Badminton shambles

[DJ Leon]

Maybe. But I think there is a fairly clear difference between easing down to conserve energy, and actively trying to lose.

Is there? Assuming that easing down costs you 1st position? That sounds like deliberately losing to me.

 

[Mtoto]

I totally don't buy that. If you enter the Olympic you abide by the oath, end of story. There isn't much integrity left in sport and the Olympics is the biggest competition in the world, so if they allow the deliberate losing to go unpunished then the oath becomes meaningless and the Olympic "ideal" (which, I believe, still garners respect and support) is forever tarnished.

But why switch to a round-robin, and such a shambolic one at that? If it was straight knockout from the start, there were be no chance at all of anyone putting in anything other than their best. And at least if they kept the draw back until afterwards, while they might not be trying too hard in the dead rubbers, they would not be actively trying to lose.

The best answer I can see for the switch to a round-robin is money. A round robin means more matches, so you can sell more tickets. And if the switch was indeed made for commercial, rather than sporting, reasons, are the organisers not just as guilty - indeed, arguably more so - of defiling that precious Olympic oath?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Is there? Assuming that easing down costs you 1st position? That sounds like deliberately losing to me.

Yes, I think so.

The badminton players could easily have eased down and saved some energy, but deliberately serving into the net is rather OTT. A better comparison is with football teams fielding 'B' teams once qualified, which definitely affects the results of tournaments

 

[Everest]

Is there? Assuming that easing down costs you 1st position? That sounds like deliberately losing to me.

But you won't know who you'll be racing against anyway, or what lane you'll be in.

 

[Simster]

The best answer I can see for the switch to a round-robin is money. A round robin means more matches, so you can sell more tickets. And if the switch was indeed made for commercial, rather than sporting, reasons, are the organisers not just as guilty - indeed, arguably more so - of defiling that precious Olympic oath?

Officially, it was to generate more matches to show case the sport to a bigger audience. I don't think that's so unreasonable, and the problem would never have existed if they followed your suggestion and simply withheld the post group knockout draw until the groups were finished.

But group stages in any tournament are always a risk in any case - there is always the chance of playing a dead rubber in the final round, or worse, one that is dead to one team and not another.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The best answer I can see for the switch to a round-robin is money. A round robin means more matches, so you can sell more tickets. And if the switch was indeed made for commercial, rather than sporting, reasons, are the organisers not just as guilty - indeed, arguably more so - of defiling that precious Olympic oath?

I think the Chinese wanted it introduced into tournaments so that the lesser pairs got match practice rather than just turning up and then going home straight away. I've also heard that this practice of deliberately losing is not uncommon in other tournaments, which I guess is why four separate pairs thought it would be OK to do so. In which case the badminton authorities all of a sudden deciding it is wrong and disqualifying them from the biggest badminton event in the world is rather harsh.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Just watched it. It's one of the few times the term DISGRACE is actually applicable. I'm glad they'll play no further part. They were even warned FFS! How can you carry on trying to lose a match after being warned?

 

[Mtoto]

Officially, it was to generate more matches to show case the sport to a bigger audience. I don't think that's so unreasonable, and the problem would never have existed if they followed your suggestion and simply withheld the post group knockout draw until the groups were finished.

But group stages in any tournament are always a risk in any case - there is always the chance of playing a dead rubber in the final round, or worse, one that is dead to one team and not another.

Well it definitely worked in that case. Can't imagine it's ever had a three-page thread on NSC before.

 

[Titanic]

I totally don't buy that. If you enter the Olympic you abide by the oath, end of story. There isn't much integrity left in sport and the Olympics is the biggest competition in the world, so if they allow the deliberate losing to go unpunished then the oath becomes meaningless and the Olympic "ideal" (which, I believe, still garners respect and support) is forever tarnished.

They did abide by the oath... to try their hardest to win the gold medal. It was not their fault the organisers screwed up so badly.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Why kudos to the BWF? They created the situation by organising the competition that way. They should either have used a proper round-robin system with 4 teams in a group or just straight knock-out and then they could have prevented the situation altogether. Although the players were playing to lose that individual match they were doing so in order to maximise their chances of winning the overall competition, thanks to the shambolic competition set-up

Yes, but at least they had the balls to make the correct decision when the farce came to light. I agree that they should have used a better system, like random draws for the knockout stages, but if this one worked well in previous tournaments, how were they to know it would turn into a scandal?

As for the last bit, you could just as easily say the same for doping. Taking drugs to improve their chances of winning is morally wrong, even if the doping agencies fail to act properly. I know I'm sounding all wishy-washy here, but people paid good money to see world-class athletes. THEY are to blame, NOT the BWF. It completely goes against the Olympic spirit, and exactly what the Games do not stand for.

 

[Uwinsc]

Just watched it. It's one of the few times the term DISGRACE is actually applicable. I'm glad they'll play no further part. They were even warned FFS! How can you carry on trying to lose a match after being warned?

They were actually warned by the ref more than once, in one of the matches I heard he was out 3 times.
As for setting up the system that led to this: a lot of other sports have absolutely no problem with systems like this at the Olympics so why should the badminton players be expected to have a problem with it?

 

[Mtoto]

The report I saw said that this system was being used for the first time at the Olympics.

 

[Uwinsc]

The report I saw said that this system was being used for the first time at the Olympics.

Wasn't that in badminton?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The report I saw said that this system was being used for the first time at the Olympics.

Yes, but it has been introduced at many other tournaments, and it seems that players have regularly thrown matches in the past. Hence the reason why FOUR teams were happy to do it. Also why they will probably be confused that it has suddenly become a reason to be disqualified.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Also why they will probably be confused that it has suddenly become a reason to be disqualified.

I fail to understand why they would be confused having been given numerous warnings to stop doing it by the ref.

 

[Wardy]

Pool matches have been part of sport for ages. I do not recall seeing anything in any other sport be it at the Olympics or another tournament where players / teams were so obviously trying to lose. The idea of a round robin is fine, lesser players / teams get to play more than one game which not only helps them get better but also means they go home having more of an experience. If you blame the system and say it is wrong you will have to have straight knockouts for everything. Imaging traveling half way round the world to watch England play in the world cup for them to be knocked out after one game due to a dubious red card?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I fail to understand why they would be confused having been given numerous warnings to stop doing it by the ref.

because of what I said, this practice was considered acceptable right up to yesterday.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

All 3 nations should be kicked out of the Olympics.

Especially the Chinese - this typifies their attitude towards competitive sports in general - win at any cost.

Complete disgrace.

Don't you mean 'lose at minor cost' if they were easing up?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I wonder if they conspired to do this as individual team members, or did the coaches and boards get together.......if so then they should have thrown the Chinese, the south Koreans and the Indonesians out of the badminton, the whole lot of them.


Anyone remember the Southampton tottenham game in 1978. Similar thing I would have thought

 

[Westdene Seagull]

because of what I said, this practice was considered acceptable right up to yesterday.

Hmmmm .....lets see .....

I believe something is allowed and so do it. The ref tells me I'm not allowed to do it. I'd be bloody stupid to then continue to do it regardless of what I thought before.

Glad to see they all got kicked out.