Everytime people mention Lin Dan, they of course usually mention his number 1 status. But then at the same time, we have the LD bashers who enter into topics and promote Gade or Taufik. Now, although there is no problem with this, they always end up bashing LD by saying things such as LD is not as good as Gade or Taufik just because his technique is not as good. Or, they will say that LD wins because he has more stamina/endurance and that his number 1 status means nothing. Honestly, you truly believe World #1 Status means nothing? LD's stamina/endurance carries him through the game and if he is more fit than others, then that is an advantage to him, not just one of those things you can use to bash him down. It's equivalent to comparing anything else in the world and claiming that one is better than the other even though that other is ranked the best. Yes, I know people have their opinions, and they also believe that other player's tactics or techniques may be better than LD. Yes, it is perfectly ok to make constructive criticism to say that he could improve on an aspect or say that he is not as keen on certain techniques as someone else. But the idea of saying he's not the true #1 and "insert other players name here" is better because his "whatever" is better is not true sportsmanship. All in all, people should rethink their comments on saying "Oh, LD is not the true number 1 because he just lasts longer than his opponents" or some other comment that demotes his rank as #1. For to obtain that status implies that all other qualities are included. Yeahyeah, go nitpick at the structure of my sentences to say that I'm not being fair or objective or some other comment to bash my post. But my point was merely to bring up the fact that it is all relative comparisons.
LD = # 1 player in the world based on the world rankings point system. That is fact. Everything else is subjective.
I agree with you mostly, Trance. It is the same as when Bach/Gunawan won the WC, I feel they got as much bashing as cheering. Some say that Bach still need to prove himself on other stages. If I were Bach, I could retire contented now. Why would I need to prove myself further? I have already won one the biggest prizes in badminton.
There is an insinuation that the world ranking system is unfair. LD did not manipulate the system to end up #1. Maybe his biggest crime is to end up #1 by only trying his best.
I don't agree with that fairness of the ranking system. If you went into deep enough to see how the ranking system works, you will find a big loophole. If a player (or a pair) can participate enough tournamemts, s/he/they will be able to collect enough points to be ranked at a better position. Then the person or pair would probably be seeded for the coming tournaments and have a better chance to collect more points. So on and so forth. The philosophy that IBF designed the ranking system has one interesting point: to encourage the players to participate more competitions sanctioned by IBF. This is not a bad idea but however leaves some points to be argued about if the ranked one is really the number one. Like MD, I don't think that anyone would argue about that Candra and Sigit are not the number one pair; or among those top pairs. Is this argumentative? Lin Dan has the agility and stamina to play great badminton and I don't deny he is among the top tier players. But if you did want to say who the real world number one men's single player is, I will not say Lin Dan is even though he is ranked at the top in the system. -SC
What? Ten tournaments a year too much? IBF only requires a player/pair to participate in ten tournaments annually (and if you play in a team tournament, you only have to take part in 9 individual tournaments). A ranking system is only fair if it requires some minimum amount of participation. If a top player plays in only one tournament per year and wins it every time, should he be #1?
Well I don't see how else you can do it - if you don't enter the tournaments you can't get the points. Admittedly I don't know the details of the system, but surely the system gives greater weighting to superior tournaments? If this is not the case then there is a problem.
A bit wrongly worded. IBF does not require a player to take part in 10 tournaments per year. Rather the ranking system sums up your points from the 10 best tournaments (including at most one team tournament) in the last 52 weeks. So, if you only participated in 9 events, you are disadvantaged as your opponents have one more event to count towards their rankings. I have seen a few ranking systems, and I believe the current IBF system is close to accurate. Perhaps it only needed a few tweaks in how much points to give for different levels of events (7*, 6*, 5* etc.). Averaging The current WISPA (female squash professionals) system, uses something like averaging. (But they still require a minimum 8 events per year. After all, laws of averaging requires a certain amount of samples.) But there is a quirk. A few years back, a world #1 lost her #1 ranking simply because she took part in an additional event (and she won it too!). The reason is because the event is a small one and offered comparatively little ranking points. At the next ranking update, it seems her points earned in that event brought her whole average down and she became world #2 (although for a short while only). At that time, she (Sarah Fitzgerald) was unofficially acknowledged as the undisputed world's best. This sort of system may discourage players from taking part in lower-tier events, which is not good for badminton. This may force players to even skip their own home tournaments to the disappointment of the most supportive fans. Simply adding them up Just add the points up. This will benefit the hard worker who takes part in tournaments all year round. I find that this is the most unfair system. The IBF system Just add the points up, but cap it at 10 best events. The WTA (women's tennis) uses the same system but caps at 17 (!) events. The IBF number, I think, is about right, because a professional should be professional enough to play in 10 tournaments. After all, the fans want to see you. What good will it do to badminton if players only play 5-6 times a year? A good addition to the system may be what WTA calls the Quality Points. Besides the usual ranking points, players can also gather points based on the ranking of the person that you beat. These points are added to your normal points. If you beat the world #1, you will get the maximum quality point and climb faster up the table. If you play in only small tournaments (or big tournaments devoid of big players), then the amount of Quality Points you can get is less.
Different levels of tournaments are given different weightings. The winner of a 7* event is given 6000 points, the winner of a 6* event is given 5400, 5* 4800, and so on...
I agree with you in certain aspects. LD is obviously one of the top players, there is NO questioning that. He consistantly will make the top 4 in almost any tourney. However, the ranking system is a little white lie. Crediting players based on how many tournies they go to, and not how they did is a little odd. I could get 5th place and every tourney and still be ranked higher than someone who maybe won 3 or 4? Am i better, no, not at all. Look at Taufik, he avoids some major tournies, and when you compare his points based on how many tournies he's been to, his ranking is very close and if not higher than LD's. I'm not saying taufik should be ranked # 1 (Although in my books he would be ,) im just saying the title of having # 1 isn't the greatest achievement in the badminton world, it just means your country can send you to every tourney
Well said, Mike. The current ranking system is an imcomplete one. The tournaments are graded based on the size of the open purses while the lists of participants are totally ignored. IBF needs to revise this with considering more factors. Some of those tournaments had 5 or 6 stars but many famous players were not even there, just like Denmark open and Chinese Master this year. I somehow wonder how to compare apples with oranges. For the coming HK open, I definitely would not criticize about the content not matching with its grade (6 stars). This one should be fun and representative. -SC
To SSChang, we've had many discussions on this forum about the inadequacy of the current ranking system but until you can find one 'perfect' formula there is no point bitching and ranting about how incomplete it is. As for giving the appropriate weighting to tournaments based on prize money, by way of reasoning, the bigger the prize money the more likely the chance of the top players taking part. Is there a problem with this? For the record, I am not a fan of Lin Dan but over the past two years I believe he has proved (through consistency) that he deserves the title of World Number 1.
Whatever gave you the idea that the ranking system gives less credit to how well you do in the events than how many events you take part in? This statement of yours: I could get 5th place and every tourney and still be ranked higher than someone who maybe won 3 or 4 can you expand on that? Based on my calculation (correct me if I'm wrong), if a player finishes 5th in every 6* events (if there are that many 6* events to go by), the most number of points he can get is 29700. If you take the current rankings into account, that's only 9th place. If someone won four 6* events, he gets 21600. Question is, if for the past year, he only took part in 4 events, should he be ranked higher? If he did take part in 6 other events, he could crash out in second or third rounds and still end up higher in ranking than the one who get 5th place every time. But if you can crash out early in the majority of tournaments, do you deserve high ranking? I agree with you that being #1 is not the biggest achievement in badminton, though, but it shouldn't be belittled as well.
It's like putting the cart before the horse. Can you find one sporting event that ranks a tournament based on participation instead of prize money or prestige? If Federer and Nadal pull out injured from the Australian Open, should the Open give less ranking? Implementing your suggestion would give badminton nations the power to manipulate the ranking of tournaments. How would the Danes feel if the Denmark Open gets avoided year after year? Players/nations skip big tournaments on their own will in spite of them being "big" events.
I would like to add that, in the past 52 weeks, the current #1 Lin Dan, took part in exactly 10 tournaments (including the Sudirman Cup). Now, that's not too many. It does not give him any room for error. In fact, I prefer if top badminton players play on average once per month. In that 9 individual events, he won four: the China Open, China Masters, Japan Open and German Open, came second in three: World Champs, All-England and Malaysia Open, and made semis in the other two: Indonesia and Singapore. Granted, there's contention that the China Masters lack top participation, but you cannot lay the same claim on the other events he took part in (except German Open, but he did not get much points from it being a lower-tier tournament: he still had to beat Xia, Bao and Hafiz for the title though). The world ranked #2, Kenneth is about a massive 8,000 points away. The only other man who can lay claim to being the best is Taufik and he is two tournaments short of Lin Dan. He is almost 11,000 points away from Lin Dan. And the fact is this, even if he maximises his points for that two remaining events (two wins in two 6* events - there are no other 7* events besides the WC), he will come just short of overhauling Lin Dan. Taufik's record (not including Sudirman Cup) Win 3 - World Champs, Singapore 2005, Indonesia 2004. Semis 2 - China, Japan. Quarters 1 - Malaysia. R16 1 - Indonesia 2005. Not counting towards ranking: Withdrew from Singapore 2004, Copenhagen Masters 2004.
Just my 2 cents. Actually these arguments because only 1 man, if you take that man out, anyone will still question whether LD is real number one or not? so end up become comparisons between LD vs TH, which already been discussed in so many in the other threads And then why people keep comparing LD and TH or question "real" number one? see below 1. The 3 wins happened by beating LD in the final (WC)/in s-final (Sing, Indo). 2. So far, TH has better record against LD 3. TH won recent OG and WC (most prestigious tournaments) I couldn't more agree that we can't just bash LD down because of that. In the future if LD can reverse those facts, I believe nobody will question about that. As S4MadMan said, LD = # 1 player in the world based on the world rankings point system. That is fact, so you can't change it, no point arguing on that. Everything else is subjective. That's why so many pros and cons
My point is more about people bashing LD by also bashing the ranking system, saying things like players taking part in a lot of tournaments have a huge advantage. Somehow to them, the ranking system is wrong because it made LD as #1. That was why I listed the events and the results, hopefully it will do the ranking system some justice.
