This user has no status.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Interesting article you have there, but we should also not forget the human itself. they're also other aspects which can influence your game:
- anxiety
- nervosity
- and daily form
but it's worth a shot to try this once
- anxiety
- nervosity
- and daily form
but it's worth a shot to try this once
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Well-Known Member
I have always said and still believe that for an offensive player, there is NOTHING like the score tied at 9-9 and it is your serve.
Allowing opponent to serve first, if otherwise a tight an even game, will produce a 9-9 game score.
Doing this in the first game allows you to have this a potential 3 times in a best of 5 games match.
Myself, I try to give away serve unless I know I can dominate opponent.
Allowing opponent to serve first, if otherwise a tight an even game, will produce a 9-9 game score.
Doing this in the first game allows you to have this a potential 3 times in a best of 5 games match.
Myself, I try to give away serve unless I know I can dominate opponent.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Interesting... this might by why my friends always let me be first to serve. ha ha ha.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
If you read the article carefully, then you'd notice that there are two very important conditions:
1. The assumption that 85% of players who get to 5 first end up winning, from an article in China Sports daily. The article says: "Statistics shows that 85 percent of the players who first reach the five-point mark turn out to win the set". It does not, however, describe the sample size and characteristics (e.g. what applies to 85% of members of the CNT team, or members of all provincial teams, or players who participated in ITTF-sanctioned events, etc most likely does not apply to 100% of mere mortals), so take it with a grain of salt. There is also a saying: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
2. All match scores with a difference of 3 or more point are excluded from the probability calculation. In other words, only close matches are considered. So if you're expected to win or lose the match, giving up the serve may not be such a brilliant idea.
But in general, that blog definitely gives some food for thought.
1. The assumption that 85% of players who get to 5 first end up winning, from an article in China Sports daily. The article says: "Statistics shows that 85 percent of the players who first reach the five-point mark turn out to win the set". It does not, however, describe the sample size and characteristics (e.g. what applies to 85% of members of the CNT team, or members of all provincial teams, or players who participated in ITTF-sanctioned events, etc most likely does not apply to 100% of mere mortals), so take it with a grain of salt. There is also a saying: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
2. All match scores with a difference of 3 or more point are excluded from the probability calculation. In other words, only close matches are considered. So if you're expected to win or lose the match, giving up the serve may not be such a brilliant idea.
But in general, that blog definitely gives some food for thought.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
It's a pretty good blog as he goes into a lot of detail for every article. I follow his blog and Ben Larcombe's blog with interest.
This user has no status.
One of my strengths is my serve. I will always want to serve first.
We shouldn't need to make the assumption that the player that gets to 5 points first will win most of the time. This can be calculated easily but one must assume the relative strengths of both players. If both have a 50-50 chance of winning the point regardless of who is serving then the math is easy.
The second assumption is not valid. All outcomes from 5-0,5-1,5-2,5-3,& 5-4 need to be considered. One must also take into account the relative probability of being at 5-0 or 5-1which is small.
I am always skeptical of statistics too. Luckily I can do statistics and probabilities so I might get around to testing this 85% number.
I don't think this article is thought out. If I can serve and win 60% but receive and win 50% then I would want to serve first but in the end it wouldn't make much difference because the weigh average is over 50% so I should win anyway. If I win 60% of my serves and only 40% of my serve returns then serving first is a big advantage.
We shouldn't need to make the assumption that the player that gets to 5 points first will win most of the time. This can be calculated easily but one must assume the relative strengths of both players. If both have a 50-50 chance of winning the point regardless of who is serving then the math is easy.
The second assumption is not valid. All outcomes from 5-0,5-1,5-2,5-3,& 5-4 need to be considered. One must also take into account the relative probability of being at 5-0 or 5-1which is small.
I am always skeptical of statistics too. Luckily I can do statistics and probabilities so I might get around to testing this 85% number.
I don't think this article is thought out. If I can serve and win 60% but receive and win 50% then I would want to serve first but in the end it wouldn't make much difference because the weigh average is over 50% so I should win anyway. If I win 60% of my serves and only 40% of my serve returns then serving first is a big advantage.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I love scientific analysis and I really enjoyed this article but the detail on giving or keeping the serve does not worth the study. Why? Well we are not sure that the set will go on 9-9. Besides its better to study the opponent thoroughly than to rely on mathematics. The probability of a match going to 9-9 is almost equal to every other score even vs an equal player because there are so many factors that are more crucial than serving / receiving.
Psychology followed by choosing effective strategies are the key to win. For example there are many things that can go wrong. What happens if you are not psychologically strong and execute a bad serve? Probably you will lose. What will happen if your opponent is familiar with your serve but on the other hand you are even better at receiving his serves? Theoretically speaking you are in a much worse position if you serve @ 9-9. Anything can happen, there is no need for such an analysis in table tennis especially against an unfamiliar opponent.
On the other hand if you know your opponent well and he knows you maybe its good to have the serve @ 9-9. But then again he will have the serve in the next set, so you can see the possibilities are endless
Psychology followed by choosing effective strategies are the key to win. For example there are many things that can go wrong. What happens if you are not psychologically strong and execute a bad serve? Probably you will lose. What will happen if your opponent is familiar with your serve but on the other hand you are even better at receiving his serves? Theoretically speaking you are in a much worse position if you serve @ 9-9. Anything can happen, there is no need for such an analysis in table tennis especially against an unfamiliar opponent.
On the other hand if you know your opponent well and he knows you maybe its good to have the serve @ 9-9. But then again he will have the serve in the next set, so you can see the possibilities are endless
This user has no status.
If one analyzed enough games and especially previous games between two players it should be possible to compute the probability in each situation and then all the combinations can be analyzed. Computers are very good at doing this.
I am sure that other sports do this sort of thing because there is usually more money on the line.
If I were a bookie I would do this sort of thing before making odds.
I am sure that other sports do this sort of thing because there is usually more money on the line.
If I were a bookie I would do this sort of thing before making odds.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I am actually of the other opinion. Win the toss and serve 1st. This way you get equal or more number of chances to serve than the opponent. So if a game ends 11-8 then you have served 10 times while your opponent has served 9 times.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
That's not important , even if they did it doesnt necessarily make their decision more logic or safe. Players keep the serve just for psychological reasons only, you have the chance for an early lead of 2-0
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Actually, it is important. There is much more at stake for professional TT players, and they would do anything, especially as simple as this, to tilt the outcome in their favour. So if giving away the serve actually worked for them, they'd be doing it. In other words, very likely, it is pointless to give away the serve.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Well for example of players like zhang jike and ma long or dima and boll Im afraid I will have to disagree (on the part that "they would do anything"). They know each other so well that serving/receiving (at the beginning of the match) does not play an important role to the final outcome. I mean they will keep the serve to try to have an early lead just to feel better if they score a 2-0.
For pairs like these I dont think they really give such attention to who serves first, if zjk doesnt play 100% the whole match 99% of the times he will lose to ma long , same thing goes for ma long. What i mean is, serving/receiving at the beginning is only a small part of the game and doesnt decide the total outcome it only may give you a tiny psychological advantage in the beginning (which maybe will make you win the set, or not!)
So I agree with you on giving the serve is pointless, but on the other hand keeping it doesnt mean you will win the set, just that u will have tiny psychological advantage. In the end its just psychological, if you feel better giving away the serve do it, if you dont keep it!
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
If you feel like having a close game, let the opponent serve first because then you have the serve at 9:9 in the last set. If you think you can domminate and want to "rush", you start the serve in the first and third set which gives you theoretically a 2:0 lead. Thats my opinion about it, but for the most of the matches I feel like having the serve at 9:9 in the last set is way more important than the beginning of set 1, 3 and 5.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I always give the serve to my friends just to be nice if they knock the ball back and tell me to go first then I'll serve first
I actually prefer receiving serves especially when playing against weaker players; don't wanna bully them with my serves haha.
coincidentally I'm considered (by friends) good at winning close games and matches (say if the score tied at 9-9, deuces, I usually win, maybe 70% of the time), but we are talking about amateur level here Actually now that I think about this, it may simply be because I'm just not living up to my potential, and shift gear when the score is close.
if they knock the ball back and tell me to go first then I'll serve first I actually prefer receiving serves especially when playing against weaker players; don't wanna bully them with my serves haha.
coincidentally I'm considered (by friends) good at winning close games and matches (say if the score tied at 9-9, deuces, I usually win, maybe 70% of the time), but we are talking about amateur level here
Actually now that I think about this, it may simply be because I'm just not living up to my potential, and shift gear when the score is close.
Last edited:
I really think this is a fallacious argument. I don't see any mathematical reason not to serve first.
The stat that says 85% of the time the first player to 5 points wins the set is obvious and irrelevant. In most matches one player is significantly better than the other. Therefore as they go through their statistically biased random walk up the points ladder the better player is most likely to get to 5 points first and most likely to win the set. In fact if the better player gets to 5 points first they are very likely to win the set.
In a close match do you really want to serve at 9-9 ? Much better to have the serve at 8-8 giving you a good chance to get to 10-8 because you are serving. Do you want to choose to let your opponent serve at 8-8 - really - really really ?
The whole basis of the game is that serving undeniably places you at an advantage even when you are evenly matched. You know before you serve what serve you are going to use and therefore what type(s) of return you are likely to get. Your opponent knows nothing about what is coming. Undeniably an advantage.
I think by far the biggest factor in close matches is the psychological strength of the players and their tactical nous, not who serves first. I have always been immensely impressed with Timo Boll in this regard. He seems to be able to approach each point afresh regardless of being ahead or behind - I have watched matches where he has seemed to win just because of this ability to remain unruffled and focused. I think the point about tactical nous is being able to recognise how to play to your strengths and avoid your opponents strengths at critical points in the match. PSychologically you could choose to let your opponent serve first in an attempt to shock and disturb him, but really with good players this seems unlikely to work.
The stat that says 85% of the time the first player to 5 points wins the set is obvious and irrelevant. In most matches one player is significantly better than the other. Therefore as they go through their statistically biased random walk up the points ladder the better player is most likely to get to 5 points first and most likely to win the set. In fact if the better player gets to 5 points first they are very likely to win the set.
In a close match do you really want to serve at 9-9 ? Much better to have the serve at 8-8 giving you a good chance to get to 10-8 because you are serving. Do you want to choose to let your opponent serve at 8-8 - really - really really ?
The whole basis of the game is that serving undeniably places you at an advantage even when you are evenly matched. You know before you serve what serve you are going to use and therefore what type(s) of return you are likely to get. Your opponent knows nothing about what is coming. Undeniably an advantage.
I think by far the biggest factor in close matches is the psychological strength of the players and their tactical nous, not who serves first. I have always been immensely impressed with Timo Boll in this regard. He seems to be able to approach each point afresh regardless of being ahead or behind - I have watched matches where he has seemed to win just because of this ability to remain unruffled and focused. I think the point about tactical nous is being able to recognise how to play to your strengths and avoid your opponents strengths at critical points in the match. PSychologically you could choose to let your opponent serve first in an attempt to shock and disturb him, but really with good players this seems unlikely to work.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
says
Aging is a killer
says
Aging is a killer
Well-Known Member
I'll serve first from now on if given the chance.....
The statistic that is most relevant to me is that whichever player gets a 3point lead at any time in a game is more likely to win that game.
In practice or self-umpired games, I tend to give away the serve as it helps me to keep track of who's to serve. But,
SpinQuark raises a good point about serving at 8-8, so I now have a good reason to serve first
The statistic that is most relevant to me is that whichever player gets a 3point lead at any time in a game is more likely to win that game.
In practice or self-umpired games, I tend to give away the serve as it helps me to keep track of who's to serve. But,
SpinQuark raises a good point about serving at 8-8, so I now have a good reason to serve first
Last edited:
This user has no status.
It really depends on whether you win more points when serving vs receiving. The original article didn't make it clear how one's percentages when serving and receiving affect the results. This is what makes the article flawed. My ability to win points serving vs receiving is significant so serving is advantageous to me.
It seems to me that it all depends on how comfortable one feels they are serving vs receiving.
Similar threads
