Best of 3 games vs best of 5 games?

[Cheung]

Taking the question in isolation, what would you prefer?

Personally, I would like to see a couple more natural breaks in the match to allow for adverts, commentator discussions, closeup of players trying to discuss tactics in the breaks, better shots on the audience.

I believe best of 5 sets allows more potential for comebacks.
You could be losing 0-1, 0-2 or 1-2 and comeback to still win. My vote goes for 5 sets.

I believe this needs sorting out first and only then decide on which points system is going to be chosen.

[CWB001]

They are called games in badminton. Sets are in tennis.

[Cheung]

Thanks for the correction.:)

[Volts]

Is your pool for the 21pts system or the 15pts system?

[cooler]

of all the scoring system proposed and tried, i can live with best of 5 games, 9 point system (5x9, not rally points)

[Cheung]

neither points system apply. The question is simply would you prefer a best of 3 game match or a best of 5 game, irrespective of points system.

Previously the emphasis has been on which scoring system is better. I'm just polling how many games is better.

tennis has 3 set matchs and 5 sets
volleyball best of 5.
table tennis best of 7
etc

[Neil Nicholls]

They are called games in badminton. Sets are in tennis.
In individual competition they are called games, but in team competion they are just as often called sets. Best of 3 sets is a rubber. WHoever wins most rubbers wins the match.

I believe the same applies to team competitions in tennis, e.g. Davis Cup

[charzord]

3 games. 5 games way too long, considering how many matches you would have to play.

[Dummey]

I'm personally a fan of 5 game matches. It allows much more room for psychological play and long term tatics. As for length, I guess it does seem long for recreational players, but I have no problem playing 2 hours to get those 5 games in.

[Iwan]

21point x 5set is great. You can ofcourse reduce it to 2 sets or 3 sets for recreational players or for training purposes to allow for more games with different players :) Ofcourse there is the dilema that games might extend to 300 rallies if they really play to deuces every set and it extends to 5th set :p But if such an occassion arises, I'd bet everyone would say, "What a game!!" :D Though Punch Gunalan might disagree :p

[Dummey]

21point x 5set is great. You can ofcourse reduce it to 2 sets or 3 sets for recreational players or for training purposes to allow for more games with different players :) Ofcourse there is the dilema that games might extend to 300 rallies if they really play to deuces every set and it extends to 5th set :p But if such an occassion arises, I'd bet everyone would say, "What a game!!" :D Though Punch Gunalan might disagree :p

Thats what I'd be hoping for. I've never been able to win matches straight through and always end up splitting so I've altered my training to fit that problem. Not many of the players at my level are crazy enough to play 5x15 with me XD

[Neil Nicholls]

I've voted for 5, but in the context of rally point scoring, is it worth considering 7x11 ?

[yamhill]

3 is too short, it should be same lenght like tennis

[keith_aquino]

They are called games in badminton. Sets are in tennis.

Thanks for the info I didn't know that. :) I keep saying sets though since everybody here does. :o

Keith

[keith_aquino]

I'd still choose 3 games. I think that most people who catch up do not because of tactics but because of better stamina. I wouldn't really call this fair because people have different levels of stamina and physiques. The mind, I think, is something different though because anyone can train it. :)

Keith

[Cheung]

I've voted for 5, but in the context of rally point scoring, is it worth considering 7x11 ?Assuming no tie breaks.
that would need 77 points for the total so an increase from 63 (3x21).
5x15 would max at 75 points. So not much difference there.

Advantage of a shorter game is that it gives a player much more credit to having a good run of points that the audience can understand.

Is 7 games better than 5? Looking from table tennis, I'm not so convinced.

[eizmed]

I love watching badminton matches. Wish it was longer... like tennis matches which i like to watch.

However, when playing, i don't think I can last the 5.

:)

[baddiebadder]

They are called games in badminton. Sets are in tennis.
thats cause you live in the UK:confused:

[black_knight006]

Personally, I don't know about the rest of you, but if I have to play a tournament and we're going to 15, and I'm playing someone of equal ability...I'd be dead if I had to play 5 games. I can barely make 3 games when I'm in the finals and I've been playing all day to get there. If you were gonna do 5 games in a match the only way I personally see it working is by having it rally point to 15. Or 11?

[black_knight006]

I'd still choose 3 games. I think that most people who catch up do not because of tactics but because of better stamina. I wouldn't really call this fair because people have different levels of stamina and physiques. The mind, I think, is something different though because anyone can train it. :)

Keith

There have been several adult tournaments actually where I've played better players with more consistant shots on the basis that I have better stamina than them. (I am 18, so I am expected to be able to out last most 35+ adults). They kick my @$$ the first game but I slowly tire them out and by the middle of the second match I have caught up to them and pass them by making them run for it. Sooner or later they just have to give up. I like the idea of 5 games because it sets up for more psychological play and it also would be a bit longer of a game. However it would have to be either 15 rally point or 11 regular. :cool:

[CWB001]

thats cause you live in the UK:confused:

No, not at all. It is because it is how they are defined in the laws of badminton, which apply in every country:

"7.1 A match shall consist of the best of three games, unless otherwise arranged."

[CWB001]

Personally, I don't know about the rest of you, but if I have to play a tournament and we're going to 15, and I'm playing someone of equal ability...I'd be dead if I had to play 5 games. I can barely make 3 games when I'm in the finals and I've been playing all day to get there. If you were gonna do 5 games in a match the only way I personally see it working is by having it rally point to 15. Or 11?

It sounds as if you need to get fitter.

The tournaments my son plays in (aged 15) are always best of 3 to 15. In a typical tournament (and he plays 3 in an average month) he would play about 20 games in the day if he does reasonable well.

[Neil Nicholls]

Assuming no tie breaks.
that would need 77 points for the total so an increase from 63 (3x21).
5x15 would max at 75 points. So not much difference there.

Advantage of a shorter game is that it gives a player much more credit to having a good run of points that the audience can understand.

Is 7 games better than 5? Looking from table tennis, I'm not so convinced.
and the minimum points for each are: 42, 45, 44.
3x21 at 20-20 play 2 clear up to 30
5x15 at 14-14 play 2 clear up to 21
7x11 at 10-10 play 2 clear up to 15

for breaks between and during games, for TV purposes, 5x15 and 7x11 are probably more flexible. The break in the middle of a 3x21 game is probably too short. With 7x11 you would not have a mandatory break during a game, but maybe increase the break between games to 2 minutes, or 2.5 minutes.

7x11 could bring back a bit of the strategy or the old 3x15. You have the option to throw a game to get your breath back without it being too much of a deficit

[orjanravna]

I would like to play five games to 15 with rally points, three games are too short.

[franxon]

after some 21-point singles game experience and the Thomas & Uber Cup under the new scoring system, i feel that rally point system does have its own credit. you play carefully on every shot.

however, i think 21 x 5 would be better than 21 x 3, in men's singles case. i haven't played any 21 points doubles so can't feel anything about it.

[joonu]

When we play tournaments we may be forced to play two or three matches during one day.(local tournaments).If it is best of five games the tournament committee will have to arrange ambulance,oxygen cylinders etc.

[toddster]

In the U.S. any events sanctioned by our National Governing Body (USA Badminton) has to use the new rally scoring points system 3 games to 21 points Rally Scoring.

So, I voted for best 2 out of 3 games but if they would decrease the number of points to win a game I would be all for the best 3 out of 5 games.

Talking with people who run tournametns using rally scoring, they say it is much easeir to stay on time with the scheduling with the new scoring system.

Toddster

[hcyong]

5 games, 15 points (rally system) gets my vote.

[tcyc1984]

The best of 5 games system is for sure fun to watch, and I bet more people are willing to buy tickets and go watch the longer matches. But afterall, it gives more advantages to business people like TV channels cause they can squeeze more commericals into a single match... In real life tournament like the local ones, there are many people playing and lots of matches going on. If every game last to 5 sets, I bet even a whole weekend will not be enough for the tourney to be finished (I know some are taking 2 days already), and its definitely not nice to the ones who have school or works on weekdays. If the tourney is continued the week after, I believe it will not be fair to everyone since the players may have different physcial or psychological conditions after a week. The quality of the games will be degraded, and I bet no one will want to watch the games with exhausted players doing all those crappy shots... Face it, I don't think its fair for people to win a match because of their stamina instead of their skills...

[inferno32]

As a singles player, five sets of 15 (service point) would be too long a game probably for both players to maintain... five sets of 11 or 9, however, I could live with. The problem, though, with more games of less points is that it almost becomes too choppy. You know what I mean?

[jcr2001]

I think this poll should be remade since the scoring system has changed already. For the 15 points system, I say 3 sets is enough. 5 sets would be too taxing.

For 21 points, I would say 5 sets.

[LuckyBoy]

Best of 3 games cuz best of 5 is like tiring if ur playing in a tourney

[Docaroo]

another vote here for 5 games... i think 3 is far too short for badminton and does not allow the full use of tactics/strategies/etc...

I find that i take a game to "settle" sometimes and with best of 3 this basically means a 1-0 disadvantage....but my tactics are usually better ...

Either way I think 5 games provides a more exciting match for the crowd too...

The next problem is how many points?? I like the rally point system so I'd stick with that....

so is is 5x15 rally points??? 5x21 would be too much I think....

[hiroisuke]

21 games of 5 pts? JK. But in all seriousness, I'd prefer 21 (rally scoring), 5 games, or back to the old system of 15 (non-rally scoring), 3 games.

[keebler_elf]

I think 5 games is too intense especially for tournaments. It would be a lot of fun to watch but if i were a player and had to play multiple matches at 5 games a match i would be hating life.

[skuren_dropp]

I think the game would be more attractive if we played best of 5 games, with rally-scoring just like the ping-pong players... :)

[Slicedbanana07]

Do you think they should have some sort of mercy rule? Like in baseball, if the losing team trails by more than 15 runs, or 10 runs after 7 innings, then the game is over.

So in badminton, possibly 15 runs behind or more before 21 is reached, then the game goes to the winning player, and a new game starts.

Just a thought - please don't grill me :D... It means it'll help players out who play a lot of games, it saves them from tiring out in latter stages of tournaments.

[Slicedbanana07]

Assuming no tie breaks.
that would need 77 points for the total so an increase from 63 (3x21).
5x15 would max at 75 points. So not much difference there.

Advantage of a shorter game is that it gives a player much more credit to having a good run of points that the audience can understand.

Is 7 games better than 5? Looking from table tennis, I'm not so convinced.

I think 5x15 would be good. Its very easily implementable as to win a game comfortably, one only needs 45 points compared to 42 of the 21 point system. It means that for big games, it'll last longer and place more of a psychological emphasis. If you lose one game in the new scoring system, then u either win the next or get knocked out, however, if u lose 1 in this new scoring syetm, you still have a great chance to win.

For the 5x15, cheung, would it have the same rules as the new point scoring system or does the point only goes to the serving player?

[FitnessFreak]

best of 5 games would take way too long i think

[CoolMonster1]

Keep it short its no fun for me to watch when the games are draged out so long. 3 games makes it the most interesting.

[goku999]

Since now its the 21 point system where every point counts. Players will be giving it their all to win the points. Is it was stretched into 5 games then its more of a fitness test towards the end and the match may last about 100 minutes. Good games may last up to 20 minutes per game. So I think it should be left as it is.

[kankan]

i think 5X15 with new point scoring system would be good. and the player leading in 2-0 for first 2 games wins. it will make the game more exciting, and not wasting time if two players are not in same level.

[Oriental]

i can't stand 5 games. Too tired, especially for singles.

- 3 Games all the way!

[brightwindows]

They are called games in badminton. Sets are in tennis.

I don't know about that also. hehe .

[samuel882]

i can't stand 5 games. Too tired, especially for singles.

- 3 Games all the way!

Agreed.. 3 games is sufficient for all the needed sweating... 5 games is way too much for an amateur as us... :rolleyes:

[Polar Bear]

For the professional game, leave it at 3. The 'Chinese Walkover' strategy is already a big advantage. A best of five would make it worse.

[madbad]

People seemed to have forgotten when the OSS was in effect, stamina was a major factor. Since the NSS was implemented, it's been less of a factor. With a 5 x 15 system (rally point), it allows both the excitement of the NSS and the energy sapping requirements of the OSS. I've always considered stamina to be a huge part of badminton so it should be brought back into the fold.

I vote for the 5 x 15 point system but only with rally point scoring. For all you whiners who are complaining it's too tiring, it's time for you to hit the gym :D;)

[babystar]

i like the old system...15 points...
because it is possible for a player being defeated 15-0

now, the players at least can get one point...
there would be NO 21-0
too easy to get points...

am i wrong?

[sumbadder]

I'd like to see best of 5 in big tournaments like World Championships and Olympics, maybe even All England and the Sudirman, Uber, Thomas Cups. These are arguably the most prestigious tournaments and making them more challenging would add to their allure.

[babystar]

I'd like to see best of 5 in big tournaments like World Championships and Olympics, maybe even All England and the Sudirman, Uber, Thomas Cups. These are arguably the most prestigious tournaments and making them more challenging would add to their allure.

i agree with u...

[CkcJsm]

I say 5 separated in 2 different days.Since everyone has their off days.

[Smichz]

Best of 3 is better for singles..as we wanna play or watch players in the top shape.We dont wanna see them doing mistakes because of the losing of stamina.

But i'll prefer best of 5 for Men's doubles.Put the match on the last part.Save the best for the last..

[Canuck19_14]

5 games would be way to long and tiring to play lol

[kenny7_2006]

15 point best of 5 games on a rally point system would be nice... brings out the old memories of the days gone by, and how it was played back then...

...but i think the current system is good as it is....

[Winston_T]

3 games is the best

[Cannot_smash]

i like the old system...15 points...
because it is possible for a player being defeated 15-0

now, the players at least can get one point...
there would be NO 21-0
too easy to get points...

am i wrong?

Actually, yes u r wrong. I once give 21-0 in a competition, and the other player is only 1 level below me :D:D:cool: I thought he was just having a bad day :D

Back to the topic, 3 sets only la... 5 sets I die :p:p:p

[bcmmgr]

How about 5x11, if players skill too far, then the match probably won't so attractive (boring) and the match can finish faster with only need 33 points rally instead on 42 point.

If players are close, 5 games will be very attractive to watch, 5 games also more encourage for TV purposes with more break in between, for players, they also need more tactics/strategies/psychological, and the longest match only require 55 rally point instead of 63 rally point.

[LazyBuddy]

How about 5x11, if players skill too far, then the match probably won't so attractive (boring) and the match can finish faster with only need 33 points rally instead on 42 point.


Then, it's even more of a punishment to "slow starters".

Personally, I found out in club level of competition, the new system gives huge advantage to "home" players, as the visitors are struggling to get to the new environment (different lighting, different court surface, different wind drift, etc). With 2 side with fairly equal level of skill level, the visitors always on the disadvantage side for 1st set, at least. If you shorter a set to 11, then before the visitor can finally see the lines clear enough, they are down 0:1 or even 0:2 in set already. :eek:

[BlankShot]

I play Best of 3. Best of 5 is too long :O

[giant_q_tip]

well since matches are fairly short now i think i would prefer best of 5

you know to make them longer =) i miss those 1 hour + games

[CHOcobo]

i prefer best 4 out of 7. i don't like how they keep scores. i keep score different when i play. it last longer. dunno that name but i play where theres time you have opportunity to score and theres time you dont.

[phandrew]

I would prefer best of 5 games for doubles under the new scoring system but 3 for the old system. For singles i would prefer best of 1 game:p

[badmad]

I would prefer best of 3 games because of fitness issues. But I were fit, i would prefer best of 5 games.

3 game match would be quickfire but in my opinion, 5 game match would test both your physical and mental fitness. To draw a similarity, if you know cricket, one form of cricket is played for just one-day and another one for 5 days. 5-day cricket is real test for players and every player agrees because of what it demands.

[Mads "U"]

Best of 3:
More games means more games that count less.
All games should be important.
Rallyscoring:
All rallies should be important too. (even if I do miss the risktaking and more entertaining play, you could afford in your own service, where errors were "free")

25 points!
Games are too short, longer games would give more:
Room for errors and room for change and adaption of tactics.
Room and time for comebacks - Which we desperately needs.
Longer games would also give more variety in the play.
The tactical field would be wider towards the stamina side. And the fast, clever and strong nerved players who have benefitted from the current system, would have to change pace during the games as it would become too hard to push on at full speed if the sets were a little longer. Thus tipping the balance just a little towards the endurance players.

[mtr1993]

best of 3 games to 21 old scoring. this would reward all areas of the game. the new scoring system does not reward fitness and even the matches that go to three ends are still too short.

[tumnongaer]

i thank 3 game ok and 5 game longer and i not strong *-*

[Andy05]

I agree with a lot of these posts, 3 games is best.
You cannot play at a good standard for 5 games, it just doesn't make an enjoyable game.

[vrage]

well, 5 games can be a breeze, BUT, if your going to play 5 games every match, and around 6 matches a tourney, your going to be next to dead unless you have some amazing stamina :o

[BUnstable]

Sometime, best of 5 games would be absolutely useless if played vs very bad player... It may be good to have it in the finals but it has the inconvenient that it can be very frustrating to win the first 2 games and then lose the 3 other which must be very rare. 3 is better because if it's 1-1, they can give what the have on the last game and that become a great match.

[madbad]

Haven't read through the whole thread but I find the most feasible compromise is a best of 5 x 15 points, using the rally point scoring system. Firstly, there are more natural ad breaks for TV to pay their bills (what the BWF wanted). From a player's perspective, it becomes not just a test of skill and power but also of physical and mental endurance, so a more well rounded player should deserve to win.

Say even in a match lasting just 3 games, the winner has to secure 45 points, which is not much different from the 42 you require in the current scoring system. Time span is not much different plus the BWF gets its extra TV breaks.

I'd like to see matches last all 5 games and let attrition take over. Never will the term "only the fittest survive" ring more true.

[Canuck19_14]

Haven't read through the whole thread but I find the most feasible compromise is a best of 5 x 15 points, using the rally point scoring system. Firstly, there are more natural ad breaks for TV to pay their bills (what the BWF wanted). From a player's perspective, it becomes not just a test of skill and power but also of physical and mental endurance, so a more well rounded player should deserve to win.

Say even in a match lasting just 3 games, the winner has to secure 45 points, which is not much different from the 42 you require in the current scoring system. Time span is not much different plus the BWF gets its extra TV breaks.

I'd like to see matches last all 5 games and let attrition take over. Never will the term "only the fittest survive" ring more true.

This may be true about mental endurance but like you said the points and time span are about the same. Then can I know how it would be that you need more physical endurance to play about the same points and about the same time span? Plus the players will get to rest up more with the breaks.

[Canuck19_14]

Whoops! Sorry my mistake. I forgot the part about you saying if it only took 3 games! :o

[LD rules!]

I don't see why we have to change the number of points and the number of points every three years or so 3x21 is probably enough however if you were to change it to 5x15 then it would be fine however where do you have a mid game interval or do you get rid of that
I still prefer 3x21

[madbad]

I don't see why we have to change the number of points and the number of points every three years or so 3x21 is probably enough however if you were to change it to 5x15 then it would be fine however where do you have a mid game interval or do you get rid of that
I still prefer 3x21

Yes I would have an interval after 8 points.

For the reasons I have stated, I think the 5 x 15 format makes the most sense if there was to be a change. We have to accept the game and the economics governing it is constantly evolving. In an era where TV money can push the game ahead, the game has to adapt. And one of the ways of doing it is by modifying the scoring. Sure not everyone is going to be happy; just think back to the near riots when it changed from the OSS to the 21 pt NSS. Give people time and they get used to what is the current standard.

That said, if the BWF lays a huge egg, which they are more than capable of doing, the opportunity to advance the game with media exposure will pass by and leave badminton a fringe international sport.

[7SamuraiX]

i feel that the current system of 3 games isnt enough
Also is too short T.T
5 games will allow a bigger margin of error for mistakes and also allow comebacks. Stamina should be factored in so strategy will be able to play a bigger part

[majyun]

I don't like the idea of trying to turn badminton into something like tennis(tons of sets/games with very few rallies per game/set).

WTH is wrong with tennis? Winning 4 shots then you are allowed to rest for more than 2 mins(the best part is the players get to sit on nice chairs and enjoy the sun during intervals)? It's no wonder they can play the game for 5 hours or go on and on till forever.

So cutting the rallies played in a games and increase the match plays certainly won't help(coz you get more rest). If you must make the stamina of players a big factor in the game, make it like 25 or 30 points per match for 3 games.

[LD rules!]

anyone for 7 sets each up to eleven points
First to 4 sets (minimum points for win 44) breaks of 1 minute between sets with every two sets a two minute break aloows for combacks and tv breaks

[LD rules!]

What do you guys think ?

[staiger]

Best of5 games ---21 point system ! That would determine the Men from the Boys

[BUnstable]

How about Volleyball scoring system, but with few changes. It's something like best out of 5 but the 5th set is 15 points unlike the rest that are 25 points. Nonetheless, I like the current scoring system.

[Cheung]

Yes I would have an interval after 8 points.

For the reasons I have stated, I think the 5 x 15 format makes the most sense if there was to be a change. We have to accept the game and the economics governing it is constantly evolving. In an era where TV money can push the game ahead, the game has to adapt. And one of the ways of doing it is by modifying the scoring. Sure not everyone is going to be happy; just think back to the near riots when it changed from the OSS to the 21 pt NSS. Give people time and they get used to what is the current standard.

That said, if the BWF lays a huge egg, which they are more than capable of doing, the opportunity to advance the game with media exposure will pass by and leave badminton a fringe international sport.

I would support a 5 game match on this. But I also think 5 games gives more combinations to make a match more interesting. 2 games down and you think the game is over but then there is an incredible comeback. Sounds more interesting than 1 game down and coming to win 1-3. Such comebacks are good for reporting and generating interest.

[ionoo]

I don't like the idea of trying to turn badminton into something like tennis(tons of sets/games with very few rallies per game/set).

WTH is wrong with tennis? Winning 4 shots then you are allowed to rest for more than 2 mins(the best part is the players get to sit on nice chairs and enjoy the sun during intervals)? It's no wonder they can play the game for 5 hours or go on and on till forever.

So cutting the rallies played in a games and increase the match plays certainly won't help(coz you get more rest). If you must make the stamina of players a big factor in the game, make it like 25 or 30 points per match for 3 games.
I don't think you really have to worry about badminton turning much more like tennis because it wouldn't be badminton anymore :(. Badminton does not have nowhere near the rest intervals like tennis. We also do not get as much serve opportunities as tennis. Mess up a serve in tennis? No problem bounce the ball for a few seconds walk around and serve again. If the 15 X 5 system is adopted 15 rallies to win is much more than 4 shots in tennis (if that is the case to win a set). So I don't think there really is a trend toward lesser rallies per set.

[Wong8Egg]

3X21 for singles.
5X21 for doubles.

[Fan888]

I don't like the idea of trying to turn badminton into something like tennis(tons of sets/games with very few rallies per game/set).

WTH is wrong with tennis? Winning 4 shots then you are allowed to rest for more than 2 mins(the best part is the players get to sit on nice chairs and enjoy the sun during intervals)? It's no wonder they can play the game for 5 hours or go on and on till forever.

So cutting the rallies played in a games and increase the match plays certainly won't help(coz you get more rest). If you must make the stamina of players a big factor in the game, make it like 25 or 30 points per match for 3 games.

The 2 minutes interval is not just sitting and enjoying the sun. That is for TV commercial. When not go to commercial, the fans can see Maria Sharapova walking over the comfy chair in her tight dress with the Nike swoosh on it, wiping her sweat, and drinking her Gatorade bottle. Those are the TV moments that advertisers dream for.

For us baddy fans, wouldn't you like to see some close up shot of Reiko, Wang Lin, or whoever you favorite players are? How much (more) Li Ning would pay for wearing their logo? Which company will supply the drink?

[*dave*b*]

Best of 3.

..........unless you've lost the first 2 of course.:p

[illusionistpro]

I think best of 3 is good already. 5 would be better however as it was said before 5 games per match can become a lot of games in a tournament. You need to ask yourselves why 3 or why 5 games. The key is to reduce variability. Two strong teams can battle over one game and the inferior team can squeeze out a win. Extend the number of games and this will reduce variability. There is another aspect that is introduced when you increase the number of matches, and that is endurance. Cheung you said it doesnt matter if its new scoring system (nss) or old scoring system (oss), but i believe that also makes a difference since old scoring system were longer matches. If you want to determine who is the best player, then you simply need to find who can win the most over the long run, however these are tournaments and the variability is also part of the fun. The superbowl is decided over just one game, and is one of the biggest sporting events in the world, and I believe the biggest event in the USA. I vote 3

[cooler]

I think best of 3 is good already. 5 would be better however as it was said before 5 games per match can become a lot of games in a tournament. You need to ask yourselves why 3 or why 5 games. The key is to reduce variability. Two strong teams can battle over one game and the inferior team can squeeze out a win. Extend the number of games and this will reduce variability. There is another aspect that is introduced when you increase the number of matches, and that is endurance. Cheung you said it doesnt matter if its new scoring system (nss) or old scoring system (oss), but i believe that also makes a difference since old scoring system were longer matches. If you want to determine who is the best player, then you simply need to find who can win the most over the long run, however these are tournaments and the variability is also part of the fun. The superbowl is decided over just one game, and is one of the biggest sporting events in the world, and I believe the biggest event in the USA. I vote 3
i believe there is no perfect scoring system, each kind will put more emphasis on certain skills. The part i like in NSS is allowing a formal break at 11 point, where player can pause, think, and maybe get advice from coach that could change the game momentum, OSS don't formally allow that. So, in a sense, NSS is comprised of 6 possible smaller 'game sets'.

[hellopanda3]

Being also a tennis player, I believe badminton should implement a scoring system similar to tennis. NO, not the 15-30-40-game, set, match scoring. That would be extremely dumb for badminton since the receiver has pretty much the same chance in winning the points as the server.
What I'm suggesting is as follows:

1) Keep the 21 points rally system.
2) For small tournaments, have it best of 3 games.
3) Keep scheduling so that small tournaments last 1 week.
4) For big tournaments, have it best of 5 games.
5) Change scheduling so that big tournaments last 2 weeks.

I don't know how many people attend badminton tournaments but this in turn will bring to the bigger tournaments:

1) More dimension to the badminton game because of longer matches.
2) Better play overall because players get to rest an entire day.
3) More revenue because there are 2 weeks of play
4) More prize money for the players because frankly they don't get paid
crap.

This works in theory of course and I don't know if it will actually work in practice.

[FIVEs]

Best of FIVE x 21 for me.

[StarcraftTerran]

I believe the old scoring system is a much better scoring system. In the 21 system, when its 16-20, you are probably going to lose, and so you can't really and all hopes are lost. However with the 15 point system, you can be down 10-14 and you can still come back up and win again, as long as you don't lose the rally twice consecutively. I think 3 games would be enough because in a 5 games, it all just comes down to who has more endurance, so the player who is more fit will usually win

[madbad]

The best player should have a good balance of skill, power, mental strength and endurance. 5 x 21 is probably the best test of that

[FIVEs]

I believe the old scoring system is a much better scoring system. In the 21 system, when its 16-20, you are probably going to lose, and so you can't really and all hopes are lost. However with the 15 point system, you can be down 10-14 and you can still come back up and win again, as long as you don't lose the rally twice consecutively. I think 3 games would be enough because in a 5 games, it all just comes down to who has more endurance, so the player who is more fit will usually win


...but isn't being physically fit (mentally as well) a given in most sport?

[StarcraftTerran]

Yes, but i just think that person who is really fit and all they do is clear and drop to tire the other person out will win in a game of 5 and it wouldn't be a battle of skill but a battle of endurance, which is fine, but i like watch and play more tactical games where the winner is decided by their skills and control

[madbad]

Yes, but i just think that person who is really fit and all they do is clear and drop to tire the other person out will win in a game of 5 and it wouldn't be a battle of skill but a battle of endurance, which is fine, but i like watch and play more tactical games where the winner is decided by their skills and control

You're assuming the more skilled player can't overcome the rabbit in 3 or 4 games. If a supposedly fitter player is being outplayed by the better player, he too will get tired both physically and mentally. His shots won't be as precise giving the skilled player more chances for put aways.

[GameGod]

There would need to be significantly long breaks between the games, otherwise the stamina required would be simply too great. Just playing 3 games of top intensity Badminton at the world-class level requires loads of stamina which many players do not possess - imagine what would happen if they had to play 5!
If you are suggesting something like 5 minute breaks between the games then yes, that is much more realistic, but as to whether I would prefer it ... I think not. A lot of the fun of watching and playing Badminton is the getting tired bit, which would be removed by breaks long enough for 5-game matches to be feasible.

[urameatball]

Increasing to 5 sets will force players to conserve energy during a match, which slows down the game and makes it less entertaining to watch.

[Sketchy]

By extending the length of a match, you would be rewarding stamina at the expense of skill/tactics, and the quality of play would inevitably suffer.
If you just want a contest of stamina, then go run marathons or take up triathlon - don't play badminton!

[blindaim]

5 sets of 11 point like table tennis

no point playing the set when it is 17-8 , player will give up.