Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

New format for Sudirman Cup 2015

Discussion in 'Sudirman Cup 2013' started by diverdan, May 27, 2013.

  1. diverdan

    diverdan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    graduate
    Location:
    England
    Dear BC,

    If you have thought that sometimes the order of play favours a particular team then I have a new format for choosing the order of play.

    1. A toss of a coin allows Team A to choose who will play the first match.
    2. The next choice of who will play the next match is Team B.
    3. The next match is then chosen by Team A
    4. Next match by Team B
    5. The last match is whoever is left

    There are a couple of ways this can be implemented. Before the match starts all the decisions are made or after each match. This will help teams win matches and make it a more exciting format. You could compare it to Top Trumps.

    Another consideration is that we may never see a ladies doubles or ladies singles match again if the same format is kept.
     
  2. Qidong

    Qidong Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Waiting to be out-sourced
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    If using this format, Korean team will be in big trouble, the opponent will definitely want Ko Sung Hyun or Kim Ha Na to play the next game so as not to give them any break.
     
  3. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    As many are aware, rule changes that do not put a limit on China won't fly.

    Having said that, I do agree with that changes are needed. I particularly don't like the way MS and MD going before WS and WD. Coin toss is one way to go.

    Obviously, the one-match break will stand. And the team that is denied its preferred choice will need to be compensated with two consecutive choices.
     
  4. bad's fan

    bad's fan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    in front of my lappie
    It is on their own risk. Knowing that could happen, any team seriously want the title should prepare a real solid team.
     
  5. 2cents

    2cents Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Landlording, providing vacation homes at Disney wo
    Location:
    Vacation Home @ Disney World
    For individuals, tournaments should avoid one player playing 2 matches without enough resting; BWF has the responsibility to let anyone maximize their potential in all categories, singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles.

    But for team events, it's team's responsibility to have enough position depth to avoid one player playing 2 matches without enough resting.

    Unfortunately, BWF all did, were opposite. They never care about individuals battling across different events, but they protect double players(only double players) playing 2 events, and also let the team to decide which order to play.

    Ina exploited this in their 1/8 against China. They fielded Lilyn for both XD and WD, so that promoted the XD as the first match to play.

    Since the play list was unknown to public, so before the match, China team had no idea what order to play, while Ina knew it, because they manipulated the players' list.

    I like diverdan's idea, let the 2 teams decide alternately, instead of just manipulating the players list. (I read newspaper praised it as strategy, I thought it cheating, because the other team has no way to know).
     
  6. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    The only game format where a player would be playing in more than one match, would be if the player is part of the XD team. Singles players rarely if ever are seen as part of any doubles teams at this level. Juliane Schenk and a couple of others may be the exception and even those are on rare occasions.

    It is therefore logical for the XD to be put at the top of the schedule if any players are involved in multiple matches.

    A coin toss could conversely, seriously inhibit any team that does not have sufficient depth in all disciplines. Apart from some of the top playing countries there are a LOT of other countries that just do not have the depth of players, and it would immediately put them all at a very significant disadvantage.

    The SC would not retain it's flavour as an inclusive tournament for all badminton-playing countries to participate in. It would favour countries that are already strong in their representation, and fatally weaken the less-competitive teams.
     
  7. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Actually, OP's suggestion helps to address equalization/inclusion issue. A flexible order helps teams with fewer competitve players. To that end, instead of a coin toss, the team with lower ranking should get the first choice and then the choice alternates between the teams. In this way, the lower ranked team has the advantage. But it is okay based on the pricinple of equalization.

    To make it more interesting, instead of using the first choice, the lower ranked team may elect to choose the 2nd and 3rd matches and let the other team choose first. In any case, the one match break stands for players who play two events.

    As it happened, I don't think there would be any change in the playing order in this year's SC final. However, in QF, the Japanese team would have benefited by playing their WD earlier.
     
  8. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Like your idea of sharing the lineup.

    My only concern would be the one-match break. Oftentimes a singles match (that is loaded in favour of any one player) is over in less than half an hour, and this provides very little respite and regeneration time for the doubles player who needs to get back on...
     
  9. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Yeah, one match may not be long enough. So it should be one match but no shorter than 40 minutes.

    Nowadays, the organizers usually have scantily clad dancers to keep the audience entertained. There are even more options for TV/streaming viewers.
     
  10. 2cents

    2cents Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Landlording, providing vacation homes at Disney wo
    Location:
    Vacation Home @ Disney World
    I understand your intention granting the lower ranked team right of choosing, is to make the match more balanced. But this is against the sport spirit. It punishes players/teams delivering better results.

    IMHO, the team with better previous results, should be given the right to choose the first match. Say, China beat INA 3-2, while Den beat Taipei 3-0, then Den can pick first, then China the 2nd.

    In the group, the lost team should play first, to avoid fixing games. The winning team or higher ranked team have the right to pick first.
     
  11. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    It is not fair but the unfairness is much less than it appears. No matter what the order of the first three matches is, if a team cannot win one of the three matches, it does not deserve to win. With a just single match win, both teams get to choose two of the first four matches.

    Basically, I think the order of play will make the tie much more interesting but will not fundamentally alter the final outcome. For example, a 3-2 China/Indonesia match was a lot more interesting than a 3-1 result. Similarly, a 3-2 Thailand/Japan match would be much more exciting than the 3-1 match.

    By letting the teams choose, both teams have the chance to send their best players on court. Combining that with the titillating potential of a Match 5, the fans, and the sport, will be big winners.
     
  12. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Does your team possess the SPECS ?

    S
    kills
    Power
    Endurance
    Consistency
    Strength

    In team, or in individual competition, the team and/or individual that possesses the SPECS will make it to the final day.

    Any player or team that has consistently been winning has to show all of the above qualities in abundance or they will never keep making it to the finals and winning the finals.

    To claim that a stronger team (or player) has a "right" to choose the time or order is incorrect. That "right" is only granted to the rulebook and the regulations handbook. The rulebook and regulations handbook is written up to provide as fair as possible a chance of winning to all players and teams. The objective is to create as even a playing field as possible, given all the variables, and then the result would be decided on who performs better on that day. Otherwise, "weaker" teams will never get the opportunity or motivation to get competitive -and the possible long-term result will be a stagnant pecking order which would be disastrous for the game.

    SC frameworks allow for each country to choose from a pool of players for each fixture. Once the players have been selected, the organisers will decide the order of play based on the situation: are any players doing double-duty? Are they all doubles players? Are they singles players? etc etc... and then arrive at the best possible solution.

    I think thus far, what Redshuttle has suggested in post #7 makes the most sense, but the obvious reservation is: this has to pass by the committee, will they see the merit in it or do they have different ideas?

    Or maybe there is a better, more balanced idea lurking out there waiting to be discovered... :D
     
  13. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    18,500
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Thread title changed to 2015
     
  14. AlanY

    AlanY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    England
    Are we tried to fix something that ain't broken?
     
  15. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    39,816
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    I'd suggest in order to ensure at least four matches are played that we increase the tie to best of seven instead of the present five with two MS , two WS, one XD,one MD, and one WD. As for the order of play, fixed the last two matches for MS2 and WS2, the first five doesn't matter obviously except that we would want to see MS1 and WS1 being played so these two matches would have to be made compulsory.

    But,of course, this format immediately benefits those nations/BAs with the depth of talents and rich resources. My point is there isn't any solution that can satisfy everyone equally, something's got to give, so we'll just have to weigh the pros and cons for maximum impact for the best of all concerned.

    If you ask me why include second singles only and not doubles, it's because I believe the great majority prefer to watch singles than doubles. Another objection I guess would be such a format should be more advantageous to CHN with her depth of talent but isn't the present best-of-five format just as or more or less the same in 'favouring' her. In the first place, a mixed team event is by nature a benchmark to prove overall strength in all departments of the game.

    Actually in terms of MS and WS, not a few nations/BAs have fighting chances against CHN, say KOR,MAS, JPN, INA,DEN, IND - in either one or both departments no better or worse than what they currently are.

    Just throwing out a 'wild' thought , not sure of its viability.
     
  16. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Or maybe just a pre-emptive move to people who might cry "foul!" to INA's pre-emptive move?
     
  17. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    1. The most often used order of XD/MS/MD/WS/WD favors showing male players who obviously play at a higher level and are more interesting to the spectators. But this is a team event of mixed gender. From a competition point of view, all disciplines are equally important. From a social point of view, is this discrimination really intended by the governing body or just an unintended consequence? In the grand scheme of thing, this is a great opportunity to promote female players and female participation in the sport.
    2. The reality is that most teams can't field a line-up with even strength in all disciplines. Most teams have some strong events and some weak events. The predominant playing order favors teams of certain make-up, likely unintentionally. It would be good for all teams to be able to send their best players, male or female, single or double on court, rather than being hobbled by the pre-fixed playing order and lossing without their best players even getting a chance to play.
     
  18. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Also, the proposed playing order setting process is an event of its own and worthy of sponsors. It also opens up a can of worms for BCers to debate endlessly on the resulting order.
     
  19. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    411
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    It's good idea. I have another proposal.

    1. For both Semi-Finals, all five matches should be played.
    2. Whoever did better in their respective Semi-Final will be Team A.
    3. Team A can choose as the first, third and fifth matches as diverdan has proposed.

    Example:

    Semi Final 1: Team X1 vs Team X2
    Semi Final 2: Team Y1 vs Team Y2

    Let's say X1 won against X2 by 4:1 (in matches) and Y1 won against Y2 by 3:2. In that case, X1 will be Team A while Y1 will be Team B.

    If both X1 and Y1 won the same number of matches, then we look at the number of games won. If that's the same, then we look at the score differences. If that's the same, then coin toss.

    how's that? any thoughts?
     
  20. SolsticeOfLight

    SolsticeOfLight Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    Belgium
    And why would the losing team bother to play matches 4 & 5?

    edit:// read 'any dead matches'
     

Share This Page