Interesting. Neither the President, the Deputy President nor the Secretary General is from Asia. And why are they having an online poll from the large fanbase for this 5x11 system? I think they should instead have an online poll on whether Lin Dan should be granted another wild card.
Some details aren't in yet. 1. Will players be playing all 5 games and the winner is the one who won the most games? Or is it a best of 5 games? 2. How are the scores calculated? As per current or will there be tweaks? 5 games of 11 points could be fairly taxing on the stamina, assuming that all 5 games will be played and the winner is the player who won the most games. Best of 5 could mean very short matches with the current points system. At 11 points a game, it's fairly short. But to play all 5, it wouldn't be that short and could be tiring. It would be interesting to see how such a system pans out.
think of it this way... it's like whoever first reaches 11 at the mid game interval in the current system wins a game then whoever first reaches 22 at the end of the game wins another game and so on, until at least 3 half games (under the current system) are won by one side to determine the winner
so really, if you have two sides who are unevenly matched like LCW vs Brice today, then the match will be shorter as LCW only has to win 33 points in total instead of 42 so this system will up the intensity of matches right off the start, and will be less demanding on stamina hey, maybe this is a ploy by bwf to help lin dan and lee chong wei last longer till the olympics 2016 !!
I thought increasing the intensity of the games will also take a toll on the stamina and body. They might be forced to retire earlier instead.
I have to add that in our club, I frequently play best 2 out of 3, up to 11 points, 2 points clear winner for singles. That's only because I'm slow and old and a regular 21 point singles match would just about finish my day. Never have tried 11 points in a doubles match.
They tried games up to 7 points and it was rubbish. Then they found a good system (21). Now they try 3 games up to 11. What's next? 3 games to 12? Then to 13? It's really ridiculous!!
i dont get your point you play the sets until one player has won his third set why would you play 5 sets and look up THEN who has won more? you know it right away when a player won his third --> game over one-sided matches will be pretty quick...evenly matched games will still not be as long as a close 3 game match to 21 points i think... 5 x 11:10 = 105 points played 3x 21:19 = 120 points played... i like the idea of best of five! i think it adds a lot to the arc of suspense of a game! but i dislike that matches would be shorter and i dislike the "No setting" thing..i think it must be 2 points difference to win a set! how can BWF come to the idea to eliminate that??? nothing is more exciting than the last deciding points with room for "comebacks" (matchpoint for player 1 following matchpoint for player 2 and so on...)
I think BWF would have liked 5 x 12 but they like to have the game end on an odd number, they stuck with 11.
I guess it might be just an interpretation issue. To me: Best of 5 games = whoever win 3 games first win the match. As it's not stated, I assumed all 5 games will be played. Reason being, BWF mentioned that they don't want the matches to be too short. Thus it makes sense to play all 5 games and decide the winner. I will prefer to play all 5 games than best of 5. Best of 5 could likely mean that matches will be super short and reduce the entertainment value.
If there is a system that all five games are to be played and that is mandatory, there has to be some extra incentives for the player who has lost three games in a row. Otherwise, why play final two games which are meaningless. Far more likely that it is a system of best of five games. If only they listened to me ten years ago when I was already saying have best of five games.....
If the match duration is indeed shorten, I think they should allow towel down more often (like tennis), especially in humid region (like Indonesia).
I gave this a try with my sparring partner. It's ok I guess. You always need to be focusing well. Can't really afford to lose concentration. I was 8-2 down and managed to come back and win a set 11-10. But it took a lot of work and focus. It's really about who can focus the longest rather then running out of steam. Very tactile and quick. I think it's good for doubles. But singles should remain the way it is. It's not bad, it's just not the best way to go
The shorter game will have the most impact on the slow starters. Slow starters cannot depend on having time to "get in the game".
I don't fully agree with you mater (like "mater" from that cars movie?) I think it's better for slow starters. Sure they lose the first set, but there are 5 sets to play. Losing the first would be like a wake up call.
I was down 8-2 in the opening set against my sparring partner. I managed to win it 11-10. Sure it's half a game, but there is definitely time to settle for slow starters.
