OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you. In 2003 in the finals of the World Championships we had a defensive player, right? This was after the changes you mentioned of 1998, 2000 and 2002 ! And why are there many good defensive women players? As I keep repeating, the equipment has nothing to do with it, it's a question of coaching and a question of choices. This is the way a sport evolves. You and I may not like it but that is the way it goes. Yes, I would like to see top defensive players emerge, and I constantly repeat and encourage coaches to form defensive players. It is very naïve to think that aspect ratio or long pimples were the demise of the defensive player, that is just a symptom reflecting the real problem of the lack of coaches that know how to develop a defensive player.

_________________
Adham Sharara

Naive? Surely you can't be suggesting that these changes have done anything but hurt defensive players! The fact is coaches are judged on the success of their players and with the rules putting defenders at a disadvantage, it's not a good career choice for coaches to specialize in defense.

It's true that there was an anomaly in 2003 when Joo Se Hyuk got through to the final, which was a Herculean feat considering how he had the deck stacked against him. But even if one defender a decade has a good result, it still shows that the game is too skewed toward top-spinners.

The reason there are so many good women defenders is because they don't hit the ball anywhere near as hard as the men. And as you know, many fans of the sport (including Bill Gates) prefer the women's style of play over the men. The liveliness of the ball is limited in baseball and golf. Maybe TT should follow consider limiting the speed of the blades/sponges to keep the game under control.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

That defensive player was not really defensive, he was also very offensive with his killer forehand. IMHO his offensive forehand was mostly responsible for his success.

And what about after 2003? We can not ignore that.

Again I have to disagree with you. Read again what you are writing. You are fixated on a justification to the lack of defensive players as being directly linked to rule changes. This is not so. The game evolved from mainly defensive players to mainly attacking players as an evolution for many many reasons. Players are formed at very early stages when they do not even know anything about the rules or equipment. If the coaches choose not to develop defensive players (for whatever reasons) then more attacking players are developed. Equipment and rules are not even an issue at that level. There are many reasons for why there are more female defensive players, and they are not what you stated about hitting less hard, because that is all relative. The reasons are too long to explain here, but are mainly due to coaching styles at a young age.
Now, let me take your argument directly head on. If what you say is true, then before 1998 we should have had many top defensive players. This is not the case. Even before all the rule changes there was a lack of top defensive players. You could count them on one had (in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s). This is a trend that started a long time ago and not due to any rule changes, these came much later. The trend started with the coaches starting to develop players as counter-attacking players and eventually as attacking players because that was the easiest way to teach a group (all doing the same exercises). In Asia, they still insist on having at least one defensive players for each 10 players in a group, but this is only 10%. Trends in sport are caused by many factors, including equipment, but in this case the equipment is a minor factor, the coaching is the main factor. If we had in the top 100 ranking about 30 players like Joo, then things would be completely different. But how can we have 30 like Joo if he comes from a sub-group that is only 10% of the group, and that percentage drops to about 1 or 2 % when you take the rest of the world into consideration. The top defensive players do not rely on equipment, they rely on skill and technique. Equipment to them is just "fine tuning" and an enhancement to their abilities.

It is far more difficult to coach and develop a good defensive player. It also takes a lot more effort from the player to become a good defensive player. Today a good defender also has to master attack. So, it's a long and arduous process. The generations of players and coaches of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, and much worse in our current time, do not have the patience or the inclination to develop as defensive players. It is much easier and faster to develop as an attacking player. This is the reality and this is the trend.

The reason that a defender every decade only may have a good result, as you stated, is simply a question of numbers. If half the players were defenders you would have more often these types of results. But if only 1% of the players are defenders, then of course a top defender will emerge less often.

At World Championships, in 1969 we had one defender in the final, in the 1980s we had several semifinalists and in 2003 we had another finalist. This just reflects the very tiny population of defensive players. Believe me, nothing to do with the rules about pimples or any such rules.

You are very right about one thing; the majority of players are attacking players, and the majority tends to breed the next generation also as a majority. This is a fact and a trend. To break this trend, I contend that it needs to be reversed at the grass-roots level-- at the initial coaching level.

_________________
Adham Sharara

I have to agree with Adham. I rarely run into a real defender. A 2000 rated chopper in Alaska, a female Senior champ from Canada rated about the same, a 1650 player, and a lobber are the only four I can remember in five years. And these were classic, not modern defenders.

I have not seen anybody teaching how to be a defender. Only how to defend when it is needed. I have taught grade school classes, high school, and college students. None of them wanted to be a defender. They ALL want to smash and attack.

_________________
Shakehand, left handed.
Blade, Yinhe, W-1
Forhand, H-3 National
Backhand, Sriver FX Max

OK, there has been a problem of coaching defensive players for decades.

I do not see, how certain equipment rules mentioned above should help solve this problem.

Some people even see these rules as additional problem, meaning these rules have made life of existing defensive players more difficult.

OK, as of tomorrow I'm back as a player, in my own style of defense and I promise that when I get back to serious coaching again, I will insist that half the group plays defense-- the modern type (classic defense but with a surprise attack on any loose balls). I will also preach to ALL coaches, over and over, that they need to develop defensive players at the early stages. Let us all defenders band together and show the others the fun of defense, the spin variations, the point of contact, the wrist action (before the contact, during the contact, and after the contact), the heavy spin chop that looks like no spin, the no spin chop that looks like heavy spin, the sudden counter attack, the side-spin chop, etc. To me, the most fun in playing table tennis is to play as a defensive player with all it's variations. I particularly like to play defense with a fast rubber on both the FH and BH, both sides the same. Then use my own skills (limited in my case and at my age) to vary the spin and to disguise the spin. When you watch a good defensive player find his/her groove, it's a thing of beauty. I love to watch Kim Kyung Ah of Korea when she is at her best, it's like a symphony, like a ballet, it's a study in grace and beauty.

http://www.ittf.com/ittf_pictures/Photo ... +kyung+ah&

This photo was taken by my wife, who is also an admirer of Kim kyung Ah.

_________________
Adham Sharara

Aye, mate, great initiative there...

_________________
Viscaria. H2 Neo 2.15. Tenergy 05 1.9.

Great news! Can you post some video of your style for us?

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

I will try to find some old photos of me chopping, but I doubt that I can find any videos. Maybe you are forgetting my age? When I was an active player we did not have all the gadgets we have today. However, next time I go out and play I will ask someone to video-tape me.

_________________
Adham Sharara

Aye, I for one forgot, more like did not mind, as coaching is coaching in any age and form for me.

_________________
Viscaria. H2 Neo 2.15. Tenergy 05 1.9.

Unfortunately I've joined this discussion a bit late but I do have a question for Mr Sharara regarding the `new' 2.4.7 rule accepted recently in Yokohama.

If I understand correctly, the `old' law was moved to new paragraph 3.4.2.3, to avoid having to mention ITTF approval. The new rule simply states:

But what does the word treatment really mean in this context, without a point of reference? What I mean to say is that modification only makes sense after something has been agreed upon or approved. All rubbers produced are physically and chemically treated in the manufacturing process. Why is the new 2.4.7 rule necessary?

I think I can answer that for you... Adham can correct me if I'm wrong The 'treatment' refers to any changes made to the rubbers after it's ITTF approval state. The manufacturer makes the rubber like it had been ITTF approved, and any modifications to the rubber after this are not allowed.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

You are correct.

There is a nuance now with the two texts, one in Chapter 2 (Laws of TT) and one in Chapter 3 (International Competitions). In Chapter 2 the TT rule 2.4 says that you cannot alter the racket covering from how it came out of the factory, but you may not need to have the ITTF's logo on the rubber if this is not required in your area where you play. In Chapter 3, it's the same rule, but in addition you cannot use the racket cover in an ITTF event if it does not have the ITTf logo (authorization). This gives further flexibility for national associations to enforce the ITTF authorization (most do) or not. It does not change anything at ITTF events.

_________________
Adham Sharara

I found only the old text on the ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html .

Where can I find the new one?