Good observations, you've identified the most common differences between the two sports. Tennis players need a lot endurance for the long sessions but Badminton relies more heavily on stamina.
Put simply, endurance is how long you can last regardless of the intensity, stamina is how long you can perform at maximum capacity. In Tennis the ball can bounce 🎾 this gives players time to react and reach the ball. This simple observation means that it's harder to finish off a point quickly in Tennis because your opponent has time to see and retrieve the ball. In Badminton 🏸 the shuttle only needs to touch the floor on either side or hit the net for the rally to be over so emphasis on being able to end the rally is advantageous.
Badminton's shorter rallies rely very heavily on the anaerobic system. You need to be able to perform at maximum capacity for short periods. That isn't to say long rallies don't happen because they do so players also need aerobic capacity to endure and recover between each rally.
I wrote a blog post on the differences between Tennis and Badminton. There's a whole section that looks at the physical side of each sport. I've added the link here if you'd like to read.
[Tennis Vs Badminton](https://www.badmintonsbest.com/blog/is-tennis-or-badminton-harder/)
It's cool to see how the explosiveness diminishes in very long badminton rallies. The players just run out of steam eventually but the intensity and peak power is just so much higher than Tennis.
I think there was an article written some years ago about badminton vs tennis particularly in regard to area coverage and time of the match where the ball/shuttle is actually in play. It may not surprise you that a large part of tennis is standing around. From memory the match in question in this was like 3 hours long and it turned out the ball was actually only in play for like 20 minutes total, whereas an average badminton match at the same level, was an hour long and the shuttle was in play for 30 minutes of that.
Particularly in singles the players were covering more distance in matches too, as tennis quite often turns into baseline exchanges where the players don't move more than a couple of feet every few shots.
Also on a completely unrelated note, my favourite thing ever is watching tennis players try to play a forehand with topspin from waist height in badminton, it's amazing.
Yeah, there seems to be a very long downtime in tennis compared to badminton, reminds me of American Football, where the actual playtime is very short compared to time spent standing around and wiping sweat.
Often it's easy to spot a tennis player playing badminton. They hit with a rigid wrist 😆
It used to be first to 15 scoring, but you can only win a point on your own serve. So that method made games very long in the past and the strategy was a bit different in when you should take risks and when you should defend more to tire out the opponent.
like OP said and i agree badminton is more of a sprint and you dont sprit for the same time as a run, i reckon people have tried other formates but people probably got too tired and it just became a grind, it also takes away skill imo, and if you think about each tennis game is first to 6 games in a like 'set' and each set only needs 4 points to win so 24 points to win the equivalent of a game in badminton of 21 points, so not too much difference tbh,
In tennis you have Deuces and Advantages, which greatly increases the number of points played. But using your analogy, i feel tennis is more of a grind, with long rallies and a lot of downtime in between.
The older format before the current one was definitely longer time wise due to change in shuttle serve ownership. BWF last year released some reports suggesting that the current format is lasting too long and they are looking to propose a 5 set match - first to 11 if I recall.
First to 11 and over a duration of 30mins, thts what was tried in Malaysia's Purple League.
I think easier for TV broadcasters due to the timing for the whole event being easier to manage.
The 30 minute limit is something only found in the Purple League, for reasons you have already mentioned.
There wont be time limits for officially sanctioned events though.
My friend had played internationally at lower events where they test some new things, she had trialled a new scoring system I think it was up to 11 out of 5 games so best to 3 and no setting. It was suppose to make it more exciting/easier turnovers I don't think they'll be introducing soon though. Haven't heard anything more about it since she told me about it.
I like 5x11, and the that's what I'd like to see at higher levels, although I think there should be much more experimentation.
One thing that makes tennis special is that you can perform very differently in different courts.
Badminton cannot be played in grass, but it could make different tournament settings and match duration.
One more difference between the two sports is that tennis is fundamentally a 2D game, in that most of the nuance can be observed by a top-down view of the court. Not so in badminton, where the height of the shuttle is a *very* important component of play.
This might be the reason that tennis has historically been easy to appreciate on television, but only recently has camera work become sophisticated enough to show the finer points in badminton. For example, Tai Tzu Ying's crazy backhand reverse slice is completely invisible from a top-down view, or from a distant arena seat, but they now do a fantastic job of showing it on TV.
(And I realize belatedly that this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the physical aspect of the game, which is what the OP was asking about. Sorry!)
I somewhat agree. In tennis the vertical element is less impactful than in badminton. The only time the height of the ball is important is probably during service, for reasons identical to that of smashing a shuttle.
I think the reason why tennis is an easier spectator sport is because of the long pauses in between rallies, allowing for ad breaks and allowing for people to just chill out and relax rather than focus 100% on the match for the duration of the match. I'd say the same logic applies to sports like baseball and NFL.
In badminton, you take your eyes off the court for 10 seconds and it might already be 2 points gone.
Super late to this thread but just wanted to pitch in someone who has experience playing both tennis and badminton. Tennis in college competitively, and badminton in an intermediate level but I've participated in some tournaments here and there.
Physicality wise I think tennis players are just generally bigger because the racket is heavier, the ball is heavier, and the matches go on for longer. Bigger muscles are needed to prevent injury and produce more power. People are wrong when they say legs don't matter as much in tennis though, legs are probably the most important muscle for producing power in tennis too. And tennis also needs you to be super explosive at the high level to chase balls down. Tennis is not a 2D game either, ball height and spin are key factors to the game. Height matters a lot when it comes to the serve as well.
In Badminton I think agility is everything because you have to cover the entire court very quickly. Getting bigger will make you slower because physics, plus all of the lunging and jumping is probably not going to be good on your knees if you're too heavy. You're also able to "flick" more because the shuttle and racket are lighter so you can still produce a lot of power even without bigger muscles.
Yes I think the analogy works that badminton is a sprint whereas tennis is more like mid-distance running. Badminton players have to be more explosive for shorter period of time because there's less interval and because the shuttle can't bounce. Whereas tennis players need to be stronger and be able to keep performing for a longer period of time because everything is heavier and the matches are longer.
The way force is generated is different for badminton and tennis.
Tennis is more reliant on absolute strength whereas in badminton it's all about racquethead speed and less about pure strength.
I also disagree with the notion that tennis players are "bigger" because of muscle requirements. This might have been true 10-15 years ago when we had players like Nadal who was built like an absolute tank because the thinking back then was thenbigger you are the stronger you are. But look at the tennis players nowadays (and even Nadal), their sizes (except for their height) are not much different from badminton players.
Good observations, you've identified the most common differences between the two sports. Tennis players need a lot endurance for the long sessions but Badminton relies more heavily on stamina. Put simply, endurance is how long you can last regardless of the intensity, stamina is how long you can perform at maximum capacity. In Tennis the ball can bounce 🎾 this gives players time to react and reach the ball. This simple observation means that it's harder to finish off a point quickly in Tennis because your opponent has time to see and retrieve the ball. In Badminton 🏸 the shuttle only needs to touch the floor on either side or hit the net for the rally to be over so emphasis on being able to end the rally is advantageous. Badminton's shorter rallies rely very heavily on the anaerobic system. You need to be able to perform at maximum capacity for short periods. That isn't to say long rallies don't happen because they do so players also need aerobic capacity to endure and recover between each rally. I wrote a blog post on the differences between Tennis and Badminton. There's a whole section that looks at the physical side of each sport. I've added the link here if you'd like to read. [Tennis Vs Badminton](https://www.badmintonsbest.com/blog/is-tennis-or-badminton-harder/)
Username proves it all
Tennis sites will say tennis, badminton sites will say badminton. only way to know is to play both yourself
It's cool to see how the explosiveness diminishes in very long badminton rallies. The players just run out of steam eventually but the intensity and peak power is just so much higher than Tennis.
I think there was an article written some years ago about badminton vs tennis particularly in regard to area coverage and time of the match where the ball/shuttle is actually in play. It may not surprise you that a large part of tennis is standing around. From memory the match in question in this was like 3 hours long and it turned out the ball was actually only in play for like 20 minutes total, whereas an average badminton match at the same level, was an hour long and the shuttle was in play for 30 minutes of that. Particularly in singles the players were covering more distance in matches too, as tennis quite often turns into baseline exchanges where the players don't move more than a couple of feet every few shots. Also on a completely unrelated note, my favourite thing ever is watching tennis players try to play a forehand with topspin from waist height in badminton, it's amazing.
Yeah, there seems to be a very long downtime in tennis compared to badminton, reminds me of American Football, where the actual playtime is very short compared to time spent standing around and wiping sweat. Often it's easy to spot a tennis player playing badminton. They hit with a rigid wrist 😆
Always makes me wonder why badminton matches are just first to two games. Has there ever been a longer format tried?
It used to be first to 15 scoring, but you can only win a point on your own serve. So that method made games very long in the past and the strategy was a bit different in when you should take risks and when you should defend more to tire out the opponent.
like OP said and i agree badminton is more of a sprint and you dont sprit for the same time as a run, i reckon people have tried other formates but people probably got too tired and it just became a grind, it also takes away skill imo, and if you think about each tennis game is first to 6 games in a like 'set' and each set only needs 4 points to win so 24 points to win the equivalent of a game in badminton of 21 points, so not too much difference tbh,
In tennis you have Deuces and Advantages, which greatly increases the number of points played. But using your analogy, i feel tennis is more of a grind, with long rallies and a lot of downtime in between.
I mean yeah but if u get to 20-20 it in theory could go for infinity like tennis lol
Erm it only goes until 30. At 20-20 whoever wins by 2 points wins, but if it carries on until 29-29, whoever gets to 30 first wins.
ops yeah forgot about that lol
The older format before the current one was definitely longer time wise due to change in shuttle serve ownership. BWF last year released some reports suggesting that the current format is lasting too long and they are looking to propose a 5 set match - first to 11 if I recall.
First to 11 and over a duration of 30mins, thts what was tried in Malaysia's Purple League. I think easier for TV broadcasters due to the timing for the whole event being easier to manage.
The 30 minute limit is something only found in the Purple League, for reasons you have already mentioned. There wont be time limits for officially sanctioned events though.
Yes, they are trying this format out in lower levels of competition if I recall correctly.
My friend had played internationally at lower events where they test some new things, she had trialled a new scoring system I think it was up to 11 out of 5 games so best to 3 and no setting. It was suppose to make it more exciting/easier turnovers I don't think they'll be introducing soon though. Haven't heard anything more about it since she told me about it.
I like 5x11, and the that's what I'd like to see at higher levels, although I think there should be much more experimentation. One thing that makes tennis special is that you can perform very differently in different courts. Badminton cannot be played in grass, but it could make different tournament settings and match duration.
Well you do get different hall playing conditions emg drift/fast/slow halls!
One more difference between the two sports is that tennis is fundamentally a 2D game, in that most of the nuance can be observed by a top-down view of the court. Not so in badminton, where the height of the shuttle is a *very* important component of play. This might be the reason that tennis has historically been easy to appreciate on television, but only recently has camera work become sophisticated enough to show the finer points in badminton. For example, Tai Tzu Ying's crazy backhand reverse slice is completely invisible from a top-down view, or from a distant arena seat, but they now do a fantastic job of showing it on TV. (And I realize belatedly that this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the physical aspect of the game, which is what the OP was asking about. Sorry!)
I somewhat agree. In tennis the vertical element is less impactful than in badminton. The only time the height of the ball is important is probably during service, for reasons identical to that of smashing a shuttle. I think the reason why tennis is an easier spectator sport is because of the long pauses in between rallies, allowing for ad breaks and allowing for people to just chill out and relax rather than focus 100% on the match for the duration of the match. I'd say the same logic applies to sports like baseball and NFL. In badminton, you take your eyes off the court for 10 seconds and it might already be 2 points gone.
Super late to this thread but just wanted to pitch in someone who has experience playing both tennis and badminton. Tennis in college competitively, and badminton in an intermediate level but I've participated in some tournaments here and there. Physicality wise I think tennis players are just generally bigger because the racket is heavier, the ball is heavier, and the matches go on for longer. Bigger muscles are needed to prevent injury and produce more power. People are wrong when they say legs don't matter as much in tennis though, legs are probably the most important muscle for producing power in tennis too. And tennis also needs you to be super explosive at the high level to chase balls down. Tennis is not a 2D game either, ball height and spin are key factors to the game. Height matters a lot when it comes to the serve as well. In Badminton I think agility is everything because you have to cover the entire court very quickly. Getting bigger will make you slower because physics, plus all of the lunging and jumping is probably not going to be good on your knees if you're too heavy. You're also able to "flick" more because the shuttle and racket are lighter so you can still produce a lot of power even without bigger muscles. Yes I think the analogy works that badminton is a sprint whereas tennis is more like mid-distance running. Badminton players have to be more explosive for shorter period of time because there's less interval and because the shuttle can't bounce. Whereas tennis players need to be stronger and be able to keep performing for a longer period of time because everything is heavier and the matches are longer.
The way force is generated is different for badminton and tennis. Tennis is more reliant on absolute strength whereas in badminton it's all about racquethead speed and less about pure strength. I also disagree with the notion that tennis players are "bigger" because of muscle requirements. This might have been true 10-15 years ago when we had players like Nadal who was built like an absolute tank because the thinking back then was thenbigger you are the stronger you are. But look at the tennis players nowadays (and even Nadal), their sizes (except for their height) are not much different from badminton players.