the trouble with lessons

milti-ball has its place, it is good for grooving strokes, and exellent for improving stroke recovery, because the time between strokes can be squeezed to a limit that is not possible in real play.

We all need to learn how to walk before we can run.  Multi-ball help us learn the stroke and make it become a second nature.  Coach can also mix it up as smackman said and it's call drills.  Drills are usually done at a second half of the lesson, bc it's is so tiring :).  However, if you have not mastered all the strokes, then coach may elect to skip the drills and concentrate on helping you with the stroke.

I think it has it's place and that a lot of people are too impatient to get the full benefit from it.

In my opinion the lower levels of multi-ball training are to teach you technically correct strokes. Basically it's to give you the tools you will need to win the game. Later on these strokes will become ingrained and then you can start working on simulating game situations - but not before you master the basic strokes.

takaaki wrote:   and the same goes for most people i encounter who are taking "lessons" from a "coach."  these "lessons" don't teach how to play a game, cuz their focus is always on how to do certain shots.  the problem is playing a game requires thinking about strategy and most "coaches" don't really teach strategy.

Many a point has been lost by the tactically perfect shot that didn't hit the table.    

APW46 wrote: takaaki wrote:   and the same goes for most people i encounter who are taking "lessons" from a "coach."  these "lessons" don't teach how to play a game, cuz their focus is always on how to do certain shots.  the problem is playing a game requires thinking about strategy and most "coaches" don't really teach strategy.    Thats because any stratergy is based upon the ability of the player to perform it or it will fail on the account of consistency. A stratergy is a plan which requires implementation, this cannot be achieved unless the player is proficient in EVERY element of play that the stratergy requires him to perform, any weak link means failure. That is why endless hours of drilling are needed to develop the grounding for a potentially good player, and why coaches spend hours repetively drilling proteges. On the other hand, many coaches don't teach stratergies because they have not got a clue how to.

your last point is the very point i was trying to make.  that's really the problem.

as for your first point, i do think that hours of drilling are in fact necessary.   but my point is that the drills need to reproduce game situations as much as possible.  or, to be more precise, the coach needs to teach the player how to defeat any of the "strategies" that he may encounter whenever he plays games.

i honestly believe that the problem with most coaches is that they are too focused on technique, so much so, that the technique becomes separate from tactics.  so, i think that it should be the other way around--the focus should be on tactics and one should teach techniques in order to perform certain tactics.  when you do it that way, then the student "automatically" becomes "tactical-minded" and learns to how to size up his opponent quickly and to anticipate their next moves and how to set up his opponent and put him away.

IMHO, this is the real reason why china is so dominant.  it's not genes, nor culture, nor physical strength nor the rubber or boosters and not totally money or totalitarian control (though both are certainly a part), nor that ol' "yellow magic."  what it is is that they are "tactically superior" to the rest of the world.

back in january, i translated a piece from timo boll's blog about his 4-zip loss to xu xin and posted it here on the forum.  in explaining the loss, he didn't say that he lost cuz xu was too big and strong for him or cuz his rubber was too spinny, or that he was probably using boosters cuz his racket was too fast.  he said that xu was always in position for the next ball and no matter what he (timo) did, xu always seemed to "guess right."

of course, in the very beginning, the focus needs to be solely on technique.  but, after a while, you must switch over to tactics or the "student" will just be wasting his time (and gobs of money).

y'know, i honestly believe that a lot of the coaches that i have encountered are aware of this and purposely focus on technique so as not to "let the genie out of the bottle."  cuz, once you have a good idea of what to do, then you realize don't need to take lessons anymore and pay thru the nose like we do here where i'm at.

BH-Man wrote: Match play has got to be one huge important piece of the pie in learning how to apply tactics and what I have learned. There is no substitute for it. I feel that the multiball training for me has made a huge difference in the way I go about the match and I feel I will turn the corne in a few months in improved results over the improvements I have made here already. I cannot discount the multiball training usefulness to me. It is in the process of fixing a lot of my bad habits.

+1.  Check out the “1-3-6” Training Plan from http://www.???/en/trainer/index.php.  My coaches stress similar thing.  Basically, you need about 1 hr of training, 3 hrs of practice, and 6 hrs of match play per week for a total of 10 hrs per week, before you can see any real progress.  Too bad for me I can only spend 4-5 hrs per week, and that is not enough .  EDIT: Add link.


Edited by mhnh007 - 07/27/2010 at 12:53pm

Great thread!!!

Unfortunately there are coaches who take their job solely as technique teachers. They don't focus on the actual game of the table. To find out if your coach is actually interested in your game. Ask him what your biggest weakness is or the best strength. And try to assess whether he focuses on building your game around your weaknesses or is merely teaches strokes.

All players are different and good coaches follow routine methods of teaching. Great coaches, tailor their teachings around their athlete's strengths.

For example, when I was starting out, my coach after a few counter hitting lessons immediately began working on my pushes and attacks of underspin. This launched the improvement. Once I was able to start beating players just on that strength, we continued with the rest of the game, but he chooses to work on improving areas of the game that are "new weaknesses" since the players are stronger and tightening up other aspects of the game that is necessary to beat most players in my current ranking range.

Finally coaches also don't always teach the right way to play certain styles. I've seen tons of players that can beat good players easily only to loose to a low level pip player.

Multiball in this case, does very little to work on all of the above items. It teaches you to be faster and more consistent, but not to think faster. Also does not teach you how to "manuver" your opponent to make a mistake. So its an all or nothing shot, added with mental aspect of the game - this shot is missed most of the time.

I don't disagree with you on what you're saying. There are different schools of thought.

One thought is almost a shaolin temple one - must pass through all stages of training before you develop into a good player. Must catch a fly with your eyes closed and stuff. This thought expects the athlete to develop into a good player merely through combination of skills.

Another train of thought is that having all weapons is good, but maybe building up an emphasis on a strength is enough to win. So, make the strengths stronger and learn to set the winning shots up is enough to win.

There are however some constants. Table tennis is a game of change and adaptation. Technically, tactically and strategically its always changing - every stroke and every point.

Speaking of your comments on Xu Xin and Boll. Chinese national team has people that mimic other world class players. They also review the tapes of their opponents before they even show up at the tournament!!! That's how Xu Xin was better prepared. I disagree that he is just a much stronger athlete. Besides you don't need to be one. We already have an exception to the rule - beer belly shaped Waldner who won against top "athletes".

We don't study our opponents, but only for a few minutes once we find out on which table we play. So we simply don't have the tools that the pros do. They have an entourage dedicated to having them win. So, hence the better knowledge of opponents, better preparation, and better results.

At the level of most of the people on this forum, most of us can simply benefit from a proper training and constant evaluation of our own strengths and weaknesses. Multiball at our stage can be more detrimental than good. I bet most of the people on this forum either don't know their style of play or know what style they should play.

I think the main point is, unless you have the complete set of strokes, you wont be able to play according to the tactic. So, first develop your strokes, then develop your tactic. Nothing wrong with mixing in some tactics early on, but until you have all the basic strokes, you will have weaknesses that no tactic will help you to cover up.

APW46 wrote: milti-ball has its place, it is good for grooving strokes, and exellent for improving stroke recovery, because the time between strokes can be squeezed to a limit that is not possible in real play.

Oh Dear this is such an awesome point!!!!

First I want to start off with a disclaimer: I am not perfect, my footwork and several of my strokes are lacking, and that I am, in my opinion, not close to the "golden" USATT 2000.  I do believe however that some of my ideas will get me towards my goals, and help refine my game.

icontek wrote: I know a US700 player who has at least 50 hours of lessons and insists on trying to flipkill my short serves because his coach trained him in it. gg 30% effectiveness. know the limits of your technique before you try to execute a set of tactics.

Would it be fair to say that he should continue to try to flipkill based on what he is learning in his lessons?  I mean, if he doesn't regularly use this technique, then he will never get it down, right?  Yes, he will lose lots of points, and in the short-term his tactic will backfire.  But hopefullly, eventually, his percentages will improve and then, one day, the tactic will be sound.  Just a thought. 

APW46 wrote: I hate the term 'flipkill' its so miss-leading.

Opinions on the other things being said? I am curious of your opinion as we have said alot.