Result: POPPs won 7-2
A good display all round by POPPS who secured a hard fought victory after some closely fought encounters. John and David had been training on a new “winalot” diet and that was exactly what they did, winning all their matches. Peter was a little off colour, lacking that shiny coat and energetic bounce and he let slip several good positions and came away with rather a “hang-dog” expression after winning just one of his matches. More Bob Martins required here I think.
Surviving, as we barely manage to do, in the culvert ridden, monster infested nether regions of League 3 in the Halifax League, we already, in our first season, have had to face up to dramatic and enforced changes in our perception of table tennis (or ping pong) as a major obsession of the world’s leaders, as a daily engine of our real-life activities and as an emotional roller-coaster dictating our every mood and relationship.
No, dummy! It’s a game (or sport , if you insist) played with two small bits of rubber-covered wood and a tiny white ball designed to be hit at 100mph at your opponent on the other side of a lightweight dining table!
Well, er……yes, perhaps: or possibly neither. Wherever we, as individuals, choose to place ourselves between these two absurd extremes, this Japanese film, PING PONG, covers ALL the ground on this subject. Thoughts of murder, suicide and most other horrors known to man are an integral part of this dramatic examination of Japanese responses to the opportunity to play with their balls – and that’s just the boys!
As a piece of drama, it’s like watching an experimental production of Hamlet, set on another planet where Macbeth is Hamlet’s brother, King Lear his grandfather and Richard III his uncle. Apart from one wise old female crone, wheezing away like a Japanese pre-Miss Marple Geraldine McEwan, the female participants were generally relegated to simpering and giggling non-participants (i.e. fans) with little or no influence on the ugly, loud and angry struggles of the main protagonists. In Shakespearean terms, it was a tragedy because of its obsession with its own bodily functions or a comedy because this obsession made one laugh. The Japanese language and its delivery by actors undoubtedly made it difficult for those of us from other cultures to ‘go with the flow’ and actually follow or detect an actual coherent storyline. After a fish-eye like close-up of one of the main characters delivering what sounded like the ultimate threat, the subtitle then flashed up on the screen “what IS all this blocking bollocks anyway?” Hysterical laughter inevitably ensued.
However, to watch such a film gives us a unique glimpse into a culture, an attitude and an interpretation of life and sporting activity that would otherwise remain unknown. As a commentary on the impact of table tennis on the home and school lives of a community of Japanese teenagers and their mentors it was almost certainly accurate and meaningful. For those of us languishing in the basement of Halifax League 3, it was eye-opening and thought provoking in a detached kind of way, but had to be enjoyed as pure entertainment rather than used as an aide-memoire on alternate Monday evenings.
DG
Playing: PETER ‘Silver Streak’ MCMULLEN/JOHN ‘Pie Man’ TAYLOR/DAVID ‘Doggy Blanket’ MELBOURNE v. Mick Curry/Dave Lewis/Brian Hanson
Set 1: PETER v Mick – result 11-3/5-11/12-10/10-12
Game 1: Tentative start from Mick with Peter achieving an apparently relaxed approach with good focus, maintained throughout the game to victory for Peter. Good start that promised well.
Game 2: Better start for Mick with Peter less consistent than in the first game. Mick was playing much more confidently, particularly with his wide game and soared ahead with Peter never able to catch up.
Game 3: Error strewn game from the start with a lot of frustration on display from both players. Peter’s smashes were wayward in this game and Mick just managed to get on top at the end.
Game 4: A cagey game with both players scoring on smashes. Score remained even up to 9-9 when Mick pushed home with his tricky serve.
Set 2: JOHN v Dave L. – result 4-11/8-11/7-11
Game 1: David L. consistent and unspectacular from the ‘off’ with John losing points across the board.
Game 2: Dave L. consistent again but John rallying to 8-8 with more careful play before the game slipping away.
Game 3: Even game until 6-6 when Dave L. pushed home accumulating lost points rather than winning shots.
Set 3: DAVID v Brian – result 9-11/5-11/10-12
Game 1: Dave on good edge of table balls, impassively moving the ball around, a closed book to his opponent. This was an even game decided at the last with neither player keen to give ground.
Game 2: Dave lost rhythm early on and never really recovered.
Game 3: A few excellent shots from Dave holding the score to 7-7 before inconsistency set in allowing the game to drift away. Dave recovered to 10-11 but finally let the last point pass him by.
Set 4: JOHN v Mick – result 12-10/11-9/6-11/5-11/5-11
Game 1: Solid start from John to 10-6 but then slipped back to 10-10 before pushing over the line: a good game for John.
Game 2: Mick more determined at the start with John losing focus a little until fighting back to 8-8 and then pushing home to lead 2 sets to 0.
Game 3: Mick pushed harder from the start and was much more aggressive, with John not quite in control of his game. Mick’s aggression paid off with a confident win.
Game 4: Mick now confidently in charge, working harder on every shot and easily moving to a winning margin.
Game 5: Both players tense at the start of the final game, with both trying too hard. Mick caught the luck of the bounce and worked hard, particularly with his tricky, twisting backhand serve and pushed to a comfortable victory.
Set 5: PETER v Brian – result 12-10/3-11/2-11/7-11
Game 1: Even start with Peter a bit careless but Brian not playing particularly well either. Brian was foxed by some of Peter’s wide shots but fought to a close finish and a narrow victory for Peter.
Game 2: Peter not in the game until 1-7 down by which time the match was effectively won.
Game 3: Brian gaining in confidence from the beginning of this game with too many over hit shots from Peter, giving an easy game to Brian.
Game 4: Good start from Brian and some misses from Peter put Brian in an unassailable lead. Peter not seeing the ball as well in this game. Fairly easy win for Brian.
Set 6: DAVID v Dave L. – result 5-11/2-11/6-11
Game 1: Evenly matched at the start but Dave L. edging it with greater consistency and with Dave pushing too many balls long.
Game 2: Dave seemed to lose focus and confidence in this game and had no answer to Dave L.’s deceptively easy style of play.
Game 3: Dave lost ground at the beginning and never really recovered against a laid back opponent.
Set 7: JOHN v Brian – result 4-11/4-12/10-12/5-11
Game 1: Brian was now playing very confidently and was more relaxed and in control in contrast to John who was now starting to look tired. The first game slipped away almost before it had begun.
Game 2: John held his own in this game, regaining lost confidence, brushing off his tiredness and pushed home to a tight victory.
Game 3: John competed all the way through, point for point, but was just pipped at the death.
Game 4: Brian rapidly moved through to 3-9 which simply left John with too much to do.
Set 8: DAVID v Mick – result 5-11/13-11/12-14/11-6/9-11
Game 1: Mick’s awkward twisting backhand serve to the fore again. Dave was moving around the table well but Mick’s consistency enabled him to win the game confidently.
Game 2: A well-matched game with Dave moving forward much more and managing to just squeeze out a victory.
Game 3: Similarly close game with more rallies, lucky and unlucky shots with Mick this time just making it first to the line.
Game 4: For no apparent reason, Mick lost focus in this game and Dave claimed a relatively comfortable win to bring the set to 2-2.
Game 5: Mick summoned all his effort in this last game with Dave trailing in his wake and losing narrowly by 9-11.
Set 9: PETER v Dave L. – result 7-11/10-12/7-11
Game 1: Despite Peter being very mobile and provoking errors from Dave L., the more confident player edged this one.
Game 2: Even start with more errors creeping into Dave L.’s game, but he pulled it around over the last two points.
Game 3: Dave L. always seemed to be playing within his limits and comfortably floated to victory.
DG
Final words:
Again, the consistency issue reared its head; lack of it resulting in losing a game also bleeds the confidence away. Not the great distance between the two teams that might have been expected looking at their very different positions in the League, top and second from bottom. The quality of much of our play was substantially improved over our early efforts in the season and the opposition also commented that they had had to work harder than they had expected. So, apparently dreadful 0-9 result but encouragement MUST be taken by ALL members of the team from the fact that we can now give anybody, including the top team in League 3, a much more competitive match. Well done, Silver Streak, Pie Man and Doggy Blanket!
This is the first poem written for the POPPs table tennis team by our Poet in Residence, Robin Thomas (who also happens to be Team Secretary, Social Secretary, Team Player, Team News Reporter and much else besides). The poem was read out as part of the entertainment at the team’s social evening last Wednesday as reported by Derek.
Ping Pong Rebels
They’re a shower of gits, an urban menace.
These ancient guys who play table tennis.
They’re up to no good, enjoy doing wrong.
Under the destructive influence of the dreaded ping-pong.
Spinning balls, spinning yarns, they talk a good story
Of matches they’ve won, how they’ve achieved glory.
Hammering the old folks, yes they delivered the goods.
Nine-nil against geriatric Old Town Hoods.
They watch coaching clips, it takes over their lives.
They practise all day, don’t talk to their wives.
Spend their cash on bats, steal their wives’ money
Buy the trendiest trainers, track suits by Armani.
They’re computer whiz kids, with a web site to match,
Where fixtures, results and plans you can catch.
You can forget youtube, we have a video clip:
With Derek and Robin on a big ego trip.
Watch them playing, they’re a strange looking bunch.
David’s odd T shirts carry stains from his lunch.
John’s obsessed with pies and with peas.
While Derek’s got dodgy shoulders and knees.
Peter whoops with excitement when hitting a winner.
Terry’s missed matches, he’s a workaholic sinner.
Mieszek’s so broke, he can’t afford pumps.
Has a strange jerky style, full of athletic jumps.
Of course, Alan’s the coach with world-beating skill:
“Go on, forehand smash, go in for the kill.”
Oh, and Robin helps out when the team’s desperate and short.
Secretary, Events Planner, he’s a literary sort.
So, now you have it, these guys are obsessed.
In the long term, they do aspire to be the best!
On a fast learning curve, they are keener than most
Before their fragile bodies start to give up the ghost.
They see this game as a force for world peace.
Hoping Barak Obama will take heed of their pleas.
Sort out world conflicts on the blue table.
Gain a brave new world that’s peaceful and stable.
RT 4.3.09
POPPs table tennis team enjoyed a social night out 4.03.09 at The Works, Sowerby Bridge. Host: Robin
Having negotiated the use of a private and spacious room off the main bar area of his local ‘real ale’ pub, Robin touristically informed us of all local facilities, available to residents and visitors; these included zimmer-frame hire, frequency of bus and all other public and personal services, promoting Sowerby Bridge as a ‘dream world’ for the over 60’s!
Apart from the sorely missed Lesley and Gail, through incapacity, it was almost a ‘full house’ attendance, lured by a curry – chicken or lentil – plus two light and absorbent chapattis, all for £3.50. We were also introduced to John’s lady friend, Doris, and welcomed her into the ‘team’.
With room and tables to spare in our salon, we all, bar one – guess who? – settled down to our warming and spicy curries. John’s endless and on-going research into the world of pie and peas continued as he stuffed his smiling face with another plateful of his staple diet! As we all explored our curried ‘whatevers’, the consensus was “quite hot but not at all bad for £3.50”. The only complaint was from our ‘professional’ diner-out, Peter. Used to twenty minute breaks between his courses at The Brasserie at The Bull (provided he’s allowed in!) he was somewhat confused at receiving his garlic bread and his curry at the same time – but there’s always one!
As we soaked up the last remnants of our curries, our host and MC brought the event to order, regaling us with hideously accurate verse chronicling the ping-pong year to date. In return, Peter, with his mouth now emptied, lampooned our esteemed secretary with a shaggy dog story prepared earlier. After the ’boys’ in the group regressed briefly into a ruder and more dangerous dialogue, our host restored order and proposed our participation in the forthcoming Summer League, John and he agreeing to pursue the possibility and keep the team informed.
The ‘business’ completed, we settled into our various conversations, meaningful or otherwise, drained our glasses and basked in the reflected limitations of our competitive dullness in the league so far. Gavin, Mieszek’s visiting nephew, already looked confused. At a third of the age of most others present, he was showing concern at how the journey from 20 to 60 could allow one to end up like this! Meanwhile, Uncle Mieszek relaxed into a familiar aura of kind smiles, thwarted thoughts and unfinished sentences as, away from the intensity of competition, we all relaxed our guards and enjoyed the vibrant presence of our female ‘better halves’, or, as they are sometimes known, ‘she who must be obeyed’. A good evening; let’s do it again.
DG
POPP players were Peter. David and Derek. Old Town players were Derek, Phil and Sue
Game 1: Phil v. David: result 12-10 11-9 11-9
First two games were evenly matched but in the third Phil turned on the pressure and proved a faster mover and better at returning the ball generally. David played well and could have won this one.
Game 2: Sue v. Derek: result 7-11 11-2 13-11 12-10
An even first game with Derek just pipping Sue at the post but totally failing to get into the second game. Sue’s speed of shot down both flanks exposed Derek’s immobility and casualness in the third and the fourth games to allow Sue to victory much more easily than the score suggests.
Game 3: Derek(OTH) v. Peter: result 3-11 7-11 7-11
A classy, confident game from Peter ensured an easy win which left Derek(OTH) a bit demoralised. Peter really displayed his dominant game in this set.
Game 4: Sue v. David: result 8-11 8-11 11-5 13-15
David took a little while to adjust to Sue’s excellent all-round game and her more aggressive smashes but apart from a dip in concentration in game 3, David triumphed in a closely fought fourth game.
Game 5: Phil v. Peter: 9-11 11-7 11-9 15-13 11-6
Peter was less convincing in this set with Phil’s ability to return accurately hard-hit balls proving a handful. After just shading the first game, Peter’s chop failed to stop the aggressive punching forehand of Phil who triumphed in games 2 and 3. Peter shaded a long and attractive game 4 but the effort meant a subdued effort in game 5. A good win for Phil.
Game 6: Derek(OTH) v. Derek: result 5-11 6-11 11-8 11-6 11-9
Derek’s game seemed to improve in the first two games but suddenly in game 3 his game deteriorated with a distinct lack of effort shown for the rest of the match. The home team player was certainly beatable here but Derek simply gave up on the job – not good enough!
Game 7: Sue v. Peter: result 8-11 8-11 8-11
Solid and consistent game 1 from Peter against a very good player with excellent back and forehand and followed up by two more solid games to clinch the set. A very good result for Peter.
Game 8: Derek(OTH) v. David: result 11-6 11-7 6-11 7-11 6-11
David was initially slow in dealing with Derek’s confidence and accuracy in games 1 and 2, particularly with smashes. In game 3, Derek lost some consistency and David began to take charge and finished on top with good confident strokes all round.
Game 9: Phil v. Derek: result 11-8 7-11 11-4 11-6
Apart from an appreciable effort in game 2, Derek allowed Phil to dominate every aspect of the set and he completed it with little or no resistance from Derek who had effectively already left the building! A let-down for the other two team members who had played with commitment and success all evening. This must not be allowed to occur again!
A disappointing final score of 5-4 to the home side meant yet another defeat which should and could have been turned into victory with a bit more commitment in certain quarters.
DG
