TOTAL BWF SUDIRMAN Cup 2017 : FINAL (28th May)

Discussion in '2017 Tournaments' started by CLELY, May 27, 2017.

  1. samkool

    samkool Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Occupation:
    too pre-occupied to work
    Location:
    the next world tour tournament
    in practice it's actually a lot less trouble than what it sounds like. instead of having to be better than 1 team on 1 day, you have to be better than the whole group cumulatively.
    that was an embarrassing tournament formatting error. the guy who came up with that is a known idiot. then again it's also bwf's fault for not vetting the format thoroughly... which contained obvious scenario's of tanking.

    this final grouping does not reward tanking because you can't avoid a certain team. you have to play every team in the final group.
     
  2. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    50,939
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    Be honest with yourself, how many 3 - 0 scores do you want to see before you will throw up your arms and cry,' Enough is enough'? 90 % ? And now you call me immature to add to your "trouble dealing with blatant hypocrisy or idiocy" - is crystal clear to everyone that every time somebody disagree with you firmly, you must resort to name-calling to 'win' your argument. Who's being immature here ? Name-calling is never part of logic, it's quarelling, wrangling, plain speaking and contributes nothing constructive to the debate.

    As for your point about the imbalance in TUC having to favour singles over doubles on the need to have uneven matches, the same argument applies the other way, why not three doubles and two singles instead ? I'm sure BWF and the tournament organizers or the originators of the tournaments have their justification why both Thomas and Uber Cups choose to have three singles over two doubles.

    And, oh, btw, instead of the mouthful or 'borderline rigmarole ', roundabout, long-winded - "unsupported by any principle resembling balance with insufficient thought put towards possible consequences" - I'd simply call it, unconvincing, lame, weak, implausible etc.
     
  3. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    50,939
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    Are you suggesting a round-robin format ? Say, I'm thinking from the QFs onwards for the top 8 teams, and perhaps ending with the top two finishers squaring off in the final playoff for gold ? The final playoff is to prevent having the top place finisher losing to the second place finisher in the round-robin and yet awarded the gold medal for most matches and/or points scored.
     
  4. renbo

    renbo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    247
    Location:
    HK
    The organizations involved in those team tournaments believe fans have a preference for singles. It is certainly the case for tennis. Now doubles in badminton enjoy a great deal of support in badminton, and it might be quite close to singles in popularity, but I think it still does not draw the same attention then singles. It is a personal impression though, perhaps based on my own taste. The way I see the order of popularity : MS - MD - WS - XD - WD. The format of Sudirman cup reflect more or less that order.
     
  5. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    50,939
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    My sentiments too, except that I 'd place MS, WS, MD, WD, XD, in that order.
     
  6. nizze

    nizze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    SG
    Agree with @JacKie. IMO, amongst the 5 disciplines, India appears to more dominant in the singles department. They have top MS/WS players who won SS or were medalist at the WC & OG.

    With the exception of jwala gutta/ashwini ponnapa, can't recall any strong Indian pairs in doubles, esp XD







    Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
     
  7. nizze

    nizze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    SG
    IMO, the order of play can affect the outcome of teams events, especially the SC (breadth of players across the 5 disciplines) . Most nations have different strengths in each department (i.e. strong in some weaker in others)

    If the order of plays falls in favour of the nation's strength, it can give them some advantage.

    Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
     
  8. badmuse

    badmuse Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Malaysian Doubles coach Tan Kim Her was hired 1.5 years ago, so it will take time to build strong doubles pairs. India will have strong pairs around 2024-2028. Until then you will see them making improvements. Satwik Rankireddy and some others will be much better in 2020. Any good performance before that will be a bonus! :)
     
  9. nizze

    nizze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    SG
    In my own simple thinking, the SC, TC & UC showcases the different aspects of a nation's strength.

    IMO, SC showcases the breadth of top players a nation has across the disciplines. If a nation can get into at least the semis, it is a general indications that these nations have good players across the disciplines.

    In a similar vein, nations who get into semis (at least) in TC & UC shows they are generally stronger in the mens and/or women discipline with depth of players.

    If we really want an "accurate assessment" of the nation's strength, the closet i can think of using the existing team events framework is for a nation to win both the TC & UC the same time (i.e. same year). However its not "100%" accurate because XD is not excluded but this is the closest we can get.

    Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
     
  10. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Location:
    Germany
    In a team event, I dont care how many 3-0 scores there are - if you lose 3-0, you were much weaker. I don't want artificial fillers added at the end to stretch ties to go one match more, especially not if they skew the balance.
    Regarding TC/UC - there HAS to be an imbalance. I dont really care which way, favoring singles over doubles needs fewer athletes, making it easier on nations with fewer players, and also there appear to be more singles players than doubles pairs for almost any strong nation. In the case of men's singles, it's the most competitive discipline, so favoring singles over doubles in the team event is likely to produce more competitive matches.
    As I said before - there HAS to be an imbalance in order to create an uneven number of matches. It can't be done otherwise, so I have issue with it there. In the case of the Sudirman Cup, the current format is ideal insofar that EVERY discipline is equally important and it still features an uneven number of matches. Adding singles matches artificially emphasises the importance of singles and favors nations that lack a balanced team with decent doubles players.

    Regarding the 'other issue' - I haven't once referred to you, personally, with any word stronger than immature, and even that was a hypothetical. I continue to come up with rational arguments, while you repeat that you don't like 3-0 results and insist that somehow adding singles matches to a -so far- perfectly balanced event would promote a better representation of well-rounded teams, while in fact it emphasizes singles. While a strong MS squad doesn't have to coincide with a strong WS squad (see China :D), there certainly are nations where they seem to be lacking a more than fundamental understanding of doubles, which would suddenly gain a chance of winning matches whilst -theoretically- being utter dogshit in 3 out of 5 disciplines. It does not promote balance. That you, as a viewer, are able to possibly see 5 disciplines instead of 3 to 4, is certainly a benefit, but I'll take an event that favors balanced teams and has a realistic chance of finding the strongest team over one that has a slightly more balanced viewing experience (regarding how many and which disciplines you watch) every single day of the week. I'm interested in seeing the strongest teams compete, and in seeing excellence, not in seeing a certain number of matches where half is not even a competition or where the whole discipline bores me to tears anyway. That last bit is personal preference and has no bearing on my argument, I still want WD featured in the match, even though I, as a viewer, dont want to see it.

    What you seem to want, in my opinion, is closer to an exhibition than a competition geared towards finding the best team. You want to see all 5 disciplines. You are willing to sacrifice balance for that - why not sacrifice the whole 'championship' aspect altogether, and instead make it its own thing, maybe with individual rewards (such as prize money) for won matches to promote competitiveness even after a winning scoreline is achieved, and don't pretend it's about finding the best-balanced team. You can even slap on additional singles matches if you want, or make it best of 9 or something. I'm certain there's going to be people interested in that.


    Side note - my personal preference of disciplines (right now) is MD, XD, MS, WS, WD. Can't watch WD without falling asleep, only care for a few WS players (TTY, RI rn) where I find the style of play very interesting and inspiring, and XD and MS are close. A good LCW/LD matchup is certainly amonst my favorite things to watch, but apart from that, I'll take the tactical finesse and hard attacking play of XD over the rallying and probing of MS. Maybe that might change if I changed back to playing singles, who knows :D
     
  11. jma97

    jma97 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Australia
    personally i find the singles events the most boring.. my order is WD/XD, MD, WS, MS; everyone has preferences so having all 5 disciplines as equal accounts for everyone's interests, even if all disciplines don't get played it doesn't place one discipline (WS/MS) above the other disciplines in terms of importance...

    i think the popularity of each discipline mainly depends on who is playing.. they're all pretty equal imo (except for games with more notable players ofc) WD seems to be the least popular generally but i won't go there lol

    but i don't have a problem with the format that it's played in now; winning in 3 showcases the strength of the team and i don't think the winning team minds only having to play 3 matches if they can get away with it :p:p
     
    badmuse and j4ckie like this.
  12. nizze

    nizze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    SG
    Yeap agree. :)

    It would take time to groom promising players and build up India's doubles team.

    Saw Rankreddy's performance against ZSW/CQC in the SC group match. Quite impressed with his play. Promising youngster.

    Until then, i think India's current strength still lies in the singles department :)



    Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
     
    badmuse likes this.
  13. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Location:
    Germany
    Since you still need to win 3 out of 5, it doesn't matter much, though. If you were better in 3 disciplines, you'd win even after you lost your weaker events, if you aren't stronger in 3 out of 5, who cares if you would've won the remaining matches....not much of a difference, really, and I don't think it makes that much of a difference in terms of recovery/fitness in the next match, unless someone's doing double duty. Then the second match being played or not played makes a big difference, usually (unless both are a slaughter).
     
  14. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    592
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    If a tie ends in 3-0, then most likely four doubles players would have played while only one singles player had.

    I wouldn't call that balanced.
     
    Justin L likes this.
  15. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Location:
    Germany
    Yet the team lost overall because they sucked in 3 out of 5 disciplines. Also, going by player number is ridiculous - one doubles pair performs as one unit. If one player is world class, and the other one's garbage, they'll lose. You can't separate the two. The event isn't about the number of players playing - it's about the national teams facing off in all 5 disciplines. It's as balanced as it gets with 1 match per discipline.
     
  16. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    50,939
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    Are you sure MS with the Super Trio, not to mention a couple others, are more competitive than MD ? I really don't think so as Alan has provided stats showing about 70% of all titles are shared by among the Super Trio.

    As for a team possessing three of the five strongest disciplines should end up the winner ultimately, that's is not necessarily so. In fact in a team event as opposed to an individual championships, other factors are also involved as clearly seen, such as order of play, extra team pressure of the burden of expectations, strategy employed in the lineup, game plans adopted, etc. Didn't CHN just lost to KOR despite having the clear advantage in MS, MD and XD ?

    Needless to say, however strong a particular team may be in any of the disciplines, even in the case of three out of five , if the highly fancied team starts on the wrong note with, say, 0 - 1 or worse, 0 - 2, supposing their one or two weakest disciplines were contested first owing to certain order of play, the second or ,worse still,third match to be played, whoever they may be, would still find themselves facing exceptionally abnormal pressure and may cave in under it. I believe this is well-known and well-documented, team events do have a different 'logic' from individual events.

    What do you think the outcome might likely have been if the CHN vs KOR Final started with the order of play, MD, MS and XD instead of what actually happened owing to KOR having Choi Solgyu doing double duty that resulted in the order of play becoming MD, MS, WS, WD, XD ?

    The rest of your post I'm not going to respond as I'd be forced to repeat my arguments, perhaps using different words, tiresome. Obviously, we have widely differing perceptions and preferences, and that's fine by me. I'd just leave it at that as our debate have only academic value, unless new points/arguments are presented (but somehow I have an intuitive feeling the Sudirman Cup format will undergo some revision in the foreseeable future).
     
  17. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    50,939
    Likes Received:
    3,892
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    Agree, 3 - 0 outcome usually means one singles and two doubles played, not balanced at all when only three out of five disciplines are contested. Right, having at least one more discipline played, if not all five, will be an improvement in giving us a clearer picture of the relative strengths of the teams competing, on the whole.
     
    #477 Justin L, May 30, 2017
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  18. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    592
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    In Thomas/Uber Cups, if a tie ends in 3-0, then two singles players would have played while two doubles had. Now that's balance, fair and reasonable.

    Not so in Sudirman Cup. Not even close.
     
  19. AlanY

    AlanY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    238
    Location:
    England
    i only got one thing to say

    if it ain't broke don't fix it
     
    Cheung, Sundis, CIA-99 and 2 others like this.
  20. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,299
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, I'm pretty sure MS is more competitive - there are a few standout players, but it was the same in MD a few years ago (Cai/Fu and Jung/Lee were rarely troubled by any other pair at their peaks). In MD, we see a sharper drop-off in performance after passing the elite and then the very good, whereas in MS, there is a pretty long list of potential upsets, especially for any MS player outside of the 'elite three' (and even they can lose to a variety of players nowadays if they're not very close to their peak). It's also the discipline with most registrations at tournaments, meaning there's going to be more pressure towards the top, and more players collecting experience in fuller tournament trees whereas other disciplines will often have empty spots in GPG events or SS qualifying rounds.

    Personally, I don't think the order of play should have much of an impact - performing under pressure is part of being an elite player, and all matches are equally important anyway. If you screw up against a much weaker pair, that's on you, not the tournament format. CHN lost against KOR because they underperformed - their XD, which should have won, didn't live up to its potential, and that is entirely on them.

    Concerning the issue of seeing where nations strengths and weakness are in each of the 5 disciplines - that's what the group stages are great for. You can see them matching up against each other whilst playing all 5 disciplines, and every match potentially having impact. I think that with good broadcasting, you could certainly use that to create a storyline and a certain suspense in the knockout stages (i.e. 'CHN did well in the MD, XD and MS in groups, will that be enough to match the strong MD of Korea', 'IND have not won a single MD or XD match, can they do so now against TPE, who had trouble in those derpartments as well', etc)
    Knockout stages are the final part of the competition. It's about who's better, and not who could've won should they have scored an upset win.
    Adding additional matches to a tie would also make it even easier for the bigger powerhouses - other nations who have one or two elite players might be a danger in the current format (CHN might well lose both singles matches against IND, or TPE might win MS and WS against INA), but adding more matches favors those with a deeper pool of talent. That is already true in TC and UC, but wouldn't be beneficial for the competitive spirit of this tournament.
    Just think how table tennis was close to losing its Olympic status because it wasn't competitive enough, with China domination absolutely everything, and how badminton actually had a slight drop in interest in the 2010-2012 Chinese dominance era where they managed to collect all golds at WC and OG......if they manage to win the SC because they have the best player/pair in 4-5 disciplines, kudos, they truly are dominant then and deserve the title, but if you widen the pool to include more and more players, smaller (in terms of badminton) countries will have a harder time competing at all (anyone know a second British XD, for example? I certainly dont).
     
    nizze and jma97 like this.

Share This Page