21×3 vs 15×3: Badminton’s needless itch to tinker with scoring system

Higher prize money, better scheduling with rest days, expansion beyond Asia and Denmark, protecting players from internet trolls, better broadcast packaging all need actionable responses. The 21×3 was coasting along just fine.

At best, older shuttlers might reckon they can prolong their careers if matches snap shut quicker. But at worst, the game becomes a lottery – a drawn out penalty shootout, with no real build-up, or core, or a smooth flow and anticipation of a crescendo that the 21×3 offered. It’s perhaps a difference between 50 minutes and 80 minutes – not significant enough to drastically aid recovery, nor ensure better quality due to concentration of intensity.

All that 15×3 does is shorten the game for the sake of shortening. And with all due respect, if a TV watcher has someplace else to be for the additional 20-30 minutes, then give viewing it a Skip for the day, and be some place else happily.

Why tinker and trample upon the drama of a sport, where a lilt of the early points can culminate into a zenith in just a few minutes.

It is unclear if top active players desired this format because the cumulative exhaustion of the Tour calendar would have them pleading off any extra time that could be sheared. Or if the governing brains got this brainwave to make every point, start to finish, very very important. Trained shuttlers will adjust to anything assigned to them. But the 15×3 can kill the drama of a big lead conceded nearing the endgame, and a cool cat plotting a comeback and relishing the opponent’s nerves when finishing.

All of that happens between Point 15 to 21.

Could it happen between Point 10 & 15? Sure. But the BWF seriously undermines the skill and temperament of shuttlers, by turning it into an anyone-can-win-randomly format.

Honestly, the world of those who bother to watch badminton, isn’t that pressed for time.

But why do all sports go a little nutty about shearing seconds and minutes from sport?

Tennis’ decision in doubles for a third-set tiebreak, was abject, and based solely on the disdain the sport had for doubles practitioners, with the monopolising attention devoted to The Big Four and their beautiful, but attention-hogging men’s singles battles. So, just like that, one day, the doubles was reduced to very unserious. Not too long after, with the star-Slam universe becoming the be-all, Davis Cup was unthinkingly truncated.

TT, cricket, hockey have all suffered this mad urge to make it shorter, because people allegedly have no time. There’s the mobile phone and OTT and politics blow-horning and a million other things, including negotiating traffic and working long hours to cram into the 24 hours.

But can and should sport scrunch its essence for the sake of those in a perennial rush? India might be the only country at the intersection of cricket and badminton popularity. The country’s billions have no qualms about watching 5-day Test matches, and deriving serious distractions and delights from watching that sport. Even amongst badminton followers, Sindhu’s Glasgow World Championship silver playing Nozomi Okuhara in a match of unbelievable excitement for 110 minutes, might rank as most memorable.

Sport is unscripted drama. And largely honest and among the only things left that’s not playing out like Reality TV or realistic blood and gore portrayals. The tribalism is toxic, but mostly till the last minute, both sets of fans stay invested in hope, and the possibility of their favourite winning.

Those that are busy, don’t watch, and needn’t be catered to. But ruining a consistent scoring system and fiddling too much with the ebb and flow of the game, only loses any sport supporters. Football has mercifully eschewed all attempts to scrunch 90 minutes, tennis stays 5 sets and Isner-Mahut grab themselves a nice slice of history.

You tend to want more of a sport you love, not less. It’s really not that complicated to resist the itch to change up everything. And let the constant, be. The 21×3 is doing just fine.