After so many changes last years (head-quarter location, scoring system, the name and logo of BWF), isn't it a time for the next step - ranking system for doubles and WC qualification rules? The recent events, especially the list of participants in WD for the upcoming WC, clearly highlight the drawbacks of the current system.

First of all, let's consider the ranking system for doubles. Currently, the main drawback is that the new pair, even if it is built from two very good players, has to start with the zero ranking, despite everybody knows how strong they are. So many examples when some very strong pairs had to start tournaments from qualification, while some definitely weaker pairs were taken to the main draw. In addition, these qualification rules for WC and Olympics... Sometimes it becomes a nightmare for coaches and players: they actually cannot rebuild the pairs during the last year before the event, since the new pair could not earn the necessary ranking points till the deadline. As a result - the pairing sometimes is not optimal for the game itself, since it must be optimized for the external requirements - these qualification rules.

I guess it is already old discussed problem, but now I would like to suggest a very simple improvement. Namely, the ranking points should be assigned to every individual player, exactly the same way as it is now for singles. These points do not depend on the partner and they do not lost when the partner has changed. Then, the pair ranking is defined as the average of two players. I think, it would be rather fairly and definitely much more realistic then zero points for new pair, as it is at present. In principle, some modifications of this system can be considered, for example when calculating the pair's ranking, the points earned by each player with a different partners can be multiplied by a step-down coefficient, for example 0.9.

Then, the WC and Olympics qualification rules have to be changed as well, since the current system could not work with this new ranking. Indeed, now the ranking list is used and BWF publishes the list of qualifiers. But it is impossible to list all the possible combinations, which many of them do not exist yet, but can be formed at the last moment. Instead, I would suggest a different system:

1. All the National federations submit a list of players (singles and pairs) which they would like to participate. The list can be as long as one want, it does not matter since the rule limiting the number of participants from one country is effective. To avoid very long lists, that could be inconvenient, an additional fee can be established for each entry after 4 (the maximum number of participants from a country). One of the advantages is that there is no need for any additional confirmations from the National federations, since all the players (pairs) in the list are already confirmed.

2. The "entry period" starts 3 months before the event and ends 1 month before the event. During this "entry period" any changes in the lists are allowed: National federations can exclude some players (pairs) and add new ones. These changes can only slightly affect the other countries - at the very bottom of the "qualification border". To avoid too many arbitrary changes, an additional fee can be established for any new entry the National federation adds to the list.

3. The list of entries and "currently qualified" players (pairs) should be published on the BWF's official website and must be always "up to date". The main reason for changes in the list would be not the change in entries, but change of the ranking points: the final list of qualifiers is defined at the end of "entry period" and is based on the ranking at that time. This also can be considered as one of additional advantages: the closer "deadline" to the event is - the better. Now the deadline is 3.5 months before the event, that seems to be not perfect. I guess, such a long period is needed for the three steps of confirmations, which would be naturally unnecessary in the new system.

4. If any player (pair) withdraws due to injury after the "deadline" (one month before the event), the corresponding National federation is allowed to submit a new entry. Not necessarily it would be a direct "replacement" - the new entry will be simply added to the list and may qualify, or may not - in the last case some other player from a different country will qualify. Again, this system allows making a "last minute" replacements very efficiently, since it does not require any additional confirmations.

Let us imagine how this system could work in the present conditions. We have now so many "Byes" in the draw, especially in doubles, and so many good pairs willing to compete but left outside... Vita/Lilyana would play... Yu Yang/Tingting Zhao would play... (or, more likely, Yang Wei/Tingting Zhao and, probably, Zhang Jiewen/Yu Yang), and many others... I did not find any essential drawbacks of such a system and encountered many clear advantages over the present one. Maybe I am too much concerned... Any other opinions? What do you think about that?

Re. double pairs' rankings

Are you aware that there's a notional rankings that have addressed the issue you've raised? It does not affect the working rankings but it does affect the qualifications and the seedings of the pairs in the tournaments. For example, by late January this year when KKK/TBH already had two international titles under their names (MAS SS and AG - the latter one wasn't counted toward world rankings though), plus being the runner-up in a 5* event and a semi-final appearance at Korea SS, they were only ranked world No. 30+ and was expected to play in qualifying round at AE in early March. When the seedings were out, surprisingly, not only they needn't play qualifier but they were seeded, thanks to notional rankings that incorporated the former pairs of KKK/CCM and TBH/HTH's still-valid ranking points.

I remember Rexy slammed this system for some reason that I couldn't recall.

Notional rankings is a good workaround, but it is only a workaround. I have always advocated the direct solution that Dmitry suggested. It is simple. The current ranking system for doubles is convoluted and messy.

As for qualification to Olympics and WC, I think Dmitry's way is unneccessary. Just do what any tournament does. A normal tournament (SS or GP) receives entries until a deadline, and then decides who goes straight to main draw, who goes to qualifiers and who are placed on reserves list.

But wait. It's not that simple. Consider this situation. An assoc can only have 1 qualifier (example only) between A and B. A can surely participate if his entry is submitted. B is ranked lower, and it is not sure if he can participate (because he is ranked outside the top 64, for instance). But B is the preferred choice. So, should the assoc submit A and be sure of one entry, or submit B and run the risk of both A and B not participating?

I think the simple solution to the above is to ask the assocs to list their entries in order of preference. In the above example, list
B
A
If B cannot qualify then try A and so on down the list until the list runs out or the quota for the assoc is reached.
For doubles, if you have 3 players and 2 different combinations, you can try
A/B
A/C
if A/B is the preferred combination.

I still have not thought through the whole qualification process yet. There may be weaknesses in the system. But I still definitely think each doubles player should have individual ranking.

Notional rankings is a good workaround, but it is only a workaround. I have always advocated the direct solution that Dmitry suggested. It is simple. The current ranking system for doubles is convoluted and messy.

As for qualification to Olympics and WC, I think Dmitry's way is unneccessary. Just do what any tournament does. A normal tournament (SS or GP) receives entries until a deadline, and then decides who goes straight to main draw, who goes to qualifiers and who are placed on reserves list.

But wait. It's not that simple. Consider this situation. An assoc can only have 1 qualifier (example only) between A and B. A can surely participate if his entry is submitted. B is ranked lower, and it is not sure if he can participate (because he is ranked outside the top 64, for instance). But B is the preferred choice. So, should the assoc submit A and be sure of one entry, or submit B and run the risk of both A and B not participating?

I think the simple solution to the above is to ask the assocs to list their entries in order of preference. In the above example, list
B
A
If B cannot qualify then try A and so on down the list until the list runs out or the quota for the assoc is reached.
For doubles, if you have 3 players and 2 different combinations, you can try
A/B
A/C
if A/B is the preferred combination.

I still have not thought through the whole qualification process yet. There may be weaknesses in the system. But I still definitely think each doubles player should have individual ranking.
The present qualification process for WC is certainly no good with so many 1R byes generated. Its a terrible indictment for a world championship of a major sports to have so many byes - can't even get the competitors - shameful.

I agree that a system more similar to SS or GP events would be best with a reserve list. National assocs should be asked to submit up to 5 entrants per event and BWF can then apply transparent rules based on rankings on who gets into the draw and who gets on reserve list. The 5th entrant will allow a strong country to get a max 4 entrant if a higher order entrant dropped out and the 5th was high enough on the reserve list to come in. Of course 5th entrant on a reserve list is bypassed even if 1st on reserve list if 4 entrants per country is already reached.

The current system of sending out 3 rounds of invitations is bizarre and time consuming and creates lots of unseemly byes.

I believe you can easily get 64 entrants per event at World Champs with a reserve list system - also there is no reason why those ranked outside 150 cannot play if a place is available.

Eliminate the national quota altogether. Any top 64 qualify for sure. Submit as many entries as you want. If there are non-entrants or withdrawals in the top 64, then those outside will get places.

Eliminate the national quota altogether. Any top 64 qualify for sure. Submit as many entries as you want. If there are non-entrants or withdrawals in the top 64, then those outside will get places.
Radical but with increasing professionalisation where badminton is one's rice bowl I think we will eventually need to move there and leave the Olympics to cater to a different ideal of widest (country) participation.

Radical but with increasing professionalisation where badminton is one's rice bowl I think we will eventually need to move there and leave the Olympics to cater to a different ideal of widest (country) participation.

Yes, exactly my sentiment.

The WC can also try to cater for wider participation. Example:
1 wild card for Host
1 wild card for BWF
at least 1 from each continent (which totals 5)

So, guarantee the top 57, instead of top 64. It's still workable, and much preferred to leaving out top players like Chen Hong, Wong Choong Hann etc.

Absolutely yes

With current system it will be very hard new badminton star born.
The junior players will play from Qualifying Round and earn very small points.
Badminton's future will be boring, lack of new star.

In WTA or ATP System, The players who lost in 1st round Main Draw only got 1 points or 2 in Grand Slam, less than Qualifying player who won at least 1 match.

Absolutely yes

With current system it will be very hard new badminton star born.
The junior players will play from Qualifying Round and earn very small points.
Badminton's future will be boring, lack of new star.

Not quite the case. They could start from playing GP Gold, GP, etc. where top players usually skip. As long as they are talented enough to do well in these tournaments by consistently advancing to at least sf, they will probably need no more than 6 months to get into main draws of SS. After all, the points earned by GP Gold and GP winners are 7000 (earned more than a SS semi-finalist) and 5000 (earned slightly less than a SS quarterfinalist) points respectively.

That's also the path that veterans like WCH and Zhou Mi used to take or is taking now to achieve that. Zhou Mi, for example, returned to international competitions 4 months ago after more than a year's break (hence, zero WR point to start with!). She participated in 6 events and won a GP Gold title, a GP title, a GP Gold runner-up, among others. She's now ranked 33rd and as long as at least 6 of the top-28 WS players skip a particular SS (which often happens), she's already in the main draw.

WCH is a one fine example....

Not quite the case. They could start from playing GP Gold, GP, etc. where top players usually skip. As long as they are talented enough to do well in these tournaments by consistently advancing to at least sf, they will probably need no more than 6 months to get into main draws of SS. After all, the points earned by GP Gold and GP winners are 7000 (earned more than a SS semi-finalist) and 5000 (earned slightly less than a SS quarterfinalist) points respectively.

That's also the path that veterans like WCH and Zhou Mi used to take or is taking now to achieve that. Zhou Mi, for example, returned to international competitions 4 months ago after more than a year's break (hence, zero WR point to start with!). She participated in 6 events and won a GP Gold title, a GP title, a GP Gold runner-up, among others. She's now ranked 33rd and as long as at least 6 of the top-28 WS players skip a particular SS (which often happens), she's already in the main draw.

By Zhou Mi or WCH played in Qualifying, 1 place for her/him and very small chance to junior player to take it.
This time very hard some junior player to collect point in some tournament.

What is the rank of Lidya Cheah, Wang Yihan, Chen Long, Arif ?
Still low ranking, I think they are better than some of top-100 players.

By Zhou Mi or WCH played in Qualifying, 1 place for her/him and very small chance to junior player to take it.
This time very hard some junior player to collect point in some tournament.

What is the rank of Lidya Cheah, Wang Yihan, Chen Long, Arif ?
Still low ranking, I think they are better than some of top-100 players.

They should participate less in SS and more in GP Gold, GP, International Series, etc. events to start with. If they can't even shine in those events despite of the absence of the world class players, that means they are not good enough to be the main challengers in SS either.

Take Lydia Cheah as an example. She is ranked lowly not because she has entered to many SS qualifying rounds but failed to get beyond that, but because she couldn't even do well at the lower-level tournaments. Her current WR point is 6870 and is ranked World No. 142. Let's look at how she fared in the 6 tournaments that she entered to in this year,

Austrian Int'l Series - didn't get pass the qualifying round!
German Open (GP) - didn't get pass the qualifying round!
Asian Championships (GP Gold) - round-of-16 (the best achievement to date; but I think the top Chinese players skipped the event)
Singapore SS - round-of-32
Vietnam Int'l Challenge (lower than GP but higher than Int'l Series) - round-of-32
Thailand Open (GP Gold) - didn't get pass the qualifying round!

Also check out Wang Yihan - she is ranked 61st with 15930 WR points. In the 5 WR-point-awarding events that she participated in since in this year,

Austrian Int'l Series - round-of-16
German Open (GP) - round-of-32
China SS - qf
Philippine Open - qf

She has been sent to less international tournaments than her higher-profile teammates in the first place (go and ask LYB why) and she only did well in the last 2 tournaments. She needs more wins to prove her worth. However, she is not in a hurry to participate in SS events. She just needs to win a GP Gold title + a GP title, or a GP Gold title + another GP Gold runner-up, or two GP titles, or a GP Gold title + a Int'l Challenge title + another Int'l Challenge runner-up ... then she would be good enough to directly enter to SS main draw. However, if you check her track record, you will realize that she could only shine on her home soil :-

2004 - China Open (qf)
2005 - China Open (sf), China Masters (qf), Thailand Open (didn't get pass qualifying round)
2006 - China Masters (round-of-16), China Open (qf), ABC (round-of-32)
2007 - Austrian Int'l Series (round-of-16), German Open (GP) (round-of-32), China SS (qf), Philippine Open (GP Gold) (qf)

In other words, she has yet to prove her worth in challenging the SS regulars yet.

Also check out Chen Long - he is ranked 261st with only 2920 WR points because ... (ask LYB why) he has only participated in two events that offer WR points in the past 12 months (Luxembourg Open '06 and Asian Championships '07 - and he failed to shine in both occasions as he was eliminated in early rounds)!

Good examples, Inky2000, but this discussion becomes a little bit offtopic. I would like to switch back to the initial questions:

1. The ranking system for doubles. I do believe that the notional ranking, as it is implemented at present, is not enough. As far as KKK/TBH are concerned, before AE they still had to start from qualifying rounds on the first two SS, being already AG champions! Besides, when the pair had been created, both players had already high enough ranking (with the other partners), so with the "individual ranking system" they would be within top 30 from the very beginning (Japan Open, October 2006) , and within at least top 20 in January (1st SS, MO).

2. WC qualifying rules. Indeed, why they are so different from the other tournaments, like SS and GP? Can anybody explain the reasons for these 3 steps of confiramtions? Is it simply historically? When the present system was created and what were the initial goals of these confirmations? Anybody knows?

Good examples, Inky2000, but this discussion becomes a little bit offtopic. I would like to switch back to the initial questions:

1. The ranking system for doubles. I do believe that the notional ranking, as it is implemented at present, is not enough. As far as KKK/TBH are concerned, before AE they still had to start from qualifying rounds on the first two SS, being already AG champions! Besides, when the pair had been created, both players had already high enough ranking (with the other partners), so with the "individual ranking system" they would be within top 30 from the very beginning (Japan Open, October 2006) , and within at least top 20 in January (1st SS, MO).

If I'm not wrong, the notional rankings were implemented in Feb 2007. That explains why KKK/TBH had to play from qualifying rounds in the first two SS tournaments in January.

When the notional rankings were introduced, Rexy slammed it because he thought that all the new pairs should play from scratch - if they are really good, it won't take long for them to earn enough points to be ranked high (look at KKK/TBH); otherwise, new pairs with strong players involved could take the free ride and yet they do not necessarily produce good results. The negative examples of the notional rankings that Rexy raised was, surprisingly, two new INA pairs - Eng Hian/Rian Sukmawan and Sigit Budiarto/Fran Kurniawan. The two pairs ranked even lower than KKK/TBH prior to AE and yet they took the "free ride" to be directly qualified for the main draw, thanks to Eng and Sigit's notional rankings. Now both pairs are still struggling, with the latter did especially badly - ranked #52. It was like Rexy has seen through the two pairs' limited potential since February.