Match against Cheng Li (2541) game 3 and 4

This is absolutely correct. I try to figure out what my opponents weaknesses are and then I will exploit them..

So are you.

I use spring sponge inverted;

You do too.

You beat me,

Then I beat you.

But the guy over there,

He uses long pips.

Pips that have been known

To sink cruise ships.

And make a ball

Do dives and dips.

And give naive young loopers

Bad head trips.

But if you should become

World Class,

You won't have to worry

About all that jazz.

Just stoke what you got

With the latest booster,

And your game will be as nasty

As a Loosiana rooster.

Pushblocking with pips

Will take you only so far.

After that you have to be

A defensive star.

And though being a D-star (or heck, even a damn good pushblocker)

These days is pretty great.

To win a World Singles

You're gonna have to wait.

(till Hell freezes over; it could--climate change)

Of course, if you are a 1300 level player and you switch to pips, you may jump 200 points, maybe even 300.. However, the higher you get with that style, the more difficult it becomes and you can't fool anyone by just slapping a piece of long pips on your blade..

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  The better you are as a table tennis player, the better you appreciate the level of skill required to play like pushblocker almost to the point you begin to enjoy watching it.  In chess, we have similar considerations about how certain playing styles are considered "boring" but they can become beautiful in the eyes of someone who appreciates the kinds of gifts one has to have to play them.  So while I agree that the general audience won't find this as aesthetically pleasing as a looper vs chopper or looper vs looper battle, the question of rating is relevant as it does ask the question of whether the critic is at a playing level that enables him to appreciate the difficulty of the style. Of course, one can very well not be and that level and still be a critic.  But it is just a data point to consider and not always irrelevant.

I think there is some truth to this.  At lower levels, you can win with LP simply because your opponents haven't had enough experience against them.  This scenario can be the one that frustrates opponents and bakes in the idea that they're unfair in some way.  I can see both sides to this - new players can be put off the sport, and LP can be a crutch to keep older players competitive.  For many new players it's just a phase they need to get through, and good coaching is the best way.

After the lower levels everything tends to even out.  I tend to do well against players at my level using LP or anti because I find them predictable and can easily set up attacks on subsequent balls, but that's come with experience and training over many years.  I see them as an advantage in my favour.  Players who are better than me are more likely to beat me of course, regardless of equipment.

At the top level the laws of physics come into play and there is a reason why the top 100 is dominated by reverse rubber users these days.  It would take something unusual or innovative to get a LP/SP/Anti world number one now.

Oliver is something of a marvel in the modern game.  I have no idea how he plays like he does, especially in the face of rule changes over the last 10 years which will have knocked him back.  I find it fascinating and I take my hat off to him - the dedication he must have put into the style is incredibly impressive.  Sure, I don't find it attractive in the aesthetic sense (a very subjective statement), but in practical, sporting terms it's amazing.