For
If pars
a rally is played by pros and
juniors we should do the same.
Ronnie
Bell
Carlisle
Squash Club
A further comment - I love the
suggestion that us oldies would prefer
PARS to 11 because it would make the
matches shorter. Given that our rallies
(and matches - look at the length of
matches recorded on the British Open)
tend already to be relatively short (thats
because our skill level and range of
shots is much greater than the younger
runners and hitters....) the match would
probably be shorter than the knockup!
And when you get to the age when every
match might be your last, you want it to
be reasonably substantial!
Its got to be the other way round -
PARS to 11 for the younger generation,
13 for 'middlies' and 15 for the
oldies should result in matches being of
a reasonable length, and make you feel
your journey has been worthwhile. PARS
to 11 for everyone ? In that case, I
suddenly revert to being traditional....
Name: Mike Clemson Height 4'3" (used to
be 6' 2" but got worn down by all the
bickering..) A
ge: 95 (PARS to 3 please):
Weight: 5 kilos over:
Playing style: Unorthodox (why hit the
front wall first when you have a
choice?): Sexual preference: Yes
please...
I was
initially against the idea of PAR as i
thought it would result in matches being
too short. However having looked at the
various arguments for and against i have
changed my mind. I also listened to some
Badminton commentary on 5 live when they
were discussing their new scoring system
and how it has worked well at all levels
and there is now one uniform scoring
system that everyone understands. The
people that say 'if it isn't broke,
don't fix it' have not thought about the
fact that our sport is dying and has
been for many years. We need a new lease
of life and PAR could well be it. New
people watching and coming into the
sport will understand the system and
will like the fact that if you win a
rally, you win a point. People who don't
really follow squash do not want to see
lots of hand outs at love all for 5
minutes, they want the excitement of the
score moving on and towards a conclusion
as in pretty much all other sports
(table tennis, badminton, volleyball etc
- all Olympic sports)
There are negatives with it as has been
seen in pro tournaments, such as when a
player is say 9-3 down they basically
give that game up, whereas if it was say
7-2 in the old system, they would still
fight to get back in the game.
If we want to be considered for the
Olympics, we need the same scoring
system throughout the game also, rather
than being seen as an old fashioned
sport.
I think also it will reward the more
talented player than the fitter player
which also should make it more exciting
to watch.
Chris Port
Hi
I think PAR scoring is a good idea. The
proffessionals play that way, I don't
see why we mere mortals can't either.
Why not try it for a season to see how
it goes?
Regards
Simon Evenden
P.S. see you at Bury St. Ed
Sorry, but don't know who you are either -
but no intention to offend!
I can only reiterate that the arguments/
reasons against appear to be
1. No need to change
2. It ain't broke, so no need to fix it/ the
game works
3. It will lead to shorter games.
4. It will negate defending and attacking
5. A claim that the vast majority don't want
change
I think the counters against these
reasons are
1. There is a requirement to change as the
sport has been dying as the decline in clubs
and players has proven over the last 20
years.
2. The above seems to cover this also
3. It may or may not lead to shorter games.
Depends on the players, we've all had
opponents who reckon that they never got
going and coulda, woulda, shoulda
4. You'll still have to defend and attack,
you just won't have a cushion to hang on to.
5. Just maybe they do.
This is certainly the first time that
I've been asked to offer my opinion and just
maybe it is the againsts who are the
minority.
Maybe there are other people you do not know
and who have never been asked?
In addition to the above the following
would help justify change.
6. It rewards a good shot
7. It reflects the number of rallies which
have been won
8. It moves the score forward/ gives a sense
of progress.
9. Stops the endless 'hand-out, love all'
etc
10. Encourages participation as you have a
real chance of winning a point even when
totally outclassed. You always have the
chance of hitting a lucky shot, but may
never get two in a row.
11. Keeping score will be simplified and
more easily understood by those new to the
game.
12. As DH said 'it will stop us being seen
as old fogies'
Phill Crane
COUNTY: Kent
AGE: 55
HEIGHT: 6ft and a bit
WEIGHT: 205 - 225lbs
STYLE: If only
p.s. nothing personal, just the facts.
Any other reasons against?
Forgot to say … but changing to PAR should
only be done after the Home Ints has made
the change. We play in the Masters
tournaments to select who plays in the Home
Ints and therefore it would be absurd to
have a different scoring system.
Cheers
K
Obviously I was being provocative to get
a few more folk to write in. Largely I was
simply putting forward valid points for and
against, but the passage in bold states I am
in preference of PAR to 15 (only just over
traditional mind). I don’t think I’d bother
attending a PAR to 9 tournament, and PAR to
11 can also produce far too short matches.
I’ll probably formerly write in again, but
in summary for PAR to 15 there will be
little difference in the game (endurance vs
shot-player) to traditional. PAR to 15 will
prevent both very short matches (there are
simply more rallies) and very long matches
(the score progresses rather than lots of
hand-ins/hand-outs). PAR to 11 will swing
the game in favour of the less fit, less
mobile shot-makers. So to me its not a case
of whether we go for PAR or traditional, but
how long do we want the matches to be. There
will be those who wish to reduce length and
those who don’t.
I was having a friendly rib-tickle with
Jason and have spoken to him at length
yesterday.
Kindest regards
Kevin
Writing to talk about PAR scoring on a
Saturday evening after a few glasses of wine
is perhaps not the wisest of moves!
It is interesting to note that thus far,
the younger of the age groups seem to be in
favour for the PAR scoring. I am not sure
that the majority (is that the majority of
the committee?) really are against PAR
scoring? Surely, if this is implemented
people would just adapt and play
accordingly? Adrian states that he was 8-0
down and still won in one game at the Home
Internationals; what we don't know is what
the score would be equivalent in PAR? If
there were lots of hand ins/outs it would
certainly be closer than 8-0; what might the
score have been for Yawar in the British
Open final if it were PAR scoring? Having
not seen the match, but been on the end of a
lesson from him , I am sure it was a lot
closer than the score would suggest.
From my point of view I am all for change
for the better. Squash is a great sport and
as we have seen over the last 10 years,
adapts to change, no matter what the age
group. Interestingly, the previous two 'for'
comments come from boys about to enter the
over 40's! Both reckon they are not shot
players, but having been on the end of their
racket work, I would disagree! It would
certainly make the regionals more managable
in terms of time on court (that is, if the
matches really are shorter in PAR scoring)
and almost certainly make the matches more
exciting.
For the record, I am 'FOR' PAR scoring,
but decline to give my weight!
As we are now getting formal, I will sign
of thus:
Major Gary Clarke
Weight ?? but rising with age!
Height 1.8m
Age 41 and a bit
Style Hack, hack and block when possible!!
Just to add some fuel to the fire (and I am
pro the PAR system), having played in PSA
qualifying rounds I have seen 1st hand how
the juniors and those new to the game who
are watching these and other lower standard
events are transfixed by the twists and
turns and the speed at which things can
suddenly change. There is nothing wrong with
change and if it really doesn't work there
is nothing stopping us going back to the
standard scoring system.
It instantly rewards a good or even
'lucky' shot which then means that the
opponent really has to focus on the very
next rally instead of trying to draw out
another rally to see if they can get their
serve back. Also it will enable simple club
basics like restaurants and bars at clubs to
know that there won't be huge delays whilst
they wait for the potential of a really late
night if a match really drags out. In this
day and age where peoples time is a premium,
sadly more than it used to be this has to be
considered. It is surely worth at least
exploring the option rather than completely
saying no! How many of the people who are
against this PAR system have played 1 or
more matches with this system? Lets see some
valid subjective comments against the system
rather than conjecture for a change - I
wasn't aware that Victor Meldrew played
Squash by the way, reading some of the
comments.
The game is now about attracting more
people to the environment and anything that
can make the sport more exciting, more
easily understandable for the layman and an
easier concept for say the juniors to get
their heads around when scoring has to be a
winner on every level.
How many people said they would never
drive a diesel car when they 1st started
hitting the roads - what are they now
driving or considering driving??? How many
people said they would never carry around a
mobile phone because it interferes with
their privacy - and now??? And where are all
those people who said the internet would
never catch on??
I am all for progress but none can be
made if the opportunities aren't at least
explored. If it's not broken then don't fix
it - that's fine if you are happy to stand
still and let the world overtake you.
However none of us are too old to accept
change - it's just sometimes the old aren't
bold anymore and often forget that there's
plenty of 'fight in the old dog' if they can
be bothered to see what's going on around
them and not just think of themselves and
their immediate circle of influence.
It's all about fun and standing still on
& off court is simply no fun at all!! If
you're not prepared to even try/look at it
then catch the later train as this one is
waiting to leave the station - there is good
fun to be had ladies and gentlemen - which
train do you want to catch??
See you guys at the station - I'm packed
and ready to get on the FUN train!!!!!!!!
Yours in all things Squash
Pete Goodings
In reply to Kevin White
For the record; Pc Jason
Foster
Age: 39 and a half
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 100 kilos +
Style: Contemporary,
occasionally blocks!
Like Jason I have played all
forms of scoring; traditional
and PAR to 15, 11 (Yorks)
and 9 (PSL). To clarify, for
PAR to 15 at 14-14 the game
would be set either to 1 (i.e.
15-14) or 3 (e.g. 17-15 say).
For PAR to 11 or 9, at 10-10 /
8-8 one requires 2 clear points
to win e.g. 14-12 or 10-8
respectively.
PAR is easier to follow for
casual observers and does indeed
‘advance’ the score. It would
be difficult to assemble facts
to support which form of scoring
produces more ‘exciting’
matches. I would slightly
favour traditional as the more
exciting version purely from my
empirical findings. I think that
there are far more ‘comebacks’,
say fro 7-2 down. Thus the way
in which points are scored
doesn’t seem to be a factor for
entertainment and therefore the
argument for and against seems
to come down to the duration of
the match.
PAR to 15 made my matches equal
to or perhaps slightly shorter
than traditional. What PAR to
15 did do is prevent very
long matches. PAR to 9 made the
matches far too short and I’m
not sure I could be bothered to
travel too far to play any
again. PAR to 11 was again a
bit on the short side unless a
game or two ended up being set
at say 16-14. In all forms of
PAR the matches are shorter
unless one player is extremely
dominant and thus the number of
rallies to play is greater for
PAR [viz
45+x or 33+x rallies (PAR
15/11)] than traditional [viz
27+2x]; where x is the
relatively few number of rallies
the weak opponent wins, assuming
3 games.
However, one must bear in mind
that there are other factors
involved in the duration and
excitement of matches and those
are court temperature and
humidity, ball speed, opposing
player styles, court type, floor
hardness, plaster roughness,
depth of condensation inter
alia.
It should also be borne in mind
that an exciting match doesn’t
just mean how good your shots
are, but also embraces an
individual’s speed, athleticism,
endurance and good looks. To
those who are relatively
deficient in those latter squash
talents I suggest you play golf,
snooker, darts and pan
fighting.
One aspect of a shorter match is
to even out fatigue of two
opponents in a second match on
the same day after one has had a
relatively hard first, but now
shorter match. Shorter matches
might also promote longer squash
careers because of fewer
‘wear-out’ type injuries.
Shorter matches might appeal
more to some, but be less well
embraced for those seeking a
better workout.
For me PAR scoring makes me more
negative; if I hit the tin I
lose a point. In traditional I
tend to play more positively
when I serve than when receiving
serve. For me a potentially
shorter match will simply mean I
play at an increased speed so as
to tire my opponent more
quickly. Ironically, I believe
I will be at greater risk of
‘impact/strain-type’ injuries in
shorter matches as I will be
forced to run everything down
(each rally is relatively more
important).
I believe PAR to 15 is the way
to go with its progressive
scoring. It is easier to
follow, stops very long and very
short matches and conforms to
how most squash is going.
I have noticed that there does
appear to be a correlation of
those For
and Against, those for PAR
appear to be alleged
‘salad-dodgers’. Perhaps those
who write in should come clean
and state their age, weight,
height
and squash style. If the
high-speed hackers amongst us
are willing to give up
traditional scoring will those
shot makers please stop
consuming so much pie ‘n’ Stella
so that they may kindly stop
blocking us.
Complaints to the Web Master
please.
Dr
Kevin White
Age 39
Height 1.72m
Weight 74kg
Style Hacker
It's
good to see such healthy debate
regarding this subject on this
excellent masters website.
I have
played both types of scoring, to
traditional 9 for a long time.
When I
first tried PAR I was very resistant
because of all the reasons stated so
far, I was very much a
traditionalist.
However,
after playing PAR during fun events,
racketball and eventually
competively within squash grew to
enjoy the challenges that it
produced.
I found
the PAR method of scoring very
progressive, instead of the endless
scores of 0-0 handout, 0-0 handout
etc.... the game progressed quickly
2-2, 3-3, 4-4 etc until when the
score gets to 7 of 8, the
excitement/fear factor kicks in that
you are now into the business end of
the game, winning a game by 2 clear
points is not only nervewracking,
exciting and tense for the players
it is the same for the spectators,
whom I believe are an important
factor in the development and
enjoyment of the game.
I do not
intend to undermine the 'GREATS'
that preceded us whose fitness,
guile and determination pushed the
bounds of victory, that lends itself
to the traditional to 9 scoring.
However,
with PAR, if you find yourself 7-3
down in a game, win a couple of
rallies to make the score 5-7,
it makes it more of an opportunity
for the losing player to win the
game, whereas with the traditional
scoring the ascendancy is with the
player on 7.
Also, my
personal reason for supporting PAR
is that it encourages the shotplayer
(not that I am one!), the risk taker
over the attritional, percentage
player which to me is what we want
more of in the game, to see
entertaining squash played in a
positive way.
Ok, so
the matches maybe slightly shorter,
but the skillful player is being
rewarded, the fitter player may have
to adjust their game, from what I
gather it has been successfully
tried in the Surrey Squash League,
whereby matches are sometimes
finished earlier and the social
aspect of the occasion takes place
sooner, which to me is one of the
main reasons I play and enjoy the
game, the social interaction.
Yours in
sport,
Jason
Foster
The comments opposite hardly make for a
reasoned argument. Or are they just a
bunch of NIMBY's? I like to think that I
play squash, not 'Old Man Squash' (even
though I am now getting to be an old
man). Surely even with PAR you would
still defend and attack, the only
difference being that you would obtain
your just rewards if you successfully
attacked. The fact that who knows how
many squash clubs have closed in recent
years is hardly a testament to the
statement that "the game works". Surely
if it was working most if not all of
those clubs wouldn't have gone to the
wall. If games would be over too quickly
under PAR, then the players need to work
harder to retrieve the ball and make the
rallies longer. A good shot is and
always will be a good shot. I believe
that one of the great attractions of the
game has always been that you can get a
massive cardio workout within a very
short space of time, PAR would only seem
to encourage that. Anyone out there who
hasn't always lost to someone who was
fitter, faster and more skilful -
whether PAR or not? How satisfying will
it be, when playing at some tournament
somewhere, with someone explaining to
some youngster "Oh, that's how they
played it in the old days". Maybe we
should ban composite rackets and only
allow wooden ones!!! I bet that there
were arguments about that at one time.
Say after me "We're old, we don't like
change!"
Phill Crane
My view is
that if the whole of squash is going
that PAR way then, we really ought to
think about it, even if it means
adapting slightly (such as playing to 15
points) to give us a similar length of
game. It would be very easy to check
against the score sheets at Bury to see
how it compares with the old scoring.
From my recollection at Kegworth
junior events, years ago, the one sided
games were the same length,( ie 9-0 with
6 hand outs is exactly the same time
and 15-6). The close ones were slightly
shorter (ie 9-7 with 20 hand outs
would work out at about 19-17).
Personal I
would prefer to have the same scoring
system as everyone else otherwise we
will be seen as old foggies.
Just because it ain't broke doesn't mean you
can't improve it ! I think PARS better
relects the difference between two players
(you can lose 9-0 9-0 9-0
but still have won lots of points on
handout) and cuts out those occasional games
where after 29 rallies the score is one all
in the first game ! It
gives a sense of progress, and, in my
experience, you feel you have had a
reasonable match even if the score is 3-0. I
have one important qualification, however,
and that is that PARS to 11 makes games too
short at levels below county league
standard. PARS works well if, according to
the standard being played, games are played
to 11, 13 or 15. The Hull and District
League played PARS to 15 last season and it
worked well. I would not be in favour of
PARS to 11 for the older Masters events or
for the
average club and local league player, but am
in favour of it in principle.
Mike Clemson
I believe that PAR is the way forward and
will help introduce more people to
the game of squash.
There's something quite deflating about
being beaten 9/0 9/0 9/0, and even a
score like that doesn't always reflect the
number of hand in - hand outs
that may have occured.
PAR simplifies the scoring and rewards you
for winning the rally. What can
be wrong with that?
You still have to try your hardest to win a
match and from a recent experiment in the
Kent Leagues it was found that some matches
may be shorter
but others possibly longer with this system.
We can have endless discussion but certainly
youngsters (and some of us more
mature players) want to try and play the
game that the pros play.
The better player will win on the day
whatever the scoring system.
Phillip Crane
Hello,
