21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?

**Linus** · 03-12-2007, 01:14 AM

I revived this thread as some stats shown during the AE MD final between CY/FHF and KKK/TBH strikes me. Unfortunately I did not record the match but this is what I have seen from the live telecast: (If any members have recorded that, would appreciate if these stats can be re-produced here for reference).

During some of the intervals, stats are shown, one of them shows the number of short serves and flick serves (of course a huge percentage is the short serves), and the other shows the points won against serve and won with serve and both parties won more points against serve rather than with serve.

It is generally believe that short serve put the receiver under pressure and force them to lift, some members even argue that a good short serve mix with occasional deceptive flick serve is an useful weapon in double.

But in the stats shown during the AE MD, it would seem that the advantage is still with the receiver, even though the quality of short serves during the match are of high quality.

Those who wacthed the semi-finals between KKK/TBH and JE/ML would also recall how many points the Danies have lost just by serving into the nets.

Granted the stats is for this tournament only, it does indicates in the NSS, although the initiative is with the server, the advantage is with the receiver.
I do wish to see more similar stats from other high level matches to confirm (or reject) this, as well as compare is this advantage also apply to MS, WS, WD and XD.

**taneepak** · 03-12-2007, 01:39 AM

I think it is the other way-that a good low serve is indispensable and will ensure the opponents will lift more than attack. The key to the Malaysians' success in the doubles is their almost perfect low serve-100% perfect that they did not have to resort to the flick serve-which always kept the opponents under pressure. If you watch carefully, the key winning elements of their success are the perfect low serve, which is so perfect that it cannot be attacked, their refrain from needlessly lifting, and their strong combination of attack and defence, and lastly the variety of their shots-power, delicate and soft touch, drops, smashes of varying power and changing directions.
The Danes inability to handle the Malaysians perfect low serve put a big dent on their confidence, and it shows on their poor low serve as well as their flick serve.

**Linus** · 03-12-2007, 01:52 AM

Yes I agree totally with you that the Malaysian's pair short serve is almost flawness during the semi and the final.

Especially in the final, I donot recall they made any mistake on the serve and although they did not show the stats after the match, I think they only did one flick serve throughout the final. On the other hand, the Chinese pair used more flick serves in comparison.

**cheongsa** · 03-12-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

I think it is the other way-that a good low serve is indispensable and will ensure the opponents will lift more than attack. The key to the Malaysians' success in the doubles is their almost perfect low serve-100% perfect that they did not have to resort to the flick serve-which always kept the opponents under pressure. If you watch carefully, the key winning elements of their success are the perfect low serve, which is so perfect that it cannot be attacked, their refrain from needlessly lifting, and their strong combination of attack and defence, and lastly the variety of their shots-power, delicate and soft touch, drops, smashes of varying power and changing directions.
The Danes inability to handle the Malaysians perfect low serve put a big dent on their confidence, and it shows on their poor low serve as well as their flick serve.

Actually, after watching so many of KKK/TBH's matches, I feel that the part of their game that they need to improve on the most is their short serve. During MO 2007, they had quite a bit of problem against the Japanese pair's aggressive return of serve.

**giant_q_tip** · 03-14-2007, 06:06 PM

dont the matches become more shorter because of this new scoring system?

i mean yes its a physical demanding sport but like if it were 1:30 hr+ it would be better.

**shoeshunter** · 03-16-2007, 01:34 AM

I think the come back is very hard while playing in set, but possible in match. For example, if you are down 7-14 in OSS, the possibility to come back is much greater comparing if you are down 10-20 in NSS.

**JaCk™** · 03-16-2007, 06:08 AM

The new scoring system is faster. Players are becoming more aggresive when play. During the 15 point scoring system, players are not as 'bold' as now to play aggresively right from the start.

**chris-ccc** · 10-27-2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by JaCk™

The NSS (new scoring system) is faster. Players are becoming more aggressive when playing...

Greetings,

It has been about 18 months now, since we started discussing whether the NSS has changed our approach... how to play our beloved game of Badminton ?

After watching many International Tournaments, including the Denmark Super Series 2007 currently being played, it could be found, IMHO, that at International Matches;

1. The NSS has affected little for the MS & WS events. Singles players could still elect to speed up, or to elect to slow down their games. And each game could last from 15 to 20 minutes.

2. The NSS has definitely affected much for the MD event. Successful Mens Doubles players are playing so fast and furious now. This is one of the reasons why Koo Kien Keat/Tan Boon Heong are doing so well. Their lighting speed of play is actually preventing their opponents from having any chance of switching their games to a slower pace. Each game could last only from 11 to 16 minutes.

3. The NSS has affected not greatly for the WD & XD events. Games are usually lasting from 13 to 18 minutes.

Please let us know if you have observed otherwise.

Cheers... chris@ccc
*

**Shifty** · 10-28-2007, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by shoeshunter

I think the come back is very hard while playing in set, but possible in match. For example, if you are down 7-14 in OSS, the possibility to come back is much greater comparing if you are down 10-20 in NSS.

not necessarily. comebacks are always hard, and 7-14 down in the old system is still a hard way to come back. but i've seen many comebacks in the old system. the fact is though, 10-20 down in the new system would actually translate to the old system closer to 1-14 down. this is because it is a much more tenser and closer game in new system. 7-14 would translate to probably 15-20 down. new system allows for closer games, and so, it is misleading to just look at the point margin, rather than factor in how tense it is on court. for example, i was looking at some old games in our country's junior levels. games which back then were 15-4, 15-7 between players back then are now 21-18, 21-19 between the same players, with the same player winning. even if they have improved, it just goes to show that in the old system, the score line does not necessarily reflect on the closeness of the game, whereas the new scoring is much more exciting.

i remember after winning a game which went to 28-26 in the decider, i said as a joke, "if i have more games like this, i'll be giving up badminton" purely because it's so heart ripping when you're 24-23 down.

**chris-ccc** · 11-02-2007, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

3. The NSS has affected not greatly for the WD & XD events. Games are usually lasting from 13 to 18 minutes.

Please let us know if you have observed otherwise.

Greetings,

An unbelievable NSS event has happened...

Must post it here before we forget...

Just hours ago, at the French Super Series 2007 Quarter Finals played on Friday 2-Nov-2007, the Womens Doubles match between the Japanese pair of Aki AKOA/Tomomi MATSUDA and the Indonesian pair of Jo NOVITA/Greysia POLII went on for 1 hour 47 minutes, with NOVITA/POLLI winning by 18-21, 21-19, 21-14.

This is approximately 30 minutes per game. And none of the 3 games reached the situation @20-20 all.

Here is an account of the match as watched by our BC member, ben95;

Originally Posted by ben95

Japenese pair were more than exhausted. One of them have had a faintness (probably hypoglycemia). She couldn't walk and stay lengthened on the floor (at least 5min) and Polii was limping.

All of them were very, very tired since the middle of the 2nd game. None of them couldn't smash anymore and rallies were mostly clear, clear, clear.... and clear.

I am not sure that the Indo can play tomorrow. Congrats to all the four ladies. They went beyond their physical limits.

Cheers... chris@ccc
***

**JesmondL** · 12-27-2007, 11:50 PM

wow. that would be quite a long rally in each serve. "They went beyond their physical limits." this is extremely tiring. which i had played before for 5 straight games using nss. of course with 1-3 mins break in between games.

**pezai** · 02-03-2008, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by jerby

because to a lot of players/coaches attack=initiative. and initiave would mean you control the rally in order to raise the chances of a bad return, and then finish it.

no, because the 21 point system goes by a lot faster than the 15 point system, therefore players need less stamina and they can use those extra stamina on attacking

**KazeCloud** · 02-03-2008, 10:08 PM

Simple. When your opponent makes a mistake, you get a point, if you make a mistake he gets a point.

If you don't make a lot of mistakes, advantage to you.

If you do make mistakes, disadvantage to you.

If you like to attack more, advantage for you.

**KazeCloud** · 02-03-2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Shifty

not necessarily. comebacks are always hard, and 7-14 down in the old system is still a hard way to come back. but i've seen many comebacks in the old system. the fact is though, 10-20 down in the new system would actually translate to the old system closer to 1-14 down. this is because it is a much more tenser and closer game in new system. 7-14 would translate to probably 15-20 down. new system allows for closer games.

The next point is exactly what Shifty said. In the new system, If you were actually down 15-20, it means you CANNOT make even one mistake.

IE: Hitting it out, to the net, etc. While in the old system, if you have the birdie you have two tries before the other guy gets the point. For example, 10-14, you have 10 and serves, you mess up, now he gets to serve, you mess up again and loses, thats two mistakes.

**jchan04** · 04-07-2008, 07:43 PM

basically, dont screw up.

I think the 21 rally-point was more of a thing for entertainment and to increase popularity to the unknown general public.

first of all, now all games are finished quicker (no more 2hrs games)
it's easier for the general public to follow the system
its similar to volleyball
it forces players to be more explosive and attacking more so that will be the entainment part.

i personally like the new rally system because anything can happen and it counts.

**chris-ccc** · 04-08-2008, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by jchan04

basically, dont screw up.

.
Perhaps, basically, play what/how you play best.

Some are best at defending and some best at attacking. Good defensive players do not need to change their game; they could beat average offensive players easily. On the other hand, the other way around holds true too.

And when good defensive players play against good offensive players, the defensive players could still win too.
.

**Loh** · 04-08-2008, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

.
Perhaps, basically, play what/how you play best.

Some are best at defending and some best at attacking. Good defensive players do not need to change their game; they could beat average offensive players easily. On the other hand, the other way around holds true too.

And when good defensive players play against good offensive players, the defensive players could still win too.
.

Well I do think that a good offensive player has a much better chance than a good defensive player.

I recall that in the SS tournaments, especially in the finals, how a player who tried to play safe or defensive ultimately lost out to his opponent who was more aggressive in attacking and taking more risks.