$5000 Quaker City Open

Philadelphia, PA · March 29-30, 2003

By Larry Hodges

Wang Chen serves against Thomas Keinath in the final. Click on image for full-sized version! Photo by Csaba Nagy ©2003.

291 players on 34 tables gathered for the Quaker City Open, efficiently run by North American Table Tennis. There were actually over 400 players for the weekend – the ACUI and NCTTA championships were held in conjunction with the Quaker City Open. (See write-ups in this issue.)

Saturday play faced a problem in that the air conditioning wasn’t on, and the gym, with 300 or so people, heated up quickly. College officials at first insisted that it was on, but it obviously either wasn’t turned on, or wasn’t working. So, as one person said, “I get two for the price of one – a tournament and a steam bath.” Fortunately, the air conditioning was on for Sunday, and those who thought they didn’t need warm-ups after the steamy first day were in for a cool awakening.

The huge turnout did mean putting up as many tables as possible, and some didn’t like how close the tables were together. But the alternative was to have fewer tables, and run later into the night. The amazing thing was that, with such a huge number of players, they never fell more than a few minutes behind, other than individual matches that were sometimes delayed because the previous match on the table was still being played.

Visiting New York for two weeks as a guest of the Manhattan Table Tennis Club and owner/sponsor Jerry Wartski was top-seeded Thomas Keinath of Germany, world #76, with a USATT rating of 2839 (from the last two U.S. Opens/ITTF Pro Tours, and the Stiga Open on the Stiga NATT Tour last year). During his stay, he’s joining the Manhattan club’s regular coaches (former Nigerians Atanda Musa and Mike Oyebode, and Wang Chen), as well as training Wang Chen.

Wang (who would win women’s singles over Lily Yip as well as, surprisingly, making the Open final) is now traveling globally to compete in the ITTF Pro Tour, starting with the recent Qatar Open, where she made the final of Women’s Doubles with Ding Yan of Italy. It’s not like Wang is new to the tour – playing for China, she’s a three-time women’s singles winner in the ITTF Pro Tour, winning the Australian and China Pro Tours in 1996, and the 1997 Japan Pro Tour. Ranked #4 in the world in 1998, she was the 1997 Asian Cup Women’s Singles Champion. And now she’s living and playing for USA! Can Wang Chen + Chang Jun Gao (world #3 in 1996, also playing for China) = Olympic Women’s Doubles medal? Or even in singles?

Wang’s not the only one traveling the world – Oyebode plays professionally in the Italian league seven months a year, and plays and coaches at the Manhattan club the other five.

There was an interesting experience that showcased a major difference in how top players view tournaments and schedules. All players in NATT tournaments receive personalized player schedules, and are to report to the control desk for their match slips when their match is scheduled. The great majority of players show up on time. Those that don’t are called on the loudspeaker, and nearly all show at that point. I was helping out at the control desk this tournament, and at 4:30 on Saturday, the final 16 players in the Open were all scheduled to play in their final four groups of four. As I jotted down in my notes, as of 4:37, exactly … zero had reported to the desk for their matches. Twelve of them were then called on the loudspeaker. (The table for one group of four was still in use from the previous round, so they were not yet called.) Two of them (David Zhuang and Shao Yu) immediately reported. The desk was forced to search down the other ten (and later the other four) one by one to get them to the tables for their matches. One of the desk crew told me in advance this would happen, as it had in past tournaments.

Open Singles

The top twelve players were seeded into the Final Sixteen, which was divided into four groups of four. All other players played in preliminary round robins. The winners of the round robins then advanced to a single elimination stage, with the final four making the Final Sixteen. The top two players in each of these final round robins then advanced to the quarterfinals.

In the Final Sixteen round robins, the most interesting match was 15-year-old Adam Hugh’s seven-game match with Eric Owens. At the USA Team Trials a week before, Adam had upset Eric. As at the team trials, Adam was able to take away much of Eric’s forehand play, and Eric played too much backhand, while Adam was able to attack from both wings. Eric’s forehand attack finally came out in the end. This time around, Eric won the first two games, but Adam won the next three. However, Eric won the last two and the match, 8,4,-8,-6,-9,8,6. (In game six, Eric had led 10-3, but Adam scored five in a row before losing.) Eric would then be upset in a counterlooping battle by Atanda Musa (-8,8,9,4,8) to finish second in the group, thereby getting a more difficult draw. The other groups went mostly as seeded.

The final eight included four players from the New York/New Jersey area (Musa, Shao, Wang and Zhuang). The odds of all four being on the same half of the draw? One in 35 (work it out!), but that’s what happened.

Quarterfinals

Pradeeban Peter-Paul d. Eric Owens, 6,9,-12,9,3,10. A relatively straightforward match, although disappointing for the USA crowd that their 2001 Men’s Singles Champion just didn’t seem on top of his game. As Brian Pace (who was helping run the tournament but not playing) pointed out, none of the players who had taken part in the USA Team Trials the week before were playing well, either from physical or mental exhaustion.

Thomas Keinath d. Ignacio Cabrera (CAN), 4,3,20,7,9. Except for the 42-point game three, another straightforward match.

Atanda Musa d. Shao Yu, 9,6,8,10,10. Has Musa ever won an easy game when he could make it close? Shao led most of the last two games, and I’m told had a huge lead in one.

Wang Chen d. David Zhuang, -7,-8,8,9,-7,10,-5,10,4. This was the main match this round, lasting far longer than the other three matches – with this writer the umpire for this 80-minute marathon. Most expected to see Zhuang against Keinath in the final, but it was not to be. Pips-out penholder Zhuang (rated 2739 to Wang’s 2507) started out well, hitting and blocking to win the first two with relative ease against shakehander Wang (pips on backhand, looping forehand). Even after losing the next two in this best of nine, he didn’t seem in serious trouble – yet. He won the fifth, and led 9-6 in the sixth – and that’s when things started to fall apart for him. Wang scored four in a row, and went on to win that game 12-10 to even things at 3-3. After Zhuang easily won game seven (11-5), Wang ran away with game eight, 9-3 – or did she? She hung on to win, but once again it was 12-10! She also ran away with the ninth and final game – and this time there was no last-minute comeback, to the glee of the screaming New York contingent. There would be no “David vs. Goliath” final between Zhuang and Keinath.

Semifinals

Thomas Keinath d. Pradeeban Peter-Paul, 8,9,10,6,8. This match never seemed in doubt, no matter how close the scores were. Pradeeban battled hard, as he always did, and forced Keinath to pull out his “A” game – which he did. While Pradeeban can loop anything, Keinath can loop anything for a winner.

Wang Chen d. Atanda Musa, 7,9,5,-5,-9,5,-6,8. There’s not much to say about this exhibition between these club-mates other than that the points were spectacular but the match wasn’t really contested.

Final

Thomas Keinath d. Wang Chen, 5,8,10,-3,6,10. And so we have a final between Keinath and the player he is training. As good as Wang is, she was simply outgunned here – was truly David vs. Goliath in this case, with Keinath’s two-winged looping just too powerful. In game three, Wang led 5-0, but couldn’t hold on. The last point told the story of the match: a serve and a backhand rip by the German Goliath (actually, about two inches shorter than Wang) that went by untouched.

Other Events

Probably having the best tournament of all was 9-year-old A.J. Brewer of Indiana, rated 1173 for the tournament, but actually rated 1499 coming into the tournament. A.J. won Under 10, Under 1100, Under 1250, Under 3200 Doubles (with father George), and made the quarterfinals of Under 1550. Poor Manuel Tan was on the losing end of all three of the rating events, losing the U1100 final 11-9 in the seventh as A.J. played the role of Goliath in some of these events.

Parviz clutches his winnings - three checks! Photo by Larry Hodges ©2003.

54-year-old Parviz Mojaverian won Under 2375, made the final of Over 40 (against Musa – so much for that event!), and split the Over 50 final with George Brathwaite (who would win Over 60 and make the final of Under 4200 Doubles). Parviz, formerly of New Jersey, and then of Pennsylvania, moved to Kansas City last October for job reasons, and has been practicing twice a week with 2000+ Laura Xiao, who until recently turning 14 was one of the three girls battling for the top spot in the USA Under 14 girls’ rankings.

Joseph Wang displays his winnings. Photo by Larry Hodges ©2003.

12-year-old Joseph Wang of Maryland won both Under 13 and Under 16. In the latter, he had a wild 8,6,-9,6,-10,-7,12 final with New Jersey’s Alden Fan. Up 3-1 in games and 6-1 in the fifth (and a match point at 10-9), Joseph seemed to have it clinched, but instead had to fight off two match points in the seventh to win. Both players had strong backhands and awesome forehands.

16-year-old Han Xiao of Maryland, with his rating down to 2445 after being over 2500 for a while, had a weird tournament. He had one of his worst losses in several years (and so dropped more points), losing to Scott Endicott (2116) deuce in the fifth in the Open preliminaries (and eventually losing out in a three-way tie by a game and so not advancing, as Larry Bavly, with a 3-0 win over Endicott, advanced instead). However, he’d go on to win Under 18 over Adam Hugh, -9,7,8,-10,6,9 (getting a lot of those points back, as Hugh, 2538, had gone up quite a bit at the Team Trials the week before), with a win over Under 22 winner Pierre-Luc Hinse of Canada (2521) in the semifinals, 7,7,7,-10,-9,6. Xiao also made the final of Under 2500, where he’d lose to forehand looping, backhand long-pips blocking Khaled Zeinelabedin, 7,6,-9,-14,5,8.

Special thanks goes to sponsors Gerflor Flooring and the University of Pennsylvania’s Pottruck Recreation Center, to Hank McCoullum for all his help, and to the NATT tournament staff for another well-run event.

Open Singles – Final: Thomas Keinath d. Wang Chen, 5,8,10,-3,6,10; SF: Keinath d. Pradeeban Peter-Paul, 8,9,10,6,8; Wang d. Atanda Musa, 7,9,5,-5,-9,5,-6,8; QF: Keinath d. Ignacio Cabrera, 4,3,20,7,9; Peter-Paul d. Eric Owens, 6,9,-12,9,3,10; Musa d. Shao Yu, 9,6,8,10,10; Wang d. David Zhuang, -7,-8,8,9,-7,10,-5,10,4.

Women’s Singles – Final: Wang Chen d. Lily Yip, 6,-10,5,10,5.

Over 40 – Final: Atanda Musa d. Parviz Mojaverian, 9,9,8,4; SF: Musa d. Lim Ming Chui, 8,8,8,8; Mojaverian d. Barry Dattel, def.

Over 50 – Final: Parviz Mojaverian & George Brathwaite split prize; SF: Mojaverian d. Dave Sakai, 3,-10,2,-6,6,-9,10; Brathwaite d. Jiri Hlava, -8,12,6,5,9.

Over 60 – Final: George Brathwaite d. Gary Gudzenko, -7,10,3,4,6.

Under 22 Men – Final: Pierre-Luc Hinse d. Ignacio Cabrera, 7,7,7,8; SF: Hinse d. Adam Hugh, 13,9,5,-10,5; Cabrera d. Peng Guo, 6,9,8,5.

Under 18 Boys – Final: Han Xiao d. Adam Hugh, -9,7,8,-10,6,9; SF: Xiao d. Pierre-Luc Hinse, 7,7,7,-10,-9,6; Hugh d. Yang Liu, -9,7,8,-10,6,9.

Under 18 Girls – Final: Laura Leach d. Jennifer Mast, n.s.

Under 16 Boys – Final: Joseph Wang d. Alden Fan, 8,6,-9,6,-10,-7,12; SF: Wang d. Amaresh Sahu, 4,4,10,4; Fan d. Preston Chin, -5,9,9,-3,9,3.

Under 13 – Final: Joseph Wang d. Carlos Villanueva Jr., -9,9,7,3,4.

Under 10 – Final: A.J. Brewer d. Wesley Fan, n.s.

U2500 – Final: Khaled Zeinelabedin d. Han Xiao, 7,6,-9,-14,5,8; SF: Zeinelabedin d. Courtney Roberts, 4-3; Xiao d. Pan Lin, 4,-8,-5,-8,9,9,7; QF: Zeinelabedin d. Peng Guo, 5,9,9; Roberts d. Dayanand Maharaj, 9,5,1; Xiao d. Rich Burnside, 9,8,6; Lin d. Ignacio Cabrera, -9,10,9,-9,8.

U2375 – Final: Parviz Mojaverian d. Barry Dattel, 11,-8,8,9,3; SF: Mojaverian d. Eyal Adini, 9,-11,-9,8,3,-8,6; Dattel d. Scott Endicott, 4,8,5,8.

U2250 – Final: Shawn Embleton d. Larry Bavly, 6,7,5,6; SF: Embleton d. Richard DeWitt, 4,10,8,-8,9; Bavly d. Wally Green, 7,12,10,-6,9.

U2125 – Final: Hsin-Cheng Chou d. Lim Ming Chui, 2,7,4,8; SF: Chou d. John Jarema, 1,-12,6,7,6; Chui d. Valeriy Ort, -10,-6,8,3,7,9.

U2000 – Final: Vladimir Iodkovskiy d. Mohsen Javaheri, 9,4,8,4; SF: Iodkovskiy d. Steffen Schebesta, 3,5,-9,9; Javaheri d. John Dixon, 9,-4,8,8,8.

U1850 – Final: Pelhe Yuan d. William Mobley III, 9,8,7,9; SF: Yuan d. Don Paul, 9,8,9,5; Mobley d. Fernando Ramirez, -12,9,-8,-8,7,7,6.

U1700 – Final: Jason Ling d. Pelhe Yuan, -10,-7,7,7,7,-0,7; SF: Ling d. Nobuhiko Koyama, 2,7,3,1; Yuan d. Olayinka Adeshiyan, 2,-7,5,-6,8,9.

U1550 – Final: John Keung d. Matthew Lee, -4,-7,7,-8,11,11,12; SF: Keung d. Harvey Vazquez, -6,-6,7,6,-7,8,6; Lee d. Michael Wetmore, -9,1,9,5,5.

U1400 – Final: Matthew Lee d. Andrew Marcus, -11,-10,5,8,8,-7,13; SF: Lee d. Jack Hackney, 7,-9,5,6,8; Marcus d. Carl Skeete Sr., 5,-8,7,7.

U1250 – Final: A.J. Brewer d. Manuel Tan, 3,7,8,-7,6; SF: Brewer d. Noga Nir-Kistler, 7,9,1; Tan d. Frank Lee, 3,4,9,9.

U1100 – Final: A.J. Brewer d. Manuel Tan, 5,-7,-4,-5,6,3,9; SF: Brewer d. Greg Stanford, 5,6,6; Tan d. Wesley Fan, 5,-10,10,4,4.

U950 – Final: Melissa Murphy d. Reza Ghiasi, 5,-8,5,4,-7,11; SF: Murphy d. Bill Basta, 1,4,5,3; Ghiasi d. David Helmer, 8,11,8,-10,8.

U800 – Final: Vijay Yerubandi d. Shadia Santos, 8,-5,8,9,-9,7.

U4200 Doubles – Final: Lim Ming Chui/Marius Wechsler d. George Brathwaite/Toan Kenny Quach, 12,2,-10,9; SF: Chui/Wechsler d. Scott Endicott/John Dixon, 10,9,7; Brathwaite/Quach d. Ashu Jain/Wesley Fan, 11,9,-4,9.

U3200 Doubles – Final: George Brewer/A.J. Brewer d. Hsin-Cheng Chou/Manuel Tan, -10,-7,9,9,5; SF: Brewer/Brewer d. Fred Bomberger/Fred Kistler, 4,-9,4,6; Chou/Tan d. Vladimir Golovan/Michael Trepakov, -8,6,9,4.