From a reader:
In looking at the qualifier draw and the main draw of the North American Open there appears to be only one American playing. How come there is only one American in the North American Open? It is a world series category tournament and one of the most important in the world.
Please allow me to respond. There are two answers to this: the simple answer and a more complicated one.
ReplyDeleteStated simply: the NAO is a PSA World Series event with a draw size of 32 players. The top two Americans on the PSA world tour right now are Julian Illingworth and Chris Gordon. Illingworth is number 34 in the world as of the rankings that came out today. Gordon is number 58 on the tour. So if every player in the top 32 in the world was available to play an the qualifying rounds went perfectly according to the seedings then technically there would be no Americans in the tournament.
As it turned out, this week Illingworth was unavailable owing to coaching commitments and Gordon did play in the qualifying. He was not seeded to make the main round tournament, however. He played world number 36 Adrian Waller in qualifying and beat him 12-10 in the fifth game, and then played Zac Alexander (ranked four spots lower) and beat him somewhat comfortably. So Gordon won his qualifying matches and then, in his first main round match lost narrowly to world number 11 Tarek Momen.
The fact that Gordon beat a player ranked 22 spots higher and then took a player ranked 47 spots higher to five games is a testament to how well Gordon is playing right now and we can certainly expect Chris to continue moving up in the world rankings in the near future.
That is the simple answer. The real reason that there are no Americans ranked higher on the PSA is more complicated and one would have to include things like the absolute number of players, the quality and availability of training facilities, the geographic dispersion of good players, the strong incentives for obtaining a tertiary education, the economics of the sport, as well as the general perception of squash in the US relative to other mainstream American sports... these factors may all change over time if squash gets voted into the Olympics by the IOC Executive Board in the last week of May this year
As a side note, you may be interested to know that outside of Illingworth and Gordon there are no other Americans currently on the tour that are even close to contention to play in a World Series event; or even the qualifying for one, for that matter. Unless, of course, one considers that wild card spots that tournament organizers have where they can use their discretion to invite local players to play in the qualifying draw.
Aside from the two gents mentioned above there are at least three others worth considering who could be on this list in future: 1) Gilly Lane was previously ranked as high 48 in the world but withdrew from competitive play owing to a back injury. He is playing in the US Nationals next weekend though so he may come back, you never know, he is still young and strong enough. 2) Todd Harrity is the number one college player in the US right now, something he will likely prove when he plays in the CSA college individual champs starting today. If he decides to turn pro after he graduates from Princeton then you can expect to see him make a real run for the top. 3) Another extremely talented American player is Dylan Murray, who has been the number one junior (under 19 years old) in the country for many years. He needs to decide between college and playing squash full time, but he will likely do very well on the PSA either way and we may also see him at a World Series event someday in future.
The future of American squash lies with players like Dylan Murray and the other younger teenagers chasing him…those that have a real chance of peaking in their mid twenties and possibly playing on an American team in the Olympics in 2020.
Perhaps inclusion in the Olympics would change the place of Squash in U.S. culture, but I doubt it. I don't think Olympic rhythmic gymnastics has had much impact in the U.S., nor Team Handball. I would be interested to hear of any sports where inclusion in the Olympics caused a massive increase in play. Although I like squash best, I think badminton and ping-pong look much more exciting on T.V., which is how most Americans see the Olympics.
DeleteCheers, Sasha
A good reply and I agree with the points made. The big difference that I see in the UK is that our very top juniors turn pro early usually age18 ( in fact Joe Lee who played so well in this event turned pro at 16) in America it seems there is so much emphasis on getting a college education.
ReplyDeleteIn fact many top juniors in America are actually using squash as a means to get into college and have no intention of playing professionally. In UK most good juniors dream of playing on the circuit not going to college.
Generally valid points, but a bit skewed on the point of "college." There are no "incentives" for obtaining a college education, but rather there is social pressure and there is the stigma visited on those who are not in college at, for instance, age 19. There is zero reason to choose between squash and college. The problem in the US is that we fail to recognize that we naturally "age out" of the fitness required for top-level squash, while at the same time our brain only improves with age. The point being if the stigma were not so prevalent talented young players would perhaps realize that they could focus on squash from 17 to 20+ and when they decide they have reached their personal apogee they can continue their intellectual education. At post-60 I can still attest to fully-functioning brain capability, but no way Jose can I play squash like 30 years ago.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but we need to remember that college education is not the same at 25 as it is at 18, neither socially nor intellectually. Views of the world and preconceptions become more cemented, making the introduction of new ideas and varieties of critical thinking more difficult. (This is not to mention fields like mathematics or music where the boat will be missed altogether.)
DeleteI can't help but think of an old David Foster Wallace piece on tennis. At first he thought the player he was spending time with was stupid, but he came to realize the guy's single-minded focus on tennis had simply crowded out other thoughts.
I read recently on this site a piece by a professional squash player who wanted us to know that much of what is in the news is either dull or titillating. This just out??!!
Cheers, Sasha
All valid points, but suprisingly no one mentioned the funding required to put a player in the US on the PSA tour. It takes deep, very deep pockets. There is NO funding outside of your own. In the UK they do have funding to an extant and I 'm not an expert on this so I just want to mention it. The main squash organization in this country emphasizes junior development for the purpose of playing college squash. A very, very small percentage actually go from college to Professional Squash (and they aren't US born). Chris Gordon was the first and I think only US number 1 under 19 Junior to forgoe college and turn pro. It is very admirable but a path that requires overseas training, travel and expert coaching -- all of which costs lots of mulah. I'm not sure why the Olympics are going to solve this, they will provide a greater degree of commercial success for the top players. Nick Mathew was the top earner at 160k in prize money as the number 1 player in the world, so as an Olypiad that is pretty good for sponsors and coaching and clinic fees. for thosewho don't make the squad they have four years to try again! Another point I'd like to make is there is virtually no emphasis on adult squash anymore, adult players are the cornerstone for junior development. Not every junior player can afford 210 dollars per hour for high level coaching. Knowlege of the game has to come from everywhere, including fostering a club environment where adult players help the club juniors attain a certain level of play. Adult squash is suffering greviously. The future of the game is in jeopardy and if you think about college players, how many of those are from overseas? How many from the US? Just like it took leadership and vision once to come out and state in 1960 by 1970 we would put a man on the moon, we need the same leadership in our Squash community and organization to simply state before 2020 we want an american born player in the top ten! Those of us who love this game and love this country want to succeed in doing this. And we must accept the fact that it will not necessarily be a player out of Pinceton or Harvard, or Choate, Lawrenceville but a player from anywhere, a welder's son, a high school drop out, a trust fund kid - break the insipid, boring, and limiting mold of who makes a good squash player in the US. It will take someone, someone's child outside the mold who will really inspire others just like him to aspire to be a number one player in the most difficult sport and the best sport on the planet. I personally couldn't care less about getting on the court with a junior who is just playing and learning the game to help themselves get into college. They are doing it because the competition is so much less than Lacrosse or tennis or football or anything else. What will they give back to the game later on? My guess very little. We need to change that mindset, we need to teach juniors that this game is for life...Quentin Hyder, I think played into his 80's and it was a thing of beauty to watch. Watching a junior play just for ranking points and inspired by pressure to get into that all elusive good school, is not a thing of beauty, it's like using a friend to get a ride and then when you get to your destination, well, your friend wasn't really a friend after all and just a ride. No friendship there, nothing lasting, because he wasn't really your friend ever...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be blaming the players for their lack of love for the sport. In addition you seem to be suggesting that coaches ought to be focussed on players who will "give back to the sport" which seems to me a sort of circular argument. Surely Federer's early coaches weren't saying, "Gee, let's work with this guy- I think he'll give back to tennis someday."
DeleteIf teenagers don't love squash should we blame them, or parents and coaches for pushing the means-to-college argument? Isn't it part of a coach's job to imbue her players with love for the game? Perhaps we should be saying, "The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves."
Cheers, Sasha
Actually Chris Gordon did not beat Alexander comfortably the score was 12-10 in the fifth..
ReplyDelete