New scoring format

**sabathiel** · 12-15-2005, 09:54 PM

Under the old rules you have to win a rally to get the serve and then score a pint if you win the next rally. I am not so clear on the new rules when do you get to serve? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system?

**sabathiel** · 12-15-2005, 10:01 PM

I am still confused, when do you get to serve under the new rules? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system? Under the old rules it requires a player to win a rally first before he/she gets to serve and then may win the point when he/she wins the rally during his/her serve. What about under the new rules?

**event** · 12-15-2005, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by DinkAlot

I am stating a fact. That is all. Don't try to read anything more into it.

Fair enough, I was responding more to the previous post...

Originally Posted by CWB001

Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time.

...which drew a comparison between single badminton matches and single matches of football, etc. Your fact served as a convenient quote for me to make my point. Apologies for reading more into it.

**sabathiel** · 12-15-2005, 11:35 PM

A tennis match is much longer than badminton. In men's tennis in a grand slam best of five match a match can go for 5 hours. The reason we don't see a complete broadcast of 5 events in a tennis final(ie MS, WS, WD, MD and XD) is because they are all too long to be broadcasted. Tennis often splits their final events to 2 days. The women's single final is always on a different day from the men's single final and the doubles finals are also split between 2 days. So what are they whining about in badminton when they can broadcast all the finals events in one day. If the they think the matches in the final are too long then maybe they should consider splitting the finals into 2 days like tennis. I think if people are not interested in badminton they won't suddenly show an interest just because the scoring format has been changed. If the reason is for TV broadcast then splitting the finals into 2 days is the way to go or maybe TV shoulds concentrate the broadcasts on the singles matches like tennis. One of the main points about badminton is the test of stamina and endurance of the players. Shortening the duration of the matches takes away this aspect and dimension of the game.

**taneepak** · 12-15-2005, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by sabathiel

Under the old rules you have to win a rally to get the serve and then score a pint if you win the next rally. I am not so clear on the new rules when do you get to serve? Is it like ping pong where each player gets 5 serves each? Or does it adopt a different system?

Under the new system you get a point if you win a rally, regardless of who the server is. You don't get a second chance. The winner of the last rally will serve. It is unlike table tennis where each player will serve 2 times alternately regardless of who wins the last rally. In this aspect I think table tennis is better as each player will get as close as possible to an even number of serves. In badminton it is possible under the new system to have only one player serving all the time, as in the case of a 21-0 win. This is a bit lop-sided and appears to keep a little bit of the old system.

**Loh** · 12-16-2005, 12:59 AM

As far as singles is concerned there is no confusion as to who is to serve, since the winner of a rally not only wins a point but also gets to serve. Every winning point counts and there is no changeover of service as in the past. But in doubles, there may be some confusion.

At the Cheers Youth International tournament currently underway at the SBH, I had a chance to ask the Referee on this matter. For I was also thinking that unlike the old 15-point system, serving among the four doubles players may be uneven in the sense that one partner may get to serve more times than the other.

I was told that every doubles player will get a fair share of the service and this depends on the score. If the score is say 2-1, the right-court player (2 is even ) of the team that scores the point will serve. If the score is 1-2, the left-court partner (1 is odd) gets to serve.

It therefore means that the right court player will serve when his team wins the point, whenever the score is even in their favour, e.g. 2-1, 4-3, 10-15, etc. and he will continue to serve until his team loses the point, whereupon the service will go to their opponents. Conversely, his left-court partner will serve whenever the team wins a point and the score is odd e.g. 1-6, 5-6, 15-14, etc.

So in the new system doubles game, even (right court) and odd (left court) numbers still play a part in determining who is to serve. It depends on which court (right or left) you started with in your doubles partnership.

**aljosa** · 12-17-2005, 09:07 AM

Hi guys.

I just heard that the changes are being tested in a major tournament ion China, so it seems that this is for real. I've played both badminton and beach volleyball (BV) on national level for quite some time. Here is my view of proposed changes based on experience from BV:
- scoring change in BV 8 years ago did nothing for the popularity of the sport as far as I'm concerned, and quite a lot of players of my generation (35 years or so) share my opinion. There are no more great come-back stories to tell - I remember a final match of a tournament when my partner and I were 14-0 down, and we managed to equalize to 14-14. We lost finally, but still I'll never forget that match. Then, in another tournament, we were 13-7 down and won the match, and it happened in the next match as well, so we qualified for the higher stage... quite cool! With today's rules this is totally impossible, unless your oponent breaks a leg, but tell that to your grandchildren and come out a hero...
- as a spectator, I've noticed that quite a few games turned out to be quite one-sided afair - the team that was trailing behind in a non-decisive game, saved energy for the next game.
-what did bring popularity though was presentation - big events are played in attractive locations in tourist resorts, lots of (nicely tanned) skin is exposed, there are people that heat up the atmosphere, music is playing between rallies, there are exotic dancers during breaks, money involved is reasonably high (not tennis or golf like of course, but still).

From that point of view I dislike the proposed changes. But I will give it a chance - I'll test it on the next practice session and get back.

And (maybe) a provocative question - it seems to me that everybody involved in this thread takes for granted that more TV coverage is great by default. Why?

**taneepak** · 12-17-2005, 11:44 PM

TV is a mass media and a moving one at that. It is also a very good medium to bring in funds. Without funds to grease badminton will remain no more than a hobby, like in the old days when a national player had to quit his job or be fired just to play for his country.

**twobeer** · 12-18-2005, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

TV is a mass media and a moving one at that. It is also a very good medium to bring in funds. Without funds to grease badminton will remain no more than a hobby, like in the old days when a national player had to quit his job or be fired just to play for his country.

Yes, but shorter games doesn't equal more funding..

I think IBF is making a BIG misstake if they think money will pour in or TV stations will line up, just becuase they keep changing the game scoring now and again!! Or just make games significantly shorter.. (maybe they want the badminton games to fill the commersial 30 sek spots eventually ;P )

Why not instead focus on how to sell and market the sport, instead of focusing how to change the sport itself (external activities, as opposed to internal activities)...

/Twobeer

**jdcastro** · 12-18-2005, 01:06 PM

I have one question: In the old system, it’s easy to keep track of which service court you’re suppose to be in by looking at the score; in this new scoring system, is there a way of easily determining w/c side of the court you should be?

**wedgewenis** · 12-18-2005, 05:15 PM

I for one am extremely worried that they will go with this new format

I know its obvious the majority know this is rediculous - I just dont know if the IBF cares.

Sometimes the OLD system is hard to keep score in doubles - I mean its perfectly worked out system but sometimes players loose track of score and its a mess, but because of even and odd your usually able to figure out what the score should be -- sometimes I dont keep track of the score at all but I usually guess the score right anyway, Probly able to keep track subconsciously.

.... But the new system we'll be hopeless.

P.S. I'm going to put all these negative (21x3) comments together and send them to the IBF

**coops241180** · 12-18-2005, 06:20 PM

okay- so maybe a lot of people are going to disagree with me, or maybe i've just not seen enough games yet..

i quite like the new format for doubles.. while the scoring is even more complicated yes the actual structure of the game is cool. the number of breaks being taken by players was getting silly - and while i understand that it was necessary to wipe the floor for safety sometimes it was every couple of rally's - it was as bad as american football where you could get a break every minute!!

the new format ensures almost constant play for up to 21 rally's, we've already said that the new format engenders quick fast play and i agree it does.. it put's a lot of pressure on the server too, altho i don't like the lack of comebacks - watching eriksen and lundgaard hansen vs cai/fu was a bit rubbish, but you get games like that anyway. i'm downloading some more men's singles and the men's doubles final.. here's hoping i enjoy the rest..

seems this new scoring system might actually work for spectators after all.

Coops

PS - please don't send me hate mail

**cooler** · 12-18-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by coops241180

okay- so maybe a lot of people are going to disagree with me, or maybe i've just not seen enough games yet..

i quite like the new format for doubles.. while the scoring is even more complicated yes the actual structure of the game is cool. the number of breaks being taken by players was getting silly - and while i understand that it was necessary to wipe the floor for safety sometimes it was every couple of rally's - it was as bad as american football where you could get a break every minute!!

the new format ensures almost constant play for up to 21 rally's, we've already said that the new format engenders quick fast play and i agree it does.. it put's a lot of pressure on the server too, altho i don't like the lack of comebacks - watching eriksen and lundgaard hansen vs cai/fu was a bit rubbish, but you get games like that anyway. i'm downloading some more men's singles and the men's doubles final.. here's hoping i enjoy the rest..

seems this new scoring system might actually work for spectators after all.

Coops

PS - please don't send me hate mail

IMO
actually, there is no right or wrong scoring system, (just like neither feather is better or worst than plastic shuttle

). It come down to what do u want. Each format favor certain style of plays. I know sigit/candra's style has a slow start because "

1. fine machine part requires longer warm up period.
2. some player/team like to wear out opponents first and willing to give up early points or even game 1 to calibrate their strategy on opponent weakness. In rally point system, there is less time to do all this.

I do like water break at 11 point, and ability for players to consult their coach.

**taneepak** · 12-19-2005, 02:00 AM

It may come as a surprise to you to find out that the new doubles scoring system is easier to remember with far fewer mixed-up of the old system, and also more logical and equal? The key is even or odd, very unlike the old system of always starting your serve from the right side (even) even when your score is odd (3-2). Even 2-year old kids can understand and take to it right away.

Sometimes our prejudices tend to blind us.

**taneepak** · 12-19-2005, 02:16 AM

The new scoring system for singles and doubles are more like twins.

No more one set of serving rule for singles and another set for doubles. Ditto for mixed. It is now one grand alliance of different doubles and singles service rules into one.

Don't you see what I see?

**taneepak** · 12-19-2005, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

The new scoring system for singles and doubles are more like twins.

No more one set of serving rule for singles and another set for doubles. Ditto for mixed. It is now one grand alliance of different doubles and singles service rules into one.

Don't you see what I see?

Forgot to say that the above relates to where to start your serve from.

**CWB001** · 12-19-2005, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

It may come as a surprise to you to find out that the new doubles scoring system is easier to remember with far fewer mixed-up of the old system, and also more logical and equal? The key is even or odd, very unlike the old system of always starting your serve from the right side (even) even when your score is odd (3-2). Even 2-year old kids can understand and take to it right away.

Sometimes our prejudices tend to blind us.

How is it more equal? Under the new system (and shouldn't you be calling it the trial system - wouldn't want to make the assumption that the IBF has already made up its mind, would we?) it is quite possible for one player to go through a game without serving. In fact this is bound to happen if his/her side loses 15-0.

Of course, under the old system the doubles serving system actually aids the players in remembering the score. How often have you seen or taken part in a discussion to resolve the score which involved remembering which side you served from? That won't be reliable any more.

I must say I don't know too many 2 year old badminton players who understand either system. Perhaps that explains how the IBF makes its decisions though.