Losing on purpose - whose fault?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Those 8 badminton players... It's just been announced they've been disqualified for deliberately trying to lose in order to get an easier opponent in the next round. I don't know much at all about badminton, but it strikes me this is common behaviour. Every football world cup, for instance, features discussion of who will play who if they win their group or finish second. Why are such considerations acceptable in football but not in the Olympics? If in this case it was advantageous to lose (all the players involved had already qualified for the next round) then perhaps the structure of the competition is to blame? And is it not acceptable to conserve your energy in order to make a greater effort in a later stage?

[Cudzoziemiec]

To sum up; what's wrong with tactics?

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Playing to lose might be what some of us did at school just for the hell of it, but it's hardly the Olympian ideal.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Bloke on radio now is saying there are cases of deliberate losing before in Olympics with no penalty imposed.

No, it's not the Olympian ideal - or is it? If it increases your chance of winning, perhaps it is?

[Riggers]

They've been chucked out and a good job too!

[Pingu]

Speaking before the verdict, Korea's coach Sung Han-kook said: "The Chinese started this. They did it first."

He's telling his dad.

[CAMRAMan]

There was a classic example of Germany v Austria in a World Cup a good while ago where they played out a convenient draw so that both teams would progress. One result of that was that all final group game matches in big tournaments are now played simultaneously to try to avoid such convenient results.

So, I think that that has eliminated the situation you refer to in football, or at least attempted to address it. There is also the issue of teams fielding vastly weaker sides than they could field in Carling (League) Cup matches, although that particular tournament now attracts UEFA League qualification, so it's not such a lame duck competition as before. Even then, teams have been fined for being over-blatant in that respect.

[Biggsy]

perhaps the structure of the competition is to blame?

Yes it is, and the badminton authority was repeatedly warned that the new format wouldn't work.  The players weren't just conserving energy, they were deliberately hitting way out or into the net.  How would you feel if you paid to watch that?  Two teams were trying to lose against each other at one stage.

[Cudzoziemiec]

We like to admire athletes giving 100% all the time, but at the same time we acknowledge that in the heats those who hope to win overall must conserve something for later. In other words, total effort is often incompatible with victory. That's not quite the same as playing to lose, but where do you draw the line? In track and field I suppose you can cruise round in the middle of the pack or just put a little less effort in to your first throws, whereas sports which have a winner and loser don't allow this.

[Cudzoziemiec]

perhaps the structure of the competition is to blame?

Yes it is, and the badminton authority was repeatedly warned that the new format wouldn't work.  The players weren't just conserving energy, they were deliberately hitting way out or into the net.  How would you feel if you paid to watch that?  Two teams were trying to lose against each other at one stage.

Which raises a linked and also thorny question of whether the Olympics are primarily for competitors, spectators, fans and aspiring athletes, the host city, the sporting community, etc etc. These badminton players seem to have sticking their fingers up at the sporting organisation.

[eeymsmo]

And let's not forget that our main reason for being here, cycling, has a long and glorious history of riders sandbagging, soft pedalling or gifting smaller wins on their way to greater glory.  In some cases pretty openly and blatantly.

[Biggsy]

I don't mind as long as someone in each match/race wants to win in the end.  You don't get bike races where EVERYONE deliberately crashes or goes backwards.  The badminton format completely broke down when not one of the players in a match wanted to win.  It's completely ridiculous.

[hellymedic]

Thou Shalt Not Be Found Out.

[rafletcher]

The format meant that, with the results achieved last night, the two Chinese teams would not have met again until the final - and would therefore have secired (assuming they kept winning) silver and gold.

I think there's a difference between not playing too hard the the rank and obvious dreadful standard of play exhibited. Blame the format? maybe. Blame the Chinese culture? Possibly - I've seen a headline saying that this tactic is considered acceptable in China. But I'm all for them being excluded in this instance for making a mockery of the matches, and the efforts of those who strive for years knowing full well they'll never get a medal but who still are desperate to compete and show their best.

Perhaps where a nation is so dominant in one sport there's a case for limiting their involvement?

[hubner]

I don't mind as long as someone in each match/race wants to win in the end.  You don't get bike races where EVERYONE deliberately crashes or goes backwards.  The badminton format completely broke down.

But they did want to win in the end. The same in cycling, give up a stage win for the GC.

"The Olympic ideal/spirit"; the IOC are so far up their arses it's ridiculous. They really need to be mocked.

The problem is the players were not cunning enough, they were too blatant. They should have said they had the runs or something and forfeit the match. Or played to win but a bit less well than usual and lost.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The format meant that, with the results achieved last night, the two Chinese teams would not have met again until the final - and would therefore have secired (assuming they kept winning) silver and gold.

I think there's a difference between not playing too hard the the rank and obvious dreadful standard of play exhibited. Blame the format? maybe. Blame the Chinese culture? Possibly - I've seen a headline saying that this tactic is considered acceptable in China. But I'm all for them being excluded in this instance for making a mockery of the matches, and the efforts of those who strive for years knowing full well they'll never get a medal but who still are desperate to compete and show their best.

Perhaps where a nation is so dominant in one sport there's a case for limiting their involvement?

I thought the teams disqualified were Korean, Malaysian and I can't remember but not Chinese?

Anyway, in cycling terms this is most analagous to a stage race where the favourites are content to let a breakaway form because they're waiting for Paris (or wherever). But it's not a complete analogy at all because as Biggsy points out, someone is still trying to win each stage.

Correction: It was two teams South Korea, one each from Indonesia and China.

[rafletcher]

Perhaps where a nation is so dominant in one sport there's a case for limiting their involvement?

It almost feels like that's what's happened in track cycling over the last 10 years, with only one rider/team per event   

Back on topic, as I've written elsewhere, they played to the rules to ensure a more likely gold medal, and I can't see the problem with that - sport at this level is all about winning. If the rules were in error, then fix them, don't DQ the players after the fact.

Thats what made me think of it....

But they DIDN'T "play" - they messed about so badly I could have beaten them. There is, I think, a distiction between playing below your maximum and taking the piss. Why not just forfiet through feined injury?

[Biggsy]

I don't blame the players for doing what they feel is best for themselves or their team.  Any rule that says you're supposed to play your best is weirdly artificial and subjective.  I think it should be up to the competition format to leave a natural incentive to win.  The organisers wanted extra rounds in order to provide more entertainment, but they were not realistic in their expectations of how players would treat it, so it backfired spectacularly.

[mattc]

Perhaps where a nation is so dominant in one sport there's a case for limiting their involvement?

It almost feels like that's what's happened in track cycling over the last 10 years, with only one rider/team per event   

Back on topic, as I've written elsewhere, they played to the rules to ensure a more likely gold medal, and I can't see the problem with that - sport at this level is all about winning. If the rules were in error, then fix them, don't DQ the players after the fact.

I would have a lot of sympathy for this view, but the umpire warned these players, so they've brought it on themselves.

[rafletcher]

I thought the teams disqualified were Korean, Malaysian and I can't remember but not Chinese?

Anyway, in cycling terms this is most analagous to a stage race where the favourites are content to let a breakaway form because they're waiting for Paris (or wherever). But it's not a complete analogy at all because as Biggsy points out, someone is still trying to win each stage.

Correction: It was two teams South Korea, one each from Indonesia and China.

2 pairs from south korea, one indonesian, one chinese.

The charges were "not using best efforts" and of "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport".

[Cudzoziemiec]

Every Yacfer's Approved Reading Material has this to say:

Along come the Chinese, who clearly know how to win. You plan. The badminton heats were apparently staged to give an incentive, in certain circumstances, to losing games in the qualifying stages. Faced with the risk of a tougher opponent later and thus losing a medal, the players did what their tacticians said. They lost a round. I cannot see how, in sporting terms, this is any different from sprint cyclists hovering for an age on a curve, waiting for the right moment to surge forward. Anyway, the athletes were not trying to lose, they were losing so as being more likely to win.

I don't think he quite understands track cycling, but that's a detail. And:

As for watching people lose, that can develop its own rules and excitement. As a boy I recall the most engrossing event at the village sports day was the slow bicycle race. The only rule was that you had to stay on your bike and could not go backwards. Three-legged races were similarly enjoyable, as was running backwards. It was only the swimmers who elevated not moving as fast as possible from A to B into an art, with backstroke, butterfly and such nonsense.

So that's where these badmintonians went wrong - they lost artlessly. Pun intended.

[Justin(e)]

Back on topic, as I've written elsewhere, they played to the rules to ensure a more likely gold medal, and I can't see the problem with that - sport at this level is all about winning. If the rules were in error, then fix them, don't DQ the players after the fact.

+1

Unfortunately the people who write the rules get to judge the players and themselves.  Hence, any appeal goes straight to the idiots who designed the system.  Guess which way they will adjudicate?

[Tigerrr]

I thought the Chinese were the villains?

[geraldc]

It's denied China potentially another silver medal... it's hurt the Koreans far more.

DQing the naughty people has given the good people left in, a much easier run to the final.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've had another little think about this. The motivation for the players' performance was similar to that of playing for a draw in the heats of a competition or saving your energy for the final sprint, but the performance was different in that all teams were playing to lose rather than simply not trying to win. Moreover, the source of the motivation was not just one or even both teams' strategy, but due to cock up in the competition organisation, which gave the competitors a perverse incentive not to compete. Whether the Badminton Federation will admit they cocked up I don't know but hopefully they'll not try to be so clever next time!