Something fishy Based on Lindsay’s reply. 1. Rule 5.3 applies to all the groups (group of eight), but group-1 (group of six). 2. The allocation of 5/6 teams to sub-groups in group-1 is determined by the way of drawing (random process, transparent), not by some arbitrary decisions (no so random, no so transparent) and it has been used for every SC draw. Does anyone have the draws and results of all the previous SC, at least for group-1? The history of random placement of teams 5/6 will prove that the allocation process for group-1 is transparent. I have the same thought here, Mark. Thailand’s withdraw not just because of the transparent issue. It may be something else too. First, it doesn’t make much difference whether Thailand is in group-a or group-b. (Pardon me all the Thailand fans, if you find this statement offensive. I just want to make a point here. I don’t mean to offend anyone.) If Thailand has much better chance of winning by being in the different sub-group, then it is understandable that they made a protest about it (welcome to debate on this point). Second, why wait until now to withdraw? The draw has been posted weeks ago.
so fan's is correct that rule 5.2 is the only one that applies to group 1, let's look at it again. 5.2 The group of the top six ranked teams shall play in two sub-groups of three. The allocation of teams to sub-groups shall be determined by the Committee of Management. according to this rule, there are no restrictions on how the CoM determines the draw. so it is neither need to be completely random, nor does it need to be completely arbitraty. the method used by the CoM as described by Lindsey is one sound way to select the draw. by assigning the 1st/2nd 3rd/4th 5th/6th(1st from group 2) into different groups achieves a more balanced grouping. a balanced group allows more balanced competition, a benefit to both the competitors and the viewers of the tournament. an completely random draws can potentially group all strong teams into a same group (imagine if china/korea/denmark are in group 1?!) and that will be a disaster from the spectator's point of view. as the regulation does not prescribe it, the CoM have followed the regulation and imho they have chosen a sound method. the contention now is the transparency of the process. it appears to me that Thailand wants to have more peek into the actual selection process. even though the mechanism is sound, there is still a certain level of freedom to hand manipulate the draw. Indonesia is afterall the weaker of the strong group and anybody would prefer to meet them instead of China. another place of contention is that the IBF (and thus the CoM staff) is located in England and England is on the other side of Thailand's draw (England = 5th, Thailand = 6th), so any favorable draw for England will be unfavorable to Thailand, or vice versa. and since they are the weaker two teams, the draw position will ultimately determines who will get kicked back down to group 2. i am not saying that was what happened, that is a just potential reason for contention. but perhaps from Thailand's point of view, they think that is a possibility and thus protested by withdrawing. so if earlier on there were a higher level of transparency of the actual process involved as Lindsey have describe, or may be even go all the way to have the option of having a representative present during the draw process, Thailand won't be as ticked off to have to withdraw from the Cup 5 days before it began. at this point, it may be too late to mend the situation. but perhaps for future reference. further, may be Lindsey can let us know what exactly Thailand was complaining about and if there are anything more than what was reported in the news media.
Some Statistics for SC (1991-2003) As from can be seen in the table, I can learn: 1. Denmark has always been put into Group1B from 1991-2003 with either 2nd or jiont 3/4 place. 2. During 1991-2003, there are only two times that the 5th or 6th team isn't Group1A or Group1B, namely, 1999 and 2003 contest. 3. I notice that this situation didn't occur before the 1999 contest. 4. I also notice that in 1999 and 2003 contest there are 4 Asian teams and 2 European teams in Group1 separately. One question: Why can Denmark be still in Group1B Whether 2nd or jiont 3/4 place it is? - 7 times Another one: If denmark can be still in Group1B, why can't the 6th team be still in Group1B? Anyone can answer my questions?
staring at XuZ's chart some more, i have the following observations: - as Xu has mentioned, for the 6 times in which Denmark's ended up 3/4th, 6 times has Denmark been placed in Group1B. - China has been placed in Group1A many times partly due to the fact that they took the 1st place 4 out of 7 times so their placement is fixed. - for the 4 years (1991, 1995, 1999, 2003) in which an european country and an asian country can be placed in the 5th/6th position, we have equal distribution between asian and european countries in each group. - 2/5 times England was placed in Group1B. - 3/5 times Sweden was placed in Group1B. to me, all the above looks pretty evenly distributed and all look like a random selection for group within the 3/4 and 5/6 placement, except for Denmark's consistent placement in Group1B. to me, it will be highly unlikely that Denmark get choosen randomly into Group1B 6 out of 6 times.
Re: Some Statistics for SC (1991-2003) The answer to my two questions: IMHO, only under this kind of division in Group1 can European confirm they have one team at least which can enter the semifinals. I only want to say to some Eroupean, not whole, that you are too no self-confidence to catch any team champions such as SC and T&UC.
Re: Re: Some Statistics for SC (1991-2003) Thanks for the data, XU. I agree with some of your observation. But in 1991 SWE and DEN, and in 1995 ENG and DEN were placed in different sub-group. The draw didn’t ensure one of them in the semis?
Kwun had good observation on the balance between Europiean and Asia. I try to see if the data fits in the drawing method. I am no probability expert. Please correct me if I am wrong. IMHO, the sample data isn’t big enough to draw a convincing conclusion on whether the ¾ and 5/6 draws are random. I try to come up with some probability number of the 5/6 draw. Correct me if I am wrong. The probability for result of the previous 5/6 draw is about 32.5%. It is a little low, but with limited sample, the number really doesn’t mean much. But it is more unlikely for drawing 5th or 6th team on the same group 4 years in a row. To me, it is like the first 4 years of draws were rule 5.3 compliance. Then for some reason, the Rule 5.3 doesn’t apply anymore. And on top of that with all your observations like why was Denmark always in group-b.
I think if Denmark can be an exception everything can be too. In other words, there is not any regulation at all. The IBF should do anything under the regulation and shouldn't take advantage of the "bug" of the regulation. The fact is that Thaland should be put into G1B instead of G1A. If so, there are same number of Asian (2 separately) and Euopean (1 separately) teams in the G1A and the G1B. It's so good and also accords with Regulation 5.2 and 5.3 for SC. I hope the IBF can modify the draw not for anyone of Asian or European teams but for the repute of itself. You, the IBF, are an international organization, not a small guild everywhere all over the world.
Hold on I as an European with no selfconfidence don't like the way this thread is turning out. I have read several of Xu Zhens posts and IMHO many of them are anti-western. While I can understand an Asian is cheering for his own team and/or region I think it's going too far slandering others countries. Several times XZ have also said that the Europeans have been defeated by Asia. I know it is not to be taken literally but still think it's not the proper word to use. You would think we were in a state of war...
i have the same reaction as Johnny when i read Xu's post. while the statistics shown perhaps shows some discrepency regarding Denmark's positioning in the groups, we don't know for sure what IBF's explanation is. aside from that, the rest of them do looks like a genuine fair draw. and to draw conclusion immaturely and accuse someone would be rather inappropriate. also, the competition is nation vs. nation, and not continent vs. continent. we should not see it that way. and even if it is nation vs. nation, we should behave (including communication via the web) like sportsmen (and sportwomen), and respect each other.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but perhaps there has been some rule changes in previous years that could upset the patterns for each group. Johnny, XZ....I think both of you are correct. we can interpret things both ways. The important thing is that we keep our minds open to different possibilities. Although, there might be some manipulation of the group designation by IBF, if this is really so, they may have done it for the benefit of the game overall. Yes..'defeat' is not really such a good word used in this context. As far as I see it, IBF also has a function to promote the game across the world. Currently, badminton is weaker in western countries. If they can promote the game by slightly altering the groups within the regulations, well, it's still not breaking the rules. If Denmark are the favoured team, that's still OK with me as well. They are the strongest European country in badminton and have a great image. It would be different if they were ranked about 6th or 7th in the world. And again, Thailand may have some other motives. Perhaps some of their players refused to fly to Europe. Perhaps they don't have enough money (Boonsak had a really low ranking before because the association didn't have enough money to send him to tournaments). Perhaps even the IBF are unsure of the reason. Having Sweden being regarded as the top team in Group 2 because they got relegated from group I strikes me as a little strange. Not saying it can't be done but the other group 2 countries might say 'why even bother playing for 2nd place of group 2? Doesn't seem to be any reward for it'. AT LEAST, the other teams of group 2 still have a chance of promotion and trying if they know that occasionally, a team in the group above may drop out.
Re: Hold on 1. I am sorry if I offend you, but I just say the fact (you may look over this thread). 2. Please notice the difference between "some Eroupean" and "whole European". 3.In this thread I don't know where I wrote these words"the Europeans have been defeated by Asia", you can tell me? 4. you wrote "I have read several of Xu Zhens posts and IMHO many of them are anti-western. " My God! Where is here? here is just a Froum for Badminton. Anti-westen!? I can not really understand what you really want to express. 5. you wrote "it's going too far slandering others countries". May I sak you which country I slander in this thread or in this forum? If you have evidence, Please post it, otherwise you are "going too far slandering" me.
Anyone may check my post in this forum, I just speak some facts based on some statistics or regulations. I had written an article on 2002 IBF council in Guangzgou, China, in this one I wrote European were defeated by Asian. But I don't think I'm a anti-western or racialist like sb. say because Eroupean lost majority of council in vote for their favorite 5X9 scoring system in fact. I just speak this fact. Is a man who say the fact a anti-western or racialist? I don't think so. I don't also think my posts in the past are connected with this thread. It's ridiculous that in this thread Johnny talk the other topic without any relation to this topic. I can not just understand.
Xu Zhen, you have started using the term racist which I have been careful not to use. Lets keep our heads cool. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but as Kwun said we should at least respect each other. As for which countries you slander I would say most of the European ones by claming they haven't got the selfconfidence to win SC, TC or UC. It's easy to gloat while you are on top.
Just a question: the word "some" means the word "most"? If so, I am, but if not, I'm not. I don't say the most of the European countries which haven't got the selfconfidence to win SC, TC or UC because the holders of SC, T&UC are no more than 6 cuntries so far in the world and not only most of the European countries but also most of the Asian countries and others are all no-holder. Please look it over again.
All right Xu Zhen. You slander some European countries. But as I see it, it doesn't matter whether it is most of them or just a selected few, it is still annoying. You are right that it is not many who have won any of these tournaments, and therefore most of the Asian countries have failed too, in this respect. But in your original post you only mentioned that the Europeans didn't have a chance, nothing about the same being true for many of the Asian countries.
Johnny, I do not see any valid reason for you making a big fuss over it. Having read thru all Xu Zhen's posting, I do not see anything offensive as it's just discussion over past statistics. Statistics remain statistics. While we acknowledge Denmark as one of the world top 4 badminton powerhouse, it's a matter of fact that they have yet to reach the class of overall world champions. whizkelv
No, I don't slander anybody or any country either in Eroupe or in Asia or in others. I just say the facts based on statiatics (on IBF Website) or regulation (IBF) or etc. in this thread. BTW, I don't think the word criticism (based on the facts) means the word slander (based on "air").
