If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Popular 18th-century attitude.)
If it don't need fixin', try to break it. (Popular 21st-century attitude.)
That’s not the same game I play. (A squash spectator at the recent Tournament of Champions.)
The spectator was right, of course, but probably not for the reasons that she thought. There are at least four different types of softball squash being played in the world right now (I’m not even going to get into the hardball or doubles discussions at the moment), and most of us don’t know it.
Professional men use “American” scoring to 15; professional women play to nine. Professional men use 17” tins on the tour court, but adjust to 19” tins on most facility courts; professional women mostly play on 19” tins, but sometimes play on tour courts that have 17” tins. Amateurs almost all use nine-point scoring and play on courts with 19” tins.
What the heck has led to this wacky state of affairs?
Well, good intentions for sure, but also lack of synergy between the two organizations that are the caretakers of our game: the Professional Squash Association and the World Squash Federation.
The 15-point scoring was a misguided attempt by the PSA to make the games go faster and the scoring easier for spectators to grasp in order to facilitate squash for television. Misguided because serious sports last longer than squash matches, not shorter, and because spectators are not dumb.
Let’s tackle the intelligence question first.
The idea that potential spectators don’t have the capacity or don’t want to spend the time to learn a different scoring system just doesn’t make sense. I know I have stayed tuned to televised snooker just because I was trying to understand the damn rules (and have learned, over time, that I actually do lack the capacity to understand their scoring…). My intelligence notwithstanding, learning the nuances of a new sport, including its scoring system, is part of the fun of becoming a cognoscente.
Even so, the scoring systems for television-friendly sports such as basketball, football, bowling, billiards, boxing, and even tennis are harder to learn than is the scoring in squash. (Don’t be fooled by your familiarity with the sports; let’s not forget that a basket in basketball can be worth one, two or three points, depending on the situation and the distance.) And, of course, volleyball’s television ratings do not seem to be hurt by its “complicated” scoring system (the same as for nine-point squash).
So, let’s turn to the idea that squash’s matches need to be shortened. Studies have shown that the ideal amount of time to hold spectator interest is between one-and-a-half and three hours. Shorter than that, and the event is considered a diversion not an event, longer than that and it becomes onerous (yes, there is a reason that almost every movie made fits this time frame).
With sports, spectators have the same time frames in mind, with a couple of interesting exceptions: if a sporting event is very closely contested, interest can be held longer (think five-set tennis match) and if a sporting event does not require close minute-by-minute attention, general interest also can be sustained (think golf).
Well, what about squash? The average length of a squash match is about 50 minutes. A long five-game match can last between an hour and a half and two hours (perfect length!). For which scoring system? For both.
It turns out that the scoring system does not change the average match length more than a minute or two. Some say, yes, but at least the 15-point scoring makes very long and very short matches less likely. Good intuition, but the facts don’t really (or just barely) confirm this. On the short end, one-sided matches are a little less short with 15-point scoring, but on the longer side, there has been little effect. It is the length of the rallies and the number of lets that seem to make the difference in truly long matches, not the scoring system.
What has been lost by the adoption of the 15-point scoring, of course, is excitement and grit. There is nothing quite like a crowd collectively realizing that a 7-2 lead is in serious jeopardy as the player ahead fails again and again to get to eight. Or of game points going back and forth at 9-9. The drama has time to build and, more importantly, to be sustained. This feeling is one that tennis has tried to recreate by shifting from a nine-point tiebreaker to the twelve-point where a player has to win by two. Why are we going the other way?
As far as the large population of amateur players is concerned, 15-point scoring just has not taken hold. With that in mind, the PSA and WSF should get together and shift all scoring back to nine-point games.
Let’s talk tin height for a moment. This one is easier. There is little doubt that the lower tin likely has affected the top players’ propensity to go for more shots. But my sense is that improvements in racquet technology have had as much to do with the increase in shot-making as has the tin height.
But when Jon Power hits an unreal drop shot or David Palmer drives the ball into the nick, wouldn’t it be nice to not to wonder if they would be able to do that on a “normal” court?
I am not as averse to changing the tin heights as I am to the scoring, but if the difference in play isn’t substantial (I have seen Power and Palmer work their magic with higher tins), the cost and time of converting all the 19” tins to 17” might be. In any event, once again the PSA and the WSF should get together and mandate one or the other.
I mean, after all, I know I’d like to know that the reason the game the top players play isn’t one with which I am familiar is because of their superior abilities, not because of the rules.
