During the World Open in Manchester, the World Squash Federation the sport's governing body will be meeting to address a number of issues and proposals.  One of which is a move to mandate point a rally (PAR) scoring elsewhere in the game of squash.

Much has been written on this proposal from varying points of view.  There are no shortage of opinions on many sides of the issue (pro, con) and levels within the sport (Pro, Amateur) with regard to the rationale put forward thus far for any changes and concerning potential impacts, implications pro and con.

Please find below a full range of these points of view ... Martin Pearse, Nicol David, Ian MacKenzie, Malcolm Willstrop, Liz Irving, Chris Hadden, Gawain Briars, Telegraph, Andrew Shelley, Rachel Grinham, Natalie Grainger ....

An Open Letter to the President WSF

To: Jahangir Khan
From: Ian MacKenzie

We have admired you as a player, as an ambassador and as a leader in our sport. We know you have served it courageously, selflessly and intelligently. Your time as president of the World Squash Federation (WSF) is coming to an end and we write to request you to perform one last great service to your sport – withdraw the motion that will compel all players to move to a scoring system most of them do not want.

To force this motion through, to compel all players to move to PAR to 11, will not unify our sport. It will divide it.

We already have PAR (to 9 and 15) offically in the rules (in Appendix 7). We believe that PAR to 11 should be included immediately but not be compulsory for all. The ‘win by two principle’ at 8, 10 or 14 also needs to be included, at least as an alternative to ‘setting’.

We believe that standard ‘hand-in, hand-out’ scoring to nine should be maintained as the standard scoring system of the sport. It has a beautiful balance between shots and tactics, speed and endurance and players can fight right to the end. This we believe is one of the fundamental ingredients of our game, one that makes it a great competitive sport. It is also the system that players generally wish to play.

The men’s Professional Squash Association (PSA) introduced PAR to 11 for reasons that applied specifically to the professional game. And the Women’s International Squash Association did exactly the same thing. It was not argued nor intended that this be imposed as a means of compulsory ‘unification’.
We are unconvinced by the various arguments proposed for universal PAR to 11:

- Hand-in, hand-out scoring is not a difficult system to understand.

- The recommendations of the Working Group have reportedly been corrupted by ‘political interference’ – to the shame of our sport.

- The justification claimed for a uniform scoring system is weak.

- The so-called ‘I can do that’ effect of players wanting to play the same scoring system as the top players has not occured and is irrelevant.

- Players and organisations have for some time had the option to use PAR scoring; in general they have chosen not to take it.

Compelling all players to use PAR to 11 will not unify the sport. All that will be achieved is that more competition will happen outside the auspices of the WSF ‘rules’. This will be to the detriment of our sport.

Signed
Ian McKenzie
Editor, The Squash Player magazine

UNITY OR DISUNITY?

To: the European Nations Proposing A Compulsory Change to PAR 11 (Austria , Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden)

Dear Officials,

As the European Masters Games 60+ Champion and Chairman of the England Squash Masters Committee, I need to report to you the depth of feeling against a compulsory change to PAR 11 amongst Masters players in England. Our internal survey is running at 4 to 1 against the proposed change.

Masters is a large part of our sport overall. In England half of squash players are Masters players (we have five Masters World Champions and five runners-up for World titles). Squash is a fantastic game you can play all your life – and for us the scoring system is an integral part of our battles. A compulsory change of scoring, an imposition, will be bitterly resented and it will not unify the sport.

In conversation with individual Masters players all over the world the vast majority are totally against PAR scoring and unfortunately for them they do not have a dedicated Masters section to speak on their behalf as we have in England.

In essence what may be suitable for professional-level play is not suitable for Masters. We feel that an imposed change will devalue our sport.

If players or tournament organizers wish to use PAR, there is nothing to stop them. It has been in the rules for years (to both 15 and 9 – and certainly 11 should be added). But generally players have chosen not to use it. In some countries it has actually been used and discarded after complaints.

So why is it felt imperative to compel everyone to move to PAR 11?

If we look at the WSF motion we see the so-called justification for unification goes back to the 2005 AGM. There was a motion on unification then, proposed by Egypt, but it was withdrawn and not passed. Since then the issue has hardly appeared, certainly not in the Federation’s Strategic Plan or the 2007 AGM minutes. We therefore find it hard to see where the ‘overwhelming justification’ for this compulsion comes from.

Now that WISPA has moved to PAR 11 we have unification at the top of the sport, which solves our alleged ‘Olympic issue’ problem – I was informed by my old friend Gawain Briars, former CEO of the PSA that the scoring system will be in no way connected as to whether we become an Olympic Sport or not. No further ‘unification’ is required. Other sports allow variation in their scoring systems – tennis, badminton and table tennis all do, and they are Olympic sports. We will not get special ‘gold stars’ from the IOC for forcing our players to play a scoring system that is inappropriate for them and that they do not want.

So why not use the most appropriate system for players? In the end it is the players, not officials, who are the best to decide what is best for them.

The danger in trying to force a compulsory unification where there is no consensus is you will bring disunity to the sport. The PSA, WISPA and European Squash are operating outside the WSF umbrella at the moment. There is no guarantee that other bodies will not do the same by refusing to follow this proposed dictate – diminishing the WSF’s authority even further.

If your proposal is forced through, our sport will definitely lose players where PAR rules are imposed on them. The reduced time element on court alone (a massive 33%) will be a major contributory factor, as we proved in the recent East of England Championships. Masters will not travel, at vast expense, to find themselves on court for only a few minutes if they play PARS. Paradoxically, traditional-scoring competitions will continue to take place, but outside the jurisdiction of the WSF rules. You must be clear that this will be a consequence even if unforeseen at the time you originally proposed the motion.

We therefore ask you wholeheartedly to revise the motion to impose PAR to 11 on the sport as a whole and, instead, press for PAR to 11 be allowed as an optional scoring system along with PAR to 9 and PAR to 15.

Martin Pearse
European O60 Masters Games Champion
Chairman England Squash Masters Committee

Nicol David criticises squash scoring system

Source: AFP
Manchester , England
World number one Nicol David has criticised proposals made to the World Squash Federation which would impose a professional scoring system upon the whole sport, and may be agreed here on Sunday week.

The WSF is said to be considering making everyone play with the point-a-rally 11-up scoring used by the two pro tours, believing it would make squash easier to understand and establish unity for its Olympic bid.

But David - now a Datuk, a rare and highly prestigious title bestowed upon outstanding Malaysian citizens - believes it would be a mistake to abandon the traditional hand in hand-out scoring used for more than 80 years.

Asked if there was a risk of such a change producing very short matches, David replied:
"Yes, definitely. Normal scoring would be so much better for the juniors and grass roots. "The game is all about how to come back when you are down. It's never over till it's over: the essence of the normal scoring." "But with American (point a rally) scoring you will get less fightbacks. That would be such a shame and I really hope it doesn't go that way."

David, who is a strong favourite to regain the title at next week's World Open in Manchester after topping the rankings for 26 consecutive months, also has doubts about the effects of the point-a-rally scoring upon the women's professional game.

The new system was only adopted by the WISPA Tour in July, copying the PSA (men's) tour, and will be used for the first time in a world championship here.

"It's a big change," David said. "Having established women's squash at such a good level with the normal scoring, and changing it to American scoring, it's a bit difficult for most girls to have to adapt straight away.

"But in the end you have to deal with what's going on. Hopefully the quality of what we produced with nine-point scoring will transfer to American scoring.

"But there are some variations in our matches now. Some top players don't like it. Somehow we have to adapt. It could be disruptive."

Rachael Grinham, who will defend the world title against David's challenge, is also unsure how the new scoring will affect the women's professional game.
"I wasn't keen on the change in the beginning but I understand it was inevitable really so I've been trying to look at the positive sides of it," the Australian said. "I agree that it makes it more interesting from a spectator's point of view, although it's only because it makes so many games much closer - I don't think it makes the actual squash more interesting.

"That's down to the players you watch; the scoring system will never make a difference there.

"From a player's point of view, it's taking a bit to get used to. I'm finding myself quite unsure a lot of the time as to how to play, whether to attack or play safe.

"So I think it's going to take a good six months to settle into it. I'm still getting used to it and need to play a little more to form an opinion."

The chief executive of women's tour (WISPA), Andrew Shelley, was also critical of point-a-rally scoring being imposed on the whole sport. But he thinks it is good for the women's tour.

"We spent 16 months testing it, and we knew there would be disadvantages," Shelley said. "If someone has a long lead, the chances of recovering are reduced (with point-a-rally), but if a match is close the scoring adds a frisson of excitement. So overall it works.

"But we wouldn't advocate it for the game as a whole," he emphasised, referring to the WSF's forthcoming decision. "Pro scoring, as we prefer to call it, works for the leading players. We wouldn't advocate for the general public."

Squash's World Open caught in battle over scoring system

By Rod Gilmour
Courtesy of www.telegraph.co.uk
A row has broken out a week before the biggest tournament on the squash calendar over a proposal to adopt a shorter scoring system throughout the sport.

The World Squash Federation, the sport's governing body, is considering a move to merge the point a rally (PAR) scoring which was introduced onto the men's tour in 2004 as a way of making the game faster and easier to understand.

However, Gawain Briars, the former CEO of the Professional Squash Association (PSA), who introduced the system, has criticised the WSF over its proposals to make it compulsory for all players. A WSF vote will take place during the World Open in Manchester this weekend.
For the rest of the article please click HERE 

Malcolm Willstrop sees benefit in a PAR 11

Squash Scoring - Who Rules Squash?

 
By Ian MacKenzie

In October, at the AGM of the World Squash Federation, the issue of a change in the scoring system will be decided. Could a change bring benefits or will it undermine the very nature of the sport?

The Squash Player Editor Ian McKenzie reviews the arguments and urges caution.

A stream of arguments come out in support of a change in the scoring system: it is necessary for the Olympics, it is better for spectators, TV stations like it, it is more exciting, newcomers do not understand traditional scoring, we need a unified scoring system ... How do these arguments stand up to scrutiny?

WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE?
The scoring system used by most of the sport (except the professionals), ‘standard scoring’ (sometimes called ‘traditional scoring’), has been in place for 82 years. The first Amateur Championship (the pre-eminent competition for many years), in 1922, used hand-in, hand-out scoring to 15, best of three, and T. O. Jameson beat J. K. Tomkinson 17-15, 12-15, 15-0. Four years later the scoring system was changed to hand-in, hand-out to 9, best of five, and Tomkinson came into his own, winning his first title by beating the defending champion Cazlet 9-5, 9-7, 7-9, 9-6 in the final.

This remained the game’s scoring system, outside the USA, until 1989, when the men’s International Squash Professionals’ Association moved to point-a-rally (PAR) to 15 (sometimes called American scoring) for its top events.

In 1993 ISPA merged with the US men’s hardball World Professional Squash Association which had used PAR to 15. The new body became the PSA.

In 2004 the PSA started the move to PAR to 11. Men’s matches have since been significantly shorter, moving from about an hour on average to around 45 minutes.

This year the European Squash Federation has moved to PAR to 11 scoring for events under its jurisdiction for a one-year trial period; the Women’s International Squash Players’ Association has moved to PAR to 11 scoring for its events; and England Squash has moved to PAR to 11 for junior events to co-ordinate playing conditions for juniors following the European initiative.

WHAT EFFECT HAVE THEY HAD?
The advantage of the move to PAR to 15 was that the score moved along regularly, the disadvantage that play could become tedious when one player fell behind and there was little likelihood of a comeback.

With PAR to 11 the men’s game has become more intense, with more short shots played as the ability of players to retrieve when out of position is made easier by the shorter match times. It is new and superficially more appealing, but it is less tactical, players ‘throw’ games regularly and frequently give up before the end – and so do spectators.

In England two major events have not been scheduled since the changes and the British Open was half full, and the US Open is not scheduled yet this year.

Moreover, issues such as the men’s professional game’s dependence on the Middle East and the lack of significant activity in major squash playing countries such as Germany and Australia remain unresolved. Changing the scoring system, it seems, is no panacea for the professional game, let alone for the rest of the sport.

The change has been a difficult decision for WISPA. Women’s matches will be considerably shorter. The decision to change was explained to The Squash Player as an ‘on balance’ decision and not one meant to set a precedent for the rest of the sport. WISPA has called the scoring method ‘pro scoring’, which seems sensible.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN INFLUENCES BEHIND THE CHANGES?
Two main influences can be seen to be behind the proposed changes: the ‘Squash in the Olympics’ campaign and the desire for ‘unification’ following the PSA decision to move to PAR to 11 scoring.

The Olympic Argument
Squash misses out on many things by not being in the Olympics: publicity and promotion, funding, and the state support it would receive in many countries. Will changing the sport’s standard scoring system to PAR help?

There is no evidence that it will. There is no direct link. Squash authorities have had discussions and meetings with IOC officials and the anomaly of different scoring systems has been brought up and discussed. WISPA’s move to PAR removes any anomaly between the men’s and women’s games at the top (i.e. Olympic) level, so any potential problem there has now been solved.

The key points are that it is not a condition of squash joining the Olympic Games that the same scoring system be used throughout the sport, and that at no time has there been opposition from the IOC to the ‘complexity’ of traditional scoring.

Those uneasy with this last fact need only to consider the position of tennis – the highest profile of the racket sports. Except for the adoption of the tie-breaker in the 1970s, the game’s scoring system has remained largely unchanged since the 1890s. If you win the first rally of a game, you are awarded 15 points, the next earns you another 15 but a third point only ten; if both players have 40 points, there is a call of ‘deuce’, which means ‘two’, and the next point winner is said to have the ‘advantage’. There may be any number of ‘advantages’ before a game is won. There are tie-breaks to seven (except that one player must be two points ahead) in all sets except the last, where at Wimbledon there is no tie-break. Women play the best of three sets, whereas the men play best of five ... Does the public not understand all this? Is there a clamour for uniformity? Does the scoring system cause a problem at the Olympics? No, on all counts.

The Unification Argument
The call for a unified scoring system is superficially appealing but it presumes that the ‘needs’ of players and spectators are the same at all levels – from Olympics to club ladder. Where is the evidence to show that this is the case and that it would be to the benefit of the rest of the sport to move to PAR to 11?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER SPORTS?
Volleyball and badminton have been cited as examples of sports that have moved from hand-in, hand-out scoring to PAR – in 1989 and 2005 respectively. What has been their experience?

It may be instructive to quote one of the top coaches on the US collegiate volleyball scene: “I am and will be forever disappointed in the change to rally scoring [PAR] for the two basic reasons that comebacks are statistically eliminated and every mistake is penalized. I accept the change in men’s volleyball because of the overt physicality of the game (match time and player health). I do not support the change for women’s volleyball – it has made no discernible positive impact upon the sport, but rather made us look like a profession willing to desperately grab for any shiny new hope.” (www.collegevolleyballcoach.com)

In relation to the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, it should be noted that, ‘exciting’ as volleyball’s scoring system may have been, the organisers had to bus in spectators to fill the stadia for the cameras.

Badminton moved from hand-in, hand-out to 15 to PAR to 21. The 2004 Olympic men’s champion Taufik Hidayat predicted that the changes would make the sport, "monotonous", and much criticism has since been levelled at the change, especially the poor chance of staging a comeback when falling behind. The problem for badminton is that the authorities have not left themselves an option to change the system again.

WHAT DOES RESEARCH SHOW?
The WSF has conducted an opinion poll on the subject of a change of scoring system and some analysis of the new scoring system.

The results of the poll showed no consensus and raised the issue of wording bias. If participants are asked if they think something ‘will help grow our sport,’ as they were in connection with the introduction of a uniform scoring system, they might be expected to respond in the affirmative. If they had been asked: ‘Do you think the rest of the sport should be compelled to change to the scoring system the professionals use?’ they may well have said No. Perhaps we should therefore not read too much into these results.

The WSF’s (limited) analysis showed that matches were 30% shorter and, predictably, that players were less tired as a result. What did this reveal about the effects of the scoring change on tactics or on spectator satisfaction? Nothing. It did not even answer the important question: ‘Are there more injuries in this more intensive form of squash?’ The planned measurements of stress levels, exertion levels and related recovery times was postponed – because the players selected to take part were injured!

WILL THERE BE MORE DISPUTES?
With shorter, more intense matches, harder hitting and more balls through the middle, there can be expected to be more stoppages. Every point being more crucial in PAR to 11 and the implications of falling behind being so much more severe, there can be expected to be many more contentious and disputed decisions. Research by The Squash Player has shown that at Men’s World Open level there is now a stoppage every two points.

An abiding impression of squash left with IOC officials following their visit to the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester was the inappropriately contentious nature of the sport, the number of disputes and the disrespect shown by players towards officials.

Do we want contentiousness to become an intrinsic part of our game, at every level?

WHAT IS THE OFFICIALS’ VIEW?
We have asked many officials their views. There seems to be a general advocacy of the changes, although hardly any make reference to the players. A number of the arguments we have mentioned are put forward – Olympics (though there is confusion over the IOC’s requirements), TV, ‘excitement’, spectator comprehension – but when pressed on any of these points, officials tend to move on to another point or another sport, badminton or volleyball ... And then there is a sort of confession: “We agree with your points but it is going through anyway.”

WHAT IS THE PLAYERS’ VIEW?
One player has written to us to state: “If I fall way behind I want the chance to use all my competitive instincts, my sporting intelligence and my fitness to turn that situation around. My fear is that the custodians of our sport will change the rules to take that opportunity away from me. It will diminish the sport for me and for those that think this ingredient is a fundamental part of our great competitive game.”

Not only will the changes bring greater contentiousness to squash, but they will introduce a new aspect to the game: the ‘point of no return’, where players will decide not how they will go about making a comeback but when they will give up. Will this give squash added value?

WHAT IS THE BEST SCORING SYSTEM FOR SQUASH?
The key question to be asked on scoring really should be: what is the best system for players – not for the few hundred professional players but for the rest of the game’s 15 million participants?

If we go back to first principles we have in our game of squash a rebound ball sport which requires skill, agility and tactical acumen – and in which players with different styles, abilities and fitness levels can compete successfully and enjoyably. It is a sport in which one of the basic tenets is that ‘play must be continuous’ because it is a fitness (or endurance) sport. Players compete not only to outhit and outwit their opponents, but also wear them down physically and mentally and take advantage of their weaknesses. It is a physical and mental battle in which the character of the performer is exposed: it requires great concentration, confidence and the ability to overcome a range of negative mental factors such as anxiety, frustration and the urge to give up. It is a game in which you are rewarded for fighting right to the end, in which a comeback is always on the cards and it is not over until the opponent has won that final point.

A change in the scoring system risks undermining the game’s fundamental, long-standing and well balanced principles and a decision to implement such a change should not be made lightly or on account of half-baked arguments that could well turn out to be illusory.

What may be appropriate at a professional level (where very high levels of fitness, hard hitting and a very hot ball that keeps rebounding sometimes produced excessively long matches with standard scoring) may not necessarily be assumed to be advantageous or even applicable to the rest of the sport.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Rightly or wrongly, the professional associations have moved to a scoring system they believe is in their interest. Whether the arguments on TV, spectators and excitement are convincing is largely irrelevant.
To read the rest of the article click HERE