OOAK Table Tennis Forum

There's a player who comes to one of my practice sessions that I've played pretty often. She's one of the first players I beat last year, but she's improved a great deal since then. She's a solid retriever-style player, makes few mistakes, has a good backhand hit, and some nasty, fast, spinny serves.

When I play her with my normal game, I usually lose, but fairly closely. I haven't taken a set off her for a while. However, if I change my tactics and play more aggressively, go for third ball attacks, it upsets her and I can beat her.

Now, of course, in a match scenario - I need to just beat her. So I guess it's valid to play tactically and beat her in whatever way possible. But I'm not sure that's going to help me improve my game. I ought to be able to beat her playing my usual game, and when I can, I'll know I've improved.

Fair point? Should I just accept that one needs to adapt and beat people by changing styles? Or should I work out how to beat her without changing my core style?

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

Well, I think there are different point to consider.

If you want to focus on developing your shots in a match situation, I would say you should not care about the result. You have to look into your shots. This means you force yourself to play the shots you want to improve. This will result in more mistakes and you will probably lose more matches.

If it is a real match situation and you want/have to win, than you should not care so much about your technique but more on your winning strokes and tactics. If that means third ball attack why not? Afterwards nobady will ask how you won.

The third possible situation is the one you described. If you know the opponend very good the situation is a completly different one as you know each others tactics very well. This might result into very interessting matches but also into big upsets. Even weaker players can challenge much stronger players if they know everything about them like service, weaknesses etc. Informations, you have to gather in other match situations.

In the end it depends on you if you see those matches more as a training for your style or as a match to win. This mindset will determin how you will act in the match.

For Example.

In my club I have someone who has huge problems with one of my serves. If I play this one most of the time he will probably make 50% mistakes or otherwise set me up with a good kill option. But mostly I use that serve only in Situation I think I need the points, as I want to try to play my normal style most of the time. I risk losing against him just because I think it helps my game overall if i play my usual strokes. But if I desperatly want a win, for example after a bad week, I will try to use that advantage I have to win the match.

Kind Regards

One of the great things about table tennis is the huge variety in the type of opponents you get to play. As well as the variety of styles of players you have to contend with rubbers which all have different properties. Trying to deal with this by restricting yourself to only one way of playing is going to seriously limit your tactical options and make you predictable.

It is great to have a core way of playing but you should not neglect developing other aspects of your game. Being able to play a third ball attack is something that everybody should have in their repertoire. Even if you are a defender you need to throw in some attacking shots every now and again to keep your opponent on their toes. If it just so happens that you can do it regularly and well enough to beat a particular opponent then why not use it against them for the majority of the game.

In general you will probably play according to your core style 90% of the time. So why not enjoy yourself and do something different and develop some other skills when the right opponent for that comes along.

_________________
Giant Dragon Kris blade
Donic Bluefire M2 max on both sides

I'm in a hurry to leave somewhere so this may very well be a reiteration of the above replies. Forgive me.

Tactics are VERY important. Technique needs to be drilled, but so do tactics.Tactics happen to only be practicable in actual matches for the most part. So I think you SHOULD use these tactics UNLESS you are trying to develop a specific technique.

The mental game is just as important as the physical. If your technique is worse but you can still beat her, then doesn't that make you tactically superior? That's fine...you win fair and square in my opinion.

I would say, that for your benefit, you should generally play to win in match situations UNLESS you are trying to work on something specifically. The top players aren't mindless robots; they use tactics AND techniques.

It will also benefit her to get beaten by someone who has worse technique but a better mental game because it will force her to grow her own tactics. Also, it will reveal her weaknesses to her.

Hope I was slightly helpful

_________________
Happy Holidays 'round the world!

The same as what everyone has said...tactics/strategy are just as important as technique/skills, both of which dont have to be perfect or equal, just relatively better than the guy you are playing. There has to be a minimal level of technique to be employed by the particular tactic you are attempting etc....

_________________
A big bag full of blades and long pimples, donuts and coffee!

Agree with above. Training of tactics and technique are both extremely important in match situations. In general I can only focus on ONE at a time, but we all need to use both. Learning how to change tactics in a match may be of the most use when you go to a tournament and play a bunch of players that you have never played before. Technique can be trained in drills-tactics (IMO) pretty much cannot be trained in drills.

This question is covered in some detail in Larry Hodges' book called "Table Tennis Tactics for Thinkers", although he describes it as "Strategic" vs "Tactical" play where "Strategic" is the type of thinking and planning you do over the medium to long term to develop the tools you will use tactically. Tactics refer much more to the here and now and what you do within a match ie short term goals.

This makes your question much easier to answer. Do you want to win in the short term - but potentially stay at the same level long term, in which case your answer would be to play tactically to win or do you want to improve long term in which case you'll force yourself to play the right shot for the ball you've been given, even if your technique might not be at a standard to deliver the desired results consistently.

Remember there is a compromise to this dilema. Play strategically in practice games, where it doesn't matter if you lose, infact losing but playing the right way will benefit you long term more than winning short term but never improving technically. And then in matches, play tactically. Eventually the strategic planning you've done will result in your technical level improving to such an extent that you open up far more tactical options for you to use.

That's the hard lesson I've learned - not so much in matches, more in practice. As I struggle to find players who'll practice drills or routines, I have to try and practice certain shots in practice matches eg serve long with back spin to encourage my opponent to loop or top spin drive against me so I can then practice blocking ie the aim of the serve isn't to win the point, it's to set up the practice I want. This type of practice is also another reason why I never read anything in to beating a better player in a practice game - as Larry Hodges rightly says, they are called "practice" games for a reason.

So I'll turn the question round on you. Do you want to improve as a table tennis player long term, or are you only interested in beating the opponents infront of you now? If you're still not sure, I'd recommend reading Larry Hodges' book.

What a good thread. Some excellent points so far. Liked Debater's post and a lot of it makes sense.

I play penhold and largely play an attacking game no matter what. Honestly there's been several times where I wish I was more well rounded.

I think there's tremendous value in learning to find ways to win. Chances are most of here, while being big table tennis enthusist, will never reach an elite level (I realize that term is relative). So are you going to spend your table tennis days being bullheaded and occasionally losing to people playing the game you think you should be playing? Or are you going to spend your days winning because you have the ability to find ways to win.

I look at it like this. Why bang your head against the wall trying the same thing which isn't working. Can we not appreciate that some players and their styles are simply bad matchups for certain parts of other's games?

There is a certain player at our club I can think of who plays a solid counterdriving, quick pace type of game. That's what he's good at. When he practices, that's all he does. I like hitting with him because it allows me to practice my counterdriving & loop game as well. But when the match starts, why should I play to his strength? Truth be told, this guy couldn't loop a backspin ball to save his life. I've lost to this guy before and have wondered as I drove home, "why didn't I just chop him?"..... No. Suds79. That's now how penholders play." is what I think.

That's a big culprit IMO. We see the pros play and we think "that's how the game is played." when that's not true for 90% of us. In the pro game, it's all about off the table loop to loop, open play. But in games we all play, how many points do you really have that are like that? No they're much more the closed game right? (For the record I think some lower level play from professionals is more interesting. You see more styles (ex: defenders)

I'll tell you this much. I'd be a much better player if I would get out of my mind how I'm suppose to play (seeing what I see on TV with Xu Xin & Wang Hao) vs just winning.

And at the end of the day I'd feel a lot better afterwards also.

_________________
Stiga Clipper Classic
FH - TSP Spectol Red 2.0
BH - Dawei 388D-a 1.5

I was assuming that his shot that he made was a good choice of a shot, but not within his general style/shot repertoire. Good point; if that shot is generally a bad/mediocre choice, maybe it would be best to work on a shot that is a good choice.

HOWEVER, tactics are a skill all themselves, and if a player is used to playing the smart shot that would still lose vs. the questionable shot that would win, then they may have a hard time finding/exploiting a strange weak spot of the opponent's. I think Tactics should be practiced.

With that in mind, I think most of the practice should go into the correct shot, though. The only time you could practice developing and using a tactic is with an unfamiliar player. After all, if you are playing a familiar player whose weakness you know, you aren't practicing the quick development of a tactic, you are practicing a relatively "shallow" thing you already know.

As you increase in the level of your playing, of course, your opponent's won't fall to subpar shots. You'll need to use good shots tactically.

In conclusion, I think you should practice both, with the emphasis on correct shot making and decisions. ESPECIALLY when playing against a familiar opponent.

_________________
Happy Holidays 'round the world!

I'm much more interested in long term improvement. I am perfectly comfortable with losing because my technique isn't up to scratch, as long as I know I tried.

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

Are you actually worried that playing aggressively will somehow stunt your progress? If so, why? Every good player has to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. Are you thinking that there is some sort of purity test for a defensive player and you lose style points if you win on third balls? Like in ski jumping or something? Are you operating under the assumption that the core style of a defender can never include winning a point with an aggressive shot? I am not trying to be sarcastic (at least not too much), but I am just not understanding the dilemma. Defenders have been cracking shots for winners since the days of Viktor Barna.

_________________
Butterfly Viscaria Black tag
2.2 mm Nexy Karis M on FH and BH

I think I was indeed rather stuck in an inflexible mental model. It's funny reading back on this. I play a much more aggressive style now, partly because of changing to double inverted, partly because the shots I'm learning and practicing are not really defensively minded, and partly because the house style, if you like, of my coach is based around a Chinese-style pressing and attacking game. That's not in any way to suggest that he's forcing such a style - I'm just learning the technique. The natural consequence has been that I play more assertively. Interestingly I now rarely lose a game against JT. I think the tactics are critical in competitive matches, of course. I wouldn't dream of playing directly to my opponent's strengths or avoiding their weaknesses - that would be foolhardy! Table Tennis is a thinking game - "Chess at 100mph". I play a lot of chess - and the parallels are very interesting. In chess it's just as easy to pigeon-hole oneself as a 'defensive' or an 'aggressive' player, and to memorise opening theory and buy books on openings (I guess that's the chess equivalent of EJing), or to model yourself on a particular player and use his/her openings without understanding that his/her opening choice is based on a well-defined, thouroughly grounded understanding of the whole game, such that they can make an informed decision about which opening to play. In reality, as my old chess coach used to say: it's just a position.

The thoughts on strategic/tactical approaches is very useful - like many of us, sometimes I have to settle for a 'practice game', and the discipline required to work on a particular shot or serve to the exclusion of others, and bugger the score is very hard to develop!

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

All the advice above is good but generally you seem to be paying too much attention to the specific opponent vs your own play. For example, were you winning w/ aggro play because your aggro play is better than rally (and thus rally needs some work), or just some symptom of that opponent?

Opponents come and go. Concentrate on your own skills and the wins will happen. Formulating strats against others is for those at your level, and not a good investment unless you plan to stay there for a while.

Hi Agenthex,

The thread above was started in Jan, when I think I was way more concerned about other opponents. Now I'm much more about the end game - short term results aren't the primary objective. They'll come by themselves.

What was interesting about the original thread was the discussion that started it. Nothwithstanding the fact that I was rather constrained by a premature decision about style of play (and equipment), the basic discussion was whether (specifically in practice games, but in essence in most/all games) I should be tailoring my game to expose the weaknesses of the opponent, or whether I should be playing shots which are ostensibly/theoretically the correct shot.

An example might elucidate: if I play my brother, I know that he doesn't like underspin. I also know that he's very prone to trying to smash any ball that looks a little high, but that his smash technique isn't very precise, and he's quite likely to hit it off the end of the table. So, if I wanted to beat him every time, tactically, I'd push and chop most balls, but ocassionally pop one up for him to miss. He'd hit most of them off the end or in the net, and lose his cool, and get worse, and I'd win. That's a very specific approach for a very specific (and underdeveloped) player.

As another example. against JG (another of my team mates), if I wanted to play to his weaknesses, I'd play to bore him. I'd probably play with LP, or even 2 x LP, and simply get the ball back. It wouldn't really matter if the return was fairly mid-length and chest high, pretty soon JG will get frustrated and hit a ball, misjudging the spin reversal (or no spin) and hit it off the table or in the net.

However, with the broader goal I have of reaching division 1 in 3 seasons, were I to always play in this manner - reducing my game to being about my opponent's weakness, I'd get good at beating division 5 players, but my allround game wouldn't improve much at all, as I'd not be practicing the core shots the underpin the game. It would be far better to play the BH & FH topspin shots that I'm training as often as possible, even if at present this plays to JG's game (he likes to counterhit), or makes it easier for JN (he is also happy to block and counterhit topspin).

Especially in practice games, where actually the result doesn't matter unless you have fragile ego to nurse, it's much better to work on the core technique, and play full strokes appropriate to the ball in time and space, even if the technique is developing, such that the shots aren't yet consistent. As the consistency and technique improves, the results at this level will take care of themselves.

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

Just wondering, what is division 1 level (in approx usatt) and where are you now? And how much is "3 seasons"?