This user has no status.
Last edited:
says
Visited my own profile, woop woop. ;)
says
Visited my own profile, woop woop. ;)
Active Member
says
what
[IMG]
says
what
[IMG]
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
I think I'd have rated them a bit higher at some point in time, but I think Nicolas' estimate is pretty close.
It looks "good" but it's lacking the spin and shot selection that the comparison video you posted has. Not to mention the serves and blocks look a lot like mine, and while they're a bit better than my normal level, they're definitely not over 1300's. I'd think at least.
It looks "good" but it's lacking the spin and shot selection that the comparison video you posted has. Not to mention the serves and blocks look a lot like mine, and while they're a bit better than my normal level, they're definitely not over 1300's. I'd think at least.
for me they look better than these guys, and this is the final of usopen 1500!!!
I'd put them in 1800, to me they look similar to this
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
I have seen many US players rated in the range of 1600-2000 play this kind of tactics and level of execution. Of course the higher end of that rating misses fewer shots, yet can play basically that way, if their play style and tactics are like that.
Personally, I play much more like the older kid lost, I pick the serves I want to attack, I play safe on serve receive, look to block or counter if under 3rd ball attack, then look to attack if I get the chance. I am much more serve-attack happy than the kid who lost, but what the heck, we all play the way we like to play. I only make note of it to show one can be a decent level not attack everything by default.
Looking at how many balls the younger kid who won really missed (and they were pretty much clear cut high percentage chances) I would rate him closer to 1600 than 2000. The younger kid was much better on the move using BH drives for pressure and much better when given an easy ball to the FH. The older kid who lost kept everything together much better and had much sounder match strokes for what he was trying to do. I would rate him closer to 2000 than 1600.
Yet, the younger kid who i would rate a little lower (by 50-100 points) won. That sometimes happens. He got a few breaks, made a few of his own, the older kid did the same but was on the short end a couple times... sometimes on some days that is all it takes to lose.
Younger kid 1700-1800.
Older Kid 1800-1850.
We would need to see more matches against players we know the level, but my first impressions are so.
Personally, I play much more like the older kid lost, I pick the serves I want to attack, I play safe on serve receive, look to block or counter if under 3rd ball attack, then look to attack if I get the chance. I am much more serve-attack happy than the kid who lost, but what the heck, we all play the way we like to play. I only make note of it to show one can be a decent level not attack everything by default.
Looking at how many balls the younger kid who won really missed (and they were pretty much clear cut high percentage chances) I would rate him closer to 1600 than 2000. The younger kid was much better on the move using BH drives for pressure and much better when given an easy ball to the FH. The older kid who lost kept everything together much better and had much sounder match strokes for what he was trying to do. I would rate him closer to 2000 than 1600.
Yet, the younger kid who i would rate a little lower (by 50-100 points) won. That sometimes happens. He got a few breaks, made a few of his own, the older kid did the same but was on the short end a couple times... sometimes on some days that is all it takes to lose.
Younger kid 1700-1800.
Older Kid 1800-1850.
We would need to see more matches against players we know the level, but my first impressions are so.
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
Moderator
This footage cracks me up. That is Richard Dewitt talking in the background to Edmund Suen about how he is dropping under 2200.
And this is Tej and Benji back when Benji was still a little squirt.
what I like about the younger kid is how he takes the ball right after the bounce in the bh side.
it seems all little kids do this, like tomokazu harimoto.
then as they get older they start developing more fh oriented style.
the other kid has more power and better fh I think.
the older kid on a good day I think could give 2000-2200 players a good match.
here's older kid against another player.
Last edited:
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
Moderator
You know what, I have to be honest. I can't really tell from this video. But I don't think they are all that low level.
I do think the movement and the angles of the shots in kukamonga's video are pretty good and they end up having a few sustained rallies that show that their technique is pretty good. I think they could be as low as 1700s but I have a feeling they may be higher than that.
Also, their serves are all high and long. So, I doubt they could be too high level. My guess is that they are between 1700-2100. But, it really is hard to tell just from videos. The younger player, when he serves and his serve comes back as a push, it looks like there are too many times, in such a short video--when he just pushes the third ball. At a certain level that becomes a liability unless your comfortable with countering your opponent's opening loop. But he is not doing that. When the taller guy opens he controls the point or wins it outright. He just misses too many of those openings.
Also, I don't see any short pushes. At a certain level, short pushes become more important because long pushes--no matter how heavy/dead or deceptive--become a liability.
The other thing is, both players have clear strategies. Taller player has a clearer 3rd ball attack strategy. But they both have certain things that make it so there is thought and intention behind what they are doing.
The real way to know is to play them and get busted upside the head.
I do think the movement and the angles of the shots in kukamonga's video are pretty good and they end up having a few sustained rallies that show that their technique is pretty good. I think they could be as low as 1700s but I have a feeling they may be higher than that.
Also, their serves are all high and long. So, I doubt they could be too high level. My guess is that they are between 1700-2100. But, it really is hard to tell just from videos. The younger player, when he serves and his serve comes back as a push, it looks like there are too many times, in such a short video--when he just pushes the third ball. At a certain level that becomes a liability unless your comfortable with countering your opponent's opening loop. But he is not doing that. When the taller guy opens he controls the point or wins it outright. He just misses too many of those openings.
Also, I don't see any short pushes. At a certain level, short pushes become more important because long pushes--no matter how heavy/dead or deceptive--become a liability.
The other thing is, both players have clear strategies. Taller player has a clearer 3rd ball attack strategy. But they both have certain things that make it so there is thought and intention behind what they are doing.
The real way to know is to play them and get busted upside the head.
This user has no status.
Member
The people in these vids are all over the place. It's not about how they like to play, they do what they have to, it's the rating system that is a joke.
honestly tons of people say this but the level at which every long serve or long push is attacked is like 2400 or 2500.
lower than that many times it's more effective to serve long because you can attack the third ball.
they 3 players in the 2 videos are all in the same division so they are all similar in level theoretically.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
wow is that 2400 or 2500 for the first video?
us ratings have a very large range of ratings for lower end players O.O
us ratings have a very large range of ratings for lower end players O.O
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
There are many 2200 level players who will pound your long serves, or even your short ones if they are not good and tight/low. Some true 2000 level players will not automatically attack everything long when they do not know what is exactly on the ball.
I agree with the sentiment that the rating system is flawed. It is inherently deflationary, even with the upwards adjustments in it. A 2000 level player now is better than a 2000 level player 8 yrs ago, I stand by that. Ratings for the same level of player vary widely. That is sometimes not the fault of the system, if there are players who are 1600 rated who improve to 2000 level and play each other, beat each other up and take each others' points, no one will really be 2000, but there will be a lot of 2000 level 1800 rated players. A lot of my region's players in the 1800-1900 range can defeat a 2000 level player 1/3 of the time. San Jose area in USA has a whole hoard of players rated at under 1000 who are near 2000 level. They simply play in their division and win or lose vs other similar skilled way under-rated players.
Unless we have people circulate throughout the country or force them to play in Nov Teams or similar national events, you will never get teh ratings system to be even. The other way would be to use subjective judgment of rater-adjusters and move players up or down on a one time eval. I can see the alligator tears from the parents of the San Jose children whose hopes of a national U1000 title just went down the drain...
I agree with the sentiment that the rating system is flawed. It is inherently deflationary, even with the upwards adjustments in it. A 2000 level player now is better than a 2000 level player 8 yrs ago, I stand by that. Ratings for the same level of player vary widely. That is sometimes not the fault of the system, if there are players who are 1600 rated who improve to 2000 level and play each other, beat each other up and take each others' points, no one will really be 2000, but there will be a lot of 2000 level 1800 rated players. A lot of my region's players in the 1800-1900 range can defeat a 2000 level player 1/3 of the time. San Jose area in USA has a whole hoard of players rated at under 1000 who are near 2000 level. They simply play in their division and win or lose vs other similar skilled way under-rated players.
Unless we have people circulate throughout the country or force them to play in Nov Teams or similar national events, you will never get teh ratings system to be even. The other way would be to use subjective judgment of rater-adjusters and move players up or down on a one time eval. I can see the alligator tears from the parents of the San Jose children whose hopes of a national U1000 title just went down the drain...
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Top 1% Commenter
Well-Known Member
Carl, if you see some of my matches, all I do is push the serve and be ready to block. If I cannot read the serve perfectly, I will not try to push short, it is an unacceptable risk to give away a point on a miss or a pop-up. Sometimes you will not see me attack the long serves if I cannot see were they are going or read the spin right. Yet, you know my playing level isn't 1700. Maybe I am an exception as the first and only Rambo Looper seeking to draw first blood or spin the opponent dizzy on my first loop, but I display a LOT of the traits of a 1700 level player you describe, even if I am several levels above that level.
Similar threads
