Looks like it's going out after the Thomas/Uber cups. It should have been 5 x 9 in the first place. Just out of interest, the Men's doubles WC final 2001 would have been 21 minutes long if played under 5 x7 format (assuming the same run of points). Men's doubles is the crowd pleaser so to have these matches potentially so short in a major final isn't good for popularity. Anybody think 7 x 11 in table tennis increase the interest? Perhaps 5 x 15 in table tennis is more appropriate.
I am still a firm believer of the 5 x 15 system. Short 5 x 7 matches are no "fun" for spectators and I dont think it shows true player abilities. A great player should be consistent throughout a game and able to protect a lead. With the 5 x 7 system, that interesting aspect of the game is removed. This system only benefits players who are good at starting off fast and furious on the offense, not for players who like to take their time to play catch up. Even if a player is not known for maintaining games, he can still win under the new system with a little luck and aggression early on. What do you think?
yes, <a target=top_ href="http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2002/1/17/sports/pdscot&sec=sports">this article</a> pretty much says it all in what the IBF thinks: <i> Gunalan, who is also the vice-president of the IBF, said that from findings, the 7x5 format showed that the skill of a player and apprehension of the game had been reduced. “In researches, it was found that in a 15-point game, a player has 10 elements in his game, which includes drop and lob. But under the new format, the elements were reduced to two – serve and smash,” he said. “And since the implementation of the new format, there had been many accidental winners. Defensive players like Hendrawan struggled under the new format and almost wanted to give up the sport – not for the lack of skills but because he could not adapt to the different approach of the game.” </i>
I dont see why they have to do a research abt it! They could have asked plp in thr forum! Nonsense! Good that it is Going! bring back teh oldies and teh gems! Itis time for some fun! man nothing like faking and opponent! Anybody can smash but everybody cant fake! u better be good to do a fake!
Disclaimer ... at least it won't happen without a massive loss of prestige for the IBF and the sport. (Personally, I still think 5x9 is the way to go.)
If the 15x3 is reinstated, why don't they implement timeouts like in NFL. For instance, during a match allow each team up to 3 timeouts, maybe 90 second durations. This allows for water, towel or coaching breaks. Of course this breaks one of the original cardinal rules that is for service and play to be continuous not to give or gain an advantage of either player. But doing so allows for some additional time and composure, and in fact could result in superior games with more strategy. Of course, this could potentially add another 9 minutes to a match, and then we would need some color commentator, along with play by play analysis.
it's the packaging, or lack of. badrad, i disagree with the timeout. as you said, it defeats the purist form of the game, in which the game is players against players, when coach comes to play in the middle of the game, the purity is now stained. however, i very much agree with the commentating. and i have said this before, the problem with low spectatorship on TV is not the fault of the game of badminton itself, but the presentation of it on TV. if you've watch american football on tv, you may notice that generally have very good presentation. lots of camera angles, on screen editing and drawing to describe strategy, nice slow motion and instant replay. and on top of that all, most of the commentators really knows what they are talking about and they know how to arouse viewers interests and excitement. and honestly, the game of american football itself really isn't that exciting to me. too slow, too little action, too much waiting. anyway, back to badminton, who are the commentators? most if not all badminton commentators sucks. some are egoistic, some just blurp out a comment or two every now and then, some repeats exactly what they say on the last match, or on the last game. very dull and boring. and worse of all, some are clueless and don't know anything that's happening in the badminton world. i mean, come on, just drop by this forum every day or two, they will be infinitely more up-to-date on badminton news. ok. enough whining from me, but i think we need better presentation of the game. the game itself is fine, don't mess with it.
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. the IBF thought that better TV presentation/format would be achieved thru the 5x7 system. but as this forum and other players have stated, the transition for many to the new format has not been smooth. how long has it been since 5x7 was introduced? abt a year or so? will they trial it for longer or revert back to existing format? or even implement another format? i'm wondering who advises the IBF? ie in F1 Michael Schumacher usually advises race co ordinator esp during wet weather conditions. which is kinda unfair but who does the ibf consults regarding new formats, rule changes, etc?
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. that's good news for us badminton fans for a long while. I don't recall any poster on this forum liked the 7x5, some of us willing to bend the game for 9x5 and many were still pro 15x3. As kwun had said, the obvious problem is badminton presentation on tv and not the original game itself. I recall american journalists covering the olymipic loved the excitement of badminton games but that excitement never did not carried into tv medium. However, sleeper programs like baseball, bowling, billard, darts throwing, sailing & golf get onto tv. So the problem of badminton TV is obvious. Too bad IBF didn't address the obvious problem first but trying fix something ain't broken. I bet lot of us still playing with the 15x3 system, including myself. Regarding timeout, i think this can be tinker with later on as i see it as a minor issue.
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. 5x15 Returns? Oh good, we can watch again a new crop of marathon players playing like Ardy Wiranata, Foo Kok Keong and Gong Zhi Chao!
TV commentary While on the topic of commentary, Poul-Erik Hoyer is doing a great job commenting for Danish TV2. He has this fantastic ability to pinpoint winning/losing shots, which we all know only rarely is the last shot but perhaps the fifth or fourth last one... Plus, he usually has a lot of interesting stories to tell about the players.
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. I think getting some strategy alignment during the game would make it more exciting. Definitely it would make matches longer and would give the game an extra dimension. Sure, it would suck if I was the one that is ahead and my opponent calls a timeout breaking my momentum, but then, I would have the same opportunity as well going the other way. Okay, so maybe not have a break in between points, but maybe to allow more time in between games 1 and 2. Actually that time out is something that I never understood: why only allow a 5 minute between 2 and 3 and not between 1 and 2. How about allowing a 5 minute between 1 and 2 as well. Most of the taped matches I have watched are taped from Japanese or Malaysian channels that friend brought over fro Asia. So unfortunately most of the commentary is wasted on me. But in general as Kwun said, the commentators are quite mundane and lackluster. On another note, the funniest commentator I ever heard was Dwight Stone (US high jumper) doing the commentary. He made many references throughout the match on how many shuttles were being used up, but no analysis whatsoever of the game play.
Re: Disclaimer from the report in StarSports, it looks like 5x7 is a failure, and will not be continued. it is less of a loss of prestige as the 5x7 system was introduced by the previous IBF management. the new IBF management seems to care less about it.
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. that rule has been changed. we now have a break between game 1&2, and then between game 2&3.
TT less dependent on fitness and recovery and more on skill and technique. Pecking order in TT remains basically the same, some upset caused by ball size change. Badminton involves energy sapping rallies,needs a lot of rest and recovery in between to achieve consistency.15 points encourages coasting and pacing but 7 points encourages playing all out to finish off.
Re: TV commentary that's awesome! we need someone like that who works for StarTV and all the other English speaking channels.
we all know that for most players, the way to win one rally with a higher probability is to be aggressive and smash the hell out of your opponents. however, they can't do that because they won't last 5 mins. the way i see it, is that badminton is a "resource allocation" problem similar to what people do in operations research. you only have limited energy store, and it takes time to replenquish. the goal of the game is to get the most reward with this limited resource. if you spend too much too soon, and you will run out of steam, if you reserve some, you may not be aggressive. in other words, energy needs to be used "smartly". if energy is allowed time to replenquish during a shorter game, then the energy store is so much higher that all that is needed to win is to play aggressively. smart resource allocation is no longer needed, and as a result, took one dimension out of the game. it really depends on how deep we look into the game.
Re: it's the packaging, or lack of. For what I've read the idea behind 5x7 is sponsorship. From my understanding, sponsors thought the 3x15 was too long and not allowing advertisements in between. Changing to 5x7 will make the game shorter and thus more attractive to sponsors and spectators. How about football (aka soccer)? The game consists of 2 halves, 45 mins each, with 10 mins interval. In tournaments, if there is a tie, 30 mins of extra time is added. If after extra time still a tie it will be decided with a penalty shootout or rematch set for another date (depending on tournaments rules). You could spend 3 hours watching the game. If you go to the stadium give yourself another good hour to get out and another in the traffic around it. Anybody remember the Wimbledon Tennis final between Boris Becker and Michael Stich? For those who remember, what are your comments? Going back to badminton, when spinning serve was allowed many upsets (mainly doubles) happened in tournaments. But were the winners really that good? According to experts who analysed the games, the winners excelled in 2 areas: serve (spinning) and smashes. Service, lift and smash. IBF sensed that the spinning serve was killing the beauty of the game so they decided to change the rules to ban the serve. Making the game shorter would probably bring the same scenario to the game. If these rules were in use in the past would Morten Frost, Yang Yang, Han Jian, Prakash Padukone or even Hou Jia Chang, Rudy Hartono be seen as the game greats? In Asia, I don't think they have a problem with spectators. Sponsorship is another thing which I can't comment. For North America until a North American is able to win or be among in the top ranks, I do not believe the 5x7 change will improve the game. If change is needed, personally I think the 5x9 format is a much better option: it keeps the number of original points (though it takes 3 less points if winning in 3 straight games), going 9 points could make the game more aggressive, give player a little more time to rest and think about tactics to use.
