Day 1 at ASIAD 20: Two bronzes from the margins, women's volleyball quietly exits

At 10 a.m. on September 20, inside the ASIAD 20 venue in Aichi, two Vietnamese teqball athletes stepped onto the podium to receive a bronze medal – the first medal for the Vietnamese delegation at this Games. At the same time, a few kilometers away, Vietnam's women's volleyball team was entering a quarterfinal against China. When the match ended, the electronic board showed 0-3. No set won, no player named in the official report. An eerie silence surrounded the team sport once considered the delegation's biggest hope. September 20 was the first official competition day of ASIAD 20 (Aichi-Nagoya 2026). Before the Games, Vietnamese media asked a big question: 'Waiting for a mark from Vietnamese athletes?' Expectations centered on shooting – a sport described as 'receiving considerable expectations' – and women's volleyball, a team that had produced regional miracles. But when the first day ended, the delegation's two bronze medals came from teqball (mixed doubles) and karate kata. Shooting disappointed as all three shooters failed to qualify. Swimming finished 8th in two finals. Women's volleyball stopped at the quarterfinals, losing 0-3 to the strongest team in Asia. A full spectrum of emotions: medals, failures, big question marks. I have followed Vietnam's women's volleyball through many ASIAD editions, and I can say that losing 0-3 to China in the quarterfinals is not a shock. It was a predictable result. China is a top-10 world team with superior height, power, and coaching systems. Vietnam, despite its fast and varied style typical of the Asian school, remains around 30th in the world. Facing a team with powerful serving and excellent blocking, Vietnam's fast offense was strangled from the first pass. Without a perfect reception, attacks like shoot sets, back-fly, and wing spikes become useless. The team fell into passivity, forced to rely on high out-of-system attacks – something their frontcourt was not built for. But the real issue is not losing to China. The real issue is that Vietnam's women's volleyball remains stuck in the 5th-8th group in Asia. The medal group is almost fixed: China, Japan, Thailand. The fourth slot is a race between South Korea and Vietnam. To win an ASIAD medal, Vietnam must beat South Korea or Thailand in a knockout match. That is a problem they have not solved for years. The 0-3 loss to China is just a slice reflecting their true position: better than the lower tier, but not good enough for the top group. Meanwhile, the delegation's two medals came from sports considered 'marginal' by the public. Teqball, a sport combining football and table tennis, made its ASIAD debut and delivered a bronze on the first day. Karate kata – a technical performance discipline – added another bronze after a remarkable journey: losing in the preliminary round to a Japanese athlete, dropping to the repechage, then beating Korean and Singaporean opponents to claim the medal. These two medals are precious, but they come from sports with lower investment costs and less competition than volleyball. They show a smart strategy: choose fertile fields to plant seeds instead of plowing saturated fields. What is interesting is how these two medals arrived. In karate kata, the Vietnamese athlete lost her first match, seemingly eliminated. But thanks to the repechage format – athletes who lost to eventual finalists get a second chance – she beat two opponents to win bronze. This is a story of resilience and maximizing opportunity. In teqball, the mixed doubles bronze was the result of systematic investment in a new sport where Vietnam can compete with regional powers. Two different stories, but both show that in Asia, winning medals requires not only strength but also strategic intelligence. But this raises an uncomfortable question: are we investing in easy medals rather than sports with great cultural and spiritual value? Women's volleyball is one of the most beloved sports in Vietnam. Millions of fans follow the team. They do not need a teqball bronze to be proud; they need to see their team compete on equal footing with Asia's best. That is what Vietnam has not done. Meanwhile, shooting – the most anticipated sport – failed completely. All three shooters missed qualification. This is a big shock because shooting has brought Vietnam many medals at previous ASIADs. Swimming, despite two finalists, ranked 8th – the gap to the medal group remains a chasm. These results show the stagnation of former pride sports while new sports rise. Is this a sign that Vietnamese sports are becoming more pragmatic, hunting medals in easier places? A notable detail in the September 21 diary: all information about the volleyball match was condensed into one sentence – 'lost 0-3 to China, stopped at the quarterfinals.' No set scores, no player names, no technical stats. This shows a reality: at an ASIAD where people care about medals, a quarterfinal loss is not considered 'significant news.' It is just a line in the standings. To me, this absence of data is itself data. When the whole city argues about xG, I print out the numbers and draw a heart on them. It reflects how Vietnamese sports operate: chasing medals, chasing results, sometimes forgetting that sustainable development of a sport needs more than a medal. Look at Thailand. On the same day, they won three teqball golds. They are also one of Asia's top women's volleyball nations. They do not see teqball as a replacement for volleyball; they see it as an addition. Vietnam, in contrast, seems drawn into a cheap-medal race, chasing emerging sports while traditional ones like volleyball have no way out. This is not a one-day story but one of decades of planning. Without a long-term strategy for volleyball, ASIAD 21, ASIAD 22 will witness the same script. I know this is a controversial take. People call me a hot-take; I call it a view not yet named by the crowd. But look at it differently: if we define 'a mark at ASIAD' as winning as many medals as possible, two bronzes can be considered success. But if we define it as developing sports sustainably, that success is an illusion. A teqball bronze comes from a sport that may not be in the program next year, while volleyball – with millions of fans – keeps repeating the cycle of 'quarterfinal then exit.' Is that worth celebrating? The answer, perhaps, lies in how we define 'a mark.' If a mark is a medal, we already have it. But if a mark is a breakthrough for a key sport, we are still waiting. The women's volleyball story at ASIAD 20 reminds us: do not just wait for miracles; build them from the roots. The medal ends the story, but the assist is why the story is told. For me, the 'assist' here is a long-term investment strategy for foundational sports – where a generation of players can inspire millions. September 20 has closed. Today, September 21, the delegation is still competing, and fans are still waiting for a bigger mark. But perhaps it is time to ask again: what mark are we waiting for? A teqball medal or a step forward for women's volleyball? If the latter, the answer will not come overnight; it will come from revolutionary investment decisions. And until Vietnam's women's volleyball can beat South Korea or Thailand in a knockout, I will keep writing about them with the attitude of a patient observer – but one with evidence.