Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 336 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: Singles is Grueling for players and BORING for spectators!
First off this thread is written in complete respect to Manu and Kenny both of which, I could never beat in Singles!
That being said, My problem with singles is that is bores me to death, when I play. If I am going to work my @ss off then at least I should get to reward myself by punishing my opponent.
In my opinion, Singles within the current rules is really boring.
My solution is just add the third touch. When I play another sport you get three hits and it is way more exciting. More kills and kills in singles can some times be as exciting as doubles. Sometimes at least.
Manu has dominated the sport with placement shots, which he is the master of. And he would most likely dominate it with three hits too.
But from a spectators point of view kills are what the crowd wants, not placement.
When Manu used to drop Roll sweeps on people and Verdi would mouse trap everything, this is when Singles was awesome. Now it is you dink me i DInk you. Dink counter dink, dink hit it to the back line, then counter dink. Seriously, I can't even get excited anymore now that I am a spectator.
From what I know, the history is that singles and doubles were modified from 3-2 and 5-3 in the old days. And they also banned the knee, which is another thread I am not touching right now. To make the game more extreme. Now we are asking a player to dig and set a pingpong ball with one shot. If a player makes a sweet dig they should be able to set it and murder it.
Joined: 23 Sep 2003 Posts: 288 Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject:
LOL, good ones Hung! First off some rare singles props for PT: he did beat manu in an east coast tourny (97?), one of only a few who have beaten him at all in the last 10 years. Of course, that was in double elim days, so manu came back to win the tourny anyway...
Singles can be way more exciting to watch than doubles when you have 2 really good, evenly matched players. But we know that those match-ups are more rare than they should be in important matches. Without a doubt the hardest part of singles is turning that first touch/dig into a good set while being in position to actually do something with the set. That being said some of the best and most crowd-pleasing matches I have ever seen were singles: Kenny/Manu, Kenny/Mulder, Kenny/Sebastien, Manu/Borsky, Borsky/Yo...
The pattern is that there have only been a few all-time greats who are actually entertaining to watch in singles. No doubt that singles is MUCH more difficult and physically crushing than doubs. But I think that 3 hits would actually make for longer matches with more kills, so it might help the entertainment factor but not the endurance part.
Personnally, if i had to vote on a change for singles, i would go for reducing the size of the court, something like singles badminton size court and i would even chop the back corridor. Something like 18'X40'
Smaller court would make it much easier to defend and much easier to set near the net still with two kicks.
For outside play it would mean another set of lines though.
Are you trying to make the game more exciting? or make the game easier to play?
Taking out the sweep serve is definitely not adding excitement.
For once on this forum i agree with PT...hahaha sorry PT.
3 hits in singles would definitely add more excitement. It would reward the better players too. I think it would make matches shorter in the long run. Better sets makes for better kills.
However, as Martin pointed, out the court is too big to defend completely and because of that you will never eliminate the dink. You might even see more of it with 3 touches as there would be more ease in setting up your perfect play. Dink dink dink til the defender bites on it and then crush it in his chest. Singles is all a head game anyways. The way a player beats you is more about strategy rather than the number of hits he can use. More touches would simply make anyone's strategy easier to execute. Unless their strategy is banging.
I think it would be more fun though and for that I would vote for it at least for a trial.
mhhhhh just a thought ...not even a suggestion really...
Perhaps you could address both problems at once. Add a singles line like the badminton serving line. 3 or 4 feet from the net parallel to it on both sides. Voila smaller court and no dinks. Oversets are punished too.
Maybe this line would work in doubles too. Eliminate a lot of the dangerous jousting. What do you think Chaos? It would also eliminate all of Bob's favourite spikes though. Like the Ayatollah, spiking the bag back into the opponents side of the net. hahaha
Now i'm thinking about that, to reduce the size of the court, you don't need new lines for outside play, simply mark the new dimensions on existing lines. I would be a bit complex to explain how to do it (for my english), but if fairly simple to do. The extra lines at each corner would simply look like a loose loop.
benefits of a court 17'X39' :
-court easier to defend against placement shot (down the line shots, dinks, back court lob)
-easier to set near the net
- Hard serve would have to be even more precise, with no back corridor, to be effective.
-also take away the high deep lob serve, which when done properly can kill sets to the net.
We are about to start, here in Montreal, a Monday Singles Net Evening. It start next monday. I will try the shorter court version and let you know how it went.
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 417 Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:57 am Post subject:
Regarding the small court idea (2 kicks per side), there is three possible option for perimeter lines utilizing existing badminton lines.
1) 17 x 39 (aka narrow/short)
2) 17 x 44 (aka narrow/long)
3) 20 x 39 (aka wide/short)
I actually have tested out option 2 and option 3 about six years ago.
Changing perimeter from 20x44 to option 2 or 3 was not that difficult with premarked lines (ropes).
Regarding the 'below-waist' serve idea, it deals with the server-disadvange sideout concept. A server should 'earn' the point in a side out system.
In option 1 and 3, the back service line is closer to the net. This 'might' allow sweep servers to have way too much advantage, (the counter arguement is that the service box is smaller). The 'below-waist' serve could be implemented to 'disadvantage' the server.
Sweep serve is not the only thing that makes for 'excitement'.
Rallies and Spikes/Digs (hopefully not mutually exclusive) ranks higher.
Anyways, its hard to guess what is more 'fun' unless you actually try it out.
Joined: 17 Apr 2005 Posts: 36 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: I'm so happy with this thread
Dude, I'm stoked this is even being talked about.
Speaking as someone who's learning this sport by himself, and therefore is training primarily for singles, it would be great if the barrier to solo training was lowered by giving one more touch and a slightly smaller court.
This game, IMHO, is all about spiking. Spiking, spiking, spiking. I play this game to spike. People watch the game for spiking. More spiking is better for the sport. Sure, I can get to spike every once in a blue moon with 2 touches, but with 3 it'd be every damn time. Plus, with more spikes, more digs, more digs, more need for another kick to set.
And just in terms if fairness, how in the hell can the court in our game be the same size for doubles and singles??? I mean, even tennis has different sized courts.
Someone PLEASE get this change made so I can change my training routine. Still, I'm just stoked hearing that this is being discussed. Bravo PT for bringing this up.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum