OOAK Table Tennis Forum

+Gogol ( ) Really, this is something I hadn't though about. An excellent observation, and I totally agree.....This rule would make comebacks SO hard.

_________________
Happy Holidays 'round the world!

Especially if you're up against a higher rated player, or just someone with a dominant serve. If they get a 4-1 lead on you, the match might basically be over.

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1725
Blade: Stiga Cybershape Carbon
FH Rubber: Butterfly Tenergy 19 2.1
BH Rubber: Dr Neubauer ABS3 1.5

Played this system tonight at practice. Also asked a few other players to try it out in their games.

My general impressions. It feels wierd. If you are dominant in a game, you'll hardly serve. That means you are reliant on your opponent setting the pace for the points. They have to go through their service routine, get to think about what type of serve to use, where to place it, what spin etc and then serve. As a returner, to a large degree the serve is the one shot when you can dictate very little about - unless it's to intimidate your opponent in to not using a particular serve. As such you have to wait for them to go through their service routine and then react to what they do. That means if you are winning a lot of points you have a lot of "waiting around" for the server to start each point. It's time when your mind can wander and you can lose concentration or at the extreme it becomes simply boring. It's a totally different approach to the game and one where you'll need to be good at switching on and off and focusing at the key moments ie not getting distracted whilst waiting for your opponent to serve.

If you are losing a lot of points however, it gives you the chance to dictate how the points start and gives you lots of opportunities to try things out, to find out what can work and what doesn't - one of the advantages of the old 5 serve rule. There is no "oh well, they are going to serve and I can't return it or my return will be smashed past me so" so the next two points on your opponent serve are a forgone conclusion and a bit of a waste of time for you.

Another aspect, if points are continually being won alternately by you and then your opponent is that there is no rythm or flow to the game. You can't really plan ahead too far and build up patterns and develope tactical plans within a gam. With five serves you could decide what and how and when you were going to use your serves, lots of variety. With possibly only having one, you're going to reduce the options and types of serves you use. You're less likely to experiement, you go for the serve that will win you the point. With two serves I might experiment a bit more, try a few more things out, so for me the games had less variety, had little rythm and if you are winning points, there was a lot more "waiting around" in between actually physically playing a shot.

A lot of conversation in this thread has revolved around the impact this has on the importance of the return, but other people commented that this proposed change actually puts a lot of extra pressure on you if you are serving. Serving means you are losing the game, or atleast on a losing streak of points. It may only be psychological perhaps but there is a negative pressure on the server - not necesarily to serve well but simply to cope with the fact you are serving because you are losing. As the rule stands now the losing person can either be receiving or serving, so there isn't that difference in "mental stigma". Others players struggled a bit with the scoring - as it was a practice social night there are no umpires. It's a habit now playing 2 serves - probably just as it was a struggle to go from 5 serves down to 2. Time and experience may correct this though.

The result where a better player played a weaker player was the better player still won but it was closer. The better player said they still won because the weaker players serves were not particular strong - so rather than reduce the importance of the serve, this rule could actually put a premium on good serving. Of note, I said the weaker player got closer but that does not mean the rallies were better, longer or more entertaining to watch.

Over all opinion, there was surprise the ITTF were trying this out. The general impression was the 2 serves rule as it is now was fine but if it came in I think most would adapt over time. However I definitely feel it changed the mindset and rythm of the game. Changes to table tennis shouldn't be just about reducing 3rd ball kill and making it more exciting for an audience. For me that break in the natural flow of a game, the potential extra waiting time as a player - well I didnt' like it. Would it stop me playing table tennis if the rule came in? No because I play a lot of social table tennis so we can pick and chose what rules we play by. Would it stop me playing competitive table tennis - possibly.

This is an interesting topic. I do not think either, that people would completely stop playing TT because of a stupid rule change, but nevertheless such changes may sort of indirectly negatively affect popularity of TT. I mean, adults often get involved in TT by their friends, and children by their parents or other relatives or their friends. Now, if frustration among the players grows, people will be much less active involving others. Long-term, that must lead to fewer people playing TT.

I agree, I would still play the sport, but it might reduce the amount that I play in formal competitions with this rule. I can see how it would break up the rhythm of the game, making it not as enjoyable.

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1725
Blade: Stiga Cybershape Carbon
FH Rubber: Butterfly Tenergy 19 2.1
BH Rubber: Dr Neubauer ABS3 1.5

Years ago my brother-in-law coined a phrase that has been altered somewhat by many: "Always do what you've always done; and you'll probably get what you've always got."

_________________
Blade: TSP 8.5 Balsa: FH Andro Blowfish+ 2.0 (Black);BH Giant Dragon National Team Talon OX(Red)
Blade: TSP 8.5 Balsa: FH TSP Spectol Blue 2.0-2.1 (Black); BH Strahlkraft OX (Red)
Blade: TSP 8.5 Balsa: FH Joola Express Ultra Max (Black): BH Dornenglanz II OX (Red)

USATT Rating: 1682

I can see few benefits for this change. It creates the problem where serving a good serve, then disadvantages you the next point. It is merely an unbalancing of ones skill level to points won ratio. If it is such a great idea, how come it has not been implemented into other sports?

_________________
Please view my blog, viewtopic.php?f=58&t=17571 , all the problems that I face in table tennis, I post on here, and I would very much appreciate it if you give your opinion on the matters.
S#1: Joola Wing Passion Fast, FH: 729 Cream 2.2, BH: 802-40 2.
S#2: Joola Trix Medium, FH: Hurricane 3 Neo 2, BH: 279 FX Lightning 2.2.
S#3: Galaxy 896, , BH: Pro XP 2.FH: Pro XP 2.2
S#4: Senso Waldner Carbon, FH: Apollo I 2.2, BH: Blowfish Plush Short Pimple Tensor.
S#4: Giant Dragon Kris Special, FH: Giant Dragon TaiChi Soft, BH: Giant Dragon Meteorite Soft.

But it has in different forms: squash, badminton and volleyball all depend upon some form of points scoring according to who wins the serve. Granted, there have also been changes made in those sports to adapt the rule over the years, and they were initially about only being able to score a point when serving, but nevertheless tying scoring to serving is not new.

I think that some of the reasons given for rejecting the change are reactionary rather than rational, but having tried the format myself I would argue for sticking with what we have.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy