All Club Level Players need to know the stuff in this video

[ThePongCommenter]

I think the video is good.
HMH is putting original content I’ve not seen anything like it. And I’m sure he is giving good coaching advice.

in this video it doesn’t really matter what exact level is the Mexican guy. Just matters to see how with a simple tactic he’s totally shut down and is as powerless than any of us would be against HMH whereas this Mexican guy would be almost all of us easily

How many simple tactics do you think a 2500 player (formerly probably a bit higher) could choose from to beat a roughly 2100 player? And how applicable and useful is that tactic to an amateur player that doesn't have Heming's skillset to execute with, who is trying to beat someone a level or two above him?

The answers are: a lot, and not very much

 

[NetProphet]

I think the video is good.
HMH is putting original content I’ve not seen anything like it. And I’m sure he is giving good coaching advice.

in this video it doesn’t really matter what exact level is the Mexican guy.

But, if you want people to follow your advice and coaching then details matter.

Whether he's trying to teach tactics to beat people better than you or club players at the same level I'm not sure (can't remember what he said exactly) but the claim as to how good the opponent is actually matters as without knowing that (and believing that) how do you assess the coaches (Hemings) tactics and level?

I mean I could post a video of myself beating a decent player 3-0 and retrospectively add verbal commentary to explain every shot to make myself look good but if you find out the opponents level is low is gonna colour things, right?

Just matters to see how with a simple tactic he’s totally shut down and is as powerless than any of us would be against HMH whereas this Mexican guy would be almost all of us easily

You sure he'd best us easily cos in that video he looks a poor player.
So poor that tactics probably have no bearing on the game result.
A video of him losing or fighting a tough 3-2 where tactics clearly change and play a direct and obvious part in the result would not lead to any of this discussion

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Maybe, but i don't think it is for you to determine that. When people make claims that bring about credibility issues, it is important for forum members to speak up so that these kinds of incredible claims are not used to deceive people. I didn't want to speak about it, but i am unhappy with people trying to shut down Tony as if he is doing something entirely wrong.

As much as I would like to love the educational content of the video, I do have issues with recently retired professionals beating up on glorified hobby players and then claiming anyone can do it with the right insights or training. I am not claiming that some/most of the advice isn't good (in fact, I can discuss that particular issue with anyone in private) , I am claiming that the way it is being marketed can lead an astute watcher to have credibility issues about the source, the same way people have issues with EmRatThich.

thank you NL
I know in recent time, we have had our differences and you would be the last person I would expect to stand up for me, but we all know you are a very precise on content accuracy and thanks for standing up for that.

I didn't want to damage the thread with criticism, but I guess I am the villain for pointing out something I feel has flaws and I was shocked to see it was trying to be spin around too and then accepted by so many here. So, I will do some tough talking, as it is the case in real life, you will get criticism and if you a pro, that is part of your life journey too.

I have many friends in the Aussie TT community and having visited there myself and hosted Australian table tennis national team members in Taiwan too. I am not sure if the mistake in the video was "honest", or maybe it was purposely used to make perception that the opponent is still of a high level?

Fact is, the opponent is a lower level between the two, which to me doesn't matter to be honest.
yes, talking about each point - good, that is a good idea and I can see many people enjoy it.
This is often the case in Chinese videos, and I gather not much videos are made in English. So this is nothing new to be honest - yes there are tons of Chinese voice over videos out there.....

But did strategy win? or did the lower level opponent loose?

There was many fundemental mistakes from the opponents and should a higher level opponent was in question, then maybe, we would see more strategy.
But I guess, it did serve it purpose - and as always do - I give credit where it is due! and I also know, making videos is hard work.
But strategy from the video? I think any strategy would still win. So is it a video of beating higher? or a strategy of beating lower? Would it help a 1900 beat 2100 player (if i'm correct, this was the direction of the video)? I doubt.

so having said that, this gave me some ideas of analyzing some of my pro players match videos against high level Europe club players. Both of these players being levels higher than the 2 in the OP video. But I doubt I will have time to really make a series of good educational videos. It is probably more useful to analyze video where one looses, as that create more learning and improvements.
Maybe I will hire someone to edit them... but voice-over is time consuming, as I tried it before with those TTT talk videos.

Never the less. Good video for lower level audiences who can think differently now after seeing and hearing it. I am sure it will help many.

 

[Takkyu_wa_inochi]

Naw serving short to FH is a universal tactic at all level and too neglected at our level in my opinion. I’m personally trying to work more on it. Not that I don’t do it match, I certainly do. But I don’t practice it enough , have more precise serves and able to play the next ball. Exactly as HMH says I often have an easy but awkward receive and I’m actually not comfortable dealing with this ball

I’m not sure I understand the other part. OFC the other guy had no real chance against HMH. But I feel he didn’t try as hard or smart as he could to get a couple more points or at least to look better, especially his serves didn’t have any element of surprise while it’s the main chance to score points.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Naw serving short to FH is a universal tactic at all level and too neglected at our level in my opinion. I’m personally trying to work more on it. Not that I don’t do it match, I certainly do. But I don’t practice it enough , have more precise serves and able to play the next ball. Exactly as HMH says I often have an easy but awkward receive and I’m actually not comfortable dealing with this ball

I’m not sure I understand the other part. OFC the other guy had no real chance against HMH. But I feel he didn’t try as hard or smart as he could to get a couple more points or at least to look better, especially his serves didn’t have any element of surprise while it’s the main chance to score points.

Sure, I agree with that. But then he proceeds to totally skip over the part where he says you might not know what to do with the receive you get after serving short to FH, which is where the value would be for someone who is probably not acing people with short FH serves.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

But strategy from the video? I think any strategy would still win. So is it a video of beating higher? or a strategy of beating lower? Would it help a 1900 beat 2100 player? I doubt.

This seems to be the key point everyone is missing. The exact premise of the video he states at the beginning is how to beat players one or two levels higher than you...

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

This seems to be the key point everyone is missing. The exact premise of the video he states at the beginning is how to beat players one or two levels higher than you...

yeah (i actually edited my reply to include that), It was indeed the purpose of the video. don't think level 96 but it sure was level 7 playing level 3.
I didn't want to blow that cover at first, but was just curious on that claim.

someone private message me to say, don't be too tough as it was purely marketing.

 

[NetProphet]

This seems to be the key point everyone is missing. The exact premise of the video he states at the beginning is how to beat players one or two levels higher than you...

Well it seems to me his idea was that the tactics would be universal and if a player took that info with them it could help to close the gap on someone higher. That's what I took to be the premise anyway...

But when he says this guy was a Mexican no 3 in 2003 and is now likely "the same level more" that's when I think he lost many of us.

If that's the case Hemings should beat the current Mexico no.1 4-0 without any issues.
I don't think that to be the case.....

 

[NextLevel]

Sure, I agree with that. But then he proceeds to totally skip over the part where he says you might not know what to do with the receive you get after serving short to FH, which is where the value would be for someone who is probably not acing people with short FH serves.

Or that the issues the opponent is having with the return might be a function of the quality of the serve and the quality of the expected third ball given the difference in level between him and the opponent. I can get the same exact serve (ball quality wise) from a 2600 player and 1300 player and when you see me return it against the 1300 player, I am not expecting a third ball kill so I am comfortable flicking the ball right into his forehand. Against the 2600 player, I pop the ball up 3 ft trying to drop it short or slap it into the net trying flick it so hard the ball leaves a smoky trail...

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Well it seems to me his idea was that the tactics would be universal and if a player took that info with them it could help to close the gap on someone higher. That's what I took to be the premise anyway...

But when he says this guy was a Mexican no 3 in 2003 and is now likely "the same level more" that's when I think he lost many of us.

If that's the case Hemings should beat the current Mexico no.1 4-0 without any issues.
I don't think that to be the case.....

Maybe in 2003 you only needed to be 2300 USATT level to reach #3 in Mexico. Maybe Heming thinks that. I don't know but I would bet not. I think this point has been discussed enough though - as I said I saw that as the way Heming talks if you watch enough of his videos rather than a serious claim but I don't really care much either way lol.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Or that the issues the opponent is having with the return might be a function of the quality of the serve and the quality of the expected third ball given the difference in level between him and the opponent. I can get the same exact serve (ball quality wise) from a 2600 player and 1300 player and when you see me return it against the 1300 player, I am not expecting a third ball kill so I am comfortable flicking the ball right into his forehand. Against the 2600 player, I pop the ball up 3 ft trying to drop it short or slap it into the net trying flick it so hard the ball leaves a smoky trail...

What I was trying to say in an earlier comment but you said it better lol

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

Even though there's nothing groundbreaking, the universal tactics are well explained in the video for his target audience. One thing I actually disagree with is he says it's easier to wait for short serve. I actually prefer to always a expect a fast, long serve because I always find short serves to be easy to deal with since they are relatively slow, and you have more time to react. But other folks may find short serves more difficult to deal with so I think that is going to be player dependent.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Even though there's nothing groundbreaking, the universal tactics are well explained in the video for his target audience. One thing I actually disagree with is he says it's easier to wait for short serve. I actually prefer to always a expect a fast, long serve because I always find short serves to be easy to deal with since they are relatively slow, and you have more time to react. But other folks may find short serves more difficult to deal with so I think that is going to be player dependent.

Many top players and coaches I know who have spoken on this topic are on the side of waiting for the long serve and moving in if it is short, so it is an interesting opinion especially when expressed as absolute truth rather than a personal preference. Not saying it is wrong but I don't think there's only one correct way in this situation.

 

[NextLevel]

Even though there's nothing groundbreaking, the universal tactics are well explained in the video for his target audience. One thing I actually disagree with is he says it's easier to wait for short serve. I actually prefer to always a expect a fast, long serve because I always find short serves to be easy to deal with since they are relatively slow, and you have more time to react. But other folks may find short serves more difficult to deal with so I think that is going to be player dependent.

I think what he means is something more like this:

Serve (first bounce and fast speed): serve will be long, get ready to loop and return.
Serve(first bounce and slower speed): short or half long, prepare for short
Serve (second bounce): likely to be half long, adjust and loop. Or likely to be short, play short.

I think the long vs half-long/short decision happens the way you describe, but the short vs half long usually should happen the way he describes. To be honest, I tend to just let balls double bounce if I expect them to be half long, my knees are too crappy to chase short serves that are borderline lol. So I play for the half-long before short but if my knees get stronger, I will try to change this...

 

[Brs]

Full disclosure: I didn't watch bc I am not interested. But the validity of my comment doesn't depend on that.

Genetically it is good for people who want to coach online to make more tactics content. Everything one can say about chiquita or forehand open up is out there from Fang Bo and way better players and coaches. No value can be added.

But accessible tactics content is not so common. I coach many adult amateur.low-level club ladies. They don't have the first idea of any tactics. They don't even think when they serve about what ball they want back. It is *by far* very, very far, their easiest quickest least effort path to better results and more fun play.

This is super common at club amateur level.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Many top players and coaches I know who have spoken on this topic are on the side of waiting for the long serve and moving in if it is short, so it is an interesting opinion especially when expressed as absolute truth rather than a personal preference. Not saying it is wrong but I don't think there's only one correct way in this situation.

+1
wait for long, step in for short, step in the backhand flick 80%, including those on the forehand side

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I think what he means is something more like this:

Serve (first bounce and fast speed): serve will be long, get ready to loop and return.
Serve(first bounce and slower speed): short or half long, prepare for short
Serve (second bounce): likely to be half long, adjust and loop. Or likely to be short, play short.

I think the long vs half-long/short decision happens the way you describe, but the short vs half long usually should happen the way he describes. To be honest, I tend to just let balls double bounce if I expect them to be half long, my knees are too crappy to chase short serves that are borderline lol. So I play for the half-long before short but if my knees get stronger, I will try to change this...

thanks for the tip
I know how to serve against you

 

[ThePongCommenter]

+1
wait for long, step in for short, step in the backhand flick 80%, including those on the forehand side

Most people find it easier to move in when caught off guard and when you have little time, but maybe the reverse is easier for Heming and some other people. Would be nice if he comes back to comment more though he probably has been scared off already lol

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

Most of the replies to comments on the YouTube video are Thank You, but there is one that I think is very well worth reading. On the video, search for the comment from user DannyWeinbaum regarding "needing to win the right way" and then read Heming Hu's very detailed reply.

 

[mamedium]

and "club players"???
I know of a 45 year old club player in Germany, who is kicking USATT 2500 players butts (he beat one of our juniors 3-1)
He is a dentist by trade and a chopper.
you might know his name. He is a TTR2550 player.

he usually wears a watch right