The U.S. Squash Doubles Committee and Canadian Squash Doubles Committee have voted to transition to a first-to-15 scoring system for hardball doubles squash. The change will go into affect in the fall of 2013 for the 2013-2014 season. read the rest.
I, for one, don't want the tie-breaking rule to change. I like the option of deciding how the game should finish based on how we are doing as a team. It's one of the elements of the doubles game that I find gives the game character.
Over the weekend when the California State Doubles Championships was played, it was a topic of conversation that elicited many opinions. My friend, David O'Loughlin, who flew in from Pittsburg to play in the tourney, reported that the association that he belongs to voted to keep the old tie-breaking system in place.
The following is a piece from Kevin Jernigan, former President of U.S. Squash and University of San Francisco member (now sidelined with a chronic knee injury. Get well soon. Kevin.) response to the issue.
I invite your comments on the matter.
John
I voted for changing the scoring rules when the US Squash doubles committee discussed and voted on this. Here's part of an email conversation I had with Tim Wyant about this:
My initial thoughts on this a few months back were that I didn't want to change the tiebreaker rules. My reasoning was that I like the opportunity to make a decision based on how the match is going, how I think my team can do in a short versus long tiebreak, etc.
But then I was reminded of my pet theory about squash - especially hardball - in that one of the ways it appeals to diehards like most people on the doubles committee is that it's "our" game. And at some level we try to keep it ours by keeping it complicated, mysterious, hard for outsiders to understand. From that perspective, the overtime scoring system appears to be a barrier to non-squash players - or non-doubles-squash players - from getting into the game.
So, despite my personal interest in retaining a perceived advantage for myself - I believe I have a better understanding than most about how to choose tiebreakers, and how to play them - I am in support of simplifying the doubles scoring system in line with the changes described below.
More generally, I think we need to start talking about other characteristics of the game that make it less accessible to potential players - and I don't just mean the fact that most doubles courts are in private clubs etc, etc. I'm referring more to players' unconscious attitudes about the game, which lead non-players to label it as "elite", "insular", etc. Maybe we need an outreach program to help doubles players reach out to singles players, and to non-squash players at their clubs, to get more people involved in the game...
-KJ
My initial thoughts on this a few months back were that I didn't want to change the tiebreaker rules. My reasoning was that I like the opportunity to make a decision based on how the match is going, how I think my team can do in a short versus long tiebreak, etc.
But then I was reminded of my pet theory about squash - especially hardball - in that one of the ways it appeals to diehards like most people on the doubles committee is that it's "our" game. And at some level we try to keep it ours by keeping it complicated, mysterious, hard for outsiders to understand. From that perspective, the overtime scoring system appears to be a barrier to non-squash players - or non-doubles-squash players - from getting into the game.
So, despite my personal interest in retaining a perceived advantage for myself - I believe I have a better understanding than most about how to choose tiebreakers, and how to play them - I am in support of simplifying the doubles scoring system in line with the changes described below.
More generally, I think we need to start talking about other characteristics of the game that make it less accessible to potential players - and I don't just mean the fact that most doubles courts are in private clubs etc, etc. I'm referring more to players' unconscious attitudes about the game, which lead non-players to label it as "elite", "insular", etc. Maybe we need an outreach program to help doubles players reach out to singles players, and to non-squash players at their clubs, to get more people involved in the game...
-KJ
Apparently the guys at GCC are going to continue playing the old way though the pros are abiding by the rule -- says my dad!
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Gilberti
So John. Here is the way I look at it.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the "old" scoring method because it does add a bit of extra strategy to the game.
If two teams are close in ability there will likely be 1, 2, or 3 ot's in the match. I like the idea that if I am behind with our opponents at 13 or 14 and all I have to do is catch them and hope that the game goes an extra 2 points or more to finish. In this case I feel like I have refreshed myself and am ready to dig in even stronger. If I am ahead with 13 or 14 points I am at my best anyways and feel a total advantage to putting away my opponent.
So, from a personal competitive edge I like the old rule.
The game is good the way it is, and sometimes takes longer to play because of the extra points play. Because of that the professionals are likely interested in foregoing the extra time on the court and adapting the shorter new version of the rule. If a game lasts on the average 12 minutes when going straight to 15 points, then an extra 5 points might take an extra 4 minutes or so. If a match has 5 overtimes then obviously the game goes into an extra 20 minutes or so. I think pros are likely to want to get on the court, take care of business and move on.
I think spectators like the thrill of the 1 point OT at 14 all as well. It stops play and alerts the crowd, that may not know the score, to the potential game winning shot or witnessing a longer game strategy.
Lets see what the players at MAC like. I will put yours and Kevins opinion out to our community for opinions.
Gary Johnson
John,
ReplyDeleteI am against rule changes that are justified because they make life simpler for some folks. Squash--singles or doubles--is fun, filled with stories from the past, and needs tweaking only when there is a problem. What is that in doubles? figuring out no set, 3, or 5 at 13 all, or no set or best of three at 14-all. Folks who have trouble with such choices have more serious problems than how to play doubles squash.
The game needs a wider audience, yes, but this is not what will make the difference. And I don't understand Kevin's appeal to unconscious elements. The game has X rules; we need to teach those rules, and the fewer changes, the better, so that playing will be the area of concentration, not r ules.
best,
Ted Marmor
John:
ReplyDeleteHaving read Kevin's intelligent and articulately stated opinion, I would like to put forward a contrary argument.
I think we agree that there are clear advantages for the team who arrived at the tied score first to choose one of the options; depending on the state of the game, momentum, the relative skill levels, which server is up, which side he/she is serving from, the political affiliation of the opponents, etc., etc. Surely even a beginner can grasp the concept of a choice of 2, 3 or 5, or 1 or 3 depending. This is not rocket science, nor is it exclusive or arcane. After one game anybody with an IQ of over 25 should have understood it. And it certainly adds some piquancy and subtlety to the game.
If we want to make the acceptance of the game more universal, (I think it is happening anyway up to a point) changing this particular rule isn't going to do it. Are we going to change the rule of choosing which side to start serving from because it is too complicated to remember, or the choice of which team member starts serving? Surely having a whacky scoring system of 15, 30 and then 40, with advantage to the winner of the last point at deuce, (which surely should be 2, shouldn't it, not 40-40?) is just as complicated to remember for tennis players? Or maybe game should be changed to the first to 3 to make that game simpler? Tennis rules at 5 games each are much more complicated than anything in doubles squash, and then they change for the final game, (suggesting that the whole thing was a bad idea to start with, instituted simply to shorten games for TV).
My suspicion is that it is the problems of watching squash on TV with the small ball, the size and layout of the court, etc., and the relative scarcity of courts to play on, added to the expense for disadvantaged children (and adults), which are hindering wider acceptance. But look how many people come to watch the pros in the glass court on Grand Central Station. So it is changing.
Also there are national issues. Nobody in America would understand why millions watch cricket avidly on TV in the UK, India, Australia, South Africa, etc., etc. I bet squash is much more popular in Pakistan than baseball or ice hockey, partly because there are courts everywhere, often outdoors, and presumably sometimes free of charge, like city tennis courts.
It is a much bigger and more complicated issue than the method of scoring in tied games. There are many more things here to discuss and I am sure that later respondents will hit some of them! Hint: social, class, educational institutions, financial, snoberry, TV, Olympics, etc., etc.
Peter Susskind
Gary,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I started playing doubles over 20 years ago and really like the current scoring system because it adds suspense and strategy to the game. Deciding how many points in overtime is strategic depending on who is serving and what hand it is. It is not difficult to learn and frankly makes for a more interesting game.
Gene Gidley
I'm in favour of the new system. Currently there are five separate choices. I've played in hundreds of tennis, badminton, table tennis, and squash (singles and doubles) tournaments collectively. Doubles squash is different in this regard, and I can't say it sets itself apart from these other sports in terms of excitement and drama. Do you really think the scoring system provides a material element in the overall strategy and play? On the other hand, it's one more complicating factor that may be another hurdle for new players, albeit at the margins.
ReplyDeleteDerrick Cameron