I prefer the older system myslef, higher chance of come backs. I have had a few where i looked to have lost the game but come back to win, you take away the chance of these with the new system. Although it is not not impossible it is much harder. On the plus side, however, games are shorter so players are able to play well at the end of the game, because they are not as tired, cutting out tired mistakes.
Jens Eriksen and Martin Lundgaard beat some Armenian pair in the Thomas cup qualifiers 21-1 21-0, and also Gail Emms and Donna Kellogg beat a Seychelles pair 21-1 21-1 last week. The new system skews the scoreline slightly in that you no longer have to win 2 rallies in a row to score a point, so you have much more chance of winning points. I think that the new score system actually gives a more accurate reflection of the match as everything is recorded and everything counts.
Depending on the player tactics will change , it will for me and many others. The new system favours the player with less stamina? How can this be a good thing? So players who are unfit will benefit?
I didn't say it is a good thing. I only said it is the major difference between the two systems. It's not exactly that it favours players with less stamina. More like, a player with less stamina would like the new system rather than the old because games will tend to be shorter. There is no disadvantage to the player with more stamina. Stamina still plays a vital role, but not as big as previously.
Yeah, I mentioned somewhere else before that theorectically, you could win 33% of the rallies, but still get a duck. Yes, 15-0 even if you win a third of the time. How? Win once, lose twice, win once, lose twice, and keep going... Under the new system, the scoreline would have been the more respectable 21-10.
Actually, you can win almost half the rallies and still get a duck under the old system. Win once, lose once, win once, lose once, ... win once, lose twice, ... and you still get 15-0. Under the new system, you will lose by 21-18 or 21-19, you may even win by 30-29, if you keep winning once and losing once (as long as you win the last point).
I know you didn't say it was a good thing........It was more a question that was not directed at you . More of a statement than a question, like: how can this be good? Yes, players who are more 'unfit' will most probably prefer this new system.
the new scoring system is excited to watch when both of the player are trailing almost the same point such as 19/17 etc.. But, they is no way or very hard for a player to come back when they are trailing behind eg. 11/19, because a single mistake will add a mark to the leading oponent. So, the leading player is for sure will win.
If switching to 21pts is for better time control ... If switching to 21pts is for better time control, why IBF never thought of make it a Time System (like soccer/basketball) instead of Point System. My suggestion would be: Let's use 30min for game and whoever take the lead by the end of that 30min would be the winner. OR 30min or 15point x 3 games, whichever end fist How does that sounds?
Maybe.......but the fact there is no time restriction makes badminton a good game. Could you imagine losing and on a comeback and the clock has 15secs left? I would hate that.
that is "forcing" either sides not to lay back, they have to fight for staying in the leading mode all the time ... guess that would increase the excitement of the game too. of course, some ground rule has to be set, eg. the 30min has to be the actual play time, any time that wasted for short breaks or arguement of bad calls etc. should not be counted.
I think adding a time deadline would rush players into makign more mistakes.... If there ARE people in favour of different types of systems, why cant the tournaments decide what type of system is used in each one? Say All England could use 15 X 3 , Comm. Games 21 X 3 rally point and Thomas Cup some other system..... In the end, the top five world players would have to be proficient in ALL these systems, and it would test all the top players' tactics in every match and/or tournament they play... dunno...just a suggestion. but to be honest, Id just opt for the old 15 points system..... I just came up with this idea cause everyone seems to favour diff. systems!!
Then you get extra time. If you use the golden shuttle rule, then the first scorer wins. If not, and if it is a tie again after the end of extra time, it will be a shuttlecock shootout. You place a basket at the far end of one court and players stand at the other far end, and each get five shots in enter the basket. If still tie, then sudden-death shootout will decide the match.
Shuttlecock shootout???!!!!! Are you joking? Are you cereal about this? This is turning crazy... that's more like basketball! No way, that just sounds horrible! This is badminton, not anything else.
What's wrong with the shuttlecock shootout? I was class champion for 3 years straight. I have medals to show for it.
I hope this 30 minutes time thingy is a joke... You can't be serious really.. I stick to this: "Why change a sport that is already the best in the world?" I love watching badminton on tele.. But I wouldn't change the game to get more broadcastingtime. The sport is made for the people who want to play it not for some 'stupid viewers' that don't understand the scoring-system. (New scoring system would make it easier for the noob to follow) And, this is said before, people who like tennis don't mind spending 3,5 hours watching an exciting match. Same thing for us badmintonfans, why do we want to reduce the gameplay (just for broadcasting) If badminton isn't spectaculair enough (now), so be it.. I really see us badmintonplayers as victims now...and I hate that!
If you checked back my original post, i was saying "IF Switching to 21 point system is for a better time control ..." Personally, i still support the 15 pt x 3 games system, but i was just throwing out an idea based on where IBF is coming from. Of course, if switching to 21 pt is not due to time concern, i see no reason why the 15 x 3 system should be changed. But again, if time is IBF concern, then why don't they simply use a TIME restriction system?
I agree, none of these changes will automatically make badminton..................more popular? How matches are presented and 'hyped' would make more difference. Time limiting rackets sports is not the answer..........tennis, squash aren't limited by time. I don't know if I am biased, but Badminton is far more exiting than tennis and squash to watch already.
