Mumbai: Justifying the Badminton World Federation’s call that ruffled feathers, its secretary general Thomas Lund told AFP it was important that “these evolutions and innovations are done”.
Over the last couple of decades, most mainstream racquet sports have rung in such evolutions, mainly through tweaks to its scoring system. And almost each of it has at times publicly acknowledged, and at times underlying driving force behind it, broadcast and commercial interests.
Badminton’s latest switch from the 21-point to 15-point scoring (comes into effect next year) continues to be debated. It’s not an isolated one, though. Badminton itself has tinkered with scoring systems over the years – from 3×15 (points won on serve) to 5×7 to 3×21.
Table tennis, through a significant decision in 2000, reduced games from 21 points to 11. It was designed, as per its governing body then, to make matches “faster, sharper, and more exciting for fans worldwide”.
Squash switched from 9-point games (point won on serve) to the point-a-rally 15 points, to the current 11. It also toyed with the idea of best-of-three games, with Lee Beachill, PSA’s then COO and former world No.1, saying “from a spectator’s point of view it was great.”
More eyeballs, a better TV product, and greater commercial value lie at the heart of these tweaks and trims. Yet, simply reducing game time alone does not necessarily address the TV question.
Certainly not for badminton, reckon experts and ex-players.
Harish Thawani, founder of Nimbus Communications whose Neo Sports channels broadcast multiple sports, including cricket and badminton, said badminton has a twin disadvantage compared to, say, tennis from a broadcast viewpoint. A “relative lack of a global audience”, and a “lack of story-telling”.
Tennis, a rare racquet sport to have kept its scoring system largely untouched, offers breaks after every two games, allowing for “ad breaks and player profiling”, said Thawani. Besides, the break can be used to create profiles and build narratives, drama and rivalries (think of cameras panning to the faces of players as they sit during changeovers).
“The speed at which badminton is played, and the lack of a break within games, does not allow you to create personality profiles,” said Thawani.
“So, badminton retreating to a 15-point game does not solve the TV problem. I would’ve much preferred to see it introduce the concept of more natural breaks between games. That would allow for that story-telling element, which, in turn, can grip the viewers. Story-telling not just about personalities, but about the nuances of the sport.”
It is something TT too seems to be missing out on. Olympian Neha Aggarwal, who has also worked as commentator and broadcaster, believes ITTF and WTT have done a good job in increasing the sport’s popularity over the last decade in Asia and Europe, though India still has some catching up to do. The challenge still remains to build greater audience engagement globally.
“At the end of the day, you have to make it a good product for TV,” she said. “The matches are thrilling, what’s missing is good commentary and fan engagement. I don’t know the player outside of the table, their personality.
“And because the game has become so fast, if I don’t understand TT, I won’t understand the nuances of what went into winning a point.”
In a letter to the BWF president two months ago, U Vimal Kumar, the former player turned coach, had listed his recommendations while warning about the proposed format change. Commercial growth, he wrote, won’t come from scoring changes alone. One suggestion was to improve tournament quality and presentation worldwide.
“They can invest on more cameras on the side, bring in more referrals. That would have brought in more excitement,” he said. “BWF are looking solely through the lens of how they can fit all matches in a shorter duration that the broadcasters must be offering for live coverage. But I don’t know how much thought has gone into how it will impact the sport.”
In an age of decreasing attention span, it is assumed that shorter matches are the way to go for greater viewership and engagement. Football, hockey, shooting and cricket also have either altered or flirted with the thought of doing that.
TT, Aggarwal says, “benefitted tremendously” from the “too long, too boring” 21 points to the current 11. “It does make a big difference, from a broadcast perspective,” she says.
Whether that applies to badminton remains to be seen. Kumar said “there’s no proof” of it. Aparna Popat, the nine-time national champion and Olympian, wants to “wait and watch”, especially because “there have been so many, so frequent changes”.
“If you want any sport to survive, commercials are important,” said Popat. “Assess, really and objectively, to say will this make such a big impact on the commercials.”
For Thawani, shortening a match from an average one hour to 45 minutes is not a gamechanger. “T20 is a three-hour version of a seven-hour version (ODIs). That’s significant shortening,” he said.
“And these are fast-moving sports in any case. So, by shortening them and making them faster is of no consequence.”
