Why proposed new 3×15 scoring system might not be the remedy to make sport more exciting

HS Prannoy let out a chuckle when his tendency to play three-game marathon matches is mentioned. “I don’t like to play them, sometimes I don’t have a choice.” As one of the older players on the circuit, who has bucked tradition in the sport enjoying a personal peak even after he turned 30, Prannoy could be one of the beneficiaries of a recent announcement Badminton World Federation. Earlier this week, the governing body said that the BWF Council has endorsed the 3×15 scoring system as the preferred scoring system to replace the current 3×21 method.The change isn’t going to be immediate, with BWF approving a plan to practically test the 3×15 (with a deciding point at 20-all) system at selected Continental Championships, Grade 3 tournaments, national and international leagues, and national tournaments from approximately April to September/October 2025.
But even if it could benefit him directly, Prannoy wasn’t sure if the change would help the sport. “It’s a mixed reaction for me,” he told The Indian Express from Guwahati where the top Indian players are currently in a camp ahead of the Badminton Asia Team Championships. “It may shorten matches, but I’m unsure how it will help the sport. A 21-game format match usually lasts about 70 minutes, which isn’t excessively long. If we’re aiming for better viewership, we should consider changing other aspects like scheduling, broadcast, etc rather than the scoring.”
Story continues below this ad

The immediate reaction from the camp in Guwahati is one asking for the status quo on the circuit as BAI Secretary General Sanjay Mishra sought feedback on Thursday. “Our players are OK with a different system in leagues, but for the major events on tours, they think the exing system must continue. The feeling is that in a 15-point game, there is not enough time,” Mishra told this daily.
Also read: EXPLAINED – How the proposed new scoring system would change badminton
“Of course, BWF hasn’t mandated it yet, they have just asked for suggestions. They have requested that if we can apply it in our domestic tournaments and do it for an experiment, then they have requested to do it. When we conduct the BAI Annual General Meeting, we will put this in front of all the state secretaries and see if anyone wants to do it in their official tournaments. My opinion is that other Asian countries like China, Malaysia, and Indonesia may oppose it because it takes away their strengths of fitness and playing long rallies.”
The benefit for someone like Prannoy is obvious. From a fitness perspective, it could help with recovery for the next day’s matches, as shuttlers typically don’t have any days off during a tournament. “Older players like me who are post-30 and managing recovery, it might help. But what Viktor (Axelsen) recently said on Twitter about having a longer window for at least the Super 1000 events like All England is much more important. BWF must project these events like Grand Slams. We are lagging big time in those aspects, we should extend our timeline for the majors, Sunday to Sunday is a minimal request.”Story continues below this ad
Two-time Olympic champion, who has been a critic of BWF’s tournament scheduling, recently suggested on social media that badminton needs major events to be spaced out to ‘7, 8 or 9 days’ for starters. “Give the players 1-2 more rest days, time to hype the matches, and more chances for media/fans to communicate with the players,” he had said. That could have a more significant impact on player health than just reducing points to 15 in a game, as Prannoy insed that the current scheduling is often cruel to players when they are repeatedly expected to play less than 24 hours after a gruelling match.
Explosive badminton
The 3×15 system could potentially phase out the counterpunching style that’s become prevalent in men’s singles, especially. Former India doubles player Shlok Ramchandran, who is now the Coaching Director at Synergy Badminton Academy in California, does agree that the scoring system could use a change but 3×15 could be a bit too short.
“Ideally, I would suggest two games of 21 points with a third game of 11 points, making the decider like a super tiebreak in tennis,” he said. “But now explosive power will start to matter more. Stamina will still be key, but strategies will shift to prioritising direct, attacking styles over steadiness. And there will be more upsets. I worry about doubles though. I’ve played the 11-point best-of-five, and while I personally achieved some great results, the match quality seemed to decrease. Doubles require creativity and 3×15 doesn’t provide that scope.” Shlok also suggested taking a leaf out of tennis’ playbook and having elite tournaments to be 3×21 while lower rung events can be 3×15.
Former national champion Aparna Popat, who played in the brief period around 2002 when the wild best-of-five, 7-points-per-game system was in place, is not a fan of constantly tinkering with rules like serves and scoring systems. She said if there is concrete evidence that reducing match length helps with commercial aspects, then it makes sense to try this but it shouldn’t compromise quality of matches. Story continues below this ad
“It is sacrosanct to not take away the essence of the game. Often in high-level matches, the real tactics come into play after you play 15 points. the time you adapt to the court’s drift, you move to the other side. I’m unsure about the quality of those 15 points. Minimising tactics and adjustments to conditions could diminish the game’s essence. The question to answer is: are long days on tour a scoring format problem or a scheduling problem?” she asked.