I'm a little bit confused about the olympic qualification... Does Li Yongbo have a power on it? Can he choose other players to go to the olympics? For example, Bao/Lui instead of Jin/Chen. They both have done pretty well this season.
Rio Qualifications - Final Week
- Thread starter hcyong
- Start date
MidCourtMediocrity
Regular Member
Ahh i see, I wasn't aware of this. LCW is biting at CL's no.1 position as well, so anything is possible at this point
I think China should be allowed to send three players/pairs. But BWF should make China earn it based on what they have achieved in the past four or five years.
Spain can send four teams to UEFA Champ League, but Italy only three. And that's based on their clubs performance in the past five seasons. It's called country coefficient.
Spain can send four teams to UEFA Champ League, but Italy only three. And that's based on their clubs performance in the past five seasons. It's called country coefficient.
Last edited:
Yes, CHN has power
Nine Tailed Fox
Regular Member
Agreed and Lin Dan should be number 1 seed based on his performance in Olympics. Similarly,LCW should be number 2 seed.
If WSX is not selected again, I think she should be the poster child for country coefficients.
Nine Tailed Fox
Regular Member
Nope, she would go to Rio. She will be coaching Chen Long. The power of love will overcome the power of Lee Chong Wei. LYB has approved Chen Long's request.
Sorry, for the late edit.
Last edited:
MidCourtMediocrity
Regular Member
Don't agree with this. The Olympic seeding shouldn't be based on events 4 years ago, it should be based on current events and with that being said, CL is no.1
MidCourtMediocrity
Regular Member
That's an annual thing though, and they even play more sets, so you could point out a case that it's different enough to warrant a change in seeding. The olympics are 4 years in between with no difference in rules. How can you possibly base your seeding of something that occurred 4 years ago? A lot of things change in 4 years; players like Axelsen and Momota (although he's not playing anyway) have proven they are capable and deserve a seeding just like any of the older players. I just don't understand the logic of having a seeding based on events so long in the past, whereas the grand slams in tennis are at least spread apart enough to to happen every few months
Another twist in the story http://www.badzine.net/2016/05/shin-baek-cheol-to-stay-home-from-rio/ (see last paragraph).
Team USA announced that Lee/Obanana qualified as the 16th pair, so USA will be sending all 3 pairs. They said there are no eligible Asian or European pairs between them and the 15th pair.
I knew it. CIA has infiltrated Fifa, IOC and now BWF.
the Americans are bent on containing China.
Last edited:
If you notice, the BWF article wording changed too, but clearly the USA was not told - as Australia certainly was - that they could only send two pairs. That said, the lists sent to the MAs are still ambiguous. They show Chew/Subandhi as having a continental spot and not Lee/Obanana, but they don't show Chew/Pongnairat as having a continental spot either, even though that is clearly the only way they could have qualified. Regardless, though, the USA sends 3 doubles pairs and Canada and Brazil send none.
Master
Regular Member
All three USA double pairs mentioned that they qualified to Rio. It isn't mentioning they use continental spot quota.
You can compare that with the invitation document sent to all BWF MA's:
MS: http://system.bwf.website/uploads/2016/05/06/Olympic qualifiers from WR 05-05-16 MS .pdf
WS: http://system.bwf.website/uploads/2016/05/06/Olympic qualifiers from WR 05-05-16 WS.pdf
MD: http://system.bwf.website/uploads/2016/05/06/Olympic qualifiers from WR 05-05-16 MD.pdf
WD: http://system.bwf.website/uploads/2016/05/06/Olympic qualifiers from WR 05-05-16 WD.pdf
XD: http://system.bwf.website/uploads/2016/05/06/Olympic qualifiers from WR 05-05-16 XD.pdf
That document mention the continental status, but it doesn't mean they use the continental quota.
For example, MD No.1 LYD/YYS with continental status: Asia, but everyone here know that Korea doesn't use continental quota to be qualified for Rio.
Some different things found in that documents:
• AUS MD Matthew Chau/Sawan Serasinghe "Oceania - Continental Qualification"
• USA XD Phillip Chew/Jamie Subandhi "Pan Am - Continental Qualification"
• AUS XD Robin Middleton/Leanne Choo "Oceania - Continental Qualification"
I guess the continental qualification is refer to continental quota used for Olympic qualification a.k.a "Allocation of Continental Confederation Places" mentioned at "Part III - Section 5A - Olympics Qualifying Regulations for Rio 2016".
Qualification Pathway:
BWF will allocate quota places with the following allocation priority (initial list before reallocation
process):
1. Allocation of Host Country Places in singles from World Ranking Lists or as notified from the Host
Country before 11 May (see section “Host Country Places”)
2. Allocation of Tripartite Places in singles (see section “Tripartite Commission Invitation Places”)
3. Allocation of Continental Confederation Places (see section “Qualification Places” for Singles and
Doubles”)
4. Allocation of Qualification Places (see section “Qualification Places” for Singles and Doubles”)
Last edited:
Yes, you are correct. And yes, those are the ambiguous lists I'm referring to. When I say 'ambiguous', I mean that if they intended to show all of the Continental Confederation Places with that blue background, then they obviously made a mistake in the MD list because Chew/Pongnairat obviously qualified only because they were the top Pan Am pair. That is the only thing that gives them priority over Issara/Puangpuapech. So if the BWF is showing Continental Confederation Places in blue and with the note 'Continental Qualification', then they should have shown the USA MD pair like that. Since they didn't, we cannot tell from the lists whether, in the case, of Lynn/Obanana, the list-maker made the same formatting error, or whether this USA pair was being treated as having qualified outright. But we do now know that at least one of the USA pairs must have been treated as an outright qualifier. There is no longer any doubt, now that the BWF article text has changed and no longer implies that the USA WD pair had a continental qualification. That and the teamusa article remove all doubt.
Loh
Regular Member
Badminton at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badminton_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Qualification
The above article makes for interesting reading but whether it has covered all the bases has yet to be confirmed, perhaps in July.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badminton_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Qualification
The above article makes for interesting reading but whether it has covered all the bases has yet to be confirmed, perhaps in July.
There is one (small?) justication for USA MD to be shown without blue background. If there are no Continental Places, USA MD still qualified outright as the 16th pair.
vixter
Regular Member
No. Only Wimbledon is known to sometimes seed a player due to past achievements. All other slams strictly follow the rankings.
I considered that, but as I say, the only justification for showing them as qualified is the fact that they can use the continental spot to stay ahead of the Thais. Only if Australia chooses to send a singles player instead will the USA pair get to qualify outright.
Another way in which the lists are messier than before is that in 2012, it was made clear both on the lists and in the articles published on the BWF website which NOCs had to choose among continental places. Nothing like that this year. Presumably, the BWF communicated that to Badminton Australia privately but as for the public, they have to interpret the rules themselves or read Badzine or Badminton Central.