2 or 5. Top Player Opinions.
by Hans, 2005-06-28
_________________
Content:
1. Rickard Persson's Opinion Poll
2. The Opinions of the World Champions
3. Criticism
_________________
Below is the report Rickard Persson wrote on an opinion poll that he carried out on the initiative of Hans Mullamaa. After the poll follow 4 e-mails from "the four World Champions", in which they explain their opinions in more detail. In the last section, finally, there is a summary of the criticism that the poll has been exposed to - and the defence that was put up in response.
The poll covers the top 5 (3%) of the 181 players on the ladies' ranking and the top 10 (1%) of the 1006 players on the men's ranking.
In summary, the result is as follows:
5 serves: 9 votes (out of which 7 for single toss and 2 for four
tosses)
2 serves: 6 votes (out of which 1 for single toss, 2 for four
tosses and 3 unclear/indifferent)
Single Toss: 8 for, 4 against and 3 unclear/indifferent
It might also be noted, especially by someone who likes 5 serves,
that:
5 out of the 6 top men want to keep 5 serves.
All top 3 among the ladies want to keep 5 serves.
On the other hand, if you like 2 serves you might be more inclined to make the following observation (as quoted from Gert Peersman): "We then decided to consider the views of all the players that played at least two tournaments with 2-serves until 21 (this is the very minimum to make a judgement), i.e. Magnus, Stefan, Rickard, Calum, John, Marcel, Lilian, Susanna and Silke. Five of them prefer the 2-serves and only four the 5-serves rule."
______________________________________
1. Rickard Persson's Opinion Poll
______________________________________
The players, who answered the poll were given the following alternatives:
* FIVE SERVES + FOUR SEPARATE TOSSES (i.e. as present)
* FIVE SERVES + SINGLE TOSS
* TWO SERVES + FOUR SEPARATE TOSSES
* TWO SERVES + SINGLE TOSS
...and they were asked to motivate their choice briefly.
From: Persson Rickard
To: lennart@enskederackethall.se
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Ny version
Magnus Eliasson: 5 serves, with single toss.
"For me it´s absolutely no doubt: 5 serves. But it has to
be with
single toss.
(source: oral conversation with Magnus)
Stefan Adamsson: 5 serves, with single toss.
"It´s easier to remember the scores, and you have the
tactial aspect of
5 serves. You can put a strategy in your servegames".
(source: oral conversation with Stefan)
Rickard Persson:
"From the start I was pro-5 serves, but since playing 3
tournaments
with 2 serves I´m not as sure any more. It´s 50-50 for me, but
if you
put a gun to my head I would say 2, from an egoistic point of
view".
Mikko Kärkkäinen: 5 serves, with single toss
"Longer serve games is better for the rhythm and 5 serves
has a long
tradition which we should not stop without good reasons. (The
single
toss rule takes care of the unfairness.)".
(source: E-mail from Hans - based on a phone conversation with
Mikko)
Calum Reid: 5 serves, without single toss
"Five serves opens up an opportunity for a really good
server to gain
an advantage. It should pay off to be a good server! Four tosses
means
a bigger element of chance is brought into the game to make it
more
interesting".
(source: E-mail from Hans - based on a phone conversation with
Calum.)
Roland Helle: 5 serves, with single toss.
"Five serves gives the players a fair chance to find rythm
in serve and
receiving, which works for better quality of play, which is good
for
both the audience and the players themselves. Two serves is too
quick
and fragmented for this".
(source: E-mail from Hans - based on a phone conversation with
Roland)
John O´Donnel: 2 serves, and no toss.
(source: John by mail)
Mats Källberg: 5 serves, with single toss.
"You get a better rythm in the game with 5 serves, and it´s
easier to
count the points played".
(source: oral conversation with Mats)
Marcel Weigl: 2 serves. Single toss is not necessary in that
case.
(source: oral conversation with Marcel)
Douglas Struthers: 2 serves.
"2 serves makes for a better/fairer match WITHIN each of the
4
disciplines."(source: Douglas´ by e-mail)
Lilian Druve: 5 serves, with single toss.
- Five serves gives the players a fair chance to find RYTHM in
serve
and receiving, which works for better quality of play, which is
good
for both the audience and the players themselves. Two serves is
too
quick and fragmented for this.
- Five serves is more INTERESTING for both the audience and the
players
themselves in the sense that the serve games make up "small
matches
within the match". You can follow, with interest, who will
_win_ each
serve game (e.g. 4-1, 3-2). With two serves it is more like a
monotonous and boring sequence of identical points.
- Five serves makes for a better BALANCE between the length of
the sets
and the length of the serve games. 2 serves feels like too many
serve
games in a set.
(source: Hans' typing based on his oral conversation with Lilian.
Reviewed and confirmed by Lilian.)
Katy Buchanan, 5 serves
"I really don´t care, but I prefer the old rules with 5
serves".
(source: oral conversation with Katy)
Susanna Lautala-Näykki: 2 serves, with single toss
"Two serves is "smoother" than five serves.
(Racketlon does not need
any serve games because it is not important who wins them.) The
single
toss is an interesting and fair way to decide who gets to choose
serve
and end".
(source: Hans' typing based on a phone conversation with Susanna)
Sarah McFadyen: 5 serves
"I prefer the 5 serves, as I think the 2 serves idea is too
bitty - in
a sport like racketlon where you have to adapt to so many
different
things, I think it's important to still be able to get some form
of
rhythm going.
The single toss rule as opposed to four separate tosses doesn't
make
such a difference, but in the interest of fairness, I suppose it
does
make more sense. I have never thought too much about the options
for
the toss before, as I don't believe it makes that much of a
difference.I think the reason it doesn't bother me is that having
won
or lost the toss for tennis doesn't make a huge difference to me
as it
is my strength, and also, as my table tennis is fairly poor, it
doesn't
make any difference whether I won of lost the toss for table
tennis
either! These are the 2 sports that it makes most of a difference
in,
and neither make any difference to me. However, there have been
several
people who have reservations about the unfairness of the 4
separate
tosses, so for this reason, changing it would be a good idea, as
it
appears fairer.
While reading through the Analysis on "Number of Serves per
Serve
Game", I did notice something I disagree with in the
arguments. In
point 1.1.2) I would argue that the tennis asymmetry is in fact a
clear
advantage for the "left-servers", as more game points
are played from
the left-hand side of the court".
(source: Sarah´s own typing)
Silke Altmann, 2 serves
(Silkes mail has disappeared in space, but, according to
legendary
swedish player Mika Hasmats, Silke prefers 2 serves. Although
it´s not
a big issue for her, Mika tells)
______________________________________
2. The Opinions of the World Champions
______________________________________
Below are 4 e-mails from "the four World Champions" (or more precisely: presently active players who have won a world championship in the Men's Open or Ladies' Open classes) that were sent to the network just before the vote started.
They are:
SARAH MCFADYEN, Scotland, Ladies' World
Champion, Vienna 2004
LILIAN DRUVE, Sweden, 2 times Ladies' World
Champion, Gothenburg 2002 and 2003
MAGNUS ELIASSON, Sweden, 3 times Men's World
Champion, Gothenburg 2002, 2003 and Vienna 2004
MIKKO KÄRKKÄINEN, Finland, Men's World
Champion, Gothenburg, 2001
(Katja Aminoff, Finland, Ladies' World Champion, Gothenburg 2001,
is missing since she is no longer active.)
Från: SarahMcFadyen@aol.com
Datum: Ons 22 Jun 2005 17.09.41
Dear all
Please accept my apologies for this e-mail being slightly past
the noon
deadline - this is the first chance I have had to get on the
Internet
since yesterday.
I am in favour of 5 serves with a single toss.
My reasons for the 5 serves are:
- 2 serves is too bitty. A racketlon player needs to adapt
to so many
different things that I think it is important to keep some form
of
rhythm going. I think table tennis had the right idea with
5 serves
when playing to 21. It makes small service games within
each game, and
this is good for players and spectators, is it gives both small
"games"
to focus on at a time.
- in my opinion, it doesn't matter if you serve twice in a row,
or 5
times in a row - if serving is your strength, you're going to
gain the
advantage every time you serve. The number of times you
serve in a row
doesn't make any difference to your opponent. With 5
serves, if you're
playing a strong server in any sport, you have to mentally
prepare
yourself to concentrate much harder on your own serve, as you
have to
come back from a probable 5 point deficit. But you should
be expecting
that, and therefore be prepared for it.
My reasons for the single toss are:
- it links the 4 individual sports together much better, and
makes a
player think of tactics for the whole match, rather than just
thinking
tactically for each sport individually. With 4 separate
tosses, a
player doesn't have to think about any of the other sports while
concentrating on one. This forces a player to think more
tactically
about the 4 sports as one.
- although 4 separate tosses has never bothered me (mainly
because
serve is most important in table tennis and tennis - my table
tennis is
weak enough and my tennis is strong enough that who serves first
doesn't matter to me), I do think it is fairer to eradicate any
advantage that "lucky tossers" would get from winning
most of the
tosses. As this point has been brought up, it has obviously
caused
problems for some people, and therefore the single toss appears
to be
the fairest way of solving this problem.
I also have some opinions on some of the comments that have been
made
during this discussion:
- I do not understand where the concerns about the complexity of
the
single toss rule are coming from. All racketlon matches
provide the
players with a scorecard, and to prevent any complications, you
can
write on the card who gets first choice of what to do in which
sport.
In a way, it makes the choices easier, as it forces you to think
about
all of your tactics before the match, and means that you don't
have to
worry too much about making these decisions in the middle of the
match
when you might be completely knackered!
- I found the point about taking it in turns to serve first a
very
interesting one. However, I do not believe this to be the
fairest way,
as this may favour players whose serves are stronger in certain
sports,
or players with certain "profiles". I believe
making the toss a bit
more flexible will eradicate any "lucky profile
advantage" as it may
not always be table tennis and tennis that someone's strong
serves are
in.
- on Marcel's point - "Like in many sports who starts serve
first set,
receives second set and so on……" I thought table
tennis was the only
sport that did this. Badminton and squash have the winner
of the last
game serving first in the next one, and tennis just follows it's
pattern, which isn't relevant to racketlon.
When the discussions first started on changing the rules, I was
in
favour of leaving them alone, but, having heard the points put
forward
by all parties, I am now an in favour of a slight change in the
rules,
i.e. the single toss, as I believe it to be fairer than what
currently
stands. I also think that we should be careful how many
changes are
made to the sport within the same year. In all sports,
there are
aspects that don't suit certain players, but that doesn't mean
that we
should change the rules. At the moment, most, if not all
racketlon
players' backgrounds are not the same in all sports, and within
each
sport, everyone has different strengths, so certain rules are
always
going to suit some players more than others. The challenge
of the
sport is to adapt your game to minimise any disadvantages you may
have
in a racketlon environment. It could be argued that the
biggest
disadvantage is that the sports are always in the same order,
which
could be a disadvantage to those whose strengths are in the final
two
sports, but due to the nature of the game, and limits on
facilities,
this is currently not a feasible change. And that's a
completely
different argument, possibly for another year!
I hope these points are of interest to you. I may have only
been
involved in racketlon since last year, but I have a strong
interest in
the mental side of sports, as I believe this to be one of the
most
important things about any competitive sport. I also hope
that we can
keep the discussion as the mature debate / opinion poll that it
started
out as, and not get into mud-slinging and finger-pointing -
everyone
has the right to an opinion and should be heard equally.
Regards to all
Sarah McFadyen
Från: "Lilian Druve" <nekkin@telia.com>
Datum: Tis 21 Jun 2005 13.43.00
Hi all,
Having played elite racketlon for 6 years I feel my opinion
in this 2
versus 5 serves issue could be of value for players/members of
the IRF
that have not been around that long in our sport.
After having experienced both 2 and 5 serves in different
tournaments I
strongly recommend 5 serves with the motivation that it gives
simplicity and rhytm to the game.
Playing 2 serves often feels like giving more energy to
remembering who
is serving (and in tennis handing all the balls to the server
also
takes time and focus from the game) than to playing the
actual points.
With 5 serves it´s easier to build a rhytm and tactics (and also
to
change tactics within the "mini game" regarding
both serving and
receiving). I think this is good both for players and audience.
Regarding the single toss it´s easy to make a note on the score
sheet
who is serving first in each sport. The single toss favours
tactics
versus luck and will be my recommendation.
So 5 serves and single toss it is!
If there is someone out there who isn´t really clear over how to
vote I
hope my experience can be of help.
Best regards and see you around,
Lilian Druve
Sweden
World nr. 1
Från: Magnus Eliasson <magel139@student.liu.se>
Datum: Tis 21 Jun 2005 14.49.01
Dear all!
My opinion is that we should have five serves with single toss.
Single
toss to take away the possibility for one player to start serving
in
both table tennis and tennis and five serves because it creates a
better rythm in the game. Hope that this vote will result in the
option that is best for racketlon. All my best/ Magnus Eliasson
Från: Mikko Kärkkäinen <mikko.karkkainen@tut.fi>
Datum: Ons 22 Jun 2005 13.56.49
Hello!
Ok. Now it is my turn to express my opinion concerning about the
questions
between the serve rule and the single toss rule. At first I would
like
to say
that these questions and decisions are significant to our game so
we
have to
make the decisions together.
I think that the best option is to have the 5-serve rule with the
single toss
rule. 5 serves because it is easier for players to concentrate
because
there
are so many things to remind so it would be the best when players
could
concentrate only for playing. That is the main reason for the
game, I
think.
Also you can get better start and rhythm for the game when we
have 5
serves. It
is also easier to remind points and I think that is also more
intresting for
the audience. There are more easily mix ups when we use 2 serves,
I
think so.
Single toss rule is a better solution against the case that the
other
player
have a chance to start both in tennis and table tennis. So we
have to
make it
sure that the other player could start in tennis and the other in
table
tennis.
Otherwise is not fair.
So the important things are easiness, rhythm, objectivity, etc.
But we
have to
remember also the tradition.
Mikko
______________________________________
3. Criticism
______________________________________
The above information, that was published and co-ordinated by me (Hans), has been critisised on the following points:
> 1) "THE OPINION POLL IN ITSELF IS OF LITTLE
VALUE."
> 2) "HANS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH THE
POLL."
>
> ...and here is my defence (mainly copied from an e-mail to
the network written 2005-06-25):
>
>
> 1) "THE OPINION POLL IN ITSELF IS OF LITTLE
VALUE."
>
> "The opinion poll is not representative"
> Answer:
> It is very true that the opinion poll is not representative
of ALL
> players but this was on the other hand never the intention.
It is very
> representative of the top players, however, which was the
intention. It
> covers the top 5 (3%) of the 181 players on the ladies'
ranking and the
> top 10 (1%) of the 1006 players on the men's ranking.
>
> "The opinions of the top players are not that
relevant"
> Answer:
> I do not agree with that. I think they are highly relevant
given the
> fact that it is among the top players that one is most
likely to find
> the highest levels of experience and commitment and
therefore the
> strongest views. It is also among the top that one is most
likely to
> find players that have travelled to tournaments in several
countries
> and tested both 2 and 5 serves. All in all they appear to me
as a VERY
> relevant reference group!
>
> Furthermore, I think that the extreme top - as represented
by the 4
> world champions is an even more relevant reference group.
These are
> players with unparalleled levels of commitment and great
experience.
>
> But it is, of course, up to each of the country
representatives to
> decide exactly how relevant he/she thinks that the opinions
of the top
> players are.
>
> "Don't trust the information! Hans has
manipulated the opinions of the
> players."
> Answer:
> This is, of course, a very relevant general aspect. To what
extent can
> one trust information coming from a party that is obviously
not
> neutral? It is, again, up to each of the country
representatives to
> judge. Let me help you with that judgement by listing a
couple of
> points of relevance:
> - The poll was admittedly ordered by me - but it was carried
out mainly
> by Rickard Persson (world number 3 and also a journalist),
who is
> actually in favour of 2 serves. In the end I assisted him
though with
> some players that he was not able to get in touch with.
Rickard has
> clearly indicated in his report on what source he relied
upon for each
> of the players. If I was the source that is indicated.
> - The information is easily VERIFIABLE since the views
belong to high
> profile players in the racketlon community. If Rickard or I
would lie
> about any of the opinions given to us that would probably
come out.
> - I expected this criticism. Therefore I have taken special
care to be
> reasonably objective in my own handling of this. I do not
deny
> discussing with some of the players in connection with the
contact I
> had with some of them for this poll. But these are all world
class
> athletes with very strong minds. Even if I had tried very
hard to
> "manipulate" or "brain-wash" them I
doubt that I would have succeeded.
> - Finally, I invited the 4 world champions in order to
establish a
> direct contact to the network. There can be no doubt about
the
> reliability there...
>
>
> 2) "HANS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH THE
POLL."
>
> "Hans has violated basic principles of
democracy by publishing the poll"
> Answer:
> This is the accusation that I find strangest. Gert and I
must have very
> different views of what democracy is. I cannot see that I
have broken
> any rules of democracy by publishing the views of the top
players on
> this network. Just the opposite, I think democracy works
best if
> relevant facts are made available to everybody that are
going to vote!
> And the top players views are relevant! In my mind it was
very close to
> a responsibility to order the opinion poll given the bad
feeling that I
> had that we were about to introduce a rule that had very
little support
> among the top players. At least we have to be aware of it, I
felt!
>
> FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION does not violate any principle of
democracy that
> I know of. Just the opposite, in my mind FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION is one
> of the CORNER STONES of democracy and it is what I strongly
believe
> that we should have on this network. Feel free to criticise
each other
> and the President. But do not tell me that I do not have the
right to
> express my views or publish information that I find
relevant! IF YOU DO
> YOU PICK A FIGHT WITH ME! (If you think those are strong
words you might want to compare them to those of Voltaire, some
200 years ago: "I disagree with all you say but I am willing
to die for your right to say it")
>
> I look seriously upon this. And I look seriously upon the
fact that
> some people hesitate to, or refrain from expressing their
views on this
> network since the atmosphere has been far from friendly at
times.
"A president must be neutral"
Answer:
This is an argument that I find it easier to understand. It might
be argued that it should be a priortiy for the president to
facilitate the cooperation among the members of the federation
and I agree with that. Furthermore it can also be argued that if
the President does not stay neutral he will not be able to fulfil
that "facilitation" task as efficiently, which is bad
since it is a much more important task. I understand this
argument. And it is obvious to me that there might be occasions
at which a president would be smart to keep a low
profile for that reason. But is there really some unwritten (or
written) rule that requires a president to be neutral? I
do not think so! Consider the following:
- Expectations. I have asked around among people with experience of federations (out of which two are actually colleague presidents) and the consensus seems to be that the expectations on a president are as much inclined towards that he should be a "mover and shaker" that fights for his ideas as they are towards that he should be a "neutral mediator" that focuses on making people get along. None of the people (external to racketlon) I have talked to have been aware of any "rule" that requires a president to always be neutral (although it does seem to be common practice for a president to leave the chairing of a meeting - at least temporarily - to someone else if he wants to take part in the debate on a certain issue. This is, in fact, in itself, an indication of the fact that the president is allowed to take part in the debate at times - i.e. that he is allowed to take a stance and not be neutral).
- Presedence. How does it look in the real world? Are the federation presidents that we see around us always neutral? Hardly. None of my two president colleagues have that experience. Just the opposite, at least one of them (who is the vice president of a federation) felt that the views of the president in his federation are often very dominant.What about other, more famous, presidents? Is Sepp Blatter, president of the FIFA, always neutral? Or Lennart Johansson, president of the UEFA; Does he never get engaged on one of the sides in a conflict? Or Juan Antonio Samaranche, president of the International Olympic Committee during 20 years or so; Did he never choose side? Hardly! These are all men that are known to be able to put their foot down in line with their convictions.
- Motivation. What motivates someone to become a racketlon president? In most cases, and certainly in mine, it will be because he wants to promote racketlon. Promoting racketlon means promoting what he thinks is good for racketlon. And that will by necessity sometimes be difficult to combine with neutrality. I chose to promote 5 serves and single toss since I felt that that was best for racketlon. In practice I think it will be hard to find someone who is willing to be the president of the IRF if he is told that he is not allowed to promote what he thinks is best for racketlon.
In Addition
- Duty. In this particular case my impression was that we were about to change the rules in a direction that did not have much support among the top players. Therefore, irrespective of my own personal opinion, I think it was my presidential duty to make sure that the voices of the top players were made heard in the debate!
> It is my sincere hope that whatever the outcome will be
of this vote
> everybody will be able to respect the result and that we
will be able
> to continue promote racketlon together in a friendly
atmosphere.
>
> 2 or 5 serves. Let's stay friends!
>
> cheers,
> Hans
_________________________________