We have tried it in training now (doubles only). This scoring is a joke! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the story told by BWF goes like this, they have basically 2 arguments: 1. Matches are too long. 2. There are too few "interesting", "intense" situations, like when it's 18:18... my reply as a player and spectator: 1. The easy matches, that are dominated by one player are rather short already. LCW beats any player ranked 50 or below in 30 minutes. That's not too long, is it? The matches that are really long, are the kind of: WC finals (LD vs. LCW), Olympics final, ... Are these matches long? Yes! Are they too long? No way!!! Such matches can't be too long!! I do see the point that some matches (ladies singles and doubles) are sometimes rather lengthy. 2. Suspense is not something that just appears. It has to develop! Imagine a system with 20 games (best of 39) up to 2 points only. Is that interesting? No!! Following the line of argument, it is not the fact that there is a decisive point, which makes a rally thrilling. It needs some time for suspens to develop. Temperature has to rise slowly and the decisive points have to be meaningful!! Points at 19:19 are so thrilling, because you only have one second chance. If you lose this situation twice, you're out! That's what makes it thrilling! From my experiece (in training), 9:9 in the new system is not half as thrilling as 19:19 in the old one!! Having these situations more often in a best of 5 game is still less thrilling then 19:19...
In a best of 5 match whatever way you switch side, every game, every 2 games, there is still going to be an unfair advantage. We have seen time and again really difficult ends to play from, if you play and win 3-0 you could have the good side twice and bad once whilst your opponent only gets the good side once. That is not fair. Having to win by 2 points in the final set is important and they wanted excitement with this scoring system, that's where it is. Apart from those two things I don't see a problem with it, should be good.
I believe they will change side after each game. It doesn't make sense not to do so, not to mention unfairness.
? I don't get you, they both have a chance to get half way on a good side. whether they achieve that or not is their problem, not a fairness thing with sides.
when you're on the good side with 6-0, say and change side then you may stay on the bad side for the next 15 points with the score of 11-10. other way to do it is change side every 6 points (or whatever decided) irrespect of the score, i.e. 6-0, 5-1 or 3-3 etc
Right ok I get you. I have to say I always saw the one extra point as the off set advantage for the starter on the good side, then the person moving to the good side has to come back, but has the advantage of finishing out. Certainly I hear no complaints with the current way of sharing sides and it has the same disadvantage you mentioned. But the point is, with the new system if they swap just after every game there is an unacceptable unfairness factor.
I have a simple solution. Whoever loses the previous game has the right to decide whether they want to change ends!!! Fair, isn't it!!
LOL, favoring the weaker player is damn ridiculous... It's ok to change after every game. But the key point is another: The whole new system is b***sh***!!!
It isn't unfair ex ante (because there is a coinflip at the beginning). And if one side is THAT worse, you won't lose 3:0, as you win on the good side. If you're not able to win on the better side, there are basically 2 options: 1. The side isn't THAT much better. 2. You're too bad to win on either side. The whole system is so crappy, changing sides is the smallest problem...
I practiced some games under the 5x11 in singles with my partner and find it acceptable. Haven't had a chance to play doubles in it though. I think like all things, it does require getting used to. I know a player who played under the 15 point system and she only occasionally plays currently. She still have trouble adapting under the 21 point system and it feels foreign to her. What are the choices for the coin flip again? Winner picks serve, receive, or sides, and the other chooses what's remaining?
Look the whole principle of changing sides is to give players fair time on either side for equality purposes. Now with the new system it is possible to win a match in 3 games. If they swap after only every game then equality is not achieved for no good reason and that is a problem. I think winning by 2 clear points is good for the final set would be good, but I can not see any other actual problems apart from just random opinion.
I don't see any real issue with switching ends after each game and then halfway through the fifth game if it goes the distance. It's little different to the way things are now except at present we're playing 3 games instead of the proposed 5. Personally I'd rather play 5 shorter ones anyway, especially in singles. There were protests voiced before the switch to the rally points system but it's way better than the original games to 15 when you scored only when you served (that was kinda weird!).
Two major arguments against this system: 1. It makes matches too short! Yes, I totally disagree with BWF. Matches are not to long nowadays. They last between 30 and 60 minutes, with rare exceptions. That's just fine. (as a spectator and as a player...). It's a good mixture between technical skilled players and endurance players. Both get their chances. 2. It makes matches more random! Yes, I totally disagree that weaker players should get higher chances to pick up a game (or 2). In my world, the best player should win. Under the new regime, it's very well possible to win a game against a considerably better opponent (yes, we tried it. yes, it happened!). Noone can really think this is a good thing!
If i'm not able to win one out of three games (one on the better side!), I'm too bad to deserve another chance on the good side. Life is hard... It might even be better than nowadays: I've played matches, where one side was so bad, that always the player on the good side in the second half of game 3 won the match. In these occasions, the disadvantage of being on the bad side at the end of game 5 is diminished by the advantage of having more points at the beginning of the match on the good side and maybe beeing able to close the match. You may turn that as you like, there are always occasions, where one side has an advantage. This is taken care of by the coinflip at the beginning, so that chances are equal ex ante. I think this problem is purely academical, no real life issue.
I agree with you. Under the current 3x21 system, both sides play equal amount of time on each end, whether the end result is 2-0 or 2-1. With the new proposal of best of 5 games, the proportions of time are as follows: 3-0 : 66% - 33% 3-1 : 50% - 50% 3-2 : 50% - 50%
Which makes it even more important to win the coin toss, which will decide who the winner will be right off the bat.
