查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 世界級羽球男子雙打選手接發球之研究=A Study of Return of Serve of World-Class Badminton Men's Doubles Players |
---|---|
作者 | 陳俊汕; Chen, Jiunn-shan; |
期刊 | 嘉義大學學報 |
出版日期 | 20000600 |
卷期 | 70 2000.06[民89.06] |
頁次 | 頁145-173 |
分類號 | 528.953 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 羽球; 接發球; Badminton; Return of serve; |
中文摘要 | 本研究透過分析18場共40局的世界級羽球男子雙打選手的比賽資料,探討其接發球的效果以及不同接發球落點的接發球效果。所得資料經過統計與分析後,得到如下列結論: 一、在接發球效果方面: 世界級羽球男子雙打選手的接發球效果,以接發球主動為主,(占44.64%)。其次是接發球一般(22.95%);接發球被動(11.91%);接發球成功(11.20%);接發球失分(4.35%)及接發球失誤(4.95%)。 二、在不同接發球區的接發球落點及效果方面: (一)在所有的接發球區之中,世界級羽球男子雙打選手的接發球落點,都是選擇中路(②號、⑤號及⑧號落點)為主。 (二)在不同接發球區的接發球效果方面: 1.一區的接發球效果:在①號至⑨號不同接發球落點的接發球效果之間,均達到顯著的差異(p<.05)。接發球回擊前場(①號、②號及③號落點)的效果以接發球主動的情形占大多數,接發球被動情形居次;回擊中場(④號、⑤號及⑥號落點)的效果則以接發球主動的情形居多,接發球一般的情形(即不主動也不被動)居次;回擊後場(⑦號、⑧號及⑨號落點)的效果則是接發球一般的情形稍多,接發球主動情形居次。 2.二區的接發球效果:在不同接發球落點的接發球效果之間,沒有顯著的差異。 3.三區的接發球效果:在不同接發球落點的接發球效果之間,沒有顯著的差異。 4.四區的接發球效果:在④號、⑤號、⑧號及⑨號的接發球落點上,不同的接發球效果之間,達到顯著的差異(p<.05)。從結果顯示,大都以扣殺中場及後場落點為主,在效果上則以接發球主動的情形居多,接發球成功居次。 5.一、二區之間的接發球效果:在①號、②號、⑤號、⑥號及⑧號接發球落點上,不同的接發球效果之間,達到顯著的差異(p<.05)。從結果顯示,回放網前(①號和②號落點)的效果以接發球主動的情形居多,接發球被動居次;選擇推中場及後場(⑤號、⑥號及⑧號落點)的效果,則以接發球主動的情形稍多,接發球一般居次。 6.三、四區之間的接發球效果:在⑥號、⑧號及⑨號接發球落點上,不同的接發球效果之間,達到顯著的差異(p<.05)。從結果顯示大都以扣殺中場及後場為主。在效果上則以接發球主動為主。 |
英文摘要 | This study analyzed 18 badminton games (40 sets in total) of world-class men's doubles to understand the effect of landing spots of return of serve, and the effect of return of serve from different return areas. The statistical analysis resulted in the following findings: A. The Effect of Return of Serve Badminton players in world class men's doubles made aggressive return of serve most frequently, accounting for 44.64% of all serves. The percentages of other types of return of serve were 22.95% for the neutral type, 11.91% for passive, 11.20% for success, 4.35% for failure, and 4.95% for error. B. The Landing Spots of Return of Serve from Different Return Areas and Their Respective Effect 1. Among all the return of serve areas, badminton players in world class men's doubles chose the central route (landing on spots No.2, No.5 and No.8) most frequently. 2. Area 1: For returns of serve made to the front court (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3), aggressive return made up the highest rate, which was followed by passive ones. For returns of serve made to the central court (No. 4, No. 5, No. 6), aggressive returns were most frequent, which was followed by neutral returns (neither aggressive nor passive). For returns of serve made to the rear court (No. 7, No 8, No. 9), neutral returns were most frequent, which was followed by aggressive returns. 3. Area 2: There was no significant difference in the effect between different landing spots. 4. Area 3: There was no significant difference in the effect between different landing spots. 5. Area 4: Data analysis shows that central court smash and baseline push were most frequently seen. As for the effect, the aggressive return got the highest rate, with the successful return in the second. 6. Between Area 1 and Area 2: According to the data, when players chose a short return (No. 1 and No. 2), the return of serve was primarily aggressive, followed by passive returns; and when players chose to return the serve to the central or rear part of the court (No. 6m No. 8 and No. 9), aggressive returns had the highest rate, with neutral returns in the second. 7. Between Area 3 and Area 4: Data analysis shows that most players chose central smash or baseline smash. The aggressive type was the most frequently seen return of serve in this category. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。