Using the NSS makes the time/duration of matches more predictable . Well said, toddster. I am coaching a few school teams in Melbourne, the under 15, and the under 17. Weekly, we play Inter-school matches, home and away. A match consists of 8 events, some Singles and some Doubles. When we play away, the school bus would take us there and bring us back. The parents of our players are always asking what time they should be picking up their children. The parents of children playing matches of Soccer, Basketball, Volleyball, etc... know exactly what time their children can be picked up. But for Tennis, Table-Tennis, Badminton, etc... they don't. Therefore, some parents (and bus drivers) get frustrated dealing with these matches. However, since the introduction of the NSS for Badminton, we could now predict plus 30 or minus 30 minutes before a match would end. With the OSS, it was like more than plus/minus 1 hour, or even 2. In my previous posts, I mentioned that even Tennis changed their scoring system to Tie Breakers. Before the Tie Breakers, Tennis matches could last more than 8 hours. Btw, many Badminton administrators are volunteers. And they too would like to know roughly how much time it is required of them to be there for volunteering to run a session of matches. I suppose that those who are not involved in organising Badminton events do not know how thankful we are, now that we are using the NSS. And, now more and more parents are allowing their children to play Badminton. .
The poll for this thread is now closed . I just noticed that the poll for this thread is now closed. .
Even pro squash, both men and women, have switched to rally point system. According to extensive trials conducted before the switch, the major difference is that the new rally point system, called PAR in squash, makes the game more exciting for both players and spectators; it also has made the game more mentally demanding on the players. Already amateur and recreational squash is slowly switching over to PAR.
When I speak to my kids regarding the academic results, I tell them that there is always room to improve. They always talk back saying that there are many other students that are doing worse... In badminton, I would agree to changes if they were justified. So far the only known reason for the imposed changes were due to foreign forces needing shorter badminton games to fit their needs - not the needs of the game itself. Comparing to other sports because of the changing of the scoring system, is it a good comparison? I don't know about squash, if they did research the benefits before making the changes then congratulations to the organization. Can we say that badminton did the same? Regarding tennis, how about reducing all matches to 3 games and each game to best of 3 sets? I would love to see this imposed on tennis worldwide... Are we making comparisons like my kids do, usually going for the negative?
I think all racquet/bat sports are now on rally point system-tennis, table tennis, and prof squash plus recreational squash is now arranging to swith over from the old only server can win a point system to rally point system. With this change to the NSS squash may have a good chance of being included in future Olympics, as it is eaiser to have all three racquet sports having rally point system and for spectators to understand and appreciate the game with such a logical scoring system. Because every winning shot counts, rally point system brings out the competitive best from players as there are no quarters given, and no undeserved rest of the OSS. A winning shot must earn a point, which makes sense and is the most competitive rule in sports. To reward a winning shot with merely a right to serve instead of a point is plain silly in competitive sports.
the new scoring pwnz! old scoring would give the flip a free point in singles not to mention it would drag games up to the point of complete death and this is ridiculous when in non major tournaments players would play 4-5 games/day not to mention the new scoring allows ppls like Zhang Ning to win gold against younger players, u think Zhang would have lasted a 3 games match vs Xie? I wouldnt be so sure... unless ppls wanna see all players retired in the mid 20s
This is as it should be because the new scoring system truly reflects what is happening. You win a point for every rally you win, and lose a point for every rally you lose. If one player is lousy, he or she deserves an early exit. Between two equally good players, both technically and tactically and also mentally, then it does go a full 60+ mins. Now, what is more simple, truthful, and elegant than this? Haven't you seen that the NSS has brought the standard, drama, extreme competitiveness of the game to a very high level that was lacking in the OSS? I have played badminton for a long time, under the old 21 point-match system and under the OSS, and now the NSS. I have no hesitation at all to say that the NSS is much, much better, for the sport itself in particular as it has now brought badminton to an extremely high level.
I still like to hear about the research/justification results on the badminton side regarding scoring other than being imposed by forces foreign to badminton. If there is none, then all scenarios are just suppositions. I have not much interest in squash, and badminton is what I am concerned about. If we go back to the previous discussions, I believe you know quite well where I am coming from: 1) in badminton there is no advantage for being the server, 2) no such thing as 'perfect' and unassailable/un-attackable serve 3) what is the logic to dispute the serve back? it would be more logical to the loser of the rally continuing to serve We have gone over and over this points, and I don't think you ever justified them. Can you do it now to convince me that the rally point is logical? There are rules in every sport, and you agree with them when you join. If the rules look silly to you, why you joined in the first place?
You maybe right about the timing issue. Have you ever read an interview by Zhang Ning? 21-rally point system is actually more penalizing in Women singles. We all agree that the rally point should be a shorter game. Currently we see singles matches lasting over 1 hour . Why is so? Any ideas?
For those who may not know, volleyball which was on the old scoring system, called sideout scoring system and was exactly like badminton's OSS, has also changed over to rally scoring system. The reason given was like squash's-to make the game more exciting and to allow more people to understand the game better. These reasons were also given by the BWF, which also added a few advantages ranging from making it more marketable and reducing unnecessary injuries. Those were the ruling/governing bodies' justifications. Now let us review what the NSS has done to the game? Has it made it more exciting? Has it brought badminton to a much higher level than the OSS especially at the highest levels? Is the NSS more mentally demanding on the very top players? Would you want the OSS to be brought back for use in all Super Series Championships? Is the NSS more demanding in areas of player concentration, focus, pressure, and his thought process?
still playing and still very much love the old system. a combination of power, tactic/strategy and individual skill. badminton always, http://badminton-a-hobby.blogspot.com/
The new scoring has all these too plus more-more exciting, better focus and concentration, higher quality of shots as there is no more second chance, spectator-wise, now more entertaining, more suspense and nerve-wrecking, and everyone knows what the score means now.
well, that was close. 5 points between the 2 games. just worked it out from the score sheet, that would be 15-4, 15-1 under the OSS. probably the worst of all olypmic finals.
now you'd mentioned it. ZN is the only double olympic champion that won with the OSS and NSS! wow, beat that!
We are having a 'Generation Gap' in Badminton . taneepak ... I agree with all the factors mentioned in your post. Those factors that you have mentioned are enjoyed by most younger players. Most older players do not. So older players are still playing with the OSS. In Melbourne, younger players' clubs are now using the NSS. The older players' clubs remain using the OSS. It looks like we, playing Badminton, are having a 'Generation Gap'... just like how younger and older people love listening to music. .
I believe in Hong Kong nobody knows how to play the OSS anymore. The switch-over is totally complete, and this bodes well for badminton in Hong Kong. The continuing existence of the OSS in some countries may be a reflection of lack of progress and commitment towards something they don't understand let alone appreciate or embrace.
I agree with you chris@ccc;972100. We are having a Generation Gap in playing badminton. I was a local athlete during year 1980's to 1990's that's why I really like OSS. badminton always, http://badminton-a-hobby.blogspot.com/
You will appreciate that rally point scoring system records a true picture of a game or match which the server-only winning a point system does not. In table tennis, squash, volleyball, and badminton the rally point system uses a scoring system that says everything. For example, in badminton a score line of 21-15 means exactly that-the winner winning 21 points from the 21 rallies he or she won, and the loser winning 15 points from the 15 rallies he or she has won. The same is true with table tennis, volleyball, and squash. In contrast the OSS in say badminton can have a scoreline that bewilders everyone and is damn unfair. For example, under the OSS the total rallies in a game may be 101, with the winner winning 58 rallies, the loser winning 43 rallies, but the resultant scoreline can be 15-0! This is nonsense mathematics.
Really? Just not long ago there was a friend from that part of the world, very active in badminton player (and also coached) for over 40 years was visiting here. According to him most of the people there still play with the 15-point format as they feel the 21-point rally rubbish!! Now figure the discrepancies of the statements ...
