Squash players have always been justifiably proud of the sport's grueling nature- they love to tell other athletes how much more suffering goes on in high level squash than in tennis or badminton. It's hard to make that argument if one top ten woman can beat another in 22 minutes.
I took Ted Gross's running clock piece as satire intended to re-open the tin debate. (After all a clock will not reintroduce drama or hard rallies- if someone is well ahead with a few minutes to play the opponent will have to go for still more short cheap points to have any chance. )
I'm astonished at the angry reactions. People don't seem to be thinking about this from a professional perspective. If four quarter final matches barely total 2 hours how do you justify ticket prices? Gross didn't say the women don't work hard or play well- simply that the matches are too damn short. If they were bad or lazy players, shouldn't we prefer short matches? (Old Punch cartoon --- First lady: This food is terrible. Second: Yes, and the portions are too small.)
A month ago in the same week it took the number 1 man 42 minutes to beat a wild card, but only 32 for the number 20 woman to beat the number 1. That shows a problem not in depth or quality of play, but simply in length. If pro squash is truly a professional "product", not merely a system of patronage (matronage?), it needs to make that product attractive. That's why the men changed the scoring and lowered the tin.
The WNBA is having some success selling their product and the women use a ball that's an inch smaller. Even with the old tin you didn't as often see the women having exchanges of 4 or 5 drops, which fans find very entertaining (as in that viral rally Ramy and Elshorbagy had in Qatar). This is simply because if a re-drop is really good, the women are seldom quick enough to cover it (Nicole excepted) and if it's bad, the opponent can put it away in the back. This is a matter of practical reality, not of debate about inadvertent (or vertent) sexism. Women's squash needs to be as compelling as possible if it's to sell tickets. Most squash fans are players. They like long rallies and appreciate the physical battle created by many consecutive long rallies, although most will agree that the faster pace of the modern game is better than the purely attritional matches of the past. Right now women's matches are arguably too short. Why is it not fair to make this point?
Not sure about this, women's matches are longer in other tourneys when the courts are hotter, surely the PSA has some sort of breakdown?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was cool in Hong Kong, but it still seems like the women's matches with a regular tin were a lot shorter than the men's with a low tin over the last couple of years.
ReplyDeleteShe makes a very good point about the WNBA...they've accepted the fact there are differences between the genres...in squash maybe the mens and womens balls should be different as well.
ReplyDeleteYou could take that a step further. different balls for juniors and seniors too. and club players too.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe game of squash is an entertaining game for the audience and can be easily played by both the men and women. It is actually not that hard for the women to play such sport and they should be encouraged and elevated to play in the pro-squash tournaments. The game is a court game and depends on the players, how quickly they get to move on the surface and hit the ball back to the playable wall for the opponent.
ReplyDeleteEvent Flooring