Taking the question in isolation, what would you prefer? Personally, I would like to see a couple more natural breaks in the match to allow for adverts, commentator discussions, closeup of players trying to discuss tactics in the breaks, better shots on the audience. I believe best of 5 sets allows more potential for comebacks. You could be losing 0-1, 0-2 or 1-2 and comeback to still win. My vote goes for 5 sets. I believe this needs sorting out first and only then decide on which points system is going to be chosen.
of all the scoring system proposed and tried, i can live with best of 5 games, 9 point system (5x9, not rally points)
neither points system apply. The question is simply would you prefer a best of 3 game match or a best of 5 game, irrespective of points system. Previously the emphasis has been on which scoring system is better. I'm just polling how many games is better. tennis has 3 set matchs and 5 sets volleyball best of 5. table tennis best of 7 etc
In individual competition they are called games, but in team competion they are just as often called sets. Best of 3 sets is a rubber. WHoever wins most rubbers wins the match. I believe the same applies to team competitions in tennis, e.g. Davis Cup
I'm personally a fan of 5 game matches. It allows much more room for psychological play and long term tatics. As for length, I guess it does seem long for recreational players, but I have no problem playing 2 hours to get those 5 games in.
21point x 5set is great. You can ofcourse reduce it to 2 sets or 3 sets for recreational players or for training purposes to allow for more games with different players Ofcourse there is the dilema that games might extend to 300 rallies if they really play to deuces every set and it extends to 5th set But if such an occassion arises, I'd bet everyone would say, "What a game!!" Though Punch Gunalan might disagree
Thats what I'd be hoping for. I've never been able to win matches straight through and always end up splitting so I've altered my training to fit that problem. Not many of the players at my level are crazy enough to play 5x15 with me XD
I'd still choose 3 games. I think that most people who catch up do not because of tactics but because of better stamina. I wouldn't really call this fair because people have different levels of stamina and physiques. The mind, I think, is something different though because anyone can train it. Keith
Assuming no tie breaks. that would need 77 points for the total so an increase from 63 (3x21). 5x15 would max at 75 points. So not much difference there. Advantage of a shorter game is that it gives a player much more credit to having a good run of points that the audience can understand. Is 7 games better than 5? Looking from table tennis, I'm not so convinced.
I love watching badminton matches. Wish it was longer... like tennis matches which i like to watch. However, when playing, i don't think I can last the 5.
Personally, I don't know about the rest of you, but if I have to play a tournament and we're going to 15, and I'm playing someone of equal ability...I'd be dead if I had to play 5 games. I can barely make 3 games when I'm in the finals and I've been playing all day to get there. If you were gonna do 5 games in a match the only way I personally see it working is by having it rally point to 15. Or 11?
There have been several adult tournaments actually where I've played better players with more consistant shots on the basis that I have better stamina than them. (I am 18, so I am expected to be able to out last most 35+ adults). They kick my @$$ the first game but I slowly tire them out and by the middle of the second match I have caught up to them and pass them by making them run for it. Sooner or later they just have to give up. I like the idea of 5 games because it sets up for more psychological play and it also would be a bit longer of a game. However it would have to be either 15 rally point or 11 regular.