Interesting blog on plastlic balls

This blog came up on the tabletennis11.com web site and I thought it was interesting reading regarding the plastic ball:

I agree that the plastic ball has hurt the game, making it both less interesting to play and less interesting to watch. On the other hand, I don't see any change coming.  they're not going back to celluloid, so I guess the only hope is that they'll invent a plastic that emulates celluloid better.

book4all wrote: May be, raise the net can limit the players with fast attacking that just gained the advantage from the plastic balls, help topspin players, and promote defensive play.

I've been thinking  this same thing.  If you read the comments below the blog, you'll see where someone from tabletennis11 says that they looked at raising the net 20 years ago but decided against it. However, that was in the days of 38mm balls, and I can see that a higher net wouldn't be helpful then. Now, with the plastic balls, a higher net won't bring back the spin we lost, but it will take away some of the new advantage of fast hitting.

Interesting article.. I like some of the historic background.

He also said "the harder surface of plastic which makes it impossible to give the ball as much spin as with celluloid balls".

This might well be true, but what is the logic behind this?

Trolls like to mix up arguments because they never cared about the arguments, they just want to upset people. The balls are bigger so they are going to spin less. This is pretty straightforward. No one argued that the plastic balls don't spin less.

The bigger issue is that some people argue that there are serious differences in spin between the different types of plastic balls. That is what is less clear. If trolling wasn't the aim, this simple distinction between plastic balls spin less vssome plastic balls spin less than others would have been easy to make. What would have been interesting is a plastic ball with a size of the 40mm ball. It is quite possible that the spin difference would be harder to see.

The other thing is whether the issues people are attributing to spin are really about revolutions per second or really about something else.

The article is interesting but the best players in the world are largely ranked the same way before and after the introduction of the plastic ball.

People throw around all kinds of numbers about spin and none of them are based on any quantitative objective measurement.  The new balls are bigger and slightly heavier, so they behave differently than the did before.  We have had 3.5 years to get used to it.  

The more I watch Gatien pre 1999, the more I conclude that taking the ball close to the table with a loop was a technical evolution unrelated to the change in ball. Whether it could have been done consistently at the top of the men's game is an open question but that is not the case now or then.

The idea that kids who have put more hours into their game than some of us have put into almost any single hobby in our lives are not skilled is ridiculous. Mizutani was beating ranked players at 15 years old, so where did this idea that you need to play plastic to be a TT prodigy come from?

"Another example of a player who has used this new material to their advantage is the new Japanese star Harimoto Tomokazu, who in the 2017 World Championships marched into the quarterfinals at only 14 years of age! He profited massively from the plastic ball using his fast strokes devoid of spin, hitting the ball immediately after the bounce on the table."

Watch the most recent TPAC match vs Timo.  He seems to be putting heavy spin on the ball with his forehands.

If we want to go  back to the spinier balls of the old days, should we also go back to the deader rubber and blades? 

I don't care even a little bit about the slight difference in the spin of the ball.  The game is lots of fun, the rallies last longer and the ball is more durable and cheaper.  We're all playing with the same ball.  My game was built on tons of spin, now it's not.  I've become a more rounded and better player because the plastic ball forced me to improve all aspects of my game.

Celluloid is gone plastic is here to stay . I have been using the D40+ 3 star balls for training and I have no complaints even the price is good at 144 for $80 and they are very durable . Adapt and overcome or just complain I guess.

jackwong23 wrote: benfb wrote: This blog came up on the tabletennis11.com web site and I thought it was interesting reading regarding the plastic ball: http://blog.tabletennis11.com/table-tennis-ball-evolution?utm_source=newsletter-dhs50-radivoj I thought this blog was interesting for several reasons. First, it's got a succinct history of balls and nets. Second, it has a frank discussion of the reasons behind the change to plastic balls, rather than the usual muddled hand-waiving we see from ITTF.  Third, and most interesting, is his assessment of how the plastic ball has impacted play. The comments about less spin and the need to hit earlier fits with comments that I just recently wrote to a friend.  It's nice to see someone with more illustrious credentials than me say much the same thing. In the comments below the blog, one of the commentators says that the spin difference is 5-10% max.  I've seen a couple of people make similar statements here on MYTT and I think it's completely wrong.  If you already were playing a relatively low-spin game with celluloid, then you might only see a 5-10% spin difference.  However, if you played for super-heavy top spin with celluloid, then I'd say the spin reduction is more likely 30%.  I was one of those players and that's been my experience. Yes, the reduction of spin is substantial with the plastic ball, maybe 30% less spin . Despite this fact, people like Baal, wturber and nextlevel would argue with you all day that there is no reduction of spin with the plastic ball. " The estimates are not scientific.  They are entirely subjective.  Without video the claims are just noise." ~ Baal LOL

I've wondered, because of increased weight and circumference the ball spins slower... But couldn't it still be carrying the same energy on impact?

benfb wrote: I don't have scientific measurements of spin rotation, but I can demonstrate a major (maybe 30%?) difference in spin on the ball.  On my slow-to-medium speed high spin loops, I can find multiple players who cannot block the celluloid ball more than 50% of the time, but who almost never miss against poly.  The difference is so large that it's hard to believe it's the same players.

there are many possible explanations for this beyond the spin on the ball in revs/sec or angular momentum or what ever measure you might make, but I don't want to argue this, it has been argued a lot.  For sure no number anyone provides to the 'reduction in spin' can be taken seriously without a lot of really expensive video measurement under really controlled conditions.  It is moot anyway.  Plastic balls came in 2014.  I personally started using them right away because it was obvious where we were headed.  I know that was before a lot of people did.

The point I made earlier in response to the contention that a young prodigy like Harimoto can only be explained by new balls was that Waldner made the finals of the top continental championship of his era when he was only slightly older and not much bigger.  We will see how Hariomoto plays when he has some muscle mass to go with his amazing skill sets.  (Among other things, he has a ridiculously good serve, amazing for such a young player).  It is too soon to say now.

book4all wrote: "Waldner made it to the finals of the ETTC in 1982 when he was 16" - everything has an exception. I am looking at a development trend of several Japanese younger players, and Waldner at 16 is just a case of an extraordinary talent. "People throw around all kinds of numbers about spin and none of them are based on any quantitative objective measurement." - If there is a quantitative measurement, the spin of the plastic balls will be the same, or not the same,  as the celluloid balls? "We have had 3.5 years to get used to it." - So people will be finally getting used to the inferior properties of the plastic balls, including me, soon. At this moment I am quite new on table tennis so the feeling is just fresh, hot from the oven.  "The latest versions at least have a bounce height that is comparable to celluloid that we had before.  They are also round, durable, and relatively inexpensive (at least D40+)." - I agree on this statement. Also I can add one point to it, the latest Nittaku Premium 3 Star plastic balls I received last week, are almost "vastly" different from the same premium Nittaku plastic ball I used before. The feeling of bounce are more close to 40mm Premium Nittaku celluloid balls now. Still, the spin is not improved, and the bounce, is still a little too straight when hitting the opponent's table.

The trend of younger Japanese players is more likely to be due to their more intensive national training infrastructure and not to the ball.  Most people have argued that these balls actually require greater strength, which normally comes with age.   

Also, I definitely maintain that if you don't have some video measurement system to actually count revs/sec or angular momentum, you don't know entirely what is going on.  Jackwong likes his 30% spin number.  He once claimed that two different ALC blades he has (Viscarias if I recall correctly) differ by 30% in the spin they deliver.  This is of course utterly absurd.

I agree these balls spin less.  They are heavier and a little larger in diameter.  They also move through the air more slowly, and with a somewhat different trajectory than before.  What I disagree with are the numbers people try to put on the spin reduction on the basis of what....  The Force?  Their Spidey Sense?  Their X-Ray Vision?

Those numbers have NOTHING to do with the actual spin or angular momentum on the new ball relative to the older ones, and are actually an estimate of how much difficulty people are perceiving in adjusting to the new balls.

Baal wrote: The point I made earlier in response to the contention that a young prodigy like Harimoto can only be explained by new balls was that Waldner made the finals of the top continental championship of his era when he was only slightly older and not much bigger.  We will see how Hariomoto plays when he has some muscle mass to go with his amazing skill sets.  (Among other things, he has a ridiculously good serve, amazing for such a young player).  It is too soon to say now.

Part of what we are seeing in the younger generation is the adaptability of their minds.  It's no surprise that the young generation is leading the way into a new style of TT.  Their coaches are to be commended for nurturing these new players and their style. It is much like when sponge was first introduced, when the net was lowered, or when speed glue was discovered.  And this could be the new dominant style going forward, or it could be a transition on the way to something else, as players adapt and other styles either survive or go the way of the choppers and become rare.