A look back on the 21 point rally system after WC06

**Aozora** · 09-30-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

I was very disappointed to hear Peter Gade praise the 21-system in this 2006 WC interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmonVo6o3Jk after in the beggining he was very much against it. I wonder what made him change his mind.

I am still very much so against it, but I guess I never actually tried it, so I wouldn't know how it works...maybe I'll think differently after I try it...I guess if you pretend we have an ideal world with the fairest bestest awesomely awesome serve/line judges and umpires, then it might not be so bad since anything after still falls back on the player and minimizing errors...which you try to do in both systems, except more emphasized in the 21-system.

For an amateur like me, I only play with my friends, and there are 0 serve fault calls and line judging's done somewhat fairly by ourselves, not to mention we have almost no pressure whatsoever during the game, so I guess even after I tried it I wouldn't know how it's like for the pros

Hey...is there a poll for this? Just interested in graphicals, cuz I hate reading...

**samkool** · 09-30-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

I was very disappointed to hear Peter Gade praise the 21-system in this 2006 WC interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmonVo6o3Jk after in the beggining he was very much against it. I wonder what made him change his mind.

he's not getting any younger.

**samkool** · 09-30-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

Maybe 6 star / WC tournaments should be played to 5 sets like tennis, it does not make sense that a match in a WC event can be won in less than 30min

that's a good idea.

the main difference between rally scoring and side-out scoring is the urgency by which you need to recover from your own error. in side-out scoring you get 2 tries to regain the serve. you were not penalized for losing it, but you are not rewarded for regaining it either. the importance of making the serve, especially on game point, is minimized. for that reason, i like rally scoring better.

i propose extending the winning score to 30, for a 3x30 rally scoring format, with a cap of 35. it gives the better player an opportunity for a comeback, without allowing the game to theoretically last forever.

**Aozora** · 09-30-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by samkool

i propose extending the winning score to 30, for a 3x30 rally scoring format, with a cap of 35. it gives the better player an opportunity for a comeback, without allowing the game to theoretically last forever.

I suppose 30 point games with the rally system would result in a game length similar to that of the old system, but then if we wanted to give the better player an opportunity for a comeback, without allowing the game to theoretically last forever, couldn't we just revert back to the old system? Afterall, we're all used to the 15 points, and if some regular Joe wanted to watch a game, 30~35 points may *seem* a bit long...

It seems like badminton's starting to follow along some other sports on this matter...volleyball's scoring system evolved to that of the rally point system about 5 years ago, and table tennis has always used rally points, up to 21 points. I still remember playing pro table tennis, and maybe it was just me, but the pressure at the end's more like "I'm not going to take this back" rather than "If I get this serve back, I have a chance", which is one thing I really liked about badminton...

**samkool** · 09-30-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Aozora

I suppose 30 point games with the rally system would result in a game length similar to that of the old system, but then if we wanted to give the better player an opportunity for a comeback, without allowing the game to theoretically last forever, couldn't we just revert back to the old system?

one word... tv money.

oh wait, that was two words

Originally Posted by Aozora

Afterall, we're all used to the 15 points, and if some regular Joe wanted to watch a game, 30~35 points may *seem* a bit long...

25~30 is also a possibility. the important thing for tv coverage is they know the game will end in a predictable amount of time.

**Aozora** · 09-30-2006, 02:44 PM

Blah, I don't get those couch potatoes...if you actually want to watch something, it shouldn't matter how long it is T_T It's sad that in this world we have to change a sport to the audience's liking and not the player's, affecting the gameplay of it =/ Oh well...all bout the audience...

Maybe one day we will have badminton similar to the WWE... >_>

**yuval_ba** · 09-30-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Aozora

Blah, I don't get those couch potatoes...if you actually want to watch something, it shouldn't matter how long it is T_T It's sad that in this world we have to change a sport to the audience's liking and not the player's, affecting the gameplay of it =/ Oh well...all bout the audience...

Maybe one day we will have badminton similar to the WWE... >_>

100% agree, I just don't buy all these TV coverage excuses !!!!

first of all what TV coverage they are talking about ??? badminton is not covered on any TV I know of outside Asia, you will get backgammon WC before you will get badminton on TV

second, sport gets popular not by making itself fit TV scheduals for sure. is Tennis covenient for TV broadcasting ??? match can variate from 1.5h to 5h, is this called predicatable ?, not to mention rain delays. I actually got more air time of watching the rain during the last US Open than time watching badminton on TV ever

I know I am not the first to point this out but that the truth.
There must be other ways to promote badminton than change the scoring system and ruin the sport.

**samkool** · 09-30-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

100% agree, I just don't buy all these TV coverage excuses !!!!

it may not be the best excuse, or even a legitimate one. however...

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

first of all what TV coverage they are talking about ???

usa, of course. usa tv = $.

Originally Posted by yuval_ba

second, sport gets popular not by making itself fit TV scheduals for sure. is Tennis covenient for TV broadcasting ??? match can variate from 1.5h to 5h, is this called predicatable ?

you are correct, and so am i.

the usa likes tennis, usa companies like tennis so usa companies will sponsor tennis, so tennis gets tv coverage.

badminton will have to make the sport likable/watchable to usa companies in order to get their $ponsorship. appeal to the potential sponsors to get $. we may not like it, but that's the way it is.

hell, what's the appeal of golf? it appeals to the people/companies with $.

**chikkubhai** · 09-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by [B

chikkubhai[/b] ]
Compare the 4-5 hour games of tennis to less than a hour game of badminton it completes even before you realize it just started. Its appearing that who ever warms up quickly and is consistent will win easily to me. I would like the one whos more fit and capable of withstanding longer durations to win the game. Just an opinion.

comments and criticism please.....

Originally Posted by kemana

Agree! Seems like badminton is really turning into fast food,before you notice, it's over! Oh,maybe wd is an exception.

Thanks for the comments guys...

As with Aozora I completely agree with him and am still waiting to know why the 15 point system was changed, and have they ever provided a valid reasoning and did they realize the games are actually completing early and they might be actually loosing people interested in watching these games.

Originally Posted by kemana

Agree! Seems like badminton is really turning into fast food,before you notice

The only advantage was to the Womens singles and doubles now that they get to play more.... funny we already are saying the word MOREEEEE... and we like it... then why not the 15 point system atleast for QF, SF and Finals.

The unforced errors will not give the player a chance to come back and already existing problems such as line calls and judgements, will add more pressure on the player.. oh dont forget the special effects of the stadium inlcuding the breeze or air drift...

My final question or request again and again... Cant we do anything against this?? Atleast have the IBF themselves had a look back on the rally system at all?? I am sure Peter Gade will now change from his previous pro 21 point rally system stance.

I believe ill end up adapting as usual...

**Aozora** · 10-01-2006, 01:33 AM

It's really too bad that many Americans don't watch, or hardly even know about, badminton...it's a great sport, more physically intensive than soccer, fastest projectile sport in existance (unless you count hunting perhaps), and it's also great as a fun game. Not to mention, the US actually have good players like Tony Gunawan from Indonesia...It is unfortunate that in the North American society many people seem to prefer contact sports like football (er, the hand one), hockey, and wrestling (I still don't consider that a sport...=/).

We have many people in Asia that love badminton, but they don't have the money that IBF seems to be after. However, I actually can't imagine Americans liking the sport more just because we change the scoring system. For one thing most of them would never know there ever was a change, and then the ones that do hear of it from somewhere won't care too much. Finally, going after money certainly does make IBF have a even worse image than it already did.

**BMcentral** · 10-01-2006, 02:14 AM

Funny... when the point system was changed, many people (include myself) thought this is the end of china's dominance and a chance for weaker BM countries.

Life is full of surprise

**taneepak** · 10-01-2006, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by BMcentral

Funny... when the point system was changed, many people (include myself) thought this is the end of china's dominance and a chance for weaker BM countries.

Life is full of surprise

No, not really because the Chinese players are better trained, physically and mentally. The NSS requires more mental discilpine-like not losing your cool or getting upset when the crowd hurls abuse at you. The new game allows for no second chance. You are always adrenalin-charged, and your mental concentration, intensity, focus, cannot be switched on and off like in the old game. It is like two samurais fighting to the death. One wrong move and you are dead. It has become more exciting, with players, coaches and supporters now quarelling, fighting, and cursing each other over every close line call.

**yuval_ba** · 10-01-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Aozora

We have many people in Asia that love badminton, but they don't have the money that IBF seems to be after. However, I actually can't imagine Americans liking the sport more just because we change the scoring system. For one thing most of them would never know there ever was a change, and then the ones that do hear of it from somewhere won't care too much. Finally, going after money certainly does make IBF have a even worse image than it already did.

exactly,
if you told me there are really some companies that will sponser and promote badminton if it only had rally point scoring system and "predictable" match duration, then I will be the first to welcome it.
I don't beleive it's the case

**franxon** · 10-01-2006, 06:02 AM

Rally point system has its merits, as been said enough. i'm not against it. however, what i'm not sure is if it has to be 21x3. 21x5 looks like a better solution.

if you study the after-match statistics, you might be surprised like me by the fact that in many matches the winner and the loser are only seperated by less than 5 total rallies won. the difference was only 1 rally/point in a match i watched! games like this are too tight to tell. why isn't there in the world a champion for 10 m short running? because it's impossible to tell who's the best short runner in 10 meters and you gotta let them run 100m!

the current 21x3 NSS sometimes looks like a 10 meter short running.

**2NDround** · 10-01-2006, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by BMcentral

Funny... when the point system was changed, many people (include myself) thought this is the end of china's dominance and a chance for weaker BM countries.

Life is full of surprise

Hey, best lesson in life! If the team cannot score, don't change the goal post. They still won't score

**2NDround** · 10-01-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

No, not really because the Chinese players are better trained, physically and mentally. The NSS requires more mental discilpine-like not losing your cool or getting upset when the crowd hurls abuse at you. The new game allows for no second chance. You are always adrenalin-charged, and your mental concentration, intensity, focus, cannot be switched on and off like in the old game. It is like two samurais fighting to the death. One wrong move and you are dead. It has become more exciting, with players, coaches and supporters now quarelling, fighting, and cursing each other over every close line call.

Quarelling, fighting and cursing good for the game, more exciting? IBF should change their name to WWF instead

**taneepak** · 10-01-2006, 08:07 AM

Under the NSS every point is critical. This is why close line calls are not only challenged by the aggrieved players, the players who are awarded the points also complain to the umpire about the behaviour of the aggrieved players for grand standing, time-wasting, and disruption to their winning streak, etc, etc. Under the OSS close line calls were also questioned but without the passion and fight we find in the NSS. OSS bred better manners, NSS is a "fight to the death" in which manners have no place. Badminton under the NSS has become less gentlemanly but more competitive in more ways than we thought.