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

**taneepak** · 05-25-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by CkcJsm

the new rules are bad,people will take less risks.

Initially, yes players will take less risk. But the smarter players will sharpen their shots with greater precision over time and will be able to execute strokes or shots that are considered risky by today's standard. Players who merely concentrate on less risk taking will always be one inch shot, a very critical mistake that the adaptables will easily exploit.
The NSS will produce a standard of play and shot placements of a very high precision and order, but this will take some time. It will incorporate today's risk-taking bravado but the shots will be in instead of out most of the time. The factors behind this increased precision and low error rate is the NSS's mandatory pre-requisites for concentration and focus, without which you can say goodbye.
This is a real challenge for today's coaches. Using old coaching methods may not be enough. New coaching methods, especially those that are concentration and focus based, may emerge. It is also likely that, intially, different countries will adapt differently. It will be interesting to watch how Denmark and China adapt over the next few years. This will probably be followed by some convergence.

**hcyong** · 05-25-2006, 11:16 PM

Bear in mind that even in the old system, attacking players do tend to win more than defending players. The top players in the world (under old system and still are now) - Lin, Taufik, Peter, LCW plus more - are all more-or-less attacking players. Of course, they must have a good defence as well, but all would rather attack than defend (even in the old system).

**hcyong** · 05-25-2006, 11:26 PM

Fundamentally, the style of play did not change much. Whether new or old system, every player still strive to win every rally. The major change is that games become shorter or at least there is an upper limit to the length of the game (30 + 29 = 59 rallies). So, all the changes in relation to style of play can be attributed to the shorter game. So yes, I think attacking players are happier because they now know there is an upper limit to how many rallies they have to play.

**Loh** · 05-25-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

Hey Loh,

Did you think there were more attacking/aggressive Singles tactics at the Commonwealth Games, Melbourne 2006? I think you would agree with me that we did not think so. May be, it was too early under the NSS. May be, not many World Top-Ranking Singles Players were playing at the Commonwealth Games, other than LCW.

Knowing that you will be at the Singapore Open 2006, could you please report to us how this year's Singles tactics are played compared to last year's.

At courtside, you should see and feel it better. Will you detect changes in Singles tactics played under the OSS versus the NSS?

Will the attacking/aggressive tactics pay better dividends? Please report on both Ladies and Mens Singles.

But, of course, enjoy yourself as well.

Cheers... chris@ccc

Yes I agree that there were less aggressive attacking tactics during the recent Melbourne Commonwealth Games simply because there were less top class players involved. Only LCW stood out and when he manoeuvred himself well, his attacks were devastating and seldom elicit creditable replies. Even WCH found him too fast and too aggressive in the men's singles final. Top-quality players like Lin Dan, Bao Chunlai, Chen Hong, Taufik Hidayat, Sony Kuncoro and Peter Gade would have made it very difficult for LCW to do as he pleased as in Melbourne.

You have assigned me a very difficult job to analyse the forthcoming Singapore Open matches between some of the top class players. Hopefully, with some of my more knowledgable friends to assist me, I will be able to present an unbiased report!

**hcyong** · 05-25-2006, 11:44 PM

As for how quick players get into a match, ie. slow-starters being disadvantaged etc, we can better analyse this aspect by breaking a game into 3 parts:
1. start (first 5 points in old system, first 7 points in new system, roughly)
2. mid (next 5 and 7)
3. end (last 5 and 7)
In a typical situation, slow-starters (who are better than opponents) will trail in that start, begin to catch up in the middle and pull ahead in the end-game. In the old system, these slow-starters have a longer time to "warm up". In the new system, they have to start making a move faster.

Also compounding the slow-starters, it is difficult to catch up in the later parts of the end-game unless your score is close.

However, slow-starters will not have the same excuse in the second and third games. Anyway, who asked them to be slow-starters? They should have been properly warmed up from the start.

**hcyong** · 05-25-2006, 11:53 PM

As for spectator enjoyment, I think I prefer the new system. If shorter games mean more attacking play, then spectators should be happy. Also, sometimes it is a bit frustrating to watch repeated service-overs without any points won. It can be argued that it is more exciting to watch the scores keep going up but always never more than one point separating them. The deuce system is also much more exciting. Also, shorter games mean that it is less likely for players to injure themselves and players can better take on more matches per day than previously.

**Loh** · 05-25-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by hcyong

Fundamentally, the style of play did not change much. Whether new or old system, every player still strive to win every rally. The major change is that games become shorter or at least there is an upper limit to the length of the game (30 + 29 = 59 rallies). So, all the changes in relation to style of play can be attributed to the shorter game. So yes, I think attacking players are happier because they now know there is an upper limit to how many rallies they have to play.

By comparison and in principle, the NSS is supposed to be relatively shorter than the OSS.

But I now discern a lengthening of the NSS matches with some recent ones going past an hour. If this trend continues and the players' skills have improved further so that they make less mistakes, I'm afraid NSS matches may last longer and longer. Hoperully, they will not cross the 2-hour barrier as with some OSS matches.

Whether the average time taken for NSS matches will converge with OSS matches is left to be seen!

**hcyong** · 05-26-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

By comparison and in principle, the NSS is supposed to be relatively shorter than the OSS.

But I now discern a lengthening of the NSS matches with some recent ones going past an hour. If this trend continues and the players' skills have improved further so that they make less mistakes, I'm afraid NSS matches may last longer and longer. Hoperully, they will not cross the 2-hour barrier as with some OSS matches.

Whether the average time taken for NSS matches will converge with OSS matches is left to be seen!

Old system
Lower limit - 15 or 16 (if don't have serve at beginning) rallies; 11 or 12 for WS
Upper limit - Infinity

New system
Lower limit - 21 for all disciplines
Upper limit - 59 if it goes all the way to 30-29

You mentioned you have seen some going past the hour (I presume you mean that the average ones would take much less time), but in the past, those would have gone to 1.5 or more hours, and also matches going past the hour are very normal in the old system. But now, matches going past the hour are surprising.

**Loh** · 05-26-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by hcyong

As for spectator enjoyment, I think I prefer the new system. If shorter games mean more attacking play, then spectators should be happy. Also, sometimes it is a bit frustrating to watch repeated service-overs without any points won. It can be argued that it is more exciting to watch the scores keep going up but always never more than one point separating them. The deuce system is also much more exciting. Also, shorter games mean that it is less likely for players to injure themselves and players can better take on more matches per day than previously.

My friend, you must be Mr Punch's publicity man! I'm sure he will be most happy to read such feedback. I certainly hope more will come to similar conclusions.

**franxon** · 05-26-2006, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by hcyong

Bear in mind that even in the old system, attacking players do tend to win more than defending players. The top players in the world (under old system and still are now) - Lin, Taufik, Peter, LCW plus more - are all more-or-less attacking players. Of course, they must have a good defence as well, but all would rather attack than defend (even in the old system).

i understand it this way: we cannot lable a player as an attacking player because he plays more attacking shots than defending shots. just like we can not simply say MP99 is stiff. it's stiffer than MP66 but less stiff than MP100. it's all relative. if one plays more attacks than others, he is an attacking player, though most of his shots are not attacking shots but control shots.

that's why now there's a trend saying the top players all belong to one type: all-around, who can play all three types and use the right weapon at the right time.

there shouldn't be a drastic change of play style for the top players, in spite of a shift towards attack. however, they become more careful to avoid errors and fight harder to keep the score close now.

**Player13** · 05-26-2006, 11:53 AM

Thanks for the help guys... all the links have been very helpful ^^

**chris-ccc** · 05-29-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by hcyong

You mentioned you have seen some going past the hour (I presume you mean that the average ones would take much less time), but in the past, those would have gone to 1.5 or more hours, and also matches going past the hour are very normal in the old system. But now, matches going past the hour are surprising.

Hi hcyong,

Just mentioning the Singles Finals; Men's Singles & Ladies' Singles (both matches were just 2 games). If they were both running to 3 games, their matches would have stretched to about 1.5 hours.

Anyway, below this a report for my Club's members which I thought I will paste it here too.

======================================

Hi CCC Members,

Just received the full results (All Finals) for the Philippines Open completed on Sunday 28-May-2006.

Men’s Singles: Hafiz Hashim (Mas) bt Roslin Hashim (Mas) 21-19, 21-7.

Women’s Singles: Saina Nehwal (Ind) bt Julia Wong (Mas) 21-15, 22-20.

Men’s Doubles: Alberto Susanto Njoto-Yohan Hadikusumo Wiratama (Hkg) bt Hendra Gunawan-Joko Riyadi (Ina) 19-21, 21-19, 21-18.

Women’s Doubles: Jo Novita-Gresya Poliic (Ina) bt Nur Sugianti Endang-Rani Mundiasti (Ina) 21-16, 21-13.

Mixed Doubles: Sudket Prapakamo-Saralee Thounbgthongkam (Tha) bt Kennevic Asuncion-Kennie Asuncion (Phi) 21-18, 21-16.

I am very happy for Sania Nehwal. I watched her played well at the Commonwealth Games just weeks ago. I told Saina and her Indonesian Coach that she will one day be a World Singles Champion. But I didn't think they believed me. Saina is only 16.

======================================

Cheers... chris@ccc

**Loh** · 05-30-2006, 02:48 AM

Well, I did not tell Saina that she will become a World Champ one day but I congratulated her on her fine performance during the MCG and look forward to more successes from her. But she certainly has the makings of a champion and if she continues with her good work, success will come sooner than later!

**nelsonkong** · 05-30-2006, 04:11 AM

imo the 21 scoring system is generally shorter...so, if your attacking is good, i mean the snashing is good...and your fitness is consider okay, then attacking should be good for this.

But all in all, an attacking game should be more advantage, if only you are good at them..XD

**taneepak** · 05-30-2006, 05:32 AM

But you need strokes to create and then set up for your attack. Attack is by itself useless; better to use attack for the coup-de-grace.

**wimmua** · 05-30-2006, 09:17 AM

15 pt and 21 pt are just 2 different displicines. It is like comparing 100 meter run to maraton.

100 m champions are not marathon champions.

I am still puzzled, why they (IBF) change it. We all know, this is not the way to popularise the badminton sport, nor the means to make it attractive.

Badminton sport can be popular in England, Denmark. We should study, why it is popular in these countries and then, implement them in less popular places.

We should try different approach to make badminton more popular.

1) try to make it fun and entertaining for all ages
a) support badminton in kindergarten and school
b) organise badminton matches in different ages group
eg 35 -45 yrs old, 46-55 yrs old or different weight group 85-92 kg, 93-97kg, or combination of both !

2) bigger, better marketing
a) more friendly exhibition matches
b) gets endorsements from MEGA companies, eg Lee Chong Wei for Nike Promoter, or Lin Dan for Adidas
c) approach mega movie stars ~ hkg or hollywood stars and directors to help marketing

3) get IBF to engage professional people (marketing, international organisation)

Certainly, there are many other ways to make badminton njoyable for all people.

**chris-ccc** · 05-31-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by franxon

that's why now there's a trend saying the top players all belong to one type: all-around, who can play all three types and use the right weapon at the right time.

Hi franxon,

So are you saying that an all-round player will still be able to do well under the NSS?

Somehow, at the present moment, I tend to agree with you. Why force yourself to attack if your attack is not good enough, or if your opponent's defense is good.

Cheers... chris@ccc