Well, being the head of advisors for the badminton club in this school I work in, I am also the guy who will be working hand in hand with our co-curricular coordinator in the organisation of tournaments. One is going happen next Wednesday - an inter-house open; reason: players play under banner of sports houses, but draw done randomly. As you all know, in each school there would be above average players who are good in footwork, strokes and works and they (two of them) would be the main attraction to this tournament. A finals between these two players; a power-packed dynamite who blends speed and strength with good deception vs an 'artist' who dances to the shots, movement fluidity and accurate shots to boot, will be like a grand finals of sorts between two of the best with contrasting styles of play. In short, these are players with proper footwork, high speed, high power, correct stroke, correct technique and tactical in approach. As luck would have it, as the draw was done yesterday - the CoCC Coordinator and I, we did a fair and random draw. To our pleasure, one of the two's name came out during the last tie of the first half of the draw, meaning that the chances of the second appearing in a coincidence would be low. Guess what? It happened! They will be challenging one another on the first round! To maintain a fair deal, we went on with it - the draw displayed on the board etc etc. Somehow, I kept thinking that at that very moment I could have just ask for a redraw or rig the thing a bit to make sure that both at different halves. Yet, I did not because I know it won't be a 'fair' draw anymore. *sigh* Sadly enough, they won't be here next year as they end their senior high here.
There are exceptions to every rule. Following a rule blindly is no better than following no rules at all.
Personally, I think it would be more beneficial in this case to just re-do the draw, or even deliberately place these two top player in opposite sections of the draw first, and then proceed with the remaining draw. It would make for a more interesting game/tournament for both the players and the spectators. From your description, it seems to me that whoever wins this first match is gonna take the championship title. But I guess it is a little late now, so it doesn't really matter. Just enjoy that first match. -Rick
I think you have made a fair draw. If you had wanted to do any seeding, I think you should have seeded the top player from each house. Seeding is normally done to make the tournament a more widely watched event to please advertisers and sponsors. No, that can't be right... It's so that there will be a good Final so that the fat cats with corporate boxes have a good day out with their customers. No, no, no.... apologies for being in grumpy old cynic mode this morning
Generally, random draw appears to be fair for fairly equal skill lvl club players. However, if the 2 protential finalists are way better than others, I think u should put them to the top 2 seeds, and do the rest with random. For me, a club / school internal tourny is more like to serve the purpose of "spread the message" of the game. To make the tourny more attractive, some exception in "seeding" should be understandable, however, hard to apply. For the complains, I think there's no perfect system to satisfy everyone. As long as the majority can understand the situation, and enjoy the event, I think u r doing a good job already.
You must know them, the two better players, pretty well. IMO, seeding is the proper way to go. The problem you will be facing are the criticizes from the unseeded players. They will question you about how you decide the seeds. Listing the seeding criteria will be the right thing to do. Say they belong to the school team or had participated in some open tournaments and had advanced to certain round, etc. Use those criteria to separate the better players. It is good that you don’t want to do this unfairly. But as a tournament host, you also want to make sure the better players (for this particular tournament) advance to the later rounds.
I think you made a good decision by not making the re-draw. Let them fight in the first round. Winner takes all! You never know... maybe there will be suprise winners at the end of the tournament. BTW wilfredgf which school are you talking about?
Match Analysis It's a new private school in Subang Jaya, ants. Sorry that I can't really tell the world about this place in fear of unwanted publicity... Anyway, I decided that the draw is fair and square and there's no point in harping on it. And yes, I totally agree that I should have ... seeded the two away from one another, so I'll keep this in mind next year. Indeed, I know the both of them quite well - I play with one of them on Friday evenings every week and I did some stroke practice with the other occasionally. Thus, I decided to do a pre-match analysis on these two players, comparison in terms of skills and styles etc, you know the head-to-head thingy. I'll keep you guys updated on the game and post it here as soon as the match is concluded. Let's go!
wilfredgf : i stay in subang as well.. ok you can PM. Maybe next time when i'm back in M'sia , we can catch up for a game or sumthing.
Note : Scale used is to differentiate between the two players only. Player 1 - Named 'C'. Style ------ Type : Powerhitter Bias : Offensive 65% Defensive 35% Strokes ---------- Smashes : 10/10 Dropshots : 8/10 Netplays : 8/10 Accuracy : 8/10 Placement : 9/10 Control : 8/10 Deception : 10/10 Mental --------- Flair : 9/10 Mental toughness : 9/10 Physical ---------- Speed : 9/10 Power : 10/10 Strength : 9/10 Stamina : 9/10 Others --------- Racquets : No favourites but prefers those with ISO heads and made for offensive type players. Favourite shots : A deceptive cross court drop. Best 'weapons' : Power smash Modern Day Player Comparison : Xia Xuanze. Comment : I play against this guy just about every Friday and he had very much improved on only 2 month's worth of training in the past 5 years! He is very offensive, using power as his main ally but successfully integrating deception as part of his gameplan to add variety to his otherwise powerpacked game. His defence is solid, capable of returning most of the slammers you can throw at him, including some which are out of reach by using fancy under the shoulder up-sweeps. Player 1 - Named 'L'. Style ------ Type : Refined artist Bias : Offensive 50% Defensive 50% Strokes ---------- Smashes : 9/10 Dropshots : 10/10 Netplays : 9/10 Accuracy : 9/10 Placement : 9/10 Control : 10/10 Deception : 8/10 Mental --------- Flair : 8/10 Mental toughness : 9/10 Physical ---------- Speed : 8/10 Power : 9/10 Strength : 9/10 Stamina : 8/10 Others --------- Racquets : No favourites but prefers well balanced racquets to allow him to do properly controlled shots. ISO or Ovals have no effect on his game. Favourite shots : Dropshots Best 'weapons' : Steep dropshots Modern Day Player Comparison : Maybe Hendrawan? Comments : A control player who likes to stroke around and patiently wait for an opening. Dislikes smashing, "Waste of energy", he says unless the shot can be turned into an advantage. Relies a lot on his drop shots, which are really steep and accurate.
Very Good specs.. i wish i can do one for my own. But it will be degrading for me to compare to those that you have written for your 2 players
Match Result Here's the match review. Set 1 Both began nervously as they made mistakes in defence and the game was pretty balanced, with C using his powerful shots to good measure while L does his wonderful crosscourt drops to near perfection. The tango went on as they breathed down each other's neck, the lead changing hands three times within the set. However, L's superb control of the shuttle had him doing highly deceptive dropshots from one end of the court to the other, forcing C to do plenty of unforced errors in defence. Utilising his great sense of placement and reflexes, he dropped the shuttle at every corner, catching his foe by surprise often. C's responses by using drops simply backfired as many of it got caught at the net in which I believe is nervousness catching up on him. In the end, the close game had L emerging as the taker at 15 - 12. Set 2 Being forced to cover his court with much effort in the 1st half, C seemed to have lost much energy but he did his best to fight back but all seemed lost when he trailed 0 - 7 before picking up his first point from a smash that came from L's misplaced reply. C's drops began to work again, dropping narrowly at the corner of the net behind the service line out of L's reach. But his tendency to revert back to power play had him in trouble when L's controlled replies sailed where he least expected them. A much composed player at the 2nd half, C tried hard to claw back and did bring the score to 6 - 7 after many good netshots but it was L who stepped up the gas with his superbly controlled drives and smashes, putting the shuttle often out of C's reach. In the end, all ended with L taking the final set 15 - 8. Conclusion A pretty exciting match, this, with most of the badminton fans of the school gathering around the court waiting eagerly for this match. A match of Control vs Power was won by the one with the best placement and that proved to be L's greatest weapon and C's greatest foe. C's industrious cover of the court wasn't enough to deny L the victory. His drops were simply sublime and hard to read, and when it is struck, it falls accurately where he wanted. Head to Head Record : C 0 - 2 L Candid 1. Everybody just rushed out of the match once that one was finished... 2. Both spoke about how nervous they were before the match, with L cracking a joke about being sick and how each other should allow handicaps etc. 3. C was the crowd favourite as his outgoing and niceness made him many friends. Too bad for them, he lost. There you have it, ladies and gentleman, the conclusion of the 'finals' before 'finals'.
Yet to know.. maybe there will be unexpected wins and losses. But it seems that L is the favourite now.
Totally forgotten about this thread here, sorry about that. Yes, L did win the game. With C out, his path to becoming champion is so clear that he could afford to toy around even against an above average player in the finals, hitting 'semi half court' shots for the other guy to smash at him. And in the doubles? It was L and C versus a couple of juniors (including the singles finalist). If you read the posts up there, you would know that this partnership are not to be trifled with on court. The did juniors put up some resistance. Mind you, the juniors are pretty good with solid foundations to boot, but fell prey to a brutal display of offensive power and spectacular net play : 15 - 3, 15 -1, even leading the second set by 11-0 by one period. L stays at the net to chop down any poor returns, while C leaps up and hammers down the shuttle with a solid boom resonating throughout the hall. The onslaught was so fierce as if L/C were being sadistic... A comparison to the game would be like Kim/Ha vs Kevin Han/Howard Bach, a total onslaught. To me, it served a good lesson to the two talented juniors who would be taking over their more illustrious seniors next year. They could never have played against an opponent better than this for the finals. The other good thing about the tournament is the unearthing of badminton gems in both the boys and girls, most esp the boys singles where we have a group of kids who are showing tremendous potential with their fighting spirit and zest to win. This was most apparent in the playoff for 3rd and 4th place as 'T' and 'K', both in junior level played to an exhilarating three set thriller where both players just didn't want to lay down and die. Knowing that they could settle for nothing but victory (3rd gets bronze medal, 4th gets zilch), it became a game of pure endurance. It went into a 3rd single deuce with K almost winning it at 14-13, the serve changing hands up to six times before T gets the point to deuce it. It ended at 17-16. I am currently drawing up a programme for the badminton team to create the very first pool of school representatives that could play in MSSM and it would definitely include these few gems.
