Assuming you agree with the sentiment (YMMV, of course) - why was table tennis better to watch back then? The players are better than ever before, so why isn't table tennis more exciting for spectators now?
The Golden Rule of Great Table Tennis
While I do believe that there are a number of factors that go into making table tennis that is great to watch, I think there is one overall guiding principle the ITTF has missed that is needed to make ping-pong truly great. What is this golden rule? In my opinion, it isTable tennis is at it's most attractive when the players are forced to execute reasonably complex tactical plans to win the point, and the spectators are able to understand what the players are doing.
The beauty of this golden rule is that it explains quite well the type of table tennis that I, and I think most spectators, like to watch. Let's look at the other issues that are often put forward as being involved in producing more attractive table tennis, bearing in mind that the points below are from my point of view, of course!
- Length of Rallies - Constant serve and kill rallies are pretty boring, but so are repetitive 40 stroke pushing rallies. While the type of match involving two third ball specialists is quite different from two intermediate players doggedly pushing the ball back and forth with both players being too scared to attack, they are boring for the same reason - there is no interesting tactical plans for the spectator to watch and appreciate.
In contrast, watching two aggressive players who are unable to always set up easy third ball and fifth ball winners can be very exciting to watch. The difference is that in this case each player has to maneuver his opponent in order to set up his winning shot. Since the first player to attack does not have an overwhelming advantage, he must use his tactics to create his opportunity to attack. This is much more interesting from a spectators point of view than simply watching a serve and bang match, and it is easier for the spectator to understand how one player maneuvered another out of position during the rally as compared to having the receiver misread the spin of the serve and have the server hit a third ball kill.
On the other extreme, watching two pushers who are able to take advantage of loose balls can also be an interesting match. Neither player is content with simply hitting the same push every time, but each will be varying the spin and placement of the ball, probing for a weakness, working for a better position, then pouncing on the loose return to hit a winner or strong shot to start their aggressive sequence. This cat and mouse game of tactics can be quite intriguing to watch.
In either case, from the spectator's point of view the difference is that the more attractive versions required a more complex tactical plan from each player, but one that the spectator was able to understand and enjoy watching.
- Power / Spin - The extreme power and spin in the modern game is a problem mainly in it's contribution to the serve and kill game, as mentioned above. Some people would also argue that it is difficult for spectators to understand the extreme amount of spin on the ball, but I disagree. I think that it does not take anyone of average intelligence very long to work out that topspin can make the ball jump up off a bat, backspin makes the ball go down, and sidespin make the ball go sideways. Provided the speed and spin is not so extreme that the other player constantly misses the ball (which makes for boring viewing), I don't think spectators have a problem with understanding and appreciating spin and speed.
- Skill and Athleticism - Many players (and spectators) dislike watching those matches where a player uses junk rubber and a chicken wing style (where the player covers as much of the table as possible with the funny rubber, usually on the backhand). Although it can take great skill to constantly get the bat angle and stroke correct to return the ball with these rubbers, there is no interesting tactical plan going on that a spectator can enjoy. Note the use of the word 'interesting'. There is definitely a plan at work, but from the spectator's point of view it's not attention grabbing.
On the flip side, it doesn't take a great deal of athleticism to serve and take a huge swing at the ball either. I've seen some heavy players who can almost break the ball when attacking. It takes some skill to hit the ball consistently, but again it's not conducive to exciting table tennis.
- Different Styles - Nobody wants to eat the same meals every day. But often in table tennis tournaments we are serving up the same old recipe to our spectators day in and day out - the modern power looping style. While it makes sense from a player's view to adopt the style which is best served by technology, it doesn't make for the best viewing experience. What would the average viewer rather see - a tournament with 90% power loopers, or a competition with a blend of loopers, blockers, choppers, short pip hitters, and allround players? I know what I'd rather watch. Going back to my golden rule, having a variety of evenly matched styles allows spectators to watch a number of different tactical plans being executed, which is more interesting that watching 90% of the players use basically the same tactics over and over.
