Explain how number of players competing is relevant to balance. In a doubles discipline, two players form one unit. That is the principle of it. If there was a 2vs2 soccer/football format, and they played both that and 11v11, would you need to play 5 2v2 to make things 'balanced'? You could be utter dogshit at 11v11, yet good at 2v2, and assure complete dominance over a team that plays 11v11 very well and isnt great at 2v2. Simply adding numbers of individual athletes has nothing whatsoever to do with balance. Just because TC and UC have the balance skewed towards singles (and an according order of play) doesn't mean it has to be the same in the SC. The way you need to look at the SC is that it compares two nations across all 5 disciplines. Each discipline is equally important there, so it's completely balanced between all 5. Counting players and lumping them together in arbitrary groups ('singles', 'doubles', whereas MS and WS are distinctly different, as are MD, WD and XD) is not a good way to look at things from an objective or competitive standpoint.
@j4ckie India won 1 XD match against INA in group stage! Tie score 4-1. Tontowi AHMAD Gloria Emanuelle WIDJAJA - Ashwini PONNAPPA Satwiksairaj RANKIREDDY 20-22 21-17 19-21
Yes. Anyway, my reason for advocating adding two more singles at the end is simply the following. It is so rare to have all five disciplines played on the final in a Sudirman Cup. Best of 7 format would most likely achieve this goal. Adding two more singles at the end would seem fair and balance as the final line-up would consist of a total of 4 singles players and 6 doubles players.
The personal devastation would have been similar if Korea had lost, and all true badminton fans can feel for them. But what I wonder is whether the Chinese coaching staff addressed the team (including Liu and Huang) that the loss was a team loss and that the glory of victory or the weight of defeat was to be shared by all. And in particular that the XD pair should not feel like they "let their country down". That would be up to the management/coaches who out of the multitudes of players chose the team they brought.
But what if there's a possibility to improve it? My suggestion would be to allow the lower ranked team to dictate the order of play among the choices listed in rule 13.1 Order of Play (for Sudirman Cup)
But when you get to the later stages of the tournament the lower ranked teams become much closer in ability to the higher ranked teams, in general, and the order of play can make all the difference. I don't mind the idea of a 7 game match, but I think the order needs to be consistent.
I disagree with a 7 match proposal. It only further favours the teams/nations with depth (i.e. CHINA!)
But the whole purpose of the cup is to be the best team. So if you don't have depth, but just one set of good players, are you actually the best team. But then again, I have no problem with the current format, but I wouldn't oppose the 7 games...
Right, it's a competition of the BEST team of the different disciplines, not a measure of the DEEPEST team. So for those who argued that seeing all 5 contest was rare for finals (or the whole elimination round), then having the lower rank choose the order of play would make it more likely to see 4 or 5 matches.
The drama of competition comes from the uncertainty of the results. If we add more matches to reflect the true depth of nations, we lose the drama. China on that day was less strong then Korea, though if they play ten more times, perhaps China would win all ten. But that is the beauty of sport, no? Now for only having 3 matches for the final or semi final, that is unfortunate but it simply reflects the lack of balance between the teams. We have to accept that, and be grateful when we are blessed with great finals between more or less equal teams.
Another area reform is order of play. Instead of submitting line-up and then deciding on the order of play, BWF should decide on the order of play first and then the teams can submit the line-up. Rules should be known and set beforehand and not be subject to be changed as a result of gamesmanship.
That will be disastrous for countries like Canada, Spain and india etc. Their strong singles players' may play doubles as well which will be difficult if the order of play is fixed. Sent from my SM-G600FY using Tapatalk
Even powerhouse Nations like DEN, CHN play 2 matches. Christinna Pedersen WD and XD, Zhang Nan MD and XD etc.
You can do this if players do not have to play consecutive matches. To be honest, if a team is truly strong and deep, there is no way you are going to manipulate the competition to produce a 5 match final. That is irrespective of whether it is China or Japan or Korea etc. China won in the past because they have a pool of players and also willing to train them up. How come I never see any complaints previously about Indonesia always winning the Thomas Cup nor China the Uber Cup? Five matches are more friendly for TV. Anymore than five and some matches are not going to be seen on TV.
Xia Xuanze and Zhang Jun actually told all their players to do whatever they can, if they win, all credit is due them if they lose, the blame lies with the coaches. So, no, they didn't give them any pressure. Noticed during the match how the CHN coaches talked to the players? Esp obvious during the He Bingjiao - Sung Ji Huyn encounter, smiling, gently, calmly all the time.
Xia Xuanze and Zhang Jun actually told all their players to do whatever they can, if they win, all credit is due them if they lose, the blame lies with the coaches. So, no, they didn't give them any pressure. Noticed during the match how the CHN coaches talked to the players? Esp obvious during the He Bingjiao - Sung Ji Huyn encounter, smiling, gently, calmly all the time.
Agree. If a nation is strong across disciplines and has depth of players, they would have easily won it in 3 matches. A good example was CN team before OG 2012. IMO, they were really strong, they dominated the badminton scene with their players sweeping many tournament titles & team events. Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
While the coaches advice is reassuring, i doubt it will completely settle the players nerves. Players will feel pressurised in such situations especially the tie breaker match. It's inevitable to feel guilt and self blame for the loss. Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
Even Homer sometimes nods. So having three out of five disciplines dominant is not enough, only borderline when any of them turns on a subpar performance which is not such a rarity in team events with its accompanying abnormal pressure and often compounded by an unfavourable order of play. In team event especially, nothing is guaranteed, more so than in individual championships. Anyway, it's purely academic our discussion but I personally still strongly feel there's more merits in best-of-seven format as that would ensure at least four and more likely all five disciplines would be contested for a more representative outcome, as well as minimise the effect of order of play. As you can see, my emphasis is more on having all five disciplines contested as far as possible rather than any country being dominant in as many disciplines as possible.That's all.
