after watched several days of world cup with new 21 pts system..if one side reach 19 or 20 points and lead more than 3 points..the game is over . what about keep old scoring system ..u must serve to score and with just one serve to score ..that properly make the double more excited
Not to me, if I'm up 20-15 and the opponent is serving (for instance), I will go for the serve more while the server has to make sure not to serve short or into the net but at the same time not too high. This puts a lot of pressure on the server. For me, I have at least 3 points where I would really go after the serve to try and hit a winner because I just need one point to win it. In fact, I could go for the serve 4 times, in 4 chances if I hit one winner or one excellent return that sets up the winning shot, I win. With the old system, this would not be the case.
I think you have to use your brains more under the new system, because every shot is now important. There is no more taking it easy of the old system when you are serving because you have no more cushion-you will lose a point instaed of losing the serve.
New scoring system thought... This may be a strange or silly thought, but maybe, just maybe the new scoring system is being promoted for..................the senior players???.. You guys know the IBF council members are probably at least 50 yrs. old..So maybe, looking at their younger generations and wishing they still could play like them, but with reality on their mind that they can't have the stamina, then they brought up the idea of "hey, let's shortened up the game and make every play counts", thus that way it'll save their energy-hehehe...
I think its the opposite. You don't really have time to study your opponent and think about your strategy. Points and games are going so fast that you must stick to your gameplan and style. I tried the new system during the week ends and it gives smaller place for strategy. I noticed that old and experienced players tend to be really affected by this new system because they rely alot on their brain. Slow starters will suffer a lot from this new system. I often compare badminton to chess. The old system is like good old traditional chess while the new system is like playing Blitz chess where you only have 1 or 2 second to think. Trust me, with the new system you use more of your instinct than your brain.
Hey, at the world games, the new scoring format was used, was this just a test or is the new format in place now forever?
Quick thinking and slow thinking have their places in games. The new system seems to accelerate your thinking. If you take your time to think about too many options it is gone before you know it! It is now very far removed from chess or cricket, two games where you can actually ponder high and low, left and right, what if, etc.
This is exactly why I hate the new system. It provides less time to think and relies much more on instinct like I said previously. Players that tend to be slow starter and study their opponnent to make a comeback will have their chance greatly reduced. I have seen 2-3 tight sets with the new system but I have to admit that it wasn't as exciting as the old system. The reason is that once one of player reach 20, it becomes really hard for the opponent to come back. For example it is much more harder to come back from a 20-16 deficit than a 14-10 deficit because you can't let yourself do any errors. Regarding badminton to chess game, I still think they have lots of common points.
This commonplace analogy -- so commonplace that it is nearly a cliche -- is one of my pet hates. I'm not singling out Brave_Turtle here: lots of people make this comparison; even I have made it on occasion. Why is it that every game or sport gets compared to chess? Badminton is nothing like chess. Nevermind the athletic and physical skill components of badminton, which are so obviously lacking in chess. I believe that the tactical and strategic elements of the two games have little in common. Yes, both badminton and chess have tactics and strategies. So what? So do almost all games. At high levels, chess requires extraordinary calculative and analytical skills. Badminton does not. I'm sorry if this bursts anyone's bubble, but: the top badminton players are less intelligent than the top chess players. Much less intelligent. Top chess players are, without exception, extremely intelligent people. I doubt any international master has an IQ less than 130. I expect most are 140+ (which is the roughly the limit of effective measurement). Top badminton players are probably of average intelligence (or perhaps a bit more than average; say IQ of 110). I think the reason that every game gets compared to chess is this: chess is well recognised to be one of the deepest strategic games. To play chess skilfully is evidence of a strong strategic ability. So when we compare badminton to chess, it is because we want to emphasize that badminton requires thought and strategy/tactics, not just physical skill. But come on guys: be realistic. You know that badminton can't come close to the level of strategy employed in chess. Let's not flatter ourselves about this.
if comebacks are less common does this make the few that do happen allt he more spectacular? if somebody came back from 14-20 down to win 20-21 (which i think works because you have to win at least two consecutive points. - or is it two consecutive points after 20-20?) wouldn't that be the most amazing comeback - for a player to socre 7/8 straight points to win? granted the comback wouldn't take as long, so some would say that it isn't as good, but is it only the educated few (by comparison) that appreciate a long drawn out comeback? i am undecided on the new system as yet.. i don't like the thought of shorter games or the thought of less comebacks, but i do like the way it improves the flow of the game by removing towel/water / floor mopping breaks every 2/3 rally's Coops
Bwahhaahahahaha. Maybe some members don't play chess, hence they don't understand the complexity of the game.
Another way to look at this is that we increase the "luck"-factor of a game.. The more important each shot becomes.. The more subjective to "freak occurances", lucky-shots, judgement error on line-calls etc the game will be. Luck will come more into play the easier it gets to score and the shorter the games are made... If "exiting" means more random results in close games.. then yes..But to me coin tossing isn't very interesting.. So even if a game of best to one point would mean players had to be 100% focused on that one point.. Still would make the result a little bit too random when evenly matched players meet for my taste... /Twobeer
I don't think luck has anything to do about having better odds in the new system. Otherwise, luck takes on an entirely different meaning. Luck is luck. It is no more nor any less in either system. Perhaps if you become more serious with every shot, you can get lady luck to smile on you more. Still it is not luck, although there is no harm in believing in it.
Well, if badminton has been quoted in the same breadth as chess in this forum, we must have quite a number of grand masters in our midst. Maybe that is why badminton has become too complicated now.
Lol, hence the funny rules changes. Anyone here a grandmaster please post me a pm On a different note, I find that I lose more weight playing chess than when playing badminton...
