I've just read Xu Zhen's article on the politics behind the changing of the scoring system from the original 15x3 to 7x5 and back to 15x3 format. I suppose my interpretation of Xu Zhen's article is that it's like back in the Cold War, with the East battling the West. I suppose it is naiive to ignore the fact that when you have different countries with different views on debatable issues you will see them solved amicably without any propaganda, political boycott or factions being created to oppose one another. Although it is expected, still, nevertheless, I feel it is really undesirable and destructive.

It also reminds me of the politics that occurrs in the lower level of badminton associations/organisations, i.e in the national, or even provincial level. Here's a view of what happened at our provincial level.

1) The Asian-European conflict affair : So named due to the introduction of Asian players into the provincial level. This due to the growing migration of Asians, especially Malaysian chinese from East Malaysia to NZ. Anyway, most of the Europeans here have been playing badminton among themselves and hardly ever see an Asian player in their fold and then suddenly, a few of them arrives and especially if they're ex-state players, these Asians quickly establish their hold on the provincial level by dethroning the Europeans as provincial no.1 and so on. One such Asian guy, let's just call him X, was reluctantly admitted into the province team, after couple of years of being denied to play at the top level (Division One) even though he could beat all the players in that division!

In my case, same scenario, I came from no where and started upsetting the european ladies who liked playing their singles by lots of clearing and drop shots (old style). Suddenly, I arrive with my smashes (some jumping too! :p) and attacking clears...oh boy, they sure didn't like that..and after a few of them (that believed themselves to be quite influential..e.g wife of the President of the provincial association) made some noises, I was not allowed to represent the province at Division One either, until I play a few years in the lower division. Their excuse was that I lack match exposure..etc.

2) Favouritism affair -

Because badminton is not very popular in NZ, esp the South Island, many same old ppl get to maintain control over the badminton in this province. Accordingly, the coaches (who do it voluntarilly) decides each year who will make it to which Division team and this where politics sucks. IF you don't suck up to certain coaches or if they don't like you on sight..good luck! OF course, they can only do that to certain players whose skills are in the grey area of e.g being between Division One and Division Twol. Then if the Div one coach doesn't like the guy/girl, then s/he will never make it to Div one. So a lot of players do end up sucking up to the coaches. A few of us (the Malaysian chinese normally :p) couldn't be bothered and so didn't suck up. I was lucky that without sucking up, I somehow managed not to annoy any coaches, but I know a good friend of mine that is constantly stuck in a lower division when she should be playing in a higher division.

There are many more examples of politics..but I'll stop here. Can you guys relate to such type of politics in your club, province or country?

A

It may look and sound cyncial but some facts are hard to hide. Unfortunately, unless someone is caught within this entanglement, the general public and government funding agencies are totally unaware of these backdoor politics. In calgary where i live, 910,000 population, home of yonex canada head office, canada national training center, canada power training center, has no dedicated badminton courts, no league, (except the two high end private clubs). All the federal badminton funding went to supporting the same old national players (one is over 40 years old). Basically what i'm saying is that the establishment like the old ways and trys to suppress changes, even for the good of badminton, as long as they can.

for Adelina's case, the committees are still a few years behind. Obviously, if there are no objective opinions, well, of course decisions are going to be lopsided.

But sure, I agree that M'sian ex-state standard is generally going much better than NZ province standard going by the comparison of International players from each country.


Newcomers to any country are not usually interested in involving themselves in politics...perhaps an understandable situation. After all, the reasons for moving are not just because of badminton.

In a couple of places in UK, some very good players from overseas formed a club called "Barisan". Well, they really made a statement by winning the local county league for a few years running.

Perhaps, something could be done like that in your town? Objectively, if the players are that good, then it would not take long to be No.1. Obviously there would need to be some patience whilst moving up through the lower divisions. But it would need a committee with people who have the same commitment - those who are willing to put in the free time, as do those coaches who control the decisions on the province team.


In Cooler's case, I am quite surprised by the fact there is no local league. In fact, are there any in Canada?

For the player who is over 40, I have not seen that person play. But there is sound scientific evidence that ageing does affect maximal physical ability. If she is able to maintain her standard against the newcomers, then why should she not continue? Actually, how can she continue? Some reasons are;
1) she is really good and able to fight off the younger players
2) no new players of the ability to come through (related to 1)
3) those players with ability are lost to education and professional careers
4) favouritism

I keep an open mind but my overall impression would be that Badminton Canada is in a very difficult position and despite positive comments by the association, they are not going to improve on the world stage.

Originally posted by adelina76


Their excuse was that I lack match exposure..etc.

A

That's a stupid excuse. If they don't give you the exposure, how else are you supposed to get it? But then again, it's an excuse to cover other decisions.

Originally posted by Cheung
In Cooler's case, I am quite surprised by the fact there is no local league. In fact, are there any in Canada?

For the player who is over 40, I have not seen that person play. But there is sound scientific evidence that ageing does affect maximal physical ability. If she is able to maintain her standard against the newcomers, then why should she not continue? Actually, how can she continue? Some reasons are;
1) she is really good and able to fight off the younger players
2) no new players of the ability to come through (related to 1)
3) those players with ability are lost to education and professional careers
4) favouritism

I keep an open mind but my overall impression would be that Badminton Canada is in a very difficult position and despite positive comments by the association, they are not going to improve on the world stage.

there is lot of local clubs but no official league here. I don't know about other major cities like vancouver and toronto.

This national player that i was referring to is 42 years old today. She mostly plays double nowaday. My point was that why fund a fading player and instead should use available funds to promote and train new uprising stars. Yes, it might takes several years to bring up a new national player but throwing money onto aging and fading players is not effective use of funding. Back in 1992 canadian open (when she was 32 then), she was beaten by a 17 year old no name japanese girl in LS. So, in next 10 years, she was continued funded but no results to go with it.

Originally posted by cooler


there is lot of local clubs but no official league here. I don't know about other major cities like vancouver and toronto.

This national player that i was referring to is 42 years old today. She mostly plays double nowaday. My point was that why fund a fading player and instead should use available funds to promote and train new uprising stars. Yes, it might takes several years to bring up a new national player but throwing money onto aging and fading players is not effective use of funding. Back in 1992 canadian open (when she was 32 then), she was beaten by a 17 year old no name japanese girl in LS. So, in next 10 years, she was continued funded but no results to go with it.

Wow, maybe if I move to Canada and work really hard, I can become a national player too then! :p hehe, I'm sure given another 14 years of hard training, I'll become as good! :) And plus I know I will be appreciated and not being treated unfairly :)

What do u mean by "local" leagues?

um, we have highschool leagues here, which go all the way up to the provincial level and then national

There are also leagues at private clubs

(Vancouver that is)

high school league don't count as it is only for high school students. Private clubs league don't count as they play among club members and with no others. Real leagues are cities and provincial leagues that are opened to all class of people and they compete with other clubs and cities and/or provincial leagues.

Cooler, I agree with your point that available funds might be better used for a young player yet to reach their full potential rather than to one who has probably reached their maximal acheivements which are still rather modest when compared to the world stage.

The county system in England is rife with politics and bias. On the one hand there are people who are obviously biased. Examples include: a ladies pair playing together for a whole season for a county adjecent (North-west) to mine only to get to the Inter-County Tournament and be split up so that the organisers daughter could play doubles.

Move a little bit further (North-east) from there and you have one man running the county teams who people avoid to the extent that they forego a chance to play county. Even members of his own club leave to avoid this person. Winning is everything - which is an acceptable long-term goal as it leads to progressive thinking, but as a short-term goal results in the worst type of politics.

Less malicious, but equally destructive to the game and far more numerous, are people who are in charge because they want to be. These may be people who are rich or retired or desperate to gain recognition for themselves. The latter are the worst - often being league and county secretary, umpire, coach, etc. While the time and effort they put into the game are admirable they are not necessarily the best people to be picking teams or running badminton affairs. There are simply too many people in positions of authority in the game who do not 'know badminton'. I know that is a nebulous term but it is true.

While popularity and wealth bring their own problems, an increase in the exposure of badminton bring other gains. These include people in appointed and paid positions - resulting in accountability. The problems are not limited to badminton. Table tennis was run here by a couple who dedicated their life to their game. This is excellent - but the result was that the game in England, and the organisation, ended up being excatly what they wanted it to be and any oversights or biases on their part were never addressed.

Most of the people I have described above are the reason why sport exists in England. Their willingness to give up their time for sport is amazing. But should these people be in charge? Should they be the ones who decide on future directions within the game? Should they even pick the teams?

unortunately I agree with a lot of what you say

You missed out the Player-Captain who sees his captaincy as a way to play for the team. The good players are too busy to be captain. When it comes to picking the squad he picks himself over those that can compete on an equal footing. Worse still- you don't get a chance to play him until he retires as captain.

Unfortunately, discrimination and favoritism is the norm rather than the exception in life in general. In our "civilized" society, politics is the way decisions are made. When one is living under someone else's roof, one is usually also under someone else's rules. In the end, it begs the question whether it is better to be a king in the jungles or a servant in the palace.

:)

Well, politics exists at every level. I used to know an international player who eventually gave up playing because the coach discriminated and froze her out. At the same time, in local leagues a lot of garbage goes on behind the scenes - pettiness, jealousies, grudges, selfishness and so on. While not acceptable I guess you have to be realistic and expect it - in my experience some clubs are a hotbed of behind-the-scenes politics whereas others are much more open and honest and award team places on merit.

I would agree that at county level, badminton needs a professional structure but where is the finance going to come from? The problem is the same for many other sports that are trying to raise their profile and bring in (for instance) media revenue.

Competetive sport not only brings out the best but also the worst in some people - players and coaches alike!

Adelina, I'm really sorry about your situation. I can understand having residency requirements for national teams (preventing a wealthier country from simply buying a team of foreign players, which is unfair both to other countries and to lifelong resident players in that country), but at the provincial level at which you play, that does not seem to be a concern. To overcome prejudice, I've always felt that the best solution is an intelligent, judicial blend of setting and abiding by high personal standards in all areas of conduct to dispel stereotypes, combined with appropriate levels of protest in the more blatant, obnoxious cases of discrimination. If you do choose to protest, don't seek something immediately selfish, such as demanding to be included on a team. Instead, demand that the selection process be made fair and objective, so that the better players have an opportunity to earn their way onto the team through competition, rather than subjective, personal preferences of the coach.

That lack of experience nonsense puts you in a Catch-22 situation - it's just a vicious circle that keeps spinning too fast for you to step onto and become part of the ride.

I've also been subject to personal biases from a coach and can empathize with you. Unless people at the highest level of the organization step in and declare that bias and favoritism will not be tolerated, the problem will continue, as it is simply human nature for some people to be more ego-driven and have less of a sense of fairness than others.