1 game of the OSS is equivalent to 2 games of the NSS Hi Cheung, After our 2 games of the NSS played when you were here with us in Melbourne earlier this year, I felt it was like playing 1 game of the OSS. To me, 1 game of the OSS is equivalent to 2 games of the NSS. But, to play 5 games of the OSS, I would have to say... 'I surrender !!!'. Cheers... chris@ccc
Best of 5 NSS games played to 15 points instead of 21 Sorry Cheung, Only much later after my post that I realised that you were talking about playing each game of the NSS, but played to 15 points instead of to 21 points. And a match best of 5 games. Many apologies. We @CCC Badminton will try out your suggestion. Cheers... chris@ccc
pity the prize money doesn't change.... i actually like both systems. both gets tense especially during the deuces
I just like the old system more for singles because the new system kinda of give your opponents points for stuff you mess up on... the old rules at least give you a chance to redeem yourself from your mistakes on your opponents serves but for the new rule you have to be sure every shot counts because your opponent can get points on your serve too... i prefer the new systerm for doubles though it goes by faster...
i realize that the new system is meant as a time saver, and to make badminton more "tv friendly" but lets face it, badminton is not a popular tv sport like others (basketball, hockey, football...golf) and this doesnt change anything...i dont mind it, but i would much rather play to 15 and not be able to lose when you're serving! i also dont like the fact that, yes...you can catch up quickly, but just as quickly your opponent can kill you...i may only be 18 and only have played for around 6 or 7 years, but the old system is much better
We should not be confused with the stability and the stagnation of Badminton Hi b_davey, In any scoring system, what applies to you also applies to your opponent(s). I am thinking that the NSS might/could make Badminton more popular. This is because the OSS had not done so. I have played the NSS for around 36 or 37 years. And I am frustrated that Badminton has not been made as popular as the other sports. Perhaps, the NSS could bring in more newer players to our beloved Badminton. In reality, the NSS is only a trial to popularise Badminton. Whether it will work, only time will tell. I am sure that, in the near future, another new scoring system will be introduced, trying again to make Badminton more popular. And we should not be confused with the stability and the stagnation of Badminton. Cheers... chris@ccc
i realize that i could win on the oppositions serve, which i dont like either...just because he hit a bad shot doesnt mean i should get a point, nor when i hit a bad shot should they. i played with the new system on and off this year in practise and tournaments and still dont see any good coming from it...badminton is a fun sport, people enjoy playing it, not watching it (unless you're a player/coach)...returning to the old scoring system would be a lot better
Personally the new scoring system just works better. It's a nod to tennis where both sides have the opportunity to score at any time. In the old system there's a lot of wasted effort, especially in doubles games, because when you've made a good shot or forced your opponents to a mistake, you're still not credited with a point until the service switches over to your side. My only gripe is remembering who gets to serve after each rally in doubles games. The new system complicates things a bit, and I tend to forget who gets to serve. The old system was a little more foolproof.
I don't think win a rally w/o the serve is a waste in OSS. Even though, you don't earn a point, but you successfully prevent opponent to score. That's why, there are so many great come backs in OSS (as the leading side kept failing to score the winning point when having the serve), but hardly in NSS.
Under the NSS, a good Service stroke is getting its duly respect Greetings, After reading what was said by b_davey, MSHSBadmPlayer, xXazn_romeoXx, Type 100 and LazyBuddy, we should discuss our Badminton relating to the first stroke of a rally, the Service. Under the OSS, the Service stroke was taken not as seriously by many recreational players. Because they don't lose a point from a Service Fault, but only to lose/pass their service to the next player, many recreational players did not focus on learning the skill in serving properly and/or carefully. Effectively, many could not do a good Service stroke, as compared to their other strokes, such as their Smash, Clear, Dropshot, Netplay, etc... Under the OSS, the skill in performing a good Service stroke was dealt with of lesser importance. Under the NSS, a good Service stroke is getting its duly respect. Cheers... chris@ccc
IMHO, I've always felt that a good, short serve in doubles, or a deep serve to the baseline in singles is very important; you cannot score if you cannot serve, right? I feel that a serve in the NSS is still just as important, but the loss of a point for a poor serve is much more punishing for the NSS. However, a serve is still the most important stroke. As written in an article in the BC main page: "The serve is the single most important shot in doubles. A partner who cannot serve short consistently is a loser."
It's a waste when you consider the thought: "That could have counted." Earning points is everything in a doubles game---that's the only way the winners are determined from the losing pair. Even if you "prevent" the other side from scoring, they still have the prerogative to score on the second serve. Ergo you still have to wait for your turn as you can't do anything score-wise until you "earn" back the shuttle.
Usually recreational players do not take the game seriously - not only the service. Most recreational players that I know of does not even care about the rules, they just want to have a good laugh. And I don't understand why in the 15x3 system the service was less important. For what I know, if the server is not able to deliver a good service he/she can't score. If one does not score does not win either. On the contrary, under the 21x3, the receiver can win the game without scoring when serving. Don't know in which system the serve has more importance.
the old system is annoying because you can win more rallies than your opponent but still lose. new system better
its not about who wins more rallies, its about who capitalizes on opportunities they're given...examples: opponents lifts...poor serves, etc. the old system was better, you could maintain your lead easier when playing less than stellar during some parts of the game, the new system allows for a lead to be stretched or limited too easily
The new system allows the more consistent/skilled players to win, whereas the old system matches can drag on so long that it is basically the more physically fit player who wins the new system is better because it shows who is the better player of the match
Yeh but a good player will not just be good at skillful shots, he will have the whole package e.g skill, power, endurance, intelligence, tactics etc It need to be balanced, you can't just be good at one thing.
isn't being fit part of the game? after all, that's still one way of winning. you can't just say who's got the best shot wins. if so, Taufik would be the best. but he isn't cos he's no way near as fit as some others.
