# Reliability of [PERSON]'s Table Tennis Game Analysis Method in Authors' Own Modification
## 3 Results  
The number of actions won by [PERSON], classified and ordered by experts, is presented in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level of** & **Fragment of the Game** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **Me \(\pm\) SQ** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **[PERSON]’s** & \(p\) & **[PERSON]’s Alpha** \\ \hline
**Level 1** & & & & & & \\
1. Serve & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & & \\
2. Serve+Counterattack & 9.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & & \\
3. Return & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & & \\
4. Return+Counterattack & 11.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 11.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & & \\
5. Attack+Counterattack & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.991 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.999 \\
6. Block+Counterattack & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
7. Push+Counterattack & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
8. Attack after chop+Counterattack & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
9. Chop+Counterattack & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
10. Others & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
**Level 2** & & & & & \\
1.1. Fh sidespin serve & 5.4 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 & & & \\
1.2. Fh backspin-nonspin serve & 2.0 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 & & & \\
1.5. Fh reverse serve & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
2.1. Fh sidespin serve+Counterattack & 8.1 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 9.0 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & & \\
2.2. Fh backspin service+Counterattack & 1.7 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 2.5 & & & \\
3.1. Fh push & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
3.2. Topspin+fh attack & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
3.4. Bh flick & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
3.6. Fh flick & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.783 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.966 \\
4.1. Fh push+Counterattack & 7.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 7.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & & \\
4.2. Bh push+Counterattack & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
4.3. Fh topspin-attack+Counterattack & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
4.4. Bh topspin-attack+Counterattack & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
5.1. H topspin+Counterattack & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & & \\
5.2. Bh attack+Counterattack & 0.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
5.3. Fh attack+Counterattack & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
6.1. Bh block+Counterattack & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
7.2. Fh push+Counterattack & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
**Level 3** & & & & & \\
2.1.1. Fh sidespin serve+Fh-topspin & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 & & & \\
2.1.2. Fh sidespin serve+Bh-attack & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & & \\
2.1.3. Fh sidespin serve+Bh-topspin & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & & & \\
2.1.5. Fh sidespin serve+Bh-block & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & & & \\
2.2.1. Fh-back-nonspin-serve+Fh-topspin & 0.7 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability assessment—the number of individual actions (game fragments) classified by experts (n = 7)—for the observations of [PERSON]. After analyzing the results, it was found that the tested competitor scored the most points directly from service (10) and return (10), in actions after his service (service-counterattack: 10), and from counterattack actions after his return (11). The obtained results also show the great use of the forehand serve in winning actions (directly and in the first stroke after his service) and in the forehand push, both as a return (5) and in the exchange in play immediately after the return (7). There were no significant differences between the judges' assessments for individual observations (\(\chi^{2}\) (53.6) = 12.302, \(p\) = 0.056), while the data for each expert differed according to the three levels of the experiment (K-W (53.3) > 13.83, \(p\) with Bonferroni correction <0.008). Post hoc tests showed differences between the first and third level and the second and third level for individual experts, except for experts 4, 6, and 7, and for all experts, there were no differences between the first and second level.