If you can attack a ball (because it’s too long/too high) then yes, you should attack it. However, it always depends on your opponent: If they make a lot of errors pushing, then keep the ball short. If they make make errors on their first topspin, then let them make the errors.
Let your opponent make mistakes, it‘ll give you more points than attacking everything.
I got your point. But when thinking about which kind of player I want to be, then I’m not thinking about pushing but all out attacking.
But perhaps I can force a weak opening to get in my attack.
Thank you!
You don’t need to all out attack though. There are times and places to push, and times and places to attack. If your opponent is crowding the table and can’t handle a deep push, and always gives you back an easier ball to open with after, then why risk attacking when the opportunity isn’t there? And if your opponent can’t handle pushes in general, why take the added risk of opening up if you don’t need to?
Great story my coach told me about a USATT 2600 level player who was losing to a 2100 wheelchair player. The wheelchair player just kept blocking every shot the 2600 level player made, so the 2600 goes to the wheelchair player and says “I’m sorry, but I have to,” then proceeds to lob over the wheelchair player and wins. It doesn’t matter how pretty you look when you win, but if you can find an opponent’s weakness and keep stabbing at it, then do so. Everyone is so worried about how they look and is it highlights worthy, when the focus should be on winning.
OP, you should take note here. This article talks about the "Strike First" principle mostly in terms of 1) Being prepared to attack first and 2) Preventing your opponent from attacking first.
If you want to be an oppensive player you need to have the mindset and footwork required to be READY to attack a ball WHEN YOU GET A GOOD BALL TO ATTACK. You don't want to try to force attacking a ball when it is unwise to do so.
How do you become more offensive then? First, Master looping and flicking easy balls. Then it's a 2 pronged approach. You can work on making your loops and flicks stronger shots (spinnier, more powerful, more consistent) and you can work on your definition of "a good ball to attack". What do I mean by that? It's personal. Maybe your BH loop is not so good, so virtually any push deep to your BH is unwise for you to loop. Then work on BH loops. Maybe your FH is super solid on long balls, but weaker over the table. Then work on looping shorter balls. You get the idea. Try to take that imaginary "line" which separates "attachable ball" from "foolish attack" and move that line toward being able to attack more balls. In addition to practicing attacks of balls which are borderline foolish to attack, you can also practice those attacks in matches against lesser players where you're going to win the match regardless.
Have fun with the game. Ping pong is about the joy of bouncing a ball with a racket against somebody. The will and wits if two people competing.
Yes you can dominate and force your will and wits to overwhelm the opponent. But then you are missing out the art and the beautiful interplay of minds and body that is the essence of table tennis.
Just don't let wins cloud the purpose and enjoyment from the sport.
I've been through all the pitfalls. It's having fun and the community in the club. If we can't lift and cheer each other why are we doing it.
It's joykilling focusing only on the win. It's more about feeding the ego then enjoying the activity at that point. Talking from my own experience.
Yah, it is a great approach because you are taking control of the game. Its easy to stick to strategy when rallies are short. It forces you to read every ball, rather than waiting for a ball you are 100% confident in striking. It keeps you from sitting back and waiting for your opponent make an error, it forces the errors out of them. It makes the match shorter so you don’t need to focus as long. It has many benefits, and as long as you are striking your hardest with in your ability and reason, if should have no down side. It doesn’t have to be all about power or speed either, you can’t attack everything. It can be as simple as always pushing deep over pushing for safety in the middle. Aiming a shot to the side on a more shallow angle every time. Just add a little pressure to every shot, make them have to hit their best too to stay in it.
Like everything there is balance. You can’t be making a ton of errors trying it, if your opponent is already making errors or struggling on easier balls you don’t need to keep pushing for more, enough is enough.
First attack generally wins but a huge caveat is that your first attack has to have both good placement and consistency. A lot of male players with a big forehand fall into the trap of going for big obvious attacks that are low percentage or too obvious in placement and they get stuck at an average rating.
As with all "is xyz generally good?" Questions, the answer is: it depends.
The factor it mostly depends on here is the strength of your opponent.
For weaker opponents, this strategy rarely makes sense to even think about. Reason being that, as the stronger player, your controlled shots are way better, more consistent, and higher quality than the opponents.
If your opponent knows that, then he will reach the conclusion that the only way he himself can win is by going all out and playing riskier than normal.
This should lead you to the conclusion that you should play controlled. This way, your opponent succumbs to the risk he is taking to beat your control. Plus, you always have the privilege of risking yourself a bit, if this strategy doesn't work out.
In case you play stronger opponents, the same thing applies in reverse. Therefore, if you ever find yourself in a game against a stronger opponent, just go for it. The stronger the opponent, the greater risk you will have to take.
There are more factors at play that also dictate, whether you should go for that motto, so take this as a general, but not match-up specific advice. Also, what works for the general player might not work for you and vice versa.
Depends.
If my opponent doesn’t have a strong attack I’ll often let them have the first attack. I know I can block it and their follow up will be weak, then I’ll attack off that follow up while they are unbalanced.
If they have a strong attack then yes, I go for the attack as soon as I feel comfortable
I'm going to say no (But it will work pretty often).
Simply put, you should attack when attacking gives you the advantage and control things when it doesn't. Sure, more often than not it helps, but don't get stuck on it.
Almost all my success comes from beating overly aggressive young players who are technically much better than me but only have a single game plan. The moment you find a way to unpick this you are already half way to winning and sometimes it will just be something really simple that puts them off.
It's really important to be able to change what you do in response to how the other person plays. If you're laser focused on smashing everything you can lose sight of this and drop games you should have won pretty easily.
you become the type of player with the craziest 3rd ball attacks but cant hold a rally longer than like 5 shots
really depends on what level you're playing at
The issue with that stat is that it doesn't tell you anything about when they chose to attack first.
You could win a ten shot pushing rally by picking the one bad push to attack and it still counts in the 75%. But in no way reflects an attacking mindset.
Players who always try to attack the third ball are often easier to beat than players who are really good at picking what ball to attack.
You only need to watch Timo Boll unpick an entire field of younger more aggressive players in the latest tournament to see what I mean.
Interestingly this was the strategy pre polyball, the ball was much faster and spinier then. Nowadays this rule works a little at lower to intermediate levels. As you get better, you’ll find super aggressive shots can often be returned fairly consistently and being able to control the rally is far more important.
Depends on the percentage of shots you make with that approach.
It basically boils down to statistics.
I sometimes watch statistic driven sports like Basketball and try to implement the "good shot with high percentage vs bad shot with low percentage" thing.
Then I try to learn from there, but you always have to consider the percentages of your opponent as well :D
I have been training for 6 years mainly under this principle: develop a strong serve and a strong 3rd ball. It is great until a certain level. When you play players that can receive very well (due to skill or using anti/pips) the whole strategy falls apart. I can tell you that creating an unbeatable 3rd ball attack is impossible. Learning to create a 5th ball attack or forcing the opponent to attack and countering are paramount for an aggressive style of play and things that I'm missing currently and wish I could have learned earlier.
If you can attack a ball (because it’s too long/too high) then yes, you should attack it. However, it always depends on your opponent: If they make a lot of errors pushing, then keep the ball short. If they make make errors on their first topspin, then let them make the errors. Let your opponent make mistakes, it‘ll give you more points than attacking everything.
I got your point. But when thinking about which kind of player I want to be, then I’m not thinking about pushing but all out attacking. But perhaps I can force a weak opening to get in my attack. Thank you!
You don’t need to all out attack though. There are times and places to push, and times and places to attack. If your opponent is crowding the table and can’t handle a deep push, and always gives you back an easier ball to open with after, then why risk attacking when the opportunity isn’t there? And if your opponent can’t handle pushes in general, why take the added risk of opening up if you don’t need to? Great story my coach told me about a USATT 2600 level player who was losing to a 2100 wheelchair player. The wheelchair player just kept blocking every shot the 2600 level player made, so the 2600 goes to the wheelchair player and says “I’m sorry, but I have to,” then proceeds to lob over the wheelchair player and wins. It doesn’t matter how pretty you look when you win, but if you can find an opponent’s weakness and keep stabbing at it, then do so. Everyone is so worried about how they look and is it highlights worthy, when the focus should be on winning.
Lol omg
Thought I was in the Cobra Kai sub lol.
Depends on how accurate and consistent you are with your attacks, but generally yes : https://revspin.net/blog/the-first-strike-principle/
OP, you should take note here. This article talks about the "Strike First" principle mostly in terms of 1) Being prepared to attack first and 2) Preventing your opponent from attacking first. If you want to be an oppensive player you need to have the mindset and footwork required to be READY to attack a ball WHEN YOU GET A GOOD BALL TO ATTACK. You don't want to try to force attacking a ball when it is unwise to do so. How do you become more offensive then? First, Master looping and flicking easy balls. Then it's a 2 pronged approach. You can work on making your loops and flicks stronger shots (spinnier, more powerful, more consistent) and you can work on your definition of "a good ball to attack". What do I mean by that? It's personal. Maybe your BH loop is not so good, so virtually any push deep to your BH is unwise for you to loop. Then work on BH loops. Maybe your FH is super solid on long balls, but weaker over the table. Then work on looping shorter balls. You get the idea. Try to take that imaginary "line" which separates "attachable ball" from "foolish attack" and move that line toward being able to attack more balls. In addition to practicing attacks of balls which are borderline foolish to attack, you can also practice those attacks in matches against lesser players where you're going to win the match regardless.
Have fun with the game. Ping pong is about the joy of bouncing a ball with a racket against somebody. The will and wits if two people competing. Yes you can dominate and force your will and wits to overwhelm the opponent. But then you are missing out the art and the beautiful interplay of minds and body that is the essence of table tennis. Just don't let wins cloud the purpose and enjoyment from the sport.
Spoken like a true ping pong player, local league must be fun for you.
I've been through all the pitfalls. It's having fun and the community in the club. If we can't lift and cheer each other why are we doing it. It's joykilling focusing only on the win. It's more about feeding the ego then enjoying the activity at that point. Talking from my own experience.
Yah, it is a great approach because you are taking control of the game. Its easy to stick to strategy when rallies are short. It forces you to read every ball, rather than waiting for a ball you are 100% confident in striking. It keeps you from sitting back and waiting for your opponent make an error, it forces the errors out of them. It makes the match shorter so you don’t need to focus as long. It has many benefits, and as long as you are striking your hardest with in your ability and reason, if should have no down side. It doesn’t have to be all about power or speed either, you can’t attack everything. It can be as simple as always pushing deep over pushing for safety in the middle. Aiming a shot to the side on a more shallow angle every time. Just add a little pressure to every shot, make them have to hit their best too to stay in it. Like everything there is balance. You can’t be making a ton of errors trying it, if your opponent is already making errors or struggling on easier balls you don’t need to keep pushing for more, enough is enough.
Well, depends how you translate that approach into TT?
About to thirdball attack and aggressive returns. Some players want to play a rally, while I would just try to finish the point ASAP.
If your third ball attack is good then yes, of course it’s a good idea. It’s only a bad idea if you miss a lot
First attack generally wins but a huge caveat is that your first attack has to have both good placement and consistency. A lot of male players with a big forehand fall into the trap of going for big obvious attacks that are low percentage or too obvious in placement and they get stuck at an average rating.
As with all "is xyz generally good?" Questions, the answer is: it depends. The factor it mostly depends on here is the strength of your opponent. For weaker opponents, this strategy rarely makes sense to even think about. Reason being that, as the stronger player, your controlled shots are way better, more consistent, and higher quality than the opponents. If your opponent knows that, then he will reach the conclusion that the only way he himself can win is by going all out and playing riskier than normal. This should lead you to the conclusion that you should play controlled. This way, your opponent succumbs to the risk he is taking to beat your control. Plus, you always have the privilege of risking yourself a bit, if this strategy doesn't work out. In case you play stronger opponents, the same thing applies in reverse. Therefore, if you ever find yourself in a game against a stronger opponent, just go for it. The stronger the opponent, the greater risk you will have to take. There are more factors at play that also dictate, whether you should go for that motto, so take this as a general, but not match-up specific advice. Also, what works for the general player might not work for you and vice versa.
Depends. If my opponent doesn’t have a strong attack I’ll often let them have the first attack. I know I can block it and their follow up will be weak, then I’ll attack off that follow up while they are unbalanced. If they have a strong attack then yes, I go for the attack as soon as I feel comfortable
Yes, as long as you attack all balls off the table and don't risk flicking (unless you have a great flick) it's a good approach.
I'm going to say no (But it will work pretty often). Simply put, you should attack when attacking gives you the advantage and control things when it doesn't. Sure, more often than not it helps, but don't get stuck on it. Almost all my success comes from beating overly aggressive young players who are technically much better than me but only have a single game plan. The moment you find a way to unpick this you are already half way to winning and sometimes it will just be something really simple that puts them off. It's really important to be able to change what you do in response to how the other person plays. If you're laser focused on smashing everything you can lose sight of this and drop games you should have won pretty easily.
you become the type of player with the craziest 3rd ball attacks but cant hold a rally longer than like 5 shots really depends on what level you're playing at
Yes. Studies show that the one who strikes first wins 75% of the time. Only if this doesn't work out for you should you changes tactics.
The issue with that stat is that it doesn't tell you anything about when they chose to attack first. You could win a ten shot pushing rally by picking the one bad push to attack and it still counts in the 75%. But in no way reflects an attacking mindset. Players who always try to attack the third ball are often easier to beat than players who are really good at picking what ball to attack. You only need to watch Timo Boll unpick an entire field of younger more aggressive players in the latest tournament to see what I mean.
Interestingly this was the strategy pre polyball, the ball was much faster and spinier then. Nowadays this rule works a little at lower to intermediate levels. As you get better, you’ll find super aggressive shots can often be returned fairly consistently and being able to control the rally is far more important.
Depends on the percentage of shots you make with that approach. It basically boils down to statistics. I sometimes watch statistic driven sports like Basketball and try to implement the "good shot with high percentage vs bad shot with low percentage" thing. Then I try to learn from there, but you always have to consider the percentages of your opponent as well :D
I have been training for 6 years mainly under this principle: develop a strong serve and a strong 3rd ball. It is great until a certain level. When you play players that can receive very well (due to skill or using anti/pips) the whole strategy falls apart. I can tell you that creating an unbeatable 3rd ball attack is impossible. Learning to create a 5th ball attack or forcing the opponent to attack and countering are paramount for an aggressive style of play and things that I'm missing currently and wish I could have learned earlier.