Spin theory

[blahness]

I watched a few tutorials lately which gave me a some ideas about the theory of going against and with the spin and how it affects the ball.

Going against the spin is the basic approach to dealing with spin for inverted players. This tends to be able to neutralise the incoming spin very well and control the return well.

From your perspective the incoming and outgoing balls are spinning exactly the opposite direction (note that the opponents backspin is spinning the same direction as your topspin from your perspective).

Examples would be pushing a backspin ball, looping against topspin, touching the ball on the right side going forward against FH pendulum and on the left side against BH pendulum. In terms of looping against sidespin for eg, this would be FH hooking the ball against a FH pendulum serve and FH fade loop against a BH pendulum serve.

However, this basic approach actually is not so great for active strokes where the intention is to make as much spin as possible rather than simply neutralising it. Similar to what long pips does we can continue and add to the existing spin rather than going against it.

From your perspective the incoming and outgoing balls are spinning the same direction. Some examples would be topspin against backspin, chopblocking a topspin. In terms of receiving sidespin serves, it's for eg using FH left to right push to deal with reverse pendulum serves, or FH right to left sideswipe to deal with FH pendulum serves.

The implications for chiquita is actually more important. I always wondered why my chiquita works best against FH pendulum sidebackspin serves, it's because the incoming spin is exactly in the same direction as the outgoing spin, I'm adding to the existing spin! This is also why I produce less chiquita spin against BH pendulum serves although it is easier to neutralise the spin. One video had me thinking about this and his idea was that it is better to do a BH fade version of the chiquita against BH pendulum (principle of spin continuation) because it produces more spin this way. In fact Lin Yun Ju and FZD already use this to great effect. From the short FH side against BH pendulum spin, they often fade chiquita it on the diagonal with sidespin that curves outwards which is often a devastating direct point winner. This is starkly in contrast with ZJK who doesn't really have this opposite sidespin chiquita.

Using the same concept of spin continuation for looping against sidespin serves yields interesting conclusions. It would be simply better to do FH hook loops against BH pendulum serves, and FH fade loops against FH pendulum serves (this is opposite to conventional wisdom which wants you to loop on the right side of the ball against FH pendulum and on the left side of the ball against BH pendulum).

I found this method of looping to be way more reliable and less error prone due to the extra spin generated/borrowed from the existing spin.

 

[zeio]

The implications for chiquita is actually more important. I always wondered why my chiquita works best against FH pendulum sidebackspin serves, it's because the incoming spin is exactly in the same direction as the outgoing spin, I'm adding to the existing spin! This is also why I produce less chiquita spin against BH pendulum serves although it is easier to neutralise the spin. One video had me thinking about this and his idea was that it is better to do a BH fade version of the chiquita against BH pendulum (principle of spin continuation) because it produces more spin this way. In fact Lin Yun Ju and FZD already use this to great effect. From the short FH side against BH pendulum spin, they often fade chiquita it on the diagonal with sidespin that curves outwards which is often a devastating direct point winner. This is starkly in contrast with ZJK who doesn't really have this opposite sidespin chiquita.

Using the same concept of spin continuation for looping against sidespin serves yields interesting conclusions. It would be simply better to do FH hook loops against BH pendulum serves, and FH fade loops against FH pendulum serves (this is opposite to conventional wisdom which wants you to loop on the right side of the ball against FH pendulum and on the left side of the ball against BH pendulum).

I found this method of looping to be way more reliable and less error prone due to the extra spin generated/borrowed from the existing spin.

I guess that's why the term 霸王擰/hegemonic chiquita is reserved for ZJK only in China. To this day, he is arguably the only one who could chiquita anything at clutch moments.

ZJK's comment from 2/2022
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Zg411s7Bb
Hou Yingchao's comment
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1RZ4y1U7S6
Fang Yinchi's comment
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rv4y167PN

In practice, the "spin continuation" is difficult to pull off at the higher level. The biggest problem is swing speed, which is often limited by the placement and depth of the incoming ball, especially when receiving half-long serves. For the FH pendulum serve, it curves into you (for right-handers and vice versa) and reduces your return angle and hence depth, which makes "continuing" the spin even more risky. For the BH pendulum serve or FH reverse pendulum serve to the FH corner that curves away from you, most top players have already been doing the "spin continuation" loop but the table corner is what makes it hard to do.

 

[blahness]

I guess that's why the term 霸王擰/hegemonic chiquita is reserved for ZJK only in China. To this day, he is arguably the only one who could chiquita anything at clutch moments.

ZJK's comment from 2/2022
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Zg411s7Bb
Hou Yingchao's comment
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1RZ4y1U7S6
Fang Yinchi's comment
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rv4y167PN

In practice, the "spin continuation" is difficult to pull off at the higher level. The biggest problem is swing speed, which is often limited by the placement and depth of the incoming ball, especially when receiving half-long serves. For the FH pendulum serve, it curves into you (for right-handers and vice versa) and reduces your return angle and hence depth, which makes "continuing" the spin even more risky. For the BH pendulum serve or FH reverse pendulum serve to the FH corner that curves away from you, most top players have already been doing the "spin continuation" loop but the table corner is what makes it hard to do.

First point - I think Lin Yun Ju has a more advanced chiquita than ZJK now because he can do both sidespin directions which means his angles are much wider - you can see him actually outright winning a lot of points with his chiquita that even prime ZJK didnt posess (ZJK had to rely more on his incredible 2 wing topspin game). But the rest of the game especially physical power, short push and push quality ain't up to ZJK standards yet.

I agree that spin continuation appears to be harder but it actually produces more spin (if you have the power of course) and ultimately more safety because of the Magnus effect.

I actually see a lot of fade loops or semi fade loops against half long FH pendulum serves among the pros. I don't think they want to FH hook loop a spinny af pendulum serve and contact the ball on the right side because it very easily results in 旋转对冲 (spins in opposite directions) which results in a lot of unexpected outcomes, and also sometimes overwhelms the friction capacity of the rubber. I actually learnt these concepts from Fang Yinchi who discussed all of these in detail in a few sessions, which was a very interesting theory indeed.

 

[blahness]

There's some very interesting points about receiving extremely heavy underspin serves too in terms of the push technique. It's easier to do a sideswipe style push with a lifting motion against real heavy underspin. Trying to add more spin to an already heavy af underspin ball is a fool's endeavour too. If you lift it up the rubber does the work for you in neutralising the spin of the incoming underspin. This technique is a lot more stable.

But against a sidetopspin serve, you can have a near vertical blade face and push downwards on the correct side, it will result in spin continuation and result in incredibly heavy sideunderspin on the other side without too much effort from your side.

Similarly against fast long heavy topspin serves, it is also a fool's endeavour to try to add more topspin to an already heavy af topspin, much easier to simply brush it left to right or right to left (while contacting the back of the ball). This is again the concept of avoiding 旋转对冲 (having strong incoming spin and trying to create a very strong outgoing spin in opposite directions).

I guess this post is more sharing some spin understanding that I learnt recently.

The ironic thing about this concept is that, counterloops against equal level topspins are a lot harder than looping underspin, but countering topspin is easier.

There was also a session on counterlooping in terms of avoiding this 旋转对冲 which was the most eye opening session that I ever seen discussed on TT.

 

[Wrighty67]

Very interesting discussion, which makes a lot of sense. Key is being able to control position of the return when using incoming spin.

I play a good level player regularly who uses a very light touch on the side of the ball when returning my pendulum, and it comes back loaded with my spin, which requires me to adjust (or try to double down again) if I am to avoid the ball flying off the table side..

 

[Dominikk85]

First point - I think Lin Yun Ju has a more advanced chiquita than ZJK now because he can do both sidespin directions which means his angles are much wider - you can see him actually outright winning a lot of points with his chiquita that even prime ZJK didnt posess (ZJK had to rely more on his incredible 2 wing topspin game). But the rest of the game especially physical power, short push and push quality ain't up to ZJK standards yet.

I agree that spin continuation appears to be harder but it actually produces more spin (if you have the power of course) and ultimately more safety because of the Magnus effect.

I actually see a lot of fade loops or semi fade loops against half long FH pendulum serves among the pros. I don't think they want to FH hook loop a spinny af pendulum serve and contact the ball on the right side because it very easily results in 旋转对冲 (spins in opposite directions) which results in a lot of unexpected outcomes, and also sometimes overwhelms the friction capacity of the rubber. I actually learnt these concepts from Fang Yinchi who discussed all of these in detail in a few sessions, which was a very interesting theory indeed.

If the theory is right wouldn't that mean loop against backspin has more spin than loop against topspin or block?

 

[igorponger]

Complex rotation of the ball, around three axis alternately. It will fool opponent down.

 

[blahness]

If the theory is right wouldn't that mean loop against backspin has more spin than loop against topspin or block?

Yes that is right

 

[zeio]

More varied, yes. More advanced, no. Note that the chiquita and strawberry/reverse chiquita/miyuta (mostly in Japan) are not exact opposites as they are different in 球性/shot property (this one doesn't translate well, so 球種/shot type maybe a better fit). The two strokes are distinguished by separate terms - 擰 and 剌/刮/劃/撇 in Chinese characters that depict the different motions. Another thing is that the reduced spin makes it easier to do the chiquita with the ABS ball.

I will probably write more about the QF match between WCT and LYJ at Asian Games 2022, where various commentators gave out pointers on how to get around LYJ's game.

 

[blahness]

More varied, yes. More advanced, no. Note that the chiquita and strawberry/reverse chiquita/miyuta (mostly in Japan) are not exact opposites as they are different in 球性/shot property (this one doesn't translate well, so 球種/shot type maybe a better fit). The two strokes are distinguished by separate terms - 擰 and 剌/刮/劃/撇 in Chinese characters that depict the different motions. Another thing is that the reduced spin makes it easier to do the chiquita with the ABS ball.

I will probably write more about the QF match between WCT and LYJ at Asian Games 2022, where various commentators gave out pointers on how to get around LYJ's game.

The chiquita with opposite sidespin is basically a BH fade loop movement and is completely different from the strawberry which is more of a pure fade or sideswipe. The strawberry movement is more like a BH pendulum serve. I don't think there is a separate Chinese description for the fade chiquita because the movement still looks like a chiquita and is still classified as a chiquita variant.

 

[pingpongpaddy]

Yes that is right

Actually if we agree that the speed of the brushing contact of racket and ball is what determines the amount of rotation, then the chopped ball requires a considerably faster brush to increase the revs on the ball.
assuming that the incoming backspin has 100 revs we can say that the surface of the ball is moving away from the approaching rubber with a brush value of 100. now if the rackets upward brush has a value of 90 then the ball will go in the net or worse and we observe that the speed of brush is -10 = downward relatively speaking . On the other hand if the brush stroke has a value of 110, then the brush speed of contact will be +10 relatively speaking.
Considering topspin to topspin:-
Incoming topspin 100 revs
applying topspin brush of value 100 revs will result in 200 rev brushing impact.
I think the usefulness of knowing this is that when counter strokes occur (chop v chop or top v top) in rallies the second stroke does not require a lot of effort, but will require precision of contact above anything especially if you were trying to get greater effect either with or against a Chiquita stroke or a tomahawk serve for example

 

[blahness]

Actually if we agree that the speed of the brushing contact of racket and ball is what determines the amount of rotation, then the chopped ball requires a considerably faster brush to increase the revs on the ball.
assuming that the incoming backspin has 100 revs we can say that the surface of the ball is moving away from the approaching rubber with a brush value of 100. now if the rackets upward brush has a value of 90 then the ball will go in the net or worse and we observe that the speed of brush is -10 = downward relatively speaking . On the other hand if the brush stroke has a value of 110, then the brush speed of contact will be +10 relatively speaking.
Considering topspin to topspin:-
Incoming topspin 100 revs
applying topspin brush of value 100 revs will result in 200 rev brushing impact.
I think the usefulness of knowing this is that when counter strokes occur (chop v chop or top v top) in rallies the second stroke does not require a lot of effort, but will require precision of contact above anything especially if you were trying to get greater effect either with or against a Chiquita stroke or a tomahawk serve for example

Edit: I understood the 100+100 =200 brushing impact now, yes it makes sense - and sometimes with such high impacts the friction capacity of the rubber is exceeded which results in uncontrollable balls.

Yes we do need to match the incoming spin speed if you're attempting to do spin continuation. So for eg if a backspin ball is 20 rev/second (a more realistic value), your swing must be able to match 20 rev/second to do anything to the ball for a loop.

Whereas with counterlooping, it's very hard to brush the ball hard on a ball that already has insane topspin - much easier and better to ride the incoming spin using the inverted rubber properties to reverse the spin (rather than your own brute force brushing effort). There are of course tricks to avoid this effect using sidespin if you want to do hard brushing.

My feeling on the matter that it's a syncing issue. It's like trying to ride on an already fast treadmill (even if it's not powered) - you need to match the speed when you run on it otherwise it's the treadmill which will throw you off, not you increasing the spin of the treadmill.

But anyway the key takeaway is when you're applying serious brushing power and are trying to get max outgoing spin for eg in chiquita or looping, spin continuation is often a better choice to avoid the rubber friction capacity being exceeded.

For more passive strokes - going against the spin is a good choice as you can neutralise the incoming spin and give it back using the rubber properties - essentially ride the incoming spin.

The other takeaway is that if you're trying to do spin continuation, you better have good acceleration to be able to match the ball spin otherwise you'll be in trouble.
 

 

[pingpongpaddy]

Pretty sure that's not correct (100+100=200 rev/sec) - although yes you do need to match the incoming spin speed if you're attempting to do spin continuation. [color =red] So for eg if a backspin ball is 20 rev/second (a more realistic value), your swing must be able to match 20 rev/second to do anything to the ball for a loop.[/color]

My feeling on the matter that it's a syncing issue. It's like trying to ride on an already fast treadmill (even if it's not powered) - you need to match the speed when you run on it otherwise it's the treadmill which will throw you off, not you increasing the spin of the treadmill.

But anyway the key takeaway is when you're applying power and are trying to get max outgoing spin for eg in chiquita or looping, spin continuation is often a better choice to avoid the rubber friction capacity being exceeded.

For more passive strokes - going against the spin is a good choice as you can neutralise the incoming spin and give it back using the rubber properties - essentially ride the incoming spin.

The other takeaway is that if you're trying to do spin continuation, you better have good acceleration to be able to match the ball spin otherwise you'll be in trouble.
 

in crude terms the stroke against chop needs to exceed the balls revs
21 = success
19 = failure
or the loop is unlikely to make it over except maybe off a high chop

I don't think the term neutralising expresses the range of what's possible in top v top or chop v chop. Back in the day (of Jonyer, Klampar and Gergely the first round the net loopers) we thought of it has using the incoming revs to generate the returning with an.added bonus.
In heavy chop v chop pushing requires one to brush with an increasingly horizontal bat for instance which needs a lot of practice. Top v Top or top/side vs top/side was much easier

IMO counterlooping is easiest once one understands that's its about shorter stroke with precision and explosiveness of the "1 inch punch variety" . Also of course in those kinds of rallies change of pace and direction are other tools to use rather than just a spin fest for the sake of it.

btw with power loopers against LP the incoming backspin will certainly be a lot heavier than against normal rubber choppers but I don't want to attach numbers to it as I don't have a high speed camera to record it!

 

[blahness]

in crude terms the stroke against chop needs to exceed the balls revs
21 = success
19 = failure
or the loop is unlikely to make it over except maybe off a high chop

I don't think the term neutralising expresses the range of what's possible in top v top or chop v chop. Back in the day (of Jonyer, Klampar and Gergely the first round the net loopers) we thought of it has using the incoming revs to generate the returning with an.added bonus.
In heavy chop v chop pushing requires one to brush with an increasingly horizontal bat for instance which needs a lot of practice. Top v Top or top/side vs top/side was much easier

Yes the logical conclusion of this theory is that, with topspin against strong backspin you're doing spin continuation and hence you need to at least match the incoming spin and have to brush the ball hard. But the outgoing ball will have the benefit of spin continuation and have extra spin borrowed from the ball (for eg Timo Boll's loop against underspin appears to be a lot heavier than his loops against topspin).

With topspin vs incoming strong topspin, you're doing spin neutralisation (or going against the spin), and since inverted rubbers can do a lot of the job for you in reversing the spin (which is why theyre called inverted rubbers), you only need to ride the ball rather than do a heavy active brush. If you wanted to do a heavy active brush you'll have to use sidespin to your advantage otherwise the friction capacity of the rubber may be exceeded and you lose control of the ball.

But this spin theory extends a lot further, and has strong implications for serve receive as what I already wrote.

 

[pingpongpaddy]

If the theory is right wouldn't that mean loop against backspin has more spin than loop against topspin or block?

No, in fact there is far more potential for strongest spin in counter spin situations than in top vs chop situations. What makes this seem counter intuitive is that against chop it is much harder work, because the lifting action is working against gravity and the looper to get anywhere has to brush faster upward than the choppers brush stroke under the ball.
top vs top the incoming balls rotation actually helps to apply topspin.
eg
incoming
100 revs
plus
return stroke 10
=110
incoming
100 revs
plus
return stroke 50
=150
there's not nearly so much muscle required but more touch and feeling for closing the angle and of course relaxing arm and wrist.

 

[blahness]

No, in fact there is far more potential for strongest spin in counter spin situations than in top vs chop situations. What makes this seem counter intuitive is that against chop it is much harder work, because the lifting action is working against gravity and the looper to get anywhere has to brush faster upward than the choppers brush stroke under the ball.
top vs top the incoming balls rotation actually helps to apply topspin.
eg
incoming
100 revs
plus
return stroke 10
=110
incoming
100 revs
plus
return stroke 50
=150
there's not nearly so much muscle required but more touch and feeling for closing the angle and of course relaxing arm and wrist.

I would disagree - topspin vs topspin is easier but topspin vs backspin will produce more extreme topspin balls although it is indeed harder because you have to match the spin of the backspin ball.

With inverted rubbers in counterlooping heavy topspin, the rubber itself helps to absorb and give back the spin in the opposite direction (note that incoming topspin and outgoing topspin is spinning exactly opposite). But although it's physically easier there is less opportunity for adding spin safely because the contact is unstable if you brush hard against a heavy incoming topspin. It's really only possible and safe if the opponent topspin has weak spin.

The heaviest spins in the game occur in looper vs chopper match ups because both sides are continuously adding to the spin of the ball in the same direction (spin continuation).

 

[Ergosquare]

Spinsight did some investigations about Spin numbers.
They measured the amount of spin some pros could generate on different shots.
Here's a translated snipped from an interview Spinsights' Hermann Mühlbach did with german magazine mytischtennis.de:

"myTischtennis.de: And it is probably also decisive whether you play the topspin with the forehand or the backhand?

Hermann Mühlbach: In fact, the average values for the four topspin variants - i.e. forehand, backhand, against block or undercut - were the same across all professional players! Despite the very different movements and conditions of these variations, the average number of revolutions was the same. This means that there is basically no advantage or disadvantage to one of the techniques. In principle, the same stroke quality can be achieved. [...]"
source: https://www.mytischtennis.de/public...--Je-hoeher-der-TTR-Wert--desto-mehr-Spin--p/

There's to note that a block on topspin also generates a small amount of topspin arriving back at the player who played topspin, not only coming from the racket itself but also from the friction the ball has with the table.

 

[pingpongpaddy]

Spinsight did some investigations about Spin numbers.
They measured the amount of spin some pros could generate on different shots.
Here's a translated snipped from an interview Spinsights' Hermann Mühlbach did with german magazine mytischtennis.de:

"myTischtennis.de: And it is probably also decisive whether you play the topspin with the forehand or the backhand?

Hermann Mühlbach: In fact, the average values for the four topspin variants - i.e. forehand, backhand, against block or undercut - were the same across all professional players! Despite the very different movements and conditions of these variations, the average number of revolutions was the same. This means that there is basically no advantage or disadvantage to one of the techniques. In principle, the same stroke quality can be achieved. [...]"
source: https://www.mytischtennis.de/public...--Je-hoeher-der-TTR-Wert--desto-mehr-Spin--p/

There's to note that a block on topspin also generates a small amount of topspin arriving back at the player who played topspin, not only coming from the racket itself but also from the friction the ball has with the table.

I can see the temptation to say all types of spin are equal. eg backspin serve no better or worse than topspin.
But in reality because of GRAVITY (assists backspin which pulls the ball DOWN towards the net) topspin and backspin should be evaluated differently. By this I mean that while a good topspin serve can result in a pop-up and then a kill which is gratifying. unfortunately. there is another side to it. The saying "even a fool may kill a good topspin serve" comes to mind. In other words topspin serves often win points but they can be vulnerable to attacking strokes even if an opponent isn't really sure what's happening.
Now consider a good backspin serve. This may win a point on occasion but its less vulnerable to opponents attacking shots.
So a good server must exercise judgement as to whether risking the topspin is justified. Juniors in particular have a tendency to overuse going for pop ups when a backspin variant is wiser especially against stronger opponents.

 

[pingpongpaddy]

The heaviest spins in the game occur in looper vs chopper match ups because both sides are continuously adding to the spin of the ball in the same direction (spin continuation)

wrong !! compare continuation (your term) looper vs chop in a 3 shot sequence
continuation (looper vs chop)
1
incoming chop
20 rev
outgoing top stroke
21 revs
result 21 revs going towards chopper
2
chopper. returns
22 revs
outgoing top stroke
23 revs
result
23 revs going towards chopper
3
chopper returns
24 revs
topstroke
25 revs
result 25 revs going towards chopper

Now consider top vs top where on both. sides the surface of the ball is rotating towards the approaching brushing rubber
1
incoming top effort
20 revs
outgoing top stroke effort
20 revs
result 40 revs (x)
2
incoming top effort 20 (effort +x)
60 revs
outgoing top stroke effort 20
20 revs + 60 revs = 80 revs
result
80 revs

3
incoming top effort 20 (effort + x)
100 revs
outgoing top stroke effort 20
20 revs. + 100 revs = 120 revs
result
120 revs

these conservative numbers show how spin in top v top rallies can increase exponentially compared with top v chop

a reality check: the above is a theoretical idealised example players on both sides are executing pure brushing strokes on both sides. The real numbers will be more conservative.
In fact in reality most strokes are combinations of brush and more solid impact.
Also in practical match situations the need to be sure of winning points preempts the desire to produce maximum spin. Which is why when you see two amateurs having a blast going fh to fh for hours with the ball arcing more and more with each brushing impact its well to realise that its worthwhile to practice other skills as well. Its not always a spinfest

 

[Ergosquare]

I can see the temptation to say all types of spin are equal. eg backspin serve no better or worse than topspin.
But in reality because of GRAVITY (assists backspin which pulls the ball DOWN towards the net) topspin and backspin should be evaluated differently. By this I mean that while a good topspin serve can result in a pop-up and then a kill which is gratifying. unfortunately. there is another side to it. The saying "even a fool may kill a good topspin serve" comes to mind. In other words topspin serves often win points but they can be vulnerable to attacking strokes even if an opponent isn't really sure what's happening.
Now consider a good backspin serve. This may win a point on occasion but its less vulnerable to opponents attacking shots.
So a good server must exercise judgement as to whether risking the topspin is justified. Juniors in particular have a tendency to overuse going for pop ups when a backspin variant is wiser especially against stronger opponents.

Let me clarify, all I wanted to express was that no matter if it's topspin or backspin arriving at the racket, the amount of topspin you can genarate is (almost) equal according to Spinsight's numbers.

When serving we have a special case because the rotation entering our racket is always zero (or very close to it).

To your points, I've made different observations than you.
I can't speak for others but for me personally it is easier to "kill" a backspin serve with an attackable length than a topspin serve.
Thinking about this objectively I realized that the spin arriving at my racket has less impact on the succesfullness of killing a serve than other factors as height and speed of the ball because the racket angle on that shot is quite vertical (I hope we have the same definition of "killing" in that sense).
When comparing two serves with the same amount of (high) spin and given speed by the racket but one with backspin and the other with topspin, the topspin one will arrive at the receiver with a bigger speed and lower arc which makes it more difficult to kill. Not to mention the impact of the magnus effect the ball will experience into the air.
Furthermore the serve with topspin will have lost less of its starting rotation when it arrives at the receiver.
To remember - the effect of the ball losing spin due to friction with the table is even more important on a serve because the ball has two contacts with the table instead of one.
Also I've never heard about the saying "even a fool may kill a good topspin serve".

Regardless of what percentage of the input spin arrives at the receiver, the question if we can put more maximum spin on backpin or topspin serves (or the same) isn't easy to answer.
In my mind the maximum on backspin serves is higher because when trying to put the same maximum of spin on topspin serves as it is possible to put on backspin serves, the ball presumably would go into the net or out behind the opponents' side after the first bounce due to the low arc and speed generated as the result of its contact with the table.

Sorry for my long post...