As for entertainment value, when you consider how long an average tennis match last ( I read that it is 3.5 hrs for men, 2.5 for women), badminton is doing all right ,relatively speaking.
If you lose a best of 5 in 3 matches, the outcome is very representative. You were the weaker team that day, and people will be able to judge your team on the matches played. An additional problem that you didnt consider is that in order to give player contesting several disciplines a good break, they might decide to push those matches backwards and play the singles first. So it is actually quite possible your proposal would in fact achieve the opposite, and instead limit the disciplines displayed to 3, despite a 4-0 or 4-1 scoreline - i.e. first match played is XD with 2 players competing in WD and MD as well, so those two are pushed to the back, and now you have 4 singles matches amongst the first 5 - how f***ing unbalanced would that be? Alternatively, you can push the XD to the back, making it possible to see 4 disciplines unless it goes the full length - just the same as it is now. I maintain that a 3-0 scoreline is not lacking in representative value. Losing 3-0 indicates either a lack of quality in your team, a lack of balance (too strong an emphasis on the 2 disciplines not played), or just that the winning team is stronger in most disciplines, maybe even all. It's a knockout stage, I dont give a flying f*** how the rest of the matches would've gone - I want to see which team is stronger in the 5 disciplines, and if you're better in 3 out of 5, that's it. The minimal benefit that slapping on extra matches might raise the expected number of disciplines played from 4 to 5 just is outweighed by the onslaught of negatives, starting with the imbalance it creates amongst the events and ending with the fact that it might not even achieve the single goal it has, if the other current rules are kept. I might add that I find it less likely that a BO7 goes the full distance than that a BO5 does.
My post was a follow-up to Cheung's and Nizze's just before it. And you obviously missed or rather conveniently ignored my earlier posts where I said the extra MS2 and WS2 are the last two matches, i.e. 6th and 7th after all the first five disciplines have been played out. My emphasis is on seeing all five disciplines contested for a truer representation of relative strength, regardless the score is 5 - 0, 4 - 1, 4 - 2, or 4 - 3. Probability-wise, the chances of a tie going the full distance is quite low, but that's not the main point for as long as all the five disciplines are contested, viz. MS1, WS1, MD, WD, and XD, that's good enough for me. Again, you can't help but pick a fight with me, or anyone you disagree with for that matter, what's all the fff***ing for? What kind of image are you trying to portray here, proudly ? To address the rest of your post, I'd have to go round in circles with you once again. Save it. Enough, I've said my piece, and that's just my personal opinion, we don't have to agree with each other, but I'm only interested in constructive debate, not personal quarrels, no, thank you. I'm sure we can agree to disagree, OK ?
I believe not much more imbalances or uncertainties than best-of-five; on the contrary, I think it's about the same, or even less as we should more often see all five disciplines contested instead of only three or four. All we say here is at best theoretical until we actually implement the scheme, but one thing for sure, we will definitely get to see four matches played at the very least, all five ( a reasonably high probability, say 70% ?) would be ideal to me.
You just cannot compare badminton with tennis. The latter is ultimately popular with world attention, meanwhile badminton is just a small sport and only popular in most Asia nation. Even the prize offer is absolutely different, like a fruit and expensive steak.
How can we not help comparing when tennis is the closest in similarity to badminton? Not to worry,I believe badminton will rise and overtake tennis one day. Right now, the only big advantage tennis has over badminton, to me, is the prize money and all the hype.
Jeeeeeeez you're sensitive. How did I pick a fight, I just pointed out some potential problems. Please explain in what way I 'picked a fight'... So you really just want the singles matches slapped on artificially to see one more match? And you dont care that it skews the balance? You want to see the 5 disciplines more than you want an even-balanced team competition?
how about to play out all 5 events in the final with the title depending on the results. to won by 3-2 you are the Champion, to won by 4-1, you are the Supreme champion, and if you won by 5-0 you are the Undisputed champion. so, in future we can refer to England, the 2019 Undisputed champion, the 2021 and 2023 Supreme champion etc etc i wish
Correct, I'd rather see scores like 4 - 0 (not likely in the knockout stage), 4 - 1 (most likely, I think), 4 - 2 (less likely), 4 - 3 (least likely). On the whole, we'll get to see all five disciplines contested, viz., MS1, WS1, MD, WD, and XD, more often than not.
BWF's facebook page shows strong bias against China by posting 10 posts on Korea's Sudirman Cup victory compared to measly 2 posts when China won it in 2015. Source : www.facebook.com/bwfbadminton.
What's the difference in stakes? More ranking points won and/or greater prize money ? May be that might be an incentive to play all five matches in the best-of-five format, otherwise, once the outcome is known with one side winning three matches, the remaining matches won't be taken seriously as neither side, esp the winner, is likely to go all out, defeating the purpose. Hmm...significantly more ranking points for winning 5 - 0, followed by 4 - 1, then 3 - 2, AND bigger prize money, considerably more to make it attractive. Might be a good idea, workable, hopefully.
Sorry to sidetrack. Was watching the victory ceremony for the SC 2017, saw JJS on the podium. He is part of the coaching team? So happy to see him on TV! Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
So make a different tournament with your own set of rules - but don't call it a championship. Then you can put the teams together in whatever way you wish, as long as you don't pretend you're looking for the best team of all disciplines, but instead want to watch some high level badminton, and be entertained by matches in all 5 disciplines, but have no interest in serious competition. The Sudirman Cup is the Mixed Team World Championship. It endeavours to find the team with the strongest set of competitors across all 5 disciplines. Don't try to make it an unbalanced, worse version of that to satisfy your arbitrary wish for more matches. You can watch them all year long, in so many tournaments, and even better - completely unrestricted by their teams hampering them, so you'll truly see the best of the best. Leave a perfectly balanced team event perfectly balanced, even if it doesn't satisfy your curiosity about how all 5 disciplines compare in every single match. It's supposed to find out who has the strongest overall team, not who has the strongest team with a heavy emphasis on singles.
How to know it's a balanced team when it ended up as 3 - 0 and nobody knows what the outcome of the two unplayed matches might be, thanks partly to the order of play ? How heavy is the emphasis on singles when the two extra singles are added to the back, fixed at 6th and 7th for, say, MS2 and WS2 respectively, just so to decide a winner after all the five or at least four matches comprising the various disciplines are contested , and that only in case when the first four or five matchups fail to produce a clear winner, such as 4 - 0 or 4 - 1 ? Also we know, both the originators/Founders of the (George Alan)Thomas Cup and the (Betty) Uber Cup chose to have three singles and two doubles instead of the way round tells us where the interest largely lies. Fine, I'm entitled to my view while you're entitled to your opinion.
your line of reasoning is 99.999% fan, 0.001% purpose of the tournament. not that there's anything wrong with that... the sudirman cup was designed for the purpose of having a mixed team event. one must be clear on the definition of 'team' for the purpose of this specific tournament. before you advocate for change ask yourself this: is a team defined as the equal representation of each discipline (20% each)? or 28.6% ms (2), 28.6% ws (2) and 14.3% (1) for each of the remaining 3? (57.2% singles, 42.8% doubles) #2 completely marginalizes doubles. history has shown it is possible for a team to have the top 4 out of 5 ms & ws players at the same time. so, for a team strong in singles what is their incentive to take their best doubles players? is this what you'd like to see from a fan's point of view for this 1 specific tournament... great singles players and 2nd or 3rd tier doubles players? i was open to your initial suggestion, however, you have not made a reasonable or compelling case representing your point of view. for the specific purpose of the 'sudirman cup mixed team tournament' your system defines 'team' as 57.2% singles, 42.8% doubles. from a tournament committee/organizers point of view this makes zero sense.