Coached vs un-coached player

[Tinykin]

Luke Walsh is the dark clothing while Dan Moses is wearing the light blue shirt.
Interesting clash of styles with Dan using strokes, that would pain a coach.

 

[langel]

Coached, but unexperienced.

 

[Der_Echte]

I see a LOT of signs of advanced level, which I believe were bought taught and natural play preferences.

- Reverse Pendulum Serve - he clearly got taught and trained this

- BH block at distance - Someone trained him to not go for much and he is consistant

- FH step forawrd fish - He got training on that and enough to employ it with good decision high quality low over net when he wants, higher when he wants opponent to flail at it

- FH Crush Kill - he clearly got trained - he is on time with god transfer of power, it isn't an accident. He only uses that long swing when there is time.

- BH loop over table vs low energy ball - no way he wings that, it was trained

- FH slow opening loop from distance - looks like he got trained, but choose to be a little off the table to suit his play style and the way he seems to want to build the point.

- Fishing at distance - looks like something he likes to do and is natural at it, looks like he got a lot of advide on how to use judgement

- Placement of shots not 100 mph - he clearly has been taught some placements, this doesn't happen on its own

 

[Tinykin]

Coached, but unexperienced.

Yes and no. More lack of matchplay. They have just started to play again since the pandemic restrictions were put into place last year. Plus, they are both full-time University students, so not much training.

 

[Tinykin]

I see a LOT of signs of advanced level, which I believe were bought taught and natural play preferences.

- Reverse Pendulum Serve - he clearly got taught and trained this

- BH block at distance - Someone trained him to not go for much and he is consistant

- FH step forawrd fish - He got training on that and enough to employ it with good decision high quality low over net when he wants, higher when he wants opponent to flail at it

- FH Crush Kill - he clearly got trained - he is on time with god transfer of power, it isn't an accident. He only uses that long swing when there is time.

- BH loop over table vs low energy ball - no way he wings that, it was trained

- FH slow opening loop from distance - looks like he got trained, but choose to be a little off the table to suit his play style and the way he seems to want to build the point.

- Fishing at distance - looks like something he likes to do and is natural at it, looks like he got a lot of advide on how to use judgement

- Placement of shots not 100 mph - he clearly has been taught some placements, this doesn't happen on its own

Not formally coached. But older players would have given advice to the youngster, yes.

 

[langel]

I have to be sorry to not agree with Der_Echte at all in this thread

 

[Kuba Hajto]

Coached or not does not matter. Playing nice top spins by the book top spins does not guarantee wins. The only thing that guarantees the win is getting the ball bounce on the other half of the table.

What one might consider "by the book technique" is just what we consider the most efficient way of playing the best quality ball with the smallest amount of energy needed (still monstrous) with the best accuracy. Can someone play topspins with a different technique? Yup. Will he/she hit the glass ceiling faster than the "classically trained" player? Probably. Would learning "by the book technique" absolutely destroy his skills at the moment? Also probably.

The only thing I do consider as a real issue with Moses play is that he does not hold the ready position very well. He does seem to keep the racket below the table which is not so good.

 

[langel]

It's always funny when a "coached" player fails against an "uncoached, but experienced" one, making you recognize who, the hack, is the coached one only by the posture, especially on the service ritual.

And another question - how did the "coached' player move right after his service execution?

Blah

 

[MOG]

Tinykin is messing with you all a bit, these are both very good experienced players. They have both been coached quite a lot at some point, sorry to spoil all the fun.

They look a bit rusty though.

 

[chuckjordan2]

Both players had 2 games each, and in the 5th Dan was only 2 points away from match point. Hats off to both, a nice tight match!

But all that counts is a 'W' in your column...

 

[Lycanthrope]

If someone has played with his pro friends all the time, it doesn't matter if he has bee coached or not in most cases.

IMO, Dan's FH loop is better than Luke. The point is that he is more relaxed than Luke when preparing for loop. But Dan's stroke makes him hard to recover and be ready for the next loop, and he needs to take care of his shoulder. Luke gets better later, surely he was not as nervous as beginning.

 

[Lula]

He seems to have a really nice feeling for the ball! I also think it is hard to learn to play like that without any coaching at all.

 

[Richie]

Experience and very good feeling for the ball will often beat "good looking mechanics". I say good looking mechanics because there are players that mindlessly copy the technique of pros (for the sake of looking like them, not for the efficiency of the technique) without understanding how they need to adapt them for their own needs.

I actually think Dan has very good technique, he gets massive racket head speed on his FH. He sacrifices recovery time but that's because it's his playstyle to kill the ball when he can. If a coach is pained by his strokes, I'd be skeptical towards that coach. If they tried to change Dan's technique it would probably be for the worse at this point. What would be the point of changing someone's technique that is already adapted so well to their playstyle? He is not training to become a pro either, if he did then maybe he would've gone a different path. He is a very good player, so the take away should be that you don't have to have perfect technique and can still reach a very high level.

At the very top level, everything has to be optimized, very good touch and somewhat efficient technique is then no longer enough and you need near perfect technique AND near perfect touch. Some have more or less of either and depending on many factors they'll reach the appropriate level.

 

[Der_Echte]

Y'all know WHAT to POUND... dat LIKE button on Richie's post.

 

[latej]

Experience and very good feeling for the ball will often beat "good looking mechanics". I say good looking mechanics because there are players that mindlessly copy the technique of pros (for the sake of looking like them, not for the efficiency of the technique) without understanding how they need to adapt them for their own needs.

I actually think Dan has very good technique, he gets massive racket head speed on his FH. He sacrifices recovery time but that's because it's his playstyle to kill the ball when he can. If a coach is pained by his strokes, I'd be skeptical towards that coach. If they tried to change Dan's technique it would probably be for the worse at this point. What would be the point of changing someone's technique that is already adapted so well to their playstyle? He is not training to become a pro either, if he did then maybe he would've gone a different path. He is a very good player, so the take away should be that you don't have to have perfect technique and can still reach a very high level.

Allow me an alternative angle The change is not always 180 degree turn-around, the amount of change matters, nothing is rigid. The technique should feel right, mainly to the player self. Ideally the wish to change something comes from the player self, if not, the task is on couch or friend.

For example, Dan has massive swing. So has Xu Xin. Perhaps at some executions Dan may feel, oh, this is not really right, I should have started lower, or rotated more or whatever. Then he can start from there, learn from pro, or try to. It would not really be a huge change, more like an "update" Nothing is frozen, whatever the level.

 

[Richie]

Allow me an alternative angle The change is not always 180 degree turn-around, the amount of change matters, nothing is rigid. The technique should feel right, mainly to the player self. Ideally the wish to change something comes from the player self, if not, the task is on couch or friend.

For example, Dan has massive swing. So has Xu Xin. Perhaps at some executions Dan may feel, oh, this is not really right, I should have started lower, or rotated more or whatever. Then he can start from there, learn from pro, or try to. It would not really be a huge change, more like an "update" Nothing is frozen, whatever the level.

Yeah I totally agree and I hope my post didn't give the impression of being rigid, it's rather the opposite.

My point was really that what if a coach came and started criticizing his technique just because it didn't "look" like a pros and then started to mess with it just because they were "pained" by it, that would be a poor reason to make changes. Maybe Tinykin was just joking a bit - but still, there are coaches that might give Dan as an example of bad technique because it doesn't look as we expect it to look from top players. They might also do this with younger players that they have more influence over.

I say, actually Dan has great technique and he has adapted it well to his abilities. I'm sure that if he wanted to make some small changes he could, he is surrounded by players with more conventionally efficient technique and he has very good touch. I agree that nothing is frozen, anyone can make improvements no matter what level. All I'm saying is that the improvements and changes should be adapted to the players needs and for the right reasons. Some players don't feel a big need to improve and just want to have fun playing their game.

It's like with Adam Barbrow, is there really any need to suggest him technical improvements? He isn't playing table tennis for the purpose of improving at winning points, his purpose is entertainment.

I have seen and known some talented players go and play for big clubs where the aim is to become pro. In many cases they became players with excellent conventional technique but they still didn't quite make it and in the meantime their passion for the sport was ruined and many never return. I am learning to be careful with how I give advice and to who I'm giving it to. A players needs change over time of course and none of this is black and white, so it's never going to be easy 😀. I played for many years with no intention of improving at table tennis and the last few years all I've wanted is to have conventional technique and to improve my technique to be as efficient as possible. A few times that obsession has taken away the enjoyment until I've changed my perspective a little.

 

[MOG]

Yeah I totally agree and I hope my post didn't give the impression of being rigid, it's rather the opposite.

My point was really that what if a coach came and started criticizing his technique just because it didn't "look" like a pros and then started to mess with it just because they were "pained" by it, that would be a poor reason to make changes. Maybe Tinykin was just joking a bit - but still, there are coaches that might give Dan as an example of bad technique because it doesn't look as we expect it to look from top players. They might also do this with younger players that they have more influence over.

I say, actually Dan has great technique and he has adapted it well to his abilities. I'm sure that if he wanted to make some small changes he could, he is surrounded by players with more conventionally efficient technique and he has very good touch. I agree that nothing is frozen, anyone can make improvements no matter what level. All I'm saying is that the improvements and changes should be adapted to the players needs and for the right reasons. Some players don't feel a big need to improve and just want to have fun playing their game.

It's like with Adam Barbrow, is there really any need to suggest him technical improvements? He isn't playing table tennis for the purpose of improving at winning points, his purpose is entertainment.

I have seen and known some talented players go and play for big clubs where the aim is to become pro. In many cases they became players with excellent conventional technique but they still didn't quite make it and in the meantime their passion for the sport was ruined and many never return. I am learning to be careful with how I give advice and to who I'm giving it to. A players needs change over time of course and none of this is black and white, so it's never going to be easy 😀. I played for many years with no intention of improving at table tennis and the last few years all I've wanted is to have conventional technique and to improve my technique to be as efficient as possible. A few times that obsession has taken away the enjoyment until I've changed my perspective a little.

Great Post!!

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Tinykin is messing with you all a bit, these are both very good experienced players. They have both been coached quite a lot at some point, sorry to spoil all the fun.

Yep. They both look decently high level to me. And it is a darn good match.

 

[latej]

I have seen and known some talented players go and play for big clubs where the aim is to become pro. In many cases they became players with excellent conventional technique but they still didn't quite make it and in the meantime their passion for the sport was ruined and many never return. I am learning to be careful with how I give advice and to who I'm giving it to. A players needs change over time of course and none of this is black and white, so it's never going to be easy 😀. I played for many years with no intention of improving at table tennis and the last few years all I've wanted is to have conventional technique and to improve my technique to be as efficient as possible. A few times that obsession has taken away the enjoyment until I've changed my perspective a little.[/p]

That explains it. I knew you made some changes in technique and even had a problem/pain in the hip. But I didn't infer that it was connected with negative emotions, although when one thinks about it, it's logical.

 

[Tango K]

Not sure who's uncoached here? The black shirt guy clearly has proper techniques. Dan Moses was coached very well when he was young. He was just rebellious. So long as I heard the rumours properly.