Discussion: Is it worth trying to slow the game down again?

[golden_son]

A comment by @Sp8e00 (about table tennis becoming boring to watch if nixing serve rules pushed outright serve success much higher) got me thinking. For me, the amount of points currently ended on the third or fourth ball already make high-level table tennis matches a bit of a dud sometimes. There's a reason people get excited by ralliers like Gauzy and creatives like Mohregard.

The change to 40+ was--ostensibly--to slow the game down and make it more watchable, but with the plastic ball having less spin and manufacturers making harder and faster rubbers all the time, it's hard to argue that that plan panned out.

So I wonder: Is it time to try again? What might make a real change in rally length (without necessarily swinging too hard in the other direction, e.g. 40+ shot defender rallies)? Do you all even agree that game is too fast?

For my part, I think changing the ball isn't the answer - there's evidence the plastic ball is slower, or at least slows down quicker, even if the tradeoff is it doesn't spin as well as celluloid. Perhaps a combination of larger size (again...) and spinnier alternative to ABS could work, but that almost feels like overengineering.

My suggestion would be a limit on rubber hardness, say H3 40d (or even 39) or under. It would have less impact on amateurs--where few of us can really hit through the sponge anyway--and would have more impact I think at the pro level, perhaps pushing the average rally length a stroke or two higher and making the sport more spectator-friendly. But we'd really need to see an analysis of average rally length overlaid with a trend line in the popularity of e.g. ESN50+ rubbers to see if that would really have any meaningful impact.

Maybe shorten the table? The thinking being that would make it harder to loop-drive or flick a ball at 100mph without risking overshooting.

I'm eager to hear other ideas.

 

[NextLevel]

A comment by @Sp8e00 (about table tennis becoming boring to watch if nixing serve rules pushed outright serve success much higher) got me thinking. For me, the amount of points currently ended on the third or fourth ball already make high-level table tennis matches a bit of a dud sometimes. There's a reason people get excited by ralliers like Gauzy and creatives like Mohregard.

The change to 40+ was--ostensibly--to slow the game down and make it more watchable, but with the plastic ball having less spin and manufacturers making harder and faster rubbers all the time, it's hard to argue that that plan panned out.

So I wonder: Is it time to try again? What might make a real change in rally length (without necessarily swinging too hard in the other direction, e.g. 40+ shot defender rallies)? Do you all even agree that game is too fast?

For my part, I think changing the ball isn't the answer - there's evidence the plastic ball is slower, or at least slows down quicker, even if the tradeoff is it doesn't spin as well as celluloid. Perhaps a combination of larger size (again...) and spinnier alternative to ABS could work, but that almost feels like overengineering.

My suggestion would be a limit on rubber hardness, say H3 40d (or even 39) or under. It would have less impact on amateurs--where few of us can really hit through the sponge anyway--and would have more impact I think at the pro level, perhaps pushing the average rally length a stroke or two higher and making the sport more spectator-friendly. But we'd really need to see an analysis of average rally length overlaid with a trend line in the popularity of e.g. ESN50+ rubbers to see if that would really have any meaningful impact.

Maybe shorten the table? The thinking being that would make it harder to loop-drive or flick a ball at 100mph without risking overshooting.

I'm eager to hear other ideas.

Rallies are definitely longer than they used to be so I am not sure what you mean by making the game too fast - the new rubbers etc. are largely attempts to bring spin back but they are definitely not at the level of the past. There is also hardbat already for people who prefer a slower and less spin influenced game. It just isn't going to benefit manufacturers to promote it I think, but it is already in existence.

 

[lightspin]

It might not be a bad idea to try to slow the game down even more. The reflexes necessary to become a top player aren't even reflexes. It is anticipation skills developed as a kid and if you do not start playing seriously from an extremely young age, you can never develop such skills. You do not need to start basketball, football or baseball at age 2 to become a professional. You could even theoretically start at 12 and have a reasonable chance of becoming a professional. In table tennis? FORGET IT. Slowing the game down might make table tennis a bit easier, more fun and accessible for everyone to play.

I think a bigger problem facing the table tennis community which would be easier to solve are the ridiculous service rules. A player basically has to cheat to some extent and hope they get away with it to succeed. If there is no referee like in most tournaments, you have to basically do what you can until the opponent complains. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

[Archosaurus]

There's a realistic limit to what you can do with the equipment or rules before it becomes contrived. I don't think the game is ever going to slow down "enough" just out of necessity of being a game where you hit a ball.

Don't you worry, though, once the equipment manufacturers feel like another excuse to multiply the prices of their products, we will get new rules and regulations on the equipment, just like with all the prior changes.

 

[blahness]

Badminton is way faster than table tennis but you dont see people trying to slow down or dumb down the game. If anything, they want more aggressive playstyles (for eg with the change to 15 point games to reduce reliance on stamina more), because watching a 1.5 hr grindfest with players playing defensive and neutral shots to wear down the opponents physically, is just no fun at all. And people these days dont have much free time.

 

[blahness]

There are already a lot of very interesting and amazing topspin rallies, but you dont want the whole game to be like that. Same deception, cat and mouse play to get the 3rd ball attack is also very fun to watch.

if you slowed down the game even more, the sport will devolve further into a bang bang grindfest because the cat and mouse play is only worth it if you can execute a devastating 3rd ball attack.

 

[Lazer]

It’s good now… (but it was better with the smaller ball)
Please do not change it again!

Cheers
L-zr

 

[PickleRick]

What if the net were simply made a bit higher? Wouldn’t that be the simplest way to make the sport more balanced again?

 

[Der_Echte]

Yeah, great idea... make net the height of tennis height... and if that still doesn't work, make everyone use a tennis racket.

You are on to something.

 

[PickleRick]

Yeah, great idea... make net the height of tennis height... and if that still doesn't work, make everyone use a tennis racket.

You are on to something.

You could also answer in a normal way and explain why you don't think that's a good idea, instead of giving a meaningless, mocking response. If you think it's such an incredibly ridiculous idea anyway, and you already have strong arguments against raising the net with your superior intelligence, then share them with us. That way, we can learn something from it too.

At first glance, I don't immediately see why that wouldn't work. Spin becomes more important again because you have to spin in a higher curve. Defenders get a few more chances again, and the quick counterlooping immediately after the bounce becomes more difficult.

Sports must evolve with the times. Table tennis today is no longer comparable to that of 30 years ago due to all the progress in equipment and the athletic ability of players. It wouldn't hurt to think about how to keep the sport attractive to the public and a broad group of players.

 

[Matteones]

A lot to unpack here.
First of all we must distinguish between being players and "experts" and the idea of making the sport more accessible, and possibly a good way to find a mid-point.

Now a bit of history, because these are things that have happened before (if in a mirror way), if someone studies a little history: the game was so long and gruelling before the sponge was invented that they had to lower the net and change rules to make it less boring and phisically taxing.

In the 50 years following this, the game evolved into a real sport, more physical, more complicated, spin and deception were kings (Jan-ove Waldner - Liu Guoliang anyone?) right up to 2001 .
The problem, in the last 30 years, was to try and decrease spin a little bit, to make the sport more accessible to casual watchers and people who don't know about table tennis. It worked, now the points are undoubtedly longer, and this produced players who were both spin kings and physical kings. You must be a top notch athlete now to win among the best (Wang liqin - Zhang Jike - Ma long - Fan Zhendong - Wang Chuqin).

As a player, what I love about table tennis is exactly how hard it is. And what makes it hard is spin. There is extreme beauty in the huge variance that the game has, especially for practitioners, who will naturally be resistant to changes.

I think a little increase in the net height might make the game more interesting to the casual watcher, without killing the philosophy of the sport, with appropriate studies before adopting it.

 

[Airoc]

make the sport more accessible to casual watchers and people who don't know about table tennis.

But does the quantity of those justify doctoring with the sport?

Casual watchers understand garden level table tennis. As soon as spin is playing a role they´re lost - like some of the lower league players, too

Even many table tennis players aren´t really interested in seeing other people play. I was in a club with a 3rd league team and 6 lower teams. Attendance for 3rd league matches: often below ten. Out of 50 people only so few would come see their own first team, let alone go anywhere else - and I see that in other clubs as well.

So who are we trying to slow down the top level sport for?

 

[Airoc]

There is also hardbat already for people who prefer a slower and less spin influenced game. It just isn't going to benefit manufacturers to promote it I think, but it is already in existence.

Hardbat and click ball.
Slower and pretty much devoid of spin.
Closer to what so many people play in gardens, garages and offices.

And: Nobody´s watching.

 

[NextLevel]

Hardbat and click ball.
Slower and pretty much devoid of spin.
Closer to what so many people play in gardens, garages and offices.

And: Nobody´s watching.

One could aegue that no one is watching our sport either so I don't think that is the full story.

 

[Matteones]

But does the quantity of those justify doctoring with the sport?

Casual watchers understand garden level table tennis. As soon as spin is playing a role they´re lost - like some of the lower league players, too

Even many table tennis players aren´t really interested in seeing other people play. I was in a club with a 3rd league team and 6 lower teams. Attendance for 3rd league matches: often below ten. Out of 50 people only so few would come see their own first team, let alone go anywhere else - and I see that in other clubs as well.

So who are we trying to slow down the top level sport for?

It does justify "doctoring" (I would say evolving). All sports evolve over time, trying to mantain everything as it is, in every aspect of life, is delusion, it is our human nature to try and get better. A good nature I would add!
Or would you like it if we were still playing hardbat everywhere?
Of course this doesn't mean exceeding in the other direction with random and untested changes, you always need balance between tradition and innovation.
Your club experience is just your own and anecdotal, it means little. In my club we have plenty of teams and many stay to see the better teams play (a smart logistical plan, putting the first team match right after the other teams is what makes the trick. Not many would come just to see others if it's not convenient, people have lives.)

 

[Airoc]

All sports evolve over time, trying to mantain everything as it is, in every aspect of life, is delusion, it is our human nature to try and get better.

But we agree here, I do want this sport to evolve, and not new rules introduced to correct how it has evolved. It´s faster and more athletic, that´s progress for me, and it comes with a more serious approach on higher levels and better material.
On low levels, it doesn´t really look different at all to what it looked like 20 years ago before some rule changes.

 

[Airoc]

Your club experience is just your own and anecdotal, it means little.

Might be, but the same would go for yours

 

[Airoc]

One could aegue that no one is watching our sport either so I don't think that is the full story.

Yes, but I can´t see how more people will watch "normal" table tennis if you slow it down and take spin out, because those forms already exist.

 

[Tyce]

Take out the table, use deflated tennis balls, bats without rubber and name it after a tiny cucumber submerged in acid. It's even more stupid than using walls, like you need a gutter blocker.
Evolution is one thing, absolutely. Forcing it is usually not the best way.

 

[NextLevel]

Yes, but I can´t see how more people will watch "normal" table tennis if you slow it down and take spin out, because those forms already exist.

Part of the reason fewer people watch the main sport is that a lot of it is inaccessible unless you play it at a decent level. Making it more accessible makes it easier to play at a decent level and easier to market. You might be able to develop a game that fewer people will quit trying to get good at because they get served off.