They serve more, because they win! They don't win because they serve more... Causality is sometimes tough to understand...
That is the point, to win a game, you have to win more on your serve as compared to your opponent winning on his serve. As a result of this, a winner of a game ends up serving more than a loser. Player or a pair serving more always ends up as a winner. Or you can also say, to win you will have to serve more than your opponent. If there is so much of inherent disadvantage in serving then how is it that, side serving more always wins ? How player or pair carrying so much of disadvantage wins ? They should lose isn't it ? Is there a disadvantage in serving ??
But to win you have to serve more than your opponent. And if serving is such a disadvantage then how will you win ?
I'm with |_Footwork_| here. I don't think you understand causality, (no offence). also when you win the point when you have served, it is unlikely the direct result of having served. (you just won because you were better during the rally) if you lose the point when you have served, it is more likely you served poorly.
At the highest professional level, I don't think it makes much of a difference. At the junior level, most junior players nowadays in the US always choose to receive. At the higher level, the side winning the coin toss doesn't care. Some just pick sides (the side they put their bag on if there is no drift etc affecting play), or they just pick serve.
Just report it by clicking on ' ! ' (sign) in triangle at the left bottom corner of the post and administrator will take appropriate action.
You guys just don't get it: In professional men's doubles, the receiver scores roughly 2 thirds of the points. The server only wins 1 third of points. That is a HUGE difference. Just to give you an idea of what that means: If Setiawan/Ahsan had to serve the whole game, they would lose badly against every world class double all the time! No chance against any top pair... At the beginner level, where people struggle with all kinds of things, it might be different. But the higher the level, the bigger is the advantage to receive!
^ I'm intrigued by those numbers, are you counting rallies within the first 3 shots or complete rallies?
To me, serving in singles offer no advantage, at most neutral as you can serve low or high or a mixture in succession according to your preference or targeted at a particular opponent as part of your tactics. But in doubles, I view it as a disadvantage as a high serve confined to the inner backline invites the opponent to attack, that's why flick serve can only work occasionally by catching your opponent off-guard while low serve has to be so so tight and well-timed to avoid giving your opponent too much room to pounce on it, either to drive it quickly across and past you or swipe to the side out of your reach. That's mainly because your opponent only need to anticipate your low serve about 90% of the time with the occasional high serve troubling him but even then not always if he/she is alert enough. Another important reason is that there are two players on each side, not one, so every time you or your partner manages to return the receiver's return, you are seldom sure how your opponent's partner may retrieve the shot. In other words,with more players involved on both sides, it introduces greater uncertainty and unpredictability but as the server, your first shot is more restricted which poses a significant disadvantage albeit not a decisive one.
Complete rallies. I have simply counted all points that have been played in a match... You can simply count points, e.g. on tournamentsoftware, they have graphs where you can easily count points won by server/receiver. You will see that the receiver wins 60-65% of points in men's doubles. (At least in matches that are sufficiently close.) That advantage is HUGE!
That is true (a look in the rulebook will deliver that trivial answer). But it has nothing to do with the question...: "Is serving an advantage in badminton?"
of course this question is only of theoretical importance. you will have to serve anyway, whether it's an advantage or not... so the answer is of no practical importance! but let's be honest: discussions on this forum are often of little practical importance! no amateur player REALLY needs to think about the difference of 28x30 lbs vs 29x30 lbs or 1mm more or less balance point or younameit. PRACTICALLY, most players would gain most if they stopped reading and thinking here and work on their footwork, athletic abilities and basic strokes...
Totally agree with your statements. We can move on tackling some other little practical important discussions in this forum.
