See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349077015

Receive analysis in elite European table tennis matches

Chapter · February 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 130

4 authors:

Zoran Djokic Ivan Malagoli Lanzoni

Fakultet za sport i turizam University of Bologna
58 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 372 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michail Katsikadelis Gunter Straub

28 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS
Association of German Table Tennis Coaches (VDTT), Halle (Saale), Germany
38 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Follow-up book to "Tischtennis - Das Trainerbuch" View project

Ultra Short Heart Rate Recovery in Elite Table Tennis Players View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zoran Djokic on 06 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Publishers:
International Table Tennis Federation,
Hungarian Table Tennis Association,
University of Pécs.

Edited by:
Miran Kondrič – Editor-in-Chief
David Paár
Kei Kamijima

Editorial board
Miran Kondrič (SLO-Chair), David Paár (HUN), Pongrac Acs (HUN), Tamas Laczko
(HUN), Miklos Toth (HUN), Jozsef Betlehem (HUN), Andras Olah (HUN), Kazuto
Yoshida (JPN), Shiro Matsuo (JPN), Tsung-Min Hung (TPE), Xiaopeng Zhang (CHN),
Irene R. Faber (NED), Michael Fuchs (GER), Goran Munivrana (CRO), Nicolae Ochiana
(ROM), Emre Ak (TUR), Fethi Regaieg (TUN), Guillaume Martinent (FRA), David
Cabello-Manrique (ESP), Damir Sekulić (CRO), Alessandro Moura Zagatto (BRA), Kei
Kamijima (JPN), Ren Jie (CHN), Rizal Wan (SIN), Ian Harris Sujae (SIN), Francisco
Pradas (ESP), Sheng K Wu (TPE), Yaodong Gu (CHN), Sima Limoochi (IRN)

Organizing Committee
Andras Olah (HUN-Chair), Jozsef Betlehem, (HUN), Pongrac Acs (HUN), David Paár
(HUN), Miran Kondrič (SLO), Michael Fuchs (GER), Emese Barsai (HUN&ITTF), Roland
Natran (HUN), Miklos Stocker (HUN), Melinda Kalmar (HUN), Kata Morvay-Sey
(HUN), Csaba Melczer (HUN)

Reviewers:
Radivoj Hudetz (CRO), Goran Munivrana (CRO), Pongrac Acs (HUN), Agnes Palvolgyi
(HUN), Alan Chu (USA), Csaba Melczer (HUN), Damir Sekulić (CRO), David Paár
(HUN), Higinio Gonzalez Garcia (ESP), Irene R. Faber (NED), Ivan Malagoli Lanzoni
(ITA), Michael Fuchs (GER), Kazuto Yoshida (JPN), Shiro Matsuo (JPN), Xiaopeng
Zhang (CHN), Tsung-Min Hung (TPE), Nicolae Ochiana (ROM), Mei-Jen Huang (TPE),
Kei Kamijima (JPN), Michail Katsikadelis (GRE), Vedran Hadžić (SLO), Miran Kondrič
(SLO)

Design
Miran Kondrič

Cover design
Mervin Neo

Print
International Table Tennis Federation, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2020

© All rights reserved. International Table Tennis Federation, Lausanne, Switzerland

The publisher and editors are not responsible for statements or opinions made in the
papers and also not for English language editions. This Proceedings Book includes all
the congress communications received before the editing deadline. All published
papers have undergone review process from the side of international scientific
committee. Each paper has been evaluated by two independent reviewers. No part
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the International Table Tennis
Federation.

Published by International Table Tennis Federation

Printed in 2020, Switzerland

ISBN 978-2-9701466-0-5

Copyright© 2020 M. Kondric, D. Paar, K. Kamijima for selection and editorial matter;
for individual papers, the contributors
Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

Zoran Djokić1*, Ivan Malagoli Lanzoni2, Michail Katsikadelis3 and Gunter

Straub4
1Faculty of Sport and Tourism, University EDUCONS – Novi Sad, Serbia
(E-mail: zoran.djokic@tims.edu.rs)
2School of Pharmacy, Biotechnology, and Sport Sciences. University of Bologna, Italy

(E-mail: ivan.malagoli@unibo.it)
3School of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

(E-mail: rmichael@otenet.gr)
4Association of German Table Tennis Coaches, Germany (E-mail: straub@vdtt.de)

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to analyse serve receive activities in elite
European players. Twenty matches (78 games, 1466 points) of semifinal and final
German League and Europe TOP 16 in men’s (in the top 30 of ETTU Rank list) were
analysed. Differences in serving activities (type, stroke type, outcome and
placement) were analysed according results outcome of match, game, point, phase
of the game and result outcome.
Results showed that forehand and the backhand stroke ratio in receiving was
59/41%) and the ratio between active and passive receive (strokes) were
43.8/56.2%. The most used forehand backspin strokes (42.1%) mostly placed in the
middle of the table on the opponent’s forehand side. Percentage of point won
directly with receive was (24.5%), then follow point won in rallies after receiving
(23.6%), lost point after received were noted in 40.6% while receive errors were
11.7%. In the 2nd phase of the game were noted the most of active receive, while in
3rd phase the most of receive was with passive strokes. Results of Pearson ś chi-
squared test showed an association between match outcomes and receive stroke
type, outcome and placement zone, and the relation between use of active and
passive receive and phase of the game.

Keywords: serve, tactic, notational analysis, match analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
Both the serve and serve receive in table tennis affect the whole rally and point
outcome. In professional sport, one skill that sets the winner apart from the loser is
the capacity to more efficiently anticipate, react, and move in response to game
situations (Cañal-Bruland & Mann, 2015).
The serve receive has gained the same importance as a serve in table tennis,
especially with changing game regulations (ball visibility to opponent, playing with
new rubbers and enrolment of plastic balls) (Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac, 2017;
Djokic et al., 2019), and become as Muster (1999) predicted “the most important
shot in table tennis”.
The receiving player has several possibilities of how to return the opponent`s
serve: basically he can perform passive or with an active type of stroke, placing on a
different zone of the table on the opponent's side and continue the rally.

163
 Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

The serve receive is essential, for gaining the position in coming rally or taking
initiative, which will determine the whole rally, so collecting data of strategy and
tactics is important (O’Donoghue, 2004; Padulo et al., 2016).
Many performance analysts pointed the importance of receiving activities as
important indicators of performance in elite table tennis (Djokic, 2002a; 2002b;
2003; Katsikadelis, Pilianidis, & Mantzouranis, 2013; Zhang et al., 2013; Zhang, Zhou,
& Yang, 2018; Malagoli Lanzoni, Di Michele & Merni, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2018). In the
last major world and continental competitions were noted significant differences in
efficacy of receiving activities - percentage of winning points on opponent serve
(Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac, 2016a; 2016b; 2017).
Since there are continuous changes in table tennis performance activities (Djokic
et al., 2019) which impact on the game, there is a need for permanent monitoring of
activities such as serve receive.
Therefore, the aim of this study was match analyses considering the serve
receive activities in elite European table tennis.

2. METHODS
2.1 Sample
Twenty matches (78 games, 1435 points) of semifinal and final German League
(season 2018/19 and Europe TOP 16 (2018) in men’s were analysed. All players were
in the top 30 of ETTU Rank list.

2.2 Performance indicators

Performance indicators measured to provide information about the receive
activities were:
Receive type:
1) ACTREC – Active receive of serve (flick or topspin stroke)
2) PASREC – Passive receive (backspin stroke)
Receive stroke type:
3) FHBCSR - Forehand backspin receive
4) FHFLCR - Forehand flick receive
5) FHTSPR - Forehand topspin
6) BHBCSR - Backhand backspin receive
7) BHFLCR - Backhand flick receive
8) BHTSPR - Backhand topspin
Receive outcome:
9) RDIRPO - Receive direct point
10) RWONPO - Receive won point
11) RLOSPO - Receive lost point
12) RERROR - Receive error
Receive stroke placement:
13) ROUTFH - Outside forehand zone
14) RMIDFH - Middle forehand zone
15) RMIDBH - Middle backhand zone
16) ROUTBH - Outside backhand zone

164
Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

Differences in receiving activities (type, stroke type, outcome and placement)

were analysed according final results outcome of a match, game, point and instead
phase of the game (Phase 1: 1-4 point; Phase 2: 5-8 point; Phase 3: 8-11 point).

2.3. Procedure
Data were collected by videos of matches available on the official DTTB and ITTF
website. The video material allowed the observers during the video analysis to
clearly see the players, the table, and the playing area, which allowed a reliable
verification of all events during the match. The recordings were analysed in real
speed, but in case of certain inconsistencies, they were re-winded and seen in slow
motion (0.2 X). All the data were registered in the specially prepared templates for
the analysis of every match, in which all the analysed variables were coded and after
that, the data were inputted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

2.4. Reliability
In order to ensure a quality of reliability (O'Donoghue & Mayes, 2013), the
matches were evaluated by means of intra-observers and inter-observers. For this
research, two table tennis experts with adequate competition and coaching
experience were engaged for the role of observers. The reliability of intra-observers
is based on the concept of reanalysis of 20 random games. The intra and inter-
observers’ reliability has been evaluated by Krippendorff’s Alpha. The reliability of
the inter-observers was secured by reanalysis of all the matches by a second analyst.
The intra-observers’ reliability analysis showed an Alpha value of 0.993.

2.5 Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistical parameters (frequencies and percentages) were calculated
for all analysed players and considering result outcome (winners/losers). A
Pearson ́s chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation
between receiving activities and winning matches, with a level of significance of (α =
0.05). All the data were analysed using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corporation, USA).

3. RESULTS

Results of analyses on all samples showed that the ratio between active and
passive receive were 43.8/56.2%, more with forehand than backhand strokes
(59/41%). Mostly used strokes were forehand backspin (42.1%) and backhand flick
stroke (14.2%). Complete results of analyses of receiving type and receive stroke
type are shown in Table 1.

165
 Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

Table 1. Results of analysis of receive type and receive stroke type of all analysed
sample and according result outcome (winners/losers)
ALL SAMPLE WINNERS LOSERS
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
ACTREC 629 43.8 304 42.3 325 45.3
PASREC 806 56.2 414 57.7 392 54.7
FHBCSR 604 42.1 296 41.2 308 43.0
FHFLCR 86 6.0 32 4.5 54 7.5
FHTSPR 149 10.4 90 12.5 59 8.2
BHBCSR 204 14.2 120 16.7 84 11.7
BHFLCR 306 21.3 136 18.9 170 23.7
BHTSPIR 86 6.0 44 6.1 42 5.9

Based on the results of chi-square test of independence, which was performed

to examine the relation between receiving activities and winning matches, we can
state that since the p-value was greater than our chosen significance level, there
was not enough evidence to suggest an association between active/passive serve
receive and winning in match, Χ2(2, N=1435) = 1.301, p = 0.254), but there was
noted a significant association between winning the match and receive stroke type,
Χ2(2, N=1435) = 22.493, p < .000).
Considering, receive outcome, in general, in analysed matches percentage of
point won and lost points receiving serve was 48.1/51.9. Most points were won
directly to receive was high, then at the continuation point after receiving, while
receiving errors were 11.3%. Results of analyses of receiving outcome are shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Results of analysis of receive outcome of all analysed sample and according
result outcome (winners/losers)
ALL SAMPLE WINNERS LOSERS
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
RDIRPO 346 24.5 178 24.9 168 23.4
RWONPO 338 23.6 204 28.5 134 18.7
RLOSPO 582 40.6 258 36.0 324 45.2
RERROR 167 11.3 76 10.6 91 12.7
Won points 690 48.1 382 53.4 302 42.1
Lost points 745 51.9 334 46.6 415 57.9

Based on the results of chi-square test we can state the that there was a
significant association between winning the match and receive outcome, Χ2(2,
N=1435) = 23.617, p < .000).
Tactically, the most used zone on the opponent's side of the table where return
strokes were placed was middle of the table, more in forehand than backhand.
Results of analyses of receiving stroke placement are shown in Table 3.

166
Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

Table 3. Results of analysis of receive stroke placement of all analysed sample and
according result outcome (winners/losers)
ALL SAMPLE WINNERS LOSERS
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
ROUTFH 346 24.5 152 21.2 194 27.8
RMIDFH 442 31.2 222 31.0 220 31.5
RMIDBH 260 18.4 160 22.3 100 14.3
ROUTBH 234 16.5 122 17.0 112 16.0

There was a significant association between winning the match and receive
stroke placement, Χ2(2, N=1435) = 22.103, p < .001).
In Table 4 are shown efficacy of receiving stroke type.

Table 4. Results of analysis of receive stroke type efficacy of all analysed sample and
according result outcome (winners/losers)
ALL WINNERS LOSERS
SAMPLE
% % % % % %
WP LP WP LP WP LP
FHBCSR 44.7 55.3 63.6 36.4 46.6 53.4
FHFLCR 53.5 46.5 59.3 40.7 25.0 75.0
FHTSPR 43.0 57.0 55.9 44.1 42.2 57.8
BHBCSR 51.0 49.0 47.6 52.4 50.0 50.0
BHFLCR 51.6 48.4 52.9 47.1 42.6 57.4
BHTSPIR 55.8 44.2 57.1 42.9 31.8 68.2
% WP – Percentage of won points
% LP – Percentage of lost points

Analysing receive the type and outcome instead the phase of the game, it is
noted that in the 2nd phase (5-8 point) players use most of active receive with more
risk which have as consequence high percentage of made errors, while in last phase
players chose less risk on receive with passive strokes (Table 5).

Table 5. Results of analysis of receive type and outcome in different phases of the
match of all analysed sample
1st PHASE 2nd PHASE 3rd PHASE
RDIRPO 26.5 23.0 22.9
RWONPO 25.7 25.7 18.7
RLOSPO 36.9 37.9 48.1
RERROR 11.0 13.4 10.3
ACTREC 43.5 47.9 39.3
PASREC 56.5 52.1 60.7

167
 Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

There was a significant association between phase of the match and use of
active and passive receive, Χ2 (2, N=1435) = 7,163, p <.028).
The analyses of all won and lost points were done from the aspects of receiving
stroke type, outcome, placement, rally number and frequency in different phases of
the match. Results of analyses of receiving stroke placement are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Results of analysis of receive won/lost points

WON POINTS LOST POINTS
Frequency % Frequency %
FHBCSR 270 39.1 334 44.8
FHFLCR 46 6.7 40 5.4
FHTSPR 64 9.3 85 11.4
BHBCSR 104 15.1 100 13.4
BHFLCR 158 22.9 148 19.9
BHTSPIR 48 7.0 38 5.1
RDIRPO 346 50.1
RWONPO 338 49.0
RLOSPO 576 77.5
RERROR 167 22.5
ROUTFH 198 28.7 148 20.4
RMIDFH 216 31.3 226 31.2
RMIDBH 140 20.3 120 16.6
ROUTBH 132 19.1 102 14.1

Won points are mostly in 2nd rally (38.8%) and 4th rally (25.2%), while lost in 4th
(32.2%), 2nd (22.7%), 6th (13.4%) and 3rd (11.5%) ball.
Based on the results of chi-square test we can state the that there was no
significant association between game result outcome and receive type and
outcome.
Considering phase of match, most points on receiving were won in 1 st phase
(37.1%), 2nd phase (36.8%) and less in 3rd phase (26.1%), while in case of lost points
most of them were noted in 2nd phase (36.0%) than 3rd phase (33.3%) and less in 1st
phase (30.7%).

4. DISCUSSION
The objective of the research was to study a serve receive activities of elite
European table tennis players.
There was no significant relation between winning the match and active/passive
receive, but from analyses it is more likely that losers use more active receive
(probably to reach point deficit in game).
Most frequently used stroke with a high proportion of serving returns has been a
forehand backspin stroke (Malagoli Lanzoni et al., 2014). This stroke is characterized
as neutral stroke (enable continuation of the rally), but with precise placement it
could be a winning stroke or stroke, which can give advantage to receive. This type

168
Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

of stroke also was dominant in receiving in match analyses of best Chinese and
European players (Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac, 2016a).
A significant association between winning the match and receive stroke type,
indicate that the winners were more use offensive forehand receive with topspin
and less offensive receive stroke from the backhand (flick) than the losers, which is
also noted in the match outcome of best Asian and European players (Djokic,
Munivrana, & Levajac, 2016a; 2016b).
Winners were more likely successful in winning points after receive (but not
directly), and they lost less points and with less errors instead losers. Probably,
decreasing of serving efficacy is related to the high percentage of points won
directly to receive, and winning point after opponent serve.
Like in study of Djokic, Munivrana and Levajac (2017), higher percentage of
successful receive is contributing winning outcome. In this study average percentage
of winners in receive were 53.4%, like in analyses of final of European
Championships 2014 (Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac, 2016b) and at European Games
2016 (Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac, 2017), while in study of best Chinese players
receive winning percentage were more than 65% (Djokic, Munivrana, & Levajac,
2016a) and that is pointing in difference between European and World elite table
tennis. The same conclusion made Tamaki, Yoshida and Yamada (2017), that the
only chance for players from other countries to win against Chinese players are to
minimize the difference in receiving rallies.
Tactically, winners were more use a middle backhand zone for receiving stroke
placement, and less outside forehand zone of an opponent than losers. Frequent
use of the middle zone is confirmed and by Huang and Zhang (2013).
There is a significant association between phase of the match and use of active
and passive receive. Probably players adapt to opponent serve and play with more
risk, and in this part of the game (5th – 8th point) practically mostly they decide who
will win or lose the game. In the 3rd phase of the game dominate passive receive.
Considering phase of match most points on receive were won in 1 st and 2nd
phase, which implicate that is necessary to start match with full concentration,
because this could be possible to take advantage in the game.
Points played after receive are mostly short and finished in 2 nd, 4th and 6th rally.
2nd and 4th ball is most important for winning point.
Generally, results showed reduced the advantage of the server and greater
opportunity for receiver to win points. With the optimal selection of stroke type and
precise placement in short rallies there is a good chance of winning the point.

5. CONCLUSSION
The findings of this study implicate that the winning outcome in table tennis
matches is related to successful serve receive activities. Since, nearly the half played
points are won or lost in receive, so these activities should be monitored as a
valuable performance indicators, in competitions and be useful for performance
analysts and coaches in designing specific training sessions related to serve receive
and for monitoring of players progress.

169
 Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

REFERENCES
Cañal-Bruland, R., & Mann, D. L. (2015). Time to broaden the scope of research on
anticipatory behavior: a case for the role of probabilistic information. Front.
Psychol, 6, 15-18.
Djokic, Z. (2002a). Differences caused with new 40 mm ball in structure of
competitors’ activities of top table tennis players. International Journal of Table
Tennis Sciences, 5, 220–232.
Djokic, Z. (2002b). Structure of competitors’ activities of top table tennis players.
International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences, 5, 74–90.
Djokic, Z. (2003). Service and service return in modern top table tennis. In Kahn et al
(Eds.), Book of abstracts of the 8th International Table Tennis Federation Sports
Science Congress – The 3rd World Congress of Science and Racket Sports, (pp.21).
Paris: ITTF.
Djokic, Z., Munivrana, G., & Levajac, D. (2016a). Match analyses of the final game of
Men’s World Championship 2014 - China vs. Germany. In M. Kondrič, X. Zhang &
D. Xiao (Eds.), Science and Racket Sports V. (pp. 242-250). Suzhou University
Press, China: Soochow University & International Table Tennis Federation.
Djokic, Z., Munivrana, G., & Levajac, D. (2016b). Match analyses of final game of
Men’s Team European Championships 2014 - Portugal vs. Germany. In M.
Kondrič, X. Zhang & D. Xiao (Eds.), Science and Racket Sports V. (pp. 113-121).
Suzhou University Press, China: Soochow University & International Table Tennis
Federation.
Djokic, Z., Munivrana, G., & Levajac, D. (2017). Role of serve and return of serve at
European Games 2015 table tennis tournament. In M. Kondrič, M. Fuchs & T.
Matjašič (Eds.), Proceedings book of the 15th ITTF Sports Science Congress. (pp.
242-246). Lausanne: International Table Tennis Federation.
Djokic, Z., Straub, G., Malagoli Lanzoni, I., Katsikadelis, M., & Munivrana, G. (2019).
Effects of rule changes on performance efficacy: Differences between winners
and losers table tennis players. Facta universitatis - series: Physical Education and
Sport, 17(1), 149-163.
Fuchs, M., Liu, R., Malagoli Lanzoni, I., Munivrana, G., Straub, G., Tamaki, S., Yoshida,
K., Zhang, H., & Lames, M. (2018). Table tennis match analysis: a review. J Sports
Sci, 36(23), 2653-2662.
Huang W., & Zhang H. (2013). The effect analysis of Zhang Jike’s return serve with
backhand side-twisted at the 2/3 court right - 2012 London Olympic table tennis
singles. Int J Table Tennis Sci, 8, 72–76.
Katsikadelis, M., Pilianidis, T., & Mantzouranis, N. (2013). The interaction between
serves and match winning in table tennis players in the London 2012 Olympic
Games. In Kahn (Ed.). Book of abstracts of the 13th ITTF Sports Science Congress,
(pp. 28). Paris, France: ITTF.
Malagoli Lanzoni, I., Di Michele, R., & Merni, F. (2014). A notational analysis of shot
characteristics in top-level table tennis players. European Journal of Sport
Science, 14(4), 309-317.
Muster, M. (1999). Zur Bedeutung des “situativen Trainings” im
Hochleistungstischtennis – empirische Untersuchung zur Identifikation von

170
 Djokić et al.: Receive analyses in elite European table tennis matches

“Spielsituationen” [The significance of “situational training” in high-performance

table tennis – an empirical study for the identification of “game-play situations”].
(Doctoral dissertation). Technical University of Munich, Germany: Munich.
O'Donoghue, P. (2004). Match analysis in racket sports. In A. Lees, J. F. Kahn & I. W.
Maynard (Eds.), Science and Racket Sports III. (pp. 155 - 162). London: Routledge.
O'Donoghue, P., & Mayes, A. (2013), Performance analysis, feedback and
communication in coaching. In McGarry,T., O' Donoghue, P. & Sampaio, J. (Eds.)
Routledge Handbook of Sport Performance Analysis. (pp. 155 - 164). Routledge.
Padulo, J., Pizzolato, F., Tosi Rodrigues, S., Migliaccio, G.M., Attene, G., Curcio, R., &
Zagatto, A.M. (2016). Task complexity reveals expertise of table tennis players. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness, 56(1-2), 149-156.
Tamaki, S., Yoshida, K., & Yamada, K. (2017). A Shot Number Based Approach to
Performance Analysis in Table Tennis. J Hum Kinet, 55, 7-18.
Zhang, H., Liu, W., Hu, J.J., & Liu, R.Z. (2013). Evaluation of Elite Table Tennis Players'
Technique Effectiveness. J Sports Sci, 32(1), 70-77.
Zhang, H., Zhou, Z., & Yang Q. (2018). Match analyses of table tennis in China: a
systematic review. J Sports Sci, 36(23), 2663-2674.

*Correspondence to: zoran.djokic@tims.edu.rs

171

View publication stats