Pro Scoring - reasons for

[stevecubs]

I have to declare that I've been in favour of PAR scoring for a while, it just seems inherently fairer - and much easier to report on - but I thought I'd throw a few ideas into the ring ....

PAR to 15 - a few posters have advocated this, but in my view that's too high a target. There are too many 'dead' areas in the game, and players are much more likely to chuck it in when they're too far behind. In general squash needs more 'crisis points'.

The comeback - it's a fallacy to say you can't make a comeback under PAR - if you're playing someone of a similar level and they win 7 points in a row from 2-all, there's an equal chance of you doing the same. Yes, it's harder than in standard scoring, but knowing that surely means you'll be trying harder, earlier.

Match length - yes, matches are shorter, since there are ovbiously less rallies. But since the target is less, and each point counts that little bit more, I'm sure that players make a little more effort on a few more rallies, so that the overall effect is less than simply dividing the time by the number of rallies.

The winner - I've analysed hundreds of games, converting from PAR to standard and vice versa, and in every instance the same player has won. The objective is to win more games than your opponent, and under both systems, the player who wins most rallies wins the game.

Stamina - if you're really concerned about it being less of a test of fitness, play best of seven.

Compliance - apart from sanctioned events that dictate the scoring, anyone is free to play whatever system they like. There's a lot of tournaments/leagues out there that play their own way, and there's no reason why that shouldn't continue. I don't know what the uptake of par to 21 has been in recreational badminton, but I'll guess that a lot of people/leagues/tournaments still play the 'old' way.

I think the WSF will vote this in, and although choosing an implementation date of 1st April seems a little perverse, I suspect it will all go rather smoothly. Impact on the chances of getting into the Olympics .... nil.

[seshadri]

One reason why PAR-11 games tend to be shorter is that , in this format, games are lost rather than won. Being 4 points behind, a player thinks that he has to do something extra special to come back, and goes in for riskier shots, hoping to draw level quickly. For every 'winner' that he hits, he hits 2 weak shots that his opponent can punish him for. The 11 point game is much more tough mentally, especially at the club level. As far as physical toughness goes, it all depends on what exactly one means by fitness. I think a player has to be much fitter anaerobically in the PAR-11 game than in the 9 or 15 point game, as the rallies are quicker; the traditional format requires more of aerobic fitness. Which athlete is fitter-the 3000 metre steeplechaser, or the 26 mile marathoner? In my view, both are equally fit, but in different ways.

[Mike Courchevel]

For instance, my best come-back was made under PAR 11.
2 years ago, in a regional tournament, I was down 0/2 : 3/10 !!
I saved the 7 match balls finishing the match with a 3/2 victory.

Mike

[ianball]

Wow! I bet your opponent was fuming.

Good post Stevecubs.

Ian B.

[tyon]

Just a thought guys,after watching a player lose a game after being up 8 love,they generally lose the next game .Does the new scoring, par to 11 give the same player greater hope the next game after a similar lose?I am inclined to think those types of comebacks would be more prevalent.

[Dee to the AN]

I totally agree with the points raised although I have to say the point on stamina is a bit cheap. No one likes playing games that are in some way not official as it leads to scenarios where people say "I lost but we didn't play the official scoring anyway". I am a big advocate of the new scoring system and I play in the Irish Premier League, where the new scoring was introduced this season - suffice to say there were some decently contested 3:0s and two great 3:2 (I was 0:2 down, came back to 2:2 and 10:7 and managed to lose 13:11). Even for these midweek league matches the scoring is better, as matches dont go as long and you get home not too late and honestly I hate the prospect of having to play a marathon 90mins 3:2 match after rushing on court after work and prefer a good 40mins 3:1 where you had to be sharp from the word go.

The people against this scoring seem to be:

- those who are championing fightbacks and long, hard battles: since when is Squash synonymous with comebacks from 0:8 down (I am pretty sure each sport sees itself allowing great comebacks and a fight-back attitude)? Sure it makes for an exciting story but this is no argument to keep the scoring. For me this argument stands together with the type of player everyone hates playing - the guy whose ass you are absolutely kicking until you get tired and waste two match points in the third game and lose 9:2 in the fifth. Okay, the new scoring does not favour these players but it does also reward players who make less mistakes and it does force less aggressive players to have a go every once in a while and to employ their great stamina in raising the intensity and speed of the match instead of long rallies.

- some masters: I know the vets have been playing squash an awfully long time and while I understand some might enjoy the old scoring, dont be too selfish - try getting people to watch a long drawn-out final up to 9. Also, think about new people starting to play squash and how easy it is to play to 11 and score points. Also, some good friends of mine are vets too and they love the new scoring.

- women: I was disappointed that Nicole David openly spoke out against it. I can see that women playing at lower standards wouldnt be happy as they have short rallies and matches even playing to 9, but there is really no reason for the pro women not to enjoy the same success with 11 scoring that the men did.

You know what, it is a pity it is only pros, vets and officials talking about this. What about the kids? They are the one who will be playing Squash for the longest from now on and they have a fresh opinion on it and havent been playing 9-scoring for 15 years. Also, as my last point, most of the people I know between 20 and 40 are decent club players with a good knowledge of pro squash. All of these prefer playing to 11 casually and at tournaments and leagues. And all of them would struggle to bring up the patience to sit down and watch matches being played to 15 or 9.

There was an idea once that you need to have ball-in-hand to win a game, which would allow more for comebacks. I thought first that was a decent idea, but it ultimately gives the leading person an unfair disadvantage.

Wow, that was long, sorry for rambling on but I do feel strongly about it and hate it when people say things like "I analysed it and 11-scoring wouldnt have allowed the comeback from 2:8 down in the third as 9-scoring did". Of course it wouldnt have but the again games played to 11 have totally different (and arguably more exciting) dynamics.

[squish]

Anyone with a high school diploma should be able to understand that comebacks are much easier with traditional scoring than point-a-rally. It's simple probability.

Equally obvious is that the shorter number of rallies in a match makes it statistically more likely that a few bad calls will alter the result.

This is not rocket science.

[squish]

Just calculated average times for women's qualifying first round in Manchester: 30 minutes (includes game breaks, I assume, which are never a true 90 seconds but longer). There were some mismatches, but this is the World Open.

[ianball]

I watched some of the first round of the womens on Sunday and they were great games and the scoring made no difference to my enjoyment of the competition between two players. I watched Suzie Pierrepoint beat Tony Chan, great game.

Sitting on the national squash centre seats was a problem watching Arnold V Coppinger, my back was killing me! the game just went on and on and on, so many lets which both players disagreed with, rubbish spectacle and I felt for the ref. I started hoping he would give an equal number of dodgy strokes just to get the scoreboard moving. I think they were 6-6 in one game for maybe 15 minutes with at least 4 lets, tense if you play squash but dull if you don't.

Ian B.

[Adam Hildred]

Yep the NSC seats are poor. As are most things about the outer courts I feel. I'm going to the main court for the first time on Sunday but I was very unimpressed with the outer area when I went there for the nationals...