OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Nope, this isn't one of those treads were I'm going to ask you all at what level you play It is rather about how you judge your own level.

I know a lot of us, including me, have stated that we have gained a level every now and then. Now, if we first agree what a level is, which according to me is, players who can beat each other, even if it turns out to be 2 vs 8 wins, are of the same level, while a player you never win against is at least a level above and a player you never lose to is at least a level below. If we agree to this, then I doubt that we have actually gained so many levels as we might have stated, I know I haven't.

This brought to me the interesting question, what is it in our game that makes us feel like we have gained a level, or even become any better? Is it a new weapon? Higher consistency? Better serve? Or something else?

Looking in to my own game, I have realised that when my offensive game develops, I feel like I'm stepping up my game a level, but I rarely feel the same when my defensive game improves and I don't know why?!?

Also, when I feel that I'm playing good, I often get the feeling that I have stepped up in level, even if my results tells me that I haven't since they can be virtually the same as before.

Lately (this season) I haven't felt that I've played great, my offensive game haven't felt any sharper then usual, but despite this, I'm currently undefeated since changing to Bry... Sorry, undefeated since the start of this season, which indicates that something about my game have actually brought me up a level but I'm not able to pinpoint what it is.

So, for those who don't enter rated events (where you will get a receipt of your level) what is it that you judge your level on?

Certainly sounds like you've picked up a level, if you are winning without playing well.

Not sure I can completely agree with you on if you can beat someone / lose to them you're on the same level, due to styles, conditions, illness, injury, lack of practice, plus I've beaten people better than me who I wouldn't consider to be down at my level. One swallow does not make a summer.

I would say - Judge on it your own game, irrespective of others. You should know your limitations better than anybody. What shots can you now execute more consistently, what strokes no longer trouble you, can you rally longer / end points quicker?

That is why I said 2 vs 8 wins and not 1 vs 9 A player who is a level above you is a player who you, under normal conditions, won't be able to beat.

Kind of hard to judge level on my own game solely, cause I always have to play against some one, and this some one might feed me balls I'm able to handle, or balls I have a hard time handling, and I can't use my own shots here to judge my level.

Some people claim they have gained a level when switching to a new rubber, I might be one of them, but sorry for saying so, I believe this is BS! Some parts of your game might improve, but not enough to gain a level.

There seems to be a certain pattern for players at the club -- people of similar levels tend to congregate towards certain tables.

Best ones usually are able to take the best table (lightining, flooring, and table quality).

I hope to be able to inch my way up in 'table' terms.

Poor example, I agree:
But: What about the situation where player a always beats player b who always beats player c who always beats player a?
Styles are a big factor in table tennis and can help you beat or lose to players at a very different rating or level. Conditions matter too, as they may favour one style over another (it is not the same for both as they get affected differentially)

A good point about always having to play someone (you can only measure what they test you on), but of course we do; when you are getting ranked in a tournament or a league that is what you are doing. I do think playing a greater variety of players offering you different challenges helps estalish strengths / weaknesses and your level is going to be at where your strengths still work more than they can punish your weaknesses (sort of implciitly includes the same thing for them). So going by that defintion when you improve your weaknesses, find a way to avoid an opponent exposing them or improve a strength are when you will improve. So identify what is limiting you (a weakness, a lack of strength and work on that to gain in level)

I would be one of those who say if you can find the right equipment for you it can improve your game, particuarly at higher levels of sport where a 1 or 2% drop off in performance can be massive in terms of results. Increased conistency, accuracy, power, confidence, patience and game plan can all come about by finding the right combination. I'd base this argument another way a good player changed his rubber and when from the spin version to speed version (he didn't know their were two - the difference lay in the pimple alignment in this case under the reversed rubber and his game deserted him, he found out when his regular practice partner looked at his bat and told him,he swapped back and could play again at his former level.) I could give you a good example in another sport at the elite level too, and even tension on a tennis racket has turned a match around before.

Slightly O/T: In England you get more ranking points for beating higher ranked players. Did you write somewhere in Sweden it's on how far you progress in a tournament. Your system may be a little better, as you can get players who have a hoodoo over another player.

Tricky question speedplay. I agree with antipip when he talks about styles though. There are people who's styles just seem suited to mine, and others who find my style suits them - in these cases winning averages go out of the window.

I guess I know I'm improving and evaluate it by:

1. Feedback from people, especially from those who haven't seen me play for a while. Sometimes you can be too close to your own game and as improvements can be gradual you don't notice them.
2. Consistency. New players tend to get one maybe two shots back, intermediate more, and good players lots more. I've often seen players who can hit one, maybe two great shots but break down on the third or fourth. When you are consistent in match play, that's a good sign you're improving.
3. Confidence. When you are confident that you can play a shot rather than worrying about whether you can or not.
4. Mental awareness. The big jump playing for a short while in our premier division was that players could work you out and they had set plans on how they wanted to play. I'm trying very hard now to follow Brian Pace's advice about trying to work a player out in the first game, what they are good and bad at. That ability is coming - very slowly - but it gives me more control in my game. When I start to be able to turn around games which would in the past have slipped away from me, that's when I know I'm improving.

Another important guide is we play each team twice in a season. The first half I play hard, but it's the return games which will tell me how much I'm improving and / or my opponents.

However, when we got promoted one season, playing in the higher division didn't teach me how much I'd improved, it taught me how much I needed to improve and where! A very sobering experience.

I think there are many ways to judge yourself
1. Your interclub Percentage % (is it up or down )
2. Competion rating points (Im now ranked 183 in NZ ) I do know there is can be big differences in styles and I have beaten people in the top 60 and lost to others not even ranked
3. I seldom (almost never) do practice drills but I do know that if you put in some hours of quality practice (at any age ) you will improve
4. Your own confendence with a new shot or overcomming a weakness
5. What others say about you (although people will seldom say you are no good now lol) most will say shit your game has improved

I have to agree with two things that antipip said primarily. One is about playing styles. For example I can beat player a easily, and player b with great difficulty, but player a manages to destriy player b regularly. Simply because b has a style that I find problematic.

Second, I am a great believer that over the years the right equipment has helped improve my game a lot. At time a shift to a new blade or rubber has helped me improve certain aspects of my game tremendously, which i judge on consistency.

I also look at my win/loss ratio, overall and against specific players. I also look at the the repertoire of shots I have now compared to what I had, the serves I can do, the variations I can do in them and how effective they are.

I also look at my end-game performance. And I look at how I move, and how I adjust my game against different styles.

Based on all of the above, I am able to gauge that I have improved a LOT, but is it enough to jump a level? I wouldn't know since I don't know how munch improvement constitutes a level.

Other than by rating, I feel like I've gained a level when I've picked up a skill that I didn't have, or my percentage of success in executing a shot or tactic that I couldn't before. Additionally, feedback from other players at my club, who I play on a regular basis, is important positive reinforcement as well.

equipment does play an important role in your gameplay IMO. Recently (this week), I switched from Wavestone to the Blue Thunder 500, and also changed rubbers from Cream Transcend (FH) and G2-FX (BH) to H3 (FH) and Inspirit (BH), my game is bad. I'm losing to people I normally wouldn't and losing badly against higher rated players that I would usually put a good fight against.

Also, I'm a 2-wing looper. And I thrive at mid distance looping, however with the H3, I'm so inconsistent that it isn't funny.

Lastly, I agree with another point mentioned above. Style of player you play against is extremely important. For me, I more often than not lose to long-pips. But I believe, it's because I almost never practice against long-pips.

I think TT could be considered to have macro and micro levels. Macro is more about the class of a player and micro is performance within that class. I would say the players at my club a grade or two up and down would be in the same class, but performance varied widely. This season I have beaten all but one player in my grade on Tuesdays with two of the ones I've beaten having beaten me. The one guy I haven't beaten, both matches have gone 5 sets with 11-9 and 12-10 5th set results. I have also had some pretty serious practice matches with players from 1 and 2 grades above, and also met some of these players in comp on Thursday nights with win and loss results. I don't think I am a class above or below any of them. Step up 3 or 4 grades above me however and then you jump a class. After that, there may be a handful or less of players that may be considered a class above again within the club, but you probably have to look nationally for more players in that class.

Its an interesting topic, but I'd rather judge people on a lot more than their TT skill, especially when it comes to enjoyment of the game. There is one guy in our grade who has misunderstandings and run-ins with other teams on a regular basis and isn't terribly social. I've won one and lost one to him this season but they have probably been the most unenjoyable games of all because of his attitude. I'll take a guy who is friendly and social anyday, whether they are same or different class, level, or performance to me. Having said that, if you get a challenge against someone you like playing against, that is ideal.

Reb, I sort of agree about the micro and macro level thing. With in each macro level, there are micro levels, and a player I play against and consider to be at my macro level, but higher in micro level, might actually win against players who is a macro level above me.

How ever, I don't agree that styles should be part of this discussion, cause if a player is a level below you, you should beat him, regardless of style. Then there will always be players with in your level that you will lose to, depending on style, but this don't make them a level above you, as this is depending on style rather then level.

I have a theory on why I have gained a level. Lately, I have played with some minor injuries and draw backs to my game, such as my knee, sore shoulder and stuff like that. This have forced me to play a slightly different game, where I play it safe until a really good opportunity comes along, and then attack. To my surprise, this have helped me win more games then before and I believe this is connected to what Debaters analyse of Grumpy vs Drwuck showed, more points are won from opponents mistake then own winners. Since I have reduced my risks, I've become a better player.

With that said, as a defender, it is still important to attack, even if it costs me more points then I win, simple because I have to show my opponent that I am prepared to attack, if I don't show this, he can play it safe against me and will miss less shots.

Obviously, there are other things contributing to this raise in level as well, such as improved twiddling, a more trustworthy fh and better variation on my chops, but I believe that the above mentioned is the main reason for my jump in level.

I think level jumps are largely attributable to consistency and increases in game strategy and deployment of it. This last bit will vary by style, but no matter the style, there will be particular strategies that suit it best. There certainly needs to be elements of attack in most defenders game strategy, even if it is only that blocks go back so fast and well placed so often that the opponent becomes afraid to attack. I say most because there are some defenders that use other techniques than all out attack shots such as very good spin that can be as or more difficult than a smash to handle. Especially when someone can make a ball jump sideways with seemingly little action on their bat. I know of one particular player like this who just will not smash, yet he is still very competitive. However such shots can still be considered a form of attack.

Consistency is the key to level though because everything comes back to it, no matter the shot. Whether it be a smash, a push, a block, a loop, a chop, your serve, your placement, your game thinking....you name it the more consistent you are at it the more effective it will be and the higher level you should be. The only qualifying factor to this is if you are highly consistent but with very few shots in your gamebag. This will tend to limit how far you can go and leave gaps in your game to be exploited. For a simplified example if you have 3 shots you are very consistent with such as a BH push, a FH push and a FH loop you may win against players to a certain level. But if your blocks are then inconsistent and your serve is too then you will still get slammed by players who have the range of shots to get around your game. It goes back to the old...if you always return the ball, no matter what, you must win the game! If you don't have consistency you will not always return the ball, if you don't have a large enough range of consistent shots you will not always return the ball no matter what. Consistency is not exactly easy to measure, but it doesnt take a long time to watch any given player play (or better still play against them) to recognise it when you see or experience it.

I'm going to go with time as been a marker for a difference in level. if you move up you have more. If you're a level above somebody you have time to play your shots, they may be pushed for time and vice versa.

Antipip,

Time is actually a great answer! I haven' thought about this before, but now when you mention it, I have noticed that it seems like I have gained time against some of the opponents I used to have trouble with before. Now I don't know if I've gained this time due to better anticipation, better foot work or simple better shots from me that prevent them from stealing time from me, but with more time on my hands, I have more options and I'm more likely to win the point.

@Reb, I can see where you are coming from about the fast block, al though I do not agree with this, at least, not for my style. I attack every now and then to show my opponent that he needs to attack hard, or I will attack or counter him, cause I want the opponent to attack hard, as this forced him to take risks. What you are talking about is more to scare him off the attack, so you can do the attacking instead. All depends on what you prefer, but I rather have the opponent attacking me until I can force a weak shot or a miss from him.