The dominant side in play

The question is not which side produces the cleanest stroke in a regularity drill, but which one closes the point when the match tightens. Those two facts do not always coincide, and the one that decides the equipment is the second. Some players produce a very presentable backhand against a passive ball and, as soon as the tempo rises, go back systematically to the forehand to finish; the backhand covers, the forehand kills. Others work the other way round. And a growing group — the result of the style dominant in modern high-level play — closes points on both sides at similar rates. The diagnosis here consists of identifying which of the three profiles applies, without adding wishes to the observation.

The classic strong forehand organises the game around the forehand loop, the spin attack on which everything else pivots. Body position, lateral movement and the reading of the bounce are all arranged to bring as many balls as possible to that side. The backhand acts as support: it blocks, opens with restraint, contains while the forehand gets ready. In that division of labour, equipment can legitimately treat the two sides as different functions. The forehand calls for a rubber capable of delivering the speed and spin the main stroke demands; the backhand, a less demanding, more forgiving rubber that fulfils its containing role without requiring a full stroke. The tradition of equipping this asymmetry with hard tensors on the forehand and soft tensors on the backhand — or even Chinese rubbers on the forehand and European ones on the backhand — follows this logic. The nuances of the forehand/backhand division are developed in 7.1 and 11.4; identifying the profile is enough here.

The strong backhand is less common in a club player, but it exists, and it tends to be misdiagnosed. It is usually a matter of left-handers who have worked the backhand hard from an early age, players with a very mature backhand flick, or the penhold with reverse backhand — developed in 16.3 — which has inverted the traditional division of the style. The frequent error is to go on building the bat like a strong-forehand player out of habit or in imitation of a clubmate. When the backhand is the side that closes the points, it should be the one receiving the more demanding rubber, and the forehand the one playing a supporting role. The bat is simply the reverse of the classic model.

The symmetrical game is the emerging pattern of modern table tennis and describes the player who attacks at similar rates on both sides, with no clear favourite for finishing. Two built loops, a backhand that opens as often as the forehand, a competent flick and short opening on both sides. In that profile the aggressive asymmetry of the two previous cases stops making sense: the appropriate equipment is two rubbers of equivalent demand, not necessarily identical, on a blade that delivers equally on forehand and backhand. The two-winged style is taken up in 16.1; what matters for the diagnosis is not to fit a symmetrical player into a bat designed for the strong-forehand player they no longer are.

There is a fourth case that is neither symmetrical nor classic, but deliberately asymmetrical in another direction: the defender with long pimples on the backhand, the blocker with anti-spin, the “tricky” player who combines very different surfaces. In those profiles the asymmetry of the equipment reflects not a hierarchy of strength between the two sides but a division of functions: one side strikes and the other disrupts. They belong to specific styles rather than to the basic diagnosis, and are developed in 6.3, 6.5 and 16.5 to 16.7.

The operating consequence fits into one sentence. Equipment is divided between the two sides in the proportion in which the points won are divided, not in the proportion the player would like.