For generations of Indian sports fans, the beauty of racquet sports lay in their endurance. A long badminton rally, a draining squash exchange, or a tense table tennis comeback carried a sense of drama that unfolded slowly, testing not just skill but patience, stamina, and mental strength.
But modern sport is changing rapidly. Across badminton, table tennis, and squash, governing bodies are redesigning scoring systems and match formats with one clear objective: making the games shorter, sharper, and more television-friendly.
The logic is straightforward. In an era dominated by reels, streaming platforms, and shrinking attention spans, broadcasters want predictable match durations, quicker highlights, and more room for advertisements. Yet this shift raises an uncomfortable question for players and fans alike: are racquet sports evolving for the better, or sacrificing their very essence for screen time?
Badminton’s Constant Reinvention
Badminton perhaps best reflects this identity crisis. The sport moved from the traditional 15-point service scoring system to the current 21-point rally format in the mid-2000s. Since then, several additional experiments—including a five-game, seven-point structure—have been tested.
Now, the debate has resurfaced with discussions around a first-to-15-points format. Supporters argue that shorter games could make matches more explosive and easier to package for television audiences. Critics, however, question whether reducing duration automatically creates better entertainment.
Former Indian national coach U. Vimal Kumar has openly expressed skepticism, arguing that there is little evidence suggesting shorter matches necessarily increase viewership or fan engagement.
The concern is not merely about numbers on a scoreboard. A 15-point system fundamentally changes how badminton is played. Long tactical recoveries, endurance-based strategies, and momentum swings become less relevant when every point carries amplified pressure.
For players like P. V. Sindhu or Lakshya Sen, whose strengths often emerge through physical resilience and long battles, such changes could reshape the competitive landscape entirely.
Table Tennis: The Original Television Makeover
Table tennis underwent its transformation much earlier.
In 2000, the International Table Tennis Federation reduced games from 21 points to 11 and shortened service rotations from five serves to two. The sport also replaced the smaller 38 mm ball with a larger 40 mm version to slow the pace slightly for television viewers.
The changes undeniably made matches faster and more unpredictable. But some believe the sport lost a layer of tactical depth in the process. Longer games once allowed players to gradually decode opponents, adjust strategies, and build psychological pressure over time.
Former Indian Olympian Neha Aggarwal has pointed out another challenge: casual viewers often struggle to appreciate the nuances of modern table tennis because the game has become extraordinarily quick. Without strong commentary, storytelling, or player profiling, shorter matches alone cannot create emotional investment.
Squash and the Olympic Push
Squash followed a similar path while chasing global recognition.
The sport transitioned from its traditional 9-point hand-in, hand-out scoring system to the faster Point-A-Rally format, eventually settling on the current 11-point structure. These adjustments helped reduce match durations significantly, making squash more attractive to broadcasters and multi-sport events.
Importantly, the modernization effort also strengthened squash’s push for Olympic inclusion, which finally materialized for the 2028 Summer Olympics.
From a commercial perspective, the strategy worked. But traditionalists argue that the original version of squash rewarded patience, rhythm, and endurance in ways modern formats increasingly discourage.
Why Television Wants Faster Sports
Broadcasters have long struggled with the unpredictability of racquet sports.
Unlike tennis, badminton offers very few natural pauses. Tennis provides built-in changeovers and breaks that allow advertisements, replays, and storytelling moments. Badminton, by contrast, moves relentlessly from point to point.
Media executives have often argued that these structural differences make racquet sports difficult to package for television audiences accustomed to constant narrative cues and commercial breaks.
But shortening matches may only address one part of the problem.
Sports consumption today is driven as much by personalities and storytelling as by gameplay itself. Fans tune in for rivalries, emotions, and narratives—not simply because a match lasts fewer minutes.
Cricket’s successful embrace of T20 is a useful comparison. The shorter format flourished not because it replaced traditional cricket, but because it coexisted alongside ODIs and Test cricket, preserving the sport’s layered identity.
Racquet sports risk making a different mistake: altering the core format itself rather than expanding viewing experiences around it.
The Indian Fan’s Dilemma
India’s rise as a global badminton power has deepened emotional investment in racquet sports. Interest in table tennis and squash is also growing steadily, supported by stronger international performances and improved infrastructure.
That is why these debates resonate strongly with Indian audiences.
Former national champion Aparna Popat has cautioned that frequent rule changes can confuse viewers and destabilize the sport’s identity. Fans develop emotional attachment to the rhythms and traditions of a game over time. Constant structural shifts risk alienating both loyal audiences and athletes.
Moreover, shorter formats may unintentionally reduce opportunities for dramatic comebacks, tactical evolution, and emotional storytelling—the very ingredients that often create iconic sporting moments.
Beyond the Scoreboard
The commercial pressures shaping modern sport are real, and no sport can afford to ignore changing audience behavior. But faster does not always mean better.
If racquet sports genuinely want to capture the imagination of the next generation, the solution may lie less in shortening matches and more in improving how the games are presented. Better camera work, richer commentary, deeper player narratives, and stronger grassroots engagement could make these sports more accessible without fundamentally altering their character.
Because in the end, the soul of sport is not built only on speed or spectacle. It lives in struggle, tension, endurance, and the feeling that greatness sometimes takes time to unfold.
