This user has no status.
Proposed Increase in Net Height!
- Thread starter Matt Hetherington
- Start date
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
why does there have to be a problem for change to happen? There isn't a problem with my computer right now but I still get software updates for it. If an update to this website happens that I don't like I'm not going to yell and rant about it. Change happens, why complain every time it does?
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Shuki so you're saying the decrease of penholders today have no correlation with the poly ball? Or poly ball doesn't make they less effective?
Sent from my 2014819 using Tapatalk
Sent from my 2014819 using Tapatalk
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
That is correct. Do you disagree? the poly ball has been out for how long? I want to say 2 years ago was when the rule change happened. Do you see less penholders now because of it, or did the penholders you played with 2 years ago all stop playing? At the top level the only penholder to drop out is wang hao, but he was set to retire before the ball came out.
The decrease in penholders wasn't an instantaneous decrease, it was gradual for the past 15 years.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Change has to happen for a reason , and you have to able to put it in context and then consider whether to rant or not rant about it.
Why did People not rant as much or pros not complain as much when the rule change happened from 21 to 11 points ? There was a reason for it and even though certain types of players did not like , it was still accepted.
When change happens just for the sake of change or for the sake of certain somebody's financial gain then people rant .
There is a subtle difference between accepting "change" lets say in life , such as growing old, and becoming subservient to change which is enforced by an authority who are supposed to take the best interest of the game and the players alike into consideration while promoting a change ....
Why did People not rant as much or pros not complain as much when the rule change happened from 21 to 11 points ? There was a reason for it and even though certain types of players did not like , it was still accepted.
When change happens just for the sake of change or for the sake of certain somebody's financial gain then people rant .
There is a subtle difference between accepting "change" lets say in life , such as growing old, and becoming subservient to change which is enforced by an authority who are supposed to take the best interest of the game and the players alike into consideration while promoting a change ....
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Okay lets give a reason for ITTF's update on the net height then.
Modern rubbers are faster than in the past and it's tough to imagine a world where we are using the rubbers of today with the 38mm ball. The game would be so rediculously spinny and fast that it would have fallen off the map. Staying ahead of the advances in technology is smart of them to do. Maybe right now this will slow the game down, but who's to say in a few years there won't be even faster/spinnier/better rubbers that make the game play similarly to how it's played now.
You don't wait until you get a virus to build a firewall. Sometimes preventing a problem from happening is better than waiting for a problem to occur and then trying to fix it.
Edit: Samsonov is the one to convince the swedish table tennis federation to propose the change, maybe when a professional player is suggesting it, there's a reason for it. I'm not just rolling over to some higher authority making changes to the sport, they're not going to try and kill the sport that makes them money, they're only going to try and improve it.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Then I would say we go back to playing hardbat ... why even let the people use rubber and sponge when its so dangerous and can be boosted .
Anyways , I am not arguing you for the sake of argument.
What I was trying to tell you is , the argument you made about accepting change is a fair and good argument , but it does not apply in this context.
It applies in the life of an individual, in deciding how you shape your attitude and what will help you become better. But it is not true when you take in the considerations of how an organization is supposed to function and what are our responsibilities as people who are affected by the decisions of that organization.
With any organization , be it ITTF or the US Government , there has to be a discourse and debate on how and where to take the sport or the country or the world.
That is called democracy and it is essential for a healthy world .
I don't know how many countries you have visited, but from personal experience what I have seen is that the quality of life of common people is not good wherever the power of choice is taken away from them . And so it is in sports.
ITTF should be consulting pro players and taking their arguments/opinions into consideration before making a decision.
What we see is that time and again these decisions are being taken without it going through a health discussion and trial period. This is what is concerning for us who love the game.
Anyways , I am not arguing you for the sake of argument.
What I was trying to tell you is , the argument you made about accepting change is a fair and good argument , but it does not apply in this context.
It applies in the life of an individual, in deciding how you shape your attitude and what will help you become better. But it is not true when you take in the considerations of how an organization is supposed to function and what are our responsibilities as people who are affected by the decisions of that organization.
With any organization , be it ITTF or the US Government , there has to be a discourse and debate on how and where to take the sport or the country or the world.
That is called democracy and it is essential for a healthy world .
I don't know how many countries you have visited, but from personal experience what I have seen is that the quality of life of common people is not good wherever the power of choice is taken away from them . And so it is in sports.
ITTF should be consulting pro players and taking their arguments/opinions into consideration before making a decision.
What we see is that time and again these decisions are being taken without it going through a health discussion and trial period. This is what is concerning for us who love the game.
says
what
[IMG]
says
what
[IMG]
Well-Known Member
The only reason the ITTF would prepare for future advances in speed and spin of equipment would be to give a reason for said advances so that they can catch up to the slower, less spinny game, and thus there would be a need to produce more sophisticated, less long lasting, higher cost equipment.
It's only about money.
It's only about money.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Do you see all sports as having this issue or just table tennis?
Here's my actual opinion on the rule change and how it will effect the game.
I don't see a problem with a higher net. With how slow the ball has become, service has gotten quite a bit easier to read. I think this is a big reason why the backhand flick is becoming more and more powerful. Reducing the speed of the ball more won't slow the game down, it will give someone more time to read it and produce a kill shot. Increasing the height of the net however, makes the kill shot more difficult to do.
I completely agree that they are going about their changes in the wrong way. I would have liked to see polyballs tested better so that first year wouldn't have been so brutal trying to find some that worked. Bringing the ball change rule forward shouldn't have happened until the balls were readily available for everybody. I mean heck, there still doesn't seem to be a good training polyball for multiball and I have a theory behind this. The training balls are complete crap right now, but as soon as they actually start producing a good one, all their excess stock becomes a profit loss. It makes sense to not create a good training ball for as long as possible.
I don't see complaining about changes when we don't have all the information on how they're going through with the change as something that will help. How do we know they aren't going to do better testing with this than they did with the polyball change?
Here's my actual opinion on the rule change and how it will effect the game.
I don't see a problem with a higher net. With how slow the ball has become, service has gotten quite a bit easier to read. I think this is a big reason why the backhand flick is becoming more and more powerful. Reducing the speed of the ball more won't slow the game down, it will give someone more time to read it and produce a kill shot. Increasing the height of the net however, makes the kill shot more difficult to do.
I completely agree that they are going about their changes in the wrong way. I would have liked to see polyballs tested better so that first year wouldn't have been so brutal trying to find some that worked. Bringing the ball change rule forward shouldn't have happened until the balls were readily available for everybody. I mean heck, there still doesn't seem to be a good training polyball for multiball and I have a theory behind this. The training balls are complete crap right now, but as soon as they actually start producing a good one, all their excess stock becomes a profit loss. It makes sense to not create a good training ball for as long as possible.
I don't see complaining about changes when we don't have all the information on how they're going through with the change as something that will help. How do we know they aren't going to do better testing with this than they did with the polyball change?
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
says
2023 Certified Organ Donor
Well-Known Member
My cat has something to say about raising the height of the net.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p69/Der_Echte/catfinger.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p69/Der_Echte/catfinger.jpg
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
wider table would result in shortening the length of rallies, making hitting new angles possible as well as old ones easier.
"I completely agree that they are going about their changes in the wrong way."
Contradiction?
Complains are useful if they can see them. In the contrary, we should complain more, since the change in net height is discussing within ITTF, this is a critical period, we should let them know our thoughts.
I have sent a complain letter to ITTF.
Contradiction?
Complains are useful if they can see them. In the contrary, we should complain more, since the change in net height is discussing within ITTF, this is a critical period, we should let them know our thoughts.
I have sent a complain letter to ITTF.
This user has no status.
Because change has to happen for the good, not for ruining what has been good so far.
Need more spectators? Develop a software that tracks ball trajectory with glowing purple line, gives spectators an estimate of speed and spin ratios, report statistics during the match of which player uses more spin, more speed, more forehands vs. backhands, etc... This would be a change welcomed by everyone I'm sure. Or improve the streaming for that matter!
The fact that ittf looks at the equipment side of changes only makes me think they do it to make players shell out big money for new balls, nets, factory-boosted fresh rubbers etc. Developing more advanced streaming and anlysis software would cost money rather than generate revenue for ittf stakeholders!
Opposed. Strongly.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
@lethalforehand
You said the change they're making is going to ruin what's been good so far. How is this going to ruin things?
I see this as them fixing the mistake they made in changing the ball size again. Rather than slowing the ball down making service easier to read and attack, this time they seem to have thought the change through a bit more.
@kencc
Not so much contradicting myself, I'm rather fixing my initial statement because ttmonster changed successfully changed my viewpoint a bit. Props to you for sending a complaint letter. I hope it contains some of ttmonster' points about how they should make changes differently and you're not just complaining in the letter about the change being bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You said the change they're making is going to ruin what's been good so far. How is this going to ruin things?
I see this as them fixing the mistake they made in changing the ball size again. Rather than slowing the ball down making service easier to read and attack, this time they seem to have thought the change through a bit more.
@kencc
Not so much contradicting myself, I'm rather fixing my initial statement because ttmonster changed successfully changed my viewpoint a bit. Props to you for sending a complaint letter. I hope it contains some of ttmonster' points about how they should make changes differently and you're not just complaining in the letter about the change being bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This user has no status.
Nonsense
No rule change will bringmore spectators – we have had changes for over 20 years and there are no morespectators – the constant changes are causing a decrease in number of activeplayers.
You want slow table tennis?Go and play hardbat... We, the majority, want quick table tennis...
Samsonov wants...,Waldner, Persson etc. do not want – it is just a personal opinion ofSamsonov, not of all TT professionals.
If you tolerate thischange, expect another ones very soon – the sport is being ruined by too manychanges.
38 mm ball killedshort-pips hitters, glue ban killed Korean penholders and FH-attaking defenderslike JSH – they lost the devastating Forehand from away from the table, plasticball is killing spin players like Timo Boll, net increase will destroy the lastremaining penholders who want one-wing dominance and the Block/Counter playerswho are so many at lower levels. The variety is being killed by ittf, I wantvariety, that is the spice of the game, looking at only one style of play isdead boring, no matter how good the player is.
No rule change will bringmore spectators – we have had changes for over 20 years and there are no morespectators – the constant changes are causing a decrease in number of activeplayers.
You want slow table tennis?Go and play hardbat... We, the majority, want quick table tennis...
Samsonov wants...,Waldner, Persson etc. do not want – it is just a personal opinion ofSamsonov, not of all TT professionals.
If you tolerate thischange, expect another ones very soon – the sport is being ruined by too manychanges.
38 mm ball killedshort-pips hitters, glue ban killed Korean penholders and FH-attaking defenderslike JSH – they lost the devastating Forehand from away from the table, plasticball is killing spin players like Timo Boll, net increase will destroy the lastremaining penholders who want one-wing dominance and the Block/Counter playerswho are so many at lower levels. The variety is being killed by ittf, I wantvariety, that is the spice of the game, looking at only one style of play isdead boring, no matter how good the player is.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Increase in net height would just "terminate" the short pips players. And will it make the rallies longer....?..I double about it, blocks will be more difficult, short game will be more difficult.....ok maybe topspins will go slower, certainly less flcks, but I don't think it will counterbalance enough.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This is all speculation about what you think is going to happen with the rule change. You say none of the rule changes have been good over the last 20 years. I think making service need to be more visible was a fantastic change. Even if it's not enforced perfectly all the time, the ball is generally easier to read and for most players, being able to read a ball is more enjoyable then losing to service alone.
I don't believe short game will struggle. Now here's my speculation on what will happen to the short game. Pushing will be more important because not every ball will be attackable. This will cause players to try and keep the ball short with their pushes or throw the opponent off with a longer push. If your short push is too high, then your opponent gets the kill. If your long push is read, your opponent gets the great opening attack off a deep push. Just because flicks will be harder doesn't mean they're dead. They'll still be there for quite a few balls, just not ALL the balls. Why should you be able to attack every ball? This can bring more variety to the game in ways that you guys aren't seeing. You're just seeing how it will impact the strokes that work now and not how they will impact the game for players who will adapt to a new playing style.
More spin will be necessary to get power on the ball and get over the higher net. The change in balls reduced spin and forced players to try and get more because they couldn't get the spin they used to get. This change isn't killing their spin.
Have any of you ever played a player with a FAST ghost spin serve? one that's low and just seems like there's no way it can bounce twice let alone die off into the net. This may kill the fast ghost spin because you can't keep that ball as low. it will control service and make it "more fair" the way they've tried to for a while.
edit: my initial thought about this when I heard it a few weeks back was "ha there's no way they'd do that rule change, it would kill the game." But when I realized it was true I started thinking about how I would need to adjust to the change. I didn't like the adjustments I would have to make because it killed parts of the game that I felt gave me a lot of points. After a while thinking about it though I realized I couldn't stop the change so what was the point complaining, people complained about the ball change and that did nothing.
So I proceeded to think even more about what the change would do to the game and I realized, "all this will do is change it, what's frustrating me about it is that it's killing parts of my game that help me. but it's also killing parts of everyones game. change doesn't effect one person and not others. Change just changes what will work and I'll adjust like players have in the past"
Player's tend to like the game in the way that they played best. If a change happens and you don't play as great as you used to you're probably going to like the old way more. These other swedish players some of you may have mentioned that don't agree with Samsonov's idea also disagree about changing from the 38mm ball. They didn't play as good as they did with the 38mm. Probably because they were older now but still, they weren't as good as they were in the past with the old ball, why would they like the new one if they think it killed what they were great at. They had a passion for the game and part of it dies, other players have a passion for how the game is now and would hate to change to a smaller ball.
In short, no, I don't think there's an issue with the net as it is. But I also can't see an issue with changing it. They need to fix the mistake they made with changing the ball and this is a way they can do it. It's a bit awkward after 2 years to say, "okay we messed up, lets change back." rather instead making another change to fix the mistake made and playing it off as just an attempt to slow down the game, not mentioning that their initial attempt backfired. They're not taking responsibility for their actions but they are trying to fix what they've done.
I don't believe short game will struggle. Now here's my speculation on what will happen to the short game. Pushing will be more important because not every ball will be attackable. This will cause players to try and keep the ball short with their pushes or throw the opponent off with a longer push. If your short push is too high, then your opponent gets the kill. If your long push is read, your opponent gets the great opening attack off a deep push. Just because flicks will be harder doesn't mean they're dead. They'll still be there for quite a few balls, just not ALL the balls. Why should you be able to attack every ball? This can bring more variety to the game in ways that you guys aren't seeing. You're just seeing how it will impact the strokes that work now and not how they will impact the game for players who will adapt to a new playing style.
More spin will be necessary to get power on the ball and get over the higher net. The change in balls reduced spin and forced players to try and get more because they couldn't get the spin they used to get. This change isn't killing their spin.
Have any of you ever played a player with a FAST ghost spin serve? one that's low and just seems like there's no way it can bounce twice let alone die off into the net. This may kill the fast ghost spin because you can't keep that ball as low. it will control service and make it "more fair" the way they've tried to for a while.
edit: my initial thought about this when I heard it a few weeks back was "ha there's no way they'd do that rule change, it would kill the game." But when I realized it was true I started thinking about how I would need to adjust to the change. I didn't like the adjustments I would have to make because it killed parts of the game that I felt gave me a lot of points. After a while thinking about it though I realized I couldn't stop the change so what was the point complaining, people complained about the ball change and that did nothing.
So I proceeded to think even more about what the change would do to the game and I realized, "all this will do is change it, what's frustrating me about it is that it's killing parts of my game that help me. but it's also killing parts of everyones game. change doesn't effect one person and not others. Change just changes what will work and I'll adjust like players have in the past"
Player's tend to like the game in the way that they played best. If a change happens and you don't play as great as you used to you're probably going to like the old way more. These other swedish players some of you may have mentioned that don't agree with Samsonov's idea also disagree about changing from the 38mm ball. They didn't play as good as they did with the 38mm. Probably because they were older now but still, they weren't as good as they were in the past with the old ball, why would they like the new one if they think it killed what they were great at. They had a passion for the game and part of it dies, other players have a passion for how the game is now and would hate to change to a smaller ball.
In short, no, I don't think there's an issue with the net as it is. But I also can't see an issue with changing it. They need to fix the mistake they made with changing the ball and this is a way they can do it. It's a bit awkward after 2 years to say, "okay we messed up, lets change back." rather instead making another change to fix the mistake made and playing it off as just an attempt to slow down the game, not mentioning that their initial attempt backfired. They're not taking responsibility for their actions but they are trying to fix what they've done.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
just edited twice on the post I made above., first edit is when it started being blue, second is where the red statement is made and then it goes to blue.
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Are there any links to sources where ITTF is on the record about this subject, their plans of when to implement it, a timeline?
Or is this just in the conversation stage. Remember that ITTF tournament a few years ago where, in the Under 1800 division they tried a No Let Rule where lets were to be played and there would be no stoppage of play if the service hit the net and went into play. Anyone remember that?
Well I am happy to see that when the service hits the net, they still play a let.
I have heard talk of this net height change since 2010. So far all I have heard is talk.
So, until I see a statement from the ITTF about when they plan to implement this, I am not going to worry about it.
But it would be darn interesting if a new International Table Tennis Association popped up with its own rules and its own "World Tour". That was what the AFL in American Football originally was. And that was what the ABA in American Basketball originally was. Those associations did get merged with NFL and NBA but they had an impact on the way the original associations acted and did business.
So I say, someone has to go to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and get the ball rolling on the ITTA or the WTTA or the WPTTA (World Professional Table Tennis Association).
Sent from Deep Space by Abacus
Or is this just in the conversation stage. Remember that ITTF tournament a few years ago where, in the Under 1800 division they tried a No Let Rule where lets were to be played and there would be no stoppage of play if the service hit the net and went into play. Anyone remember that?
Well I am happy to see that when the service hits the net, they still play a let.
I have heard talk of this net height change since 2010. So far all I have heard is talk.
So, until I see a statement from the ITTF about when they plan to implement this, I am not going to worry about it.
But it would be darn interesting if a new International Table Tennis Association popped up with its own rules and its own "World Tour". That was what the AFL in American Football originally was. And that was what the ABA in American Basketball originally was. Those associations did get merged with NFL and NBA but they had an impact on the way the original associations acted and did business.
So I say, someone has to go to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and get the ball rolling on the ITTA or the WTTA or the WPTTA (World Professional Table Tennis Association).
Sent from Deep Space by Abacus
Similar threads
