A new article in worldbadminton puts the case for 5 x7 format. Some of the advantages were stated here on BC. (you heard it first on BC!) I have made some comments directly related to the article which I hope will present a more balanced view. (Note, I am not against change of scoring system for improvement, but I am as yet unconvinced the stated advantages of 5 x7 for mass media and marketing are proven) 1) Who plays games up to 9 points for recreational play? Curious to know where in the world this happens because I never ever heard of this happening. 2) If indeed many recreational players play to 9 points, would not a 5 x 9 format be suitable? 3) Because games are shorter, the rallies are not so prolonged. For rallies of shots in 3 x15, I have never ever had the pleasure of a commentator explaining the tactics of shots which gradually pull a player(s) out of position for the winning moment in English. Basically not enough time for a reply. This doesn't happen very much with 5 x 7 format either with more breaks. 4) More players are feeling comfortable with the system. Inevitable if you are forced to adapt. Similar situation happened with football when they changed the rule not allowing the goalkeeper to pick up the ball when kicked to by their own teammate 5) The same people win. Fair point. GZC didn't handle 5 x 7 very well. I think her only loss with 3 x 11 format was in WC in Seville. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) whereas she lost WGPF, S'pore Open in new format. However, this is only one player. 6) Prolonged duration of matches. Not backed up with statistical numbers. What percentage of matches of 3 x 15 have been over two hours? What percentage of 5 x 7 have been over 1 hours and 15 minutes? 7) Two hour matches are not liked much. That depends on what sort of game. The long matches that I can remember are as follows: 2001 WC Q/F Ladies doubles - Yang Wei/Huang Nan Yan vs Ra Kyung Min - my wife enjoyed it very much. For me it was a bit boring. 2001 AE S/F men's singles - Chen Hong vs Roslin. Pretty good match I thought 2000 AE final men's doubles - Ha/Kim vs Yoo/Lee. Said to be the best ever All England Men's doubles match. 1999 WC final men's singles - Sun Jun vs Peter Ramussen...speaks for itself. 8) At IBF's elite event, the WGPF this year, Star TV in asia only showed two hours of limited coverage. In previous years, more than 5 times the time has been shown. Why? perhaps one reason was 5 x 7 allowed editing of matches. 9) And finally, English commentary of many Grand Prix Events is of a poor standard. You only have to listen to the Olympic games finals for a clear example. The commentator even got Tony G and Chandra W mixed up. For me, better commentary helps improve understanding and stimulates interest in the game. I understand that this may not be in the control of IBF.
I personnally don't care much for the 5x7 system. I don't think that games to 7 allows for much of a comeback if a player gets down early. I think a 5x9 or even 5x11 (that would be quite a long match) is much better. I agree that rallies tend to be shorter in the 5x7 system, another reason it should go.
I must admit I haven't really read up much on this 5x7 business but its rubbish IMHO. Its far too short and takes away alot of the tactical and strategic aspects of the game. Doubles is an even bigger joke. What does the format hope to achieve except something commercial? I know its impossible to judge achievements of players of different era but having a radically different format such as 5x7 just makes me think: are some players getting better results (or vice versa) because of the format and not necessarily because of their standard. What will happen to those "slow starters"? Could Han Jian or even Morten Frost play this format? Sure they could but at what cost? Lesser players I have no doubt could and would upset them from time to time. Levelling of playing field? Not to me if you tipped the balance too far away from the counter punchers and the more defensive players. I don't know about people out there but watching a 1-14 come back sure beats one from 1-6. I hope some one comes to their senses and do away with this thing soon and when that happens, I won't regret its passing.
Interestingly there is another area that 7 points does not sit well. That is in the recreational arena. Playing out a best of 5 match is one thing, where you have full possession of a badminton court. With the average recreational player, having to wait for the next open court to play the next game, and playing only 7 points makes for more queuing up and court changes for the average recreational center. On average a 15 point game is around 20 -25 minutes (depending on the match-up). A 7 point game would probably drop that by half. Unless centers are prepared to change how court time is allocated, I don't see may players willing to switch over on a recreational basis. BTW, I have played matches 5x7 and definitely the mind set and strategy is different. There is no luxury for double digits and I have noticed that I play much harder to win the set. On the other side though, I noticed average match time is shorter duration.
Hmm... I'm very curious as there has been much mentioning here lately of queing for courts. I don't know how things work where you guys live, but here you book courts hour-wise... ???
Point 9: I agree with your view of commentaries in English. Each English-speaking nation has its own faults: America - Commentator sometimes has NO knowledge of badminton beyond what he read in the rule book. One guy kept saying "What power! What speed!" during a Dai Yun/Camilla Martin final, whether the shot was a clear, drive, or one of Dai's beautiful reverse slice half-smashes that Martin never could read. Australia (Olympics) - Macho bias, zero credit given to woman in XD. Commentator evidently didn't understand Jo Ann Goode's setting up a weak return from opponents, but then gave Simon Archer credit for the putaway: "Simon is stepping forward now and taking responsibility as Jo Ann is begging to fade." Britain - Has former players doing some of the commentary, but typically British disregard for pronunciation of non-English names, especially Chinese names. My wife & I have a game we play when listening to Brit commentary. We try to figure out who they're talking about: "Jee Fee" (Ge Fei) "Ghee (like the butter) Fee" (Ge Fei again), both of these in the same match. I won't even try to write how they pronounce Trikus Haryanto. "Sang Jun (rhymes w/ 'gun')" (Zhang Jun). Out of regard for BC standards of politeness, and of respect for my British friends, I will not give my theory for this refusal to learn correctpronunciation of other's names.
