Asking a daft question but what would the results have been if the new scoring system was applied to the AE games? I know that the players would have played differently according to the score but what if? . ? . ? Without actually counting the scoring. Lin Dan wouldn't have made it into the finals cos LCW raced ahead & then the score's stagnated whilst the players exchanged servers. If players where scoring irrelevant of who served LCW would have reached 21 before LD. Gao Ling & Zhang wouldn't have won the 2nd set in the final. They held Gail & Nathan at matchpoint for about 11 serves (on both sides) which would have pushed the england pair over the 21 mark. These where some of the best games where the player that's behind stages a comeback that couldn't happen under the new scoring system.
totally agree. the same sentiment was echoed by Tony Gunawan during our interview. he too believes that such come back will no longer be possible under the new scoring system.
amen... our only hope is Sally! Maybe she can suggest to IBF that badmintoncentral has the most say haha
Good illustration. I was trying to convey that point too before but i didnt watch any AE matches yet so i couldn't comment of the number of time serves being exchanged. If i can borrow twobeer's terminalogy, the 21 rally point system 'dumbs down' the game. The test of mental strength and strategy employed is lost under the rally point system.
Yes, with rally scoring system you won't need as much mental strength in order to finish the games. Players like Lin Dan who take bad starts but are capable of coming back thanks to their big mental strength will no longer have this advantage... I suppose IBF will argue that this is good as weaker players will get to create upsets more often, but I think it is very sad if the mental strength part is taken out of the game... (this plus stamina plus all the rest... )
AE 2006 had proved that the current point system can create thrills and suspense, imaging how many 'heart attack' the fans had gone through during this AE
7 point system was far better for singles. Lots of breaks for commercials, comebacks are possible. It would be even better if it was 9 piont system. Or 15 point with breaks for commercials. If there were breaks they could also better predict the length of a match.
In my opinion, every host contry should be given a choice whether to use the 15 point score system or the 21 scoring system. It should be the tournament organizer who decides which system should be used. If China prefes the 21 scoring system, go ahead..use it in the China open...if Indonesia prefers the 15 scoring system...go ahead...time will tell which one is preferrable by sponsors and players and spectators....If IBF forces its members to apply the 21 scoring system without listening the aspirations from its members, players, and other stakeholders....I guess. it is only a matter of time..badminton will be "dead". My opinion on the 7 and 21 scoring system is that those two systems will not work in badminton.
Yes one of the best games was the MAS v DEN MD semi. Under new scoring each of the 5 service faults would have been a point to denmark meaning a quick win for denmark rather than a long game with a comeback.
In my opinion, tennis scoring is much like badminton's. There can be lots of back and forth playing during DEUCE and TIE BREAKS. Matches generally take around 2 hours if it's a close one. The finals and the majors, 4 tournaments in the year with the most prize money and points are played with best of 5 sets. These matches usually take at least 3 hours. On a slow courts like clay, last year, one final took 5 hours! Still, tennis has tremendous popularity and is ever increasing on an international level. Compared to such numbers, I don't see why they would try to shorten a badminton match. Clearly that's not why badminton is not recieving the attention and interest desired. In fact, if you ask me, it's the lack of televised events, and multiple clothing and racquet companies which hinder public interest.
The best parts are the comebacks or the stalemates are certain scores. It keeps the game tight and exciting when each team as to squeeze all their effort into one point. 21-Point system I really don't think allows this to happen in terms of excitement.
Exactly, I thought IBF was trying to promote badminton's popularity, not lessen it. I don't see why a badminton match should be shortened. Some can already go as fast as twenty to thirty minutes--not long at all compared to tennis.