I was just thinking how in badminton commentators don't have as much to talk about in terms of statistics compared to tennis, for example. For instance, why is there no one keeping track of a players win-loss record throughout the year (not to mention his entire career)? Someone could also go about figuring out what percentage of players win a match having a) served first b) won the first set c) first to reach the 'change ends' point in the deciding set etc etc... there are lots of possibilities here. I know this is not up to ibf but the players them selves but i think another thing missing from today's game is a great rivalry. lets face it, the anticipated taufik vs peter gade is not turning out into a li ling wei vs han ai ping duel. Just my thoughts... from what i've seen so far, I like that sponsors are 'improving' the players on court attire. ***-appeal is certainly one of the ways to attract viewers.
There's some talk about stats in badminton v tennis here (http://badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6460) I'm not sure why, but i suspect maybe it's due to lack of popularity, which makes it harder for the announcers to get the stats
I agree with libra that most commentators did not help much to publicize the game by not making their commentaries more interesting. As suggested they should do some research on the players and provide interesting statistics on them, their past achievements and results (granted some of the important tournaments are nowing providing these) as well as statistics on the ongoing match, just like what they do for tennis like the no. of double faults, (service faults for baddy), unforced errors, winning smashes, net shot winners, etc, etc. They can learn a thing or two from tennis and NBA basketball perhaps. How can the TV viewer learn more about the game when some of the commentators are not updated on the rules themselves and can't tell the difference between the variety of badminton strokes. And some confuse the public by using the old term 'set' instead of 'game'. They should seriously think of better ways to attracted viewership and make the game more interesting. They are supposed to be professional media experts but have'nt quite lived up to expectations!
You are right on the lack of research, Loh, aside from whatever they google. It seems that whenever I watch badminton, the announcers always feels compelled to give the same speech during filler time: Anouncer 1: "Did you know that badminton is actualyl the fastest racquet sport--even faster than tennis!" A2: "Wow, i did not know that!" A1: "Yes! its true" A2: "Wow! And also the shuttlecock--the players call the thing a shuttlecock--can travel up to 200 mph!" A1: "Wow!" etc... It's like they are going through the badminton faq one by one, and interjecting liberally with wows and gasps.
libra: I think the percentage of the person getting the first point is 80 something, but I forgot so I'll try to find that out for you. It was surprising to me since it was so high, but it doesn't mean you're always going to win it. Wildstyler
Thanks for the replies, I remember reading a research paper by a maths student at uni of how skewed a tennis match can be. The example he gave was one player being 10% better then that other ie, he/she wins 55 of the points out of 100 as opposed to 45 for the other. Anyway, as tennis is devided into games and sets this 10% advantage a player has actually translates to something like 80% chance of winning! Now that was interesting to me. Oh and wildstyler's statistic on the person winning the first point was pretty interesting too. You know how in tennis between breaks statistics are shown of where the serves landed etc, perhaps they could do that with the smashes in badminton. granted this probably required more funding but little things like these could really help to liven up the game. As Loh mentioned, some commentators (let's call them Hasbullah, Malaysians will know what i mean really know nuts about the game. To them any time a player smashes the shuttle it ought to be a winning point. Probably better if ex-players could be engaged to do the commentary.
