 Ping-Pong.com/STIGA - USA National Team Sponsor |
|
Ping-Pong.com/STIGA - USA National Team Sponsor |
2001 U.S. Team Trials
By Larry Hodges
The top 16 men and top 10 women gathered to do battle to make the USA Team
… not to mention the Olympic stipend money that came with it: 1st
$2750, 2nd $2000, 3rd $1500, 4th $1250.
One problem was unavoidable: Las Vegas is 3000 feet above sea level, which makes the air thinner. That means
Because of this, many players wanted to practice early, but weren’t allowed
to until 6 PM, with the Trials starting at 7 PM. Ironically, USA Team Member
Mark Hazinski, to get ready for the altitude, trained in Colorado Springs with
Mark Nordby for a week before the Trials. He arrived in Las Vegas on Sunday,
giving himself two days to adjust to the 3000 feet altitude – but wasn’t
able to until one hour before the Trials. So while others were trying to adjust
to the thinner air, he was trying to adjust to the thicker air … and didn’t.
Another snafu is that some of the players thought that the draws would be made according to the ratings used to select the 16 players, and knowing the “snake” method that would be used for the draw, figured out who they would be playing, and trained for those players. However, newer ratings were used, and so the draws were not as they expected.
Format: The top 16 players entered were put into four groups of four, with
the top two in each group advancing to a final group of eight. Matches from the
qualifier carried over to the final group. All matches were best of seven to 11.
Missing from these trials was USA Team Member Barney J. Reed, who, training
in San Diego until a few days before the deadline for entering the Trials,
neglected to enter until after the deadline. He appealed to the Board, but with
the potential threat of grievances by players if they didn’t follow the rules
– which also meant sticking to 16 players, meaning 16th seed Adam Hugh
wouldn't play if Barney were put in – but the Board turned down his appeal.
Sean
O'Neill. Photo by Larry Hodges, copyright 2001.
Group One
This was the most straightforward group. Cheng Yinghua won 12-0, with scores
of 3, 9, 3, 7, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 7, 1, 9. 3.75
points per game. Enough said.
Sean O’Neill easily came in second, defeating Chi-Sun Chui at 6, 11, 7, 5,
and Avishy Schmidt 9, -7, 5, 6, 3. So O’Neill joined Cheng in the Final Eight.
David
Zhuang. Photo by Larry Hodges, copyright 2001.
Group Two
This group was also pretty straightforward, with the higher-rated player
winning all six matches, just as in group one. Like Cheng, David Zhuang cruised,
winning 12-0, with scores of 3, 3, 7, 10, 1, 5, 8, 4, 6, 5, 7, 9. Not quite as
dominating as Cheng, but 5.7 points a game.
The battle for second was an easy 4-0 for Sean Lonergan over Nison Aronov …
or was it easy? Scores were 12-10, 11-9, 12-10, 13-11! Nison may not have won,
but he put on some spectacular lobbing displays. He’s probably the best lobber
in the U.S. Both beat Randy Cohen, 4-1, with Randy putting on some good lobbing
displays himself.
Adam
Hugh. Photo by Larry Hodges, copyright 2001.
Group Three
Eric Owens pretty much dominated, winning the first three against Brian Pace
before winning 4-1 (4, 10, 7, -10, 9). In the key second game, Brian served from
up 10-9 – but whiffed a loop. Eric defeated 13-year-old Adam Hugh, newly rated
2404, at 8, 8, 5, 5. In his final match, meaningless to the Trials, he struggled
against fourth seed Tuan Le, losing the first two – and almost the fifth –
before winning –8, -10, 5, 4, 12, 4. Tuan battled with everyone, but lost to
Brian, 4, 8, -4, 5, -8, 9; and to Adam, 3, -5, 10, 8, 6.
The BIG match was Brian vs. Adam, power vs. steady control. Brian had been
playing in Romania recently, and hoped it would elevate his game. But not this
time – Adam was two angle-consistent, and Brian a bit too erratic, and Adam
pulled off the upset to advance, 9, 3, -4, 9, 9. In the fifth game, Adam led
10-6, 10-7, 10-8, 10-9 … you could almost see the turnaround. But Adam looped
a serve, and Brian missed the counterloop.
Razvan
Cretu. Photo by Larry Hodges, copyright 2001.
Group Four
This was the most balanced group, with three players battling it out almost
to the end. Fourth seed Richard Lee pitched in, adding some excitement as he
tried to play spoiler, getting two games against Ashu, and one against Mark
Hazinski.
The last two times Razvan Cretu and Ashu had played, they not only had gone
the full seven games, but each time the loser of the match had been up match
point. At the North American Teams in Baltimore three weeks before, Razvan had
had five match points, but Ashu had won. In the quarterfinals of the San Diego
Open just two days before, Ashu had had two match points before losing. This
time, there were no match points by the loser, but the two looped and
counterlooped the full distance in a match that may very well make the
difference on who gets the final spot on the U.S. Team. And Ashu did have to
come back from down 1-3, winning –8, 10, -8, -9, 7, 3, 7. It could have been
4-0 – Razvan won the first, and led 8-4 in the second before losing at 10.
Ashu’s reputation as the Houdini of table tennis is being showcased – and
it’s only just begun!
Ashu said, “The conditions here are very fast, with the thin air. I
couldn’t spin the ball and control its placement, so I gave up spin and went
for placement. Razvan played smart, stepping back and spinning my deep
serves.”
This was only 1/3 of the battle in this group. The next match-up was Razvan
vs. Mark. Mark had surprised everyone (except perhaps his coach, Dan Seemiller)
by not only making the World Team earlier this year, but finishing second. This
time, however, he looked uncomfortable against the left-handed Razvan, and lost
4-0, 7, 9, 5, 10. This meant that even if Mark defeated Ashu to force a
three-way tie, Razvan would advance. So it came down to Mark and Ashu. Some
quick figuring showed that Mark had to win 4-1 to advance. If Ashu won two
games, then he’d advance in a three-way tie. Of course, if Ashu won, then
he’d advance undefeated.) Mark almost pulled it off, going up 3-1 in games. At
this point, all eyes were on this match – the next game was all that mattered.
If Mark win the game, then he wins the match 4-1, and forces a three-way tie
with Razvan and Ashu. Razvan would advance in first at 7-4; Mark would come in
second at 4-5; and Ashu would be eliminated at 5-7. However, if Ashu wins the
game, the best Mark could do would be to win 4-2, and finish at 4-6, just behind
Ashu’s 6-7.
Ashu goes up 6-4, then serves in the net. But then, in what may have been the
match-breaker, Mark loops a series of balls side to side, and Ashu makes several
off-balance returns. He finally makes an awkward return from the wide forehand,
popping up the ball and leaving his backhand wide open. Mark goes for a
windmill, inside-out forehand loop to Ashu’s wide backhand, with more sidespin
than topspin … and it goes just long! So Ashu now leads 7-5 … then 9-6. They
have a nice rally, but the fates are with Ashu, who gets a net-winner, 10-6, and
then 11-6. The match isn’t over, but Ashu will advance. Mark, who knew in
advance he had to win 4-1, is expressionless. There seems no letup the rest of
the way, but Ashu wins both to pull out still another 7-gamer. Along with his
6-gamer with Richard, he’s played 20 games, far more than anyone else – and
he’s advancing undefeated, with the win over Razvan.
This will be played on Wednesday. The eight finalists are:
Cheng Yinghua, Sean O’Neill, David Zhuang, Sean Lonergan, Eric Owens, Adam
Hugh, Ashu Jain and Razvan Cretu.
Format: The top 10 players entered were put into two groups of five, with the
top three in each group advancing to a final group of six. Matches from the
qualifier carried over to the final group. All matches were best of seven to 11.
Until nearly the last match of the qualifiers, the higher-rated player won
every single match, almost always very easily. In the end, the higher-rated
player in each match finished with a 19-1 record.
Left:
Virginia Sung; Right: Lily Yip. Photos copyright 2001 by Larry Hodges.
Group One
If ever there was a group that went according to ratings, this was the one.
Nine of the ten matches were 4-0, and the other match was 4-1, giving the
higher-rated player a game record of 40-1. Chang Jun Gao easily won all hers: 3,
6, 5, 6, 7, 6, 4, 1, 4, 5, 7, 3, 3, 4, 8, 5. That’s 4.81 a game, and not even
a 9 game! (Even Cheng and David had those.) Coming in second was chopper
Virginia Sung, defeating third-place finisher Lily Yip at 6, -9, 7, 10, 4 in the
most exciting – and longest – match of the group. Finishing fourth was
Whitney Ping, 1-3, and fifth was Allison Seibel, 0-4.
Left:
Tawny Banh; Right: Simone Yang. Photos copyright 2001 by Larry Hodges.
Group Two
Except for the group’s second-seeded Tawny Banh’s win over first-seed Jasna Reed (7, 8, -8, -7, 8, -4, 4), the higher-rated player won ever game. Although there were a sprinkling of 4-1 matches, no match went beyond that, except for the titantic Tawny-Jasna match. Finishing third was Simone Yang, who got a game against Jasna, didn’t against Tawny, and won 4-0 against juniors Katherine Wu and Laura Leach. Katherine, who got games against both Jasna and Tawny, came in fourth at 1-3, and Laura fifth, 0-4.
The Tawny-Jasna match, however, was enough for any group, and should have been a final somewhere. It was a vintage match between the "Asian" style of Tawny vs. the "European" style of Jasna: Tawny, hitting everything quick off the bounce with her pips-out backhand, looping her forehands at the top of the bounce, and never letting up the attack, while Jasna played different speeds, sometime playing offense, sometimes offense, sometimes close to the table, sometimes away, but always topspinning everything at different speeds.
This will be played on Wednesday. The six finalists are:
Chang Jun Gao, Virginia Sung, Lily Yip, Tawny Banh, Jasna Reed and Simone Yang.
| |
| USA Table Tennis - Serving the Table Tennis Community |
| |