Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

VolleyDrop · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: Reach vs. Speed

I've seen it, but I'd like for someone to put it into words for me, and explain exactly how it works (talking about pros here, not just average joes):

All skills being equal, how can a short, quick player match a tall, lanky player with long reach?

It doesn't seem possible that foot speed could equal long reach in a match unless the small player's reaction time was significantly faster as well. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. It seems to me that with equal skills (racquet skills, footwork, fitness, etc.) a player with significantly greater reach should win most of the time.

Does size really matter in squash? If so, how much? And if so, what does the short player need to have to compensate for it? (Jokes not necessary here... Neutral

)

seshadri · Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject:

The way to beat a tall player is to make him stretch as often as you can. It is easy for such a player to go into the stretch, but he drains a lot of his energy while recovering from the stretch. This is because his long bones make his muscles work at a mechanical disadvantage [all skeletal muscles function as Class 3 levers, the most inefficient of the 3 types of levers]. In contrast, the shorter player finds it easier to recover from a stretch, but can be tired out by making him run all over the court. He will waste a lot of energy in braking and changing direction.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Khalid · Contributor Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Kuwait

Good explanation Sesh..Well explained.

Volley Drop,

Watch a match between Barada and Jansher Khan....should be a demo fit for an answer! I'm going to watch one from the SSfinals from the 90s (not sure which year(s) I have, but I am sure I have one of Barada vs JK.
_________________
Good luck with your Squash....coz luck has nothing to do with it!!

Khalid · Contributor Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Kuwait

Another tip I use that seems to work....Always try to "Twist and Turn" a lanky player, ie by playing drops followed by a cross lob or corkscrew lobs (I call them screwballs), or an attacking boast then a straight lob...something like that, where your opponent has to reach down and then straighten up or better still jump to respond to a lob, kind like doin jack squats....the lankier you are, the harder they are to do repetitevely.
_________________
Good luck with your Squash....coz luck has nothing to do with it!!

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

Although there has never been a really short sprinting champion, there has never been a really tall one either. You don't see very many acrobats or gymnasts over 5'9, (average height of world class gymnast may be 5'6) so shorter athletes tend to have an edge in agility, which is crucial for playing pro squash. Magic Johnson at 6'9" was a great point guard because of his brain, not his agility, which was much lower than the typical star at that position. Willstrop and Palmer have a large edge in reach over Shabana, but Shabana's quickness more than makes up for this. I'm 5'7" and have never felt at a physical disadvantage playing someone taller, although I've been afraid that they will consistently block my access to the ball without realizing it, leading to an ugly match.

Lucas · Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:30 am Post subject:

and then you have a guy like Ramy who has both reach and speed Smile

off the wall · Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:45 am Post subject:

There aren't any "small" top pro's in the men's game (aside Gough I suppose) though Shabana isn't big, so I think I ought to agree with VolleyDrop.

But the reason that small guys can compete (at a slightly lower level), is that they can move more precisely, and quicker.

If you can keep the ball beyond a tall guys reach (which is very possible) and keep him guessing, this is far more effective than the same game against a smaller player who would simply run back (nimbly) and retrieve the shot (with interest?) where a tall guy might struggle to do the same ie. you can force a tall player to turn and move backwards which they do not find easy.

Here lies the ultimate beauty in squash. Most body types have a chance. Tall/short/skinny/powerful/overweight body types can be successful with the right shots and strategy (of course to a level!)

Also there is no substitute for getting onto the ball early.
Ok, across the middle tall guys can do it far better, which is hugely important. However, into the front court - almost as important, a small guy can get on the ball quicker, and counter attack with ease not usually found with a taller rangy player.

BernardM · Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

off the wall · Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject:

Your list kind of proves my point.

I indicated top pros in my post, and the only player to have been in the top 10 in
recent years smaller than 5 feet 8 is Gough.

I wonder how good Aamir Atlas Khan will be? I didn't realise he was that small.
He could make it as a top 10 small guy!

BernardM · Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

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

Before Jansher came along, it was assumed that 5'7"-9" was the optimum height for a squash player. I still get some parents who bring their relatively short kids in to try squash because they heard short players are at no disadvantage. Peter Nicol, Jahangir Khan, and Amr Shabana never had any trouble routinely beating taller players. Ramy happens to be tall. There will after him be a short number 1, have no fear. Bernard M is absolutely right about the serve angle in tennis conferring a height advantage. There were more short players like Laver when the rallies were longer. As long as they keep squash a game in which agile retrievers can neutralize shooters there will be short players. Making the matches shorter, playing on a glass court, and lowering the tin have all favored shooters, but of course short people can shoot, too.

nmc8 · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:16 am Post subject:

What exactly do we define as a tall player. How many players are there on the tour that are over say 6'3 which in my eyes i would define as being TALL anything else and you are in the relms of normal size. You also have to bare in mind that the average male is around the 5'8 to 5'10 in the UK and that will vary in other countries.

You also have to look at arm length re reach. Take boxing for example you can get two guys of similiar height and weight but one can have a reach many inches longer than the other.

All the top players at my club are in the 5'10 to 6ft bracket except one who is 6'1.
.
Every sport has its optimum or idea physic squash will too - not sure what it is though

nmc8

bendi36 · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:19 am Post subject:

[quote="seshadri"] long bones make his muscles work at a mechanical disadvantage [all skeletal muscles function as Class 3 levers, the most inefficient of the 3 types of levers]. quote] Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! That made me laugh. All through out the body theirs all different types of levers. And no theirs no mechanical disadvantage because he is not expending more energy than their is load. I could understand how you would see it like that though..
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

BernardM · Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

[quote="bendi36"]

bendi36 · Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:06 am Post subject:

Actually I'm halfway through a Human Movements degree looking to becoming a physio. Thanks for asking Very Happy

and your quite right, most not all of the body's levers are type 3. and "Are you implying that "load" applied is proportionally related to energy expended against that load?" Yes I am. duh. Just becuase someone is immature doesn't not mean they can't be smart too.
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

seshadri · Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:38 am Post subject:

Some muscles act as class 1 and 2 levers, but most of them are actually class 3, ask any doctor or kinesiologist. Are you implying that "load" applied is proportionally related to energy expended against that load? No offense, but considering your immature response to and behavior I assume you are young kid and still in elementary or high school and have no relevant education whatsoever in physics or mechanics, but I believe that your statement will certainly make some more qualified people laugh. Laughing

(Not me though)[/quote]

Thanks Bernard. You're quite right; some skeletal muscles [neck muscles and calf muscles for example] function as Class 1 and 2 levers. Most of the muscles that we are concerned with in squash are, however, Class 3.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

BernardM · Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

seshadri · Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:38 am Post subject:

Reading BernardM taking on Bendi brings to mind Alice In Wonderland and The Duchess's song to the pig baby!

Speak roughly to your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.

Chorus: Wow! wow! wow!
I speak severely to my boy,
I beat him when he sneezes;
For he can thoroughly enjoy
The pepper when he pleases!

Chorus: Wow! wow! wow!

_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

BernardM · Newbie Joined: 23 Dec 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

bendi36 · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:14 am Post subject:

ergonomics is to do with engineering, biomechanics is a branch covered in human movement. I have no idea whether or not height is an advantage, their seems a few pro's and con's to being small and tall. Eg. Better reach if tall, having to go down lower. If your small your probably more nimble. I reckon tall players would do better.
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

nmc8 · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:03 am Post subject:

Guys,

All this talk of levers and ergonomics and biomechanics is all very interesting but quite frankly you are either good enough or you are not irrespective of whether you are 5'6 or 6'6.

The greatest ever players where not TALL but then again they were not SHORT either.

nmc8