Old Waldner video worth watching

Very nice.... Can't quite get over the shorts tho.....

How do you explain JO's apparent economy of movement?  My guess it that alot of it comes from great anticipation skills.  How can this be developed?

I, too, enjoy Waldner's overall economy of motion. He does have a big swing when playing his topspin BH though. I think the overall package starts when developing one's strokes. Waldner's stroke are compact but still very fluid and free-swinging, as opposed to the "cramped" strokes of Samsonov, Boll, and Maze. After that, it comes down to practice and being gifted --- acquiring the knowledge of where the ball can go or is likely to go, and developing a sixth sense for where it does go. If you can do that, then you're always standing at the right place waiting for the ball and you don't have to lunge for the ball.

i think in terms of ball control and placement, waldner is still the best. i wonder if today, a person has exactly the same style of play he has say in top 20 of the rankings, would his style be able to defeat the CNT? 

roundrobin wrote: yogi_bear wrote: i think in terms of ball control and placement, waldner is still the best. i wonder if today, a person has exactly the same style of play he has say in top 20 of the rankings, would his style be able to defeat the CNT?  Can't know for sure.  The thing is Waldner relied on bh counters a lot, which does not work as well with the 40mm ball as with the 38mm ball because of reduced speed with the larger ball... He would have to rely on his fh loop a lot more since his bh opening loop is not strong.

I think J-O would have been just as good if he played most of his career in the 40 mm ball/no-hide serve era. I watched him playing in the 2004 Olympics, when he was 39, beating Ma Lin and Timo and playing well in losses to Ryu in the semis and WLQ in the bronze medal match. Those Olympics were played with the big ball and with no hide serves.

roundrobin wrote: yogi_bear wrote: i think in terms of ball control and placement, waldner is still the best. i wonder if today, a person has exactly the same style of play he has say in top 20 of the rankings, would his style be able to defeat the CNT?  Can't know for sure.  The thing is Waldner relied on bh counters a lot, which does not work as well with the 40mm ball as with the 38mm ball because of reduced speed with the larger ball... He would have to rely on his fh loop a lot more since his bh opening loop is not strong.

considering the physical conditioning of CNT players that evn if you have good placements they can get to the ball even if its on the opposite sides of the in a very fast manner. though if you have a body and physical strength of WLQ and the playing style of waldner that would be the day!

i think it was the world singles championship in 1987 new delhi india? where waldner finished 2nd to jiang jiliang? he demolished the CNT #2 and #3 before facing jiang in the finals though. and he had a fever here due to a virus? not sure

Waldner has a calmness and a relaxed style that opens up freedom of movement IMHO. Just think to the times when you are relaxed playing, I'll bet you play better. He also exudes confidence. He is amazingly versatile and can hit the ball from anywhere but has his own style that just works. Apparently, his training in China was crucial to him getting to the next level though. His tactics are as good today as they ever were. The difference is that it becomes harder to execute exactly the same style since so much has changed since those glory days, especially at the highest levels where physicality is at an all time high in the sport. (ball size change, glue ban, service rule, 11 point game, etc.)

Edited by dauntless - 01/08/2013 at 3:54pm

It's much easier to block the power loops today. It's also much easier to execute power loops so it sort of balances.

You just cannot compare different eras in TT, and 38mm to 40mm was a big change. Waldner would not be so successful playing his style, even at his peak, in the 40mm era, and the current crop of Chinese would not have been so dominant playing the way they do now, back in the 38mm days, they would have needed a little mote artistry to their games ( like Kong ) 

Waldner had an ability to control the table and mix spins, power, and placement such that he could always beat the Chinese (when in his prime). I think the thing was his BH was so ridiculously strong that he didn't have to budge from his spot and could finish a point from BH even out of position. That BH has a crisp snap to it that could disguise the amount of power applied. He also had a sick FH that used lots of side to spin out away from opponent. But he IMHO is the best of all time... unmatched in terms of creative ability to win in so many novel and cool ways... the game has been SO much less interesting without him. To me, today only ZJK has approached this level. I do think Fan Zhendong COULD be the next great player to approach Waldner. I can't wait for the NEXT Waldner as my excitement for the game is waning a bit without the thrill factor of watching.


Edited by smash_fan - 01/11/2013 at 6:44pm

Sincerely speaking, to see Waldy playing MaLong is a sorry sight. Infirm Lion King, so pityful... Yes...

Baal wrote: smash_fan wrote: Waldner had an ability to control the table and mix spins, power, and placement such that he could always beat the Chinese (when in his prime). I am as big a Waldner fan as anyone, and agree with some of this, but the truth is he lost to Chinese players many times, even in his prime.  Also, unlike his teammate Persson, he had no real BH loop to speak of, although he could do many other things from that side that were amazing -- especially his last second down the line shot.

Have to agree with Baal here. Waldners bh was, for the most part, considered to be one of his weaknessess. From the book "When the feeling decides" I also seem to remember that JO back then (1997) had a positive record against all of his opponents, except for the Chinese, where he had a negative record against many of them. I still consider him to be the best, despite that.