Separate names with a comma.
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!
Discussion in 'German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2012' started by galaxyduo, Mar 9, 2012.
I blame LYB for all these.
Where are all those walkovers when you need them?
For what’s worth, the average time per match for 2011 AE on Day 1 was 35 mins compare to this year’s 42 mins and the total time on court was almost 10 hours longer that equated to about 2.5 hours/court.
It’s just sod’s law. An extra day is not an option for commercial reason. Even an early start if the average stayed at the 40-45 mins wouldn’t work. That leaves the only option to have 5 courts or play some 1st round matches on the Day-1 (qualification day).
The purpose is to get tv exposure and if tv tells them we can only spare so much time the BWF tries/d to cater to them. Tennis has already established themselves so no point in comparing to it unless you take the situation for tennis 20-30-40 years ago.
One game might have max 2 hours duration, now multiply that by 5 and try squeezing that in your timeslot. Of course they could just leave out some finals or spread it over two days which I have also suggested in the past with regards to getting tv coverage. Why not for example start the ladies on monday and finish on saturday and the men a day later + xd.
For me (I was there on Wednesday) it has to be 5 courts, 4 is not enough to cope with the number of matches, it'd be pretty tight even if they were all won in straight games, I'd have thought.
We gave up at 10pm and missed seeing Gade, Lin Dan etc. very disappointed.
It was obvious by lunchtime that 4 courts wasn't providing enough capacity.
The turnaround between matches seemed quick enough.
They could of course shave off a few seconds by not telling us every single time that "the players will be lead out by the umpire and followed by court officials"! j/k (but it does sound silly, like making a big deal out of something so unimportant, makes our sport seem like it's trying too hard to sound 'grown-up' or something!)
Surely they could have adjusted start times accordingly however? The general format is the same for all ss events, right? So other tournaments must run late too?
Unless it is the flexibility on the individual courts...ie they have a set schedule for each court, then if all those games go to three sets, there will be a big delay. If they just put the next games on the next available courts, then there would be less chance of a delay, however it would give less certainty and notice to the players..
I haven't looked at the BWF's books. I'm not sure how much an extra day would cost them, but if they are already paying for 6 days for the venue (probably 8 days if you include setting up and packing up), it would just cost them an extra day to rent the venue plus staff costs.
I think it is really stupid to change the scoring system because a sponsor wants it. BWF should look for another sponsor if OSIM insists on 4 courts. I don't even know 4 courts helps OSIM's advertisement - everybody can see OSIM's logo when it was 5 courts.
I blame the players! Big call I know.
A few years back a member on here managed to compare the mens singles final at Wimbledon with the AE mens singles final, back in old scoring days. (I can't remember who, but if I find the thread they have full credit)
They showed that for the length of the match, Badminton players spent a greater % of time actually hitting the shuttle than the tennis players spent hitting the ball. I think now you would probably see a massive drop in the % of the time the players are in rallies. They spend so long wandering about, asking for court moppping, towelling down, asking for new shuttles, delaying the serve, making an issue about line calls, etc. That the matches are longer than they should be.
Umpires need to start getting cards out for time wasters and put a stop to this messing about.
And... Just because the AE went on till 2.30am doesn't mean the Olympics will.
It is nothing to do with sponsors or OSIM....the rule for using 5 courts has been recommended by BWF for long time except for Japan Open SS which uses 5 courts due to stadium policy which is to be closed around 9.30 pm everyday.
Honestly, adding extra day is better and we can use 3 courts because after round 16, we will use 3 court or quarter and now on quarter final..the organizer uses 2 courts or sometimes semifinal, they use 1 court now ( morning and evening session)...
I dont want to watch many good matches on same time like GP...adding extra day is good for sponsors, also for TV and for viewers as well.....
Remember that finding sponsorhips is not easy as you guys think..even for professional players..
So far everything is perfect...this 3 am thingy will not come too often...even last nite Swiss Gold GP finished around 12.30 something....
For Premier..we need extra day and we can use 3 courts to enjoy more games...
The set up on courts with sponsors are nice now with lighting, etc..we need to make badminton tournament with fun and activities like tennis..so far I have seen Indonesia Open exceeded it and recently followed by Malaysia Open SS and a bit from Korea Open SSP...
Badminton is far away from being popular and favorite sport...dont believe it? just look at BWF TV from you tube..you can see only less 50 K people watching or viewing it ( since yesterday)
We dont need to change the scoring system ...as a matter of fact we need to get more tournaments rally to make this sport being played and watched....still lobbying bWF to add more Challenge level especially for US, Canada, Central America which they cant afford to have more GP or GP Golds ( only US has GP Gold and Canada cant even upgrade to GP Gold)..thats the reality of our badminton....we need more people playing and watching before big sponsors can step in...
Thats my humble opinion!!
If that is the case BWF should try and find a way to establish themselves like what Tennis did, BUT not by the way of shortening the length of game. I believe by doing so it will get nowhere.
So can anyone enlighten me on how did Tennis cope with TV 30-40 years ago when TV tells them that they can only spare so much time for the match?
There were some different conditions 30-40 years ago, there was not such a wide choice of live sports content available for airing. The size and capability of the cameras probably had something to do with that - luckily for tennis it was played in big arenas with good outdoor lighting. There were only a few channels (3 if you were lucky) and the test pattern was probably the longest programme broadcast each day. Live sports matches would be interrupted for the 6 o'clock news. Repeats of the same event were shown in highlights only.
Audiences and broadcasting media have changed, badminton broadcasting development has a different set of challenges to face. In the face of so much competing material available nowadays Cable TV and internet distribution hopefully will provide the media to broadcast the amount of content we want to see. In the end revenue has to be attracted to justify the provision of content though.
What type of ads got aired during AE broadcast in other places? In HK there were mainly ads for other programs from the same broadcaster and a few watch ads (golf based?!) and a martial arts academy (probably others but i was taking a break). I don't recall any badminton related ads or even event sponsor based ads. With all the investment in clothes, equipment, facilities and training related to badminton there does seem to be a lack of broadcast advertising. And this is in a place where badminton is already a hugely popular sport.
If there are restrictions maybe they should reduce the number of entries or even delete the qualifying round.From past experience event officials have an idea of how long it takes to get through an event and you have to allow for the 3 setters. Hopefully the organisers have got back and evaluated the situation and resolved the issue.
Sure it is unpleasant that the AE event being complained which the 2012 event is one the organisers would rather forget. Badminton professional players are generally a quiet and serious lot but the overrunning of the tournament surely make a few blew their tops such as having to play at an undignified time of after midnight or as TH claimed not sure when his match is on to be prepared for the game.
Let us hope that the organizers of the London Olympic Badminton Committee can learn from the AE debacle and not repeat the same mistakes again.
Surely the longer a match goes, the more tiring is to the spectators. A 35- 40 min of high quality match is preferred to one that goes beyond 1 hour it if it is a bland game. One may reminiscence about long matches but does one ever remember who actually played there after 1 month? Badminton has become more predictable as players understand the game having adapted to the existing scoring system. Players not wishing to take risk will just rally the shuttle in play and wait for the opponents to make mistakes. Nothing in the WBF rule to say you are not allowed to be a defensive and steady player. As a result some games can now go to 1 hour or longer if the third set is played. This was where the organisers in AE probably were caught being unaware that longer games can happen and this will never go away. Even more courts may not help should players take longer times to finish their games.
Perhaps a one set of 30 in the qualifyings or first round maybe?
Good luck, advancing the sport is not going to happen anytime soon. There are too many vested interested involved. You have the player and their interests. You have all the various national associations and their interests and then you have the BWF. Too many forces pulling in too many different directions. Add to that you have the game currently dominated by China. When was the last time you heard of the nation of China making a positive contribution to anything?
Let me illustrate with some simple Maths why 5 courts is a must for Round 1. Assume there are 80 matches. If 5 courts, each court can take 16 matches. If each match average 45 mins, each court total time will average 12 hours. So if first match starts at 10 am,last match ends at 10pm. If 4 courts, each court total time wil average 15 hours. Then last match ends at 1 am. And what is the average match time in this AE? The BWF guideline should be the last match end time targeted at 10pm instead of 1am. In terms of match duration, if a match is intense and close, one hour is too short, eg LCW vs LD. If a match is long, predictable rallies like in WD, 10 min is too long. But no one can tell how matches can turn out, so setting a match time limit is unprofessional. There s no difference in match appreciation be it 4 or 5 courts if the organisers schedule a good mix of competitive/boring matches. At Singapore Open, we used to schedule like what is found in the current Swiss Open; by events , ie, a chunk of XD, WD. Can you imagine sitting through 2 hours of WD and nowhere to go? Now they try to schedule a good mix of events simultaneously so you can watch 3 matches and ignore the other boring 2. Scheduling is key to the enjoyment of matches. You can tell how intelligent, knowledgeable and manipulative the organisers are by just looking at the scheduling. For example, research will suggest AE is the most racist,often scheduling less rest time for Asian player vs European opponent. There were past indications they tried to get rid of LCW and WYH early but of course they are too good to fall victim to AE scheduling tricks. Another factor for scheduling consideration is to spread out matches of players with same coach so that the players are not deprived of equal coach benefits. Really,there should be a requirement for the BWF 4-court directive official to sit through Round 1. He will understand the stupidity of making it mandatory. In the meantime, I will write to Mr Ron Sim of OSIM. Please join me in doing so if you feel strongly about the 4 court directive.
China seems to dominate, not because they are that good. It s because they play fake matches ( or walkovers) like in AE ( 30 min matches when required). If their players have the freedom to fight it out, we will see a less dominant picture. Non-CHN players have to fight it out so why can t CHN show some guts and prove their player are good enough to win 5 tough matches to win a title. So far, there is little proof of that because their boss don t have the confidence they can deliver if allowed to. The day when CHN players have the freedom to play would be the start of China making a positive contribution. Otherwise they should stay home with their Chinese Badminton League ( which also turned out to be a sham eventually).
Sorry to disagree. I dislike China, I don't like the way they conduct themselves in international competition and I don't consider them a positive influence on the game. That being said, it is crazy to imply that they aren't that good. The fact of the matter is that they are that good and they are that good because the Chinese government spends a lot of money on the sport and evidence would indicate that the resources are used efficiently and focused in the right area. If you want a contrast look at the ongoing soap opera that is B.A.M. I honestly thought "B.A.M" was a Malyasian acronym for CulsterFcuk. So as much as I may dislike how China conducts themselves, I'm not interested in seeing them punished or banned. And, as a fan of the game I can't see how China 'staying home' does anything but hurt the game.
China rigging China vs China matches is a symptom of their strength. Without the depth in talent that they have, such rigging would be impossible.
If the Chinese team is exploiting the rules then it is the responsibility of the BWF to amend those rules to take away the incentive to game the system and so far, like every other aspect of their stewardship of the sport, they are a miserable failure.
So, the fault lies with the BWF. Right now, the sport isn't run in anything resembling a professional manner.
I think all of us are overacting about this 3 am thingy...
If you can suggest to change the score and I am sure that some of us will accuse BWF to contain China domination ( remember when BWF introduces 21 rally points and many of us were accusing BWF for that reason) and actually this 21 rally is much more exciting than ever...instead of fighting the changes..we should promote this posrt to another level.
Also using 5 courts may not solve the solution as many of fine stadiums/hallls may not be able to accomodate this 5 court requirement and plus on 2nd round..we dont use 5 courts anymore..mostly 3 courts...is that efficient enough??
This 3 am thing is unfortunate events and I am sure no BWF or England officials ( including linesmen) wanted to stay that long...you cant blame all to BWF except it could have started at 9 am instead of 10 am...as we cant foresee the outcome...I am sure if you make the game shorter then some of us will make a case that the game is too short to enjoy...
Leave as it is now as BWF has done a fine job than in the past..BWF should continue making this posrt stay at Olympic's spot and make it more worldwide and players can earn the living by beaing a badminton player...
I don t dislike China. I despise LYB, the coward. And let s disagree. I maintain they are not THAT good. Like if they lose, it must be they are injured or give chance... Let s take CL, WR3. Is he really that good? How come they have to let him have a walkover so he can defeat LCW twice in finals? Because CL needed a breakthrough and he s unlikely to do it without a match break. And this AE. He had a one hour match with NTM and he lost to Tago the next day in another hour plus match. Where s his mental strength? His physical prowess? He cannot last 2 tough matches?He s not THAT good, is he, winner of 3 big titles, with two in a dishonest way. The way they are trained, they can defeat top players and lose to lower tier ones. Strange, isn t it? Every time a tournament has LCW is the best chance for other non-CHN MS to upset CHN MS. Why? Because the whole team just train for LCW so they would be unprepared for others. And CHN walkovers and fake matches are a symptom of their strength? Really? Other teams can t do it? You know THA and KOR teams started to do it recently and that probably got BWF worried enough to give warnings. I wouldn't be surprised that in the DEN/DEN XD match, the outcome was prearranged (check their H2H) and I was delighted because CHN XD would have rote trained for CP/JF. What happened to CHN XD, WR2? They mentally melted and physically paralysed because they were not prepared for KJ/TL onslaught. The whole match was quite embarrassingly one-sided. CHN, the Confused, on display. In fact, I hope non-CHN teams start to get wise and play 30 min matches with teammates, especially when their next opponent is CHN. Split the prize money, whoever wins G1 or benefit from ranking points more, wins. Over 10 tournaments of co-operation, the Danes can be top 10. Other teams can do it as well. Every team should do a CHN with every opportunity. Let s see how long the domination lasts when every team gets wise and join the help-one-another party. And by the way, at Singapore Open, we have been having fabulous matches and tournaments with minimal CHN players until last year when the CHN big guns turned up and told lies on TV worldwide.
I believe AE used 5 courts last year for Round 1.
In fact, any match fixing should seriously be dealt with lah. If every country starts to match fix like what you just described, then no more fun in watching badminton. And whoever or whichever country started it has set a very bad example or role model.
There is a big case in cricket recently -- Chris Cairns "the master of match fixing"