Table Tennis Rankings in Australia

[jonol]

@dingyibvs

Yeah, fair. You can still have some success even with very imperfect skills. They just need to be better than the skills you are making your opponent use, and then with some luck, you should win.
It's a simple principle but I forget it sometimes.

Often I will push super heavy but very high and slow and even decent players (1000RC+) will net it. Then I will push no-spin, half-high and fast and they will throw it off the end.

I usually have a thought like "I'm lucky he made a mistake, because this won't work against someone better", but most of the time the opponent is playing 4, 5 divisions higher than my level; he is already someone better!

The way one coach explained it was that it's not so much about how powerful or quality the shot is and more-so about if it's a shot the opponent likes and has success against.

In my opinion it also helps to have a variety of meaningfully different returns so the opponent's mental overhead that they need to keep track of is larger. Then they won't be able to just get in position and start backswinging before you even hit the ball and might be later and weaker.

Agreed that variation is good.

However, 1000RC is not a decent player. It's advanced beginner level. 1100-1200 is the starting point of intermediate if we're being generous.

Nearing 1700 is probably USATT 2000 equivalent.

 

[Archosaurus]

Agreed that variation is good.

However, 1000RC is not a decent player. It's advanced beginner level. 1100-1200 is the starting point of intermediate if we're being generous.

Nearing 1700 is probably USATT 2000 equivalent.

Lol, yeah, right. The 1700 RC players around me would take a 2000 USATT player for a ride. Most of them have been coached since they were kids and they train 20h~ a week. To me it looks a lot more like 2300-2400 because the average shot quality is higher than anything you ever see at 2000 USATT, and they don't really make simple errors. Most coaches aren't 1700.

Is it different in other states?

EDIT:
My state is about 250-300 lower than some other states when comparing division to division.
In another state, there are 13 registered 1700+ players, and they all occupy the top spots in the ranking.
The median in that state is about 650-700, average maybe 750? Slightly lower than in my state, maybe by 100.

I can tell you for a fact that a 1000 rated Australian player would absolutely demolish a 1300 USATT player, with his bad hand and one eye closed. I don't think the 1300 player would even get the bat on the ball at all.

EDIT 2:
For reference, the 1000-1200 rated players I've played get about twice the shot quality I do on every shot, make a cracking noise especially on forehands, can serve low and heavy backspin and topspin, have flicks on both wings, are able to counterloop at medium and far distance (close is a bit unreliable), move about twice as fast as I do and their stance is wider and lower. Is that really how the typical 1300-1500 USATT player plays? Maybe my understanding of playing levels is completely off.

Granted, they could just be inactive lately and under-rated or something.

Just highlights, but to get an idea these kids are probably 1050-1100 in my area.

Oh lol, that's Canada Central Coast, not NSW Central Coast. I know Canadian ratings are a bit higher than Australian RC.

EDIT 3:
For reference, the guy in charge of making the league teams estimated me at 700 a while ago. I'm not completely opposed to the idea that my playing level is around 1000 USATT but it seems a bit low.
Supposedly a decade ago I was "about 1300" according to the forums. Does that mean I'm much worse now?

EDIT 4:

This is around that 1700 rating. I think the 1200-1300 players in the clubs here would probably be neck to neck with these guys.

This is a bit weaker than the average young State League player I've seen here. The shot quality is a little lower and consistency is much, much lower. Maybe part of it is in person vs on video effect, though. State league nominal rating is 1600+-200.

Something's not adding up. I have been told that A: This year all the divisions are sandbagging and very strong and B: The rating central system here is a complete mess and to ignore it. So maybe something is funny.

EDIT 5:
There's an international pro player in my state and his rating fluctuates around 2200. His play level is so high I can't even estimate it in USATT. The pros from other states seem to be around 2600-2700 RC based on the rankings. Maybe something is just up with my state.

 

[jonol]

The only reason a club would have very out of sync ratings is if too few of the members play in tournaments that have other club members in them. Which is possible, but rare.

Generally speaking, results are more or less what you'd expect based on ratings.

Perhaps smaller states have outliers, but Victoria and NSW are consistent (and make up the majority of our players).

I'm inclined to think that your idea of what is intermediate and advanced is just a lot more lenient.

I got to 1050RC in 6 months of playing 2x per week after I started, and I am not some prodigious talent or anything.

 

[Archosaurus]

I checked some of my training partners' ratings, and they're 1075, 1107. I can't find the rating of one of them, but he plays in the same grade as those players, so it's probably similar. I would say he is slightly better than those two. I have never managed to beat these players, but it's not particularly far. Sometime next year I should be able to claw out a 3-2. Right now my typical performance is something like 1-3 and 9-10 points per set.

I've asked them if they're just going easy on me and they claim they're not. I've seen one of them barely eke out a win vs a 1350~ rated player and he was playing basically the same like he plays against me, mistakes and all.

I wouldn't really say they're 1400 USATT players by any means. They could probably win whatever U1800 event they enter. I would not say they're USATT 2000 players due to relatively mundane serving and some tactical weaknesses, even if they have the shot quality for it.

@jonol

I dunno. The absolute best amateur players in the state would be about 1800-1900 USATT, and then there's only professionals. Somehow I doubt this. Something's just funny. I think I will stop referencing RC if it's this fucked up here.

EDIT: Most of our 1050 RC players have been playing for 5~ years, are young, fit and coached to some extent. They play about 3-5 times a week, average let's say 10-12 hours a week.

So either everyone here is extremely untalented or something is weird. Even the super crazy junior kids don't manage to improve that much, it'll take them a year or two with professional coaching playing 25h/week.

 

[blahness]

Agreed that variation is good.

However, 1000RC is not a decent player. It's advanced beginner level. 1100-1200 is the starting point of intermediate if we're being generous.

Nearing 1700 is probably USATT 2000 equivalent.

No way. I know a legit retired CNT provincial player and he was just at RC1700-1800. He would smoke all of the USATT 2000 players off the table, no questions about it.

But yeah the RC system is probs quite messed up so the correlation isnt all that stable.

 

[jonol]

In most clubs I would say up to 2/3 are at advanced beginner level, or the early stages intermediate at most.

Players who comfortably sit around 1200 or higher are where I'd start to consider them comfortably into intermediate.

Worth keeping in mind that under RC system, the player with 100 rating points higher would be expected to win 80% of matches. So 100 rating points is fairly significant.

The gap between 1200 and 1500 is massive.

Advanced players will be anywhere from 1-5% of players and Intermediates of varying skill will sit between them.

 

[jonol]

No way. I know a legit retired CNT provincial player and he was just at RC1700-1800. He would smoke all of the USATT 2000 players off the table, no questions about it.

But yeah the RC system is probs quite messed up so the correlation isnt all that stable.

In hindsight, probably. 1550-1600 RC looks like it'd be about 2000 USATT.

 

[Archosaurus]

No way. I know a legit retired CNT provincial player and he was just at RC1700-1800. He would smoke all of the USATT 2000 players off the table, no questions about it.

But yeah the RC system is probs quite messed up so the correlation isnt all that stable.

That is what I believe as well. 11-0 quite easily, no contest whatsoever.

I had a chance to play with players like that one time, but they found a more appropriate partner for me, so I didn't get the chance to get gutted and hung to dry. I would have wanted to try it, though.

If I had to guess, I'd say in my state, 1300-1400 is the absolute lowest you could say is a "2000 USATT" player. The jump is absolutely massive between each 100 step from there so it's probably too sensitive to say for sure. I can get 8 or 9 points a set vs 1100~ rated players, but the best performance I've ever done is 3 points a set vs a 1300~ player in a serious game. Although he is only that due to injuries, he was higher a little while ago.

To me it seems like in the more competitive states with more players, that 1300-1400 is more like 1500-1600, though.

 

[blahness]

In hindsight, probably. 1500-1600 RC looks like it'd be about 2000 USATT.

I think 1400-1500 RC is probably about 2000 USATT... but beyond or below that i dont think it is a strict 'add x number for RC to USATT' because that also doesnt make a lot of sense for a lot of the players i see.

 

[NextLevel]

Since I did work with TTEdge, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the Australian TT scene and since RC is a US invention, I am not unfamiliar with it either. Unless RC has been strongly adopted across all of Australia for rating players as the official system in recent times, the biggest problem with it has always been that almost anyone could set up a rating pool that didn't interact with other systems. And if it has been, then the question is - how is interaction between different playing areas enforced? How are ratings pollinated so that pools of players are appropriately rated?

TTA National Rankings

In any case, this would make a good topic for another thread if anyone cares, don't want to crowd out this one (though that has been historically impossible lol).

 

[Archosaurus]

I think 1400-1500 RC is probably about 2000 USATT... but beyond or below that i dont think it is a strict 'add x number for RC to USATT' because that also doesnt make a lot of sense for a lot of the players i see.

It's a bit of a mess here. Our 1100 and 1400 players can sometimes compete neck to neck and they will have a 50% WR against eachother. I think the real difference is that the 1400 player is much better against "weird players" in actual tournament and doesn't lose to them, while the 1100 player does.

But if you watch them play and log the performance, you'd have no reason to claim either is much better.

 

[blahness]

Honestly, there is too much ego crap in table tennis (i see it in real life too) and people caring way too much about ratings instead of actually enjoying the process about playing the sport and improving. This is why I grew to really dislike TT culture (even though I actually enjoy playing and competing and getting to know people from different walks of life) because it really seems like a group of overly anal people who obsess about winning/losing as if they have nothing better going on in their lives. And also cheaters who actually seem to be sociopathic about it (ie they actually feel proud that they won and didnt actually care how they won). Just real sad.

This sort of culture is also why, a lot of people are more drawn towards other sports like badminton or tennis, which have way better cultures.

In badminton, a way superior player will still be quite happy to partner with a much weaker player and play some fun doubles without caring too much about some 'rating' crap.

For eg if I didnt know how to actually do a BH clear end to end (which is a reasonably asvanced shot) i would simply actually learn how to do it (which would be quite fun) instead of some crap about 'oh it is not required at my level' or 'this shot is just not possible to execute'.

Anyway this is a good wakeup call for me to actually spend way less time on forums because it is really time that i can actually do more productive shit like actually enjoying the sport.

 

[RPB Enthusiast]

Honestly, there is too much ego crap in table tennis (i see it in real life too) and people caring way too much about ratings instead of actually enjoying the process about playing the sport and improving. This is why I grew to really dislike TT culture (even though I actually enjoy playing and competing and getting to know people from different walks of life) because it really seems like a group of overly anal people who obsess about winning/losing as if they have nothing better going on in their lives. And also cheaters who actually seem to be sociopathic about it (ie they actually feel proud that they won and didnt actually care how they won). Just real sad.

This sort of culture is also why, a lot of people are more drawn towards other sports like badminton or tennis, which have way better cultures.

In badminton, a way superior player will still be quite happy to partner with a much weaker player and play some fun doubles without caring too much about some 'rating' crap.

For eg if I didnt know how to actually do a BH clear end to end (which is a reasonably asvanced shot) i would simply actually learn how to do it (which would be quite fun) instead of some crap about 'oh it is not required at my level' or 'this shot is just not possible to execute'.

Anyway this is a good wakeup call for me to actually spend way less time on forums because it is really time that i can actually do more productive shit like actually enjoying the sport.

I agree with the rating thing. For me, I'm always trying to do better everyday and I can say I beat most of the people at my club (half of them went to a different one since it's newer and 24/7 access), which I want to do tournaments so I can give people accurate ratings without "assuming" my actual rating. Coming from a 3 sport background, I've always been competitive in my respecting sports, but I've also come terms that it's okay to sit back and enjoy myself because I hold myself to high standards, especially when I mess up a loop or flick when I know I needed to make a slight adjustment.

I actually withdrew from my upcoming tournament in 2 weeks because 1) I just didn't feel like doing it anymore and 2) I felt like I needed to improve me, so I didn't want to waste money without holding my skills accountable (I had a few bad sessions within the past 1-2 months so I decided it was best to not do it). I'm still hesitant if I want to do it, but I know it's better if I just improve and do smaller tournaments around me so I can get more accurate ratings so it helps out with my team tournament next year.

I'm going to experiment with D09c/T05H and then early next year, I'm going to go back to my Skyline 2 Blue Sponge and try Trinity Dynamic on my BH since I really enjoyed it on the forehand (just wish it was tackier tbh). Then I'll be ready for my big team tournament in May.

 

[Archosaurus]

I agree that you shouldn't really care about or compare ratings when improving, because you just need to beat the guy in front of you at the end of the day.

But, the ratings are what they are. Generally they're pretty representative of what you can expect from someone's performance if the rating is dialed in and not super volatile. It's more objective than "I think".

In China for the longest time they had no rating point system and amateur tournaments were a disaster to setup, with completely unbalanced brackets. I think since 2019 they have an ELO style rating system, and supposedly it has helped a lot in setting up fair tournaments. So I do think having a functional rating system is really important.

That being said I'm not the kind of player to not play with someone if I think they're "not good enough" or "too good". There's plenty of things you can learn from both, and most people aren't as advanced as they think they are to the point where a slightly weaker player is a waste of time. I've been told a couple times by some people that they don't want to hit with me because I'm not strong enough, so I just beat them in the next round robin and let them think about it.

 

[chandyrandy]

Lol, yeah, right. The 1700 RC players around me would take a 2000 USATT player for a ride. Most of them have been coached since they were kids and they train 20h~ a week. To me it looks a lot more like 2300-2400 because the average shot quality is higher than anything you ever see at 2000 USATT, and they don't really make simple errors. Most coaches aren't 1700.

Is it different in other states?

EDIT:
My state is about 250-300 lower than some other states when comparing division to division.
In another state, there are 13 registered 1700+ players, and they all occupy the top spots in the ranking.
The median in that state is about 650-700, average maybe 750? Slightly lower than in my state, maybe by 100.

I can tell you for a fact that a 1000 rated Australian player would absolutely demolish a 1300 USATT player, with his bad hand and one eye closed. I don't think the 1300 player would even get the bat on the ball at all.

EDIT 2:
For reference, the 1000-1200 rated players I've played get about twice the shot quality I do on every shot, make a cracking noise especially on forehands, can serve low and heavy backspin and topspin, have flicks on both wings, are able to counterloop at medium and far distance (close is a bit unreliable), move about twice as fast as I do and their stance is wider and lower. Is that really how the typical 1300-1500 USATT player plays? Maybe my understanding of playing levels is completely off.

Granted, they could just be inactive lately and under-rated or something.

Just highlights, but to get an idea these kids are probably 1050-1100 in my area.

Oh lol, that's Canada Central Coast, not NSW Central Coast. I know Canadian ratings are a bit higher than Australian RC.

EDIT 3:
For reference, the guy in charge of making the league teams estimated me at 700 a while ago. I'm not completely opposed to the idea that my playing level is around 1000 USATT but it seems a bit low.
Supposedly a decade ago I was "about 1300" according to the forums. Does that mean I'm much worse now?

EDIT 4:

This is around that 1700 rating. I think the 1200-1300 players in the clubs here would probably be neck to neck with these guys.

This is a bit weaker than the average young State League player I've seen here. The shot quality is a little lower and consistency is much, much lower. Maybe part of it is in person vs on video effect, though. State league nominal rating is 1600+-200.

Something's not adding up. I have been told that A: This year all the divisions are sandbagging and very strong and B: The rating central system here is a complete mess and to ignore it. So maybe something is funny.

EDIT 5:
There's an international pro player in my state and his rating fluctuates around 2200. His play level is so high I can't even estimate it in USATT. The pros from other states seem to be around 2600-2700 RC based on the rankings. Maybe something is just up with my state.

This just isnt true about your EDIT 4, Zach is ranked 37 in AUS for open mens. He competes interstate all the time, i highly doubt any of your 1300s would stand a chance, having played Zach before. You can eye test all you want but Vic and NSW ratings are about the same. You can directly compare how good your 1300s are through their tournament results.

 

[Archosaurus]

This just isnt true about your EDIT 4, Zach is ranked 37 in AUS for open mens. He competes interstate all the time, i highly doubt any of your 1300s would stand a chance, having played Zach before. You can eye test all you want but Vic and NSW ratings are about the same. You can directly compare how good your 1300s are through their tournament results.

I'm not in either of those.

But yeah, you might be right. a bit too low estimate. One issue I have with these ratings is that a bunch of people just keep improving like crazy and aren't probably at their real level. One of my practice partners who is almost 1100 right now was 950~ about 4 months ago!

 

[chandyrandy]

I'm not in either of those.

But yeah, you might be right. a bit too low estimate. One issue I have with these ratings is that a bunch of people just keep improving like crazy and aren't probably at their real level. One of my practice partners who is almost 1100 right now was 950~ about 4 months ago!

"This is around that 1700 rating. I think the 1200-1300 players in the clubs here would probably be neck to neck with these guys." is what i was replying to, youre suggesting your club players are at least top 50 in the country? if so surely they would compete in interstate or at least local tournaments containing interstate players showing their real level no?

 

[Archosaurus]

"This is around that 1700 rating. I think the 1200-1300 players in the clubs here would probably be neck to neck with these guys." is what i was replying to, youre suggesting your club players are at least top 50 in the country? if so surely they would compete in interstate or at least local tournaments containing interstate players showing their real level no?

Some have competed in Nationals, but I don't know. Their ratings are artificially lowered due to injuries, though. Surely it must have been higher before. Some of them are top players in their age group. I already told you my estimate was probably low.


Internal comp today. Pretty weird results. I went 0W 3L and every set was 6-11 or 7-11 with one 5-11 and 8-11 outlier. We'd be tied until about 6-6 or 7-7 then they'd just win the remaining points, and I can't tell why. I think I must have let up the aggression or something, but I don't know. I did throw a lot of returns off the end because I went in to push a too high serve when I should have flicked it, so that might be a lot of the points.

Okay, so nothing weird about it, just shit player things. Well, the opponents I played ranged from Division 7 to 5 to an unrated Chinese guy who makes short work of Division 3 players. I'd have expected the average points per set to trend lower when I play the better players, but they didn't. Guess stuff happens. In hindsight I'm happy to get *one* point against the Chinese guy, because he didn't give me any free ones.

EDIT:

In order of skill level:

A, 6-11 6-11 8-11
B, 6-11 7-11 6-11
C, 8-11 5-11 7-11

 

[Haito]

Some have competed in Nationals, but I don't know. Their ratings are artificially lowered due to injuries, though. Surely it must have been higher before. Some of them are top players in their age group. I already told you my estimate was probably low.

Last time I played against those level of players, I came home with bruised hands XD If I caught their top spin on my hand instead of the racket it left bruise, lol.

 

[Archosaurus]

Last time I played against those level of players, I came home with bruised hands XD If I caught their top spin on my hand instead of the racket it left bruise, lol.

I come home looking like they're beating the shit out of my chest and left thigh lol.