Discussion Forum
Hopefully everything will work smoothly for you – however, if there is something wrong, please take a moment to email us (forum@badminton-coach.co.uk) so that we can put it right !
Please do not SPAM this forum – anyone found posting non-badminton related messages or ADVERTISING without permission will be removed without notice and may be banned from using the forum in the future.
Membership of this Badminton Discussion Forum is FREE
To join, just click the Register button just BELOW on the right. Please note however that any strange email addresses (lots of random letters etc) with an obscure user name will be deleted.
Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS 
2:34 pm
February 15, 2011
Offline
I’m very open-minded about this new system and look forward to having the chance to experience it for myself as a spectator and player.
The difficulty may be in the decision which scoring system is adopted in the future. Is the decision being made on behalf of the players or the spectators, especially on TV. For most badminton fans we may be perfectly happy with the current system. So are we changing the system for non badminton fans to attract them to our fabulous sport or is there a bigger objective in respect of the international players and how the game is promoted etc. Shorter games may mean reduced hall costs thus lowering the court hire costs for competitions. This in turn, at grass roots levels may reduce the cost of organising a tournament although most are played over a weekend.
No doubt there is much to debate if and when the decision is made and scoring is changed. Until then, let’s enjoy the testing so we can understand the ramifications better and put doubts to one side.
Paul
10:52 pm
March 2, 2010
Offline I waited to post until I got to experience the system as a spectator. Went to the Belgian Open finals, and … I don’t like it. Games are too short, in tense matches luck is to much in the game (no prolongation, the first who reaches 11 gets the game). Whenever there’s a gap of 4 or more points, it is game over. So what the BWF wanted to achieve, they promote this way (one of BWF’s arguments to change was when a player gets too far behind, he drops the game and settles for the next game). Even Vittinghus agreed with me 
after his win over Zwiebler.
Indeed, some games were over after almost 5′. The fitness of the player is less important towards the end of the match (even a 5-setter), … Sorry BWF, the 21 system is fine, leave it. If a sport changes too often too much, you will achieve the inverse of what you want (I guess, IMHO). Hands off.
Cheers, ED
10:01 pm
February 15, 2011
Offline Ed
Thank you for your view. I’ve not seen a match to assess for myself. I suppose we have to remember this is a trial and I wouldn’t expect BWF to make a decision on the scoring system until opinions are studied.
Playing a game to 11 is just like the half way point in a match and we’ve seen how games can change in the second half sometimes. But best of 5 is only a little short from 3 x 21 points. However, the dynamic can be different. What’s good for the TV audience and TV stations may not be good for the sport.
Time will tell with the final outcome most likely a result of talking to people at the top playing the game (hopefully) rather than the sponsors etc. We will never really know what happens behind closed doors.
Paul
11:26 am
March 10, 2013
Offline Good to hear your first hand report on the new scoring system Ed.
A couple of things I’d like your opinion on:
Did the new system tend to favour the more aggressive, all guns blazing from the start, players.
Given that the crowd pleasing aspect of our game is rallies,the longer the better, was there any marked difference with the new scoring.
Was there more of an impact on either the single or the doubles.
Look forward to your reply.
Roger
10:18 pm
May 6, 2010
Offline I also watched a lot of the games in the Belgium open on but on utube rather than live. I found that there were very few rallys and any game that was starting to develop some tension was quickly dispelled as soon as it reached 11. The fact that it didn’t have any setting at 10 all didn’t help. It was all too predictable with the team getting an early lead generally winning.
Viewing wise I would say that it reduces the tension in a match rather than increases it and gives very little opportunity for players to catch up. There is not enough time in the game for the full story of the see saw effect of badminton competition to develop. Watching the scoring system in action has changed my viewpoint (again!) I agree with Ed 21’s works fine, leave it alone…
11:22 am
December 10, 2011
Offline This National Badminton League is supposed to be promoting the sport in the UK isn’t it? But live streaming blocked in the UK (due to TV rights). Duh!!! Sack the marketing & promotions team and put someone in place with a little common sense.
Anyone know if there are videos available online anywhere? i.e. ones not BLOCKED to UK proxies. What kind of sports promotion is it that hides the content from the majority of fans and players?
WAKE UP NBL!!! Sky TV isn’t the answer. You’d be better off creating a special website channel, even if initially charging a SMALL fee for pay-to-view while getting established. You can skip that given advertising in the form of on-site banners, plus video ads and sponsorship. Can’t organise all this? Ok, give me a call.
2:22 pm
August 28, 2014
Offline Wholly disagree with your point Dee.
Putting the NBL on a “special website channel” would achieve nothing. In such a scenario the only people that would go to the effort to watch it would be badminton enthusiasts like us – particularly so if there was a PPV element to it.
Selling the rights to Sky not only brings in revenue, but also puts the badminton easy to access into thousands of homes that would probably have never made the effort to watch top level badminton before. As you say, one of the key aims of the NBL is to promote badminton in the UK – surely getting it watched by “new” viewers and inspiring people to pick up a racket that otherwise would not have is better than your suggestion of a special website that would likely only be viewed by people like you and I?!
With regards to last nights coverage, I think it was a shame that the Surrey v MK matches were relatively one sided. That said, I think the new scoring made for far more entertaining and exciting coverage. The fact that one-sided games were quicker also helped to keep the flow of the show moving.
The men’s doubles the particular highlight last night – a really thrilling fast paced encounter. A special mention for the mixed as well – good to see the young pair of Ben Lane & Jess Pugh get a go at the likes of Mrs Adcock. That said, was disappointed with the standard of the ladies doubles.
One further point – thought the commentary duo of Nathan Robertson & Ant Clark very good. Made a pleasant change from the often dull and dreary Gill Clark & Morton Frost.
Change happens in every walk of life, and badminton must adapt if it wants to stay popular and continue to grow in the 21st Century.
6:27 pm
February 15, 2011
Offline And here we see both sides of the debate unfolding…
We want to grow our sport, attract more revenue etc however will we see this additional revenue flow into grass roots badminton? Most unlikely as the ivory towers at Badminton England will waste it on creating more administration jobs.
I don’t have Sky TV and all the matches are too far away for me to travel. Will it entice me to sign up with Sky? Not a chance. Seeing players badged as England’s best does not thrill me any more and it used to. That’s sad. I’d be interested in listening to the alternative commentary although I like Clark and Frost. It was funny when watching the Commonwealth Games when they tried so hard to say something positive about English ladies performances. Why not simply admit that overall our standards have plummeted and that’s no disrespect to our current players.
I’d be interested to see the up and coming players such as Jess Pugh who I hear has a thoroughly professional approach, which is uncommon in a player so young.
I hear so many mixed reviews regarding the scoring system. Some say it’s good and others say a game is over too quickly with players “letting” the game go if they are too far behind.
With regard to TV coverage, would it really make a difference if another channel covered badminton? I’m not sure. Are we really trying to entice a new audience or placate an existing audience who could so easily watch better badminton on Youtube?
I’m thrilled that NBL has been formed allowing new sponsors to enter the arena. I also hope this continues and becomes a major part of english badminton. Goodness knows we need to market our players and show some personality in this wonderful game. My only concern is that the standard is not good enough and could result in poor matches or as was the case this week, one-sided matches.
I’m at a loss to know where this is going and hopefully we can bridge the gap at some point between local league badminton and the current crop of players. After all, TV and the venues need the grass roots support for this league to exist. And yet I feel this is a one way street to feed Badminton England rather than badminton throughout England. There is enough bad blood between local leagues and BE that this opportunity should be considered but dare I say it the blinkers are on and I doubt the leagues will gain any benefit and they need it most.
Paul
7:07 pm
February 28, 2014
Offline I watched the NBL last night also.
Most of the matches were pretty one sided and didn’t really showcase much in my opinion.
I think the best match was definitely the mens doubles though, much more even and exciting. In a way it almost seemed like it was over far too soon and I wanted to see more of it but at the same time with crucial points coming in more often it felt a bit more hyped and tense through out the duration.
Not entirely sure what I think overall about the NBL. Maybe as both players and spectators get use to it, it may become more and more appealing. I guess only time will tell.
Owen
11:09 am
December 10, 2011
Offline Jim Moriarty said
Putting the NBL on a “special website channel” would achieve nothing. In such a scenario the only people that would go to the effort to watch it would be badminton enthusiasts like us – particularly so if there was a PPV element to it.
What do you think is achievable via Sky TV? Do you imagine a great many Sky subscribers will tune in to a sport they aren’t involved in? I personally doubt it, apart from very few exceptions. Then there is the laughable scenario that videos of matches are disabled for UK viewers. Can you explain the thinking behind this once the matches are over?
Jim Moriarty said
Selling the rights to Sky not only brings in revenue, but also puts the badminton easy to access into thousands of homes that would probably have never made the effort to watch top level badminton before. As you say, one of the key aims of the NBL is to promote badminton in the UK – surely getting it watched by “new” viewers and inspiring people to pick up a racket that otherwise would not have is better than your suggestion of a special website that would likely only be viewed by people like you and I?!
Access to Sky TV homes is one thing but I think you will find viewing figures will demonstrate that NBL coverage has very low priority for the vast majority of subscribers unless they are already involved in badminton in some way. In my opinion, Sky coverage is unlikely to get anyone new to “pick up a racket”. If anything, it would be via mainstream TV coverage such as the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. Also, I am not convinced that Sky brings in revenue but you may be right on that. I just recall that in the 1990s Sky were PAID to televise badminton by the (then) BA of E.
You are of course correct that a specialised website channel would primarily appeal to badminton enthusiasts but you miss the point that it would be accessible to everyone – something Sky clearly is not, even after events! A website channel freely accessible could easily be promoted via Badminton England and countless other sports pages on the internet, including the now very influential social media (like it or not!) particularly amongst the young. I accept your points but I for one cannot see Sky TV as the answer. And after all, you are speaking as someone who watched the event. The vast majority of badminton players will not have seen anything thanks to Sky TV’s restrictive policy.
Jim Moriarty said
Change happens in every walk of life, and badminton must adapt if it wants to stay popular and continue to grow in the 21st Century.
I agree it needs to adapt, hence the changing scoring system. Whether Sky coverage of the NBL will be of any significant benefit remains to be seen but I doubt it. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the contract terms meant Badminton England received zero revenue in exchange for coverage (‘promotion’). I wonder if the BBC were offered the NBL for transmission on BBC3 or BBC4 whether they would take it up?
Most Users Ever Online: 676
Currently Online:
160 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Matthew Seeley: 391
Peter Warman: 239
Ed: 186
Dobbie98: 165
gingerphil79: 158
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 10
Members: 1529
Moderators: 1
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 8
Topics: 581
Posts: 4716
Newest Members:
ehsianturi, wkt_1, merlyn, Suzena, ManojModerators: Design: 0
Administrators: AngieS: 0, Paul Stewart: 1283
