I think it needed excessive testing in real match situations on all levels to really see the implications of such a change. I think it's possible that things could shift a bit too much in favor of the server, but on the other hand, it would be a matter of how well a receiver can adapt and develop better/faster recovery for long serves. Maybe a combination of getting rid of the doubles service line but limiting the serve to be inside the singles side lines to avoid the ultra-deep corner serves? Would be fun to do some testing there. If we were allowed to... darn it, it's now full 5 months since I last hit a shuttle. Unbelievable.
Is this an empirical observation? Or based on data? If latter, how large is database? Universal in which sense - not for all the five (5) draws?
Applying the law related to undue delay and continuous play would result in sufficient reduction in length. So yes, better match management would improve the spectating experience. The rallies are played at very similar speeds throughout the match, be that either at the beginning of match or nearing the match that is 100-120 or more points. This is irrespective of length of rally. Have a look at this data, http://tabsoft.co/2M7QHjj, from a match that is provided as example of stepped approach and continuous play in the umpire training manual (https://bit.ly/UMP2V22). With every delay in action, the slope of rally density decreases. Umpires must be able to identify the delays and must take effective actions to improve the slope. This is possible. However, such data is only from matches that are available online. Coverage from many courts is not available, especially from the outlying (non-challenge) courts and earlier rounds.
Does anyone know the reasoning for that rule originally? Why does it exist? I like to think it's to make the court look pretty with tramlines on all 4 sides
You might like to read this reasoning wa-a-a-ay back from 1901 - https://bit.ly/3dKFyyU, there were waists. And I recall, it was called badmington at some time when it was played in India. Briefly, the fathers (and they were all men then, in charge of propounding the laws), had recognised how the shuttle flies (drops) and the width of court lessens the passing shots that are so typical in lawn tennis, compensating the advantage the receiver (known as striker out in those times) has over the server, that it was necessary to increase length of court to keep the adversaries at the back, the layout of the court affects the duration of rallies. Enjoy the read this chilly and cold evening, it is more enjoyable after understanding the history. Oh, and the substitution of waisted court to their adoption of the rectangular dimensions.
Although not on topic, here it is for historical information. That was then. copied from Spalding's Red Cover Series of Athletic Handbooks (1903), page 60 (of 97)
Offensive player, or offence? The way I look at the setup, there will be 90" interval after each game. Which when playing rubber game (5th) adds to 6' of dead time, which is 2' more than current 3x21 setup before the start of the rubber game. So if I am coach, I already have more recovery time. So I instruct player to play longer all-court rallies. I also coach and condition player to play the first two games as 1 game of 3x21 scoring. It will be something like, you take the first game 11-8 or 11-9, I take the next 11-6 or 11-7. There is sufficient support from the 3x21 matches data when the player who did not have points-advantage going into interval has wom more points post interval. Also, there is enough evidence that the total pre-interval time is shorter, both in total rally time and playing time, than post interval. One big change I foresee is that players' tanking strategy will be less effective to win the next game.
Vote for 5x11 is on Saturday apparently. Is it likely to pass? Badminton Europe say they are in favour.
I’m pretty sure that it will pass. They would not bring it up for another vote if they weren’t sure to have a majority this time.
Is this only meant for tournaments or also for competitions? In The Netherlands on regional levels i don’t see a switch happening to this format.
To my understanding, the goal is to make it a general change of the scoring in all levels and all sorts of matches. If it is decided by the BWF this means that all national federations under it would have to take it over and hence enforce the rule in all tournaments, leagues and competitions run by them. Of course, a privately organised tournament can always decide to play by a different scoring if the organiser decides to do so.
Some additional statistics: https://bwfbadminton.com/news-singl...2Lo98px43WxsxT-XiUJjCgruajKSiXgdeakN_5m7Qi4zU I reall like this one: Meaning that in uneven matches it is significantly less likely that a match ends after only 3 games and thus making it more likely for the weaker player to win at least one game with the 5x11 scoring. That's not really relevant for pro level player but could be nicely rewarding for lower level and recreational players. I wouldn't have thought about this aspect tbh.
Using this scoring, are upsets more likely to happen? Winning two games to twenty-one against a better player somehow feels more difficult than three games to eleven. I don't have anything to base this on, it's just an impression. Points within a game will be more expensive, but games themselves will be cheaper. I don't know what to make of that. Taking a game of a better player will be easier, but it will also have less meaning. All it takes is a few mistakes from the other side or some aggressive gambles that fall the right way and you have the game. To win a game to twentyone, it's not enough to be lucky (or play extremely well) for a few points. You have to keep your game elevated and keep up with your opponent the whole way, even if you 'lucked' into an early lead. Maybe my worries are misplaced and I'd get used to it, but right now I don't like the idea.
The thing is that one big lead in the old scoring can get you to 50% of the whole match. Whereas it's only 33% in the new scoring. On the other hand, it's easier to just let go of a game once you're like 5-6 points behind to save energy for the next game. It will be interesting to see what new mental aspects will come out from this in everyday matches. Difference should be marginal:
In the comments to the BWF Facebook post, someone shared another statistical analysis and simulation mondels done by the Danish "Badminton Statistics" which I also found very interesting to read. They also compare several different possible scorings: https://badmintonbladet.dk/scoring-...ZYdKm4MLjOaFfZQOntEbKPdI3DMlOzxklcqnSj75pbgNg This part is very important: Meaning that the new system only very, very slightly improves the chances for the weaker player to cause an upset and does not mean a real change of powers. The matches won't become a lottery. Of course, this model does not represent the impact of certain player types. The typical slow-starter would clearly have a higher disadvantage. It's the number of rallies per match. Meaning that 75% of all matches are expected to have a maximum of for example 90 rallies with evenly strong players whereas it is 112 rallies with the current scoring.
You know, this really solidifies the 'upset' part, in my perspective. 84% vs 81.8% and 57.74% vs 57.05% is perfectly fine by me and doesn't change all that much. The only thing for me is the endurance part of 'better player' is becoming less important with a shorter game. For me, personally, would be a good thing nowadays. But for the pro's, it's always interesting to see how they handle the full length of a match. (although Antonsen's version of handling it by throwing of the second games in finals lately didn't charm me much)
Yeah, clearly there will be a change in the overall dynamics in the pro level matches. Basically, the players need to accelerate to max speed faster than currently and won't be rewarded for having the best stamina. I'm not sure what will happen with the deliberate throwing of games. I think there is a chance that it even becomes more common to throw let's say the third game after winning the first two, but at least, that phase will be over faster for the viewers.
