Is badminton willing to trade depth for speed?

The Badminton World Federation’s proposal to replace the long-standing 3×21 scoring system with a 3×15 format is being regarded as a forward-looking reform — one that promises shorter matches, greater excitement, and improved player welfare, according to the sport’s governing body.

The BWF president Khunying Patama Leeswadtrakul described it as a move to ensure the sport “continues to grow, inspire, and thrive.” She argued that the format will make matches more dynamic and help badminton “stand out in an increasingly fast-paced entertainment landscape.” The proposal will go to vote at BWF’s Annual General Meeting on April 25, but the direction of travel is already clear.

This is not merely a technical adjustment. It is a shift in the very grammar of badminton. How matches are constructed, how players win, and how the sport is experienced.

From endurance to immediacy

For nearly two decades, elite badminton has evolved into a sport of attrition. The 3×21 point system rewards not just skill, but patience, recovery, and the ability to navigate momentum swings over time.

The proposed format changes that balance. With fewer points in each game, there is less room for error and far less time to recover. A four or five-point run, which is routine in modern badminton, can become decisive. The emphasis shifts from managing the flow of a match to seizing early control.

This inherently favours fast starters who impose themselves quickly, attacking players capable of scoring bursts and strong serve-return exponents who can dictate early rallies. And it could be a disadvantage for defensive players who build pressure over time, tactical players who rely on mid-game adjustments and athletes who traditionally grow into matches.

In effect, the new system compresses matches into their most volatile phase — the closing stretch.

When matches get shorter…

Badminton’s most memorable matches have rarely been about speed alone. They have been about how contests evolve — how players adapt, endure, and ultimately outthink and outlast their opponents.

Take the 2006 Malaysian Open final between era-defining rivals Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan. Trailing 13-20 in the deciding game, Lee produced one of the most remarkable turnarounds in the sport’s history by winning 10 consecutive points to clinch it 23-21.

Another case in point was the 2015 Japan Open final between Viktor Axelsen and Lin. The decider showed why Lin is often hailed as one of badminton’s all-time greats. Trailing by a mile as Axelsen surged to an 11-3 lead at the interval, Lin mounted a stunning comeback, going on an 11-2 run to edge ahead 14-13.

The contest swung back and forth, with both players exchanging leads and relentless rallies until it was locked at 19-19. Lin held his nerve in the closing moments, taking the final two points to seal a thrilling victory. The Chinese was well past his physical peak and served a reminder that badminton is as much about intelligence as it is about intensity.

More recently, it was H.S. Prannoy’s win over Koki Watanabe at the China Open last year. The Indian was down 15-20 in the deciding game before he shifted gears and saved five match points to win 23-21. It is considered a miracle win. A 50-shot rally near the end and an unshakable defence helped him save all match points. While this was a first-round match, Prannoy’s comeback on a Super 1000 stage was widely praised given his age and recent struggles.

Players like Japan’s Nozomi Okuhara have built success by sustaining pressure across long rallies, either through relentless defence or by forcing opponents into errors over time. One of the greatest women’s singles matches ever played was the 2017 World Championships title decider between Okuhara and P.V. Sindhu. It lasted an hour and 50 minutes.

Okuhara’s defence against the Indian’s relentless attack created a match that ebbed and flowed, with neither player able to dominate for long. Okuhara could achieve victory only because the format allowed the match to stretch into a test of stamina and resilience. In the 3×15 system, that space to grind an opponent down is reduced.

Carolina Marin’s victory at the 2019 China Open is another example. Returning from injury, she was initially down by a game and trailed 13-19 in the decider against Tai Tzu-ying. Yet, she fought back point by point, maintaining relentless pressure to turn the match around.

One can also revisit the 2015 World Championships quarterfinals and watch Indonesia’s Lindaweni Fanetri. Down 14-20 in the second game after losing the opener, she saved multiple match points and reeled off eight straight points to force a decider, before closing out the match.

Doubles, already the fastest discipline, could become even more volatile. With games to 15, there is little scope to recover from a poor service sequence or a brief lapse in concentration.

The 2019 World Championships men’s doubles final between Mohammad Ahsan/Hendra Setiawan and Takuro Hoki/Yugo Kobayashi was a contest of experience against pace with the Indonesians’ control emerging over time.

In the 2024 China Masters mixed doubles event, Malaysia’s Chen Tang Jie and Toh Ee Wei were 11-20 down in the second game of a match. They saved all match points, winning 23-21, before carrying that momentum into the decider. It was a reminder that even the fastest discipline relies on momentum built over time.

These contests were compelling because they allowed time for strategies to emerge, for weaknesses to be exposed, and for players to respond. The 3×21 system allows a slow starter to recover, a defender to turn the match into an endurance test, and a trailing player to rebuild. The proposed system shortens that arc. It does not eliminate comebacks, but it might make them rarer. Because the space for adjustment narrows, and with it, the layers that define elite contests.

The Indian context

Sindhu’s biggest victories, including her Olympic runs, have come from her ability to stay in rallies, absorb pressure, and grow into matches. Prannoy, too, has made a career out of comebacks.

K. Srikanth might not mind the change. At his peak, his game was based on pace and attacking precision. In theory, a shorter format could suit that style provided he can consistently start fast. Lakshya Sen may be one of the Indian players best placed to adapt. His ability to take the early initiative could prove valuable.

In doubles, the picture is unclear. India’s leading pairs: Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty, and Treesa Jolly and Gayatri Gopichand are capable of explosive starts but consistency remains a concern. There is little room to recover from lapses, and unforced errors will carry greater consequences.

Yet, there is also an opportunity. Shorter matches reduce the physical gap between players. Nations that have historically relied and invested heavily in endurance training, notably China and Japan, may lose some of their structural advantage.

A sport shaped by television

For a sport increasingly conscious of broadcast windows and audience retention, the logic is understandable. It is impossible to separate this proposal from the broader pressures facing modern sport.

This is not the first time the BWF has attempted to alter the scoring system. Previous proposals were debated and rejected, after failing to secure sufficient support among stakeholders. What is different now is the framing. The system is being presented not as an experiment but as a strategic necessity tied to player welfare, broadcast viability, and the sport’s long-term growth.

Badminton, like many Olympic sports, is competing for attention in a crowded entertainment landscape. Shorter matches are easier to schedule and broadcast, and more accessible to new audience.

But there is a trade-off. The push for brevity often comes at the expense of complexity. Sports that compress their formats risk losing the very elements that made them distinctive.

In badminton’s case, that distinctiveness lies in its ability to combine speed with endurance, precision with patience. It is one of the few sports where rallies can be both explosive and prolonged, where matches can swing dramatically over time. Reducing the length of games risks tilting that balance too far in one direction.

If the new system is adopted, it will reshape how badminton is played and the shuttlers are coached. Training methods will evolve. Tactical approaches will shift. The next generation of players will grow up in a different game.