i prefer best 4 out of 7. i don't like how they keep scores. i keep score different when i play. it last longer. dunno that name but i play where theres time you have opportunity to score and theres time you dont.
I would prefer best of 5 games for doubles under the new scoring system but 3 for the old system. For singles i would prefer best of 1 game
I would prefer best of 3 games because of fitness issues. But I were fit, i would prefer best of 5 games. 3 game match would be quickfire but in my opinion, 5 game match would test both your physical and mental fitness. To draw a similarity, if you know cricket, one form of cricket is played for just one-day and another one for 5 days. 5-day cricket is real test for players and every player agrees because of what it demands.
Best of 3: More games means more games that count less. All games should be important. Rallyscoring: All rallies should be important too. (even if I do miss the risktaking and more entertaining play, you could afford in your own service, where errors were "free") 25 points! Games are too short, longer games would give more: Room for errors and room for change and adaption of tactics. Room and time for comebacks - Which we desperately needs. Longer games would also give more variety in the play. The tactical field would be wider towards the stamina side. And the fast, clever and strong nerved players who have benefitted from the current system, would have to change pace during the games as it would become too hard to push on at full speed if the sets were a little longer. Thus tipping the balance just a little towards the endurance players.
best of 3 games to 21 old scoring. this would reward all areas of the game. the new scoring system does not reward fitness and even the matches that go to three ends are still too short.
I agree with a lot of these posts, 3 games is best. You cannot play at a good standard for 5 games, it just doesn't make an enjoyable game.
well, 5 games can be a breeze, BUT, if your going to play 5 games every match, and around 6 matches a tourney, your going to be next to dead unless you have some amazing stamina
Sometime, best of 5 games would be absolutely useless if played vs very bad player... It may be good to have it in the finals but it has the inconvenient that it can be very frustrating to win the first 2 games and then lose the 3 other which must be very rare. 3 is better because if it's 1-1, they can give what the have on the last game and that become a great match.
Best of 5 x 15 points please! Haven't read through the whole thread but I find the most feasible compromise is a best of 5 x 15 points, using the rally point scoring system. Firstly, there are more natural ad breaks for TV to pay their bills (what the BWF wanted). From a player's perspective, it becomes not just a test of skill and power but also of physical and mental endurance, so a more well rounded player should deserve to win. Say even in a match lasting just 3 games, the winner has to secure 45 points, which is not much different from the 42 you require in the current scoring system. Time span is not much different plus the BWF gets its extra TV breaks. I'd like to see matches last all 5 games and let attrition take over. Never will the term "only the fittest survive" ring more true.
This may be true about mental endurance but like you said the points and time span are about the same. Then can I know how it would be that you need more physical endurance to play about the same points and about the same time span? Plus the players will get to rest up more with the breaks.
I don't see why we have to change the number of points and the number of points every three years or so 3x21 is probably enough however if you were to change it to 5x15 then it would be fine however where do you have a mid game interval or do you get rid of that I still prefer 3x21
Yes I would have an interval after 8 points. For the reasons I have stated, I think the 5 x 15 format makes the most sense if there was to be a change. We have to accept the game and the economics governing it is constantly evolving. In an era where TV money can push the game ahead, the game has to adapt. And one of the ways of doing it is by modifying the scoring. Sure not everyone is going to be happy; just think back to the near riots when it changed from the OSS to the 21 pt NSS. Give people time and they get used to what is the current standard. That said, if the BWF lays a huge egg, which they are more than capable of doing, the opportunity to advance the game with media exposure will pass by and leave badminton a fringe international sport.
i feel that the current system of 3 games isnt enough Also is too short T.T 5 games will allow a bigger margin of error for mistakes and also allow comebacks. Stamina should be factored in so strategy will be able to play a bigger part
I don't like the idea of trying to turn badminton into something like tennis(tons of sets/games with very few rallies per game/set). WTH is wrong with tennis? Winning 4 shots then you are allowed to rest for more than 2 mins(the best part is the players get to sit on nice chairs and enjoy the sun during intervals)? It's no wonder they can play the game for 5 hours or go on and on till forever. So cutting the rallies played in a games and increase the match plays certainly won't help(coz you get more rest). If you must make the stamina of players a big factor in the game, make it like 25 or 30 points per match for 3 games.
anyone for 7 sets each up to eleven points First to 4 sets (minimum points for win 44) breaks of 1 minute between sets with every two sets a two minute break aloows for combacks and tv breaks
How about Volleyball scoring system, but with few changes. It's something like best out of 5 but the 5th set is 15 points unlike the rest that are 25 points. Nonetheless, I like the current scoring system.
