Waldner, without a doubt. Try asking again in a few years and we'll see if Ma Long is still near the top.
The All Time Greatest
- Thread starter Yecats Encerwal
- Start date
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
As I said in the original post on this thread, this is all opinion based and it is impossible to nail down who is "the greatest of all time". I made this clear in my post. I even followed it up with "this is my opinion". I, and quite a lot of people, enjoy discussing this topic and debating who they think is the greatest in terms of achievements etc. People will tend to side with players of their own era, and that is totally fine. People can talk about whatever era they like and can break it down into decades or whatever. Its an open thread and so people can do what they like
I personally have more knowledge on post 2005/6, but lots of people have much more knowledge of stuff from before this time. Hence why the thread is to do with "all time" I think there was some misunderstanding. I did not once question whether their achievement was impressive, It was fantastic that they managed to win worlds in 2000. My question was to do with whether or not the Swedish were considered better than the Chinese at the time as a nation, or whether their victory was a complete shock. Obviously the Chinese line-up was incredible, but so was the Swedish line-up. I am not undermining their achievement nor anyone else's for that matter, its just a general question from someone who is not so knowledgeable of that era. I know there is a huge population difference, but as we can see from the USA/India and other populous countries, this doesn't always guarantee results at the top or a huge amount of depth. If you think the answer to my question is super obvious, which It might be for someone who wasn't so young at the time we are talking about, then perhaps there's a nicer way of answering it than using a lot of "?????!!!!! are you actually asking this" tone. This is supposed to be a friendly forum!
Thanks for your help on the subject anyway and apologies for the misunderstanding.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Lol, the 40+ ball era is the era for power player. Guess who has the best physical in CNT?
Honestly speaking, the talk about the greatest determined by the size of the ball is flawed as hell. Waldner dominated 38 mm era and did so even in 40 mm era. Boll was strong in 38, even now he is still going strong.
It's actually much accurate to say that the era is determined by the glue. pre ban and post ban glue
For me it's Vladimir Samsonov.
After his performance on the last Olympic games he's the best for me) Although he won me in 2009 in Moscow(I watched that live)..
After his performance on the last Olympic games he's the best for me) Although he won me in 2009 in Moscow(I watched that live)..
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Your right in that no sport deserves a "GOAT" , which is why international bodies don't have any award for being a "GOAT". The only thing I know of that comes close is the Ballon Dor in football (soccer). However I don't see any harm in discussing the subject, it is something a lot of people find interesting after all. It is interesting to see people putting up arguments for multiple players, which shows that there are many great players that deserve recognition and that lots of people have different opinions.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
There is no harm but its pointless ... pointless because it will evoke visceral reactions and it cannot be resolved by logic. If you are trying to have a discussion about something , its always better to take a subject which you can discuss with arguments and there is the possibility of a resolution .
If we know that there is no right answer to a question , whats is the point of asking that question , if the point is to have a discussion , a much more fruitful discussion would be to have something on the lines of , who do you think has the greatest backhand in the game , or who do you think has the greatest forehand in the game, the moment you involve intangibles its only going to cause controversy , even when you ask "who do you think is greatest strategist in the game ? " ... some will say waldner, others will say Liu Guoliang , others will say Ma Lin because there is no way you can know ....
and I may be wrong , but isn't there are large number of journalists deciding on Ballon D'or ... ? not to belittle the profession but one of the points of being a journalists these days have become to "make news" and not to "report news"
If we know that there is no right answer to a question , whats is the point of asking that question , if the point is to have a discussion , a much more fruitful discussion would be to have something on the lines of , who do you think has the greatest backhand in the game , or who do you think has the greatest forehand in the game, the moment you involve intangibles its only going to cause controversy , even when you ask "who do you think is greatest strategist in the game ? " ... some will say waldner, others will say Liu Guoliang , others will say Ma Lin because there is no way you can know ....
and I may be wrong , but isn't there are large number of journalists deciding on Ballon D'or ... ? not to belittle the profession but one of the points of being a journalists these days have become to "make news" and not to "report news"
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
There is no harm but its pointless ... pointless because it will evoke visceral reactions and it cannot be resolved by logic. If you are trying to have a discussion about something , its always better to take a subject which you can discuss with arguments and there is the possibility of a resolution .
If we know that there is no right answer to a question , whats is the point of asking that question , if the point is to have a discussion , a much more fruitful discussion would be to have something on the lines of , who do you think has the greatest backhand in the game , or who do you think has the greatest forehand in the game, the moment you involve intangibles its only going to cause controversy , even when you ask "who do you think is greatest strategist in the game ? " ... some will say waldner, others will say Liu Guoliang , others will say Ma Lin because there is no way you can know ....
and I may be wrong , but isn't there are large number of journalists deciding on Ballon D'or ... ? not to belittle the profession but one of the points of being a journalists these days have become to "make news" and not to "report news"
I personally don't think It is pointless at all, I think it creates interesting discussion. Trying to decide who has the "greatest backhand" is even more difficult as there is literally no measurement for this! That is very subjective as there are so many different styles. An interesting topic, yes, but to say there is more "point" in discussing one subject over another is ridiculous. A discussion doesn't always have to end in a unanimous agreement, that is what makes it fun. If everyone contributes their opinion on a topic it creates interesting discussion.
People can discuss whatever they like on here and personally I think my thread holds a decent amount of weight and has created some interesting conversation
If people only ever asked questions if they knew there was a definitive answer, life would be very boring! Scientists ask questions all the time not even knowing If there is an answer at all
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
You make a good point when you say that scientists ask questions without knowing there is an answer there and it was the same point I was making albeit I am not sure you got it. Here we know for sure there is no answer , and that is what we logically concluded and you seemed to agree.
I did not get the argument where you claim that there is no measurement for who has the greatest backhand , but there seems to be some measurement for who is the greatest of alll .. care to explain a little more ?
I did not get the argument where you claim that there is no measurement for who has the greatest backhand , but there seems to be some measurement for who is the greatest of alll .. care to explain a little more ?
I personally don't think It is pointless at all, I think it creates interesting discussion. Trying to decide who has the "greatest backhand" is even more difficult as there is literally no measurement for this! That is very subjective as there are so many different styles. An interesting topic, yes, but to say there is more "point" in discussing one subject over another is ridiculous. A discussion doesn't always have to end in a unanimous agreement, that is what makes it fun. If everyone contributes their opinion on a topic it creates interesting discussion.
People can discuss whatever they like on here and personally I think my thread holds a decent amount of weight and has created some interesting conversation
If people only ever asked questions if they knew there was a definitive answer, life would be very boring! Scientists ask questions all the time not even knowing If there is an answer at all
This user has no status.
Member
Since I began playing table tennis in the later part of the eighties in Sweden, it is quite obvious that I rate Waldner as the GOAT. Some of the of the rule changes seems almost targeted at him. I.e. his amazing serves, touch, and ability to spin the ball. To me the game has become abit less interesting to watch with all the rule changes applied.
One thing that sometimes irritates me is when people nowadays comments matches they watch that were played with the 38 mm ball and when people say that they made so many unforced errors/had such bad accuracy, or that the game looked so slow. I urge everyone who still thinks that way to actually try a to play a game with the 38 mm ball and then follow with a game with the 40+ ball. What you are going to realize is how much more difficult it is to return serve, block the opponents loops, and also to open up with a loop on heavy backspin.
Needless to say, I totally agree with previous posts saying that it is difficult to compare players who played before and after the major rules changes and I also have the utmost respect for the players who were successful both before and after.
One thing that sometimes irritates me is when people nowadays comments matches they watch that were played with the 38 mm ball and when people say that they made so many unforced errors/had such bad accuracy, or that the game looked so slow. I urge everyone who still thinks that way to actually try a to play a game with the 38 mm ball and then follow with a game with the 40+ ball. What you are going to realize is how much more difficult it is to return serve, block the opponents loops, and also to open up with a loop on heavy backspin.
Needless to say, I totally agree with previous posts saying that it is difficult to compare players who played before and after the major rules changes and I also have the utmost respect for the players who were successful both before and after.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Yes I can explain
You were asking me why I was asking a question that cannot be answered, but then you said It would be better to discuss who has the best backhand. Both questions cannot be definitively answered and I think it would be even harder to provide an answer with reasoning to your question as it is so subjective. At least with the "greatest of all time" question you can look at results etc and at the very least provide reasoning to your answer. The only thing is, we won't all agree on the answer and that's totally fine
The point is, just because you cannot find a definitive answer that everyone agrees on, doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked at all as it still creates interesting conversation
It certainly isn't pointless IMO
Last edited:
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
If you think the answer to my question is super obvious, which It might be for someone who wasn't so young at the time we are talking about, then perhaps there's a nicer way of answering it than using a lot of "?????!!!!! are you actually asking this" tone. This is supposed to be a friendly forum!
Look, there is a reason you said things like, maybe best player after 2005.
And none of this discussion we are having has much to do with best player ever. And I think the answers about how you don't want to do that are worth reading.
The discussion is fun. There is nothing wrong with the discussion. But here is where I think things took a wrong turn.
Someone said something about how Waldner had impressive longevity.
Info: he was a top player in 1983 and still got to the Bronze match in Olympics in 2004.
Someone else said (I believe this was you): but did he have the internal competition that CNT has?
Someone else said he did.
I said: Waldner defeated 4 generations of top Chinese players. The inference I was pointing towards was, if he was as good as the top guys from 4 separate generations, he would not have needed to step down.
I also pointed out that China actually sent a player [KONG LINGHUI] to SWEDEN in the 1990s to learn the style that was beating them. The Great Kong Linghui, the big Chinese Shakehand player. Why else would China send a player to learn from Sweden if they weren't damn good. DAMN GOOD.
You said: but did Sweden have the depth China had?
I pointed out that they won the 2000 WTTTC against one of the most amazing teams ever assembled.
You said: But did Sweden have the depth that China has today overall in the whole country.
Sorry, but, as far as I am concerned I cannot see any possible way you could ask the question again based on the info presented. But maybe you didn't read it. Or didn't understand the implication of China sending a player to Sweden. Or the implication of Sweden winning even just the 2000 WTTTC.
So since it seems you missed some of the implications, here is some history. Hopefully this is helpful.
"Stellan Bengtsson wins the 1971 World Team Championships in Nagoya. The men take 4th place as a team. Ulf "Tickan" Carlsson enter the scene in the 1980 European Cup in which he wins. Mikael Appelgren wins the European Cup in 1982 against Carlsson."
"There were many successes in 1983 for the Swedes. The top three finishers in the World Cup are 1) Applegren, 2) Waldner, 3) Lindh. The Swedish men take 2nd place in the World Team Championships, losing to China."
"Sweden's men team wins the 1989 World Teams with 5-0 against China in the final. Waldner is World Champion after beating Jorgen Persson in the final."
PLEASE MAKE NOTE: Sweden beat China 5-0 in the 1989 WTTTC and the finals of the WTTC Singles Event was Swede vs Swede with nobody from CNT.
"Sweden takes the top three places in the 1991 Europe Top 12 with Lindh, Waldner, and Persson in order. The dubbels team of Peter Karlsson/Thomas Von Scheele become World Champions in Chiba, Japan. Waldner wins gold at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. Sweden wins the 1993 World Teams in Goteborg against China in the final."
That paragraph leaves out that in 1991 Persson beats Waldner in the WTTC Singles Event. And that Sweden won the 1991 WTTC Team event as well. Again nobody from CNT in WTTC finals. Since the 1960s that only happened a few times. Very rare. Very very rare.
"Waldner becomes World Champion in 1997 in Manchester where he wins 21-0 in total sets and an unbelievable match against Samsonov in the final."
"2000. Sweden wins the World Teams in Kuala Lumpur with 3-2 against China in the final. At the Sydney Olympics, Waldner takes silver, Persson reaches semis."
Team gold and silver medals in WTTC from 1983-200 for Sweden:
1983: Silver
1985: Silver
1987: Silver
1989: Gold
1991: Gold
1993: Gold
1995: Silver
1997: No Medal
Note they were either gold or silver from 1983-1995
And in 1999 they switched WTTC to the current format where the Team Event happens on Even years and the Singles Event happens on Odd years. Hence, no 1999 team Champion and a 2000 team Champion instead.
2000: Gold.
I would say Sweden was deep with talent despite what a small country they were and they were definitely on China's radar. Which of course is why China sent Kong to Sweden. And it is also why, when Sweden was the dominant team of the 1990s China doubled and tripled their efforts to be the best Table Tennis Nation in the world.
Perhaps you did not get the full implications of my statement when I said, is China as deep as they are now in part because of how deep Sweden was back then.
Anyway, hopefully this information helps. I would say that in 9 consecutive Team Championahips coming away with 4 golds, 4 silvers and only having one year where they did not get either the gold or the silver is pretty impressive given China's immense resources and history of dominance.
The Swedish team was the real deal. The whole team. So it is hard to question whether Waldner was good enough to stay on top that long as a result of lack of competition.
Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Thisis what I said ...
If we know that there is no right answer to a question ,whats is the point of asking that question , if the point is to have adiscussion , a much more fruitful discussion would be to have something on thelines of , who do you think has the greatest backhand in the game , or who doyou think has the greatest forehand in the game, the moment you involveintangibles its only going to cause controversy , even when you ask "whodo you think is greatest strategist in the game ? " ... some will saywaldner, others will say Liu Guoliang , others will say Ma Lin because there isno way you can know ....
before you started focusing on one particular sentence from that paragraph, theintent was to illustrate if you start increasing the intangibles in the topicit will never go anywhere …. But then I have to agree with you that there is somefun in getting lost …. J
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
If we know that there is no right answer to a question ,whats is the point of asking that question , if the point is to have adiscussion , a much more fruitful discussion would be to have something on thelines of , who do you think has the greatest backhand in the game , or who doyou think has the greatest forehand in the game, the moment you involveintangibles its only going to cause controversy , even when you ask "whodo you think is greatest strategist in the game ? " ... some will saywaldner, others will say Liu Guoliang , others will say Ma Lin because there isno way you can know ....
before you started focusing on one particular sentence from that paragraph, theintent was to illustrate if you start increasing the intangibles in the topicit will never go anywhere …. But then I have to agree with you that there is somefun in getting lost …. J
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Thanks, Carl.
I think your right about where the confusion lies, I may not have read one of your posts fully as I was replying to someone else and I read their post before replying.
When I was replying to you, I wasn't actually asking the question again, I was explaining what I was originally asking in my first question to Suga I got a bit annoyed as your initial reaction was very strong and seemed unnecessarily patronising. As I said, I knew the Swedish were strong but was wandering whether it went that much further than their top 4, which it seems It did. That was all I asked and I don't think anyone should be put down for asking questions, it discourages contribution
Thanks for the information provided, it Is very useful
I think your right about where the confusion lies, I may not have read one of your posts fully as I was replying to someone else and I read their post before replying.
When I was replying to you, I wasn't actually asking the question again, I was explaining what I was originally asking in my first question to Suga
I got a bit annoyed as your initial reaction was very strong and seemed unnecessarily patronising. As I said, I knew the Swedish were strong but was wandering whether it went that much further than their top 4, which it seems It did. That was all I asked and I don't think anyone should be put down for asking questions, it discourages contribution Thanks for the information provided, it Is very useful
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I see your point although I'd argue this thread is just as "fruitful" as your other suggestions
Btw IMO Kreanga has the coolest BH, whether it is the greatest we will never know!
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I have avoided the topic until now because I consider it a waste of time usually and the player I would pick is Ma Long.
People should note that there was a period in China where they had good/strong shakehand inverted loopers but kept them under wraps. Wang Liqin actually was also held back in many matches/events in the late 90s/early 2000s for the usual reasons that China has despite being their best player in many ways.
Also, when Ma Long and Zhang Jike were coming up, they were called the special generation. Of course, we are only seeing how special they are now, but my point is that this might not happen as often as we think. Their dominance is truly something to behold, though as special as they were, it wouldn't surprise me to see FZD winning everything in sight for a few years.
People should note that there was a period in China where they had good/strong shakehand inverted loopers but kept them under wraps. Wang Liqin actually was also held back in many matches/events in the late 90s/early 2000s for the usual reasons that China has despite being their best player in many ways.
Also, when Ma Long and Zhang Jike were coming up, they were called the special generation. Of course, we are only seeing how special they are now, but my point is that this might not happen as often as we think. Their dominance is truly something to behold, though as special as they were, it wouldn't surprise me to see FZD winning everything in sight for a few years.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I see your point although I'd argue this thread is just as "fruitful" as your other suggestions
Btw IMO Kreanga has the coolest BH, whether it is the greatest we will never know!
Whenever someone says this, I say to my head: "Forehand player."
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
LOL .... you cracked me up NL ...
OP ... lets just say Kreanga has a unique backhand and chooses to use it because his forehand is not that powerful at that level ....
now coming back to backhand ... and similar to how "Ma Long is the greatest player" because of the obvious reasons I mentioned in my first post , the greatest backhand is from FZD .... ZJK has more variety and confidence because obviously he has practiced it a few thousand hours more but FZD is the first player who has successfully married the close to the table , off the bounce backhand with the other ones ... mid distance or far from the table .... with ZJK you see that because the master that he is he can execute his close to the table technique even from a little far but Obtcharov was able to go a little back and overpower him with his strong mid distance backhands ...
.... you cracked me up NL ... OP ... lets just say Kreanga has a unique backhand and chooses to use it because his forehand is not that powerful at that level ....
now coming back to backhand ... and similar to how "Ma Long is the greatest player" because of the obvious reasons I mentioned in my first post , the greatest backhand is from FZD .... ZJK has more variety and confidence because obviously he has practiced it a few thousand hours more but FZD is the first player who has successfully married the close to the table , off the bounce backhand with the other ones ... mid distance or far from the table .... with ZJK you see that because the master that he is he can execute his close to the table technique even from a little far but Obtcharov was able to go a little back and overpower him with his strong mid distance backhands ...
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
LOL
OP ... lets just say Kreanga has a unique backhand and chooses to use it because his forehand is not that powerful at that level ....
now coming back to backhand ... and similar to how "Ma Long is the greatest player" because of the obvious reasons I mentioned in my first post , the greatest backhand is from FZD .... ZJK has more variety and confidence because obviously he has practiced it a few thousand hours more but FZD is the first player who has successfully married the close to the table , off the bounce backhand with the other ones ... mid distance or far from the table .... with ZJK you see that because the master that he is he can execute his close to the table technique even from a little far but Obtcharov was able to go a little back and overpower him with his strong mid distance backhands ...
Men, you are already outdated. There is this kid called FZD who has the backhand to end all backhands...
Kreanga has a special talent for having two forehands with power and consistency but I wouldn't be going around teaching his technique... FZD's technique is the one I would teach if asked to - beautiful.
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Since we can have the discussion without agreeing with each other on who is greatest ever or even what that means, in a way it is fine as long as you don't try and insist your view should be everyone's view.
Perhaps a way to get around this would be:
"Who are your favorite players? Explain why."
Or, "what players do you most enjoy watching?"
But let's not question how a player got to be who they are if it is to downplay that player's achievements.
So, from the standpoint of how Waldner was a great player, the depth of talent in the rest of the country or on the team makes very little difference in spite of the fact that they were pretty amazing for a pretty long time in spite of having a total population that is only slightly larger than that of a city like New York City or San Francisco.
Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
Perhaps a way to get around this would be:
"Who are your favorite players? Explain why."
Or, "what players do you most enjoy watching?"
But let's not question how a player got to be who they are if it is to downplay that player's achievements.
So, from the standpoint of how Waldner was a great player, the depth of talent in the rest of the country or on the team makes very little difference in spite of the fact that they were pretty amazing for a pretty long time in spite of having a total population that is only slightly larger than that of a city like New York City or San Francisco.
Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
Last edited:
Similar threads
