It is so annoying that BWF has decided to push ahead with the 15 x 3 scoring system without actually publishing a detailed analysis of how this will affect badminton. They have conducted tests at the Junior level and some lower level tournaments… so where are the results from the tests? Without providing any data from the tests just points towards bulldozing through this new format without any data to back it. The summary “report” on BWF just is insufficient to make any conclusions.
https://bwfbadminton.com/news-single/2026/04/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-3×15-scoring-system-proposal
As I have argued in an article long ago, there are many things which BWF can do to improve viewership, and all those steps needs to be taken before making such a drastic leap. Is this going to be a repeat of the disaster where badminton went for a 7 x 5 format? Very likely.
I am going to break down the potential pros and cons from moving into this different scoring system. I am categorizing the areas which I will be discussing into 5 major areas:
- Viewer Engagement
- Injuries
- Endurance
- Skills
- Tactics
Viewer Engagement
BWF’s argument is to increase the excitement in matches is perhaps the weakest argument to change the scoring system to 15×3. Viewer engagement is a direct correlation to the quality of the match. Duration of the match is a by product of the quality.
The higher the quality of the match, the closer the scoreline will be, the longer the rallies, the higher the intensity, and the more important tactics and skills become. The biggest barrier to a longer match is fitness, and the fittest players will likely win, even if they are less skillful and less tactically astute.
So, if BWF intends to increase the intensity of the match, increase the length of rallies, improve the tactics and skills on show on court, reducing the scores required to win seems counter intuitive.
When there are less points to play for, and less points to lose, players may not increase the intensity, they may opt for something safer… like not lose any points because there is less chance to recover from losing the lead. Players might then play it safe, to not make any mistakes. Long rallies are fine, because there are going to be less points to play for. Better not to lose unnecessary points than try to win quickly.
That means, players going safe. No more tight sideline smashes, more body smashes directly at the centre. Can’t afford to take risks and lose points by sending it out. Attacking lobs are risky too as these have a higher tendency to go out at the back. Why not just do defensive lobs and wait for the best opportunity to attack and get the point? Why take the risk and gift the opponent a point?
The argument here is that, it is easy to lose when going just 5 points behind. There is less opportunity to turn the game around, so it is best not to make mistakes and play it safe.
With this, we are going to see defensive players winning more matches and tournaments simply because they make less mistakes. And because they do not play at a higher tempo, they are able to compete in back to back tournaments too.
That is the main objective of BWF implementing this change. It is to have more tournaments back to back, as when the games end quicker because there are less points to play for, then players will not get fatigued. So, that opens the door for BWF to hold more tournaments to make more money. At least theorectically. Quality of each tournament be damned. As long as BWF can put more tournaments in, that means more money, and that is all they care about.
Injuries
BWF stating this will help prevent injuries to players is laughable. Since when did player welfare feature big in BWF’s agenda? They now do not allow treatment to players on court, even after the fatal incident in the juniors tournament in Indonesia.
Playing less points on tournament day does not really mean the players will get injured less. The injuries are a result of the intensity of the training the players do before the tournament, and whether they allocated sufficient recovery times for themselves. It is often down to the player’s own training routines and resting times.
It there are more tournaments to be played, then the player has less time to recover. And, that appears to be BWF’s motive here, which is to have more tournaments.
And if BWF’s argument for more intense matches because of the lower scores is correct, then it would mean more injuries for players too. Training to play with such high intensity carries higher injury risks. And then doing it more often in more tournament with less recovery time… well, you get the picture.
Endurance
With less points, the players do not need to stretch their endurance as much. That part is true, especially when players will play it safe in order to not lose. But, if more tournaments are packed into a calendar year, then this argument is irrelevant.
Skills
The shorter the match, the less skills become a factor, and luck becomes a bigger factor. To luck out 21 points is nearly impossible as players need skills to be able to control rallies and win points. It is not possible to wait for mistakes from the opponent to win a match. If they are lucky, they might get 5 points here and there. In a 21 point match, that is a quarter of the game. In a 15 point match, that is a third of the game. That just means luck plays a more important part than skills at this point.
Tactics
There are tactics within a rally, and there are tactics for a 21 point game, followed by tactics for going all the way playing 3 games. In this aspect, it is going to be neutral. Players will need to rethink their entire approach give the change in scores and durations of the match.
We will not know how tactics evolve as players cannot use the approach where they try to outlast the opponent in the rubber game anymore. New match tactics will need to evolve. Will it get more exciting? Only time will tell.
Conclusion
I am against changing the scores to a 15 x 3 format. In a mismatched game using the 21 x 3 format, where one player is much better than the other, we can see matches lasting around 20 minutes. Average game time is 30 – 40 minutes. A match between top players who are evenly match can go around 90 minutes. I am only talking about men’s singles here!
Imagine on finals day, where we have 5 mismatched finals… it will be over in around 2 hours. No much of crowd engagement there.
My argument is as long as the excitement of the sport is high and not waning, don’t change it. Do not try to fix what is not broken. If the 21 x 3 format gets boring because of developments in sports technology, or tactics, or player skills, then by all means, change it. What part of the 21 x 3 format is making the sport so unbearable that it needs to be changed? I do not see it.
That’s it for this entry.
Until the next entry, eat well, get plenty of rest and keep the badminton going!
Related Blog Article:
Streaming Film
Nonton Film gratis
Jasa Backlink
Download Anime Batch
Leave a Reply