Double serve like in tennis

[Atas Newton]

Yeah. I agree. This subject is just not worth bothering with.

As far as the serve advantage in a particular tournament, part of why it is hard to judge that is disparity in player levels.

When ML or FZD play someone where they Win 4-0 -2, -3, -2,-1 they probably won a majority of their opponent’s serve points.

yes, Carl, good thinking, before using a stat one must ensure there's no sources of systematic error. However, there is none in our case. Consider this: when someone wins 4-0 they also probably win a majority of their own serve points as well, don't they? I do stats for a living and these sorts of things become immediately obvious after a while.

Rio used a sample of 7000 points for men's game and another 6500 points for women's (which if you add them together budge the percentages to 52.9%) for the total of 13500 points - that's well above what a statistician would usually ask for. These numbers are solid and would be replicated in any tournament at the highest level.

More tidbits: Ma Long, the winner of men's singles event, had 51% of all points scored come from his serves. Ding Ning, the winner of women's singles and a formidable server, achieved a whopping figure of 54.9%. Food for thought.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Your stats don't change my opinion that this is not something worth bothering with. And a stat like the fact that ML won 51% of all his points on his serve simply bolsters my statement that he won most of his opponent's serve points as well. Given the fact that he only lost 2 games in the whole tournament, he did not lose too many of his opponent's serves either. He simply won most of the points.

Go and find out the percentage of points ML won in his combined matches. If he won more than 70% of all the points in all his matches combined, it is hard for me to see how these stats make any difference.

 

[Atas Newton]

I wasn't trying to change your opinion, Carl. Chaging one's opinion via a debate on the internet is damn near impossible. Just wanted to get across that at the highest level of play serve offers a marginal advantage, not overwhelming as Der_Echte suggested.

Regarding your interpretation of the stats, mathematically these 51% have nothing to do with the fact that he also won most of the points when his opponents served. These are unrelated ratios, i.e. the number 0.51 contains no information on how often he won on receive. Of course he won most of the opponents serves and most of his own serves, he's Ma Long. Here's an analogy to better understand how these percentages come about. Imagine Ma Long playing a local club player. The score is 11-0 times 4. He's won all of his opponents serves. But he also won all his own serves. In that case he'd have 50% of the total points earned come from his serve. He didn't play local club players at the Olympics, yet he only improved that ratio by 1%. Ma Long serves slightly better than he does receive. Paul Drinkhall, on the other hand, had just 47% of his total points won come from his serves. He receives slightly better than he serves. There's no way of assessing the power of serving without looking at these numbers.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Then I think your stats have to be wrong. If he wins at an average margin of 11-3 throughout a tournament, there is no way on earth he can win 11-3 and only win 51% of his serves. If you only take the points he plays on his serve, and give the stats of how many of those he wins, he wins way more than 51% because IT IS VERY RARE that anyone, except another CNT player gets more than one game off of him.

Based on what you just said, I totally question everything you have to say.

Throughout a tournament where ML won over 70% of all the points he played, if you take away all the opponent's serves and only count his serves, he only wins 51% of the points on his own serves. Total BS. And it also means that he wins over 100% of his opponent's serves....or he loses.

Your arguments don't actually seem to make any sense.

In this match, my count of ML's wins of points on his own serve is 26-13 against Ovthcharov. That is just the points on his serve. And many of the points he lost on his serve, he was up by a lot and looked like he was not focused.

26-13 does not sound too much like 51% to me. Sorry. And this is against one of the best players in the world. There is no way ML wins only 51% of the points on his own serve.

If you took his matches from the past 10 years, all of them, and only counted points won to points lost, only on his serve, I am confident he has won more than 51% by a lot and the number may be more like the number listed above. I think that the win percentage on his serve vs Dima in that match (26-13) is something more like like 66.666% Yeah?

And, if the stat you are referring to says that 51% of all the points ML wins are points he wins on his serve, it simply means he wins most of the points on his opponent's serve as well which goes back to my point that your stat does not take into account disparity of level. If ML is winning 66% of the points on his serve and 64% of the points on his opponent's serve, it simply means he is better than his opponent. And that would also work out to 51% of the total points ML wins, being won on his own serve.

 

[Atas Newton]

Let me repeat, mind the exact wording

Ma Long, the winner of men's singles event, had 51% of all points scored come from his serves

which means that of all the points he won 51% were won on his serve, rest were won on receive. That's why I used an analogy where he wins every single point of the match and that puts him at 50% dead. That doesn't mean he only wins 50% of his serves. Ma Long only winning half of his serves is so obviously impossible that I don't know why you thought I'd say that. However, on average across all male participants of the Olympics the servers did win only 52.6% of the serves. Guess it's easy to mix up all these percentages, but they measure different things. Ma Long's 51% measure how much he relied on serving to score his points. The average 52.6% simply tells you how often the server won the point.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Let me repeat, mind the exact wording

which means that of all the points he won 51% were won on his serve, rest were won on receive. That's why I used an analogy where he wins every single point of the match and that puts him at 50% dead. That doesn't mean he wins 50% of his serves. However, on average across all men participants of the Olympics the servers did win only 52.6% of the serves. Guess it's easy to mix up all these percentages, but they measure different things. Ma Long's 51% measure how much he relied on serving to score his points. The average 52.6% simply tells you how often the server won the point.

And my point is, THE STAT MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT, AGAIN, IT DOES NOT take into account disparity of level. A better player will usually win a good number of his opponent's serve points.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I will give you two more stats.

From posts 41-66 in this thread, (26 posts) 8 of 26 were from Atas. That is just short of 33%. If you take posts 1-66, 18 were from Atas.That means that posts from Atas make up just about 20% of the posts in this thread.

Of the other 80% of posts from all other members combined, probably 70% of them tried to present a reason they felt this is not a good idea. And yet Atas has responded over and over again to each new response that does not agree with him. And yet he really has not said much that is even interesting on the subject.

 

[Atas Newton]

I already addressed that issue, it was the first thing I did when initially replying to you. That's why I used the analogy in the first place. You just ignored it altogether. The one where Ma Long (an epitome of a 'better player') beats a local club player 11-0. Does 11-0 sound like "winning a good number of opponent's serve points"? But he also wins all of the points on his own serves! Why on earth wouldn't, if he's a significantly better player? If the entire Olympics consisted of that one match, the average server would still win 50% of the points, because 50 is the average between Ma Long's 100% and the scrub's 0%.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

By the way, I wanted to say again, the fact that 51% of the points ML wins, he wins on his serve, which also means that ML wins 49% of his points on his opponent's serves simply means that ML usually wins most of the points.

SO THE STAT THAT ML WINS 51% OF THE POINTS ON HIS SERVE MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE HE IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN HIS OPPONENTS MOST OF THE TIME.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I think I will say it again. Your stat means nothing.

Faced with a match against one of the top 5 players in the world where ML won 66% of his own serves, you still try to assert a stat like ML winning only 51% of his points on his own serve means you are just a strange fellow who likes to argue.

 

[Atas Newton]

I will give you two more stats.

From posts 41-66 in this thread, (26 posts) 8 of 26 were from Atas. That is just short of 33%. If you take posts 1-66, 18 were from Atas.That means that posts from Atas make up just about 20% of the posts in this thread.

Of the other 80% of posts from all other members combined, probably 70% of them tried to present a reason they felt this is not a good idea. And yet Atas has responded over and over again to each new response that does not agree with him. And yet he really has not said much that is even interesting on the subject.

ah, Carl, stats are clearly not something you're good at, leave it to others The original poster being the one most interested in discussing his own idea? Outrageous! How could he? Also love how you ignored me agreeing with the reasonable posts that actually put some effort into explaining, why exactly they think the idea sucks. The only posts I responded to, were the guy rudely telling me to go watch tennis and the guy who was happy to ridicule ridiculous posts but then imploded after I ridiculed his ridiculous post.

 

[Atas Newton]

By the way, I wanted to say again, the fact that 51% of the points ML wins, he wins on his serve, which also means that ML wins 49% of his points on his opponent's serves simply means that ML usually wins most of the points.

SO THE STAT THAT ML WINS 51% OF THE POINTS ON HIS SERVE MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE HE IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN HIS OPPONENTS MOST OF THE TIME.

stop yelling for starters. Yes, Carl, that stat does mean a lot to anyone who ever looked at sports stats. If the game was serve dominated, we'd have seen the percentages skew drastically. Ma Long would've had 60-70% of his points come from the serves. But he doesn't and you're in denial.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Der_ I think the hijack should now be in full effect.

I have heard tell that the goon squad was chasing you from club to club in San Fran and you were ducking and dodging and using your killer no spin serve that has so much no spin that nobody can return it. And the goon squad was sure that you were using real, fake, Pro, National, ML's special H3 BS Nexy Karis M. They were trying to figure out the secret formula and were not hip to the bear's sweat secret formula. And you led them to the trap door on the Golden Gate Bridge. And got them to fall through the trap door again.

Der, can you explain to me the ruse you used to get the goon squad to fall through that trap door on the Golden Gate Bridge for me.

Monster, were you there to witness?

 

[Atas Newton]

Your emotions became clear when you liked the nothing-post that said "ditto the thumbs down". Ironically, you later tried telling me I ignored the healthy discussion that took place in this thread. It's your emotions that don't let you calmly look at the numbers and engage your thinking.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

stop yelling for starters. Yes, Carl, that stat does mean a lot to anyone who ever looked at sports stats. If the game was serve dominated, we'd have seen the percentages skew drastically. Ma Long would've had 60-70% of his points come from the serves. But he doesn't and you're in denial.

I am not yelling. I am just underlining and putting in bold since I said it before and you didn't seem to understand what I said.

Clearly, I disagree with you about what the stat means.

Unfortunately TT is very much a sport where most of what you see is mismatches.

If you compare the number of matches that are 4-0 or 4-1 to the number of matches that are 4-2 or 4-3, you see way more 4-0 and 4-1 matches than you should at the top levels.

And your stats on serve percentages do not take that into account. Just like a player in tennis who wins a match 6-0, 6-1, 6-0 will have probably won very close to 50% of his points on his opponent's serve.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

And yes, often when someone keeps responding to pretty much every post, even when he is the person who started the thread, it indicates something not 100% right going on in that person's head during that thread.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Your emotions became clear when you liked the nothing-post that said "ditto the thumbs down". Ironically, you later tried telling me I ignored the healthy discussion that took place in this thread. It's your emotions that don't let you calmly look at the numbers and engage your thinking.

You are really very silly.

I did like brokenball's comment. He made me laugh.

And just to be clear Atas, my response is actually about you. About how you respond. Not just in this thread. But in thread after thread.

I had no problem reading from NextLevel that he thought it might be a good idea. I have a feeling he would be able to explain pretty well why he thinks it may be a good idea and what it might add to the game.

But how you respond to people and the things you say, well, somehow, it is actually hard for me to read what you write. I feel so much of it is misguided and misses the point. And yet you seem to blunder on and on. Sorry. But I have actually seen it in so many threads where I am not sure how you misread and misunderstood what you are responding to. And yet you respond as though you understood what you read when you seem so clearly not to have.

 

[Atas Newton]

Here's a nice compilation I made, Carl. It demonstrates how in trying to defend your IRL friend Der_Echte (and I've got nothing against both of you personally) you've gone out of your way and ignored logic and common sense simply to appear like a winning side in our debates. First you appeared reasonable and noticed that

As far as the serve advantage in a particular tournament, part of why it is hard to judge that is disparity in player levels.
When ML or FZD play someone where they Win 4-0 -2, -3, -2,-1 they probably won a majority of their opponent’s serve points.

on which I congratulated you, because that's not a readily obvious observation. Not for me though, because I'm dealing with these every now and then in my work. So I calmly explained why your reasoning is faulty:

Consider this: when someone wins 4-0 they also probably win a majority of their own serve points as well, don't they?

It went downhill soon thereafter. First you seemed to accept the stat as true. You even attempted to use it against me lol

Your stats don't change my opinion that this is not something worth bothering with. And a stat like the fact that ML won 51% of all his points on his serve simply bolsters my statement that he won most of his opponent's serve points as well.

And I explained the second time why 51% don't have anything to do with the percentages of the points won on receive. At that point I wasn't even passive aggressive because I still hoped you'd stop arguing with facts and calling apples oranges. You replied with:

Then I think your stats have to be wrong.

Which translates to "stats prove me wrong? Impossible, they must be wrong themselves!" To be honest, I was a little upset with the lack of effort. Your posts also were steadily heating up. I had to explain yet again, still totally calm, what all of these numbers mean and why I use them at all:

Let me repeat, mind the exact wording:
Ma Long, the winner of men's singles event, had 51% of all points scored come from his serves
which means that of all the points he won 51% were won on his serve, rest were won on receive. That's why I used an analogy where he wins every single point of the match and that puts him at 50% dead. That doesn't mean he only wins 50% of his serves. Ma Long only winning half of his serves is so obviously impossible that I don't know why you thought I'd say that. However, on average across all male participants of the Olympics the servers did win only 52.6% of the serves. Guess it's easy to mix up all these percentages, but they measure different things. Ma Long's 51% measure how much he relied on serving to score his points. The average 52.6% simply tells you how often the server won the point.

Then you decided that since the evidence was mounting against you, it's best to just play fool and ignore both the facts and my explanations altogether:

And my point is, THE STAT MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT, AGAIN, IT DOES NOT take into account disparity of level. A better player will usually win a good number of his opponent's serve points.

Running in circles, eh? We've already been there, Carl! The only thing that changed since I last explained why the disparity doesn't matter in the slightest was that you started typing in CAPS. A classic way to win an internet argument. Thank god my hearing isn't as good as it used to be and I managed to ignore your screaming and stayed calm to try just one more time:

I already addressed that issue, it was the first thing I did when initially replying to you. That's why I used the analogy in the first place. You just ignored it altogether. The one where Ma Long (an epitome of a 'better player') beats a local club player 11-0. Does 11-0 sound like "winning a good number of opponent's serve points"? But he also wins all of the points on his own serves! Why on earth wouldn't, if he's a significantly better player? If the entire Olympics consisted of that one match, the average server would still win 50% of the points, because 50 is the average between Ma Long's 100% and the scrub's 0%.

At this point you started to sound like a broken record. Or a religious cultist. Because your next 2 replies were as follows:

By the way, I wanted to say again, the fact that 51% of the points ML wins, he wins on his serve, which also means that ML wins 49% of his points on his opponent's serves simply means that ML usually wins most of the points. SO THE STAT THAT ML WINS 51% OF THE POINTS ON HIS SERVE MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE HE IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN HIS OPPONENTS MOST OF THE TIME.

I think I will say it again. Your stat means nothing.

This convinced me all was lost and you're not hearing me and I stopped trying

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

You are still trying to win an argument and you are still not really making sense. I get that you like arguing and you like winning arguments.

And it is still the person who is rubbing me the wrong way and not the actual subject matter. And how you like to take things out of context and try to make the other person look bad.

But, guess what, I just think you are confusing yourself with the stats.

"The average 52.6% simply tells you how often the server won the point."

When a large percentage of the matches in a tournament are not really that close, all this indicates is that quite frequently, one player may have been enough better than the other player to win most of the points. As you have already said, if you win 11-0, 11-0, you will have won 50% of your points on your opponent's serve. And you should also realize that if you win 11-0, 11-0, 11-0 and your opponent served first, you will have won more than 50% of your points on your opponent's serves because he will have served 17 times and you will have served 16 times.

And then there is another issue: why do you want serving to be such a big advantage in the first place?

When you watch certain players who were really serve dominant in their prime like Schlager or He Zhi Wen, I am sure there are matches they won where they won because of the large percentage of points they got on their own serve even if they lost a decent percentage of their opponent's serves. But why would that be good for the game?

You can say whatever you want. But I think you really don't realize how bad you sound when you argue. I actually am not mad even if I was trying to troll you and get you to keep responding since I can see in this thread, you have responded to pretty much every comment that didn't seem to agree with your premise. And in doing it, you continually come off sounding bad to me.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

By the way, I think it is unfortunate that the disparity in level from the 5 or 6 best players in the world to the 7-50th players in the world is actually a real unfortunate thing and one of the reasons TT struggles for international recognition.

When one of the top 5 (not WR but top 5 actual best players) plays someone one notch lower than them, it is usually not a very interesting match and the higher level player will usually win quite easily.

But from my perspective, I don't even think serving needs to be such a big advantage. Overall strategy and playing skills matter much more in TT than serve dominance. And I am not sure that should change.