As a modern defender style player, I’ve tried a wide variety of defensive blades. I recently heard about a new Japanese brand called Nevagiva, who have expertise in blade design, so when I was offered to review their latest blade “Magic Wall 2”, I was very excited. As with any reviews I do, I’ll only accept if they agree that I can be completely honest, and that they’re not expecting a promotional review. They accepted this, and sent me the blade to test, with no strings attached. Special thanks to my friend Jeremy from TTGearLab for arranging this and communicating on my behalf, and providing some detailed information.
What’s with the name Nevagiva?
Nevagiva is a new-comer is the world of table tennis manufacturer, and is a small niche company based in Japan. The meaning behind the word “Nevagiva” is ‘Never give up’. Because ‘Never give up’ sounds like ‘Nevagiva’, it became the Japanese word that directly means ‘Never give up’. I really like the thought they put into his name, making it quite unique. This type of clever play on words is not uncommon in the Japanese language.
What style is the blade designed for?
According to the manufacturer, the original Magic Wall blade was designed and optimised for blocking with long pimples close-to-the-table. The Magic Wall 2 is still optimised for this style, with similar feel and control, but with a little more speed, making it slightly more suitable for players that also like to chop away from the table, as well as providing more power for counter attack.
Magic Wall 2 blade construction
The Magic Wall 2 is an 5+2 outer fiber style blade, where the artificial fiber is believe to be ‘black cloth’, which aids in absorbing the impact of the ball. Outer plies are heat-treated Limba followed by the fiber layer. The relatively thick inner plies are heat-treated Ayous, with a centre ply of heat-treated Kiri. As far as I understand, heat-treatment not only reduces the weight of the blade, but also helps in absorbing the impact of the ball, which is vital for defensive blades.
It should be noted that although there may be other blades that use similar construction of plies, there are many other variables that influence the performance of the blade, like shape and size, treatment of the wood, type of glue and glue procedure, and the list goes on…
Shape and size
The Magic Wall 2 is an oversize blade, which is usually favoured by defensive style players. The handle comes in FL, ST and cpen, although I only requested a FL to test, as this is my personal preference. I’ll make a few comparison to the Victas Koji Matsushita blade below, as it’s a well known blade and designed for a similar style. The Victas blade is a little taller compared to the Magic Wall 2, but not as wide, so rubbers will not transfer perfectly.
| Magic Wall 2 | Koji Matsushita | |
| Dimension (H x W) mm | 161 x 161 | 165 x 155 |
| Thickness (mm) | 5.9mm | 5.4mm |
| Weight FL (g) | 91g | 89g |
| Handle Length (mm) | 105mm | 100mm |
The Magic Wall 2 is clearly thicker, which usually makes it a bit stiffer and more stable for blocking, while the Koji Matsushita is likely more suited to chopping away from the table.
Weight are similar for a good comparison in play, and not too heavy for an oversize blade. Of course oversize blades carry slightly bigger rubber sheets, which will add a little more to the final weight of the assembled bat.
|
|
|
The slightly longer handle is uncommon and most welcome for me personally. My hands are a little big, so I prefer bigger handles. The Magic Wall 2 handle flares out more and is thicker compared to the Koji Matsushita blade, the latter is a little thin for my liking. Of course this is personal preference, and one could add grip tape to add thickness. Twiddling with either blade felt quite easy and smooth.
The Magic Wall 2 is JTTAA approved, as laser etched into the base of the handle, as well as showing a metal tag with the brand name. The blade finish is very smooth and top notch. The blade edges are just slightly sanded to take the sharpness off, most clearly visible near the neck of the blade.
The only print on the blade is on the forehand side (see above), no writing or text anywhere else. The very smooth finish on the blade face and slight shine, makes me think it’s probably lightly sealed, but I can confirm this once I glue the rubbers on. I can spot no flaws in the finish at all, which is sign of high quality.
Bounce test
I like to bounce a ball on the bare blade to get some idea of it’s performance before I glue the rubbers on. Although it’s not a realistic test on how it performs in real play, it does give a decent idea of the blade speed at different impact forces, as well as an indication of the blade hardness and size of the sweet-spot. Since I do this test with all the blades I review or use, I have developed a feel for the blade performance based on the bounce test, which I can then relate to the real live testing.
Based on this bounce test, I found that the speeds of the two blades are very similar at low impact, probably in the ALL+ to OFF- range. The Koji Matsushita has a sharper and harder feel, while the Magic Wall 2 has a deeper and more solid feel.
The sweet-spot is relatively large on both blades, the Magic Wall 2 feels a little bigger.
Both blades have considerably kick on higher impact, the Magic Wall 2 definitely more than the Koji Matsushita. This is useful for attack or counter-attack, where you want the speed to finish off a point. For attack the Magic Wall 2 would definitely be in the OFF range of speed, which is usually sufficient to finish a point, when paired with an appropriate rubber.
It’s important to note though that attack with these type of blade will feel a little different compared to regular offensive blades. The ball comes off more direct with a regular offensive blade, while with these types of modern-defender style blades, you feel the ball sink in more, then catapult out. This may give the perception that it’s slower, but you can actually still get very good speed and more spin, and the attack can feel a little more controlled.
Rubbers for testing
To get a good feel for the performance of this blade, I’m going to glue on the same rubbers that I’ve been using in competition for the last few years. I tend to mainly loop with high spin on the forehand, while I block close-in or chop mid-distance with the backhand.
For forehand I’ll be using Victas VS 401 in 1.8mm black. This rubber has a hard and very dense sponge, with a soft and slightly tacky topsheet, ideal for high spin loops (for me). I’ve used this rubber in both 1.8mm and 2.0mm (max), and while the 2.0mm gives a little more speed and spin at the highest impact, it’s almost identical for everything else. The 1.8mm will give me a bit more feel and control for chopping, and the thinner sponge might also knock off a few grams of weight as a bonus, as this rubber is one of the heaviest the market.
On the backhand I’ll be using Tibhar Grass Dtecs in OX (no sponge) in acid green. Although this long pimple rubber is one of the more lively ones, and not the easiest to use, it provides amongst the highest in spin reversal for blocks, has a decent braking effect, and returns high backspin when chopping loops, which are both important for a modern defender or blocker. Although these rubbers may, or may not, be ideal for this blade, it’s the combinations that I’m familiar with and is the best option to test the performance of the blade.
Assembled bat
For assembling the bat, I used one thin layer of Donic Vario glue on both the Victas VS 401 and the blade, while the Dtecs came with an attached glue sheet, so no glue was required. Here are some pictures of the assembled bat:
 |
 |
 |
 |
The weight of the assembled bat came out at 164g, which is great because I prefer lighter bats. My usual competition bat is 158g, so this small difference will hopefully not require much of an adjustment in timing.
My current competition bat is a TSP Blockman II blade (discontinued) with the same rubbers as above. Bouncing the ball onto the pimples on both bats, it’s already obvious that the Magic Wall 2 absorbs much more of the impact, which is great for both blocking close-in and chopping mid-distance.
The challenge for all combination players is always to find a blade that provides enough power for attacks, while absorbing enough pace for blocks and chop with the long pimple. Only a test against some real players will reveal how well this blade works with these rubbers.
Testing the Nevagiva Magic Wall 2
Blocking Loops close to the table with long pimples in OX
This stroke will test one of the key design parameters of this blade, so I decided to try this first. I used it against two players with whom I practice regularly, and I know their game well, so it will give decent evaluation of the performance of the blade.
Blocking felt very controlled and reversal very decent. The blade feels solid and stable, certainly better than most defensive ‘chopper’ blades, which tend to flex and vibrate more on impact. Slower loops allowed me to perform a short & sharp chop-block, producing very good backspin. For faster loops this is not usually viable, so a slow downwards movement (with a loose grip) upon contact is a better choice, which produced decent backspin and I could comfortably manage to keep the ball on the table. It actually surprised me how well I could take the pace off the ball, a lot better compared to my regular bat (TSP Blockman II with the same rubbers).
The bounce felt quite consistent over the surface of the bat, except for a few times when I blocked the ball near the edge of the bat, which took a lot more pace off the ball, but still managed to go over the net. Of course you’ll experience this properties with all blades, but it’s more pronounced with thin and oversize blades. With this blade I could only feel this right near the edge (which is never the ideal spot to make contact.
Now I should mention that if you’re more of a push/blocker style player, one who tries to block any topspin ball short, and push any backspin balls (a style more common in the friction-less long pimple era), then this blade will likely feel a little fast for you, despite it’s good dampening property. For this style a slow and stiff blade may work better, as the main requirement of the bat is to take the pace off the ball. But I don’t think this blade is designed for this, it’s designed more for modern defenders, where blocking with the pimples is as important as the ability to attack with inverted. This is where blade designers need to find the right balance, and I feel that this blade is clearly more in the modern defender category, for mid to high level players, as you’ll read in the attacking performance later on in this review.
Pushing against Backspin with long pimples in OX
I feel that this stroke is almost as important to test on this blade, because good blockers (with long pimples) will try and move around a good looper, to try and get them out of position where they may have to push the ball back, creating the opportunity to attack. When it’s not viable to attack with inverted (on the other side of the bat), one must try and attack with the pimples. An aggressive push is often the percentage play, where the pimples ‘reverse’ the backspin to topspin as it goes back, which helps it land and can make it awkward for the opponent to attack again.
This too worked very effectively, and was clearly producing enough reversal to produce topspin to make the balls land. Short and sharp pushes over the table, with either a forward or side-swiping action, gave me really good control, allowing me to get too angles or fast into-the-body shots. The relatively soft pimples of the Dtecs rubber seems to work really well with this blade, giving it a nice and crisp feel.
Chopping loops mid-distance with long pimples in OX
Although the blade is described (and clearly named) as a ‘blocking blade’, when chopping from mid-distance I was actually the most impressed with this blade. The control I felt when chopping loops was as good as any dedicated ‘chopper blade I’ve tested. I could really feel the high ‘dwell time’, like the ball was hanging on the bat for a fraction of the second longer, giving me the feeling of control, and allowing me return the balls low with heavy backspin. The Dtecs rubbers does have quite a bit of friction when chopping loops, and this actually helps you control the spin and depth of the balls.
Really powerful loops were harder to control, but this is always the case when looping with a long pimple, especially in OX. That’s where a thin sponge can really help control the pace, but of course the sponge makes it less effective when blocking/pushing in-close. There’s always a trade-off and compromise to be made. Elite players, like the famous Joo Sae Hyuk for example, plays against powerful looper all the time, so a sponge underneath the pimples is almost essential. However at club level where most of us play, long pimples in OX are certainly viable, which is where blades like this can really shine. That’s not to say that this blade won’t perform well with a sponged long pimple rubber to chop powerful loops, but it’s not something I have tested yet.
Looping with Inverted rubber
Looping backspin balls was a dream with this blade. My style is to brush-loop backspin balls to get maximum spin and I prioritise placement over speed. The combination of the ‘hard sponged’ and ‘soft topsheet’ of the Victas VS 401 rubber combines really well with this blade, providing high dwell time and high throw. As a result, I could lift backspin easily and produced high spin balls with high accuracy at medium speed.
Of course the choice of rubber and style of play makes a quite difference here, but the point I’d like to make is that this blade really aids in the producing maximum spin from the rubber, and this is often very important for players that use OX long pimple on one side, as it maximises the contrast between the two sides of the bat.
Looping topspin or counter looping required some adjustment, because I wasn’t used to the high kick that this blade produces (my regular blade is much stiffer). The high kick of the blade produces a much faster ball at a somewhat lower trajectory. This requires one to close the bat angle a little while looping or the ball will go over the end of the table. Although I managed to adjust after some practice, I still missed a fair percentage of points and felt it’s just wasn’t very forgiving. I don’t think this is a strength of this blade, at least not with this rubber, when playing close to the table. Blocking these topspin balls felt like a much more effective option, which felt solid and consistent.
Taking a step back from the table and looping with a higher arc felt much more consistent and effective. You can see players like Panagiotis Gionis loop with this style of play. Loops had high spin and still had plenty of power for attack. Putting some side-spin on my loops produced good kick off the table and veered with one of the widest angle I’ve seen, so if this is how you like to play, this blade can work very well for you.
Chopping loops with inverted rubber
As expected from the performance with Dtecs, chopping with inverted worked really well too. Control was high, spin was very high, as long as had enough bat speed on contact. I expect the control will be even better with a thinner rubber, but since I attack much more than chop with inverted, the 1.8mm 401 was an excellent compromise. Although I do plan to try other rubbers to see how they perform on this bat, the set of rubbers I used are the ones I’m most familiar with, allowing me to judge the performance of the blade.
Twiddling and the handle
For those of us that like to twiddle (flip the bat over) during play to enable inverted attack from both wings, the handle shape and size can be important. The handle on this blade feels very smooth (but not slippery) in the hand, making twiddling very easy, without the feeling that it might slip out of your hands (which is common with ST handles). The slightly longer handle does two things in my view;
- It moves the ‘flare’ of the handle slightly further outside the palm of your hand, which makes it feel looser (important to absorb energy from the ball) in the hand.
- It moves the center of gravity slightly further towards the handle, making the bat feel slighly lighter and less top-heavy.
I don’t know if this is by design for these reasons, or if there are other reasons, but both these features are highly desirable for a blocker IMO.
Summary
For combination players that play both close-in and mid-distance, this blade is one of the best I’ve ever used. It’s rare for a blade to offer both good braking-effect when blocking with the pimples in OX, yet provide enough speed for powerful and spinny loops with inverted. It’s stable (stiff) enough and offers great control for blocking in-close, yet it has good kick for fast power-loops.
An oversize blade is always a little more cumbersome to swing compared to the the more compact regular blade size, so for 2-winged loopers this blade is not ideal. For traditional choppers this blade can be highly effective, especially if you value powerful counter-attacks. If you chop almost every ball, you may benefit from a slower blade that’s designed more for pure chopper and even higher control.
Blade availability
The reason for testing this blade was purely to provide a review for the new and relatively unknown blade manufacture Nevagiva, and to satisfy my own curiosity blade this new blade. This blade is currently only available in the Japanese market, and I don’t know if there are plans to expand to markets outside Japan. If there is enough interest, I can make inquiries on request.
