about 30 - 40 shots in a rally in the Commonwealth Games?

P.S All personal attacks to my pms please.

don't be shy, tell us that you nail the target's head and then u cook and eat your kills on the spot. Seriously, bow hunting is alot tougher than rifle hunting.

LOL:D

Yes. It took many years of being out there to learn enough to be proficient in taking game. I have been doing it since i was 18 and am now 28, 10 years.

Learning to get withing 5-40 meters of game is the hardest to master and knowing where to find game. Guns are too easy.......to get within 70-200 meters.

I do eat some of the things I shoot........exept feral pigs and large mountain/feral goats.........small goats are the best meat I have ever shot and ate. Kangaroo is nice but I do not shoot them........it is illegal to do so......but if I had to on a survival camp and there was nothing else....maybe.

After all these years and learning all I have so far(still have alot to learn), I would never use a gun/rifle..........you don't need to.....plus it is too noisy and scares animals away with the loud bang, and is no where as challenging as using a bow and arrow.

maybe some crazed 'roos? or a rabid koala?


Nah no grizzly bear or koala's with rabbies,lol:D


The only things that are dangerous here are:

Water Buffalo
Scrub Bulls ( most dangerous, Wild cows!) Trust me they are bad asses.
Wild Dogs ( yes domestic dogs gone wild, usually big hunting dogs)
Snakes, Spiders. Lots of different types.
Crocodiles.


Aslong as you are carefull you should be ok.......never go by yourself though...always have someone with you.

Below is my own opinion.

21 points (Fast bullet and/or undurable)
1) Lee Chong Wei



15 points (slow starter)
1) Lin Dan
2) Taufik hidayat
3) Chen Hong


Anyone can add?

Please elaborate as I recall that the top class matches have an average of about 30 - 40 shots in a rally in the Commonwealth Games?
really?
what discipline?
I ask because I have stats showing the average length of a rally in MS is about 8.5 shots (from top class events and players ranging from 1982 to 2005) in 3x15
The longest rally in a game would be around 30-ish

I doubt if even WD would average > 30 shots per rally

I watch the games at TV, i like the photograph angle where it is taken from top view when the doubles is serve

I think the new system will benefit many Malaysian player

I think the new system will benefit many Malaysian player

As what 7x5 system did ...

I'm not sure what the IBF are looking for. We went through this with 7x5. The 15 point system is fine. All they are doing is wasting time and money again.

Bottom line, badminton is not getting popular so something has to be blame, so the scoring system is the scape goat. In my opinion, somebody who's running the badminton association should be blame, not something like 15-point scoring system.

I just want to say, I support the old 15 pts system.

really?
what discipline?
I ask because I have stats showing the average length of a rally in MS is about 8.5 shots (from top class events and players ranging from 1982 to 2005) in 3x15
The longest rally in a game would be around 30-ish

I doubt if even WD would average > 30 shots per rally


Yeah, I don't think there were any rallies when I watched that were long rallies at all. I would agree it is around 8-10 shots

Your arguments about rallies getting shorter is wrong. Matches finish quicker yes but that means its getting less rallies rather than the rallies themselves getting shorter.

Fine, I might be wrong on average rallies per game, but isn't it still the same with the old scoring?

So let me rephrase my question: (Instead of asking who will benefit ...) who need less efforts to adopt themselves to the new system as their original playing styles fit the new system perfectly ...

It is still too early to say. However, players who have an open mind and who are very keen to switch and adapt to the new system instead of being 'forced' to would benefit initially. Longer term it will be a level playing field, as a new generation of players will take over and they wouldn't know what the old system was all about.

Your arguments about rallies getting shorter is wrong. Matches finish quicker yes but that means its getting less rallies rather than the rallies themselves getting shorter.

Fine, I might be wrong on average rallies per game, but isn't it still the same with the old scoring?

Yes it would be close.

However i am a very tactical player........when I have serve I play differently than if getting served to.

When i get served to.....I play more of a defencive game and play more 'high percentage shots' , shots that i have little chance in making errors.

When serving I play more aggressively, I play alot of steep smashes and sharp drops. As I have the safety of losing serve and not a point.

This new system would mean changing my tactics....which have served me well.:)

I have the ability to adapt, but i feel with the new system I would choose a more deffencive game.........for the whole game and seldom play aggressively.......might be boring, as when I have the serve I play like an animal and when I don't i play very defencively trying to draw the opponents own errors.

haha yes...tactics all different.

i was watching Lee Chong Wei (MAS) play Aamir Ghaffer (ENG) in the mixed teams events gold medal match,

score was 21-8 and 21-8

Seriously, if it was the 15 point system that was clearly a score similiar to 15-2 15-0 ---> thrashing

Big gap in talent, but with this new scoring system, we'll begin to see top players becoming more human!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Games will be much closer; it is so very hard not to concede a point!!!!

I dont think ive ever seen a 21-0 ......closest one was Stuart Brehaut (AUS) vs some Kenyan guy....he was leading 17-0, then gave away one point....21-1 at the end...

my two cents --> dont know what you think of that guys!

better my ass -- all the best matches i've seen in badminton have been long ones... and now they have made the game shorter... call it shortminton

there are far more people complaining than complimenting the new system

and there is virtually nobody who wants to play the new system over the old outside of pro badminton

The new scoring is just a random change to the game they made with very little forethought in my opinion .... as far as my experience, I've played since I was 13 i guess thats about 12 years since i'm 25 years old now ... I haven't once in that time heard a single player complain about the scoring system ..nor anyone from other sports who played badminton - from like tennis or whatever.. yet it somehow needs changing?

better my ass -- all the best matches i've seen in badminton have been long ones... and now they have made the game shorter... call it shortminton

there are far more people complaining than complimenting the new system

and there is virtually nobody who wants to play the new system over the old outside of pro badminton

The new scoring is just a random change to the game they made with very little forethought in my opinion .... as far as my experience, I've played since I was 13 i guess thats about 12 years since i'm 25 years old now ... I haven't once in that time heard a single player complain about the scoring system ..nor anyone from other sports who played badminton - from like tennis or whatever.. yet it somehow needs changing?

but tennis is longer than badminton, tennis men single can last 3 - 4 hours :D

I dont think ive ever seen a 21-0 ......closest one was Stuart Brehaut (AUS) vs some Kenyan guy....he was leading 17-0, then gave away one point....21-1 at the end..


Lol....:D


I was there too.;) He gave a charity point I think.......:) Way too good!.

If there is no tie break at 20 all......then the maximum rallies possible in a game to 21 would be 41 rallies. if there is a tie break of 3 points then 46 rallies maximum in a game.

Stuart Brehaut was one player I could never beat in junior tournaments, there was another guy but can't remember his name.
I stoped playing for 6 years....:( I should have kept playing maybe I would have been a substitute or their water boy--------->lol:D

Longer term it will be a level playing field, as a new generation of players will take over and they wouldn't know what the old system was all about.

Let's hope it'll never get this far!!

Come on guys, how can you be in favour of the new rules :confused:
Fend. have you played a lot with the new rules yet, it sucks (can't find other words)

Badminton = 15*3 without rallypoint!!
Using the rallypoint rules it feels it ain't badminton anymore :crying:

Funny..nearly 80% of the people who participated in the polls are against this all (also on the dutch forum)
And still we are afraid to have to deal with new regulations..
If 80% of badmintonlovers is against all this, there's no way Punch will get his 2/3 of the votes, right?

(wish it was this simple :crying:)

If 80% of badmintonlovers is against all this, there's no way Punch will get his 2/3 of the votes, right?

(wish it was this simple :crying:)

If what you say is true then the decision is a sure bet that they will vote down the new system. Relax, there is then nothing to worry about. But what if you are wrong about the 80%? It is true that those who are against any change in anything, be it a new scoring system in badminton or a hike in taxes, are particularly vocal in their opposition. What about the delegates who will actually cast the votes? Perhaps they don't see this the same way as the '80% of badminton lovers' ? Perhaps more of them will think that the new system is just as good plus it will bring in more money. National badminton associations have to be able to support themselves and to generate funds, the more the better.
Actually the Commonwealth games badminton matches do not have to use the new system. I wonder why they chose it? Is it indicative of the wishes of the majority Commonwealth countries? If so, there goes your 2/3 majority. Also China has officially backed the new system, and China is not without influence over most Asian and third world countries. The vote will be a battle royal. It is going to be much closer than the seemingly impossibe 2/3 hurdle.

The vote will be a battle royal. It is going to be much closer than the seemingly impossibe 2/3 hurdle.

I know it will be Taneepak..
I just hope it will all be somehow democratical, it's ok to influence small countries in my eyes..
but if there's any money involved in 'influencing small countries' that'll be a bad thing!

ps. I think the poll is clear about the 80% though (at least last time I checked it)

I know it will be Taneepak..
I just hope it will all be somehow democratical, it's ok to influence small countries in my eyes..
but if there's any money involved in 'influencing small countries' that'll be a bad thing!

ps. I think the poll is clear about the 80% though (at least last time I checked it)

But the poll is voluntary, and as such it only represents those who feel strongly against any change. A more accurate poll is to get the opinions of everyone, irrespective of whether they are against the proposal or they couldn't care less.
Also real leadership is called for here. The acid test is not whether the majority is for or against it; neither is it a popular vote. The results in the years to come will be the real judge as to whether the new system is good.
Just like in France now with the mass demonstration against the new labour law. I salute the PM of France for his leadership and far-sightedness.

Except for shorter matches (and of course, the confusion in doubles), there is no difference between the two systems. Whether you or your opponent serves, you try to win the rally regardless of the system (serving to the net is equally bad in both systems). So, the only major change is that the new system favours the player with less stamina.

Sometimes, it is really exciting to watch the service keep changing without any points scored. Sometimes, it is downright boring. Perhaps, it would have been more fun to see the players play catch-up on points, like table tennis.

My own preference: 5 x 15 PAR (point-a-rally)
Why? Well, I think the game should not be shortened. In thrashing games, the length stay about the same (42 points in 21x3 versus 45 points in 15x5) but in tight games, when it all goes down to the fifth game, it will be like the previous 15x3. I prefer PAR because there is a certainly that a point will be gotten. I only see server-gains-point in women's squash now. Other sports have adopted PAR.

The good thing about the new system is that the game is shorter and the players thus expose to lesser risk of injury. Furthermore, shorter play time is in favour of players with less stamina. Future badminton will not be a test of strength but a test of tectical game play. As a result we can see more older players stay in their careers, making the sport more competitive.

I prefer the older system myslef, higher chance of come backs. I have had a few where i looked to have lost the game but come back to win, you take away the chance of these with the new system. Although it is not not impossible it is much harder.

On the plus side, however, games are shorter so players are able to play well at the end of the game, because they are not as tired, cutting out tired mistakes.

I dont think ive ever seen a 21-0 ......closest one was Stuart Brehaut (AUS) vs some Kenyan guy....he was leading 17-0, then gave away one point....21-1 at the end...

my two cents --> dont know what you think of that guys!

Jens Eriksen and Martin Lundgaard beat some Armenian pair in the Thomas cup qualifiers 21-1 21-0, and also Gail Emms and Donna Kellogg beat a Seychelles pair 21-1 21-1 last week.

The new system skews the scoreline slightly in that you no longer have to win 2 rallies in a row to score a point, so you have much more chance of winning points. I think that the new score system actually gives a more accurate reflection of the match as everything is recorded and everything counts.

Except for shorter matches (and of course, the confusion in doubles), there is no difference between the two systems. Whether you or your opponent serves, you try to win the rally regardless of the system (serving to the net is equally bad in both systems). So, the only major change is that the new system favours the player with less stamina.
.


Depending on the player tactics will change , it will for me and many others.


The new system favours the player with less stamina?

How can this be a good thing?:confused:
So players who are unfit will benefit?

Depending on the player tactics will change , it will for me and many others.


The new system favours the player with less stamina?

How can this be a good thing?:confused:
So players who are unfit will benefit?


I didn't say it is a good thing. I only said it is the major difference between the two systems.

It's not exactly that it favours players with less stamina. More like, a player with less stamina would like the new system rather than the old because games will tend to be shorter. There is no disadvantage to the player with more stamina. Stamina still plays a vital role, but not as big as previously.

...
The new system skews the scoreline slightly in that you no longer have to win 2 rallies in a row to score a point, so you have much more chance of winning points. I think that the new score system actually gives a more accurate reflection of the match as everything is recorded and everything counts.

Yeah, I mentioned somewhere else before that theorectically, you could win 33% of the rallies, but still get a duck. Yes, 15-0 even if you win a third of the time. How? Win once, lose twice, win once, lose twice, and keep going... Under the new system, the scoreline would have been the more respectable 21-10.

Yeah, I mentioned somewhere else before that theorectically, you could win 33% of the rallies, but still get a duck. Yes, 15-0 even if you win a third of the time. How? Win once, lose twice, win once, lose twice, and keep going... Under the new system, the scoreline would have been the more respectable 21-10.

Actually, you can win almost half the rallies and still get a duck under the old system. Win once, lose once, win once, lose once, ... win once, lose twice, ... and you still get 15-0. Under the new system, you will lose by 21-18 or 21-19, you may even win by 30-29, if you keep winning once and losing once (as long as you win the last point).

I didn't say it is a good thing. I only said it is the major difference between the two systems.

It's not exactly that it favours players with less stamina. More like, a player with less stamina would like the new system rather than the old because games will tend to be shorter. There is no disadvantage to the player with more stamina. Stamina still plays a vital role, but not as big as previously.


I know you didn't say it was a good thing........It was more a question that was not directed at you:) . More of a statement than a question, like: how can this be good?

Yes, players who are more 'unfit' will most probably prefer this new system.

the new scoring system is excited to watch when both of the player are trailing almost the same point such as 19/17 etc.. But, they is no way or very hard for a player to come back when they are trailing behind eg. 11/19, because a single mistake will add a mark to the leading oponent. So, the leading player is for sure will win.

If switching to 21pts is for better time control,
why IBF never thought of make it a Time System (like soccer/basketball) instead of Point System.

My suggestion would be:

Let's use 30min for game and whoever take the lead by the end of that 30min would be the winner.

OR

30min or 15point x 3 games, whichever end fist

How does that sounds?

If switching to 21pts is for better time control,
why IBF never thought of make it a Time System (like soccer/basketball) instead of Point System.

My suggestion would be:

Let's use 30min for game and whoever take the lead by the end of that 30min would be the winner.

OR

30min or 15point x 3 games, whichever end fist

How does that sounds?


Maybe.......but the fact there is no time restriction makes badminton a good game.

Could you imagine losing and on a comeback and the clock has 15secs left?

I would hate that.

that is "forcing" either sides not to lay back, they have to fight for staying in the leading mode all the time ... guess that would increase the excitement of the game too.

of course, some ground rule has to be set, eg. the 30min has to be the actual play time, any time that wasted for short breaks or arguement of bad calls etc. should not be counted.:rolleyes:

that is "forcing" either sides not to lay back, they have to fight for staying in the leading mode all the time ... guess that would increase the excitement of the game too.


I think adding a time deadline would rush players into makign more mistakes....

If there ARE people in favour of different types of systems, why cant the tournaments decide what type of system is used in each one? Say All England could use 15 X 3 , Comm. Games 21 X 3 rally point and Thomas Cup some other system.....

In the end, the top five world players would have to be proficient in ALL these systems,

and it would test all the top players' tactics in every match and/or tournament they play...


dunno...just a suggestion. but to be honest, Id just opt for the old 15 points system.....

I just came up with this idea cause everyone seems to favour diff. systems!!

If switching to 21pts is for better time control,
why IBF never thought of make it a Time System (like soccer/basketball) instead of Point System.

My suggestion would be:

Let's use 30min for game and whoever take the lead by the end of that 30min would be the winner.

OR

30min or 15point x 3 games, whichever end fist

How does that sounds?

What happens if the score is a tie at the end of 30mins?

What happens if the score is a tie at the end of 30mins?

Then you get extra time. If you use the golden shuttle rule, then the first scorer wins. If not, and if it is a tie again after the end of extra time, it will be a shuttlecock shootout. You place a basket at the far end of one court and players stand at the other far end, and each get five shots in enter the basket. If still tie, then sudden-death shootout will decide the match.

it will be a shuttlecock shootout. You place a basket at the far end of one court and players stand at the other far end, and each get five shots in enter the basket. If still tie, then sudden-death shootout will decide the match

Shuttlecock shootout???!!!!! Are you joking? Are you cereal about this? :eek:

This is turning crazy... that's more like basketball!

No way, that just sounds horrible!
This is badminton, not anything else.

Shuttlecock shootout???!!!!! Are you joking? Are you cereal about this? :eek:

This is turning crazy... that's more like basketball!

No way, that just sounds horrible!
This is badminton, not anything else.

What's wrong with the shuttlecock shootout? I was class champion for 3 years straight. I have medals to show for it.

Shuttlecock shootout???!!!!! Are you joking? Are you cereal about this? :eek:

This is turning crazy... that's more like basketball!

No way, that just sounds horrible!
This is badminton, not anything else.

Yeah. Also, that's a bit like throwing a shuttle up and see if it lands towards you :mad: :mad: :mad:

I hope this 30 minutes time thingy is a joke...
You can't be serious really..

I stick to this: "Why change a sport that is already the best in the world?"

I love watching badminton on tele..
But I wouldn't change the game to get more broadcastingtime.

The sport is made for the people who want to play it
not for some 'stupid viewers' that don't understand the scoring-system.
(New scoring system would make it easier for the noob to follow)

And, this is said before, people who like tennis don't mind spending 3,5 hours watching an exciting match.
Same thing for us badmintonfans, why do we want to reduce the gameplay (just for broadcasting)
If badminton isn't spectaculair enough (now), so be it..

I really see us badmintonplayers as victims now...and I hate that!

If you checked back my original post,
i was saying "IF Switching to 21 point system is for a better time control ..."

Personally, i still support the 15 pt x 3 games system, but i was just throwing out an idea based on where IBF is coming from.

Of course, if switching to 21 pt is not due to time concern, i see no reason why the 15 x 3 system should be changed.

But again, if time is IBF concern, then why don't they simply use a TIME restriction system?:rolleyes:

I stick to this: "Why change a sport that is already the best in the world?"

I love watching badminton on tele..
But I wouldn't change the game to get more broadcastingtime.

The sport is made for the people who want to play it
not for some 'stupid viewers' that don't understand the scoring-system.
(New scoring system would make it easier for the noob to follow)

And, this is said before, people who like tennis don't mind spending 3,5 hours watching an exciting match.
Same thing for us badmintonfans, why do we want to reduce the gameplay (just for broadcasting)
If badminton isn't spectaculair enough (now), so be it..


I agree, none of these changes will automatically make badminton..................more popular?

How matches are presented and 'hyped' would make more difference.

Time limiting rackets sports is not the answer..........tennis, squash aren't limited by time.

I don't know if I am biased, but Badminton is far more exiting than tennis and squash to watch already.

Dude, I was only joking about the shuttlecock shootout ... I was never champion 3 years in a row, only runner-up twice. (joking, joking ... it was so obvious I don't know how you can take me seriously)

A game like badminton (just like tennis or table tennis) can never be time-constrained like football or hockey. It simply does not make sense.

I agree, none of these changes will automatically make badminton..................more popular?

How matches are presented and 'hyped' would make more difference.

Time limiting rackets sports is not the answer..........tennis, squash aren't limited by time.

I don't know if I am biased, but Badminton is far more exiting than tennis and squash to watch already.

Rackets games are not mend to be a time limit game. It will kill the games off. Anyway, tennis is kind of interesting too especially ladies single. :D

Dude, I was only joking about the shuttlecock shootout ... I was never champion 3 years in a row, only runner-up twice. (joking, joking ... it was so obvious I don't know how you can take me seriously)

A game like badminton (just like tennis or table tennis) can never be time-constrained like football or hockey. It simply does not make sense.


Oh I thought you were serious:p ...........not!


Maybe instead of a shuttle shoot out the players must fight bare fisted until only one man is still standing?.........yeah, that sounds cool!:cool:

That would be exciting: Badminton crossed with UFC and WWF!;)

P.S : This is a Joke!

Oh I thought you were serious:p ...........not!


Maybe instead of a shuttle shoot out the players must fight bare fisted until only one man is still standing?.........yeah, that sounds cool!:cool:

That would be exciting: Badminton crossed with UFC and WWF!;)

P.S : This is a Joke!

Hahahaha.....Imagine The Big Show play against LCW and lost the match. Then LCW was beaten up by The Big Show.....:cool:

Hahahaha.....Imagine The Big Show play against LCW and lost the match. Then LCW was beaten up by The Big Show.....:cool:

Now thats entertainment!;) :D Ouch my stomach hurts from laughter now!

So, go back to the origin,
what was the driving force for IBF to switch the 15 x 3 game system to 21 pt system? Till now i am still puzzled :confused:

So, go back to the origin,
what was the driving force for IBF to switch the 15 x 3 game system to 21 pt system? Till now i am still puzzled :confused:
Not enough popularity for badminton??? ( I think that they were referring to those smaller badminton nations, like Australia as seen from the Commonwealth Games)

Something to do with 15 X 3 games being too long....

AND BTW

Dude, I was only joking about the shuttlecock shootout ... I was never champion 3 years in a row, only runner-up twice. (joking, joking ... it was so obvious I don't know how you can take me seriously)

A game like badminton (just like tennis or table tennis) can never be time-constrained like football or hockey. It simply does not make sense.


THANK GOODNESS YOU WERE JOKING. YOU SCARED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF ME.....
But at least it's a joke.. =)

Can someone tell me how deuce work for 21 point badminton? At what point is it called for a deuce?

Thank.s

Can someone tell me how deuce work for 21 point badminton? At what point is it called for a deuce?

Thank.s

uhh..deuce commences when the score is 20-20.....

At this stage, the first person to win two rallies in a row, or in other words, lead by two points wins. EG. 26-24, 29-27

If the score reaches 29-29, first person to 30 wins.

To be honest, I dont like it as much compared to 15 points.... Where are the days where people get thrashed on tv??! (Unless you are exceptionally good!)

uhh..deuce commences when the score is 20-20.....

At this stage, the first person to win two rallies in a row, or in other words, lead by two points wins. EG. 26-24, 29-27

If the score reaches 29-29, first person to 30 wins.

To be honest, I dont like it as much compared to 15 points.... Where are the days where people get thrashed on tv??! (Unless you are exceptionally good!)

Not exactly. Not first person to win two rallies in a row. At 21-22, winning two rallies in a row does not give you victory.

Actually, there isn't even a deuce. Basically, the rule states that a player must win by two clear points or by reaching the score of 30, whichever comes first. No one has the option to set or not.

21 point system sucks. The game becomes shorter - IBF should revert to the old system

Originally Posted by hcyong
Not exactly. Not first person to win two rallies in a row. At 21-22, winning two rallies in a row does not give you victory.

Actually, there isn't even a deuce. Basically, the rule states that a player must win by two clear points or by reaching the score of 30, whichever comes first. No one has the option to set or not.


okay..thats true... =)

pretty technical..never thought of that

thanks for correcting me

i should have just left it at lead score by two points.

See how the mental toughness become a more important winning factor under the new scoring system ...

An excerpt from, "Badminton: Chong Wei on a roll"
The Star (Malaysian paper), Apr 3

National number one Lee Chong Wei is now ready to play his part in Malaysia’s Thomas Cup campaign after winning his second title in two weeks when he smashed his way to the singles crown on his debut in the Asian Badminton Championships yesterday.

Chong Wei, who won the Commonwealth Games men’s singles gold in Melbourne last month, swept aside Thailand’s Boonsak Ponsana 21-12, 21-16 in only 25 minutes to end Malaysia’s 12-year drought in the men’s singles event.

...


Although he wrapped up the title in straight games, Chong Wei said he nearly gave up during the second game.

That was when Boonsak was leading 9-4 and Chong Wei’s game was affected by the strong draught.

“I nearly gave up then. It is quite difficult to make up the deficit under the new scoring system. I was already thinking of the rubber game,” said Chong Wei.

“But then I managed to reel off several points in a row to lead 11-9. That changed the entire scenario. It also gave me the confidence to finish off the tie in straight games. Well, the rest is history but it was not an easy game for me.

...

Does that mean if Chong Wei didn't manage to catch up at that crucial stage, the history might be rewritten?