Left handed players
Published: 30 Apr 2005 - 18:46 by rippa rit
Updated: 22 Aug 2006 - 21:43
Subscribers: Log in to subscribe to this post.
Left-handed players can appear difficult to play. It has even been said "left handers should be banned" and that is a bit cruel. The tactics may need to be reversed, providing the left hander is weaker on their backhand side.
Don't worry left handers, many of our past champions are left handed, eg Cam Nancarrow, Vicki Cardwell (Hoffman), Chris Dittmar, etc.
Left handed players require the same technique.
Playing a left hander can feel different because as an opponent, there are specific tactical things to remember, eg -
How to add images to Members' Forum posts and replies here...
Don't worry left handers, many of our past champions are left handed, eg Cam Nancarrow, Vicki Cardwell (Hoffman), Chris Dittmar, etc.
Left handed players require the same technique.
Playing a left hander can feel different because as an opponent, there are specific tactical things to remember, eg -
- Serve from the left hand box to start the rally (that is if the left hander's backhand is the weaker side).
- Hits balls into the left handers backhand corner, eg drives, lobs and boasts. In fact a right handed opponent can be distracted by having to reverse their playing habits and that takes more concentration and control.
How to add images to Members' Forum posts and replies here...
Replies...
Please Note: The most recent replies are now at the top!
From rippa rit - 10 May 2006 - 08:50
From pug505man - 09 May 2006 - 08:50
not shooting from the hip
used to carry a copy of the updated rule book in my bag until I loaned it to someone n it surprisingly disappeared. Noone here sells copies. As you say, our rules are open to interpretation.
My biggest irritation is people who have clearly never even read the rule book. fair enough to understand it differently or apply it in an interesting manner but not having read them is annoying.
used to carry a copy of the updated rule book in my bag until I loaned it to someone n it surprisingly disappeared. Noone here sells copies. As you say, our rules are open to interpretation.
My biggest irritation is people who have clearly never even read the rule book. fair enough to understand it differently or apply it in an interesting manner but not having read them is annoying.
From rippa rit - 07 May 2006 - 12:54 - Updated: 07 May 2006 - 13:02
Pug - here is the WSF Rules Forum Link go for it with Don Ball. The reply will take a few days, and there are already plenty of previous Q & A's for you to enjoy.
Our rules are not black and white as I said, and things like,eg
I do not know if you have read the Guide to the Rules or if you are shooting from the hip.
Our rules are not black and white as I said, and things like,eg
- did the player create their own interference?
- was the interference deliberate?
- was it created by both players?
I do not know if you have read the Guide to the Rules or if you are shooting from the hip.
From pug505man - 07 May 2006 - 02:10
Rita I was replying to slavi accusing us lefties - 'Anyway, lefthanders are hard to beat for usual right-hand players as they simply cover the ball with their bodies' which to me sounds like simple illegal play as there appears (in that quote) to be the suggestion of both deliberation obscurement, and not make every effort to give clear access to the ball (ie get out of the way). ......
I would also take issue with ' at the point of interference a person is unable to hit the ball, it is not a let or a stroke, but play on (chase it).' if the interference actually prevents one reaching the ball to play the shot, then at the very least (assuming an otherwise good return could have been made) it has to be a let. You seem to suggest in that statement that basically interference anywhere but at the point of interception of the ball means nothing - play on. Which I am sure you cannot mean. Interference can occur in many different ways all the way up to the point where the ball will be struck - what you seem to be implying means (for example - which has happened to me) my opponent could accidentally trip me (actually stood on my ankle while retiring n down I went) before I am in position to play a shot (which I could have otherwise reached - if i wasnt laying on the floor screaming as all my ligaments were ruptured - in which case I should have been awarded the match as I could not continue and didnt injure MYSELF but was clearly injured by my opponent), where-upon according to your statement the umpire should say 'no let' - because at the point of interference I was unable (ie not in position) to play a shot. That is a strict application of what I have quoted you saying - which simply is not right. Of course I am allowing that the shot played was not a dead nick ergo unable to be returned but was reachable and returnable assuming no interference.
I agree totally with your statement with regard to volleying - have ruffled a few feathers with 'no let' calls in that exact situation myself. Too many people get given strokes when they are simply NOT in a position to play a shot - facing the wrong way, racket not even up to hit the ball, non striker not in the way when striker is actually able to hit, waving at a ball which is clearly too high to volley and so on.
I would also take issue with ' at the point of interference a person is unable to hit the ball, it is not a let or a stroke, but play on (chase it).' if the interference actually prevents one reaching the ball to play the shot, then at the very least (assuming an otherwise good return could have been made) it has to be a let. You seem to suggest in that statement that basically interference anywhere but at the point of interception of the ball means nothing - play on. Which I am sure you cannot mean. Interference can occur in many different ways all the way up to the point where the ball will be struck - what you seem to be implying means (for example - which has happened to me) my opponent could accidentally trip me (actually stood on my ankle while retiring n down I went) before I am in position to play a shot (which I could have otherwise reached - if i wasnt laying on the floor screaming as all my ligaments were ruptured - in which case I should have been awarded the match as I could not continue and didnt injure MYSELF but was clearly injured by my opponent), where-upon according to your statement the umpire should say 'no let' - because at the point of interference I was unable (ie not in position) to play a shot. That is a strict application of what I have quoted you saying - which simply is not right. Of course I am allowing that the shot played was not a dead nick ergo unable to be returned but was reachable and returnable assuming no interference.
I agree totally with your statement with regard to volleying - have ruffled a few feathers with 'no let' calls in that exact situation myself. Too many people get given strokes when they are simply NOT in a position to play a shot - facing the wrong way, racket not even up to hit the ball, non striker not in the way when striker is actually able to hit, waving at a ball which is clearly too high to volley and so on.
From rippa rit - 02 May 2006 - 14:05
Pug - not sure what you are referring to here "cover the ball with their bodies".
Anybody can cover anything with anything, but the critical factor is what is happening at the point of interference, usually when the let is called.
If at the point of interference a person is unable to hit the ball, it is not a let or a stroke, but play on (chase it). This often applies to a person trying to hit an overhead volley when the opponent is in front, but if they could not strike the ball at that critical point "no let" - often by the time the player can strike the ball the opponent has got out of the way.
If there was no interference, and you cannot see the ball, afraid you just have to move your body to a position where you can see the ball.
The player (incoming Striker) remains such until their return hits the front wall, and then the focus is on the opponent (as he then becomes the incoming Striker)
Is this what you are referring to?
Anybody can cover anything with anything, but the critical factor is what is happening at the point of interference, usually when the let is called.
If at the point of interference a person is unable to hit the ball, it is not a let or a stroke, but play on (chase it). This often applies to a person trying to hit an overhead volley when the opponent is in front, but if they could not strike the ball at that critical point "no let" - often by the time the player can strike the ball the opponent has got out of the way.
If there was no interference, and you cannot see the ball, afraid you just have to move your body to a position where you can see the ball.
The player (incoming Striker) remains such until their return hits the front wall, and then the focus is on the opponent (as he then becomes the incoming Striker)
Is this what you are referring to?
From pug505man - 02 May 2006 - 08:55
cover the ball with their bodies?
if theyre doing that say 'let please?' you should hear back 'stroke' more often than not.
Lefties have the same technique and movement to and away from the ball issues as right handers. We have to hit the ball the same way a righty does with the same timing and so on - just on the other side.
I am a leftie (as Ive stated elsewhere) who gets to play and watch quite a few lefties at both the clubs I play at. Noone 'covers the ball with their bodies'. Sounds like a simple case of illegal play by one person who happens to be lefthanded. You shouldnt draw such wide conclusions. Otherwise I could happily state all righthanded blond haired teenagers are going to break my nose with their racket. Not likely eh?
if theyre doing that say 'let please?' you should hear back 'stroke' more often than not.
Lefties have the same technique and movement to and away from the ball issues as right handers. We have to hit the ball the same way a righty does with the same timing and so on - just on the other side.
I am a leftie (as Ive stated elsewhere) who gets to play and watch quite a few lefties at both the clubs I play at. Noone 'covers the ball with their bodies'. Sounds like a simple case of illegal play by one person who happens to be lefthanded. You shouldnt draw such wide conclusions. Otherwise I could happily state all righthanded blond haired teenagers are going to break my nose with their racket. Not likely eh?
From raystrach - 21 Mar 2006 - 09:30
dear sam
in this game almost nothing is right and wrong tactically. if it works it is right. if it dosn't, it is wrong. what might be right in the first game might be wrong in the second and so on. there is one way to check...
look at the scorebook after the match!
in this game almost nothing is right and wrong tactically. if it works it is right. if it dosn't, it is wrong. what might be right in the first game might be wrong in the second and so on. there is one way to check...
look at the scorebook after the match!
From SamBWFC - 20 Mar 2006 - 11:27
Sorry my sentence wasn't structured correctly, I didn't mean playing left handed was wrong, I meant playing the same way against a left-handed opponent as I do with a right-handed opponent might be wrong!
From rippa rit - 18 Mar 2006 - 07:49
SamBWFC - playing left handed is not wrong
More just a nuisance to us righthanders!!
Actually, sometimes concentrating too much on the left-handedness can throw your game out of rhythm. I forget to mention that, and if that happens, it is probably a good idea to just think about a couple of things, eg
More just a nuisance to us righthanders!!Actually, sometimes concentrating too much on the left-handedness can throw your game out of rhythm. I forget to mention that, and if that happens, it is probably a good idea to just think about a couple of things, eg
- serve from the lefthand box
- boast from the lefthand side wall
From SamBWFC - 18 Mar 2006 - 00:51
I'm a left-hander and although it may be wrong, I play the same way against right-handers as I do with left handers, I treat them all the same. Maybe this is because of the type of players I'm playing against, but I've been successful that way.
From rippa rit - 16 Mar 2006 - 19:03 - Updated: 16 Mar 2006 - 19:08
Slavi - sounds as though you have settled down and found a club and opponents in London?
Seems as though you have got into the swing of things now after your big shift?
Tell us about your new club? Maybe in a different post, eg standard of play, competitions available, cost, etc.
Oh about left-handers - yes, it is just another part of the focus, and game plan to take into account. If the players are a bit inclined to stand front on and take up more space remember to use the boast to move them out of the way, or even cross-courts. Not too much repetitive driving down the same wall if the player is a bit awkward.
Seems as though you have got into the swing of things now after your big shift?
Tell us about your new club? Maybe in a different post, eg standard of play, competitions available, cost, etc.
Oh about left-handers - yes, it is just another part of the focus, and game plan to take into account. If the players are a bit inclined to stand front on and take up more space remember to use the boast to move them out of the way, or even cross-courts. Not too much repetitive driving down the same wall if the player is a bit awkward.
From drop-shot - 15 Mar 2006 - 23:03
I played left-hander a lot in the recent weks. In the beginning it was not really successful as I totally forgot to "mirror" my shot selection... When I found the way to make my game going again, our matches became more competitive.
Anyway, lefthanders are hard to beat for usual right-hand players as they simply cover the ball with their bodies
so it's very true what you put in this tip, Rita. It's a lot of distraction in mind going on while you play left-hander.
Anyway, lefthanders are hard to beat for usual right-hand players as they simply cover the ball with their bodies
so it's very true what you put in this tip, Rita. It's a lot of distraction in mind going on while you play left-hander.- at the end of the day, if you play dep and wide, you beat them anyway.
- playing four corners squash is a good tactic for whatever hand-players
Sorry, only members can post replies on this and all other Members` Forum items.
Support Squashgame
Support us here at Squashgame.info! If you think we helped you, please consider our Squash Shop when purchasing or make a small contribution.
Products Now Available
US Squash Shop
Testimonials
RR - thank you for the site
Sorry, logins temporarily disabled
We hope to see you back soon when we launch our updated site.
Back to top