by Ted Gross
There is something radically wrong with the picture when an amateur junior player has to officially resign from an organization in order to play in a squash tournament.
Dylan Murray, the number-one-ranked American junior boy, apparently was forced to submit a resignation last week to the PST to be allowed to play in the qualifying draw of the October US Open, an event which is owned and managed by US Squash and sanctioned by the PSA and the WSA.
Excuse me?
The kid is 17-year-old high school student!
Let him play squash!
Don't stick a teenager in the middle of a political fracas involving adults sitting in office chairs in charge of squash associations!
It's difficult to know who to blame, so I'll blame all three groups: US Squash, the PSA and the WSA.
You have a teenage player who wants to compete in some local weekend PST tournaments with the goal of improving his game and (God forbid) maybe having a little fun as well, and you are stopping that?
A shame.
amen brother.
ReplyDeleteBTW, isn't "whom to blame"?
It's a travesty. Squash is having a civil war when we should be having a revolution. Why are we fighting amongst ourselves when we have everything to gain (THE OLYMPICS!) by becoming united?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a professional squash player who originally played on the PSA, I can't accurately describe to you how frustrating this is. I don't know what it will take to change it either.
I think it is time for the PSA WSA players to step up and stop this. Their complacency speaks volumes, the sport is bigger than the players and these organizations, the damage it is doing at a time when this sport is struggling mightily. Let the PSA players unite and boycott the US Open and see how long this ban will last. Afterall, while the PST doesn't sport the same calibre of players 1 thru 20, they are still squash brothers. Matthews, Wilstrop, Ashour, Selby let the PSA know this gross injustice will not be tolerated. You should all be free to compete in any arena you so choose and make your livlihood the way you decide.
DeleteThis was a very good editorial. My only question being why the WSA is brought into it, since isn't this just U.S. Squash and The PSA at fault?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make sense and also one would think the USSRA would want these junior players they are developing to play in as many tournaments as possible.
ReplyDeleteRight. It doesn't make sense - until you know the business relationships.
DeletePSA and WSA are both affiliates of World Squash Federation. US Squash is a member of World Squash Federation. US Squash owns the US Open, but PSA and WSA sanction it. US Squash controls wildcard spots with the approval of PSA/WSA. And US Squash's closed national championships give their US players PSA and WSA ranking points.
Reminds me of the "Five Families" making 'accommodations' to protect their relationships and their own territories.
Thanks Anonymous - I didn't realize the extent to which US Squash is involved in all this.
DeleteAnd Ted - well said.
This scenario is disturbing, if these are indeed the facts...is it possible you could get someone from the US Open to comment?
ReplyDeleteThanks Anonymous - I included the WSA because my understanding is they have aligned themselves with the PSA on this policy.
ReplyDeleteTed, have you asked the PSA for comment/explanation? Although the criteria to play PSA events seems pretty simple, you cant play in a PSA event if you play on the PST so im not sure why this would be any different for Dylan?
ReplyDeleteHilarious description of a PST event though! "local weekend event where a pro player can have fun!" doesnt sound very 'Pro' more like exhibition :)
Pretty sure the point is Dylan played both last year without any issue. And PSA changed its rules to exclude him and others like him.
DeleteYou are right, those are the rules (now). Everyone else but you seems to see how stupid the new rules are.
"doesn't sound very 'Pro' more like exhibition"
DeleteClearly, the PSA disagrees. Other wise, they wouldn't be so intent to put PST out of business
I've followed the PST a bit. Some of the first round matches appear quite weak. I wouldn't call it an exhibition though. I agree with Ned Marks and Delphi, rule is insane.
DeletePST should be on he list to blame, they have not found a way to get on with PSA/WSA. Although a common tactic, morally you can't be in a 'war' and point out the collatoral damage inflicted by your adversary and pretend you have no responsibility yourself.
ReplyDeletePST's very existence is what angers PSA/WSA. Blaming PST for PSA' actions is like blaming the Jews for Hitler's damage. How do you get on with someone who wants you dead.
DeleteThe rift between the PSA and the PST is not an existential threat to squash and if the two organizations got along it would not cure all the ills affecting squash in the US. We need to face facts that squash is never going to be widely popular and the two groups getting chummy will not change that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that on the surface the fact that PSA will not let its members play in PST events seems silly, and I feel badly when players like Dylan get caught in the middle, but I do understand where they are coming from. First, PST events are played under different rules. We can debate the merits of the no-let rule to death but the fact is it is a different game and I think it is completely understandable that PSA doesn't want its players going back and forth. Second, PSA is running a business. Granted, as Joe McManus never tires of pointing out, they may not be running that business all that well, but they are trying and they have decided that it is in their best interest to ban their players from PST events. In the US running a pro tournament is difficult (I know, I've done it) and scraping for sponsorship dollars is the biggest pain in the neck. There are only so many dollars to go around and the PST could threaten to take some of those dollars away if they started fielding draws with highly ranked PSA players. Sure, in an ideal world, a rising tide would lift all boats and good PST events would help the PSA events but I just don't see that happening. I think it's much closer to a zero-sum game and the PSA, understandably, does not want to lose their portion of the pie. It's kind of ironic that Joe never misses a chance to point out that PSA is run in a very un-businesslike fashion and here they are protecting their business and he criticizes them for it every chance he gets.
Speaking of Joe, let's all recognize that much of the animosity between the two groups is indeed pushed by Joe himself. He publishes the Squash E-zine and he seems to have a good relationship with the folks at DSR who also never miss a chance to needle the PSA over this issue. Joe will say he is completely innocent in all of this but he takes every opportunity he gets to pass along (or sensationalize) a negative story about PSA.
I'm not saying PSA is perfect. Again, I've dealt with them and they do have thier issues. But they are not evil and all this hand-wringing over the problems between the two circuits is, in my view, getting a bit overblown.
I agree completely with the Anonymous posting at 9:53. It is unfortunate that a 17 year old is caught between these two warring factions but it is unfair to blame one side or the other.
ReplyDeleteJoe McManus thinks he has a better way to play squash and rather than work within the current rules in cooperation with the PSA, he thumbed his nose at them and created his own separate organization with its own variation on the rules. We can argue the merits of the changes but Joe chose to work outside the existing establishment and the establishment reacted in a predictable fashion.
The major change is, of course, Joe's "point every rally" rule. While I do not live in a PST city and have not seen a pro match played this way, I believe this would be a dangerous rule at the amateur level. It would clearly risk the safety of the players. Pros can hit balls with deadly accuracy and can hit risky shots if they feel that asking for a let would result in their appeal being denied by the referee. Amateurs would likely be hitting each other with balls and rackets. Not good. The rules of squash should apply to all. If Joe doesn't want multiple let calls slowing down the game, tell the referees to tighten up their calls and start awarding strokes and no lets but play within the current rules of squash.
At the end of the day, this is all about Joe McManus's ego. He wants to play the game his way and is unwilling to work with anyone else to achieve his goals. If he really wanted to work with the PSA, he could easily find a way to do it but will he ever do that? Not likely.
I like the squash ezine.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with much of 953's remarks but there's still no place in the sport for closing doors on juniors.
ReplyDeleteGood morning 9:53 and 11:09, and 7:07,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments above. Regarding a couple of your points:
1) @ 953: I don't view our efforts as a zero sum game. We are trying to grow the game.
2) @ 953: You are correct that we have a different standard for replaying a rally. However, this was never a point of contention between our tours.
3) @ 11:09: Our rules are for professional players and are not intended for amateurs. Pros have a different level of body control, shot selection, and understanding of the game. Our rules make the game much more enjoyable and exciting for fans.
4)@7:07: PSA and PST are not at war. The current management of PSA has tried to quietly impact our tour. Our response has been has to share their actions with the public.
Best to all,
Joe
Shame on you, Joe. You are at war and your opponents are playing dirty. Don't simply take it. Fight. Defend your tour and your players. And how do you say thank you to writers who call you an egomaniac and the cause of this whole thing.
ReplyDeleteerr, still struggling to understand why people are jumping on Joe for this. how is this his fault ? ? ? ?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, we see so much in the current news about regimes that have been restricting choice of their constituents for so long. And as the those same constituent masses become more and more educated, thus more existentially empowered, the tenure of the ruling regimes becomes tenuous at best.
ReplyDeleteEventually, the masses recognize that there are alternatives, and there grows a collective will to make change one way or the other.
There are examples in the past in both sport, and the spectrum of intra and inter national politics. Zero Sum games are generally losers for the majority of participants, because even in winning, the winner will suffer.
What's really interesting is when one party may continue its focus on a zero sum game, and the other competitor decides to look at the battle from a different perspective. Or possibly ignore the Zero Sum - Diehard, and take a path that really exhibits no aggression at all, simply focusing on personal or corporate goals.
One could look at it this way, PST and PSA now both have their own sandboxes. PST is basically saying they'll let anybody into their sandbox, as long as they enjoy themselves, and they share that joy with others. PSA is trying to restrict those who play in their sandbox, by saying: if you want to play in our sandbox, you're not allowed to play in theirs.....
Those who are philosophically, or esoterically minded, will probably be amused by all this, and at the same time be intrinsically curious to work out which sandbox is going to develop a bigger following, and thus gradually expand not only the confines of the sandbox, but continually improve the quality of the sand itself.
----------------------------
amen
DeleteOn a side note, that has been alluded to in the thread of this blog, and while not of direct bearing on the sandbox wars, is the question of whether playing with PST's standard of play is more dangerous than the traditional rules.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at teaching photography, teaching someone to drive, if the student is taught the right principles from the beginning, then good quality photos, and safe driving result, no matter what camera is being used (point and shoot versus a full function digital camera), no matter what car is being driven (whether a Ford Escort versus a Ferrari).
On the other hand bad things can happen when either the student has been negligently taught, or the student chooses to stray from the safe path. And it's not the 'system' that is at fault.
What I would agree with is, that the PST system does not suit most players who play the game today, because their strategic shot selection would not make them a safe opponent on the court.
However.........
As a player and coach, I've observed that when players make the effort to avoid interference, that it is not actually a very difficult task. (Unless they've previously hit a weak shot that has given their opponent the opportunity to crank up the pressure.)
If players have been taught to approach their shot selection with an underlying intent to hit a shot that avoids interference, then this not only actually results in the reduction of situations that cause interference, but also, the number of inherently dangerous moments are reduced as well.
Hitting shots that avoid interference tend to give the player more time and space to recover to a central position. Shots that are hit with interference avoidance as an underlying principle often result in sending the opponent stretching into a far corner or far side of the court.
Hitting an interference avoiding shot, when hit accurately, not only maintains a player's position in the rally but actually often shifts the control of the rally by pushing the ball past the opponent, who then comes under pressure because the ball has gotten past them into the back court.
In reality, in order to avoid the vast majority interference, one really only has to eliminate one choice out of at least 8 options. If a player doesn't have 8 options to play, then that means either the opponent has hit a very accurate and calculated shot, or that the player has hit a weak, loose shot that gave the opponent an easy shot to play.
If the player's underlying intent for a shot was to avoid causing any blocking of direct access or swing, but then causes interference by not being able to clear the front wall or any other interference, it can generally, if not always be reasoned that the player's shot was not accurate or controlled enough, thus not having time to recover out of the way.
When students are taught the right purpose and intent, (and experienced players choose to change their strategy), to a properly avoid interference, then the game actually should become safer, more fluid, and likely more tiring as the rallies are typically longer.
I'm all for longer rallies and more exercise :-)
can anyone say "antitrust violation; restraint of free trade"? If you want to cure this i am surprised people are not aware that it is more easily cured in court--and not a squash court.
ReplyDeleteWho would sue who? Players don't have any money for lawsuits.
DeleteAnd why would PST sue so that their players could jump back to the other tour, which doesn't appear to want them in the first place?
Pierre does make a case which is hard to argue with.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, it would be good to hear from US Squash on the record.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Twain
DeleteUS Squash is following their only option.
Mr Gross, I hope you are now going to sensationalize the recent PST announcement regarding their registration of a player who is currently serving an international drugs ban.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to your views!
Thanks Anonymous - Yes, I am aware of the situation with Stephane Galifi and am planning to post something. We had a story back in November on his alleged failing of a drug test:
ReplyDeletehttp://dailysquashreport.com/11_18_11_galifi.htm