Indian Badminton Thread ...

[Saffron Lenin]

Chirag: India needs more badminton coaching academies

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 350883.cms

[Atithee]

We need our players to deliver and then demand other things. Otherwise, this is a circular argument that will never end.

Thanks.

[arjun2761]

To be fair, Chirag Shetty has been performing at a high level. If Rankireddy could stay fit, they could be medal contenders in Paris.

[Atithee]

Asking for support for doubles is a losing cause. Only India cares so much about it. I couldn’t care less despite it being a key rubber in team matches.

[jayakris]

A doubles gold in Asiad or Olympics is as good as a singles gold in the end. I will take it

[sameerph]

Yes and in badminton even on world tour doubles is valued almost as much singles or at least upto say 60-70% of singles. That is unlike Tennis where doubles in general is valued much less.

We did not have much success at all in doubles earlier when we were getting our singles medals at olympics. Now, it looks like for Paris 2024, our best medal hope is going to be in doubles.

[ornatebrute]

Asking for support for doubles is a losing cause. Only India cares so much about it. I couldn’t care less despite it being a key rubber in team matches.

Totally wrong. This *might* be true in tennis, but on the BWF circuit, singles and doubles are very distinct, and paid equal importance, equal showtime, equal distribution on centre court, equal or more fan following (MD is probably ruling the charts for a while courtesy the Indonesians) etc. The skills are also very different, and to an extent the skills and tactics used in mixed doubles are different from MD or WD too. (which is also why we haven't really had any world class XD yet - maybe since Jwala/Diju. Sikkim/Chopra came close but were poor in the big events, Ashwini/Satwik were always on double duties so never reached their full potential. Tanisha/Ishaan would have been our best bets but Ishan is very error and injury-prone and Tanisha is trying new partners already)

There's a reason why BWF has all 5 events as a part of even the lowest rungs of its junior and senior tours, infact so do the national federations in their events. You choose to be a doubles badminton specialist from a very young age unlike tennis where you choose it as an alternative when nothing works in singles.

[Atithee]

Good luck getting sponsors. Doubles is for also rans. Like it or not.

[prasen9]

That is not true in badminton. Players specialize very early in their careers. Now whether they saw themselves as not good very early on and changed, I don't know. In the top-10 badminton earners, two were women's doubles players, two mixed doubles, four singles women's and Axelsen in 2022. The next to were men's doubles followed by Ginting. Earners This is from prize money only. So, unless you can be world #1 in men's singles from a purely financial standpoint, it is better to be a men's doubles player perhaps. Or about the same. In #10-20, there are about 5 doubles pairs, I think.

From a private sponsorship point of view, I think unless you are a Dan Lin or a P.V. Sindhu, i.e., legendary figures in your country, there is very little sponsorship. Someone who follows this more can correct me. Yonex, etc. actually sponsor teams (countries and state such as Karnataka Badminton and many other state associations in India), academies, and tournaments a lot more than individuals.

Anyway, when you play a sport such as badminton, you need to have money. Costs can be about $500 a month or so for training, supplies, etc. China and possibly several southeast Asian countries provide these to their top or academy players. You really can't take up the sport banking on private sponsors.

So, you possibly will make about the same or more money if you are a doubles player as you are a singles one.

[srini]

Hope Athithee can get convinced if one more person also joins the bandwagon.

Doubles in 'Badminton' is NOT for 'Also Rans'. If it were, Mr.Gopichand would not have trained his daughter Gayatri into doubles from so early in her career!

[jayakris]

Hope Athithee can get convinced if one more person also joins the bandwagon.

Doubles in 'Badminton' is NOT for 'Also Rans'. If it were, Mr.Gopichand would not have trained his daughter Gayatri into doubles from so early in her career!

I am impartial. I ain't taking sides here. Let me be the judge then

The factual counter evidence from the defense extra-counsel Srini about Gopichand and Gayari clinches it. This court passes the judgment in favor of the defense. The plaintiff's argument that doubles is for "also-rans" in badminton is summarily dismissed. An additional judicial observation shall be recorded in the court proceedings, that the purported argument by the plaintiff might have originated in biases induced by other sports such as tennis that are dying and increasingly irrelevant in India, and further that Indians shall not be prevented from celebrating vacuous achievements in other sports such as cricket and badminton that are irrelevant to much of the world.

[Atithee]

The plaintiff appeals to S_K_S…

[rajitghosh]

Badminton doubles is no less important than singles. Some of the biggest superstars have been doubles players be it the Minions from Indonesia or some of the Sidek brothers from Malaysia. Tennis has unfortunately killed doubles. Also tennis doubles is for half court players. In badminton doubles is a much faster game than singles and requires unique skillsets.

[prasen9]

I maybe with Atithee if he modifies his statement a little bit. Maybe singles is a bit more competitive, requires more skills, or at least has more competition, at least early in kids' careers, etc. But, players do specialize very early on and it is not just washed-up singles failures who go to doubles. If you say people who have less faith in their skills and can cover only half the court but have other skills like being lightning fast, etc. and want a slightly different sport where there is slightly less competition (partly because it needs a pair of players and that way perhaps halves the pool, etc.) then yes, maybe you are right.

[prasen9]

The median age for singles champions is about 25 and the median age for doubles champions is about 26.5. So, it is not a huge difference. Doubles takes a bit of time to find partners with whom you gel, etc. And, you can perhaps continue to a slightly older age because it is harder to find teams, you know your partner for a long time, etc. See: Prime Ages

While in tennis, you find many who play singles, don't make it and then go to doubles, in badminton, I do not know of many who went that path. If someone knows of such cases, please let us know. So, at the professional level, it is not failures who become doubles players, but is that true even at the junior level? Again, I do not know of such cases. Maybe someone who follows badminton more rigorously can point out such cases. I would be interested in knowing. So, if we push that logic back, kids have to realize when they are 10-14 or so that they are going to be a washed-up singles player and focus on doubles. In that sense, maybe it is true. Also, I do not have proof or even anecdotes that it is. Someone else knows?