The Squashist Is Not Dead -- It Just Seems That Way

I had to laugh a while ago when a blogger bemoaned the death of the Pro Squash Tour on the Daily Squash Report's website. I thought, that's funny, I don't think Joe McManus would let the PST quietly curl up and die, not at least without a little sturm und drang before kicking it.

So I wasn't surprised to read that the PST is not in fact dead, and of course the Squashist ain't dead yet either.

The PST's often-entertaining e-zine, which also seems to be the best place to get juicy squash gossip, ran a little piece yesterday about my last blog and commenting upon my evident demise, a sorry state of affairs caused by a bum knee that forced me to hang up my squash togs and throw away my racket forever. At the end of last year I announced that I had had enough, time to move on, thank you very much, and goodbye. 

I got a few emails expressing disappointment, urging me onwards or offering sympathies. I'm happy that PST took the time to notice my "passing."

A funny thing happened though.... 

I continued rehabbing at my club, which is the Princeton Club of NYC. You can't enter the gym area without looking down into the two squash courts, and because of that proximity squash kept beckoning to me, come hither it said. The lure was not the sweet singing of the sirens but the plonk-plonk-plonking of the squash ball and the occasional agonized screams of the players -- all music to my ears. As I made my way to the gym to rehab, trying fruitlessly to avoid the magnet of squash, I grimly recalled a great poem about New York City by John Reed, whose words might well apply to me and the great sport of squash:  

Who that has known thee but shall burn

In exile till he come again

To do thy bitter will, O stern

Moon of the tides of men!

I'd climb up on the bike for another 20-minute rehab session, ever hearing the alluring noises from the courts below, mocking my decision to give up the game, and the nub of doubt would eat away at my soul....

Within ten days I was back on court. 

Adjustments were necessary. I've had to accept a lower level of play. I've had to time things such that I need 15-20 minutes of warming up the knee before I get on the court for the knock-up. I've had to realize that on some days the old knee just doesn't want to run that much, and if I'm caught off guard and my opponent does a sudden dropshot that I didn't anticipate, there is no way in hell I'm going to try to run that ball down. My movement on the court looks a lot like a guy dragging a dead appendage behind him. John Musto, the pro there, has stared at my movement with a look that can best be described as somewhere between pitying and shocked. ("Oh mio dio," he has mumbled.)

So there have been compromises, but I am indeed playing the game and I am indeed having fun doing it. (I'm also playing a bit of tennis on har-tru or clay courts, which are easier on the knees.) 

So the Squashist is back, thank you very much. Still playing, and always anxious for a game. It's an addiction, and I need my fix. Indeed, at the end of May I will take my game to international shores, as I am going to visit Stockholm on business where I hope to play a little socialist squash. I hear the balls there are red....

PST Short On Sizzle

I'm on record as saying that the sport of squash needs to do something about the arguing, cajoling, ranting, raving, bickering and jaw-boning that occurs when lets and strokes are called in pro action, and the PST's attempt to do away with, or at least severely limit, these calls was I felt a welcome change. (That being said, the problem could also be addressed by encouraging refs to make it a rule to always adamantly squelch any dialogue and get the combatants to play the game or suffer the loss of points.)

The PST has set up their own tour, but because of on-going disputes with the PSA the players in the latter organization are not allowed to play in the former's events. Animosity developed over PST's marketing approach, which could be cheeky, to say the least, such as their referring to the winner of the annual show-down of the PST's 'elite eight' as the sports 'World Champion.' I don't know much about the politics of this situation and so won't comment on it, but I do know that the two groups are not ready to coexist.

However, this situation has led to a sizzle shortage in the PST.

Because of the PSA lockout there is a tendency in PST tournaments to rely on good local talent to fill out the card, so that good college players show up at the tournaments to get beaten by more established pro players. These are interesting matches as far as they go, but I could see a good match with some 5.5 players at my local club pretty much any day of the week -- what makes these matches tournament-worthy?

There is also a question of desire. I actually tuned into the web-streamed third-place match during the World Champion tournament and watched Mohamed El Sherbini take on Stefano Galifi. The match was not of particularly high quality and included two games where each player opted to hand the other the game. The worst was game two when Galifi, for reasons unbeknownst to this reporter, apparently gave up midway through the game and let Sherbini rattle off 7 or 8 uncontested winners. The next game, that situation was reversed. Sherbini won the match in 5, but those two games were some of the worst 'pro' games I have ever witnessed. 

So there is a question of desire, and that may have something to do with the purse, I don't know. But there's also one more factor you have to remember. His name is David Palmer. Palmer is still playing at world-class level, he could easily go back to the PSA and be top 15 without a problem, and better still with time. The fact is if he joins the draw in a PST match, and cares at all about the outcome, he's going to win. 

And that sucks the life out of the match, because it is like watching a story whose ending you know all too well. Great for Palmer; not so good for PST.

Psssst, They Did It Again

The fan-centric PST has once again made an excellent call. Joe McManus, the tour's commissioner, has announced that henceforth there will be a "zero tolerance policy" regarding dissent among players who disagree with a ref's decision.

Thank god for that. I noted sometime ago on this blog that the litigious discussion that ensues when a ref makes a tough call is a cringe-worthy pox upon the game of squash. Here I point out a BBC commentator's negative view of all the rancorous discussion. Though he liked watching the game, he probably felt at times that the greatest muscle being exercised at the tournament was that of the jawbone.

The PST will now have to live up to this decree. Will the ref have the testicular fortitude to stand up to one of the Tour's stars -- David Palmer, for instance -- and charge him a point when he starts complaining? They should, but we shall see.

In the end, the PST understands that it's about the squash.  If we want to go see people complaining we can go visit Washington DC.

Please god shut up! Players ... play!

Time To Can It

I found myself wondering today whether the PST's commissioner and CEO, Joseph M. McManus, may have adult-onset oppositional defiant disorder. This disability is usually diagnosed in little kids, and its symptoms include hostility and open defiance of authority figures. 

Maybe this McManus dude just got his case later than most? 

The idea of No-Let squash is good; the idea of No-Letting-Up criticism of anyone and everyone in the overall squash community is bad. No one likes to hear a crybaby.

The PST sends out a little weekly squash e-zine that I receive, which has featured a few pointed criticisms of squash luminaries in the past, and the animosity seems to be ratcheting up. Not long ago McManus' e-zine poked fun at Alex Gough, CEO of the Professional Squash Association, belittling his financial smarts. The criticism was harshly delivered, I thought, and the reason was obvious: the PSA's ongoing feud with the PST over letting the former's players play in the latter's events. Concern over financial matters is not a one-way street, however, and after this little diatribe I found myself wondering about the PST's finances. I remember something about offering $100,000 to the first top ten PSA player to bolt and join the PST. But when David Palmer did just that there was no mention of his winning the promised windfall. What's the story with that? And if he didn't get the 100K, what did he get? And what do the players earn at these PST tournaments, anyway? There is never any mention of financial prizes at these events, so out of curiosity, how much do they get? Are there appearance fees given for the stars, and what are they? Which players qualify, and how might other players earn qualification? What do the lower-ranked losers get for their efforts? How sound are the PST's finances? Dunno, but I found myself wishing I had more information. 

Then, more recently, the McManus e-zine thought it would be funny (I guess) to refer to Kevin Klipstein, CEO of US Squash, as "napoleonic" and the association's "little general," apparently in reference to Klipstein's height. While no giant, I've met the man and he doesn't qualify as notably diminutive either. Again, McManus is upset with a CEO in the squash world and has decided to take it out in petty, defiant, bullying ways. Apparently US Squash has some legal action against PST over wording of one of their tournaments. I am actually the one tasked with overseeing copyright legal matters at the publishing house where I work, and believe me, companies everywhere are concerned, often rightly, when another company in their industry starts using, and branding, language similar to their own. I don't know the facts behind this legal skirmish, but wouldn't it have been better to argue this away from the public eye instead of embarrassing yourself and your organization with childish name-calling? 

I don't get it.

Mr. McManus, I think the no-let concept is a good one, but advertising yourself as a crybaby who lashes out at other squash organizations, and the people behind them, does nothing for your product, and may even provoke antipathy towards the PST in general. Focus on your product; it's a good one, make it better! The other stuff: It's time to can it.

Smart Move

The Pro Squash Tour, Joe McManus' let-shunning sports creation, has just made a very smart move, decreeing that as of the new year all players must wear eye protection.

It's been worrying me that in a no-let tournament players will be more likely to accidentally hit unprotected eyes as they scramble to get around the other player. I felt there was an accident out there waiting to happen.

It turns out McManus must have been thinking the same thing. And now he's fixed the problem. Players will probably whine a bit, but after awhile it will become part of the deal: If you want to play PST, you have to don the glasses. Easily enough done.....

Let Please Let Please Let Please Let Please Let Please Let Please

The Pro Squash Tour and its merry band of squash infidels are now well into their tournament season, the details of which are located here.

I’ve noted before in this space how the PST has offered an important innovation by recognizing the mind-numbing qualities of the overabundance of ‘Let-No Let’ calls in tournament play. There is nothing like having a long and creative rally be nullified by a ‘Let’ call to suck the air right out of the room. Observers will often sigh when that happens. “Aw…,” says the crowd.

The PST recently noted in one of their squash e-zines that British reporters counted the number of Let-No Let-Stroke decisions at the 2007 Bermuda World Open. The numbers were even higher than I would have imagined.

In the entire tournament there were 31 matches, 116 games, and 1917 points played. In all of those matches, referee decisions were required 959 times, which is a fraction over 50% of the total points. That averages out to 31 decisions per match and 8 decisions per game.

Of the decisions made, 706 (74%) were Lets, 111 (12%) were No Lets, and 145 (15%) were Strokes. In just one match, between Wael El Hindi and Eric Galvez, there were a mind-altering 76 referee decisions made.

Aw…..

PST: From One Court To Another

Working on the theory that a lawsuit against the PSA would just enrich the lawyers, the Pro Squash Tour's Joe McManus recently announced that he was dropping his suit and would concentrate his efforts on the court of squash rather than the court of law. I asked him a couple of questions:

1. Where does this decision leave the original points of contention? For instance, the PSA did not like the fact that you ranked your players. Will that continue?

"In October 2010, the PSA banned their members from playing PST tournaments. After three months of negotiation, we came to the conclusion that an agreement wasn’t possible. To win the lawsuit would have taken as long as two years and over $100,000. We decided to spend the money on players instead of legal fees and withdrew the court case.

Regrettably, the ban forced us to defend ourselves and compete against the PSA. Before the ban, we viewed the association as a friendly group who shared our interest in growing the fan base for pro squash. Now their public and private actions have created a divide.

PSA is run by ex-PSA players. But their recent decisions are hurting the ability of current players to earn more money playing squash. In the fullness of time, this moment will be viewed as a stain on the PSA’s history. We continue to call on PSA to lift this ban. PSA changes leadership frequently enough. Maybe, the next group will be more thoughtful."

2. Is the PSA continuing to ban players who play in the PST, as they announced back in October? 

"PSA isn’t telling its players what the punishment is for competing in our tournaments.

Ned Marks, a PSA member, played in our Connecticut Open. PSA suspended him for a month as a result and pulled his entry from the Tournament of Champions. No one is truly sure if that should be viewed as a precedent-setting moment. They don’t really value transparency in their operations.

Our next tournament is the Westchester Open. There are 16 players registered. 6 of them were PSA members as of December. We have 3 players registered for February’s Baltimore tournament who were listed as PSA members in December. PSA is going to lose a lot of membership dues if they continue with this ill-conceived ban.

PST does not charge players to compete in our events. Our players are professionals who earn money competing in our tournaments."

3. In what ways has the PST changed so that the court case is no longer an issue for the PSA? 

"Pro Squash Tour is unchanged, except that we continue to grow."

4. I'm assuming your competitions will continue to be no-let matches, is that right?

"Absolutely. Once you’ve see what the pros can do without the hindrance of a let, you don’t want to go back to the old style of play."

5. You also announced a $100,000 signing bonus for a top-ten player from the PSA to jump ship and play the PST. Any bites? An excellent blog at brettssquashblog.com, proposes that Thierry Lincou might go for it. 

"I have spoken to four players. Each asked for confidentiality. For the moment, I need to leave it at that. Brett wrote a very fair and thoughtful piece. He’s a good guy who loves the game. Squash has the benefit of having some very reasoned bloggers. 

Regarding Thierry Lincou. He is a professional’s professional. If you need him to be somewhere at 3:00, he arrives at 2:55.  He is more reliable than a sundial. He also plays the game in the manner it was intended to be played, and he is one of the best players in the world. I believe he could win another World Open or World Series. However, if he chooses to join PST, we would enthusiastically welcome him as the face of our tour. 

We intend to make the person who accepts our offer the most famous squash player in the world’s largest market." 

6. You announced that you are also starting an apparently separate entity called Premier Squash Tour. Is that correct, or will the Pro Squash Tour become the Premier? Can you give any specifics on how you see this new Tour developing? 

"Premier Squash will provide exclusive squash experiences tailored to the desires of the host. We do not anticipate publicizing these events and will do a select few of these each year."

Professional Squash in America: Growth, or No?

The Boston Globe's Alex Beam wrote an irritatingly snarky column recently discussing the PSA-PST lawsuit, in which, after poking fun at the sport itself, making the obligatory reference to the vegetable, and generally attempting to dazzle the reader with his wordplay, he quotes PSA board member and lawyer, Richard Bramall:

“We are well established in other parts of the world, but in many ways America is the most important market for the PSA, because we want to grow in the US, and we are continuing to grow in the US.’


So that raises an interesting question, just how much has the PSA grown in the US? If you go onto the PSA's website and click on Calendar, there you will find the facts—all the tournaments and their purses through the years. I went back 5 years, to 2006, and compared the data. I reviewed all the numbers, separating out USA-based matches with those held in the rest of the world.

This tedious exercise proved two things: One, that I apparently have nothing better to do and my life is pathetically boring. And two, that the PSA's efforts in the US have not been particularly impressive. Here are some of the facts:

To be fair, one should keep in mind the economic duress of recent years, but even with that factor, it is hard to argue that the PSA's efforts in the US have been particularly stellar. Another way of looking at the data is to compare US purses with World purses over time:

This analysis shows that the total purse for the rest of the world has grown 48% between 2006 and 2010. During that same time period, the US purse has fallen 14%. The number of tournaments in the US has barely nudged upwards, while the rest of the world has many new tournaments. (The one mathematical oddity is that, with precious few tournaments in the US, the average player purse in the US is higher than the rest of the world. Oh, thanks.)

The stagnant growth in the US is one of the factors that has led to the alternative Pro Squash Tour, to help squash professionals in the US earn a living. They can't do it with the PSA alone, at least not with these numbers.

PSA Called 'Predatory,' and Now There's a Petition To Sign

As I presumed it might, the PSA vs PST dispute is now headed for the courts. The core legal issue is whether the PSA engaged in predatory behavior by singling out PST events over other, similar leagues and tournaments. 

And now there is a petition to sign. For those who feel strongly about the PST, signing the petition is a no-brainer. But even those who think the idea of 'no-let' squash is nuts should consider signing if they want to support innovation in the sport of squash and open up the game to new thinking. To my mind the PSA acted imperiously, without consulting its membership in a significant way. The link is here. It would be nice if these two organizations could have a meeting and work this out. Perhaps decide this on a squash court, maybe a best-of-7 match? Limit the lets, say, to 5??? 

Here is the complete PST release on the suit:

US Based Pro Squash Tour Files Suit to Defend Itself and Its Players

from UK Based Professional Squash Association Ban

Natick, MA (October 26, 2010) — On Monday, lawyers representing the US-based Pro Squash Tour (PST) filed suit in New York state court against the UK-based Professional Squash Association (PSA) and two other defendants for allegedly improperly restricting competition in the United States, including New York State.

The suit is in response to the PSA’s unilateral ban on October 14, 2010, barring its members, under threat of expulsion, from participating in any PST event. PST is challenging this anti-competitive ban to protect players’ rights and to defend itself against this egregious move.  The ban’s unfairness is clearly illustrated by the fact that the UK-based management is solely targeting U.S.-based PST events while allowing its members to participate in any other league, tournament or exhibition match in the world.

“The management in England singled out our successful and growing American tour,” said PST Commissioner Joseph McManus. “And they appeared to have made this decision in darkness without discussing the idea first with their full membership.”

The six-count suit includes allegations that the PSA engaged in improper and anti-competitive conduct by interfering with PST player agreements and business relationships. The suit further alleges that the predatory behavior is being conducted with the specific intent to exclude competition and achieve monopoly power.

PST Commissioner Joseph M. McManus said he wants the players to be free to compete, if they so choose. “The irony is that we are now put in the position of defending players and their rights against the very organization that should be protecting them in the first place.”

More than 150 years old and played by more than 20 million people in 185 countries, including 885,000 in the U.S., squash has shown sustained growth in the US. in recent years. The US based Pro Squash Tour was founded in 2009 and coordinates a tour with stops across the United States. The season begins in September and runs through April.

An Open Letter to the Squash Community, From Joseph McManus, PST's CEO

Okay, I've had my fun with photos, but when you get right down to it, no one's laughing. Joseph M. McManus, the commissioner and CEO of the Pro Squash Tour, has just released an "Open Letter to the Squash Community." Here it is, in its entirety:

Dear Squash Fan,

This past week, the management of the PSA without warning announced, effective immediately, that it was banning its members from playing in PST tournaments. 

This blanket ban includes all members of the PSA: world members, continental members, country members, ratings members, and junior members. It also does not discriminate between the world #1 and the world # "last". 

This ban was, moreover, singular in its focus. Simply stated, the squash players on the PSA are free to play in any tournament or event – except for the U.S.-based PST. 

Further, the management induced ban, which is in conflict with its own Tour Guide, was done in complete darkness without input or a vote from PSA members. 

The PSA management's surprise attack on its own members was shocking in its draconian measures and its immediate change in policy was beyond thoughtless. It was heartless. Pro squash players plan their calendars months in advance to effectively balance world tour tournaments with lessons, clinics, exhibitions, and other tournaments and league play. 

And pro squash players are constantly balancing their check books. When tournament fees and player levies to the PSA are honestly accounted for, the total player purse for the world tour is slightly more than $3 million. Divide that by the 500 players PSA says are members and the average professional squash player earns roughly $6,000/ year playing on their tour. 

Now subtract plane flights, meals, hotels, cabs, et al for 12+ tournaments. The average player on the world tour actually spends more money playing on the PSA than he earns. He also has to spend a few hundred dollars in PSA dues before playing a match. You can quickly see that players need to earn money elsewhere. 

On the PST, we pay squash players to play squash. We have no initiation fees. In fact, our tournaments are open to all – without restriction. We are designed to give players who are in the U.S. an opportunity to make money playing squash. 

We also professionally manage every event to ensure a first-rate fan experience. I have personally been on-site for every night of every tournament. This obviously limits our growth, but it improves quality. We are focused on quality. 

Contrary to the PSA's recent public statements, we do not rank our players. Rankings on world tours involve a rolling, 12-month weighted, algorithmic average with divisors and penalties for players in losses. 

Nor does the PST affect the PSA world rankings – unless the PSA chooses to continue penalizing its members for playing on the U.S.-based PST. 

We do give players points for winning matches. At the end of the season, we'll give the top guys a bonus for a job well done. This may appear to be a semantics debate. The distinction is important, however. 

The PST is 1 year old and very new to this international game. There are 185 countries that make up the world squash community. 71 participate in the Commonwealth Games. Of note, the World Squash Federation, a PSA partner, doesn't acknowledge our product as being squash. US Squash, the National Governing body of squash in the United States, makes no mention of our tournaments anywhere on its website. (And all of our events are in the U.S.) 

Moreover, there is one dominant and regularly updated squash news site (www.SquashSite.co.uk) in the world. They are not yet covering our men's event results either. In our entire history, we have coordinated 7 tournaments. 

The notion that our US based tour is a threat to the world tour strains credulity. 

In fact, the management of the PSA has gone to great and creative length to cleverly craft a reason to pick a fight with us. 

If we paid their 10% PSA tax for tournaments to be “recognized” in London, one expects all would be forgiven. 

This ban is merely a case of a bully trying to impose his will on a smaller, weaker and newer kid on the block. 

The great irony is that we are now being forced into the position of defending pro squash players' and their individual rights to the very organization that should be protecting them. 

And we will. 

We will fight to protect professional squash players' rights to earn a living in any country and any tournament they choose to enter. The PSA can end this fight immediately by lifting this ban. 

And I hope they do so. 

Joseph M. McManus
President
American Pro Squash, Inc. dba PST

Pro Squash Tour to the PSA

Fuhgettaboutit!

PSA to the Pro Squash Tour ...

Drop dead!

How the BEEB Sees Squash

At the risk of protesting too much, I was interested to read this BBC blogger's report of the squash competition at the Commonwealth Games. The squash tournament was viewed positively in this blog, and he argues that it should certainly by an Olympic sport. Great. But he also comments on the tumult over lets: "There is scope to bully your opponent [and] shout at the officials with seeming impunity." 

And: ..."Both players at times were furiously asking for lets. Getting a let in squash is part tactic, part truth and a lot of bravado. The encumbered party looks angrily back to the panel of officials, miming the action he would like to have taken with his racquet, while the blocker looks aghast and points to some area of the court with palms up and a shrug - the full Mediterranean "What's he on?" The officials have a quick vote between the three of them and deliver a polite "yes, let". The point is replayed sometimes more than once and the sweat goes on."

This is the part of squash that I'd like to say goodbye to.That's why I'm in favor of no-let squash. Does the idea need tweaking? Yes, of course. But I say, 'Tweak away..."

The Pro Squash Tour: Opinion Emphatically Confirmed!

I've opined on this blog on a few occasions that I thought the idea behind the no-let, "Point-Every-Rally" Pro Squash Tour was a great one that rightly places the fan experience first and foremost, where it belongs. The truth is, though, that I had never seen one of these matches, so my opinion was based on conjecture, not experience.

I now can give an eye-witness account of a Pro Squash match held earlier this week at the Sports Club/LA on New York's east side. This was tournament #3 of a tour schedule that now numbers over a dozen stops. The next event will be in Boston in mid-November.

And I say, don't miss it! The no-let match I saw, between US champ Julian Illingworth and Wael El Hindi, the highly creative Egyptian who now calls New York City home, was a grueling battle between two equally determined squashists who were willing to put their all into every shot. Yes, there were a few calls that had to be adjudicated by the ref. I can remember two let-point calls in the entire match, with both players receiving a call in their favor. Most of the time the players played right through, and it was not hard for them to do that in 95% of occurrences. Take for example the front corners, a place where many let calls are made, fished for or blocked over in normal pro play. In no-let, Point-Every-Rally matches, the players quickly learn that if they make an agile, fast stutter-step around their opponent—voila, no interference is made and they are right there, ready to strike the ball. It is a different way of playing, but not hard for these pros to get used to. 

There was a little bumping, but the only serious instance of that came when El Hindi tried to get around Illingworth, tripped and ended up on the floor. There were a few questioned calls, but those few (maybe 3 in the whole match) were close and understandable and were a lot fewer in number than the tens of calls one would normally have in a pro match.

These guys kicked their mutual butts. The play was highly creative. This is a vigorous, intense, forceful, supremely athletic, strong version of squash, and it makes standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill squash seem practically lethargic by contrast. The Illingworth-El Hindi match, which was for 3rd place in the tournament, lasted well past an hour, and that was with every rally ending in a point—it was intense indeed! Illingworth finally won it in the 5th, to a very appreciative round of applause. In the final, France's Thierry Lincou beat Englishman Bradley Ball, 3-0. 

My opinion of Point-Every-Rally matchplay has been emphatically confirmed. You have to check it out....  

'The Let Has Evolved from a Courtesy in a Gentlemen's Game to a Strategic Weapon in the Modern Era -- It Outlived its Usefulness.'

The Squashist has been an early proponent of limiting lets in pro play. The idea was advanced by Joseph M. McManus, the commissioner and chief executive of the Pro Squash Tour, which tested the hypothesis, liked what it saw, and then decided to go whole hog and chucked all lets, period. Not one is allowed. A gutsy move, whose impetus was to put the fan experience first and foremost in order to make top squash exciting and easy to understand for all types of fans. Predictably, there was much fretting, hand-ringing, gnashing of teeth, gaseous bloviating, and unsubtle orneriness from the sidelines. Still, they played on. And you know what? It's a great idea! 

Here now an interview with Mr. McManus:

I notice that you are now referring to the brand of squash that you offer in your Pro Squash Tour as "Point Every Rally," highlighting the difference with "point a rally" (ie, PAR) matches, which don't always end with a point since a let might be called. What has been the overall feedback from fans?

Everything we do at the PST is geared to entertaining our fans. Removing the traditional let from the game is only one improvement we've made, but it certainly has gained the most attention. 

The immediate feedback to our "Point Every Rally" squash has been magnificent. Since fans have been subjected to endless lets throughout their squash experience, it was hard for them to envision this new, more exciting game. Fans that have attended our tournaments can't imagine going back to the old style of play. It is simply more entertaining. (Note that we have posted fan feedback online here.)

Your reference to PAR squash not always ending with a decision is gentle to the point of being misleading. At the 2007 World Open Championships, there were 1,917 points played throughout the tournament. 959 (50%) of them required a referee's decision. Of those 959 decisions, 706 times (74% of the time) the referee chose a let (ie, do-over). Source is here.

The let has evolved from a courtesy in a gentlemen's game to a strategic weapon in the modern era. It outlived its usefulness.

Have there been any traditionalist fans who have voiced the opinion that they would prefer the standard PAR format over your "Point Every Rally" format?

Traditionalists preferred silent films to “talkies” and the horse and buggy to automobiles.

What about the players.... Do any pro players explicitly prefer the "Point Every Rally" format?

Yes, please go to our homepage or visit YouTube to hear their feedback.

I spend a great deal of time listening to players. And I listen closely. Certain areas of the game we have been able to fix immediately. Others require a longer term view. But they know I am listening. My partner in this effort is David Palmer. I regularly call him for advice and feedback. We all know him as the world’s most dominant player of the decade. Off the court, I know him as a trusted friend and advisor. John White and I are also on the phone regularly. As a former World #1 himself, he knows the game as well as anybody. He was also an early voice amplifying “Point Every Rally.”

How are the pros educated on how to play using this new format, which tactically must be very different from PAR? Is there a video they can watch, is there on-court instruction?

We tell them two things. Don’t hit a shot you can’t clear, and if you can play the ball, play it. It really is not much more complicated than that. The world’s best squash players are magnificent athletes with elite fitness, balance, hand speed, and hand-eye coordination. They don’t need me to tell them very much.

 

The pros tell me that there are some subtle changes to how they play, but that our innovations have made the game more fun on court. We are building a video library to help train referees and players. Also, whenever a player asks us to review a call, we do so and report back to that player on whether or not the correct call was made.

A lot of the early naysayers have worried about possible injuries with the "Point Every Rally" format. Have injuries been a problem? Has any player been injured at all in a Pro Squash match, and if so, how?

 
Actually, I find our squash matches to be cleaner. Since PST requires pros to clear their shot, we see less contact than on the other tours. 

We did have one player catch a racket on his forehead. He came off court, got a band-aid and returned to play and won the match. I don’t think that rises to the level of calling it an injury, but it happened.

The World Squash Federation has made no move to adopt the no-let format, but they are clearly interested in its development. Has the WSF formally contacted you for feedback on your innovation?

Andrew Shelley (CEO of WSF) and I spoke briefly. He is a very talented man with the challenging job of balancing constituencies who are invested in the traditional game. I will leave the politics of world squash to him and his staff.

We are singularly focused on our fans and growing the game.

What about referees? On the one hand I would think this makes the ref's job a little easier, but on the other I can see how it would be harder. How are refs faring with the "Point Every Rally" format, and what is their attitude to it compared to the PAR format? Do they prefer "Point Every Rally" or PAR?
 

I don’t think in terms of making referees jobs easier or more difficult. Rather, I focus on preparing our referees to be ready to preside over these matches.

All referees became referees because they love the game. In my view, however, they have historically been treated poorly. They deserve better. When I asked Mike Riley to serve as our Director of Officials, he and I spent a great deal of time discussing the game, its past and its future. In my view, he is the best in the world at what he does, and as someone who has played the game at a high level, he was uniquely qualified to address the problems we were trying to fix.

Although Mike was the first to lead PST in this direction, Bob Hanscom has been lobbying for this idea for a lot longer than any of us. All that is to say that some top referees were also lobbying for this change.

Has there been any interpersonal friction between players during no-let games that can be blamed on the no-let system? Are players clearing better now that fishing for lets has been taken out of match play?

I should define these terms for the reader. “Fishing” is a term used to describe a player who doesn’t want to play the ball, usually because his opponent hit too good a shot. So, he creates unnecessary contact with his opponent to ‘fish’ for a let from the referee. “Blocking” occurs when a player doesn’t get out of the way of his opponent or clears slowly and causes his opponent to run around him. In our system, fishing results in an “appeal denied” call from the referee and blockers lose the point.

In fact, we are very tough on blockers. Under the traditional rules, a player only had to make every effort to get out of the way. This is not acceptable in our game. We actually require players to clear their shots; making every effort isn’t sufficient.

We saw fishing eliminated from match play immediately. Blocking, however, will be a constant battle. We will continue to remind players that they shouldn’t hit a shot they can’t clear. However, in game 5 when players are tired and their legs are heavy, they’ll block. Our referees need to hold the line here even more vigilantly. Blocking is not a part of our game.

One last question: Should "Point Every Rally" matchplay be considered for amateurs at the club level, or do you see this innovation working only at the pro level?

It’s advisable for pros and amateurs to play with different rules.  Amateur baseball players use metal bats, while the MLB uses wood bats. The 3-point line is different in college basketball than the NBA. NFL and Division 1 football teams play with a plethora of different rules. Your readers, I am sure, are coming up with their own examples to add to this list.

Pros can simply do things with their rackets, the ball, and their bodies that amateurs cannot do. As always, I encourage fans to send me their comments and suggestions here.

Mr. McManus, thank you very much. I think the best way to judge this new format is to check out one of the Pro Squash Tours' events. Their calendar is located here.

The 5-Let Rule Passes a Test

There was quite a bit of interest in the idea of the 5-let rule (see here), which was recently given a test run at US Pro Squash's Franklin & Marshall Invitational Tournament. Many comments were rabidly against the idea, while others were more open to it. My reaction was positive, since I thought it was at least an attempt to address the fan experience, which I believe is hampered by bickering over lets. 

Guy Cipriano, long-time hardball player and doubles aficionado, was able to get a brief e-mailed comment from John White, F & M's squash director, who played in the tournament. Guy was kind enough to share White's comments with me.

White felt the experiment with 5 lets 'went well.' He noted that the 'players played more balls than normal when there was minor interference.' I think that's the principal result of this rule: players will not automatically stop when they could just as easily nudge around their opponent and get to the ball. White also said that Mike Riley, the ref, was careful to award strokes if he felt the opponent was blocking the other player, trying to force the player to use up a let call. 'This made players get out of the way more.' Another good result.... White's feeling was that the 5-let rule needed a few more trials to test its overall utility, but so far, so good.

This of course was a limited test. You had top players who were willing to give this new concept a go (including Baset Chaudry, who despite reports has apparently not given up the game of squash), and a capable ref who was prepared to handle the different dynamic that resulted from the new rule. Is this a good idea for amateur tournaments? Clearly, no. For other pro tournaments? Quite possibly yes, if further trials pan out.

While the new rule was a success, the tournament was not a success for John White. Most unfortunately, White suffered a torn plantar fascia on the bottom of his left foot in the semis, and now can be seen shuffling around in an orthopedic boot waiting to heal. Having had to wear just such a boot myself in the last few months, I deeply sympathize!