Results 35 to 51 of 340
Thread: New scoring format
09-19-2005, 12:00 PM #35
Tennis match and badminton match duration can't really be compared.
Although a tennis match may go on for 4 hours or more, the rules mean that there are a lot of breaks. Between each serve there can be upto 30 seconds - long enough for TV to show highlights of the previous point. Between each change of ends (after two games) there is a break of upto 90 seconds - again long enough for TV to show highlights or commercials.
Tennis is TV friendly. Also because tennis is already a popular spectator sport the TV broadcasters want to show the big tournaments.
Tennis was also changed to make matches shorter. There never used to be tie-breaks at the end of each set. Play would continue until somebody wa two clear games ahead. Even now Wimbledon is the only grand prix event that still plays the final set to two clear games. The other GP events play a tie-break, even to decide the champions.
In a badminton match, there aren't any breaks between points ('Play must be continuous' from the laws). There are only two guaranteed breaks - 90 seconds and 5 minutes - between the games. There's barely enough time for TV to show highlights or commercials.
In it's present form badminton is NOT TV friendly. Badminton is having to sell itself to the TV broadcasters.
In this thread - http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26947 - it shows what the general public think of badminton. Those same people probably wouldn't walk over a tennis court if there was a game on it.
Until the public start to think of badminton as a serious sport instead of just something to do in the garden while waiting for the barbecue, badminton must do something to attract the attention of the puiblic. The IBF feels that more TV exposure is the way to do this, and they're probably right, but the IBF also realise that badminton in it's present form doesn't make for good TV broadcasts.
I'm not sure if the 3x21 system is a good idea, but if it works and brings more people into the sport, then I see that as a satisfactory result.
References for tennis laws from -http://www.1stserve.com/newsite/trules.asp
09-19-2005, 01:52 PM #36
if the insertion of advertising or commercials is needed to promote advertising dollars into the game and for broadcasting, changing the point scoring system is not needed. Just make one change to the badminton law that play must be continuous.
Make it to read -"continous, unless where required by network for commercial break - break period not to be longer than xx minutes- (whatever the longest commercials might be)."
Instead of dictating the points, and having advertisers have to worry about when the scores will logically give them a time break, the network can assign the times to the umpire and the umpire will call the timeout.
Actually this happens at football games, where the referee will break for 3 minute intervals while the networks show their commercials. Player get a break, time for coaching and strategy. The difference is that the cheerleaders come out and there is still some entertainment happening.
anyways, if the score system changes once again, it will only turn out to be another 5x7 fiasco.
09-19-2005, 02:45 PM #37
An interesting observation at US Open this year. They hong the sponcer's logos on the end of the net. IBF should consider this to get some money. I also want to bring up the idea from football (or socer). They change the sponcer logos under the score every 1 or 2 min. Couldn't they do that during the live broadcast? Another thing is here in US, since the ESPN is broadcasting recorded match, they can replay as many time in between points or put in 5 commercials if they want. IMHO, IBF can increase badminton popularity just by putting up a big prize championship every year. Just compare the prize of US Open to WC this year. $1.1mil vs. $0.
09-19-2005, 03:12 PM #38
Silent Heart: you bring up some very good points.
09-19-2005, 03:31 PM #39Originally Posted by S4MadMan
09-19-2005, 04:00 PM #40
highlights aren't needed in my opinion to make the game more tv friendly, sure slow mo of some line calls is ok, but surely they can at least pay attention to the game while its live. also, at the end of a massive rally, the players usually towel down, so thats a good chance to show the highlights if needed.
if the tv angles were changed to courtside, or basically anything lower than *the roof* then the general public may appreciate the sheer speed of the game, rather than see some strange effects of gravity as some current broadcasts make the game look. tennis has less a much less vertical component, yet still uses the court side camera a lot. surely the broadcasters could at least experiment with a lower POV?
for example when i saw the surdiman cup on eurosport (on a widescreen as well, that may have affected it) the whole physics of the game looked bizzarre, but when they showed some close ups down by the court then you really felt those smashes and clears (WC2003 comes to mind).
if punch and co go to badminton tournaments and wonder why there is little interest from the broadcasters, maybe they should try watching it on tv.
09-19-2005, 05:04 PM #41Originally Posted by silentheart
Also, in order for TV to provide coverage, commercials must be sold! For LIVE coverage, commercial is everything. Without slots for commercials at the most exciting part of the game, no company would pay big money to buy the air time. Currently badminton have very few time slots available for commercials and instant replays. The few spots available are all at the conclusion of the games, which isnt the best time slots since thats when TV audience take breaks and go to the restrooms or to get something to eat.
Once again, what makes other BIG sports successful are ALL lacking in badminton at this time, however, the scoring and the length of the game isnt one of them. In fact, everyone want to watch a game between their favorite players as long as possible. NOT as short as possible. Take one example, as those of us that watch NBA, we all know that the last min of the game sometimes can be played out into 10 or 15 min with all the time outs and commercials and free throws. I think the sponsors and TV stations can all enjoy a long extended coverage when audience are glued to the TV waiting to find out who wins. No one ever seems to be complaining the game is too long.
Once again, there is too little drama created by time-outs like in other sports, there are way too few major sponsors, too few slots for commercials, too few badminton courts, and programs in north america, too little of everything, but the game itself is not too long. How hard is it to understand ? Does it take anyone with even just a high school diploma to figure that out? Given all the problems facing badminton, all they could think of is change the scoring and making the game shorter? Is that all? LOL.
09-19-2005, 05:59 PM #42
i like your insult of the tv network exec. now i know those ceos are high school grad and they figure that out already.
09-19-2005, 06:01 PM #43
The idea of sponsor logo at the sides of the net isn't bad.
I also wonder why they (IBF) doesn't makes a "tournament series" like tennis. With someone else than Yonex as head sponsor. Again take the example from tennis, the ATP have Mercedes as "tour sponsor" and then each single tournament have their own sponsor, like Amstel, American Express etc.
Wouldn't it be possible to get one of the big Japanese or Korean electronic/car companies to be head tour sponsor. Especially since badminton is quite a big sport in these countries.
Then try to get more "local" tournament sponsors, like Yonex for Japan Open, BMW for German Open etc. I mean it can still be multinational companies but they just need to sponsor the tournament in their "own" country.
Once again, why don't they fix what's broken = marketing, instead of trying to make the sport more "TV-friendly". In fact we all know what that means... as nude girls as possible, that's the only thing which works today, Has nothing to do about how many commercial breaks there are or how "attractive" the sport is. It's all about ***, makes for great respect and understanding of the sport
And please don't tell me that the sport is boring, matches too long and rules confusing. If the americans (no offense meant) can believe that NFL is the greates of all sports then I'd say people in more "normal" parts of the world certainly won't have any problem with badminton as it is today.
Last edited by wirre; 09-19-2005 at 06:04 PM.
09-19-2005, 06:18 PM #44
Good points made all round.
From my vantage point in the UK, the talk of badminton games being too long is a little strange. Millions of people here have just watched the Ashes Test Cricket series. Five days per match. Football matches are shown live - a bit shorter at 90 minutes plus extra time and penalties if required, but there's 45 minutes before any ads can be shown. Tennis, golf, rugby, the list goes on.
The point is, and I've said this before here, the marketing men in badminton have simply gone away and talked to the tv suits and asked them what makes good sporting tv and the tv suits have given some bs, hiding the fact that they haven't got a clue.
Compelling sport is about rivalry, passion, skill, excitement, high stakes, big personalities and a certain amount of tribalism, for want of a better word. It ain't about ad breaks. Or scoring systems.
09-19-2005, 06:47 PM #45
agree with all of the above, all the major televised sports across the world haven't had their basic rules changed in order to pander to television. Simply its that the basic image of badminton as a sport is that it isn't.. it's that it's the game you play in you backgarden with a steel racquet and a rubber shuttle.
whats really annoyin is that everytime i go training with my coach the courts are stacked full of people who look thoroughly stupid trying to play, hell they look like me playing left handed.. some of the look worse.. this is 14 out of every 16 people.
if this is what the general public think badminton is then there is little if any hope of the sport ever becoming like tennis or football.
to be fair, the IBF have a hell of a job turning round that sort of image, the only way to get money into the sport is through television coverage so they have to pander to the tv stations whims, advertising means $$$'s
interestingly tho - there is a thread somewhere.. with some clever maths shown.. that built some stats showing game length and other stuff. and compared rally scoring with serve scoring. i'm sure if you search for rule changes you'll find it..
some interesting stuff in there..
09-19-2005, 06:58 PM #46Originally Posted by Growy
Personally I'd be thrilled to once in my life be at Lords. Seems like I have an affection for oddities
And golf.....don't start me on that one. Not to be political but the total global expense on golf each year is more than it would cost to feed everyone on earth so no one would die of starvation (and there is more than enough food produced, just not distributed due to economical theories/systems). And what for? An activity (I refuse to call it a sport) which only proves that we will never get our farming and gardening genes out, no matter how much we declare to be living in an "information society".
IBF - start get sponsors! Stop messing with the scoring system and rules.
09-19-2005, 07:19 PM #47
the other thread..Originally Posted by coops241180
09-19-2005, 08:51 PM #48
It has been interesting to see what everyone else thinks about changes to the scoring.
So far I have seen best of 3 games to 21 points rally scoring, 5 games to 11 points rally scoring, remove the back service line, and allow coaching during games (which was successfully tried out at the 05 Worlds).
I think another reason why the IBF may want to shorten matches is to shorten the length of an entire tournament. The world championships took what like 6 days to complete?
With the shorter scoring format, they may be able to complete a tournament in 3 days. Which means less costs of hotel, food, and facility time to host an event.
Which could mean more money for development.
If an entire tournament took 3 days, maybe we could get more people to attend the entire tournament (e.g. Friday, Saturday, Sunday). From what I herd the Finals at the World Championships in Anaheim had a better turnout than Past All England Tournaments.
I don't know how I feel about other scoring systems
Take care All
09-19-2005, 11:54 PM #49
The IBF really needs to hire someone in advertising / business to take what they have and market it. They need someone who went to school and has experience marketing and selling! U aren't going to promote the sport as much by changing the rules as you would by promoting it. Seriously, they need commercials for tournaments. I bet Gatorade or All-Sport or maybe Red Bull would sponsor badminton if you layed out all the [talent / physical] requirements to play internationally
09-20-2005, 12:38 AM #50
this is ridiculous. lol
if you just want to have more commercials into the game
why just don't say so
want more commercial = need more breaks
simple right? as somebody already said above just make new law to have more breaks,, easy
what is this crap about making game shorter, changing score system
it seems that this punch guy not only good in bull******** but also doesn't seem to know answer of relatively simple problem ( supposedly simple for a guy of his status and position)
what a mess of ibf
like this and you want americans to take the game seriously
lol , it is the ibf management that is not taking this seriously
do some more work and research pls don't just talk and talk and talk based on individual thinking
09-20-2005, 12:44 AM #51
I personally think we shouldn't simply write off IBF's latest attempts to make the game more attractive to the:
1. Players - points more defined; game generally shorter; better thought-out strategy to implement; possibly more energy for an all-out attack and hopefully, less danger of getting injured. Matches could turn out to be more interesting and focussed.
2. Advertisers - and this is the key, more attractive for them to advertise and contribute to IBF's kitty which hopefully will translate into more attractive prize-monies for players. Beter incentives will in turn attract a greater number of good players.
3. Public - a more simplified scoring system makes for better understanding of the game and retain interest better. If it is too confusing, newcomers get turned off quite quickly and easily. Better spectator and TV viewer support can certainly boost the game further.
4. Coaches - have more time during the TV breaks to discuss strategies and tactics with player and make the subsequent battle more interesting and not totally one-sided hopefully.
If the 21-point new scoring system can bring about such positive changes, I don't think we can accuse the IBF of killing the badminton game? For all you know, the game may blossom beyond our wildest expectations!
It is only human to resist change, but without changes in human history, where do you think we will be heading? Will we be where we are now if our forefathers had not the courage to initiate changes, unpopular some of these maybe?
I'm not saying that these proposed changes by IBF will definitely bring about the desired results, but please give them a chance to be tested in the courts, in the market place, in the homes, in countries where badminton is being played. Do not condemn these right at the very beginning without even trying. You may win some and lose others, but a win is a win.
By ants in forum Thomas Cup / Uber Cup 2006Replies: 40: 02-16-2006, 07:28 PM
By Kamen in forum General ForumReplies: 45: 12-29-2005, 03:11 AM
By komodo dragon in forum Thomas Laybourn ForumReplies: 2: 10-04-2003, 11:33 AM
By Winex West Can in forum General ForumReplies: 1: 03-23-2003, 04:45 PM
By CJ in forum General ForumReplies: 22: 02-28-2001, 09:00 PM