I wanna play with the big boys!

[NextLevel]

Yeah. I agree with what you are saying about the serve. Maybe Lazer was doing what you were saying. I read it differently and I think it is still a fine perspective for the OP to hear that some people don't try to simply win points with serve. Perhaps there is a better way of saying it.

As you said at one point, at a certain point, the serve is about the return you get and your third ball. So, it depends on what you mean by the serve. But Lazer did concede that JJ NG's post gave information that would work.

My point with Tony had entirely to do with the fact that there should not have been any posts in reply to Lazer and if there was one, was was more than enough. Yes Lazer answered back. But why the need for any of them.

BTW: I know this guy who was a coach at SPiN who played smooth on FH and SP on BH. When he was 15-17 he was probably 2500-2600. In his 30s he was about 2300. His whole strategy was to serve so his opponent could rip the ball and be waiting and counter so fast that most of the points would end. So, even though I get your point about not wanting the ball to be ripped back at you, some of what you want to come back depends on what your skills are.

This guy was really fast and could cover the table with his FH (like an old school PenHold player-but he was Shakehand). And if he used the BH SP to punch, it was pretty evil as even though his FH was very evil. So, I don't want people ripping it at me. And most people don't. But I know there are different strategies where you might benefit from using the power of your opponent's opening.

You make a great point about some topspin style serves inviting the rally immediately which is not quite like the third ball looping backspin style. But we aren't really arguing here that even if the guy let you attack his serve, he let you attack a good serve. Which might not make sense but does because the serve was likely long and fast which meant that you were forced to topspin the serve or block it, so it was virtually impossible to return short. It might have been a long serve which many lower rated couldn't loop easily and which good players could only loop easily to a specific point on the table after which he was guaranteed to enter the rally. The main point here is that good serving wins points by limiting the options of the returner. It can also win points via deception to cause errors and to slow the receiver down. But winning points with quality serves is a legit strategy and as the opponents get better they put pressure on you to serve better and very often, a great serve at the lower levels may not work at better levels unless it is legit good in length and placement.

The bottom line though is that serving is part of the game. And its importance makes it just as critical to have good serves to get into rallies with better players. A good serve might change depending on the style and context. But a good serve will almost definitely won points vs lower level opposition whether you want to do so intentionally or not.

 

[blahness]

I totally get Lazer's point about not trying to serve too deceptive to get into more enjoyable rallies. I also don't use my strongest serves when playing against certain players. I don't think he was being disrespectful its just a way to approach the game.

Personally I enjoy the serve/receive cat and mouse game though which is probably I learnt a bit too much for my own good, when I should really be focusing more on rallying strength which I suck at still (but am still improving!). I think serve/receive is an art, just like well planned and executed magic tricks, and is one of the more beautiful and interesting parts of table tennis. For eg in some of the samurai movies you get extremely short duels but are still full of drama and it looks artistic af.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

all these theory about enjoyable rallies
will that be a solution to OP who has age and a quick 200 point gain as an advantage?

it may be a valid post in another thread, but its been pretty useless in this.
maybe the pips comment beats it

You are saying this to Lazer after he has said that he gets JJ NG's point but that, for him it is not what he would want. Given the context above, he already has said "Totally agree on this" why are you responding to him at all if it is for the OP and why are you not saying: "For the OP winning points off serve might be fine" WHICH HE AS ALREADY AGREED TO WITH: "Totally agree on this" which means it is a wasted comment if you are saying:

"The OP may do well with JJ NG's advice".



So, Lazer responds as he does because, either your comment is directed at him, or it is a wasted comment since he has, in his first post, already conceded that JJ NG's comment may help the OP win at higher levels.



If by "you" here, you did mean the OP, then YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE USED IT. BUT AGAIN, IT IS A WASTED COMMENT SINCE LAZER AGREED IN HIS FIRST POST THAT WHAT JJ NG said would help the OP improve when he said: "Totally agree on this"

So, basically, you made 3 posts that labored a point Lazer had already made, OR YOU WERE TELLING LAZER something that he was not interested in. Either way, you did not need to make any of those comments.

As far as your last comment, I think I had no trouble making it clear that for Lazer, it may not be what he would want to do in working on things while it may still be good advice for the OP.

It would not be hard for you to do that without coming off the way you do in your post about different usages of THE WORD YOU when, either you were talking to Lazer AND THERE WAS NO POINT, or you were talking to Lazer about the OP and there was no point because he had acknowledged that with his: "Totally agree on this".

So, keep chasing your tail in circles if you want. But Lazer does not need any more than: "Totally agree on this" to show that he acknowledge that JJ NG's post might be useful for the OP.

lol
didn't know he needed you to defend him.

There has been so much useless posts. You should actually check how many gave OP solutions that can actually work.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

My point with Tony had entirely to do with the fact that there should not have been any posts in reply to Lazer and if there was one, ONE was more than enough. Yes Lazer answered back. But why the need for any of the responses after that? Was there anything useful? Why not just give info to the OP and ignore Lazer's comments if he was trying to give information to the OP?

Haha
Carl, you a fan of Lazer or what?

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

yeah most of tjhe u11s are my friends, they're not even in hk youth team, they were picked only for u11 because of their rankings.I was 9 ranking points short of joining u15

oh, what a pity, that you didn't play!

HK's level has been pretty amazing, so something is going right there for you guys!
Do you guys have U11 youth team? Taiwan started with U11 national trials, so there is technically a "trials" squad.

U15 upwards had more international participant action.
I was chatting to coaches about ITTF new U11/U13 categories, where, a contender in Asia, has so little participants.
China never takes part in cadets, Japan normally would, Korea not so much. Taiwan just started. USA flying half way across the world to me was surprising and then with U11 boys, you had 11 participants.....

And the whole scheduling was silly (girls played first, then mixed doubles, then boys).
so girls team arrive first (and then leave) then comes the boys team, with the 1 to 2 days overlap for XD in between.
So if you are a coach for both girls and boys, who is going to fly the girls home? Some stayed for all the days, which isn't productive at all as 1/3 being spectators.

Any ways, let me stop on HK YC, in case my post get reported as irrevelant content

 

[JJ Ng]

I think my name was mentioned a couple times and I am losing track of where the thread is going.

Yes I agree that if the OP wants to beat 1300 to 1500 level player, then winning on the serve is the best way to go.

I grew up playing JPen so I was used to winning via serves. I don't consider that to be a cheap way of winning but I can see how that is not enjoyable for some players. Being JPen growing up, getting into a rally was the worst thing for me. It is like, serve heavy backspin, loop drive and try to win the point, then move on. My backhand block was very good but trying to win points against very good shakehanders with excellent backhand loops was asking for trouble.

We have a couple people in the club who take lessons from the coach but refuse to play games. They just want to take lessons for the sake of taking it. They want to get some exercise and enjoy the sport. So I guess there are people like that out there.

However, I also have a few clubmates who practice very well but just cannot win in matches. They seem genuinely frustrated at times. Some clubmates would urge others to play certain ways and how to improve. I tend to keep my mouth shut. I personally do not feel that there is one way of playing and one way of winning. I see plenty of people who are on the heavy side in terms of their weight with joint problems where they rely on their wrists to generate topspins and finish points. Their forehand does not look like Ma Long's forehand. But if they can beat me merely by moving their wrists, then my respect is to them.

That's why I think some of the clubmates who have trouble with the matches are dealing with timing and reading-spin-correctly issues. They just need to figure it out until everything clicks.

I am personally a big proponent of playing to get better and lose a few points or a few matches, than playing to win all the time. If you are playing to win all the time, you will never get better. You have to try certain strokes that you are not completely comfortable with, in real matches, in order to get comfortable with those strokes in real matches. When you practice forehand-to-forehand, backhand-to-backhand, that sort of timing does not happen unless you face those types of ball in real matches.

Now, I am also a big proponent of multi-ball practice because when done well, that is the closest thing to a real game situation as you can get. But people don't necessarily have the money to hire a coach for private lesson an hour a day.

So circling back to the OP. My other two advices are: one, play some matches with the goal of practicing important strokes and if you lose, then so be it; and two, paying a coach for multi practice that "simulates" a real game.

When you hire a coach, you should be frank about what you want. Do you want a forehand like Ma Long? Or do you want to win matches against 1300-15000 level players? Those are two separate things. If you are going to pay a coach his or her fee for an hour, you should be able to ask what you want.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I totally get Lazer's point about not trying to serve too deceptive to get into more enjoyable rallies. I also don't use my strongest serves when playing against certain players. I don't think he was being disrespectful its just a way to approach the game.

Personally I enjoy the serve/receive cat and mouse game though which is probably I learnt a bit too much for my own good, when I should really be focusing more on rallying strength which I suck at still (but am still improving!). I think serve/receive is an art, just like well planned and executed magic tricks, and is one of the more beautiful and interesting parts of table tennis. For eg in some of the samurai movies you get extremely short duels but are still full of drama and it looks artistic af.

When we train kids, first few years is all about strokes that are used in rallies.
Serve and serve return comes later, once they can play strokes/rallies etc, or how I like to call it, a deeper understanding of "feeling the ball".

But when comes to 62 year olds, they do not have the 3 to 5 years to train 10 to 30 hours a week to form the necessary basics in terms of "text book" training.
Just want to note, I can write a few text books on text book training if I wanted to (i'm actually thinking of making a video series)

Some times I tell some people (could be amateur vets, or parents), there is training to learn the basics and go text book, or train to win points, or both.

For OP, getting into rallies could actually be the last thing he should do (I don't know how he plays, but maybe his ratio of loosing points is higher in rallies, due to many reasons, link to his level, age and technique).

I have 11 years coaching experience with juniors, adults 30 to 50 (total beginners) around 6 years, I have worked with vets probably lower than 1300 for around 2 years. However the vets who I worked with just wants to be in the sport to excercise, and don't really play matches.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Yes I agree that if the OP wants to beat 1300 to 1500 level player, then winning on the serve is the best way to go.

When you hire a coach, you should be frank about what you want. Do you want a forehand like Ma Long? Or do you want to win matches against 1300-15000 level players? Those are two separate things. If you are going to pay a coach his or her fee for an hour, you should be able to ask what you want.

15000 level... please don't raise the bar so high

Well, people look at 1300, or 1400 or 1500.
How I see the game is that, there is different components of technique, and one part, you could be 2000, while the other part, you could be 1000.

As in any sports, you play to your strengths, not to your weaknesses.
you train on your weaknesses, but if you play more on your weakness, and loose, then that need to be planned for, and not just total headless chicken mode (like how one of the coaches I know likes to call it - meaning, no idea what you are doing in match play).

No matter if juniors or seniors or vets, the above theory is valid, especially if we are talking competitive.
Even with 2300 kids we work with. They have flaws and opponents will try and capitalize on it (they will study our players previous game footage etc), while we need to prevent it from happening from strategies point of view. Some times, training just can't fix flaws/everything, as not every one is a Ma Long that can be so complete.

Hence I agree that winning on serves is the best way to go for OP.
level is low and if he master few good serves, his wins percentage should increase and so will has rating.

or ,if I want to be his coach and get 10 hours paid coaching hours every week, for 5 years. I will teach in from textbook chapter 1 (like 7 year old kids) very slowly and make my "long term" money and won't teach him serves until year 2.

But if I want to prove 1300 to 1500 is doable, and in the shortest possible time, I will mix 70% on technique and 30% on serves and later the mix will become 60/30/10, with the 10 being serve return.

If we just ignore serves, then that is removing the "advantage" of serving, and player could get demoralize and actually leave the sport. End of the day, way too many techniques to master, and always, never enough time.

End of the day, you get 2 serves, that is your advantage and your opponents disadvantage. When it is your opponents turn, if you score off 1 of the 2, that will be the idea scenario.
That is why 21 points became 11 points and from 5 to 2 each - basically to try and even out the advantages. Any person who chooses to even 2 advantages even lower.... I can only be speechless

 

[blahness]

However, I also have a few clubmates who practice very well but just cannot win in matches. They seem genuinely frustrated at times. Some clubmates would urge others to play certain ways and how to improve. I tend to keep my mouth shut. I personally do not feel that there is one way of playing and one way of winning. I see plenty of people who are on the heavy side in terms of their weight with joint problems where they rely on their wrists to generate topspins and finish points. Their forehand does not look like Ma Long's forehand. But if they can beat me merely by moving their wrists, then my respect is to them.

That's why I think some of the clubmates who have trouble with the matches are dealing with timing and reading-spin-correctly issues. They just need to figure it out until everything clicks.

I am personally a big proponent of playing to get better and lose a few points or a few matches, than playing to win all the time. If you are playing to win all the time, you will never get better. You have to try certain strokes that you are not completely comfortable with, in real matches, in order to get comfortable with those strokes in real matches. When you practice forehand-to-forehand, backhand-to-backhand, that sort of timing does not happen unless you face those types of ball in real matches.

Now, I am also a big proponent of multi-ball practice because when done well, that is the closest thing to a real game situation as you can get. But people don't necessarily have the money to hire a coach for private lesson an hour a day.

So circling back to the OP. My other two advices are: one, play some matches with the goal of practicing important strokes and if you lose, then so be it; and two, paying a coach for multi practice that "simulates" a real game.

When you hire a coach, you should be frank about what you want. Do you want a forehand like Ma Long? Or do you want to win matches against 1300-15000 level players? Those are two separate things. If you are going to pay a coach his or her fee for an hour, you should be able to ask what you want.

+1 on this post. Also, fixed spot BH-BH or FH-FH topspin rallying is really like 1% of the "topspin" skill ladder if you will.

For me it goes something like this:

1) looping heavy backspin easily without losing balance or position. This is where majority of the rally happy ppl just fail outright.
2) looping spinny af long fast serves (heavy underspin/no spin/topspin, FH pendulum, BH pendulum, etc...) - also very easy to fail - a lot of ppl haven't learnt the tricks of how to maximise looping success against different serve archetypes of unclear spin.
3) looping quality fast long pushes
4) looping short high balls
5) looping opportunity balls
6) looping half long balls (arguably one of the hardest)
7) looping against flicks or chiquita
8) counterloop
9) sidespin looping (hook/fade)
10) using feints to get opponents out of position
11) footwork to reach all the different balls, including how to recover after a loop and how to transition

 

[IB66]

Hi FF33,

Do you have any footage of you playing? would be a great help!! Without seeing you play it's virtually impossible to give any really good advice.

Generalisations then take over. Such as improve serve and receive / 3rd ball attack etc we can advise to improve this 'generally' but without seeing or knowing what your actual serves are like, how you recover to ready position, where you position yourself when you recover Etc, specific advice won't be forthcoming!! and 1 seemingly small piece of advice, could lead to a 2, 3, or 4 point swing per game in your favour. Sometimes, not always this can be the case!!!

Strengths and weaknesses
How do YOU see what your strengths & weaknesses are?
AND
How do OTHERS see your strengths and weaknesses? do they line up with each other? Sometimes we over and under estimate things!! like 'my backhand topspin is crap' ' my FH loop is good' whereas in reality, you actually can hit 20 BH top spins without error but only 6 FH loops without error!! The FH loops just feel better and perhaps are 'winning' shots, but maybe they have been set up by your 'crap' BH!!!

So if you prefer not to post footage of yourself, then get a coach that can work with what you have in your arsenal, and improve understanding of your OWN game strengths, and how these can be brought into match play and how to try and avoid an opponent taking advantage of your weaknesses.
The coach will also be able to work on improving your weaker elements of your game.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Haha
Carl, you a fan of Lazer or what?

Actually, as the quote of mine in your post clearly indicates, it is what I am NOT A FAN OF. When someone is rude, and their post is a total waste of time, it does get annoying, especially if they keep at it over and over and over, as I feel has happened here and as I feel is still happening here.

I thought about not saying anything. But your posts in response to Lazer and then in response to me, they really are such a waste of time while at the same time being totally obnoxious. And you seem to be someone who, no matter what, will respond when called out even with something as pointless as the statement above. "Carl, you a fan of Lazer or what?" I mean, are you a three year old saying "I know you are but what am I."????

Clearly, I am responding to you and how you responded and it has much less to do with a comment of Lazer's that you probably would have been better off by simply not responding. You would have actually been able to make very valid points about serve, even good points like ones made by people like NextLevel or JJ NG about the importance of the serve rather than waste of time with posts to argue and try and say someone else is wrong because they like to serve simply and get deeper into rallies.

And of course NextLevel's point that you can't get deeper into rallies without good serving skills is valid. Of course it is good for the thread to have that kind of information. But for someone who really could offer good information in this thread, you really spent a fair amount of your time wallowing in the mud instead.

 

[Sukhov]

I used to play long pips on the back of a Jpen grip.

I don't understand why people would comment that long pips is 100% spin insensitive. Is long pips less spin sensitive than inverted? yes. Is it completely insensitive toward opponent's spin? Heck, no.

It is not like you stick a long pips on your paddle and you can just stand there, block at the same angle no matter what types of spin are coming at you. you still need to adjust your paddle.

When it is heavy underspin toward you, and you use long pips, you still need to lift the ball a bit. If it is heavy topspin coming toward you, you still need to close your angle to block with long pips. However, I would even argue that such blocks are even harder because your return of the ball will have backspin on it and it can "float" off the end of the table. That's why you would need to do a chop block with long pips in that situation. But to do a chop block, you need to time the ball properly.

Long pips is not idiot-proof. Table tennis is a sport that simply demands a lot of thinking on the part of the players, whether you use inverted, anti, short pips, medium pips or long pips.

With long pips, you need to learn to push, chop block, regular block, hit and brush the ball. Then you need to vary that or else you will be pinned down by a very very good inverted player.

And there is a reason that no top player has short pips on one side and long pips on the other side because that style has almost no possibility of winning at even the middle top amateur level.

Since I myself play with LP/SP I'll have to defend the combination a bit, Sweden's best veteran 55+ uses LP/SP and I would call him an excellent amateur player.
On topic, I've encouraged a number of 60+ to switch to LP on backhand and every single one has improved a couple of hundred points on their relatively low level. OP will most likely only need to develop a decent push and good blocking to achieve usatt 1500, based on what I've seen on youtube of the level.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Actually, as the quote of mine in your post clearly indicates, it is what I am NOT A FAN OF. When someone is rude, and their post is a total waste of time, it does get annoying, especially if they keep at it over and over and over, as I feel has happened here and as I feel is still happening here.

I thought about not saying anything. But your posts in response to Lazer and then in response to me, they really are such a waste of time while at the same time being totally obnoxious. And you seem to be someone who, no matter what, will respond when called out even with something as pointless as the statement above. "Carl, you a fan of Lazer or what?" I mean, are you a three year old saying "I know you are but what am I."????

Clearly, I am responding to you and how you responded and it has much less to do with a comment of Lazer's that you probably would have been better off by simply not responding. You would have actually been able to make very valid points about serve, even good points like ones made by people like NextLevel or JJ NG about the importance of the serve rather than waste of time with posts to argue and try and say someone else is wrong because they like to serve simply and get deeper into rallies.

And of course NextLevel's point that you can't get deeper into rallies without good serving skills is valid. Of course it is good for the thread to have that kind of information. But for someone who really could offer good information in this thread, you really spent a fair amount of your time wallowing in the mud instead.

If you feel all those I typed in this thread is "not good information, and wallowing in the mud", then you have just witnessed my last "coaching" post on TTD
Lazer can take over my role as the resident coach!
Gozo and TB too, they really solid equipment experts.

I can now focus more of my time on editing videos and promoting future stars.

 

[Richie]

It's a guessing game to give advice on how OP can get from 1300-1500 without a video. Can only give general advice, don't think it will do that much in reality unless you're really motivated.

@Tony's Table Tennis I hope you stay on the forum, you post a lot of useful content and it's good to get insights from someone who works with TT full-time and has insider info. I think it's best you just ignore Lazer's comments instead.

It's clear that you both are in totally different worlds. Lazer's comments are innocent, but you can tell they come from a place of not wanting to improve and taking the sport very casually. There is no problem with that and it's good to get engagement from all kinds of players.

This is one of the drawbacks of the forum. It's difficult for new users to tell the context of the comment. Though with you Tony, it can be more quickly figured out. But if Lazer's comments are read the wrong way (and I imagine they can for anyone, because Lazer speaks with confidence on some stuff) then they can be pretty easily misunderstood imo.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

If you feel all those I typed in this thread is "not good information, and wallowing in the mud", then you have just witnessed my last "coaching" post on TTD
Lazer can take over my role as the resident coach!
Gozo and TB too, they really solid equipment experts.

I can now focus more of my time on editing videos and promoting future stars.

Come on Tony. Why is it all one thing or its opposite with no nuance? You know that I know you have plenty of good posts, yes, in this thread too. Of course you have good posts. And of course, as a coach, you know what you are talking about.

The stuff that I was responding to was you trying to make someone else look bad rather than you giving the OP information. You don't have to make someone else look bad to give the information that will help the OP and the information you can give will always be appreciated.

So, in a sense, I am just asking you to step up your game and be better.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

It's a guessing game to give advice on how OP can get from 1300-1500 without a video. Can only give general advice, don't think it will do that much in reality unless you're really motivated.

@Tony's Table Tennis I hope you stay on the forum, you post a lot of useful content and it's good to get insights from someone who works with TT full-time and has insider info. I think it's best you just ignore Lazer's comments instead.

It's clear that you both are in totally different worlds. Lazer's comments are innocent, but you can tell they come from a place of not wanting to improve and taking the sport very casually. There is no problem with that and it's good to get engagement from all kinds of players.

This is one of the drawbacks of the forum. It's difficult for new users to tell the context of the comment. Though with you Tony, it can be more quickly figured out. But if Lazer's comments are read the wrong way (and I imagine they can for anyone, because Lazer speaks with confidence on some stuff) then they can be pretty easily misunderstood imo.

Thanks Richie,

Most time I feel I am just wasting my time.
OP ask about solutions
Then you have a few post that literately can just be deleted. You are right, new users will be so mislead, but how many forum members cares? not many right?
How many of those post I dislike are truly innocent for OP or have they own agenda?
Likely there are many good posts too.
Der_Echte actually was the first to talk about good serve. I should of just backed his post and no one will have the guts to say "my post is wrong" lol

At the moment, I am officially not a coach, especially in Taiwan.
My ITTF certificate license has also expired lol.

It would be nice for some veterans coming into this thread and teaching OP on how to gain that 200 points. I know in Taiwan there are a lot of Vets that start very late, and there are tons of coaches that are very good in teaching older folks.

Thanks for your words Richie, but I rather focus more on my youtube channel and video production.
You can support me by subscribing and/or commenting in my videos threads on TTD.
I have a list of 30 players I want to talk about. or video series on how each school trains, or multiball drills they do every day. Recently there have been players from all over the world that has benefited with Taiwan's sport school system and more will be coming. Taiwan is slowly and surely getting good exposure.

I actually deleted over 2/3 of what I typed. Basically I have no energy or desire to merge the distance between 2 different worlds and I sure don't have Next Level's energy or his ability to explain the posts/reply in such great detail.

 

[NextLevel]

I think my name was mentioned a couple times and I am losing track of where the thread is going.

Yes I agree that if the OP wants to beat 1300 to 1500 level player, then winning on the serve is the best way to go.

I grew up playing JPen so I was used to winning via serves. I don't consider that to be a cheap way of winning but I can see how that is not enjoyable for some players. Being JPen growing up, getting into a rally was the worst thing for me. It is like, serve heavy backspin, loop drive and try to win the point, then move on. My backhand block was very good but trying to win points against very good shakehanders with excellent backhand loops was asking for trouble.

We have a couple people in the club who take lessons from the coach but refuse to play games. They just want to take lessons for the sake of taking it. They want to get some exercise and enjoy the sport. So I guess there are people like that out there.

However, I also have a few clubmates who practice very well but just cannot win in matches. They seem genuinely frustrated at times. Some clubmates would urge others to play certain ways and how to improve. I tend to keep my mouth shut. I personally do not feel that there is one way of playing and one way of winning. I see plenty of people who are on the heavy side in terms of their weight with joint problems where they rely on their wrists to generate topspins and finish points. Their forehand does not look like Ma Long's forehand. But if they can beat me merely by moving their wrists, then my respect is to them.

That's why I think some of the clubmates who have trouble with the matches are dealing with timing and reading-spin-correctly issues. They just need to figure it out until everything clicks.

I am personally a big proponent of playing to get better and lose a few points or a few matches, than playing to win all the time. If you are playing to win all the time, you will never get better. You have to try certain strokes that you are not completely comfortable with, in real matches, in order to get comfortable with those strokes in real matches. When you practice forehand-to-forehand, backhand-to-backhand, that sort of timing does not happen unless you face those types of ball in real matches.

Now, I am also a big proponent of multi-ball practice because when done well, that is the closest thing to a real game situation as you can get. But people don't necessarily have the money to hire a coach for private lesson an hour a day.

So circling back to the OP. My other two advices are: one, play some matches with the goal of practicing important strokes and if you lose, then so be it; and two, paying a coach for multi practice that "simulates" a real game.

When you hire a coach, you should be frank about what you want. Do you want a forehand like Ma Long? Or do you want to win matches against 1300-15000 level players? Those are two separate things. If you are going to pay a coach his or her fee for an hour, you should be able to ask what you want.

While I agree with this approach, I think when you have a stroke, a good coach should also give you a spin vs power and adjustment philosophy to help you with reading your misses. And that if you practice enough, a point comes when you just trust the new stroke/approach more than the old stroke. Usually, you can use your stroke path and contact point and contact depth to change what would have happened to the ball, so the key is to develop stable and fast swings that you can adjust to incoming balls.

It is good if someone has an attitude that missing in practice is okay. But it is also important to have a framework for missing and know what is appropriate. Maybe you didnt read the spin? Maybe you just need more practice? Maybe the other player is just a faster player putting you under pressure and you need a player with a more reasonable level to play against? Coaches need to work on this with their students so that they are problem solving as they play.

I am not a fan of multiball as match simulation. I think of multiball as TT cardio or resistance training depending on context. You slowly start and use the muscle correctly and you build strength and range by doing things over and over. The goal should be initially to find the right activation sequence. And then do it faster or repeat it enough even slowly until some sort of failure kicks in. Or maybe you just stop at a r eww reasonable level. But it is how you build the stamina to hit the ball aggressively if you have the athletic reserves. I don't think it is necessarily match realistic unless the spin reading component is challenged a bit. But it does help you use the muscles in ways that can be helpful in real matches. But without the gsme reading element, many of the skills will not translate well.

 

[Dr Evil]

I'm a 62 year old who is playing at a USATT level of 1300. I want to play at the club's A-league, which is a minimum 1500 rating.
What do I need to do to get to 1500 and beyond?

thanks in advance!

A common skill that separates 1500+ from 1300 (smooth rubber) players is the ability to open consistently against underspin. Also agree with the emphasis on serve and especially serve receive. Being able to loop and drive long serves consistently is a game changer.

 

[Richie]

NL, what you're saying about multiball supports my experience. It's also why I think a lot of junior players struggle against players with more experience and feeling, even though they are doing a lot of things right technically.

Just by chance I've had the opposite experience of that. Basically just playing a lot first, lots of matches for many years without any coaching, drills or focus on technique. Ideally the technique should be worked on besides that stuff. But since it wasn't I got a lot of experience of seeing the ball flight etc. Then later worked on technique when I already had a decent read of the ball. That definitely has it's cons as well, it's really hard to move from overarm usage, overuse of upperbody to mostly lowerbody like all the top players do. They know no different and have known it since they were little kids.

But if you do too much of the opposite, focus a lot on technique first and less dynamic training and match play, feeling for the ball etc might lag behind. Some kids, for whatever reason never develop enough feeling to spin the ball well. I've seen it here a fair bit, just because they start as kids doesn't mean they end up that good. I think one reason for that here in Sweden at least is the organized practice sessions are very structured and drill-based. Not much room to mess around and see what happens to the ball. Too extreme in either direction will affect improvement for the worse imo.

I've talked to one of my teammates about this, who had the opposite experience to me. He had great players to practice with, coaches, drills, multiball. But a too rigid training environment, when he mostly wanted to play with feeling. I was the opposite and longed for a strict training environment, but much later when I got a taste of it, I realized it wasn't as good as I imagined it to be. Sometimes the coaches would give long, unrealistic exercises and it felt more like a chore. It's difficult to have everything.. those lucky enough who do, might turn pro. But it's actually incredibly luck based.

 

[NextLevel]

NL, what you're saying about multiball supports my experience. It's also why I think a lot of junior players struggle against players with more experience and feeling, even though they are doing a lot of things right technically.

Just by chance I've had the opposite experience of that. Basically just playing a lot first, lots of matches for many years without any coaching, drills or focus on technique. Ideally the technique should be worked on besides that stuff. But since it wasn't I got a lot of experience of seeing the ball flight etc. Then later worked on technique when I already had a decent read of the ball. That definitely has it's cons as well, it's really hard to move from overarm usage, overuse of upperbody to mostly lowerbody like all the top players do. They know no different and have known it since they were little kids.

But if you do too much of the opposite, focus a lot on technique first and less dynamic training and match play, feeling for the ball etc might lag behind. Some kids, for whatever reason never develop enough feeling to spin the ball well. I've seen it here a fair bit, just because they start as kids doesn't mean they end up that good. I think one reason for that here in Sweden at least is the organized practice sessions are very structured and drill-based. Not much room to mess around and see what happens to the ball. Too extreme in either direction will affect improvement for the worse imo.

I've talked to one of my teammates about this, who had the opposite experience to me. He had great players to practice with, coaches, drills, multiball. But a too rigid training environment, when he mostly wanted to play with feeling. I was the opposite and longed for a strict training environment, but much later when I got a taste of it, I realized it wasn't as good as I imagined it to be. Sometimes the coaches would give long, unrealistic exercises and it felt more like a chore. It's difficult to have everything.. those lucky enough who do, might turn pro. But it's actually incredibly luck based.

My other theory is that starting younger also allows hr brain to specialize some resources earlier for seeing and reading spin. But as you point out, there is some survivor bias to starting young. I just find it hard to believe I would struggle so much with reading spin had I started younger. But maybe it is just a story I use go make myself feel better and there is nothing special about it.