Australian National Table Tennis Training Program
Posted by Jeff Plumb on April 22nd, 2008
Photo courtesy of ITTF
Mark Smythe in action at the Sydney Olympics
Discusssion Paper
The discussion paper presented here was written by Mark Smythe on the 4th February 2008 and has been presented to Table Tennis Australia. As of yet Mark has not received a response from Table Tennis Australia
The intention of this document is to give TTA (Table Tennis Australia) options to consider in regards to the direction it wishes to take in assisting the elite players of Australia.
Background Information
From 1987 – 2000 TTA had a National Training Program. The concept used was a National Training Centre and Victoria was the chosen State. Only players who were invited by TTA were permitted to train in these sessions. A Full-time National Coach was employed to run the program and coach the National Team during competition. There were no Junior or Cadet International Events throughout this period. For the majority of years, there was an assistance coach involved and I’m not sure how this was funded.
From 2001 – 2006 TTA had no organised National Training Program. No National Coach was employed on a full-time basis. The concept was “event coaches” and coaches for each event were selected. Junior and Cadet International Events commenced during this period.
Since 2007 TTA have a National Training Program. The concept used is multiple training centres and 4 states have been chosen. Since mid/late 2007 TTA have had a full-time National Coach.
Options
Three options to choose from are:
- One National Training Centre (same as 1987 – 2000)
- Multiple Training Centres (same since 2007)
- Not having a National Training program (same as 2001 – 2006)
Questions
- Does TTA want to improve International results?
- What does it take (re: competition and training) to be competitive or improve current results at International level?
- Is, having more or less players involved in a National Squad/Training Program a better option?
- Are financial resources being used in the most effective way?
Answering Questions
- TTA need to understand what is required by the players to improve its results on the International scene before answering this question. In fact, as the gap (re: standard) gets wider between us and the rest of the world, the present and future senior players will need to train the same amount but for more years than the answer to question 2
- Using past and present Australian Senior players who have been competitive at International level, the requirement would be, between 20-30 hours (competition and training – on table and physical) per week for most weeks of the year and for a minimum of 3-4 years.
For juniors, between 10-20 hours per week is required. This is based on knowing the programs of 2 top juniors I coach (David Powell and Lily Phan – both have won Australian Singles Titles) plus aware how much the best juniors (Kyle Davis, Robert Frank and Trent Carter) have played each week over last few years. It is unrealistic to expect juniors to play 20-30 hours per week during their school years and only logical during Year 12, play a minimum amount. - Depending on how TTA answer question 1, should determine how this question is answered – mainly due to limited finances available.
In my mind, there will most likely be different outcomes (re: standard and depth of good/top players) for each option, therefore believe questions 1 and 3 are related and linked together. - The most effective way for the financial resources to be used will depend upon what Option is chosen.
Discussing the Options
All options are based on; every registered Australian player permitted to make a National Team with certain training requirements adhered to once each Team has been, qualified for, or selected.
Ideas on “how to implement” and a set of “for” and “against” comments for each option will now be identified. This is working on the current budget available.
Option 1 - One National Training Centre
How to implement
- All financial resources to be used to operate the National Training Centre.
- The National Coach will run the program and an Assistant Coach shall be appointed.
- Only National Squad members are permitted to be part of these sessions unless approved by National Coach
- The State to hold the National Training Centre shall be the one which has the most National Squad Members. This is only logical, as to create minimal/reduced hassle in regards to players relocating.
- All States will be asked to operate and fund its own training program (including State which has National Training Centre). TTA can offer ideas (such as this document and relate it to State instead of National program) on how to run a program but each State can choose what is best for them. Intention is to create a pyramid system where the State programs will produce and feed players into the National program.
For
- Players have an opportunity to train 20-25 hours per week (7 - 8 sessions x 2.5 - 3 hours) which is a necessity for satisfactory improvement to be competitive at International level.
An observation - Since the completion of the Sydney Olympics (Oct. 2000) there has not been one Australian player (living in the country) who has trained at least one year of 20-25 hours per week for 45-50 weeks of the year. This coincides with TTA not having a National Training Centre, which ceased straight after the 2000 Olympic Games. Is this the reason or just a coincidence? - National Coach able to work more often and closely with players at National Training Centre.
Against
- Unrealistic and too difficult for some/many players to relocate to the State where Training Centre is.
- Most likely will be less players involved in National program (week in, week out) and if some choose to play European/Asian Professional League then training partners can be difficult for National Coach to organise as there will be less depth – this was the case from 1997-2000 where there were 4-6 players each session and was one of the main reasons why the program eventually fell apart.
Option 2 - Multiple Training Centres
How to implement (as with current program)
- TTA choose X amount of States to run a program.
- Each State shall have one coach run its program with National Coach overseeing all aspects and visiting each program as often as possible.
- Only National Squad Members permitted to be involved in training sessions unless authorised by National Coach.
For
- More players involved in National training program.
- More coaches involved in National program – this is a lesser concern.
Against
- Realistic to expect players living in Australia not to improve their International results as less training hours are offered each week, therefore highly likely all/most players will train/play less (up to 15 hours) each week.
Option 3 - No Training Program
There shall be 2 options to choose from. They are:
- TTA having financial contracts with certain players – like Cricket Australia does with its’ annually reviewed National Squad.
- TTA send certain players overseas more often for training and competition for extended (minimum of 3-4 months at a time) periods of time.
Each option will be discussed separately
How to implement (option 3 - 1)
- TTA to offer contracts to National Squad members and see how many are interested - a minimum amount can be given as an indication if/when players asked how much money is involved.
- TTA shall offer varying contracts (re: remuneration) depending upon certain aspects such as,
- Standard (by results) of each player
- How often they will train
- How often they will assist in training when required by the National Coach.
- National Coach’s responsibilities include, focusing on contracted players, oversee other National Squad Members’ training/competition programs and organise (weekend, one week or two weeks) training camps when possible.
For (option 3 - 1)
- Contracted players will have the opportunity to play (training and competition) the necessary amount (20-30 hours per week) within and outside of Australia to improve level and results on International scene.
- Allows players to be paid for their services in assisting Australia improving on the International scene.
Against (option 3 - 1)
- Only a minimal amount of National Squad Members will receive assistance as priority will be given to those who are willing to travel overseas for extended periods of time.
How to implement (option 3 - 2)
- TTA to offer its National Squad Members the opportunity to train and compete more often overseas, then see how many are interested.
- National Coach to work closely with these players to plan their programs – which country/s to go to, when to go, how long to go for, what tournaments to compete in, etc. - , plus overseeing all other National Squad members’ training/competition programs and organising training camps (weekends – two weeks) when possible.
For (option 3 - 2)
- Allows players to play (training and competition) the necessary amount (20-30 hours per week) to improve level and results on International scene.
- Allows players to be paid for their services in assisting Australia improving on the International scene.
Against (option 3 - 2)
- Playing living and playing within Australia will not be given the opportunity to train the necessary amount to improve level on International scene.
- Will be less players involved in National Training Program.
My Opinion (Mark Smythe)
Background Information
As I have been involved on the National level since 1987 (when played my first Junior National Championships), lived and breathed the sport nearly everyday since 1991, believe I am very well qualified to make comment and have my comments carry a certain amount of weight when TTA discuss this topic. I went through varying stages which included,
- Playing 3 to 5 days per week for majority of school years (except Year 12 in 1990).
- Full time player (25-30 hours per week) from March 1991 – October 1996.
- Part-time player (15 hours per week) from October 1996 – June 1997.
- Casual player (train once per week and playing nearly every tournament possible in the State) from June 1997 – September 2000. It was through this period where I achieved my best results and had the 2nd best win of my career – 2000 Olympics defeated world number 58, Yan Chu Leung. I would not have been able to achieve these results without the 5 years of full-time playing done from 91-96.
As a player, I experienced all the highs and lows that come with playing sport, ranging from,
- Low grade club junior pennant, to, become Australian Under 15 and 17 Singles Champion.
- Playing full-time (25-30 hours per week) for two years (age 18 and 19) and unable to win a Men’s Open Singles event in Victoria, to, become Australian and Oceania Men’s Singles Champion 6 years later.
- Hating training as a junior, to, training 20-25 hours per week for 5 years and until recently was the only Australian male in at least 20 years to defeat 2 top 60 world ranked players at the time of playing them – the other player is now William Henzell.
- Missing out on qualifying for the 1996 Olympic Games by one spot (3rd), to, find out 2 months later that I was going due to New Zealand Olympic Committee refusing to send any male players.
- The only Australian male ever to defeat a Chinese National Team member in competition (Yan Sen at 1995 Swedish Open), to, cease playing full-time 10 months later (age 23) with only $1,000 to my name – all money I earned from working part-time was used to pay for, overseas trips, and general living expenses such as weekly board, buying a car, etc, etc.
- Withdrawn (after being selected) from a National Team (1996 Asian Championships) due to, not abiding by the criteria – minimum amount of training hours. Requirement was 15 hours per week for which I did except for 4 weeks where I trained 12 hours per week. This decision coincided with a new National Coach being employed and was the first Australian Team he was involved in. This is a similar situation to Stephanie Sang’s non selection for current Women’s Team to compete at World Team Championships in a few weeks.
- Not being selected in a National Senior Team (2000 Oceania Championships) when ranked no. 2, recent results were clearly good enough, made myself available and had already qualified for the 2000 Olympics which, was only 7 months away from this particular International event.
Key Aspects for a Successful Program/System
After seeing varying systems in place, the following aspects are the key ingredients to help create a successful long term program and a promising future for the sport in Australia and results internationally;
- More players competing and training
- More players competing and training more often
- Create fair and equal opportunities to make National Teams for major events (Olympic & Commonwealth Games and World Team Championships)
- Flexibility (re: training)
- National League to commence again
Discussing the Aspects
More players competing and training
I believe this is the most important aspect for long term success in regards to improving International results and having a healthy National program (competition and training).
The following statements (in regards to their player’s results) only back up and justify why this is the most important aspect as they all have the common aspect, which is more players competing and training compared to others in each statement,
- Victoria is the strongest and most successful State in Australia!
- Dandenong is the strongest and most successful (re: Juniors) Club in Australia!
- Mark Smythe is the most successful (re: Juniors) Coach in Australia!
(Information is provided at the end of this article to show these statements are correct).
In fact, if we look abroad and observe other countries that are above the Australian level, then this aspect is one of the biggest reasons why they are better. The end result of having more players playing is a higher standard at the top because the depth and standard of the 2nd, 3rd, etc, tier players will be greater and stronger.
If we take it even further and look to the best in the world (China), again it’s the same reason. Government funding and country’s population is also a big influence but the result is the same – more players competing and training creates a higher standard at the top.
Currently the sport is failing dismally in this aspect and should find ways to change it around. An example of how it’s failing is, observing the entries for the Team and Individual Event of each category’s (Senior, Youth and Junior) National Championships. The sport now needs “B” Teams (especially all female category’s) as to not embarrass itself for the Team Events – I actually support having “B” Teams but believe they should be a luxury and not a necessity. The Individual draws (for what is the biggest event of the year for each category) are smaller than many local tournaments in countries that are better than Australia.
TTA should communicate with successful countries, states, clubs and coaches to gather information and implement a system which will achieve the success it desires.
More players competing and training more often
TTA must provide the opportunity for players in the National Squad to train the amount of hours required to have the best chance to improve on the International scene – if that is one of its main goals.
Currently we have the best generation of young male players for at least 10 years but the National Training Program cannot offer the amount of hours per week necessary to go on and be competitive on the International Level as a senior player.
Also, there should be extra opportunities for our best players to compete against each other. For the best players of each state to compete against each other once to twice a year at National Championships is not enough! Having a National League can solve this problem which is mentioned previously.
Create fair and equal opportunities to make National Teams for major events
In order to keep more players playing (most important aspect) TTA needs to create as many situations where the players feel like there is a “fair” chance of making a National Team. History says, majority of Elite Australian adult players usually continue to play the sport for two main reasons. They are,
- Achieve individual goals, such as, making National Teams (for major events), therefore having opportunities of winning more matches at International Level, and becoming National and/or Oceania Champion.
- Earning/Winning money
As players can’t earn money (not even equivalent to only a part-time job) from playing within Australia, that only leaves one main reason left - achieving individual goals.
If the chance of making National Teams (for major events) is taking away from players (by selectors not selecting them for what could be a variety of reasons outside their results) then most will stop playing – history backs this comment up. As mentioned earlier, Australia currently has so few elite players that it cannot afford to lose any due to these reasons. If a player stops due to, him/her feeling they, are not good enough, lost interest in competing, etc, that is unfortunate but acceptable.
The only way to create the “fairest” system for players to make National Teams (including Junior and Cadet Teams) is to, have everyone permitted to make Teams (not just National Squad Members which is currently the case) and use Qualification Events for the major events.
Qualifying for a National Team allows each player to prove their abilities on the table and win the right matches at the right time. I can only think TTA would like to have players who can handle the pressure situations be representing the county at major International Events.
The positives are many, with the main one being, extending players careers, therefore giving the 2nd and 3rd tier players a greater chance to improve their standard by providing greater competition in tournaments and/or league. An example of this is Jian Fang Lay who was a full-time professional player in China before moved to Australia in 1993 or 1994. Jiang (career best of 47 on world ranking list) has continued to play tournaments nearly every year (missing most of 2003 and 2005 due to giving birth to 2 children) has helped improve the general standard of the women buy continuing to play tournaments and providing the opportunity of the domestic players to play her in competition. TTA should feel privileged such a top player has continued to play for so many years!
Flexibility re: training
Players go through many and varied situations during their career’s – as outlined with my own!
For TTA to create the best chance of having “more players competing and training”, it must be flexible with regards to, how many hours each player trains per week – competing is a separate issue.
It is logical that a player in the twilight of their career most likely doesn’t need to same amount of training as they did when younger and compared to other up and coming younger players.
I believe when dealing with majority of established Senior players who are in the twilight of their career (still National Team standard) the Coach should become more like a manager and treat each player independently according to, circumstances with their lives (employment, family etc.) and how often they can/want to train each week. Generally for players in this situation, competition is the main aspect which will help them improve (at worst maintain) their results.
National League to commence again
Background - National League commenced in the late 1970’s and ceased in the early-mid 1980’s. It then re-started in 1992 and ceased after the 1997 season. As mentioned earlier, players cannot earn money (same as a part time job) from competing in Australia!
A successful National League can, not only assist the players in this area, but, be a fantastic promotional tool to give the sport a higher profile – compared to the near non-existent one it has now – therefore creating more opportunities to gain sponsorships.
As indicated earlier, if there is a successful National League (includes players getting paid) operating then there is a greater chance of keeping more players in the sport.
For the TTA Board
I expect the Board will take this discussion paper seriously and advise a timeframe of when it will be discussed and a reply given.
I am available to discuss further with anyone interested or answer questions or be involved at a Board meeting (to answer any questions) if required.
Information to back statements
The following information is from 2006 and 2007 covering the most relevant age groups (Under 13, 15, 16, 18, 21 and Open) for a National Training Program.
Victoria is the most successful state in Australia!
- Most registered players in Australia.
- Most players who participate at each category’s Australian Championships.
- Most Australian Team Titles.
- Most Australian Individual Titles.
- Most Players ranked, Number 1 and in the Top 10, in Australia.
Detailed information is available on TTA website.
Dandenong is the most successful (re: juniors) club in Australia!
- Most players participating at State Junior Tournaments – usually 15-20.
- Most State representatives at Australian Junior Championships
- 2007 = 15 in Victorian Teams
- 2006 = 12 in Victorian Teams
- Best results at Australian Junior Championships
- 2007 = 5 of the 6 Singles Titles (by 3 players) which I don’t believe has ever been achieved by a Club, another player was runner-up in 2 Singles finals plus numerous Doubles Titles.
- 2006 = 1 of the 6 Singles Titles, 2 other players were runner-up in Singles finals plus numerous Doubles Titles.
- Most players ranked in the Top 10 covering all junior age groups
- 2007 = 12 (including the top 2 Under 15 & 13 Girls – same 2 players – and 4 of the top 6 Under 15 Boys).
- 2006 = 7
Mark Smythe is the most successful (re: juniors) coach in Australia!
Following statistics are from the players I coach individually (one on one) each week.
- Most players participating at State Junior Tournaments - usually 10-14.
- Most state representatives at Australian Championship
- 2007 = 10 in Victorian Junior Teams
- 2006 = 8 in Victorian Junior Teams
- Best results at Australian Junior Championships
- 2007 = One player won 2 Singles Titles, another player was runner-up in 2 Singles finals, 2 others were semi-finalist in Singles and 3 players won Doubles Titles.
- 2006 = 2 players won Singles Titles, another player was runner-up in Singles final, another player was semi-finalist in Singles and one player won a Doubles Title.
- Most players ranked in the Top 10 covering all junior age groups
- 2007 = 9 (including 50% of the Under 15 Boys)
- 2006 = 4 (including one at No. 1 and two at No. 2)
Your Opinion
Well that certainly is an interesting article from Mark but what are your thoughts? Make sure you leave a comment to tell everyone which option you think is the best and how it should be implemented.
Mark Smythe
commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Continuing the discussion on why Stephanie Sang wasn’nt selected for the Aust. Team (for World Team C’ships in Feb 2008)i believe it had something to do with, how she was training and her standard of play during training sessions. If this is correct then i strongly disagree with the selectors not selecting a player due to this reason.
Let’s get the National Coach (or another selector) involved in this discussion to find out why.
This is all a healthy debate and should never get personal.
Mark Smythe
commented on April 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Charles, here we go.
As i’ve said, in an ideal TT world, criteria to make Teams can be more strict but as you may or may not know we are far from an ideal TT world here therefore we must take a different approach. I say a different approach because the systems in place over the years have clearly not worked and the sport (elite level) has fallen in a hole and it’s getting deeper and deeper as the years go on.
Before i go any further, China seems to live in an ideal TT world so what is their criteria?
Jeff Plumb
commented on April 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Charles,
This article talks about creating fair and equal opportunities to make National Teams for major events. I believe that this should be the case for Table Tennis in Australia and the criteria should not include the number of hours a person is training. The point is that players enter different stages of their careers. If you read the article above you will see that Mark had his best international results when his training was reduced. He had previously trained very hard and without that previous training he could not have produced the results. But this shows that at a particular point in time - more is not necessarily better.
I believe we should create the best possible environment where players will want to train. Then the results will look after themselves. However imposing rules on eligibility requirements in a country like Australia where Table Tennis is not professional does not work. History has proved that to be the case.
So the administrators should stop wasting their time on these eligibility requirements and start focusing on getting more players involved and setting up a National Training Program which players want to be a part of. Then the athletes will train more. Right now in Australia it would be difficult to practice 15 hours a week because of the lack of players.
It is great to see you showing so much enthusiasm for the topic and Table Tennis in Australia Charles.
Charles
commented on April 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Thanks Jeff, before I start, I’d like to first point out that I have not had time to fully read your article. I will once I get the time. For the time being, let me point out China’s national team selection policy.
Charles
commented on April 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
China segments their national team into two tiers, national team 1 and national team 2, based on hierachy. National team selection is based on the discretion of it’s coaches. The main assessment of whether a player should be selected depends on their age, the coaches assessment of their development potential, and physical endowment. Competition results may be influential in a coach’s decision to accept a player but is by no means the predominant factor. The only definite results based competition that allows entry to the team is the Chinese nationals. Winning this competition will allow automatic entry. This includes competing against national players themselves. Hao Shuai is an example of a player who was picked this way. Once inside the national team, training requirements are generally 6-8 hours a day (estimate). This is up to the discretion of the coaches. Some considerations are made to organise a training schedule to allow peaking at important events. A player could for any number of reasons be excluded from the team due to lack of motivation and passion (Shan Ming Jie), not adhering to rules regarding extracurricular activity (Qiu Yi ke), or simply not following a coaches instruction.
Mark Smythe
commented on April 27th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Charles, great to hear your comments and answering my question. We all know China is the best in the world and it’s good to see what their policies/criteria are regarding National Teams.
Once you have fully absorbed the above article then i would be interested to hear what you think should be the selection policy/criteria for Aust. and general thoughts on the article. From there, we can start the discussion on this topic and maybe other relevant issues.
Richard Lee
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Hi Charles,
Obviously you are in a position to comment on how China select their National teams far more than anyone else.
I think I read somewhere that the 5 players selected for the world teams champs were selected as follows.
-3 qualifying tournaments where matches were played up to 5 or 7 over the best of 7,9 or 11. The winner of each of these 3 tournaments was selected automatically in the team with each winner of a tournament not having to compete in the next tournament.
-2 places selected at the selectors discretion.
Would you be able to confirm this is correct or not.
Also how many selectors are on the Chinese panel and is the head coach-or any coach-automatically a selector.
The question of whether a coach should be automatically a selector-or head selector-also seems to vary from country to country;sport to sport; and coach to coach-some want to be ,some don’t.
Any confirmation or otherwise of the selection policy and panel would be appreciated.
Richard Lee
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
That was for the World teams in 2006.
Charles
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hi Richard, before I begin, I want to disclaim that my knowledge of how the Chinese National Team operates is limited. As I have not been paying detailed attention to any recent changes. I can only give a general view, which may not be accurate at all times. I’m happy for someone to correct me if that they find a mistake.
Charles
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
As i am aware there have been changes in the last two years in the way the team is selected. The world team championships are now being selected based on two or sometimes three competitions which are televised on cctv. The first is a 5 set to 11 match. The second is sometimes a best of five game (I don’t remember the number of sets). By the end of the competition, your ranking in the first and second get added together and given a number. To qualify for the first three places your number must be the first, second or third lowest number. There are places that are decided by the coach, Liu Guo Liang appears to have authority in this case. When i have time, I will write more.
Charles
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
*EDIT first competition is a 11 points 5 sets, second competition is 5 points (however number sets).
Mark Smythe
commented on April 28th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I can also confirm that China use the concept of Qualifying T’ment for 2 posistions in a Team then select the rest.
Charles
commented on April 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
In China, the national team tends to have a collective interest in the performance of the country rather than an individual player. In a sense there are less regulations determining whether a player will get included or excluded. A decision will generally be made with a discussion between the national coaches. The result really will not be suprising in most cases.
Charles
commented on April 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hi Mark, I had a question. Did you want to promote Australia’s international competitiveness or just general participation?
Mark Smythe
commented on April 29th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Charles,
Answer is both. Both can be achieved simulaneously.
Given the situation in Aust. TT (even New Zealand for that matter - both countries are in similar situations re:lack of player numbers and non professional status)i’m still interested to see what you think the selection policy should be for making National Teams?
Mark Smythe
commented on April 29th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
meant to say simultaneously
Richard Lee
commented on April 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Mark/Charles,
I can’t see why the system of using a mixture of specific tournament results for ,say, 2 positions with the selectors then choosing 2 players (in a 4 person team), can’t be used in countries like Aust./N.Z. as it is in China-at least for events like the World teams and commonwelth champs/games .-The Olympics are obviously a different story whereby a selection tournament
is the only basis that can be used.
For the others the composite method provides both a mixture of quantatative results but also gives selectors the flexibilty or opportunity to provide for situations whereby,for some reason the best 1 or 2 players don’t qualify via the qualifying tournaments (injury,sickness,bad day at the office etc.)or promote ,for example, young talent ,if for some reason they see fit (e.g. dropping players in the top 4 who have been tried internationally and haven’t performed and who haven’t qualified via the qualifying tournaments.)
Regarding participation/standard of the national team ,you would think all things been equal that there should be some direct correlation between the number of players and the standard-at least up to having a critical mass- to use popular terminology,particularly in an opponent based sport such as table tennis which I think has all-ready been alluded to in another blog.
I would doubt if Australia/N.Z. are anywhere there that critical mass in terms of participation ,so again you would think that reaching that critical mass should be the major priority in those countries-or at least as important as anything else.
Charles
commented on April 30th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Mark, you’ve given a range of ideas on what you believe could be possible. I think however, it will depend on the financing capacity that TTA would have to support them. Do you happen to know TTA’s budget?
Mark Smythe
commented on April 30th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I’m guessing the budget for the National Team/Squad would be between US$80-130,000 per year - it could be more but don’t think it would be much more than my estimation.
The next National Team to compete in competition (Oceania C’ships in early July) must pay their own way and only entry fees into the event have been covered by the National Body.
Richard Lee
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 4:26 am
Mark,
If the Australian Assn has a budget anywhere near what you are saying for the National team/squad and the team to the Oceania champs has to pay their own way the Assn. should be ashamed of themselves.
If they (the National Assn.) are not spending it on one of the premier events for players in this region what are they spending it on?
Mark Smythe
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
I think that type of budget is actuall quite small.
In 2004 i know the budget was AUD130,000 (approx US110,000 in todays currency) for which 50,000 was used for Oceania C’ships (Senior&Junior Teams)and about 40,000 used for World Team C’ships. Also that year money was used to cover National Junior Teams to World Junior C’ships and World Junior Circuit Events. In addition the Top 12 players (combined male and female) are given small grants (scaled down depending on how well performed each player was) to assist in paying some of their TT expenses. Now there may be a few other little things i’m not aware off but that would eat up all/most of the 130,000. If i’m incorrect on any of these figures i’m sure it’s not by much.
Using 2008 as an example, TTA have had Teams going to World Team C’ships, and will have Teams going to Oceania C’ships(Junior&Senior Teams)&World Junior Circuit (one trip), World Junior C’ships. Also (as mentioned in my discussion paper) TTA now run a Training Program which is would guess uses 40-50,000 (supplying each player free training, paying for coaches, venues, balls etc.). On top of this there are 6 players who qualified for Olympic Games so i would assume some money would be set aside to assist them.
As you can see $130-150,000 doesn’t go far and is very retrictive in how the National Body can help it’s players. If you (Richard) think it’s more than enough then it’s no wonder New Zealand are in more trouble than Aust. on this issue.
In today world, it’s up to the administrators to find ways to attract the top players to continue to play, otherwise (this region of the TT world) we will continue to have a small amount of better level players (as time and money become more valueable than it used to be) and will fall even further behind the standard on International stage.
Again, i blame the adminstrators for not focusing on getting more players into the sport (covering all levels). This creates more revenue, enables the sport to be more self-sufficient and assist the best players in a better way.
Now back to my orginal question for Charles, what do you think should be the policy for making National Teams?
Would like to add that i believe criteria/policy for, making/qualifying for, Teams is separate to criteria/policy for once Teams have been confirmed and preparing for whatever event that Team is preparing for.
Richard Lee
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Mark,
I realise that that amount is a very small budget for international T.T.
What I was saying is that it is ridiculous that if the Australian Assn has a budget of about $130,000 that they won’t assist the National team to go to their Contenintal championships.
I would imagine a budget of about $ U.S. one million is necessary to get everything done.-and even then it mightn’t make any difference to Australia’s world standing or the improvement be so insignificant that it would be judged as not cost effective.
While ,on the other hand,if $ one million U.S. was spent pricipally on attracting more numbers there may be 4 or 5 really talented players who may have the motivation to train very hard and make a lot of sacrifices which would probably see a better result than spending a similar amount on the national team.In my opinion any budget should be divided equally 3 ways;1/3 high performance/national teams etc.;1/3 grass roots; and 1/3 other factors -administration etc. Or put it another way 505 high performance and 50 % grass roots as those 2 areas encompass the 3rd factor.
Unfortunately for table tennis players ,while it is one of the most popular participation sports in the world it is relatively poor.Only the top 30-50 players in the world make a healthy or decent living at it.So a player need to be really good if that is their aim.
Far better in my view to play because you enjoy it ,rather than expect anything out of it.And when you stop enjoying it,stop playing.
Richard Lee
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
50% high performance not 505 in 7th line from the bottom.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Richard,
We have similar thoughts from a budget point of view.
I don’t have a big problem with how TTA are using their financial resorces but i (as with you by your comments) have a huge problem with how governing bodies are not looking after grass roots level and participation numbers in general.
I think an annual budget of a million would make a huge difference. I would expect within 4-5 years that players from this area in the world would lift their world rankings substancially and Team rankings would improve 20-30% on current performances. As this budget will never happen it’s pointless to chat further about it.
The reason i believe the Aust. Team must pay to go to Oceania C’ships this year is due to TTA having a National Training Program in place. That’s the only real difference between 2004 and 2008 schedule/calender. This is working on the budget being similar to 2004 which i think it is.
Money is the key to everything, therefore gaining sponsorships is important and it’s difficult to attract sponsors if the customer base (participants within the sport) is low. I’m sure sports that have 100-200,000 participants (compared to 8-9,000 in Aust. TT)would find it a lot easier to attract sponsors. I’m still a bit naive in this area but the answer seems simple yet the decision makers (National, State and Club) in general refuse to focus on this issue (increasing player numbers).
Richard Lee
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I agree Mark.
The answer is so obvious that it seems ridiculous that more is not made of.
Not only is it going to be easier to obtain outside sponsorship if a sport has more players but with increased participation a sport is going to be in a better position to become self-sufficient and hopefully get nearer to a stage where it can run /organise its affairs and programmes without having to rely heavily on either government or private sponsorship.
That money then becomes ‘cream’ and if suddenly is stopped or cut back will not markedly affect the running of the sport.
I do realise that in this day and age increasing playing numbers isn’t that easy but it still should be the main priority and aim so table tennis can look after itself better.
However administrators seem to have given up on trying to do anything about playing numbers in table tennis other then making token allusions about how it would be of great benefit .
In my opinion this attitude can only lead to self-demise as the sport loses control of its own destiny and is governed by outside influences who may or may not be there next year or the year after.
Charles
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Hi Mark, I don’t think I can give you a well rounded answer on this since I have very little knowledge in sports administration. What I can do is point out some issues which I think are important.
Charles
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
First is that increasing Australia’s participation rate will not necessarily lead to an increase in their international competitiveness. As I am aware, Simon Gerada acquired much of his skill training overseas; William spent most of his time in Sweden; Miao Miao earned her skills in China; Stefanie, I presume did the same as well as Jian Fang Lay.
Charles
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I think the essence of the problem is on what TTA can do with their budget. An ideal world is that there will be multiple national training centres with full time coaches dedicated to training a specific team; what would be even more ideal is having players who would train full time. I understand Australia is far from that reality in terms of human capital. However, really the essence of the problem is MONEY.
Charles
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
People are generally motivated by monetary reward and social recognition of their talent. Increasing renumeration skills with contracts will obviously give leverage in negotiating a deal whereby players will train more often and dedicate more time. I dont think TTA’s buget can afford to contract.
Charles
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
So really, it’s the issue of really looking at the financial statements and seeing where resources can be freed. I don’t necessarily think that attracting more players will increase national competitiveness since I would ‘assume’ that there is a degree of difference between professionals (those who have been trained to be the elite in this sport) and amateurs.
Richard Lee
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Hi Charles,
While it is true that increasing participation does not guarantee a higher playing standard and increased international competiveness ,in all probability it will.
Incresed competition and numbers should increae both competitiveness between the top players-provided they are willing to train together and share knowledge which can be a problem as often top playes in countries like Australia /N.Z. act in self-interest and do neither of these things as they want to be number 1 /champion within their own country ,which perhaps is natural ,but which does nothing to improve a countries international competiveness .
Secondly inceasing the number of players means their is more likehood of finding players with talent and who are prepared to work hard and make sacrifices which is necessary anywhere but even more important in geographically isolated ,relatively small countries like Australia.
In opponent based sports like table tennis it is very uncommon for one player to get much better than a few others ,unless you have the scenario like where William Henzell has played most of his table tennis overseas.
I remember about 10 years ago writing a article on whether N.Z. could produce a world-class player-which I arbitralily
made as top 50 in the world on the basis that it was about this number of players who earned a very good living at table tennis-and my conclusion was that it was possible provided a player reached aprroxiamately the samer standard as the top players in N.Z. at about the age of 15/16.The top male at that stage was Peter Jackson who reached a top worls ranking of 119 and was ranked about 150-170 at the time i wrote the article.
At that stage it would be necessary for the player to move overseas as it would be likely that they would lose motivation largely throgh the perception they had ‘done it all’ by becoming their countries best player at a young age and would thus tend to cruise between the ages of 15-21. and it would be too late after that to make significant improvement .
In the 1970s Australia reached a position of 12th in the world in men’s table tennis based around a team of Wuvanich,Knapp,Pinkewich and Tuckett.
Internal co,mpetition between these players and the next rung immmediately below them was intense and i don’t think there is any coincidence that it was during this time that participation in Australia was at its highest-or so I believe.
Of course participation is only the strating point of a country asnd its players reaching high levels.Good coaching for beginners,and good playing systems are necessary for an increased playing base to improve and thrive.
But at least you have a chance.
Without better numbers you have none.
Jeff Plumb
commented on May 1st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Great comments Mark and Richard. What you say makes perfect sense to me. The answer is obvious and higher participation is a must.
I also liked one of Richard’s earlier suggestions for the selection of National teams which was along the lines of:
2 spots might be determined by a tournament or ranking and 2 spots determined by the selectors.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Charles,
Agree when you say attracting more players won’t increase National competitiveness BUT one thing more players bring to the sport is more money (through annual registration fees) which can be used to assist the elite players to improve their level.
Also (as i’ve mentioned before and Richard seems to agree), once there are more players then it’s easier to gain sponsorships. This can lead to t’ment prizemoney increasing and/or a National League which the players can earn more money. The end result is more players wanting to become better and playing against each other more often which is how countries like Aust/NZ can improve their standard - this is outside the obvious way which is spend many years overseas (like Henzell) but history says not many will do this; in fact i think Henzell is the only Aust. born and bred player that has done this.
As you seem to know the situation in Aust. better now, i’m still interested to see what you think should be the criteria for making National Teams?
Mark Smythe
commented on May 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Richard,
Agree with your comments about the article you wrote 10 years ago. We seem to agree on many things. I’m sure through these discussions we’ll find some aspects we’ll disagree with.
Alex Vanderklugt
commented on May 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
An excellent article and discussion guys, I sincerely hope TTA will take it seriously and will act on it.
Most of the paper and discussion above is about promoting and improving TT at the top levels of TT. Although I fully understand that this will filter down to the lower levels and will encourage more recruitment and participation of new players, I do believe more funding and effort at the low levels is very important too.
Certainly in SA, and I assume it’s similar in other states, junior levels drop almost every year, and although TTSA has made some effort in the last year to imporve this, I don’t think it’s enough…
I also think not enough effort is spend trying to find commercial or individual sponsors or companies willing to contribute to promoting the sport and events. As one of the major table tennis retailers in AU, we have not been asked or approached a single time by ANY TT body to ask for funding or sponsorship (and I’m not saying we will ,heh heh). Now if TT retailers are not being approached, I would assume not many other businesses are either. I’m sure there are many options or schemes that can be mutually beneficial for both the TT and the sponsors.
I know the low participation rate makes this much harder, but I do question how much effort is put into this… If funding IS the big problem, why are we not putting more effort into obtaining it?
Mark Smythe
commented on May 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Alex,
As i don’t know your situation, i would suggest you make yourself known to the State and National Body, let them know you may be interested in sponsoring an event or project of theirs and see what happens. If they already know who and what you do then (as you said) the administrators need to answer the question of why they are not putting extra effort into gaining more funding.
I think Victoria (my State) is in pretty bad shape in many areas (including player numbers and funding/sponsorships), but compared to other States/Territory in the country i think Vic. is flying alone and going extremely well.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Charles,Charles, oh Charles, where are you? I’m waiting for a response to my question.
Alex Vanderklugt
commented on May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Thanks Mark! The point I was trying to make is that I don’t think much effort is being ut into raising funds… You’d think that if they DID try and get sponsorship, the TT retailers would be their first option…and it doesn’t take much effort to find them…
Charles
commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi Mark,
increasing participation will definetely lead to an injection of funds; I support this.
However when we go into what the possibilities are for expansion, you are really delving into theory.
For there to a growth in this sport in Australia, there are too many factors to consider. In essence, you need a skilled management team, a finance manager and a lawyer.
Charles
commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I think you need to consider how long it takes to criticise a system, and how long it takes to implement changes. Provided you were delegated the responsibility to make a proposed change. How much time and resources would it take you to do this effectively.
Charles
commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I think national team selection criteria should be based primarily on results. I dont think this will lead to sustainable growth. But the problem is Australia also does not have the resources to promote Table Tennis as a full time occupation. Japan has used competition based system for as long as I can remember. They have not improved significantly throughout the years.
Charles
commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
That being said, a person must be first eligible for selection. Having minimum training requirements has many benefits. It will ensure Australia is prepared for international events, it will promote discipline, and structure an organised community that produces positive externalities.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Charles,
Still pretty sure your initials are BL but doesn’t matter, it’s the conversation that’s important.
RE: Growth of tt in Aust.
Agree that a skilled management team and finacial manager is required.
Disagree that a lawyer is needed. Off course each sporting body would have its own lawyer but not directly involved with the running of the sport.
RE: Critising a system and implementing changes.
Just as it takes years to implement serious changes to improve the sport, i have spent years critising the decision makers in not looking after the sport. My critisisms have been warranted as the sport has either stagnated or gone backwards in most aspects over the years.
A skilled management team and financial manager would use whatever resources available to their full potential to improve the sport (especially with player numbers).
RE: National Team Selection Criteria
If you have a system of every registered player (plus following ITTF regulations) eligible (regardless of how often they train) then it’s a win win for the sport as there’s a higher chance of more players continuing to participate in competition (providing more depth and revenue for the sport - increased t’ment prizemoney) which in turn creates a better chance of more players training more often - again a win win situation for players and the sport.
I can’t think of anything more positive for the sport in this country (and other countries in similar posistion as Aust) than having its players wanting to, play, improve and enjoy the sport.
It’s the administrators responsibility to offer and provide competitions and training facilities/programs (within budget) to its paying customers (the players). It’s my belief that all players can handle having certain competition requirements (right performances and certain events) enforced as that is the best way to find out who should make a Team. After reading some of the above comments i have changed my view a bit and now think for major events, 1 spot in a Team can be selected while the other spots are qualified for - as opposed to all spots being qualified for as suggested in my discussion paper.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
After reading the comments by Brian Lauri on another discussion on this website (aust. needs simon gereada) i say sorry to Charles for doubting your indentity and sorry to Brian as well.
Mark Smythe
commented on May 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Charles and Brian,
As both (and any other reader) of you having similar thoughts on criteria i’m still interested to continue this discussion, even if we end up agreeing to disagree.
We and other readers may learn some things or even change our views on these issues due to this discussion/debate.
Stan French
commented on May 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Hello, I have come across this web site, and have read most of comments, I was wondering with all the training etc,etc, what can a top player(AUST)make in earnings apart from rankings,trophys etc, etc. I also have heard that table tennis is a popular activity.
Jeff Plumb
commented on June 5th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Hi Stan,
I would estimate a player could win between $1,000 and $2,000 through a year which would come from winning 4-6 Men’s Singles events plus some runners-up.
For a top Australian player who is playing pro league in Europe, I would estimate they could earn anywhere between $20,000 - $35,000 for a season which usually lasts 8 months. How much a player could earn would depend on various things and how well that player could negotiate their contract.