This is mine Ranking for Mixed Team This ranking is based on the Ranking points of the highest ranked player (or pair) of five individual events of each Association, ranked on the current individual World Ranking lists. Even if an Association has only one player (or pair) ranked on the individual World Ranking list, the team of that Association is still ranked. Players non eligible to represent their Association are not taken into consideration. To set up the team ranking list, each team is opposed to all the other teams in a computer simulation (round-robin), in men's and wommen's singles matches and men's, women's and mixed doubles matches using the Sudirman Cup system. 2 points are awarded to the winning team of each of these matches, the losing team getting 0 points. When there is a tie, which may happen when players of opposing teams have the same Ranking, each of these teams receives 1 point. The final ranking order is determined by the total number of points earned by each of the teams. A virtual match won would give the team 2 points, a tie would give 1 point and a loss does not earn the team any points. The total number of points gained by a team determines their Team Ranking. These team ranking lists are taken into consideration for seedings at World Mixed Team Championships.
My "easy" solution: 1. Each team submit the team roster 2. Each of the 5 event's ranking will be determined by the average (or, with certain weight formular) based on the submitted roster. This way, it will be more fair to display the "team strength". For example, do you really consider CHN WS weak as a group? Or, LD is weaker than a few others? Obviously not. In case the roster is changed due to reasons such as injury, than the ranking can be changed easily according above formula.
INA's highest ranking in MS and WD won't be participate, their not in the team... Is it fair to determine the ranking, then?
well, in order to be fair, i think BWF needs to derive the ranking based on the highest ranked players in the country, regardless of whether they decide to participate in the tournament. players can always pull out at the last minute due to injury or team selection, which BWF has no control over.
If for an open tournament, the draw can be modified after players withdraw, why they cannot modify the ranking for the team events in case of roster change? If this is a team event, your ranking should be reflecting the overall strength of your team, not just a few individuals. Just like say, if you stuck LB James or Kobe in an elementry school roster, do you still call that team #1 rank in NBA league, even though they have the best individual player?
well, i concede that they can do a redraw based on the actual players participating, but it would be troublesome if this happens a lot. still, i guess this really depends on the rule they came up with in the beginning, if they had said the ranking will be based on the top players each country has just before the tournament, then they will have to stick to the rule.
This comparasion is flawed. Basket ball needs 5 players to play together. One LBJ can not win game. Badminton team game only needs one (pair) player(s) from each events. So team deapth will be helpful, but not crucial.
No, the depth definitely counts. Different style of playing can be a crucial factor depend on your opponent. Also, previous W-L record can be a mental factor as well. Never to mention the possible sickness and injury. If you say that's not crucial, why CHN usually send players like BCL, CJ, CH, XXZ, etc to back up LD, instead of just randomly drag a joe-doe into the roster? If the depth is not crucial, then why coaches need to modify the roster for each round? Because if you have the depth, you have more choice to see who has the best chance to win, and more important, the best chance to help the entire team to go deeper. Also, with stronger overall roster, you give your teammates a mental edge over opponent. In TC2004, Sang Yang / Zheng Bo beat Dan pair to capture the crucial point. One advantage they have, is they have XXZ as MS #3. XXZ did not even play the game, but SY/ZB can afford to play more freely, while the other side is do or die. Then, there you go... This is especially important when your game result will determine which is your next round opponent. If you are CHN, even if you lose a group match (unlikely), and moved to a lower seed in next round, LYB will not cry, as he can simple pick a better performer next time. If you do not have the depth, tell me how you feel if you have to deal with your #1's injury...
I said depth will help, but not crucial factor. For example, if team A has all #1 ranking players from 5 event and team B has all #2 - #10 ranking players from 5 event. Which team is possible to win? Here we have to assume #1 player is actually better than #2 - #10 players (has higher winning percentage). Also we consider the normal injury possibilities. I think team A has bigger winning chance.
Even though I prefer the ranking tabulated by cxytdn, BWF's simple adding-up of the points is not too shabby either. Simplicity is not neccessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, there is a case for the probability of winning, whereas cxytdn deals with absolutes. Let me explain. In cxytdn's methodology, if the MS player from Team A is higher ranked than the MS player from Team B, then Team A gets the MS point. All the players/pairs are matched this way to determine the winner. Look at this scenario (ranking points in brackets): MS: Team A (5000) beats Team B (1000) WS: Team A (5000) beats Team B (1000) MD: Team A (4900) loses to Team B (5000) WD: Team A (4900) loses to Team B (5000) XD: Team A (4900) loses to Team B (5000) Using cxytdn's method, the win belongs to Team B, winning by 3-2. The philosophy is that the higher ranked player will always beat the lower ranked. Using the add-them-all method, Team A has 24700 points and Team B 17000, so the win belongs to Team A. The philosophy here is that there is a high probability that Team A will take both the singles. But the probability of Team A taking all the 3 doubles is pretty low. Chances are Team A will take at least one doubles point and together with the 2 almost-sure singles points, takes the win. I am sure we can come up with kinds of scenarios in support of both methods. What I am saying is, there is a case for the BWF method.
Your assumption is purely in theory, be the ranking (#1 always better than #2), or the roster (no injury, mult. events, etc) In reality, and ranking (actual strength vs. theory) and roster actually counts a lot of more, otherwise, you do not need the coach to analyze different rosters before each match anymore. Simply file all the highest ranking players, and why even bother bring 2-3 backup players / pairs? Let me ask you a simple question. Say there are 2 teachers in a school. 1 teacher has only 1 student won the nobel price, but most other can not even get to college. The other teach has most his students going to great college, but none of them are genius. Which teach (class/team) you prefer to be in, and which one you consider as a better group?
