similarities with the 3x15 Not that i give it a lot of thought, but i was watching the Hafiz vs Chen Jin match and watching how close it was at some points and i wondered - why is it staying close? and then it occured to me.. if you don't score with your serve you don't actually make any improvement in score. and i thought - it's just like 3x15, but accelerated somewhat. you need to win the serve back then win a point to actually get anywhere. i think if the IBF increased the score to 25 or 31 and had ad breaks at 8 and 16 or 10 and 21 (depending on whether it was to 25 or 31) we could have a TV friendly system that had similar length games to 3x15. comments anybody? (apart from - if it ain't broke don't fix it...) Coops
rally21 *is* broke. they *must* fix it! What they could try is make it rally35, and force a win by 2 regardless of how long it takes, i.e., no artificial stops at 30-29. The increased length gives more time for a good fightback, and the win by 2 means you won't lose on a service fault.
yeah, but they stopped endless tiebreaks in tennis because they were dangerous to the health of the players, and boring. mebbe you could just have an endless tiebreak in the third game... that would work.. i personally think rally25 is plenty, with a tiebreak of some sort up to 35 say in the first two games then endless in the deciding game.. sounds good to me.. can we send this to Punch for next years trial scoring system
Actually, the tie-break in tennis can theoretically go on forever if neither side can gain a mini-break or capitalise on one (i.e., got broken immediately). Regarding a longer rally scoring system, IIRC, Poul-Erik Hoyer-Larsen also said that he'd prefer playing 5x21 rather than 3x21.
aaah, yes... i'm thinking about final sets in tennis - where they don't bother with the tie break and insist that you win the set by two straight games, but thinking about it they have endless deuces don't they - altho i suppose the games only have 4 points don't they so this is reasonable. sheesh 5x21.. sounds like a bit of a marathon to me.. mebbe you could do what snooker do - have 3x21 in the opening rounds then 5x21 in the semi's and finals.. but 5x21 all the way thru.. especially when we've seen even the shortest game in a pro tournament last almost half an hour for 2 games to 21 could result in a lot of long matches.. to the point where tournaments could be very very long.. 3x25 seems like a good figure to me.. Coops
Well.. It's of course interesting to discuss optional scoring systems.. But still... We need to discuss the OBJECTIVE first.. and then the MEANS.. Also we need to agree on the OBJECTIVE.. For example... If the OBJECTIVE is shorter games, then 3x31 may not be good.... But then again.. do we WANT shorter games??? Will that make Badminton more popular? Or less popular? Will badminton be shown more if there is less playing per game?? If the OBJECTIVE is to have AD-breaks, then These breaks more or less can be put into ANY scoring system, right..just say ad-breaks at 8 in mormal 3x15 or every 5,10 or whatever.. If the objective is to Give the receiver an extra advantage then Rally Scoring should be considered... Ins't it a good idea that becuase serving in bedminton is defensive, the "carrot" is to be able to get points while having the dissadvantage... As someone mentioned 5x9 (non rally scoring) seems to me more appropriate if we want to have more "fixed" breaks and still not make the game as short as 5x7 was.. But sorry... I'll have to finish off with... "if it ain't broken don't fix it" , but if it indeed is broken.. let us first establish WHAT is broken in 3x15 before trying to provide a solution.. /Twobeer
I hate the new scoring system. Didn't even bothered to watch a game to the end. When I go to see a game, I want to see good stuff, great play, great comebacks, players sweating it out till they drop. I don't want to get my money ripped off by watching a 20 minute 3 games match. So IBF, please change the bloody scoring, because I won't be watching badminton anymore, and you won't get any money from me.
My club has 10 courts in total. I will propose to the manager to reserve 8 courts for 15-points system and 2 courts for 21-points system. This gives every player a choice, the player who won a game can stick with the same system and the one who lost has a choice to switch to alternative system if he/she wants. This flexibility keeps everyone happy
unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.
Yes, in the end money talks. How nice if all of us were as rich as Bill Gates, we can then go and tell the IBF to forget about the new scoring system, and we will help you to do this by pledging $10 billion from each of us, total 11,000 forum members, for the next 20 years. Problem solved. We tend to forget someone has to bring in the money. Now if TV broadcasters of badminton matches were to charge $1 for watching each match and another $2 for vidoe-taping each game on TV, you can keep the old scoring system. But let us be honest. How many of you would pay?
I still do not support the new system, but after testing it some more, I did find a good side to it. There will practically be no more 15-0 scores that are quite possible between two unequal opponents according to 3×15 rules. This could be discouraging, maybe even dismoralizing, for youngsters and beginners. With the new system, everybody will score at least some points in every game. This might help keep some more youngsters in the sport.
Also, newcomers would not understand why, under the old system, they still get thrashed 15-0 when they swear they have won at least 12 of the rally points.
My point exactly. If I don't want to see a game in real life, why would I want to see it on TV if it's even less exciting?
If they don't understand, then it should be patiently explained to them that it is because they are not good enough. (What, do they think badminton is such a sissy sport that any Tom, ****, and Harry can get a point off of a World Champion?) I am not a good singles player, and I usually get thrashed at 6-15 or 7-15. With rally21, I find that I am not only competitive, but I even win games against people who are clearly better than I am. The reason seems to be simple. All you need to do is hang tough early on, get a 2 or 3 point lead (counting score the old way), and sit on it. That's it. That's enough to win you a game. This is not the badminton I know. And the number of games that are decided on the other guy's serve -- sheesh.
That is shortsighted for more reasons than already listed. In almost every successful sport, be it the MLB, the NBA, the NFL, you name it, gate receipts form the largest portion of the total income. TV deals contribute a lot, but they don't pay the salaries of a Manny Ramirez or a Phony Damon (yes, I am bitter! )
interestingly there are few differences between the two systems for singles, you still need to win your serve and the next rally to actually gain any points on your opponent, in the same way you did with serve scoring.. the only downfall of this new system is the number of points, i think it needs to be more, make it 25 with ad breaks at 8 and 16... this should be perfect.. you could even make the deuce at the end of the deciding game endless to allow for some marathon finishes.. with breaks every 12 rally's... (not sure how you'd communicate this to players tho...) Coops
Er, no. Rally point scoring means that all rallies move the score along, regardless of who is serving or whether it is singles or doubles. The serve changes hands if the non-server wins the rally as well. The fundamental problem with the IBF trial system is just that - rally point scoring. The matches are too short and the play is more defensive (and therefore of even less interest to the TV people). Why do they not just allow breaks for televised matches to the current scoring format? Hey presto! everyone is happy.
Don't hate. The Yankees offered Johnny Damon $12 Million more than the BoSox would offer him. If I or any other person in their right mind were in that position, we'd do it too and you should too. You may talk about going over to the "enemy", but for Damon it's just a business, his livelihood. If the BoSox were competitive with their offer, maybe Damon would have reconsidered; but a $12 million difference? There's nothing much to consider. And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Live in Framingham for 2.5 years pursuing my MBA in Boston. Gooo Pats!
not sure if you missed the point here. think about it this way. it's 5-all.. your opponent is serving.. you win the rally, now it's 5-6 and your serve.. if you don't win the next rally too you end up back at 6-6. the equivalent in the old system would result in the score being 5-5 instead of 6-6.. yes 21 points isn't really enough and i'd like to see it made to 25 or maybe even 31, but it's a fine balance between entire tournaments being lengthened by whitewash matches that take too long and games being too short to be interesting i see two options if we keep with rally scoring.. (which i would guess the IBF will do since it makes ad break opportunities marginally more predictable without having to resort to timeslip technology (which btw i think is a much simpler less upsetting solution)) 1 - increase the score to 25 / 31 and have deuce points up to 35 / 40 2 - stick with 21 but have an endless tiebreak on the deciding set.. Coops
