markinjapan - funny that you have brought up a sort of delicate subject I guess in this and particularly  referring to Brett Martin's match you recently watched in Hong Kong.
I am trying to reflect, and various things keep shooting into my mind, eg are the current crop athletes and then squash players; or is that how they have put their priorities, maybe.
When I see some of the old/recent bunch I see talent, skill, flair before I see the physical side of their game.
It would be a shame if our game loses its appeal to those who enjoy watching skill, and tactics; I suppose when your fitness fades, the skills then become a vital weapon if you are to perform well against the top lot.
One thing I know, your fitness fades quickly, but you always keep the skill.

To put my neck out, I would say squash would be a better spectator sport if the rallies were shorter, and the skills were recognised, making shorter rallies, and more sensation.  It seems to be the final skill in any sport that gets the camera's attention, not the gut for effort stuff that happens in the leadup.

Back to top

I guess in depth I also mean there were not a lot of countries in the race of competing in the 60/70's.  In fact we had many overseas players coming to Australia to further their experience and get higher competition, eg Australian Open..
The countries mainly were Australia, England and Pakistan, at that time.  There were probably 3/4 top players in each of those countries.
These players had to get together in tournaments to gain competition and they had to travel to do so.

Dedication, skills and fitness or, depending on the player, fitness and skills were supreme.

Back to top

rippa-

I think it would be hard for a player emerge from a field with less depth and still have the "highest quality in skills and fitness" I mean, unless they are an absolute gift to the sport, it's pretty hard to imagine someone from a little pond achieving the same level of play as someone who plays in an era where "at the quarter final of a top PSA title you are guarenteed four matches of final quality."

Like I said, I havn't watched much old squash, but when I hear 10 british open wins, while I think "great player", I also think weak competition.

I don't know, what does Hunt, or the Khans say about the topic?

Back to top

markinjapan - these legends like Hunt and Khan were tops in their day, and of the highest quality in skills and fitness - every bit as skillful as today's players, and certainly just as fit.

There was not the depth in the 70's and there were lots of overseas countries not represented at world standards that time. 

Back to top

This is an honest question because I havn't watched much old squash and I've only seen maybe games played by 10-12 different top twenty players of the modern game.
If the ball traveling faster does not mean better, who is the highest ranked player in the world that you would consider to have a slower ball speed?
Looks to me that all the top players hit pretty hard.

Back to top

So Strach you are not going to put up the money for a media appealing tournament?  Darn it!

Back to top

hi all

with the world cup on a present, i saw a program about the history of football and the role that technology played in its development.  they are few pros who could do incredible things with the football using the current boots/balls. then they put on the old syle boots and used the old style balls. surprise, surprise - far less control, in fact they looked like mugs.

i am pretty sure the current technology (rackets, strings, balls) helps the players do more with the ball in addition to more power.

i do agree that there has never been more depth of talent partially due to the fact that more countries have players at the top (eg france, canada, malaysia etc) . players are also fitter and better prepared than in yesteryear. they also have all that previous history to draw on. who knows what the past greats would have done in this era.

this is the way I look at it.  Using Brett and Rodney Martin and David Palmer as  examples and benchmarks...

• I played with and against the Martin boys before they made it big on the tour. They were both great athletes with heaps of talent and skill.
• Brett was the better athlete
• Rodney had more skills - he was unbelievelably accurate
• David (have never against him but saw him play often) I would place between Rod and Brett as an athlete
• Although a good player, he did not have anywhere near the skills of either Martin Brother (at a similar stage career wise)
• Rodney, at his best was as good as Jansher and Jahingir - injury prevented him from staying at that level (he was the only plaer to beat both in the one event - the 91 world open)
  
• Brett could not get anywhere near the Pakis but was near the top for a number of years
• David has been at or near the top for a number of years beating Nicol and Power in big events a number of times
• After all that, I thing that David and Brett are comparable and at a similar level.
• Rodney has to be left out because he could not sustain the high level for any length of time
• Nicol and Power  are perhaps a half a step up
• That leaves Jahingir and Jansher - I reckon another step up again at the very top of the ladder.

Malcom has far more experience at these things than I do - but I think his thoughts maybe somewhat coloured by his very close involvement with some of the current players.

Whatever, it makes for an interesting conversation.

Back to top

Hey Mal is not paid to be a reporter to write "crap" either....so..and not to  write-down our current bunch
Maybe, if we had the "dough" we could put up decent prize money, playing with the small head old tech rackets (newly strung too!!) put on a top tournament (rackets provided)  and then we might find out if the game changes or not...will the ball travel so hard and fast, will the players be forced to play more shots, etc.....see what quality is in the shot making.

Good idea?

Back to top

here i was thinking it was Geoff Hunt who pretty much pioneered the whole 'attacking squash' concept - it is the single major theme running through his book. Get in early and volley was the first thing I can remember from it as a 13yo who had just walked onto a court a week before n decided this was my game, then went n bought the book (THE book far as I care).
I agree with Rippa - just cuz you can hit the ball a lot harder doesnt mean its A more 'attacking' or B somehow 'better'. I don't think many people would argue that I am one of the most agressive attacking players in either of my clubs - but I am and never have been, a monster hitter of the ball - i get the occasional one to really smoke but thats all. And I dont much chase 'power' to the exclusion of all the other far more enjoyable aspects of our game.
I dont get to watch a great deal of top class squash but I thought the recent Commonwealth games was a pretty poor standard (i know they were tired as hell) compared to sheer pleasure I receive whenever I plug the great Jehengir Khans 10th British Open win into the ole VCR.

Mind you ... Mal Willstrop is in a pretty good position to judge eh?

Back to top

Is the ball travelling faster = better?

Back to top