Tall Players: Better to play mid distance?

I am 6'3" (190.5 cm). I have been developing my game for awhile and am finally starting to get somewhere and have noticed that as my technique has improved and consistency gone up, I feel much more comfortable when I can get to mid distance comfortably (i.e. not dropping away from the table defensively but because I choose to step out and loop).

I'm about your height, BMonkey, and I too find a little distance between myself and the table is much more comfortable and efficient for my strokes and strategy.

I read an article by a coach on the CNT and he said that, for example, WLQ stands a bit further from the table than some of the shorter players, and that even shorter female players stand notably closer to the table.

I think the trick is finding that ideal "distance" from the table. Personally, I think one of the weaknesses of the European style of table tennis is that, for the most part, they've been more willing to give up the table; whereas, the Chinese fight for control of it almost belligerently. (Oh gawd... please don't let this comment inspire a 20 page debate over Chinese vs. European superiority...) I think we saw Boll try to address this in the recent WTTC, wherein he was crowding the table a bit more aggressively than I've seen him do in the past.

So my point is, I agree fully that taller people (usually) benefit from some distance from the table, but what that ideal distance may be is subject to strategy, etc., and that "some distance" can quickly turn into to "too much distance" if one is not careful.




Edited by Anton Chigurh - 05/23/2011 at 4:11pm

Yea, I've found myself practicing just a bit deeper off of the table (1-1.5 feet deeper) and it makes all the difference. I was just wondering if this recent discovery was some commonly known table tennis factoid that I had somehow missed.

This may be a silly question, but what exactly defines "mid-distance"? I rarely play over the table and am comfortable anywhere from 5-15 feet from the table. (almost beyond the court dividers) Is this considered "mid-distance?" If not, where are the approximate cut offs?

BMonkey wrote: What differences in training regimen should be utilized when developing a mid distance game vs. a close to the table game?

Haven't read all the responses so someone might have said this already:

If you wanna develop a mid-distance based game the key thing is going to be your transition into the mid-zone.

Opening loops will still have to be close to the table and ideally would be very spinny and fairly slow to give you time to reposition yourself.

The best player of the elite to watch, is in my opinion Wang Hao, if you want a mid-distance game.
Samsonov maybe, although I don't really see his game as very mid-distanced.

The table hight is an important factor in this to me (I am 1,93 m tall). Closer to the table the ball is at a different point of it,s trajektory, often still upgoing and a tall player, from when the blade is at his side, automatically tends to pull the stroke upwards more. It,s naturally dificult to keep it forward. Or "sit" so deep with sharp knee and hip angles that moving around becomes uncomfortable, ineffective and even high risk of injuries.

Combined with a ball that is near the highest point the unwanted lift (or difficulty to press the ball) results easily in balls going over the table too long and high. With my length I can test this for myself easily. With a trainingsession, knowing where the next ball comes I can get deeper in my knees have the shoulders lower and gain a lot of control. But moving around in a match like that is not effective and too exhausting. Few steps back the risk of throwing too high and long decreases and due to different point in the trajektory the necessity to press the ball down with a forward stroke and closed angle becomes less.
When I developed my technicque I was much shorter as a child and things where definitely easier.
What helps me manage with it is currently to use a not too fast - but fast enough - seven ply blade with a hard centerlayer (somewhat same build as Osp Ultimate) and a hardish not too fast 2,0 mm rubber that allows topspin variation and when it comes to it fast loopdrives with a stroke that I can strike more upward and with more open bladeface.  For such type of strokes length can also be an advantage because it makes a powerfull stroke almost come naturally then. For someone else this can be bad technicque maybe but for me it works for the better.

Something else that can be worthwile to experiment with is to have a real slow but spinny backhandrubber to gain time for using the naturally longer fh stroke and to stay closer to the table with more ease.
Against a short quick counterdriver from both sides a tall person has no interest in speeding up the game al the time and also start making short strokes. A 1,2 or 1,5 mm defensive rubber with long pipstrukture (on an offensive blade) works wel for this for me. This fh - bh combination with variation and a lot of contrast makes my fh and bh support each other technical and tactical. My reach also helps to play the bh closer to or over the table and fh a little further. This difference is also increased for taller people and this way I try to make it an advantage. A faster bh rubber coming over the table becomes more risky for me and timed early speed from the rubber is not that necessary.


Edited by mercuur - 05/25/2011 at 6:47pm

Anton Chigurh wrote: rustyfo wrote: BMonkey wrote: What differences in training regimen should be utilized when developing a mid distance game vs. a close to the table game? Haven't read all the responses so someone might have said this already: If you wanna develop a mid-distance based game the key thing is going to be your transition into the mid-zone. Opening loops will still have to be close to the table and ideally would be very spinny and fairly slow to give you time to reposition yourself. The best player of the elite to watch, is in my opinion Wang Hao, if you want a mid-distance game. Samsonov maybe, although I don't really see his game as very mid-distanced. Thanks for the advice! It seems that slow, spinny loops would indeed buy time to get off the table a bit and setup, but aren't such loops easier to attack? It's probably so self-evident that you probably didn't bother mentioning it, but since I'm dense I'll make it more explicit to see if I'm correct: In addition to slow and spinny, I would imagine that placement is also key, correct? For example, I see Wang Hao and Ma long do this a lot--they open deep to their opponent's backhand with heavy spin (often side spin) and then step back and around to attack strongly with their forehand. I would imagine it's not a coincidence that they often go to the deep backhand corner, which pins their opponent down and mitigates the possibility of a terribly strong return. Is my perception correct, or am I even denser that I thought?

Slow very heavy loops are actually harder to block back onto the table up to roughly.. 2400 level? perhaps higher. it depends on the player also. the theory is that the topspin pulls the ball down making it hard to attack so if it is blocked back, you'll have a swing at the next shot.

racquetsforsale wrote: Are WLQ and XX both over 6 feet tall? Persson is definitely over 6'. Then there's also Schlager and Oh. That's a good mix of tall players to study.

fatt wrote: close to the table means giving less time to the other player to react to what's coming at him/her so by definition this is superior. For taller people the key when close to the table is to keep the elbow close to the body and take control of the rally with a fast forearm snap opening loop; when that control of the rally & table is achieved, the player can go back a few feet to enjoy full straight arm back swing and deliver a monster loop and, in that case, the time given away (for the ball to travel twice the distance between where the player was and where he went) is vastly inferior to the time earned with the more powerful, spinnier and faster shot the player is able to accomplish.

I wonder if its possible to get a double bouncing opening loop. Massive topspin, not too fast, low over the net.

Edited by Vassily - 05/26/2011 at 5:40am

Develop you game around where you feel comfortable, thats it, no need to get complicated.

Shut up and work on footwork.