His definition of an expert player is to be ranked in the top 1% of active players in your country, which, in England, would put you in the top 250 players.  Here in the US, according to ttspin, there are ~8100 active players so that would put you in the top 80 with a rating of around 2450-2500.

 

His guinea pig is a 24 year old "basement player" and the plan is to have 1 hour sessions everyday for a year. 

 

I'm thinking that's pretty tough, maybe impossible.  Anyone think it's doable? 

Here : His definition of an expert player is to be ranked in the top 1% of active players in your country, which, in England, would put you in the top 250 players.  Here in the US, according to ttspin, there are ~8100 active players so that would put you in the top 80 with a rating of around 2450-2500

 

Especially clutch play and handling nerves. Has to be part of a top player's make up and controlling one's nerves needs time and enough backdrop of such situations where one gets to know one's response and then develops ways to counter it.

Thats the only aspect I think he might have a major issue with.

I agree that at 365 hours with the coach, it might be too few. If, however, in addition to 1 hour with a coach, there is 7 more hours of training with a partner, then this number would be close to mine. I'm very far from 2500 though. 

I am looking forward to the result of the challenge though. I think it whether the goal is achieved or not, it will certainly tech us many things.

Forget about rallys, fancy spins etc - just focus on winning the point on serve or the return!

precisely my point - you can learn serve/receive/rallying but you might not learn real time tactics, understanding play styles, countering them - definitely not to 2500 level without that kind of voluminous experience..

Getting to 2000 level in a year with no special talent to begin with,even with a coach would be an achievement in itself  

Very true. Many kids even have 'live-in' coach, and train 3-4 hours a day, they went to any tournament available, and they still need around 4 years to get to a so call expert level.

I don't think you can get into the English top 250 in a year playing an hour a day, however talented an individual may be. I don't see the connection with Des Douglas at all, it takes a minimum to master the basics for everyone, and that takes more than a year even if you play all day every day. Chester Barnes won the English mens singles in three years from scratch, but he was playing constantly, and it was the last year of the three where his class showed above those around him.

There is a big Difference between English 250 men's ranking and 50. I am just outside the top 100 atm, and I rarely lose to players lower than 250, but only occasionally beat players in the top 50, the last one was about 3 weeks ago. We also have to remember that in England, we don't rate everyone, only players who are active in ratings events, the majority of TT played in England is in local leagues and every town/city has some quality players who are not active nationally, but still play, so they are not included on the ratings list. 

 Can He Do It ?  No chance. But they will learn loads trying and It will be interesting to see how far they get, but IMO not far on 1 hour a day, however it would be easy to cheat

 No, but we wouldn't know if he did would we? I still think it would be pushing it to succeed in the challenge if he played 8 hours a day let alone 1.

 Just so we have a rough Idea, these players are around the 250 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnTpEc0QWA8

the above statement from the coach's blog indicates he is allowed to play with who he wants outside of the 1 hour coaching: robot, friends ....this should change the tone of this thread, where many of posters assert the subject could only practice 1 hour a day

Yeah - your instincts are formed in part by the opposition you play.  

You serve a ball, you think you are safe and your opponent creams it for a winner.  

You loop the ball wide, you think you've won the point, the return comes back even wider and you are out of position.

The problem is that those two things I just described happen every time you improve as the quality of serve required to prevent the attack or the quality of loop required to win the point get higher.  And it is hard to be inspired to reach that level of quality without the right kind of opposition.  In fact, America makes it easier to get there than most countries because you can decide to play only Opens until you get to the required level, though the lack of wins may be demoralizing...

Interesting idea, however, it would probably work best if you could enter a single event as unrated, only play matches against a bunch of 2500+ players, lose every single match, and get a rating of 2250+.  Your rating would be artificially high, you'd be in the top 300, but at least you could say you were high ranked at one time! 

It's great to see so much discussion going on. I thought it might be helpful if I clarified a few things and then was here to answer any other questions.

I actually spoke with Larry Hodges, Michael Levene and Ben Johnson earlier this week to try and have a go at estimating the USATT rating of a top 250 player in England. 

Together we estimated that the top 250 level was the equivalent of roughly 2100 in the US. I am around 150ish which we thought would be about 2200. Then top 100 and Top 50 were getting closer to 2300 and 2400, or something like that anyway.

For those of you that said it's completely impossible to reach a 2400-2500 level in a year... I agree with you 100%. In my opinion that is a step too far. I chose top 250 because although it was a very challenging target there was still a chance that it could be achieved. I could have chosen top 400 instead (and that was the initial goal) but I decided that if we were going to do this we might as well really go for it and aim high!

When it comes to actually accumulating the ranking points Sam is going to need to receive a "fair" initial ranking after his first period of competing otherwise there will just not be enough tournaments to clock up the points. I think if he plays enough events over the summer period (July-August 2014) he should get enough wins and losses against currently ranked players that he can start somewhere on the list with points in the bag and not have to go from 0 points.

I contacted the ETTA and asked how many registered players there were this season and they answered 25,000. 

The majority of these players will be local league players (somewhere between a basement player and a tournament player). They are serious enough to play pretty much every week for a team, have joined the ETTA and have many years of matches experience but they don't general travel around to tournaments on the weekends etc.

There are currently 628 players on the senior men's list because you only get a ranking if you have played one of these ranking tournaments in the past 5 months. 

Top 250 would make Sam "roughly" in the top 1% of active competing players in England. It's not exact but you get the idea.

Thank you to "tom" for clarifying the one hour a day rule.

Personally, I'd love Sam to get in as much practice as possible. He's not limited to one hour a day by any means. Realistically he has to work and so do I so he isn't going to be able to play full-time or anything. 

I hope to have had 365 hour-long one-to-one coaching sessions with Sam during 2014 but on top of that we will be... 

1. Doing a few intensive training camps (we are doing one for 3 days starting on Monday)

2. Going down to some local clubs to give him exposure to a variety of players

3. Doing physical training outside of the hour table time

4. Sam will do some independent service practice every day (or at least he should be)

5. Entering him into some local leagues for the 2014/15 season for weekly match experience.

I think if we shipped Sam off to the WSA for 12 months and had him train full-time he would almost certainly come back a top 250 player (or very close). We are fitting this around work and a social life so that hopefully players in "normal" circumstances can see what can be achieved with the limited time we all have available.

"grscatman" mentioned working solely on serve, return and 3rd ball attacks. At the moment we are working on the basics because personally I feel this will pay off later (despite the fact it isn't realy transitioning into his matches yet). 

However, I do agree that sooner or later we will need to adopt a similar selective style of practice if he is to have a chance at winning. I'm am a big fan of the Tim Ferriss method of deconstructing or "hacking" a skill and working out the essential/necessary elements. Once Sam has all of the strokes to a decent enough level and has mastered footwork and control of the ball we will begin training almost exclusively to try and win points. 

We don't wont to find ourselves in December with a technique that looks flawless but it useless in a match situation. Serve, return, attack, variation, deception, winning patterns will all become the focus once the basics are mastered to an acceptable level.

Sam is very much your average young guy. I didn't choose him because he was super talented or had played a similar sport to a high level. I selected him because he was an old friend, had genuinely developed a real love of table tennis (he bought the robot long before I even mentioned this idea to him) and I thought it would be a fun journey that would teach him, me and everyone following something insightful and useful.

Since we started training I think I've actually realised that Sam is probably less "talented" that I originally thought. He's not uncoordinated but he's certainly not a natural. Sometimes he makes simple errors when starting off a rally or doing a sidestep that are baffling!

I think it will be very interesting to see if this holds him back (as many would assume it would) or if together we can find ways to get past it.

I'm a young coach (I'm 24 and this is only my 3rd year coaching) and I haven't taken a player from novice to anywhere near expert before. I'm certainly not the "best" coach Sam could have for this and I'm learning too as we go along.

I'm of the opinion that it's in Sam's best interests to get input from as many coaches as possible. In the second week Mark Simpson came and gave him a session which proved really valuable. I'm hoping to get as many coaches from the UK involved as possible as they all probably have different strengths and ideas that Sam could benefit from.

This project is certainly not about me trying to show off how great I am or hog all of the praise for myself. Sam is doing most of the hard work and I think our chances of succeeding are increased with every extra coach we get on board who gain help direct us and detect areas for improvement.

So that's everything! Sorry I went on a bit and thank you to everyone that is supporting what we are doing and helping get the word out about it.

Take it easy.

Ben Larcombe

Guys the goal isnt the 2500 its the experience we get from it. If your goal is 20 (impossible) after an all out effort and due to external and unpredictable circumstances you will reach maximum 15 -16 maybe 17 trying out your best.

If your goal is 15 you will reach maximum 12-13, because you initially settled your mind state to an easy and achievable goal and you will never achieve greatness or excel at what you are learning/practicing if you think like this.

So for me maybe Sam wont get there in a year but if he continues to try like he is , (Im watching all of his videos) he will get there pretty soon and much faster than many players who just train without a serious goal and just EJ all the time, writing their "expert" opinion in the internet forums where no one can see you play :)

The most common thing I hear in training from my players is (always laughing at me when they say it)  "George, I cant do that ru crazy dude ?" 

Well the answer is always the same "Try it out first, and then we will talk about how impossible or difficult it is" . I "hate" to say that most of the times im right.

The whole idea of Ben is fantastic, through creative criticism and conversations I hope we can give him ideas to help him improve as a coach and Sam as a player

The only in depth catalogue I have come across of this type of study is 'Breaking 2000' and his improvement curve was well outside your target. Good luck though, if you pull it off, you will have done the proverbial 'Brian Clough' of TT.

 Well, sorry to be picky, but you are using two different sets of figures to come up with your 1%. If 24,372 players are not on the senior men's ranking list, you can't include them in your percentage calculation, as you know, any player can get a ranking by entering an event included in the ratings scheme regardless of their standard of play. Likewise, players of a very high level can appear to be very low. Our number one junior is 13 on the current senior list, but our number one cadet, who appears at no9 on the junior list is 626 on the men's list because he has not played enough senior events. Our system is difficult to understand for many around the globe, but I honestly think you will bring English TT down if you make it appear that a player can go from basement to the top 1% in a single year.

IMHO, the quirks of ETTA's ranking system are not Sam's fault, so I don't see how coaching a player to reach ETTA top 250 in the course of one year can "bring English TT down". His goal is to attempt to produce a player that will be ranked inside 250 of all "active competing players in England".  I play in 3 different local leagues in the south-east, and the top division of each has nationally ranked players, both seniors and juniors, including players inside top 250. Such players are universally at the top of the division they play in, and while they sometimes lose a game to a nationally unranked player, they still are within or very close of being in top 1% of the league's players. So, IMHO, Sam's guesstimate that being ranked in ETTA's top 250 is more or less equivalent to being top 1% of all league players is quite plausible.

 How can you believe that ! that is just the kind of thinking that makes players obsessed with 'rankings' believe they are something they are not. It assumes that everyone currently ranked is superior in standard to anyone who is not, this means that the 628 seniors who are on the current ranking list are in the top 2.5% of all active English players. I can pick plenty of names out of that lot that are not even in the top division of their local league, let alone near the top of the averages.

The Rankings get more accurate higher up, Between 200 and 300 I have just counted 33 players I have played against in competition, and I can tell you its not possible to attain what is required to join their ranks in one year from basic basement level, in fact its a bit of an insult to them to believe its possible. 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Good luck with your project

BTW: Hmmmm that's "jrscatman" - not "grscatman"

Ok, so you are using the "Tim Ferris" accelerated learning technique. I have been 

reading some of his books and watching the youtube videos to figure it out.

From a marketing point of view - perhaps you can get Tim Ferris involved - as I understand it

he plays TT in California. 

I would be interested in your deconstruction of what is required achieve this for TT.

For those who don't know Tim Ferris - he claims to have become a top Tango dancer in 1 year. Learned Kanjii - 9 months, became a chef is a short time - his theory is learning can be accelerated by deconstructing the required steps to go to the top. I believe Ferris thinks you can achieve top 5% performance within 9months - 12 months in any task.

Very interesting project

Good luck

APW46, you're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not claim that all 628 ranked seniors are in the top 2.5 percent. Nor did I (nor Ben for that matter) made the assumption that all ranked players are superior to all unranked ones. All I said was that played ranked inside top 250 tend to be among the best of all players in their local leagues, hence being inside top 250 is actually a good indicator of a players level. Perhaps you play in a league where players ranked 200-250 are not good enough to be at the top of their local league division, but all this means is that your league is an exception, not a rule.

 I only take issue with the fact that being in the top 250 puts a player in the top 1% in terms of standard out of 25000 players. It actually puts a player in the top 40% of players who appear on the current ranking list, nothing more. There are many many players out of that 25000 who are proven in standard, still active in local league, but do not play ranking events, or are not on the mens list because they have only played Junior or vets events. I do understand Ben is just using this as a guide, but I think that by using two sets of figures, and the careful use of the term 'active competing players in England'  he's blurring the definitions a bit between local league and ETTA ratings events. 

It's great to hear your opinions and of course they are going to differ depending on your beliefs regarding "talent" and table tennis.

The ranking list isn't perfect (I think we would all agree on that wherever we are and whatever system we use) it's just an indicator of performance level.

To simplify we can forget the top 1% thing if that is unhelpful and just agree on this...

I must admit when Ben 1st sold the idea to me, I was not convinced it was possible, then after just a week or 2 of training it was incredible how well he had learnt the technique of some of the shots and thats when i started to believe it could just be possible.

Anybody who knows me will know my whole game is pretty much based around serve, receive and 3rd ball, so combining that with Ben's coaching will hopefully allow some improvements in more specific match-style situations.

The other big things to come out of this conversation on here so far is the "experience" factor, "those wily old players with 30+years of experience may be too clever for someone so new to the sport"

and also the transferring of good play into matches "it's one thing to do it in training, but can he do it in a match"

Both of these things are issues for any developing player regardless of level... I've been playing 17years, play at a pretty high level and just today got beaten comfortably by someone not much better who played very well tactically.

But these things are mental issues and on top of Sam's normal "on-the-table" practice we will hopefully work on his mental strength too. Skills such as imagery can really help speed up the learning process and help him to think better under pressure and as a result play better, and also I believe, learn to deal with the different styles a lot better too.

As with Ben earlier... sorry this post was so long, just came across the conversation now and spotted some talking points cropping up more than once so hopefully have given people a bit more hope in the attempt 

E-XACT-LY!

Again, assuming we are absolutely clear what an expert is... this duck quacks like trolling.

Unless one begins with a FZD twin, and that still would be a question mark...

 what Im saying is the student will have to enter , compete and beat expert players so to become a expert, so how many matches will it take?

lol. 1500-1600 imo. 

 

Good luck moar power to 'Ya... But I think U Is seriously California Dreamin'

 

Yeah...what Imago said! 

What did you say?

Impossible? I don't know. I guess few things are impossible so I'll put the chances at 1%. 

I just don't see how it's possible to reach 2000 in a year. There are more elements to becoming a very good player than just practice IMO. What makes ZJK so great? Is it because he has practiced more than Ma Long? No. He's known for being clutch and big in the big moments. That's stuff that is hard to teach.

I don't think with continued practice, natural progression is to simply keep going up & up. Sometimes players plateau. Perhaps it's physical limitations or perhaps it's more mental or drive. There could be a variety of reasons.

The best player at our club (here in the states) is a 2100 level player. He's been playing I believe since he was 8 or so. I know for a fact he went to Europe to train as a kid. He's been playing his whole life. To suggest that someone could come even within a 100 points from him is simply crazy.

The game is simply so different in style of play (that you have to learn how to beat) from 1200 to 1500. From 1500 to 1800 and on up I'm sure. It's almost like a completely different sport IMO.

How will Sam train? Will he be training to play your typical off the table loop/attack game? The game he'll need to be at that 2000 level of play? That's probably the safest bet right? What's going to happen at 1400 when he plays for the first time a player who hits with little to no spin. What if that person plays long pips? It'll will drive him nuts. Guarantee.

Having said all that, I'm excited to see how the year progresses for Sam. Anybody know how many tournaments he'll be playing in this year? Have to test out the results right?

Then it's interesting to note that $20,000 does not buy someone a 2400 rating.

Sandiway

 I think that 250 rank in England is considerably higher in standard than US 2000 rating though.

is there a difference between a Cdn 2000 and a US one?

I think that's just about anybody.

While this experiment is fun to talk about, I'll be shocked if at some point Sam doesn't say "forget this, I need a break" and either quits or takes some time off in a couple months.

I would take this offer if I don't have to worry about my better half.  After all let's say you play 3-4 years with coaching once a week to get to 2000 - it isn't nearly as efficient.  I assume if you missed a day of coaching in this program, it could be made up within the week.  So 6 days of training will be quite efficient and doable vs 3-4 years of 3 to 4 days.

Yes of course. I was actually writing in response to to suds' comment above ("I just don't see how it's possible to reach 2000 in a year"). 

One hour coaching per week, and say 10 hour of playing\training per week, going from scratch to 1800 in a year is awesome, specially the guy is 50 yrs old. I have to ask all the coaches I know to see if they have this kind of success. Congrats. 

 Sorry, I didn't read back. I base my comparison mainly around playing Baal many times over a weekend, he is a solid 200 to 300 standard ranking in England, and his USATT rating is 2200+ if I remember rightly. It would be IMO virtually impossible to get to his standard in one year, although it may well be possible to get a player to look the part technically, learning how to win against players that standard takes considerably longer. 

 I have a pupil who can drill fantastically well and would technically appear 2200 easily, however his true rating would be around 2000.

I do not have a ranking myself, as I do not go to tournaments and local leagues are not ranking events.

Yes, I think this is certainly possible. At least, I've heard coaches in the USA claim they've taken a basement player to a rating of 2000 in a year. How basement might be a debatable point.

Sandiway

Maybe it's in your mind. You already think you understand the game at an expert level when you don't ...

Sandiway

More I think about the issue - Basically Serve and Return are the keys to winning table tennis matches. If you become a master at these 2 shots first - then worry about other things later. When I started learning the Chinese coach didn't teach me serving and returning until I was reasonable at looping and hitting. Perhaps we need to do the reverse.

My biggest problem with high level players is returning their serve, 2nd biggest problem is my serve - they kill it or have me back on my heels with their return. So question is can you develop a National level serve and return in a year? 

after all, ask yourself

why cannot every single player on this forum reach then first percentile, then??  (much less, in a year's time???)

not every player - no matter what/how the training - will become first percentile material

:)

You have to have the strokes to back up the strong serve. Otherwise, your opponent might simply reflect your spin back to you and now you can't handle your own spin.

Even if you fake the spin and the opponent pops it up, you need to have the footwork to move to take advantage of it.

Not every return is going to be in the net or off the table unless the opponent is way below your level...

Sandiway

Look at Pushblocker - he's got a serve and block. Maybe a smash. Look at his rating. We are learning a lot of things we rarely get to use in a match.

Given the constraints of this challenge - learning 3 or 4 strokes is doable. Then again as In2spin mentioned, you still need to be able perform and win the match! Which might not be teachable.

It hurts me to say that I agree with assiduous, but this is patently true.

You don't need good form, proper footwork, decent strokes to peak at 2000-2100. Then you can spend the rest of the time undoing the damage.