Results 324 to 340 of 385
08-03-2012, 02:04 AM #324
I expect the police to find the murderer whether it was at the station or at remote home.
This is the hypocrisy that is so frustrating. So what degree of subtlety is sufficient when throwing a game? On a scale of 1 (obvious, as occurred) to 10 (full effort), what is your passing grade; 5? 6? 7? Who will judge? the BWF? IOC? Fans with iphones and androids with the new "grade-this-olympic-event" app?
Is it not simple and clear if you have straight knockout rounds? And if they want to eliminate intentional walkovers, then they can devise a system whereby the team forfeiting the game loses all potential prize money and rankings from that tournament, or some other meaningful incentive.
Are these things not all within the control AND responsibility of BWF? If so, shouldn't they shoulder the responsibility of this fiasco?
yamsyams liked this post
08-03-2012, 02:06 AM #325
08-03-2012, 02:09 AM #326
If not,Japan can argue they lost to better opponent. I rate the Taiwanese as better than Japan pair. Plus, Japan struggled against the lower ranked Canadians yesterday.
The 4 pairs were much too obvious,they can win award for worst acting.
Last edited by eaglehelang; 08-03-2012 at 02:13 AM.
08-03-2012, 02:12 AM #327
08-03-2012, 02:14 AM #328
08-03-2012, 02:16 AM #329
08-03-2012, 02:20 AM #330
08-03-2012, 02:23 AM #331
08-03-2012, 02:34 AM #332
BWF should ask the Lawn Bowling Association how they dealt with a similar case, haha. Wonder what was in the 13 page report of the Lawn Bowls case. I suppose such sports easier to proof, miss the mark continuously by many inches when one is a champion and leading the game would raise red flags.
Motive for losing : to place themselves in a more beneficial draw the next round.
If detective want to proof murder, must find out motive for murder. Here, the 4 pairs have motive
Last edited by eaglehelang; 08-03-2012 at 02:40 AM.
08-03-2012, 02:38 AM #333
The problem is, more than 50% of the audience on Tuesday evening was made up of people who do not follow the Super Series and Grand Prix circuits. Most will have seen or read the results from 1 possibly 2 tournaments in the rest of the year.
It could be argued that this problem has been created by LOCOG. Due to the random allocation of tickets, it meant that many people applied for tickets to events that they weren't fully interested in. These people got tickets, and others like me (who I'm sure you're aware by now follow badminton) missed out on the chance to see players who we support and now others who probably can't even pronounce the names of some of these players got to see them compete in the Olympics.
If they had followed badminton in the last 18 months, or simply looked at the draw, then they would understand what was going on. Sure it's not a great spectacle - far from it, however the main aim of everyone competing at a tournament is to win the whole tournament.
If by losing you have a much better chance of winning overall, why wouldn't you? At the end of the day, the players are there to achieve the best medal possible, there is no prize money at the Olympic games, therefore as the article says, the tickets sales revenue isn't going to the players.
It's true that maybe the way both sides went about the match wasn't the best way it could have been done, but the "die was cast" BWF created a disaster waiting to happen and of course if all the conditions are correct then it will happen. A bunch of "angry" people who probably didn't follow much badminton got upset at competitors trying to win a medal. They missed the fundamental reason for losing the match, and what's worse is they blamed the wrong people for what took place.
Now, 8 players have had their dream shattered, all will be too old by the time the next Olympics comes around. Was it right to DQ them? It's difficult to say, but the BWF need to take a long look at themselves here. They created the problem, knew it could happen, yet did nothing to fix it. The women's doubles tournament was ruined as a result.
08-03-2012, 10:19 AM #334
08-03-2012, 10:29 AM #335
08-03-2012, 10:47 AM #336
I'd mentioned this elsewhere before, but would like to re-iterate it here once again.
There were more than 8 people involved, in case you didn't notice. CHN, e.g., had 2 coaches for their 2 players. There're 3 intermissions when the coaches could "coach" their players.
If the coaches believed their players were on the wrong track, would they not have advised the players, and made any correction? It appeared they're in agreement with the players.
The only surprise I find is, the players continued to do this, after the referee came out and held the black card to warn them. Did they not understand the black card, or not able to understand English? This is a grand tournament, how could they treat this warning lightly? (I don't mean to say they should give up on their strategy to lose, but to do a better job in acting.)
But of course, this is a no-win situation, given both teams wanted to lose. It's interesting to see the players actually saved opponents shots that were out. It's an escalating episode. So in order to make sure opponents couldn't save the shots, the players had to play something really ridiculous.
Some of you thinks someone's veiw points here are naive. I happen to think that a well designed system would have prevented this. The format, in hindsight, seems amateurish. Why're there so many small RR groups with only 2 people (I'm referring to Singles), and they made the draw for the elimination round known ahead? If it were BWF that helped organized that, you'd have expected them to do a better job.
If BWF should choose the same format in the future, do you really think no one would throw matches any more? Yes, people have learned, but probably to not do it so obviously. I mean how do you prove someone throw a match. Just look at some of the best players in the world (WSX, e.g.). She would choke in the Final (or earlier) without any motives. The losing team could blame it on their mental weakness.
Yes, I embrace this strategy, given the system. It's only logical. People who argue otherwise had put the cart in front of the horses.
Last edited by raymond; 08-03-2012 at 10:56 AM.
08-03-2012, 10:52 AM #337
With the difference in sounds and dialect it gets difficult to pronounce anything like the natives do correctly specially when you come across those sounds just a couple of time. You should also understand English only has 26 alphabets and 5+2 sounds so and they try hard to fit in everything with these.
or else it could be said back,
Yes ofcourse its difficult to pronounce certain names which are pronounced exactly like sound made by a silverware thrown down the stairs... CHING CHANG, CHONG PING,Ding Ning, Xin Zhang Zing.
I never intend to dis-respect, its just an analogy... and if it hurts anyone I apologize
08-03-2012, 11:01 AM #338
If BWF wants the players to play to their best ability, they should come up with something better. Garbage in, garbage out.
A simple example would demonstrate how well-designed rules would motivate everyone to maintain the desired view/motives.
Consider division of an apple between 2 people (some here would have seen this else where). One of them is to cut the apple. Exactly how he'd cut it could depend on who would choose first. Of course, you can say, the cutter should be a fair-minded person. If he isn't, you can accuse him/boo him. But if the rule set out is that the other person (the non-cutter) gets to choose first, it is simple to see the outcome would have to be a fair division.
08-03-2012, 11:04 AM #339
08-03-2012, 11:19 AM #340
Another is better protection for whisteblowers