=================

I agree with this assessment.

I was starting at a level the kid does not reach (1700) and closing down on him, passing through 1600 that's still too high; then 1500 sounds about right and I imagine the kid wins 50% of his matches against 1500 rated people.

As a comparison, here's Michael Tran at 10 years old (maybe 1900-ish?) and again at 13 (approaching 2200).  Notice at 10 years old how well he can attack, but also adjust and play touch shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls4ZGuXDFN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxC1tANtu1U

People are  seeing the kid play a defensive blocking style, conceding the first attack to his opponent, and they don't like it.  Anyway points won by attacking count two, but blocking or pushing points only count one, didn't you know? 

 

at the same time, fatt is an established player, he also has understanding of Russian TT, so his opinions should never be discounted.

 

(MY opinion only) at 1500-1600 level, players are NOT consistent. Maybe on certain shots or situations they could be high percentage to make them appear to be consistent players, but at that level, they miss too much or fail to handle spin or pace or short to keep them at their level.

 

I can name an entire BRIGADE of Korean players who can be consistent with FH to FH drive  to drive fast pace never miss in 100 shots and do that sequence WAY better than me, (and I am 4 full levels better player than that crowd) yet these are only USATT level 1000-1200 HOPE division players HOPING or ASPIRING to qualify for div 5 city to put their name in the rolls at the least for a tourney.

 

I think consistency is either an illusion or isolated situational thing at 1500ish level.

 

Now if we define consistent as having an inclination to refrain from over-powering the ball and simply strive to get it back and keep it in play at a higher percentage, (without putting any "hot sauce" on the ball) then I would accept that.

Blue kid -1650.

 

I would by no means discount playing some points like this at all. Sometimes, it is a winning strategy playing with some of those tactics.

 

My first tourney I did back in USA last fall (I think JacekGM made a live post of it right after it happened) I played a pretty similar style vs a very consistent (solid mid/upper 200s level) strong looper from distance. On receive, I pushed and asked opponent to open. I stayed close to table and blocked, blocked, blocked, sometimes counter or make a spinny loop, sometimes countered, but mostly blocked fast or slow with angles or at body. That worked well enough for me and I was a full level lower rated / lower skilled player than my opponent yet that playing style worked vs that good opponent at that level. I won 3-0 and that was my 14th match of the day and opponent's 4th.

 

That opponent lost a lot of rating points, but gained them right back (rightfully as he is a good player solid mid 2000 or better) in the next few tourneys. He wasn't over-rated and now I am prolly even lower level from lack of opportunity to train/practice or play competitively.

So, you're saying that, if someone can take a higher opponent to the 5th game in a non-competitive club match, that they are on the same level? 

Hmm interesting. It's hard to judge someone's level when they are playing someone far above or below them, because naturally you won't be featuring your maximum capacity either way.

:)

Anytime.  I'm in Philly.

The issue at hand here is how good/bad people are at estimating level from videos. Not about regional differences in player strength by rating. 

Hardo move to imply you could go to a different region and run the tables.

For the ones who said the kid was less than 1500, I would say their eyesight need a good check up. 

(Red did not play 100%. Even there was the 5th game, he had skill to pull the string anytime and win. He likely played and let the kid also had fun.) 

-When he received 2000 level serves, he nicely placed his returns short or squeeze to opponent side pocket. A lot of receives were on early rise those would cut opponent response time and could effectively do short return. I never see any 1500 do that. 

-When he got attack with straight BH loop, he blocked straight back to BH. But when his opponent step away and use FH loop fro BH corner, he blocked to wide angle. Often well composure, not jumpy/awkward whatever hit my paddle 1500 level block.

1700 is fair. If he has power, 2000+ for sure. 

Smart kid. 

(BTW. He might still loose to 1500 EVIL players  with DIRTY long pips though.  )

...and why is that so obvious? 

Any possible a 10 years old could figure how to do those himself? 

The way some members express USATT 2000 makes it seem like 2000 is like 2500, like I've been 2000 without half of the things that some people think 2000 players have.

I see an easy 2000+ in the guy in the red due to his consistency alone, now I truly dont know how much better than 2000 he is, due to the fact that I truly cannot distinguish that well at a higher level.

Plus, it all depends on the context.

For example, if I play a 1200 player, I will probably look like I am a strong player while on the other hand, if I played a 2500 player, I would look like I am 1200.

 but it is good to see a young player who can return a bottom spin serve back tightly and on purpose

 he did start to attack more service returns as he realised he could at times

 still developing but a nice around game for a 10 year old

 once he developes some different serves himself he will gain some good ratings

he hasn't been taught to toss the ball up and should be called all the time so he should learn now

with futher coaching and match practice he should be a grow to be a good player

 but like others have said his current level and next probable levels will shoot up over the next few years

 

haha.

 

 

Blue kid - 1600

I wasn't being any harder on him than anybody else who plays the game. The fact is, the rule clearly says that the ball should be tossed at least 6 inches. Now granted, most people do not follow this rule, so I will cut him some slack, especially because he is short like you said. 

And he actually may be gaining an advantage from the lack of toss, it just may not affect you like it could others. The problem is, since he is young and doesn't know how to manipulate the rule and spin the ball from his hand, he may eventually learn such things. 

I just don't want him to be called out at a tournament if he starts beating someone. 

 

Jokers be lacing their salads with those special California mushrooms if they think he is only 1700. Still, it can be easy to mis-classify someone from a peak at a vid. I have more than once stuck my foot my mouth deep doing the same thing. 

I still believe he should start doing legal serves, ....otherwise well otherwise

If she's 2100-2200, he's clearly under 2000.  The way I saw it was that she was toying with him. She was running him around all over the table.  He got a few good shots in, but it was often on her mistake.  It almost seemed that if she wanted to she could just counter his loops to end the point - she did it a few times and it was very nonchalant.  She intentionally served everything long to his BH corner daring him to step around and loop.  She wasn't worried about the loop and used it to run him to the other corner. 

I could see him being 1800-1900, but that's probably the highest I would go right now.  

He also needs to learn a little about tactics - he fed right into her game.  Sometimes you need to open with your BH rather than run around and hit with your FH - especially if your opponent has shown that your opening FH loop not only doesn't present a problem, but gives them the advantage.

I once overheard a coach at a tournament tell one of his juniors something to the effect " I don't care if you are missing all those loops.  You are doing great trying to move into position.  Keep it up and soon they will be landing and you will really have a higher level game."    He was not concerned at all with her results at that tournament.  He just wanted to make sure that she was ingraining the techniques and tactics she would need for the higher level of play he was trying to get her to in the future.

Maybe something like that is going on here.  I think Larry Hodges blogged about this dilemma between playing with tactics that will give you the best chance of winning now at the expense of developing habits that will make it harder to develop the tactics and techniques that you will need later and playing with tactics that give you less chance of winning now but help you develop the skills you will need at higher levels.  He noted that part of the problem is you often need to win a lot when young to get recognized so that you get access to high level coaching and possibly have part of your training costs subsidized.

Mark  

Great point.  I didn't take that into account.

+1. My form is horrible due to physical problems, so I get very little respect until someone plays me. The reverse can also be true . . . many players look impressive, but have no game. Still, the young player here can clearly play and has been trained.

Good ole SGT Schultz...