| Literature DB >> 35958383 |
Yuanjing Li1, Yi Wang1, Nan Gu2, Yecheng Cao3, Minghui Ye4.
Abstract
Since the table tennis mixed doubles competition was officially listed as the Olympic Games, the players around the world paid more attention to the project. In this background, the 20 mixed doubles finals were used in the literature, video observation, and analysis of multiple regression. From the receiving point of view, the score difference between men and women is not very great, but female players may be more consistent. The contribution of male and female scores to the game is more effective than model 1 and model 2 for different rounds. Therefore, model 2 is more efficient in the analysis of high-level table tennis competitions. Multiple regression model can be used to analyze and predict table tennis singles, doubles, and mixed doubles games, which we will see more and more in future research results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35958383 PMCID: PMC9359858 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6748465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1Eight rounds of mixed doubles competition.
Observation times of 20 table tennis mixed doubles matches.
| The number of showings of a film | Score | The number of showings of a film | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Austrian open final | 3 : 2 | 2019 Korea open mixed doubles semifinals | 3 : 1 |
| 2019 Swedish open mixed doubles final | 3 : 2 | 2019 Qatar open mixed doubles final | 3 : 0 |
| The 2020 German open mixed doubles final | 3 : 1 | Mixed doubles semifinals at the 2019 Asian championships | 3 : 2 |
| Mixed doubles final at the 2017 Asian championships | 3 : 1 | Mixed doubles quarterfinals of the 55th world table tennis championships | 4 : 3 |
| Mixed doubles semifinals at the 2018 Asian games | 4 : 0 | 2019 mixed doubles quarterfinals of the Qatar open | 4 : 2 |
| Mixed doubles semifinals at the 2018 Asian games | 4 : 1 | Mixed doubles final of the 54th world table tennis championships | 4 : 1 |
| Mixed doubles final at the 2018 Asian games | 4 : 0 | Mixed doubles final of the 55th world table tennis championships | 4 : 3 |
| Mixed doubles final at the 2019 Asian championships | 3 : 1 | 2019 international table tennis federation finals mixed doubles final | 4 : 1 |
| The 2018 Austrian open mixed doubles quarterfinals | 4 : 1 | Mixed doubles semifinal of the 55th world table tennis championships | 4 : 0 |
| 2019 Korea open mixed doubles final | 4 : 1 | 2019 ITTF finals semifinal | 3 : 0 |
Statistics of service rounds.
| Total serve score | Total loss of serve | Male score | Men lost points | Score rate for men | Male loss rate | Female score | Female hair lost points | Score rate for female hair | Female score loss rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 41.38% | 50.00% | 17 | 8 | 58.62% | 50.00% |
| 24 | 20 | 12 | 9 | 50.00% | 45.00% | 12 | 11 | 50.00% | 55.00% |
| 23 | 22 | 10 | 10 | 43.48% | 45.45% | 13 | 12 | 56.52% | 54.55% |
| 45 | 25 | 19 | 13 | 42.22% | 52.00% | 26 | 12 | 57.78% | 48.00% |
| 22 | 15 | 11 | 7 | 50.00% | 46.67% | 11 | 8 | 50.00% | 53.33% |
| 37 | 30 | 16 | 14 | 43.24% | 46.67% | 21 | 16 | 56.76% | 53.33% |
| 32 | 17 | 18 | 10 | 56.25% | 58.82% | 14 | 7 | 43.75% | 41.18% |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 47.37% | 40.00% | 10 | 6 | 52.63% | 60.00% |
| 19 | 18 | 12 | 8 | 63.16% | 44.44% | 7 | 10 | 36.84% | 55.56% |
| 25 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 36.00% | 56.25% | 16 | 7 | 64.00% | 43.75% |
| 27 | 21 | 10 | 12 | 37.04% | 57.14% | 17 | 9 | 62.96% | 42.86% |
| 29 | 19 | 14 | 8 | 48.28% | 42.11% | 15 | 11 | 51.72% | 57.89% |
| 16 | 24 | 5 | 12 | 31.25% | 50.00% | 11 | 12 | 68.75% | 50.00% |
| 24 | 13 | 10 | 6 | 41.67% | 46.15% | 14 | 7 | 58.33% | 53.85% |
| 22 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 45.45% | 42.86% | 12 | 8 | 54.55% | 57.14% |
| 38 | 27 | 16 | 13 | 42.11% | 48.15% | 22 | 14 | 57.89% | 51.85% |
| 23 | 22 | 10 | 11 | 43.48% | 50.00% | 13 | 11 | 56.52% | 50.00% |
| 20 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 40.00% | 50.00% | 12 | 3 | 60.00% | 50.00% |
| 12 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 50.00% | 54.55% | 6 | 5 | 50.00% | 45.45% |
| 24 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 41.67% | 42.86% | 14 | 8 | 58.33% | 57.14% |
| Average | 44.70% | 48.46% | Average | 55.30% | 51.54% |
Statistical table of receiving gains and losses.
| Total score on catch | Total points lost from receiving the ball | Male score | Men lost points | Male score rate | Male score loss rate | Female score | Women loss points | Female score rate | Female score rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 21 | 14 | 8 | 58.33% | 38.10% | 10 | 13 | 41.67% | 61.90% |
| 20 | 26 | 10 | 13 | 50.00% | 50.00% | 10 | 13 | 50.00% | 50.00% |
| 28 | 16 | 13 | 9 | 46.43% | 56.25% | 15 | 7 | 53.57% | 43.75% |
| 25 | 35 | 12 | 18 | 48.00% | 51.43% | 13 | 17 | 52.00% | 48.57% |
| 18 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 44.44% | 63.16% | 10 | 7 | 55.56% | 36.84% |
| 33 | 32 | 15 | 12 | 45.45% | 37.50% | 18 | 20 | 54.55% | 62.50% |
| 23 | 22 | 14 | 12 | 60.87% | 54.55% | 9 | 10 | 39.13% | 45.45% |
| 25 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 52.00% | 40.00% | 12 | 6 | 48.00% | 60.00% |
| 23 | 17 | 17 | 6 | 73.91% | 35.29% | 6 | 11 | 26.09% | 64.71% |
| 19 | 22 | 11 | 8 | 57.89% | 36.36% | 8 | 14 | 42.11% | 63.64% |
| 19 | 29 | 10 | 15 | 52.63% | 51.72% | 9 | 14 | 47.37% | 48.28% |
| 21 | 24 | 13 | 9 | 61.90% | 37.50% | 8 | 15 | 38.10% | 62.50% |
| 23 | 17 | 10 | 9 | 43.48% | 52.94% | 13 | 8 | 56.52% | 47.06% |
| 17 | 20 | 8 | 10 | 47.06% | 50.00% | 9 | 10 | 52.94% | 50.00% |
| 20 | 16 | 11 | 8 | 55.00% | 50.00% | 9 | 8 | 45.00% | 50.00% |
| 34 | 35 | 14 | 21 | 41.18% | 60.00% | 20 | 14 | 58.82% | 40.00% |
| 22 | 21 | 11 | 9 | 50.00% | 42.86% | 11 | 12 | 50.00% | 57.14% |
| 15 | 9 | 10 | 3 | 66.67% | 33.33% | 5 | 6 | 33.33% | 66.67% |
| 15 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 46.67% | 50.00% | 8 | 4 | 53.33% | 50.00% |
| 19 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 52.63% | 50.00% | 9 | 10 | 47.37% | 50.00% |
| Average | 52.73% | 47.05% | Average | 47.27% | 52.95% |
Figure 2Rate of different rounds in mixed doubles.
Figure 3Contribution rate of service rounds.
Figure 4Rate of gain and loss between men and women.
Results of the model 1 regression coefficient calculation.
| Regression coefficient | Regression coefficient estimates | Confidence interval of the regression coefficient |
|---|---|---|
|
| −3.3462 | [−26.0158, 19.3234] |
|
| 1.3767 | [−3.7309, 6.4844] |
|
| 0.7549 | [−1.6929, 3.2027] |
|
| 0.7645 | [−1.2041, 2.7331] |
|
| 0.7436 | [−1.7025, 3.1897] |
|
| −1.2333 | [−5.4248, 2.9581] |
|
| 0.6579 | [−1.8865, 3.2024] |
|
| 2.0006 | [−2.7307, 6.7318] |
|
| 0.7568 | [−1.6737, 3.1873] |
|
| 0.6576 | [−1.9490, 3.2642] |
|
| 2.4270 | [−1.5715, 6.4256] |
|
| 1.7717 | [−4.0662, 7.6096] |
|
| 0.1402 | [−4.0191, 4.2995] |
|
| ||
|
| ||
Results of the regression coefficients calculated for the second model.
| Regression coefficient estimates | Confidence interval |
|---|---|
| Of the regression coefficient | |
| −0.3908 | [−1.6656, 0.8840] |
| 1.7046 | [0.3707, 3.0385] |
| −0.3504 | [−1.7046, 1.0038] |
| 0.9823 | [−0.2252, 2.1897] |
| 0.8969 | [−1.7355, 3.5293] |
| −0.5226 | [−3.1351, 2.0898] |
| 0.2402 | [−1.1250, 1.6054] |
| 0.6805 | [−0.7206, 2.0816] |
Figure 5Linear regression analysis of common absolute versus total absolute scores between male and female athletes.