Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

stevecubs · Last edited by stevecubs on Thu May 15, 2008 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

I just sent this to wispa:

1. Who are we trying to 'simplify' it for? To assume anyone won't understand 11/5, 11/7, 15/13 is simply patronising.

2. We'll end up with the same match being rcorded in two different ways (well, three, because some will no doubt try the PSA 11/10(x-x) method.

3. Recording the actual score is good enough for Badminton (21/11, 25/23) and Table Tennis (11/7, 15/13) – two Olympic sports – so why not for Squash?

4. Imagine the newbie spectator who sees results in the paper of 11/10, goes along to watch a match, is confused when the game finishes 15/13, and is even more confused when he sees 11/10 in tomorrow's paper.

5. It's not a "tie-break", it's just the scoring (in tennis an extra game is played if it's tied at six games all - that's a tie-break).

6. Joe Public, who isn't interested, only cares about who won, but Joe Squash does care and that's who would be pissed off by seeing an artificial score.

7. Someone will win a game 112/110 and we'll never know.

8. People will read match reports detailing how a player won the decider 18/16, which won't tally with the results listing at the bottom of the report.

9. What's the point of adding complication and the opportunity for confusion to a perfectly simple system ?

10. Is anyone complaining that they don't understand because current games can finish 9/7, 9/8, 10/8 or 10/9 ? Does anyone not understand tennis because sets can finish 6/4, 7/5 or 7/6 (or 15/13 in Davis Cup and Wimbledon)?

11. No-one ever won a game of squash 11/10, so why write that down ?

First to 11, 2 clear. Easy.

Calsquasher · Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:

11-10 would be a terrible idea. Hiding the score of a hard fought, long "tiebreaker" would be unfortunate for ANY fan. Reporting a 22-20 game as 11-10 is an absolute joke and does a disservice to both the fans and the players.
_________________
"Drive for show, drop for dough."

asdf · Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject:

Excellent Steve.

One of the things that is bothering me about this whole mess is the incorrect use of the tennis analogy.

Tennis sets that end 7-6 are just that - seven games to six games. Nothing is hidden. When the score reaches six-games-all, a seventh game (truly and thusly called a tiebreaker) is played. This tiebreaker is PAR to seven points, two clear, and when tiebreaker scores are given, the actual score is always reported, not an abbreviated version.

So tennis scores are never abbreviated, save that the individual game scores (except tibreakers) are always omitted, but given that an average men's grand-slam match has approximately 40 games, this practice is understandable.
_________________
Still keeping one principal object in view -
To preserve its symmetrical shape. -- Lewis Carroll

Easynaah · Contributor Joined: 19 Mar 2008 Posts: 12

It seems quite easy as to why WISPA have gone for calling PAR-to-11 "Pro-Scoring": Brand Identity! That is why they have altered the way the score is reported so that then they can claim to be different from everybody else and pretend that it is an original idea and not copied. Obviously it will not catch on judging by the reaction so far. This 11/10 rule is just one big ego trip. I'm afraid Squashsite unless you bow down, kiss boots and tell your WISPA contacts how brilliant they are, you have no chance of them back tracking and seeing common sense.

I think that you will have more success championing the ESF scores later on this year and nudging the WSF to find out their intentions. If they move to 13/11 reporting then both the PSA & WISPA are likely to fall into line particulary as we are likely to be into 2009 and the Olympic spotlight will be on our sport.

seshadri · Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject:

While I think the PSA method of scoring 11/10 [x-y] is the best way of giving the final game score, isn't this whole issue a storm in a teacup?
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Canuck · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Aug 2007 Posts: 123

I don't think it is Sheshadri. Anything that makes the game more opaque to the average viewer should be discarded unless it adds real value to the sport. And Steve has already demonstrated that tennis, badminton, and table tennis all record their scores in the same manner that he and the majority of us are proposing.

While it shouldn't be a big deal to get it changed, it seems to be quite an issue, and encountering that obstinancy on the part of WISPA and the PSA must be frustrating for Steve, who quite possibly is the source of news for more squash enthusiasts than any other site/publication in the world.

stevecubs · Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject:

stevecubs · Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject:

From WISPA:

We are evaluating and checking the media at this moment, and barring unforseen considerations expect to move into actual points reporting where setting occurs. We will let everybody know the position very soon.

asdf · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:39 am Post subject:

Also from Andrew Shelly:

"Regarding scoring, I am confident that we will end up simply expressing the actual score e.g. 14/12, but it may take a day or two."
_________________
Still keeping one principal object in view -
To preserve its symmetrical shape. -- Lewis Carroll

squish · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

Of course 11 to 10 is stupid. But the real issue is that the matches will be too short. I feel I should tell my students not to waste time with court sprints, just stand there and aim for the nick.

Pedro · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject:

Is it not fair to say that the PAR scoring system will change the dynamics of the ladies game much in the same way as it changed the mens game? I personally prefer to play hand in scoring to 9 but I prefer to watch the intensity of pro matches with PAR to 11. I'm not saying the women's game WILL speed up, but with PAR scoring it is possible.
_________________
IN SQUASH WE TRUST.

Run-away-from-danger Boy · Prolific Contributor Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 140

I think the change will benefit women's squash. I find the women's game has been left behind by the men's. The men's game has turned into an almost pure attacking, exciting, athletic sport - and I am sure the PAR to 11 had an awful lot to with that. The women's game is still the traditional half-paced, up and down the walls much like it was 25 years ago.

Yes, some matches will take next to no time - but they have that already. Who wants to watch a 15 minute, one-sided belting anyway? Why try to make it longer? I say get those matches done in 5 minutes and put us out of our misery. PAR scoring rewards all good shots - no longer will there be the defensive strategy implemented by the players when they are receiving. The game should become faster, create better shot makers, make them more desperate... The women will adapt, just like the men did. Why should we believe they won't?

GoSquash · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:16 am Post subject:

"Yes, some matches will take next to no time - but they have that already. Who wants to watch a 15 minute, one-sided belting anyway? Why try to make it longer?"

I don't understand why more matches will take next to no time. If you look at the quick matches I doubt there are many hand outs so the match time till not greatly decrease. The match times that will decrease are the close one's where you get 5 or 6 successive hand outs before a point is won.

"But the real issue is that the matches will be too short. I feel I should tell my students not to waste time with court sprints just stand there and aim for the nick."

If anyone could it 33 nicks in a row, don't you think they would be doing that now!, I would rather see someone going for a nick that 20 shots up and down the wall, That’s what makes the game more exciting. They should still be fit just in case they miss the nick!

Boorchmen · Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: post

As I browsed through a tones of sites, I feel I should even internet market my site. Iâ€™m basically a computer graphics person, but I sometimes feel that it will be time consuming, but whatâ€™s also the harm in doing it.
_________________
My over 1000 FREE TV ::