Change of rules may help save badminton

[Loafer]

I am a little confused by the piece taken from the China Daily, commenting on their dominance being the downfall of badminton.

as I read it, the piece has two very distinct threads; one that the game only appeals to asian nations and a few locations in europe, the reason being that the asian nations have a huge dominance in the sport. The second being the only way of saving the game is to change the rules, as was suggested a couple of months ago.

Well I, for one, see no correlation between these two issues unless, of course, the predicted rules changes include the asian players having to use their nonplaying hand!

the rule changes were positioned to make the game faster and more television freindly. The only changes possible, without making it a new sport, are confined to the format of the game (scoring regardless of serve, changing court size, layout etc).

The advantages the asian countries have are nothing to do with the rules and i simply do not understand how the conclusion that changing the rules might end this dominance can be made.

Admittedly, arguing that making the sport more tv friendly "might" improve audiences and therefore "might" increase coverage and therefore the sponsorship activity "might" increase and therefore it "might" become a higher priority on existing countries that compete investment agenda and therefore "might" improve money being spent on facilities and training etc and therefore "might" improve the standards of that countries players thus ending the dominance of the asian nations........all seems a little bit like clutching at straws. If a hummingbird flaps its wings...............

Also, there must be SOME interest elsewhere around the world, the anaheim location must suggest SOME interest in the USA, I know it is being used as a tool to INCREASE visibility but surely there must be some already there to make it viable to hold a competition there.

The USA market is more likely to be the key to badmintons future than rule changes, but i guess you are never going to see that written in a chinese newspaper. Also i really dont think even the yanks would have difficulty in keeping up with the rules of badminton and bearing in mind the interminable amount of time it takes to play a game of baseball, I am sure a hour or so to play a match of badminton should be bearable. Maybe the only thing stopping the USA taking up the sport as a major deal over there is the lack of technology allowing you to get a different sponsor on each feather of the shuttlecock.

Loafer

[PeteG]

Loafer, I must admit I can't agree with you more in terms of what you said about the rule changes and the so said correlation between improving viewing figures, it does seem to be verging on the lunatic fringe. Its the equivalent of saying that if we change the steeplechase event at the Olympics so that the Kenyans don't win it every time (maybe this has changed, admittedly its a long time since I checked up) we'll get better viewing figures and more sponsorship.

Hold the phone a second, if you want to make the steeplechase more exciting, why not make it a different distance..say for example 110 metres...and how about putting the steeples closer together so that there's more of them in that space...hang on..lets call the steeples hurdles!!!! Now its slightly more popular!!

They weren't far off doing the same in badminton, how about an overhead serve....yeah now lets follow it up with balls instead of shuttles and a lower net!!

Anyway, first of all, we all know the kid who owned the ball in school. You know the one..mr its my ball and I'm not playing. Sore loser, spoilt brat!!! If other nations don't want China to win all the time we need to prioritise the sport the same way that they do (although admittedly that is out of the BAofE's hands, so not quite as simple as that). On another level, yes there are only a few Europeans who do compete. Quite a few Danish and the odd British pairing...but we do compete. We now have a mixed pair that are doing some damage, admittedly we need a follow up to them to maintain this and there are question marks, but it isn't totally one sided and this is in an event that was dominated for about 13 months by one pair!!! And not from China!! Although yes I do admit that some events are becoming particularly dominated with only some resistance.

The problem is surely marketing though, changing the game isn't going to be of any more use if people still don't turn it on or turn up to it, it will take a long time to get rid of the stigma that is attached in the sense of viewing figures and the people in charge should no full well that there is no quick fix solution. No simple switch of the rules and we're up and running!!

Moving on to Loafer's point about America: Look at football and you'll understand why it doesn't work in America:

The chance that there may be a draw, taking the excitement out of the game.
The chance that no-one may score at all.
Its possible that no-one may go forward and attack for quite some time. The ball can spend inordinate amounts of time in midfield.
Football already exists there anyway (yes the rest of us call it American Football, but it would be like trying to sell Coca-Cola with a K and hope that it stood a chance of beating an established brand).

Now look at badminton:

Its one of the fastest sports around.
There's a lot of frequent dynamic movement, running jumping and even diving, as in most American sports, however there is no physical contact which would be a downside.
There is a lot of big hitting and power especially in the doubles events.

There is a possible downside, in that there aren't enough breaks for adverts, although maybe they could call a towel down break a 20 second time out and have an advert break without disrupting the game too much?
It would also have to be careful not to compete with tennis, but its speed has the potential to make it even better.
There would be a need for statisticians (if anyone has watched American sport they will know how many stats the commentators refer to per match, plus they always manage to sound knowledgeable and sufficiently interesting) and possibly change a few of the shots so that the words have a bit more buzz about them, exhibit A: being the "tomahawk jam" in basketball which has a bit more va va voom to it than "the dunk!"

All I can say is that surely it has potential, opening the doors would no doubt be tricky, but imagine if during the world championships a campaign was set up properly to market badminton over there it has potential to work?

[Loafer]

I am quite suprised it took so long to get a response. thanks PeteG, thought i was on my own in this forum.

[PeteG]

Yeah I know what you mean there Loafer, think its possibly because its not in the main discussion thread, but I personally thought that the change of rules were pure lunacy, just simply because they seemed to detract from the sport itself. The point we're both making seems to be that its simply making the sport marketable not turning it into a different sport that may hopefully be marketable. What do you reckon to it being embraced in America anyway?

[redkingjoe]

I am quite suprised it took so long to get a response. thanks PeteG, thought i was on my own in this forum.

hohoho
Loafer,
PeterG's response is so good that it's even better than getting responses from 10 others...it's qualities that's matter. ;)

[Loafer]

Pete,


I still think that it will go down well in america. it is fast, not to difficult to understand etc. Also, the choice of anaheim as a venue for a big compoetition would not have been made simply as a "suck it and see" trial, there must be a market for it to be held there.

Larry