Three top Chinese players and one
doubles pair retired yesterday in first-round action at
the season-opening Korea Open Super Series Premier.
For those who have been following the
sport, the unusual number of retirements – all ostensibly due to injury –
was not surprising. Compared to what happened at the Olympics, these
are minor occurrences.
These are strange times for badminton.
At the lower end of the spectrum, one gets to see thousands of children
taking up the sport (in India, at least), and their parents
spending hundreds of thousands of rupees and valuable time in trying to
get their children to play nationally and internationally. At the
opposite end – the international level – you often see players who
do not want to play, or sometimes playing without any intention of
winning. The official reason given, when they don’t complete their
matches, is injury. But of course. What else could it be?
There has been a lot of focus on China,
but that’s only because they are so dominant. One doesn’t expect
anything less than a Chinese victory every time they take to court.
During all-China matches (as with all-Indonesia matches in earlier
times), scepticism often clouds enjoyment of the action. When Rudy
Hartono won the 1980 World Championships in Jakarta over his younger
compatriot Liem Swie King, many observers wrote that King had played way
below his potential – meaning that he was possibly instructed to do so,
to enable Hartono to win the one crown he did not have.
The Chinese have their defenders, and
their views cannot be dismissed. One line of argument is that the top
players are playing tournaments throughout the year, and deserve
an extended break. Of the 12 Superseries, the top players are
compulsorily required to play five (the ‘Premier’ Superseries: Korea,
All England, Indonesia, Denmark, China). Contrast this with tennis:
Roger Federer will play 14 tournaments this year. A badminton event
lasts less than a week, compared to a fortnight for a Grand Slam. How
can a top badminton player complain of a hectic schedule if he has only
five compulsory events lined up over 12 months?
Another argument is that our cultural moorings prejudice our
judgements – for what is acceptable in their culture might not be to
ours. One often heard this line of defence during the Olympics. What was
wrong, the argument went, for a country to ensure its best
representation in the later rounds if it meant playing below potential
in the group matches? The counter-argument is that a sport must be
played in the best spirit, otherwise it is devalued.
There have been seven Superseries since
the Olympics, out of which three were Premier – meaning participation of
top players was compulsory. Of the seven, the top Chinese skipped the
Japan Open, French Open and turned in indifferent performances at
Denmark and Korea. (It’s a different matter that their second-rung is
also good enough to win titles). Are these half-hearted appearances the
Chinese’s way of making a statement, possibly in the wake of the
disqualification of their top doubles team during the Olympics? Or is
this about conflict over sponsorship? As one well-travelled commentator
put it on his Facebook page: ‘It’s also a way of saying… want to play
with us? Sure. We can play dumb too. Look.’
All those concerned about the sport
would do well to remember that badminton took some big blows in
2012. The farce that played midway through the Olympics is still fresh
in people’s minds. After the Olympics, the Chinese withdrew from the
Japan Open, citing a border row with that country. At the Denmark Open,
there were again some notable upsets in the early rounds, and four
of their Olympic medallists lost on semifinals day. Now, at the Korea
Open, we’ve seen four top contenders retire early in their opening round
matches. Surely, they cannot claim to be overworked at the beginning of
the season?
For my part, I have decided to ignore
all instances of players throwing matches or retiring even when they are
obviously fit. We will give them the benefit of doubt and assume
they played poorly or were injured. If they behave as if they don’t need
the sport, the sport doesn’t need them either. I’d rather see
competitive action between less accomplished players in the later
rounds, than be subject to a circus of under-performance. (I’m still
miffed about the 2008 All England final, when Lin Dan mysteriously
developed knee trouble in the second game against his compatriot Chen
Jin – thereby helping him qualify for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.) Most
of the top Chinese skipped the French Open, and that was perhaps just
as well, for we did have a competitive final between Viktor Axelsen and
Daren Liew. Not the two greatest players at the moment, but a match on
the level, and ultimately, that’s the most important thing in sport.
Read more: http://www.sportskeeda.com/2013/01/10/the-mysterious-fragility-of-super-fit-shuttlers/#ixzz2HfZCOlwx
Follow us: @SportsKeeda on Twitter | SportsKeeda on Facebook
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
bagaimana pendapat kalian ?