Result POPPS 4-5 Tradesmen Team

Peter 1 win, David 2 wins, John 1 win.

A close match which went to the last game in which Peter was unable to get the better of his wiley opponent (Ken, Denise’s husband). Could have gone either way but we couldn’t complain in the end and the learning curve continues to curve.

POPPs (Peter, John Taylor and Terry) faced up to the Evergreens (Mick, Dave and Mark) in confident but deluded mood. To cut to the chase, POPPs lost 9 sets to nil. We had our moments, some good rallies where a passing observer may have briefly assumed a hard fought close match was in progress, and even a few games were won. John took a game off Mark, 11-8. Terry took Mick to 5 games winning 2 of them 11-5 and 13-11. Peter took 2 games from Mark winning them 11-9 and 11-5. John took 2 games from Mick, 11-8 and 11-5. And Peter took 1 game from Dave, 11-8 . Altogether we won 8 games but no sets. 4 of our losing games went to 1 all. But it is hard to pretend we were in with much of a chance. We sometimes come away from a losing match thinking that, all in all, the opposing team were not really that  much better than us and next time it could be different.  I don’t think any of us thought this would be the case with the Evergreens who always seemed to have a couple of extra gears when they needed them.

Monday night saw Popps first match of the summer league, against Spartans. This, we are told, is a rather more relaxed and sociable affair compared with the cut and thrust and naked ambition of the winter league. Our team was made up of two of our stars. John and Peter, and Terry playing his first competitive match since January.

Peter got us off to a flying start beating Scott 3 games to one, 11-6, 11-6, 4-11, 11-9. It was a good game with Peter’s consistent defensive style, springled with the occasional attacking shot winning through despite a flurry of aggressive play form Scott winning the 3rd game quite comfortably.

However, reality kicked in with Terry being beaten comfortabley by Steve 5-11, 4-11 and 7-11. Lack of match practice, in fact any sort of practice, was evident in Terry’s liberal spraying of the ball all around the table but rarely on it. Things could only get better, hopefully.

John nearly got us back into the match but just failed going down in a 5 game set, 11-9, 6-11, 4-11, 11-9 losing the 5th game 12-14. This was a long debilitating set on a very warm night and John was suffering badly from the heat at the end of the set so did very well to come back from 1 -2 down to get so close. Terry’s next match got us back on scedule by losing in 3 straight games again but showed signs of improvement by losing the first game to Scott 10-12, but then losing the next two 4-11, 7-11.

Peter struggled in his next set against Mick losing in 5 games, 10-12, 11-3, 11-8, 3-11, 7-11. Mick also had a mainly defensive game that proved to be a bit more reliable than Peter’s.A pattern was emerging with Popps losing all the close games from 10-10. This was followed by yet another 5 game set Popps lost with John losing to Steve 11-8, 6-11, 12-14, 11-7, 8-11.

Terry then played his last set against Steve and at last seemed to get back to something close to his pre-christmas form, but still losing 2 games to 3, 9-11, 12-10, 11-9, 9-11, 12-14. This was another long hot game that needed a little mor eluck at the end to pull of a win.

We had already lost the match now with Spartans having already won 6 of the 9 sets. However, John manged to beat Scott quite easily in 3 straight games, 11-1, 12-10, 11-9 with Scott recovering well from and error strewn start. Hwever, despite his over-heating, John kept his focus to round off his evening’s campaign with a flourish. The last set, Peter against Steve, saw Spartans get the final win, 11-2, 8-11, 10-12, 7-11, finally beating us by 7 sets to 2.

All in all not too bad but we lost 6 of the 7 games that went to 10-10 and all 4 sets that went to 5 games. This rather suggest with a bit more consistency, patience (or luck) we could have done better.

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.

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

Playing: Terry/Peter/Derek

Game 1: Peter/Derek v Dave/Shamir

Knowing that this team were currently third in League 1, we approached the match with an inevitable bucketful of trepidation, tempered, only slightly, by the fact that they, like us, had lost their first round match. Both Peter and Derek struggled initially to get into the game at all, the main barrier being Shamir’s impossible to return top-spin service; one got the ludicrous impression that the first bounce of the serve was behind  the server’s bat! Equally, Dave’s forehand smashes were unerringly accurate and played with terrific pace. We limped to a disappointing 42-11 defeat despite finding our own game late on.

42-11

Game 2: Peter/Terry v Frazer/Shamir

More of the same with Terry also finding Shamir’s serve impossible to respond to. Few returns of this serve actually hit anywhere near the table! This was a difficult game, with our opponents, having briefly checked our credentials or otherwise in the first game, already beginning their confident and efficient push to the finish line. The speed of their replies was a notable factor in preventing Peter and Terry gaining any kind of rhythm or system in their own game, enforcing basic errors. Confidence was sinking without the intrusion of anything resembling an iceberg!

42-6

Game 3: Terry/Derek v Frazer/Dave

Without the unplayable distraction of Shamir’s serve, Terry and Derek at least managed to save a few extra points in this game, focusing more realistically on their own game rather than merely repelling the opposition with inadequate ammunition. Reactions were sharper and Terry and Derek built some confidence but were still comprehensively outplayed in every department.

42-18

Game 4: Peter/Derek v Shamir/Frazer

This was a ‘typical’ game for us all in this match. Every time we saw a chink of light providing a tiny iota of confidence, within a split nano second and with devastating speed and ruthlessness, we discovered that this pin-prick of brightness and hope was an out of control forty ton truck, a monstrous, steaming and relentless locomotive or an unstoppable and searing inferno; we weren’t simply singed but burnt to a crisp.

42-11

Game 5: Terry/Peter v Shamir/Dave

A strange game with points lost by Terry and Peter simply through our usual lack of consistency and care but complemented, at other times in this game, by some impressive smashes by Terry and good control by Peter. With the now expected gargantuan struggle to get any of Shamir’s serves returned to the other side of the net, never mind on the table, the game ended disappointingly.

42-11

Game 6: Terry/Derek v Shamir/Frazer

Certainly this was one of our worst games: emotionally drained and physically becoming too body aware in terms of the distance beteen our strategy and the reluctance of relevant bits of our anatomy to keep up with the flow. Effectively we had little to offer in this game and the opposition were smiling far too much for our liking. We waited, with anxiety, for them to start licking their lips and polishing their whiskers as we slowly lost the will to live!

42-9

Game 7: Peter/Derek v Dave/Frazer

So, the strategy worked! What strategy you ask? To lull them into such a sense of security, protected by their own perfection in the previous game, that they actually made mistakes in this game! No, really! Derek had by this time adapted to serving to the ‘wrong’ side of the table and was, occasionally, making them pay (although no money actually changed hands!). Peter was more in control at the back of the court and on at least two occasions Daave’s and Frazer’s smiles ebbed away to the further recesses of their widow’s peaks and there was a suggestion that they were actually having to breathe for the first time in the match. Good focus from Peter and Derek made this probably the most hopeful game that we played all night: perchance to dream……….?……….maybe not!

42-21

Game 8: Peter/Terry v Dave/Frazer

This was a strange game that highlighted our inexperience in doubles. Our inability to drag ourselves quickly enough from one side of the court to the other, our usual lack of consistency and our change-over tactics during shots and our over-ambition in attempting non-percentage shots only added to the service errors that were part of our game throughout this match. Peter and Terry worked hard to rescue points in this match but the end result was mind-numbingly disappointment.

42-10

Game 9: Terry/Derek v Shamir/David

Having snapped two service returns back belligerently in game 6, Derek resumed normal service in this game by failing to return single serve from Shamir! By this time, Terry and Derek were obviously tired and a slow start took them on far too steep a learning curve, despite winning worthy if not exactly exciting points. Too many points were given to the opposition and our team deficiencies again outweighed our potential and the final game was surrendered willingly and tamely to a very good League 1 side. Well done to our opponents and thank you.

42-14

What can we learn from this match? Well, firstly, that doubles is a very different game at which none of us has any meaningful experience so, at least we competed. Secondly, our failings in this match and in our previous doubles outing, which were specifically connected to the doubles game can act as prompts to improvements in our singles game. Our mobility around the court in relation to the threat from the opposition was not good. Our positioning and awareness in relationship to each other was also deficient. Speed and anticipation are a massive part of the doubles game and are very much part of the strategy of the doubles game, a strategy which we largely did not employ. All these requirements for competence in the doubles game, would, if improved, substantially inform our singles game. Mobility, anticipation and general awareness must be integral requirements of our game and an over-arching improvement in consistency in all areas can be gained from our focus at our coaching sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The progress we have all made since our team was formed is considerable. It is, however, quite exhausting to achieve the blend of enjoyment, fitness and well-being that we all demand from playing table tennis in any shape or form AND improve our skills in competition, particularly when we are outplayed on a regular basis.

Recognising our own potential, despite regular setbacks and defeats and continuing to play with optimism should be our main goal.

DG/19.01.09

Popps were well beaten by Old Town Hounds but Peter, playing at No.1 for Popps, saved our faces by winning 2 of his sets. It could have been closer with 2 other sets going to 5 games but the Hounds showed dogged determination and managed to sniff out a victory in both. We took the lead at the start with Peter winning the first set of the evening but we flattered to deceive and soon found we were in for a tough evening. Neither Terry or Mieszek managed to win a set for Popps but both looked the part from time to time and were not disgraced. Mieszek was suffering badly from a heavy cold (in fact technically not a cold but this is not a medical report) and played well in the circumstances. It was noticed that in between their sets the Hounds players consumed some sort of strange fluorescent string. We were on the point of checking this against the ETTA list of proscribed substances but it turned out to be liquorice boot laces. It cannot be certain this is what made the difference between to the 2 teams but Popps, always willing to learn from better teams, will be paying more attention to their dietary preparations in future. We have a lot to learn about table tennis nutrition and perhaps this is an area we can improve on. As an experiment we are thinking of Baileys and vegetarian samosas for a between sets boost. Any suggestions gratefully received.

Like the English rugby, football and cricket teams, Popps are becoming expert in finding positives from defeats. This is a well honoured tradition dating back to Dunkirk of course.  We all agree that we are doing pretty well given out lack of experience and that we play as well as many of our opponents some of the time at least. What we need is more consistency and then some of our narrow defeats in games and sets will become victories. My personal response to this has been to moderate my game a little and be rather more conservative and circumspect. I can’t say this has made that much difference yet and I wonder if this is the right approach. One thing I am sure of. A major part of the problem is lack of technique. I am tempted to let up on attacking shots because, although some come off very well and win points, many (most?) just go off the end of the table or just clip the the net (occassionally they land on an adjacent table!). Sometimes a shot is missed because it wasn’t really on. But if it is on I can’t see any advantage in not going for it. Of course, you need to make the right judgement about what is on and what isn’t and that comes with experience and being realistic about your abilities. I’m not sure my attacking shots will improve by not playing them when I should be and I feel this is what I am beginning to do. So, my New Year resolution for the second half is to improve shot selection, go for an attacking shot whenever it is the right shot to go for and don’t pull back or be hesitant, and improve consitency by improving technique rather than holding back when the chances appear.