TOTAL BWF SUDIRMAN Cup 2017 : FINAL (28th May)

I think the current 5-match format is good enough. When badminton becomes more popular and widespread, the format can be changed to the good old epic 9-match mortal combat. At the moment, I don't think there is much appetite to include matches.

 

Another possibility is to play the five disciplines and add up all the games won. The overall scores designates the champion.
For ex, if team A and B meet :
XD : A wins 2 to 1
MS : B wins 2 to 0
WS : A wins 2 to 0
MD : A wins 2 to 1
WD : B wins 2 to 1
Overall score : A 7, B 6
Winner : A

As I found out making up this example, the problem is that it is easy to get equal. Then you'd have to go to points scored, a little tiresome.
But the advantage of this system is that you don't count only who wins matches, but also the degree of domination.

 

really? that's your justification? obviously you have to pick one discipline over the other to avoid a draw. that does not mean it should apply to a mixed team tournament where having equal representation of each discipline will never result in a draw. but hey, thank you for pointing out how specific rules are required for a specific tournament, thereby making each tournament a unique and captivating event.

 

Yes, JJS was coaching MD. I guess you did not see the MD game? I know he has also been coaching in the domestic league.

 

Thanks for the sharing jjashik!

Yeap missed most of the SC TV telecast. Only saw a few matches involving other countries.

Is he part of the national coaching team? Read before that he is coaching in samsung club iirc.

He was my favourite doubles player back then.

Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk

 

I got an idea.

first stage: play one game per discipline in all five disciplines.

Second stage: play the second game of the discipline in all five disciplines in the same order of play as first stage.

at this stage, any team winning 3 matches shall be declared winner. The whole tie would stop when a team win 3 matches.

If no winner emerges after the second stage, we go to the third stage.

Third stage: play only the disciplines if the winner of the match had not yet been determined (ie, 1-1 draw).

The beauty of this idea is that players who are doing double duties can still perform well. More importantly, all five disciplines are played!! Both depth and breadth are addressed!!

brilliant idea, isn't it?

 

I reiterate my point , my overriding concern is to address the drawback of not having all five disciplines contested more often than not, so as to give us a truer reflection or more representative outcome of the relative strengths of the competing teams.

As those of you who play international chess knows, in team competitions and the Chess Olympiad, all the matches (called boards in team chess) are played simultaneously, yes, at the same time, not consecutively. Of course, this is not a good idea for badminton as it will be difficult to follow any one match and detracts from our enjoyment of the game. Chess is a slow, long-thinking game where making a move can take as short as a few seconds to several minutes to an hour or more sometimes, so much so we can follow several matches at the same time flitting from board to board. But badminton is such a fast-paced game in comparison, making it impossible to even watch two matches side by side.

Never mind, just a purely academic discussion. As long as a solution can be found to have all five disciplines played out, I'm all for it. In one of my preceding posts I was toying with the idea of awarding ranking points to the teams based on score in an all-matches-played scenario, and, if possible, reward prize money as added incentive to ensure the remaining matches after the outcome is decided are still taken seriously. That's about all. Let's move on.

 

The game as in everything else in life and existence is constantly evolving.

" There is nothing permanent, except change" - Heraclitus

 

You're really thinking out-of-the-box. Not sure what to think of it yet.

In fact, I'm also mulling samkool's idea of a sort of round-robin competition, say for the top 8 teams, with the proviso that the top two finishers have a final play-off; otherwise, it won't be nice if the top finisher actually lost their tie to the second-place finisher.

 

If that's really the case, then better leave well alone, but I'm not so sure.

l even believe that badminton will outstrip tennis in popularity and status in the foreseeable future as Asia is set to far outgrow the Western world economically, possibly within the next 10 years to become the world's new economic center of gravity, esp with China's One Belt,One Road or Belt and Road Initiative taking off.

 

One big problem with badminton is the number of line judges involved. There are a total of 10 line judges for a full set up. In contrast, only 4 are needed for volleyball. Another is the arbitrariness of the service faults. There needs some technological breakthrough for line calls and at least fixed height for service in rule changes to make staging badminton matches easier.

 

Couldn't agree with you more, esp the service fault rule - serving above the waist - is too subjective and somewhat arbitrary. For linejudging, I'm looking forward to Hawk-Eye becoming much more affordable as its technology progresses and its use become ubiquitous one day, the sooner the better.

 

Problem with the fixed serving height - ot wouldnt be controllable at all in amateur/national competition, and thus more of a problem than the relative height. It could also put very tall players at a disadvantage (the Danes made a joking video about it where they kneel down to illustrate that point).

I'm all for a better service rule that's measurable with a system similar to hawk-eye - I'm just not sure whether this is it. 1,1m service height would be uncomfortably low for me, roughly 10cm lower than my (conservative) serving height now.

Edit: an option to make the height somewhat controllable would be to add a line at that height on the nets. It would be an amatuer thing (the net isnt perfectly straight), but it would offer some frame of reference at least.
Still, from a non-international-pro perspective - both rules are equally good or bad in the sense that they cant be controlled adequately.

 

I think a relatively simple way to resolve the service height problem would be to impose a red (or other color) line on each player's t-shirt, showing what is the legal height for him (her). Control would be quite easy and objective for the service judge.

 

I'd much prefer a technological solution, not a one-size-fits-all or any crude makeshift device that's only a slight improvement, but at the moment that is likely to be costly if there's nothing similar available in the market. Wonder what BWF is looking into or searching for, that 'device or gadget' which BWF has given some MAs to try out recently, still no news about it.

 

Enforcing fixed service height is easy. Just making it the bottom of the net or adding a white tape marking on the net at the appropriate height. That would be sufficient for amateur games. For tournament play, some sort the optical device can be easily implemented to trigger an undisputed automatic fault call.

For the line calls, let see if the Hawkeye system can make an instant call. Reducing the accuracy for that is okay. Players can still challenge the call for a human review. But I still think a cheaper solution is needed.

 

Yes, in theory I agree. Problem is - you want to make the sport feasible for small clubs as well, and I know that even equipment such as nets can already stress a smaller club's finances. Even we, as the biggest one in the area, probably wouldnt be able to afford an automatic system, seeing how you need 4 courts for competition matches here, and a system like that would be very likely to cost a hefty sum.
And while it's only correct that rules are geared towards making the professional sport better, they have ro remain usable for amateurs as well, or else the base will disappear, since the huge majority of people involved are in fact not professionals, or even near it.
The line at the net is a somewhat crude, but affordable solution, but I'd hate a 1,1m serving height. From my experience, the current ruleset is sufficient, but could be enforced much better at the professional level (better service judges, with better training and selection). Problem with that is cost, as the BWF probably dont want to invest all that much into officials (although they should, imop, as quite a few matches have already suffered from hideously incompetent umpires and service judges).

 

Yeah, it doesnt have to be perfect, but players like Yoo YS and Gideon Fernaldi are (were) basically throwing the shuttle over the net with their left, yet still get faulted very rarely....that just cant be happening at such a level.