This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2016
1,659
1,141
5,312
Wrong again. Still not reading what I write I see, well then it's not easy for you to follow. You wanna close this thread, is that why you're playing around? :)

Yes, while his opponents always win more with their backhand or backhand exchange because Ma Long plays more forehands. So how does this make his backhand better than theirs?

You seem to just argue like a Fsnboi.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,908
18,582
46,618
Read 17 reviews
ML presently dominates bh exchanges against the players that are supposed to have a "better bh" than him; FZD, TH, LJK, HC. Watch all the tournaments ML played since his comeback, he has clearly worked even more on his bh during the past year. The consistency and the way he attacks 2-3 points on the opponents bh during these bh exchanges is just amazing to watch. He outmaneuvers these guys, and if ML could do the parallel bh a little more often he would be even more menacing.

Sometimes we forget what we wrote.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,029
1,968
3,029
Compare the match points of ML-FZD in China Open and Asian Cup. Pretty much the same BH BH rallies and opposite results. In China Open, ML didn't turn to his FH yet and the rallies ended. Would he turn to FH for this point if needed? Most likely. Look at how he stood with his right foot a little behind. That makes him use FH easily if he needed to, similar to ML-LJK stiga point of the day on WTTC Day 7.

Some commentators (I rewatched matches with AB on ITTF, DYP on CCTV, and Taiwanese ELTA TV) all picked up that ML won FZD "big" points with BH. I didn't do the stats and I guess there are some apps can do the stat quickly and automatically to confirm. But the impression that he seemed to win more points by BH than before is not only by few people (though % wise may not be the case without stats). In Chinese TT forums, many discussions are on if ML improves his BH after comeback.

What I view this is that when he came back, his footwork was not fully recovered so he had to put more weight on his BH techniques. They are no new techniques. In Chinese, they are called 撕 tear, 卷 wrap, etc. Old fashioned. He tried to change pace or placement with BH or make room for FH. Techniques/tactics combination. Not solely techniques.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2016
1,659
1,141
5,312
His bh is better because it has better precision, variation of spin and speed, placement, and strategy behind it. The 3-points he targets on the opponents bh is very hard to defend against with the speed he puts on the ball. Of course he uses his bh to win points with his fh as well, what kind of silly argument is that? Nowadays he doesn't NEED to pivot to his fh to win the point, but he mixes if up of course since it makes it harder for the opponent. You need me to tell you this, really? :D In that case you need to re-evaluate your knowledge of TT. This is basic stuff but hard to learn practically.

Yes, while his opponents always win more with their backhand or backhand exchange because Ma Long plays more forehands. So how does this make his backhand better than theirs?

You seem to just argue like a Fsnboi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: will_999
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,908
18,582
46,618
Read 17 reviews
Compare the match points of ML-FZD in China Open and Asian Cup. Pretty much the same BH BH rallies and opposite results. In China Open, ML didn't turn to his FH yet and the rallies ended. Would he turn to FH for this point if needed? Most likely. Look at how he stood with his right foot a little behind. That makes him use FH easily if he needed to, similar to ML-LJK stiga point of the day on WTTC Day 7.

Some commentators (I rewatched matches with AB on ITTF, DYP on CCTV, and Taiwanese ELTA TV) all picked up that ML won FZD "big" points with BH. I didn't do the stats and I guess there are some apps can do the stat quickly and automatically to confirm. But the impression that he seemed to win more points by BH than before is not only by few people (though % wise may not be the case without stats). In Chinese TT forums, many discussions are on if ML improves his BH after comeback.

What I view this is that when he came back, his footwork was not fully recovered so he had to put more weight on his BH techniques. They are no new techniques. In Chinese, they are called 撕 tear, 卷 wrap, etc. Old fashioned. He tried to change pace or placement with BH or make room for FH. Techniques/tactics combination. Not solely techniques.

I am not arguing this at all, and Ma long has been winning points like this with his backhand for over 4 years. It is just if someone wants to suddenly claim that Ma Long has the best backhand in the world, you have to do better than that. Plastic ball has made Chiquita easier to execute and Chiquita easier to counter.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,908
18,582
46,618
Read 17 reviews
Where did I change my opinion? Show me.

I keep asking for support for the claim that ML is winning exchanges with his backhand and you don't provide any other than your fanboy impressions that he is doing something. I watch those matches and in all of them, the opponent has the more dynamic backhand play and ML is mostly hanging in there or moving the ball while looking for a forehand. This is all good stuff but no one calls this this best backhand in the world. Understand?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,029
1,968
3,029
I am not arguing this at all, and Ma long has been winning points like this with his backhand for over 4 years. It is just if someone wants to suddenly claim that Ma Long has the best backhand in the world, you have to do better than that. Plastic ball has made Chiquita easier to execute and Chiquita easier to counter.
I didn't say his BH is the best and I don't think he has to have the best BH. I explained in previous posts.
I just wanted to point out that he won some big points with BH after comeback and it is not only RTK who noticed that. Although I still think stats matter to see how many BH winners and % he has and he had, and compare with FZD/LJK/TH. And it should be noted that FZD's BH winners and % against ML may be significantly different from against others because ML tried to restrict his BH effectiveness, like serve to FH short side. Although it should be the business of support team for pros.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NextLevel
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,029
1,968
3,029
For the argument that whether an athlete now is better than before and whether an athlete now can achieve better than before, I want to add a point. For female players, no one is as dominant and decorated as DYP. I don't see people ask if DYP can beat DN, LSW or belittle DYP's achievements for gold content. Perhaps people just don't care about female TT.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,029
1,968
3,029
As I just rewatched ML-FZD China Open QF, both had BH winners (i.e one did BH stroke down the line or at wide angle and the opponent failed to reach the ball) and BH winning points (i.e., one did a BH stroke and the opponent returned the ball by BH or FH but missed the table or hit the net.) The latter is also regarded as forced or unforced errors of the opponent in some stats.
I don't know if that explains the discrepancy between NL and RTK on the BH winning rate of ML in recent matches. NL seemed to count the former and RTK seemed to count both.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2016
1,659
1,141
5,312
Of course I count unforced errors as well. ML and FZD are too good to miss without pressure from an opponent. Thousands of hours of practice, it takes something extra to get them to miss, especially when in that focused setting as a QF in China Open.

As I just rewatched ML-FZD China Open QF, both had BH winners (i.e one did BH stroke down the line or at wide angle and the opponent failed to reach the ball) and BH winning points (i.e., one did a BH stroke and the opponent returned the ball by BH or FH but missed the table or hit the net.) The latter is also regarded as forced or unforced errors of the opponent in some stats.
I don't know if that explains the discrepancy between NL and RTK on the BH winning rate of ML in recent matches. NL seemed to count the former and RTK seemed to count both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matzreenzi
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2016
1,659
1,141
5,312
And you have a hard time reading English as it seems. I repeat: re-watch the ML-FZD QF from China Open and tell me ML had this good bh 3-5-7 years ago. I repeat again: re-watch the ML-FZD QF from China Open. I watched it twice this evening and if you can't see how much he has improved his bh lately it's entirely your loss and I'm not wasting anymore time on you. I don't need to pick out points from that match, but you can focus on set 1, 3, 4 and 5. Or you can start with the matchpoint, a common sight 2019.

I keep asking for support for the claim that ML is winning exchanges with his backhand and you don't provide any other than your fanboy impressions that he is doing something. I watch those matches and in all of them, the opponent has the more dynamic backhand play and ML is mostly hanging in there or moving the ball while looking for a forehand. This is all good stuff but no one calls this this best backhand in the world. Understand?
 
says Shoo...nothing to see here. - zeio
says Shoo...nothing to see here. - zeio
Well-Known Member
Jan 2018
7,528
9,524
18,854
To be clear, I agree 'greatest of all time' is pretty meaningless, which is why I have no stake in whether Ma Long or anyone else is or isn't.

Greatness has no real objective definition, it's IMO fairly pointless to discuss, it comes down to semantics in the end on what you mean by 'greatness'. But Ma Long, and likely some other modern players are probably going to be 'better players' by virtue of of being born and developed in a later, and consequently better time.

It's also unfortunate that table tennis happens to be a sport in which rules have changed so much in just the last few decades that were you to hypothetically have a time machine and set up a match between a modern player and a player from their past. The choice of ball, service rules and scoring system means they arn't even playing the same game the way they trained to play that game anymore.

But in a sport less wracked by fundamental changes. While "Greatness" is pretty meaningless, I think it's fairly clear Modern players are going to be on average BETTER than players from an older era. That is to say, in a sport that has still the same fundamental rules, if we were to use a time machine to set up the direct matchup, between a modern player and a player from an older time. The modern player would probably outperform them.

We'll take swimming as an example (it happens to best isolate the principle). Since if you take away advances in technology, it doesn't mean a modern swimmer is completely unable to function competitively, they are just a bit slower. With the adoption of the flip turn and the dolphin kick, the modern swimmer is obviously going to wipe the floor with a similarly ranked swimmer from before the 50s, despite swimming under the same rule set. That is to say, the modern swimmer is objectively better at the sport of competitive swimming, especially for short distances. Even without their fancy skinsuits and faster pools.

Sure, these improvements in technique, were invented by people in the past. But the fact of the matter is a modern swimmer/player benefits from knowledge of the past, it is a part of what they are as an athlete/player. It in no way stops the modern athlete from being better at their sport.

This is in no way meant as disrespectful to players, or people in general in the past. Or in any way diminishes their contributions. This is just how progress works. Future players will almost certainly be better players than the players of today.

If we arn't overall more capable than people of the past, then we've been doing this whole civilisation thing wrong.

In much the same way, I don't deny that players today are better than players from the past. It's the common notion that those from the past would get trashed handily that doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, we have the perfect example in table tennis - Samsonov. He's a living fossil who has played through all the rule changes. He's the only player to have won the World Cup in 3 different eras, namely 38mm/21pt/gluing/hidden serve(1999), 40mm/11pt/hidden serve(2001), and VOC-free(2009). After all these years, he's aged and adapted well. How many players from Europe and Asia have fallen before this "wall"? For that, many folks in China regard him as a rule for players to test their worth.

As I pointed out, you can't arbitrarily pick players of modern times and pit them against those of old times without accounting for all the aforementioned factors and insist the former must be necessarily far better than the latter. Doing so is essentially "not taking the hypothetical seriously."

 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Aug 2017
383
269
898
Keep your dirty fantasies to yourself.

You seem to be agitated, though I can't tell why. I take your refusal to put forth a worthy argument as your acceptance of the fact that Tim has the best backhand in the world. Maybe if Ma Long trains for 10 more years, he can match Tim's backhands.
 
Top