On September 15th I wrote a letter to the ITTF-President to protest against the plans to define a standard of a minimum friction level for long-pimpled rubbers. It refers to a letter from Marc Melzer
http://www.ittf.com/stories/Forum_de...?ID_Forumn=89&
Dear Mr. Sharara,
I was very surprised about your answer from September 9th to the letter from Marc Melzer about the issue of long-pimpled rubbers, because I read in an Interview with you in the german tt-magazine in June 2006 the following comments:
"I can understand this argument, but I am rather for more flexibility with the racket. We need material, which helps the defense players. Which coach today already places a defence player into his crew? The risk is mostly too high it. We need therefore material, which makes it possible for the defence players to control the ball better perhaps plastics. If it is permitted the companies to develop material for maximum spin then they should be allowed to develop also the suitable opposite material. It is simply not possible to standardize all material. That would like that be, as if all singer in a competition like "Germany looks for the superstar" have to sing the same song."
Now, three months later, I determine that you changed your opinion very quickly. You now say, that it's necessary that we need a minimum friction level as a standard and "...it will follow that some non-treated pimpled rubbers may also not meet the required standard and, therefore, they will be removed from the approved list."
It think this stands in contradiction to what you said in the interview three months ago, but I hope that you didn't change your generell attitude for more flexibility with the racket, and so that you prevent that a minimum friction level will be set as a standard or at least that this standard is not set so that a lot of long-pimple-rubbers, especially to produce backspin when blocking against topspin, will be bannend from the authorised racket coverings list. Please regard that we talk about "non-treated rubbers"
coming from the authorised racket coverings list. I'm the same opinion like you, that rubbers which are self-treated from players, were forbidden in the past and as well as they are forbidden in the future. The manipulation of a rubber is criminal and if a minimum friction level is set to bann these cheaters i would welcome it!
I know, that the isuee of the minimum friction level is applied to the ittf mainly from tabletennis-responsible persons in germany. You should know, and Marc Melzer mentioned it already in his letter, that there is a raising number of defence tabletennis-players, like me, which don't want to loose their rubbers from the authorised racket coverings list because they need it as a weapon against the more and more faster becoming attacking materials and there for we need your support. This stands in connection to your words of "more flexiblity with the racket." and we hope and we believe that you didn't forget them.
Best regards,
Mark Neef
Player and former president of TTF Neckartenzlingen e.V. - Germany
http://www.ttf-neckartenzlingen.de
On September 17th I got this response:
I do not see any contradiction. There is a difference between "unpredictable" behaviour of the ball (based on the point of contact between the ball and the rubber, and other factors that make the resultant
inconsistent) and better equipment for the defensive players. When an attacking player imparts spin on the ball, you can tell what he did. It is true that today with high friction rubber, speed glue and high speed rubber, the actual resultant from an attacking player is overwhelming to the defensive player. With this I agree completely. Therefore, my interview with the magazine was intended to state that "new" equipment should be developed to "counter" this overwhelming effect. In other words, to give the necessary tools to the defensive player to be able to respond to the attack. But not to give a tool that will make the attacking player make errors based on misjudgement caused by the rubber. This is not the right way. Yes, I would like more flexibility in rubbers and blades, but at the same time we need standards. The coefficient of friction is one such standard. And I hope that the manufacturers will be able to produce better tools to allow the defensive player to excel based on his/her own skills and using the adequate type of racket/rubber to allow the defensive player the ability to rally with the best attacking player. This is the right way in my opinion.
I really appreciate you taking the time to write me and expressing your concern. Your love for our sport will always prevail regardless of what equipment you end up using.
best regards,
Adham Sharara
Now some questions:
How should the table-tennis-manufacturers for defence rubbers produce better tools, when they get more and more restrictions ?
- the aspect ratio
- lower spin because of the 40mm ball
- the plans for a minimum friction level Do we really need more disadvantages for defence players ?
I think that slippery long pimples are completely calculable, since the rotation of the arriving ball is only returned: topspin becomes backspin and the opposite. For an experienced, trained player they are no bigger problem and in Germany there are several coaches which precisely adjust there players to play against slippery long pimples. And if slippery long pimples are so effective, why there's no player with this material in the top-500 of the world ?
What do YOU (player, trainer, responsible person, functionary) think about that ?