Advertisement

A Mathematical Analysis of Badminton Scoring Systems

  • D. F. Percy
Part of the OR Essentials book series (ORESS)

Abstract

Although the sport of badminton originated about 2000 years ago, the Badminton Association of England published the first proper set of rules in 1893. The International Badminton Federation (IBF) was formed in 1934 and is now established as the game’s governing body. The rules remained almost unchanged until 2002, when the IBF introduced a series of experimental rule changes in order to make the game faster and more exciting. In 2006, some new rules were introduced for the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, Australia, and this article evaluates these variations.

Keywords

Mathematical Analysis Operational Research Society Table Tennis Posterior Predictive Distribution Setting Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnett T, Brown A and Pollard G (2006). Reducing the likelihood of long tennis matches. J Sports Sci Med 5: 567–574.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett TJ and Clarke SR (2002). Using Microsoft® Excel to model a tennis match. In: Cohen G and Langtry T (eds). Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport. Bond University: Queensland, pp 63–68.Google Scholar
  3. Bernardo JM and Smith AFM (1993). Bayesian Theory. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke SR (1979). Tie point strategy in American and international squash and badminton. Res Quart 50: 729–734.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke SR and Norman JM (1979). Comparison of North American and international squash scoring systems—analytical results. Res Quart 50: 723–728.Google Scholar
  6. Miles RE (1984). Symmetric sequential analysis: The efficiencies of sports scoring systems (with particular reference to those of tennis). J R Stat Soc B 46: 93–108.Google Scholar
  7. Norman JM and Clarke SR (1978). What chance playing up to ten? Squash Player Int June: 50–51.Google Scholar
  8. Percy DF (2003). Subjective reliability analysis using predictive elicitation. In: Lindqvist BH and Doksum KA (eds). Mathematical and Statistical Methods in reliability. World Scientific: Singapore. pp 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Renick J (1976). Optional strategy at decision points. Res Quart 47: 562–568.Google Scholar
  10. Renick J (1977). Tie point strategy in badminton and international squash. Res Quart 48: 492–498.Google Scholar
  11. Riddle LH (1988). Probability models for tennis scoring systems. Appl Stat 37: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schutz RW and Kinsey WK (1977). Comparison of North American and international squash scoring systems—a computer simulation. Res Quart 48: 248–251.Google Scholar
  13. Sève C and Poizat G (2005). Table tennis scoring systems and expert players’ exploration activity. Int J Sport Psychol 36: 320–336.Google Scholar
  14. Stewart I (1991). Game, Set and Math: Enigmas and Conundrums. Penguin: London.Google Scholar
  15. Wright MB (1988). Probabilities and decision rules for the game of squash rackets. J Opl Res Soc 39: 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. F. Percy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations