User Tag List

Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 449
  1. #1
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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


    Here is a discussion for those who have played/exprienced the new scoring system.

    On 6-May-2006, in Tokyo, the IBF held its 67th AGM. The AGM reached a unanimous decision to permanently implement the new 21 rally-point scoring system.

    With this new 21 rally-point scoring system, I have recorded some of the comments made by different players/coaches.

    Malaysian Head Coach, Yap Kim Hock said “The shuttlers cannot afford to make mistakes and must attack more." (New Straits Times 18-May-2006).

    Athens Olympic gold medallist Zhang said “You have to keep your concentration longer and it’s physically tougher regardless of your opponent. I feel a match has become longer than before.” (The Malay Mail 29-April-2006).

    Chinese Head Coach, Li Yongbo said "If not the 21-point scoring system, there would be fewer opportunities for the young players such as Wang Lin to come out." (www.chinaview.cn 13-Mar-2006).

    Peter Gade said "To me, it's(the new scoring system's) OK, because I am an attacking player. And the new rule is good for attacks." (www.chinaview.cn 9-Mar-2006).

    Chetan Anand said "As the game will be shortened, I can play my strokes and attack much more than what I used to do in the old format. I think the new system will be a big help." (www.ndtv.com 15-Feb-2006 by Rajan Mahan).


    Do we really need to attack more? If we are good at defensive play, we can still create mistakes from the attacking opponents. And in each rally when our defensive play wins, we win a point.

    So... Why is it that most players think that the new scoring system is only good for the attacking players?


  2. #2
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Singles Vs Doubles

    In Doubles, whether playing old or new scoring system, attacking play is always better.

    In this discussion, we are examining more of the Singles games.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think the reason is they wan to attack more coz the game is now shorter than the old system. Or maybe that maybe the only way to get points since playing a stroke or control game will have more chances of making mistakes as more stroke are exchanged.

  4. #4
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi jas1121,

    I came from Malaysia many years ago. We used to play, in Malaysia then, games called "KING OF THE COURT", ie 1 game of Singles to 5 points only(of course using the old format at that time) and the winner would stay on to defend his "Kingdom".

    But when we played those short games, we did not have to change our tactics or aggression to attack. We would still be playing the Cool, Calm and Collected Badminton. We did not have to think that we have to attack, just because those games were made shorter.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc
    Why is it that most players think that the new scoring system is only good for the attacking players?

    To me the new system favours (more than the old system) the player that makes fewer mistakes, irrespective of attack or defence.

    If we accept that attacking is being used in the conventional sense of hitting the shuttle down or flat, is it true to say that counters to such shots are more prone to error? I'm not sure at all.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    from my point of view the new scoring system (NSS) doesn't really encourage more attacks as a better game strategy. it only shortens the game and therefore saves players' stemina, and when players have more energy per minute to use, they attack.

    however, different players always have different approaches to win their games. after all, in most cases, a game in the new scoring system, if converted to the old scoring system (OSS), is just the first few points of the game. therefore, the question "how to win a game in the NSS" can be translated into "how to win the first few points, or how to establish the advantage in the first few points in the OSS", with the only difference being it is a MUST now in the NSS while the "advantage in the OSS" isn't.

    in the OSS, an advantage is just an advantage, it does not necessarily develop into a victory. we've seen too many "come back" games. however, in the NSS, this used-to-be advantage now means a victory. so for those who get into the game slowly this is an disadvantage, but for those who don't attack, maybe not: did players who establish an advantage earlier in a game (OSS) always achieve it by attacks?

    what the NSS really changes this game, from my point of view, might be:

    1. Men's games are shorter, players' stemina is still a restriction, but less so now.

    2. every point counts. so players play more carefully: if you don't get this point, your opponent does. this might be good, as loved by tennis and table tennis players.

    3. deuce. in tennis when the score reaches 40-40, it comes to a deuce, he who first gets a point from "advantage" wins the game. this does introduce more unpredictability into badminton. however, badminton shouldn't set a limit to 30, or he who reaches 30 first takes the game. it should be all like tennis: unlimited.

    4. from my observation, women's singles did not become shorter from 11 points (OSS) to 21 points (NSS) during the Uber Cup. but Xie Xingfang would disagree. :-D

    i personally like the "every point counts" part of the new scoring system, and best of 3 is suitable for most non-professional players. but for professionals, it could be better set to best of 5 games, without a cap of 30 points.
    Last edited by franxon; 05-18-2006 at 06:46 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    To me the new system favours (more than the old system) the player that makes fewer mistakes, irrespective of attack or defence.
    What you have posted is exactly what I believe... the new system favours the player who makes fewer mistakes.

    This is why I open this thread.

    Why do players/coaches think that the new system favours only the attacking players?




  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Have you considered the possibility that they are just plain wrong?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc
    What you have posted is exactly what I believe... the new system favours the player who makes fewer mistakes.

    This is why I open this thread.

    Why do players/coaches think that the new system favours only the attacking players?


    I don't know if players will attack more, but I know they will attack more carefully.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if, in the old scoring system, fighting for a service is equivalently important as fighting for a point, then there should be no change in this equation.

    if, having more energy per minute to squander means attacking more being a better game strategy, then new scoring system favours attacking.

  11. #11
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by franxon

    ... did players who establish an advantage earlier in a game (OSS) always achieve it by attacks?
    That is a very good question.

    In the OSS, I didn't think that a player necessarily need to attack earlier in a game to establish an early lead.

    So, may be in the NSS, players who are afraid that they won't be able to make a strong "come back" at the end of the game, start to panic and start to think they have to begin their attacks earlier.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc
    That is a very good question.

    In the OSS, I didn't think that a player necessarily need to attack earlier in a game to establish an early lead.

    So, may be in the NSS, players who are afraid that they won't be able to make a strong "come back" at the end of the game, start to panic and start to think they have to begin their attacks earlier.
    i have a question that needs your professional answer: with the consideration of stemina consumption, different styles of players, attack, control or else, attack this much and this much in a game; if with unlimited stemina to use, will the attack players, control players and other types of players attack more to better secure the victory?

    i think the answer to this question answers your original question. but i am not sure about the answer as a layman.

  13. #13
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by franxon
    i have a question that needs your professional answer: with the consideration of stemina consumption, different styles of players, attack, control or else, attack this much and this much in a game; if with unlimited stemina to use, will the attack players, control players and other types of players attack more to better secure the victory?

    i think the answer to this question answers your original question. but i am not sure about the answer as a layman.

    I can only answer your question based on the OSS. With the NSS, I am still trying to find the answer.

    In the OSS, I would encourage my trainee to play an attacking game if his/her stamina is not good.

    This is because, more often than not, a rally with lots of attacks such as harder smashes, tighter dropshots, tighter netplay, etc..., is a shorter rally. With more of these attacking shots, a rally usually lasts less than 15 seconds... because more errors(forced or unforced) will occur earlier.

    As you know, once your stamina is gone your muscular and mental capabilities are gone too.

    Therefore, under the OSS, if your stamina is not good, play a shorter game by attacking.

    But now that we are playing the NSS, a shorter game is already presented in itself. Stamina is not as big a issue as before. This is why I question “Do we really have to play an attacking game to do well under the NSS?”.

    Playing an attacking game under the NSS will make a game even shorter, and I don't think IBF has this in mind when they implemented it.


  14. #14
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by franxon

    i personally like the "every point counts" part of the new scoring system, and best of 3 is suitable for most non-professional players. but for professionals, it could be better set to best of 5 games, without a cap of 30 points.
    If it should be a best of 5 games and without a cap of 30 points, then stamina will be a very important factor here.

    Don't forget 40-all in Tennis is really 3-all in Badminton.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc


    Therefore, under the OSS, if your stamina is not good, play a shorter game by attacking.


    I agree. however, although players who have a stamina problem had better choose to attack more, players who attack more do not necessarily have a stamina problem (they do, relatively speaking, have a more serious stamina problem than other types of players), especially so in the pros (though the pros are too far from my badminton, but everyone talks about pros, don't we?).



    i guess attack players choose play attack just because it is the best game strategy for them, some reason for control players choose to play control. (i'm just voicing what i think, do correct me if i'm wrong).


    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc
    If it should be a best of 5 games and without a cap of 30 points, then stamina will be a very important factor here.
    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc


    Don't forget 40-all in Tennis is really 3-all in Badminton.

    yeah. i personally believe badminton for the top players needs to be a stamina demanding sports. it should be more like tennis, rather than snooker.


    well, though IBF announced the "permanent implementation" of the new scoring system, i seriously don't think this scoring system will be THAT permanent. it will not out-live me.

    if IBF successfully popularize and commercialize badminton through high prize money and wide TV telecasting covering area/people one day, they need to EXTEND the duration of a badminton game, with more commercial breaks, that is the last day of this scoring system.

    if, IBF can't make more people like/watch badminton, they will change the scoring system again.

    yes, 40-all in tennis is just 3-all in badminton, but i think the deuce in badminton is more like the tie break in tennis, which has no cap. maybe "tie break" sounds more correct than deuce when the score is 20-20 in badminton.

    this reminds me of the "come back" in tennis language. a shortened badminton game seems to have less "come back" opportunity. but in a more segmented tennis match: sets, subdivided into games with tie break, and into points with deuce. a player can come back from 0-2 sets down in big opens; from 0-5 games down in a set; or from 0-40 down in a game. there are actually more come-backs.


    Last edited by franxon; 05-18-2006 at 10:55 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My association the Southern Tasmanian Badminton Association has implemented the new scoring system in Div 1 and all state tournament, but not throughout the other divisions.

    The question which has been put to the committee is now, when does it get impleemented in the other divisions? Next roster or next year.

  17. #17
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by franxon

    I guess attack players choose play attack just because it is the best game strategy for them, some reason for control players choose to play control. (i'm just voicing what i think, do correct me if i'm wrong).
    This is exactly what I think, ie, at the present moment... A control-player(in Singles Match) should be able to perform just as well as an attacking-player under the NSS.

    In this thread, I am just trying to find out why coaches/players think that we should employ a more attacking strategy to perform well under the NSS.

    May be, we have to wait a bit longer before we can find the correct answer to our question.

Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2x21 rally, 12 rally scoring system in 3rd game to increase the excitement of game.
    By wisdomcivet in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 12
    : 03-07-2011, 07:15 PM
  2. 21 Rally Point Scoring System
    By Break-My-String in forum Coaching Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
  3. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
  4. Mixed responses to 21-point rally scoring system
    By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 50
    : 04-26-2006, 04:40 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    : 01-05-2003, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •