Dear Mr. Eggermont,

Thank you for your message and the web-sites you have indicated. I visited these web-sites and read most of the material posted. Unfortunately, your concerns and the concerns expressed in the web-sites are specific to long pimples. The new rule of the ITTF relates to the coefficient of friction of all pimpled rubbers.

This is a standard that has been established and provided to manufacturers in order to give them a standard range for the production of the rubbers. This standard did not exist before and is necessary to control the production of the rubber within the ITTF permissible rules. Perhaps such a standard should have been adopted many years earlier, but it is just now that it has been passed by the Board of Directors of the ITTF. It is true that some "slippery" long pimpled rubber (as you call them) may not meet the standard, and it is true that currently approved rubber may no longer be approved, but it is also true that this applies to all manufacturers equally.

I am very sorry if such a regulation is affecting some players negatively and may force them to change their equipment. This is one of the negative aspects of any rule change. However, I firmly believe that the long term benefit far outweighs the short term negative impact.


Regarding the defensive player, believe me that I personally wish to see the resurgence of the defensive player within our sport at all levels and I am personally involved in finding ways with the experts to make this style popular again. However, the existence of slippery long pimples, by your own admission, has not produced a larger number of defensive players. Therefore, low-friction long-pimpled rubbers are not the solution and are not the right excuse for this campaign against the ITTF rule. The real reason is that some manufacturers will lose business and some players (probably a large number) will lose their favourite equipment. This is very unfortunate of course, and I fully understand the negative reaction. But the arguement about defensive players really is not a good one. This must be addressed in a completely different way and we must all work together to find the "correct" ways to bring back the pleasure and excitement of defensive style to the young players.

Wit regard to the many changes to the rules over the last few years and your plea to stop changing our beloved sport, my response is simple "a sport that does not change is a dead sport". However, it is possible that some or all of the changes we made may be wrong. The only way to know is to "measure" the popularity of our sport after the changes. Based on our statistics, we now have MORE TV coverage, we were ranked 5th at the Athens Olympics in terms of popularity of our sport, and we are the second most active federation (according to IOC) in developing our sport all over the World. Moreover, most of our member national associations are experiencing an increase in membership. So based on these performance indicators, I believe we are doing OK. Of course we can always do better, and the input provided by you and some of your colleagues does help in the formulation of our future plans.

By the way, if you wish to make a change to the rules, this can only be done through your national association. This current campaign, although noble, is actually a waste of time, since neither me nor my colleagues have any power in changing rules. Due process is through the member national associations.

I am sorry that I could not give you a more satisfactory answer, but I am sure that you will understand my position and that you will continue to enjoy our sport and the challenge of adapting to a new set of equipment.

Best regards,

Adham Sharara
ITTF