PDA

View Full Version : Is this U1000 USTTR?



Boogar
11-06-2016, 05:51 PM
I just found this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc3oCQXQM0c

How can this be u1000? They play extremely good!

Shiro
11-06-2016, 05:56 PM
I just found this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc3oCQXQM0c

How can this be u1000? They play extremely good!

I agree that this does not look like a u1000 match considering they can even counter loop. At the low level, it is rare to see someone low to be able to counter loop. If anything, their rating may be under 1000, but is not their actual rating as they have not participated in enough tournaments.

Boogar
11-06-2016, 06:04 PM
I agree that this does not look like a u1000 match considering they can even counter loop. At the low level, it is rare to see someone low to be able to counter loop. If anything, their rating may be under 1000, but is not their actual rating as they have not participated in enough tournaments.

Jea that's what i thought as well. Hard luck for all the true u1000 attending. Id estimate their rating around 1600-1800?

Shiro
11-06-2016, 06:09 PM
Jea that's what i thought as well. Hard luck for all the true u1000 attending. Id estimate their rating around 1600-1800?

I don't think their rating is that high considering the push long often. I would assume maybe about 1200-1400 or so.

thekleifheit13
11-06-2016, 06:20 PM
I've seen this kind of game from 800-1000 level players. They're improving quickly and play well against straightforward attacking styles, but the more odd game styles (chopping, junk rubbers, etc.) would probably give them a lot of trouble. Against each other, they're playing around 1200. They have good serves but they don't look horribly spinny and they're high, so that lets them open the rallies up and play what they're comfortable with. It'll be interesting to get feedback from NL, D_E, Baal, & crew though. Good find!

Boogar
11-06-2016, 06:50 PM
The ball really is pretty high at times. However the technique they use is very good. And they will probably get very good in no time.

ttmonster
11-06-2016, 08:16 PM
How can it be a U1000 final with a guy rated 1189 ?

Its clear their first three balls are not that good, they keep pushing long serves, hitting their serves too high.

I think they are under some coach who is focusing on their rallying abilities and not teaching them anything about the first 3 balls on purpose ... from their ratings history both of them are playing since one year or less , so they have not yet reached their ratings ..

but yes I think both of them should be in the 1200-1400 range unless there is some big hole in their game which is not apparent from this video ...

Boogar
11-06-2016, 08:20 PM
How can it be a U1000 final with a guy rated 1189 ?

Its clear their first three balls are not that good, they keep pushing long serves, hitting their serves too high.

I think they are under some coach who is focusing on their rallying abilities and not teaching them anything about the first 3 balls on purpose ... from their ratings history both of them are playing since one year or less , so they have not yet reached their ratings ..

but yes I think both of them should be in the 1200-1400 range unless there is some big hole in their game which is not apparent from this video ...

I was confused about that as well. Maybe he was u1000 when he signed up and got more points after.

About the bad serves and receives. I had the same thought as you. I think its a very good decision to not focus on the serve too much.

I know some young players that won everything because of their good serves. Then they got older and as soon the opponents could return their serves they had no chance anymore. Because they had always relied on their serve to win them points.

Btw welcome back monster :) haven seen you around for some time.

Ilia Minkin
11-06-2016, 08:39 PM
This is very common, especially in areas with strong junior programs and many coaches training privately. Events like U1400 and below are massively populated with underrated kids. There are also sandbaggers, but they are way less common. It makes those events very unpredictable and kind of fun to play. You never know whom you are going to face: a basement player with weird strokes or a kid that runs around and counterloops everything.

NextLevel
11-06-2016, 09:49 PM
How can it be a U1000 final with a guy rated 1189 ?

The reason is that this is a big tournament with a long registration period, so the player over 1000 probably registered before his rating went up and since the ratings were based on a certain date, he qualified based on his rating for that date. It happens a lot at US Nationals or the US Open. I register based on the official ratings list for a date which as me under 1800, but by tournament time, I am 1850.

NextLevel
11-06-2016, 10:04 PM
I was confused about that as well. Maybe he was u1000 when he signed up and got more points after.

About the bad serves and receives. I had the same thought as you. I think its a very good decision to not focus on the serve too much.

I know some young players that won everything because of their good serves. Then they got older and as soon the opponents could return their serves they had no chance anymore. Because they had always relied on their serve to win them points.

Btw welcome back monster :) haven seen you around for some time.

This can be true, but the opposite can also be true. With better serves, you get to higher level faster and get exposed to better players. And good serve technique can help your strokes. What I will say is that you need to practice rallying behind your serves. Both players in the match have good serves and strong returns for their level. Both are clearly coached so when people are saying the players' returns are weak, it is not because the coach did not focus on the returns - they are speaking about the inexperience of the players and the current quality of the ball.

ttmonster
11-07-2016, 12:46 AM
welcome back monster :) haven seen you around for some time.

Thanks Boogar, I was travelling and busy because of a family emergency ....

ttmonster
11-07-2016, 02:22 AM
Yes NL , you are right , it can be argued both ways. But I have seen coaches here take the first route frequently especially for kids , they just stick to simple short serves and then rallying for a long time during their development . Its a little bit defensive, especially for the third ball attack but for some reason they stick to it for the longest time ...

This can be true, but the opposite can also be true. With better serves, you get to higher level faster and get exposed to better players. And good serve technique can help your strokes. What I will say is that you need to practice rallying behind your serves. Both players in the match have good serves and strong returns for their level. Both are clearly coached so when people are saying the players' returns are weak, it is not because the coach did not focus on the returns - they are speaking about the inexperience of the players and the current quality of the ball.

NextLevel
11-07-2016, 02:45 AM
Yes NL , you are right , it can be argued both ways. But I have seen coaches here take the first route frequently especially for kids , they just stick to simple short serves and then rallying for a long time during their development . Its a little bit defensive, especially for the third ball attack but for some reason they stick to it for the longest time ...

Sure. I know coaches as well who embrace the philosophy. I know a coach who likes to argue that his best student plays worse than he could because he has good serves. IF you look at the video, it is not like the players don't have deceptive serves, in fact the winner won a lot of points of serve return errors, so in the context of the video we were watching, I don't understand the comment. In the context of actual play, you don't have to teach deception but if you don't teach good technique, it is just another thing that has to be rebuilt when someone gets better. Usually, you want to rebuild stuff as little as possible.

ttmonster
11-07-2016, 03:02 AM
I don't do a whole lot of video analysis so I am not qualified to argue with you , my premise of saying what I said was that their first three balls are weak and I meant both serve and attack and serve return since they were hesitant to attack even blatantly long serves ...


Sure. I know coaches as well who embrace the philosophy. I know a coach who likes to argue that his best student plays worse than he could because he has good serves. IF you look at the video, it is not like the players don't have deceptive serves, in fact the winner won a lot of points of serve return errors, so in the context of the video we were watching, I don't understand the comment. In the context of actual play, you don't have to teach deception but if you don't teach good technique, it is just another thing that has to be rebuilt when someone gets better. Usually, you want to rebuild stuff as little as possible.

NextLevel
11-07-2016, 03:09 AM
I don't do a whole lot of video analysis so I am not qualified to argue with you , my premise of saying what I said was that their first three balls are weak and I meant both serve and attack and serve return since they were hesitant to attack even blatantly long serves ...

Not really arguing and not about qualifications either. What you saw is their level, and not their coaching per se. If you watch the whole video, you will see quite a few examples of 3rd ball attack, often unsuccessful. We don't know whether these players play in the same club or know each other well. Boogar was impressed by the structure and quality of their game, but this is how coached kids tend to play. Boogar is looking at it from the perspective of an adult who had decent ball control before he developed decent technique. Coached kids tend to get everything together so their ball control often ends up being their technique.

So I am saying you are right - I am just saying that I don't think it is about coaching, it is just about how well the kids can do what they have been coached to do - building the skill level to play shots competently takes time and you are see it done at a 1000 - 1400 level.

ttmonster
11-07-2016, 03:33 AM
Makes sense , understood now , thanks for breaking it down ... :)

Not really arguing and not about qualifications either. What you saw is their level, and not their coaching per se. If you watch the whole video, you will see quite a few examples of 3rd ball attack, often unsuccessful. We don't know whether these players play in the same club or know each other well. Boogar was impressed by the structure and quality of their game, but this is how coached kids tend to play. Boogar is looking at it from the perspective of an adult who had decent ball control before he developed decent technique. Coached kids tend to get everything together so their ball control often ends up being their technique.

So I am saying you are right - I am just saying that I don't think it is about coaching, it is just about how well the kids can do what they have been coached to do - building the skill level to play shots competently takes time and you are see it done at a 1000 - 1400 level.

tabletennischicago.com
11-08-2016, 02:49 AM
Hi,
That video you talking about was recorded by me October 30 2016 (7 days ago) at 2016 Edgeball Chicago International Open.
Before this tournament Adam rating was 880 and after 1067. Adam is 8 years old and currently is coached by his father (Henry). Below game from our club tournament between 8 year old Adam Polecki (760 rating at the time) vs 7 years old Patryk Zyworonek (660 at the time of this video). They are best friends....Have fun watching


https://youtu.be/L0Pu8XVQva0

https://youtu.be/hXfLW5Yzp-o