antipip wrote:
Adham: Just a quick question: Why is it that you see frictionless long pimples as covering up a weakness as oppossed to playing to a strength?
If I were to play devils advocate I would say: Sticky rubbers help a player 'pick up the ball' and play powerful loops. Should this be banned and they be told to improve their looping technique with 'normal' rubbers (grip lighter to allow for more speed, accelerate the wrist more, make a more brushing contact with the top of the ball, use the part of the racket that is travelling fastest)? Should the penhold style be banned since it does not allow for effective backhand looping techniques?
I don't believe so: Rubbers and grips all have strengths and weaknesses and for me all have a place in the game. I believe that frictionless are more limiting than they are helpful and would not want to start of somebody with one of these rubbers. To develop a wide range of shots and understand spin ,reverse rubbers (for me) should be the starting point for all. I don't think it's a coincidence that no top players use or used these rubbers. However, people should be allow to specialise.
I have 2 issues with the frictionless ban.
1 - It's retrospective
2 - IMO no case has been made to ban them. I would like to know the real reason behind the ban. Similar to speed cameras. The rules here allow them to put up a camera within a specific radius of an accident blackspot. 3 accidents occured, some on local roads. The camera went on the motorway. Actions speak louder than words. Not a speed camera (sorry safety camera lets spend millions of your money in propoganda to mislead you) a greed camera.
1- I am on record on here as saying I don't like retrospective rules. I don't it's unfair on people whose game has developed playing these rubbers. In answer to an earlier argument you made about changes - Yes orthodox rubbers were basically wiped out by sponge and a lot of players quit the sport as a result. Their rubbers weren't banned though!
2 - You put in earlier an anwser that frictionless rubbers were considered detrimental to the game (by the national associations - I think). This is what I would like to here. If the ITTF believe that, let's hear them make that argument fully out in the open. If you believe and have studies to show they're hurting the game tell me I could be converted, to be honest I probably would be!
Another telling comment was regarding an answer to another question (might have been sandpaper) The comment was along the lines of - oh is that the reason they gave (implying a hidden reason could be possible). This is a little of how I feel regarding the new frictionless regulations. I read of the majority of players wanting this ban. This hasn't been my experience when talking to other players, though I have heard some in favour of it.
I both appreciate you and respect you for coming on the forum, none of this is personal. It's good of you to put your thoughts out here and gives us a chance to undrstand decisions taken in the game. I have learned a lot from this. I applaud the decision on doubles where it could have been lost but was at least kept it in the team game. I like it that you are open to the idea of changing service patterns in the doubles.I've not yet been convinced on the frictionless ban yet.
I play in England i'm still using them this season, but am looking to change them as soon as possible; even if they continue to remain legal in England at the level I am playing at. Money is tight and it's expensive for me to replace my unused sheets and trial various alternative. 8 years with 1 rubber and it's difficult to start playing with any other. It's also difficult to make a change when you are at a small club with next to no practice opportunitites. The only reason I'm playing at all is without the additional body we would lose a team which as a club we can't afford to do.
Very good question. Of course this is just my own way of thinking. I consider that if I modify my equipment from the "base", which is what I use primarily, in order to give me additional confidence, additional comfort, a bit more spin, or a bit less sensitivity to spin, as an enhancement, as long as I can always revert to my base, using the same technique at any time, then it's OK. Without the enhancement I may need to increase my effort, use more or less force, and adjust slightly, but my base remains the same. On the other hand, if I use an equipment that makes a major change to my technique, and I become totally dependent on this changed equipment, and I can not get back to my base game easily without it, then I consider it a "dependence" and basically a cover for my weakness. This is just my personal thoughts. As a coach, I know how to test if any particular technique is solid or not. Let's take a FH tsp as an example. I will ask the payer to hit it as hard as possible, then medium power, then very slow. If all three balls land exactly in the same spot, then the player has good technique. Equipment enhancements are great, as long as they do not overshadow the technique itself.
All the examples you give are easy to answer. Is the special equipment enhancing my performance but not affecting my technique? If you answer yes, then I consider it a good move. If it changes your technique, then I consider it a cover-up of a weakness. In this case, as a coach I would rather fix and strengthen the weaker technique than use a specialized piece of equipment that will cover it up and at the same time set many limitations to the player.
Frictionless: Since this has surfaced again, even though I was sure that I answered all possible questions: Why? How? When? Who? and Why? and Why? again", etc. I will post a separate post again explaining the whole thing, then we should really put it to rest. It's becoming an ugly obsession.