The relative 'Truth' about tactics and strategy

The relative 'Truth'

Many places where we look for advice on tactics and or strategy in squash, we invariably run across a number of suggested lists of rules: Top Ten, Top Twenty, Fifty Tactics, Twenty Seven and counting.

As a player, either recreational or competitive, and most certainly as a coach working with players, I believe that the more 'rules' there are about how to think and approach winning a match, the more difficult it becomes to learn the game.

Every player in the top ten of squash at almost any time in history has had their own unique skill set, as well as (and possibly more importantly...) their physical attributes, strengths and weaknesses.

In a way, this is part of the interest in watching matches on TV, YouTube, DVD, or in person. Seeing how different players with different skills, physical strengths, and different tactical approaches to the game square up. I would venture to say that putting aside nationalistic fervor, most of us will be cheering for the player that we most associate with, maybe even try to emulate when we're on the court ourselves.

The quandary that I've always had as a player, and even more so as a coach, is how to reduce all the rules into a usable premise from which to begin building our own game and tactical approach to winning on the court. 


>Foremost Idea:

Squash is a game of your position, relative to the position of your opponent. What I mean is that your options, your opportunities at any given moment are dependent on basically three things: 1. where is your opponent on the court; 2. where are you on the court; 3. what shots are you able to choose from to hit a decent shot?


>When you are 'behind' -

If, when you want to hit the ball, your opponent is in or near the middle of the court, what everyone calls the 'T', then your options are not only reduced, but the safer options will typically be defensive (prolonging the rally) from a tactical perspective.

If you are behind your opponent (they're on the T) when you are going to hit the ball, then again, in general the safer options tend to be more about keeping the rally going. 


>When you are in 'front' -

If you are in front of the opponent when you are hitting the ball, now you have options opening up, that will allow you to either attack for the winner or at least increase the pressure on your opponent. 

Whether to go for a winner or just increase or maintain pressure on your opponent depends more on not just if you're in front of the opponent, but where on the court you are: right in the middle on the T, in the middle but near the rear of the service boxes, or are you in front of the short service line.

When your in the middle with the opponent behind, attacking shots are those shots that are generally hit short with the intent that they will bounce twice before the opponent could reach them. 

Shots that maintain pressure, or potentially increase the pressure, are typically  fast long drops shots, and hard flat shots to the back court. Both of these are meant to force the opponent into stretching and reaching for the ball,  hopefully getting a weak return which can then be attacked by placing the ball into the open court.


>Being in 'front' does not always mean attack -

When  you are up against players who are fit, who are fast, or who are very experienced, attacking from the middle by going short with the ball is more effective from further back in the court, where you have the opponent behind you. If you attack one of these afore mentioned players while in the middle but closer to the front or in between the service boxes then it's not really an attack, because with their fitness, speed, and or experience they will get your attacking shot back.

That doesn't mean it's not the right shot, it just means that you shouldn't expect it to be a winner. You therefore have to be continuing to think ahead to the next shot.


>In all scenarios on the squash court, you basically have four situations: 

1. You're on the defensive, scrambling to get the ball. In this case high and long is almost always the correct choice.

2. You're about equal in the rally, and you should be hitting shots that 'probe' trying to elicit a weak or errant shot.

3. Your opponent has hit a ball that is weak and gives you an opportunity put significant pressure on them.

4. Your opponent has hit a particularly weak or poor choice shot, and you have time and space to hit a shot that should be either an outright winner, or most nearly so.


> So where are we?

When I work with players I try to help them understand that they have four situations. The first step for the player, is to recognize which of the four situations they are in. I try to simplify the explanation as follows:

You are: 

1. On the run, on the defensive
2. On an equal footing with the opponent
3. In a position of advantage, typically meaning the opponent is behind you
4. In a position where there is a significant area of open-unguarded court


> This then leads to the player understanding that they have prefered shots for each of these situations:

1.  When on the defensive, hitting high, and very importantly long, is the safe objective

2. When on equal footing, hitting shots that are generally flatter looking for the inaccurate shot off the opponent's racket

3. When in a position of advantage (in or near the middle of the court), hitting fast shots away from the opponent, and possibly down, with intent of forcing a very weak shot

4. When in a position with the opponent trapped along one side or in a corner, then hitting into the open court area, going for the winner

------

So then naturally most players ask: 'What should I hit in each of those situations?' or 'What are the best shot options in those situations?'

To this the honest answer is that each player is different. So what is right for one, may not be right for another.

The correct shot is the one that you can hit with control and accuracy. If you choose the shot you can accurately hit it, getting the result you want, then you will be at least maintaining your position in the rally. And thus working towards your goal of winning 11 rallies before your opponent.

Referring back to the comment that each top ten player is unique, in watching videos of their play, one can observe that in each of these four situations, players will differ in what they hit. In a defensive situation they'll in general, strategically play a defensive shot, but they may differ on whether it's straight or crosscourt or a flat lob versus a floating lob. These differences depend more on the technical skills each player has and their ability to move on the court and cover the next shot.

To my players, I often say: 'Go watch your favorite players on video, then come back and tell me what shots you want to use in each situation.' And thus, we have a point from where to start developing and then honing the skill set for each player individually.

The 'Rule of Three'

The Rule of Three

Squash is both simple and complex. 

The simplicity is in the sport's basic premise, getting the ball back to the front wall before it bounces twice. If you do this more often than your opponent, you'll walk out of the court as the winner.

The complexity is in how to accomplish this. The variety of options from the four corners, and the mid court area are vast. And when you add in the position of  your opponent on the court at any given moment, and the likely responses your opponent will have to the shot you choose to hit, all conspire in creating this complexity.

At the beginning levels, players are limited by their:

1. racket proficiency (consistent swing technique, with accuracy)

2. court awareness (relative experience of the ball's bounce and trajectories off the walls)

3. and tactical understanding (recognition of how shot selection affects the control of the rally, and maintaining a Position of Advantage) 

As players improve their proficiency in each of these areas their overall game develops. 

Because of squash's unique environment, the four walls, it has the highest level of cognitive difficulty of any of the racket sports. Hence the oft spoken moniker of 'Playing chess at the speed of sound', or something to that effect.

For beginning players, as they try to improve their game, it can be helpful to start with a basic approach to tactics. Which can be called the 'Rule of Three'. 

In any four quadrants of the court, a player should focus on three options. 

1. Have a defensive shot (ie. from either front corner a good defensive shot is - the high, slow cross court lob; from the back court usually a straight high lob is a good option)

2. Have two attacking shots. Generally the best combination is to have two shots that can be directed to different quadrants of the court. (and most preferably these two target quadrants are opposite each other. (ie from the front corner these two shots could be a cross court drop, and a straight drive; or a cross court drive and a straight drop)

Why is it the 'Rule of Three' ? Well first of all, for beginners, this keeps the tactical issues to a minimum, so is less complicated when in the heat and speed of the rally. Second, for a beginner it means having specific shots to focus on during practice sessions. Which makes practice more productive and stroke development will actually be faster.

As the novice starts getting comfortable with their game, then they can begin to add more options to their repertoire (more shots that can be hit proficiently from each quadrant of the court). At this point the player has moved beyond the Rule of Three. However........

As players move up in rankings, they often struggle mightily with the next higher level of competition, where players have more accuracy, maybe more power, better positioning, more fitness, more court awareness. 

When this happens, it's often a good idea to return to the Rule of Three, and get the foundation of your game up to this higher standard of play. Once you're playing the Rule of Three on an equal footing with your new opponents, then it's time to start expanding your options again. 

Deception: the Flamboyant, the Productive, and the Backswing

So talking about backswings and the development and use of deception. Where do we start?

Well let's first talk about deception. Deception fundamentally is when you create an expectation in your opponent's mind, that you're going to hit a particular shot. Or at least you've have the opponent predicting the odds are in favor of a shot to a certain area of the court. 

Generally once your opponent has begun to expect that you will hit a certain shot, the opportunity to deceive them is now available.

As an observer of squash, the more spectacular type of deception, is when in your preparatory movements to strike the ball, you've caused the opponent to be sure you're going to hit one shot, and then you actually hit another, thus leaving the opponent going the wrong way.

At higher levels of play, deception is generally less about the spectacular, and more about the constant hiding of one's intent.  And this is the 'productive deception'.

When you're playing better players, who have had more court time, more rally experience, outright 'wrong-footing' them is less likely to happen. In this case what your deceptive preparation does, is force the opponent to stop in their tracks, and wait to see where you actually hit the ball. Then, if your chosen shot has been accurate, most likely the opponent is now struggling with time and distance and likely getting to the ball late, which means a potential set up for you to finish off the rally.

This is the true value of deception, to force your opponent to stop and wait, and then let your shot selection and accuracy apply the pressure. At lower levels of play, good deception will often result in an outright winner. As one moves up the grades, deception becomes less about the outright winner, and more about creating time and distance pressure that forces a weak shot, or series of weak shots, out of the opponent. 

Once you have your opponent falling a little bit behind in the rally, then the opportunities to attack become bigger and more obvious. 

At higher levels of the game, opponents you meet are fast enough, or skilled enough to get out of trouble repeatedly. So the deception is used to accomplish several objectives: to maintain pressure on the opponent, prevent them from anticipating, thus maintaining a balance in the rally, hopefully slightly in your favor most of the time.

Productive deception is about keeping a small edge. Being consistently deceptive is not really about the flamboyant misdirection shot that causes the opponent to lose a shoe, or trip over his own feet.

There have been players such as the Wizard of Canada, Jonthan Power, who have the racket and wrist skills to cause an opponent to go in two directions then hitting the ball to a third unfathomable spot. But, Power was not using these gut wrenching deceptive shots on every stroke. They were highlights of games and matches, but they were only spectacular, exhibition-like shots that could be played on rare occasions. 

If anyone has watched numerous full length video of Power's matches what becomes obvious is that his deception is more based on the subtle but constant hold of the shot that forces the opponent to wait, and not anticipate. 

The highlight reels of Power's tremendous racket wizardry are collections of shots that don't happen very often, simply because to hit these shots, the player needs lots of space and time, usually a ball that has come up and is 'hanging' in the air. Time and opportunities that don't happen so often at the higher levels of play.

No, when we look at players like Power, Shabana, Darwish, what one will notice is that these players are very very consistent in always setting up their backswing in a manner that allows them to hit any number of shots all the way up to contacting the ball. The actual biomechanical wrist and racket motion that differentiates between a drop, a straight drive, a cross court drive, a lob straight or cross court does not occur until very very late in the total swing motion of the racket. 

Let's put the idea into percentages. For players such as Power, Shabana, Darwish, we could say that when watching them from behind, quite likely 90% or more of their swing, from  where the backswing was held still to contact of the ball, is absolutely the same (visually) with no difference between all the options that they can play. It's only in the last 10% or less of the swing, that there will be a biomechanical difference in movement, thus a 'visual cue' as to what they are hitting.

As an opponent on the court, often the final portion of a swing can be obscured from your sight, in particular if you've taken up the correct positioning in the T area. Because of the deception (giving no clue to the ball's trajectory) being so complete throughout 90% or more of the swing, players like Darwish can force their opponents to either completely wait for the ball coming off the front wall, or the opponents are forced to start playing a guessing game trying to play the odds and guess, moving early one way or the other. 

And thus we arrive at what makes these masters of deception so qualified to hold our esteem: their developed skill to hit a multitude of shots from the each spot on the court, always with exactly the same swing, and their mental creativity in varying what they hit. 

At the highest levels of the game, for players such as these, the deception is there on nearly every swing of the ball. And it's this potential that forces opponents to wait, and not take up positions that are based on a guess. When you take away an opponent's ability to anticipate, you are actually now creating the prime opportunity to put them under pressure. Once the pressure has been applied, it becomes a swing by swing increase of that pressure, until either the opponent makes an error, or offers up an easy put-away. 

The take away?

When we are on the court practicing, and then when we are playing, we should be approaching the ball with the same preparation and swing for every shot we have in our repertoire. This means for most of us, getting out on the court and 'retooling' our swing. Making sure that we have the same swing from where the backswing stops to just the moment before contact. If we practice and strive to make 90% of our swing exactly the same for all the strokes in the mid court and fore court, then we've started on the path of productive deception.

In our next article we'll be discussing the backswing and the part it plays in deception.

Observation Followup: David Palmer

So hopefully everyone has had a chance to watch the video of David's early round match. And now we can look at answering the questions that were posed:

1. Where does David control the rallies from?

In watching this match, and if anyone has looked at any other matches of David, can see that his area of control ranges from about half way between the front wall and the half court line, all the way back to about a metre behind the service boxes, side wall to side wall.

2. What are the primary shots that he uses to apply pressure on his opponent, and maintain his control of the rally?

David's primary shots from in this zone, (a zone that goes from midway up in the forecourt to midway back in the rear court), is an extremely hard and flat drive.

He either hits this drive straight or crosscourt, and it hits the front wall either around the service line, or half way between the service line and the red line above the tin. So he effectively has four drives that he hits from either side of the court. Two straight: one high and one low. And two cross court, again one high and one low (generally though, his crosscourt drives will be of the high type).

3. Why are these shots successful in applying pressure, and what happens when the opponent has been pressured?

What's important to note about Mr. Palmer's drives is that he hits them extremely flat, and very hard. These hard drives with such a flat trajectory have the intent of not only getting past the opponent, and into the back court, but forcing the opponent to move more quickly than normal, and often forcing the opponent to stretch into the back court to retrieve the ball. 

The pressure, applied by these hard flat drives, is what causes David's opponents to hit a weak or errant shot, which he then happily puts away for an easy winner. 

4. What are his usual shots in the forecourt? How would you explain David's tactics in the forecourt? 

In the mid court and forecourt David has basically two tactics: if the opponent is behind David when he's about to hit the ball, then David will go short, often a straight hard drop. (Hard drop meaning that, it is hit crisply, and meant to bounce quickly, again forcing the opponent to rush to the ball). Conversely, if David has had to follow his opponent forward to get the ball, then his primary shot is either a drive (straight or crosscourt), and the lob, typically hit crosscourt.

----------------------

So let's condense what we've observed, and come up with the basic strategy and tactics of Mr. Palmer.

Strategy: David wants to force his opponents in to either making errors, or hitting weak shots that give him an easy winner to hit.

Backcourt Tactics: David wants to do one thing, force his opponent away from the middle of the court, so that he can move up and get back to a position where he can hit his hard flat drives again. David does hit a variety of shots out of the back court, but generally he's looking to hit long, forcing the opponent back into a corner, while he moves up to the mid court looking to hit the pressuring drives.

Mid Court Tactics: Again, this is where he looks to dominate with hard drives either high ones hit at the front wall service line, or halfway between the service line and the tin. What exactly he hits is dependent on where the opponent is on the court. David is always looking to force the opponent to rush to the ball, and preferably be forced to hit the ball at a full stretch.

Forecourt Tactics: If David has forced his opponent to hit a shot into a front corner, from the backcourt, then it is almost certain that David will hit a quick crisp straight drop. A shot that just ramps up the pressure on the opponent. If David is going into the forecourt because the opponent has hit a good shot, then his response, if having space to hit the ball, will be to hit a drive or lob.

------------------

Further narrowing of the tactics:

1. If the opponent is in or near the mid court, then David will hit pressure drives, putting the opponent on the run. The intent being to force errors or weak shots.

2. If the opponent is more to the rear, David will hit crisp hard straight drops. The intent is to either win the rally or force a weak shot.

3. If David has been forced to stretch into the forecourt, then it's either a drive or lob to force the opponent back. The intent being to give David space and time to return to the T, and get back to hitting pressure hard flat drives.

4. If the opponent happens to be high up on the T or in forecourt, in front of David when he's about to hit the ball, then almost inevitably David will drive the ball to the back court, so often for a winner.

A special last note on tactics:

5. David frequently uses a boast in the mid court area. This is an unusual shot to be used at this high level of play. Especially considering that David comes from a more western style of play, which is based more on length rather than the angles so prevalent in the Egyptian game.

Mr. Palmer's use of the boast is effective because it is an awesome compliment to the hard flat drives that he hits. Because opponents have to worry about the penetrating depth and speed of David's drives, it is common for these opponents to hang back a little bit in the court, or at least to be leaning towards the back in anticipation of the heavy drive. Either way, a player who is being pressured with these drives, and needing to make adjustments to get to the back court, then becomes vulnerable to the boasts that David likes to throw in the mix.

-----------------

Observation and Analysis: David Palmer

So it's time to look at another player. And why not look at David Palmer? Looking back at the past decade. A decade in which David was a constant member of the PSA World Ranking Top Ten.

A player doesn't stay in the Top Ten without an enviable match record against the world's best.

In the decade of his Top Ten membership, David was a finalist in the PSA World Open three times, and came away as champion twice. In addition, he won the British Open four times. Certainly, remaining a Top Ten player for ten consecutive years, winning the World Open twice, and the British Open four times qualifies Mr. Palmer as one of the greats of the most recent generation of squash players.

So let's chat a bit about observation and analysis:

When observing a player, and wanting to get an accurate sense of their strategy and tactics, it's important to watch a number of videos. Watch matches with differing opponents, watch matches where they won easily, won with difficulty, and look at matches they lost.

First is to just watch the various videos that you can find, just to get an overview. Watching a variety of videos, without looking for details, should allow the observer to develop a mental image of the player, and hopefully some definite ideas where this player tries to control and dictate the rallies from and maybe with what kind of shots.

After watching a decent selection of videos, then choose some specific matches to focus on. I suggest that after reviewing a number of videos the first one to really observe for detail, is a match where the player won relatively comfortably.

Doing this should offer a more clear picture of the player's tendencies tactically, and the underlying strategy should become fairly obvious. The problem with matches that are very close, it becomes more difficult to find the patterns, because neither player is really achieving ascendancy, thus both players are likely struggling to be effective in asserting their strategic plan. Because their normal sequencing of tactics is constantly being disrupted by the opponent.

So first we look at matches that are more easily won, discovering the strategy, and the tactics used to implement said strategy. Then look at matches that are close,  to observe the tactics in use in a more competitive situation. This will provide opportunities to see how one tactical and strategic approach lines up against another. Finally, observing matches where the player has lost, analyzing what the opponent did to not only neutralize our player's tactics/strategy, but also to assert their own approach.

So let's start with the following YouTube video of David Palmer, playing an early round match. David wins this match with relative ease. The beginning of the first game is a bit back and forth, but once David warms up, gets the feel for the ball and the court, then he moves on inexorably to victory, and there is little that his opponent could do to even slow the inevitable.

Please copy and paste the link to your browser, if the active link is not working:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4f8dRObtsA

-----------------------

When you watch this video, look to answer the following questions:

1. Where does David control the rallies from?

2. What are the primary shots that he uses to apply pressure on his opponent, and maintain his control of the rally?

3. Why are these shots successful in applying pressure, and what happens when the opponent has been pressured?

4. What are his usual shots in the forecourt? How would you explain David's tactics in the forecourt?

After we've considered these questions, we will be able to come up with a nice overview that should be pretty accurate in explaining Mr. Palmer's approach, why it works, and how it compares with the tactics and strategies of other players.

Okay, watch the videos, work your way through, to develop your own analysis, and then we'll come back with more commentary and a summary.

Summary of Analysis: Nick Matthew

For a minute or two, before we take a summative look at Nick's tactics, let us consider what we've been doing, and the value that could be developed from our efforts.

So we've taken some time, we've watched nearly two hours of video. We've contemplated a number of questions. And hopefully, everyone has been finishing up with essentially the same points to be taken from observing the tactics of Nick Matthew.

I realize that for some, it may have seemed tedious, but the process that you've gone through has hopefully helped to illustrate to you a method of observing a player in action, and developing a critical and usable analysis of their tactics, strategy.

Once you've started asking relevant, directed questions, then do some focused observation, the patterns (habits) of a player start to emerge. This knowledge can help the student of the game in several ways.

1. Once we recognize the general patterns of play for a particular player, it becomes easier to anticipate their shots, thus our reaction time is reduced, and this makes us 'faster' on the court. As well as allowing us to possibly start developing or adjusting our own tactics to take advantage of what we know.

2. When we are able to breakout of a player's whole game, the tactics they use in particular areas of the court, we can more readily see the effectiveness, or not of those tactics. Because we can now assess how a particular tactic is contributing to the rally in progress. 

3. Upon seeing and understanding the effects of the tactics, we may be able to think about how these individual tactics might be incorporated in our own games. Thus, we could be improving our choice of what to adopt into our own tactical approach, and what maybe to discard as an option for our game.

4. As we observe, then analyze how a player is using a particular tactic, we hopefully will be able to consider how that tactic would affect us, if we were having to play against it. In fact, as we go along, we might actually start to recognize these same tactics or variations of them, in our current opponents.

5. Upon seeing, and understanding how and when certain tactics are used, we might be able to come up with our own ideas on how to respond to these, possibly actually taking advantage by finding a way to 'attack' these tactics. Or in a more sophisticated manner, some players might find ways to prevent the opponent from using these tactics, or alternatively, intentionally encouraging the player to use them ;-)

6. Upon knowing the what and when of a particular tactic, we can then start to look at how it contributes to that player's strategy, as well as fits in with their tactics in other areas of the court.
---------------------

So let's look at what we've observed, and thus learned of Nick Matthew's tactical choices:

1. From the rear court, Nick basically hits only two shots. If the ball is around knee high then he hits a relatively flat trajectory drive that returns the ball to the rear court. This is primarily straight, with cross courts occasionally thrown in. The second shot is when the ball is closer to the floor, in this case Nick lifts the ball higher on the front wall for a shot that is essentially a lob to the rear court. Nick will generally hit this straight with cross courts liberally mixed in.

2. In the mid court Nick will hit flat drives if his opponent is also in the mid court. Nick tries to volley everything possible. When the opponent is not in the mid court area, but is coming out of the rear court, then Nick will go short with his volley, either a drop shot into the corner, or a short drive aiming to bounce twice early.

3. When Nick is in the fore court, his shot selection depends on whether he is following his opponent into the area, or he is first to move in. If Nick has to follow his opponent into the fore court, then invariably he hits the ball into the rear court. If Nick has been quick to the ball, then he generally will hit a hard straight drive, front corner to back corner. When Nick is moving into the forecourt area to hit a ball that his opponent has sent from the rear court, then Nick will often keep the ball in short with some sort of drop, trickle boast, very occasional reverse angle, etc etc.

4. Whenever Nick has had to stretch to hit a ball, meaning he's needed a lunge step to get the ball, and he's in a wide stretched out position, then he most often returns the ball to the rear court with a lob. Occasionally, when at a stretch in the fore court, he will hit a cross court drop.

So to condense his tactics even further:

A. If Nick is behind his opponent, he always hits the ball to the backcourt.

B. When the opponent is near Nick in the mid court area, he drives the ball to the back.

C. Nick is always looking to hit the ball in the mid court area with a volley. Nick uses the volley to increase the pressure on the opponent. If the opponent is behind Nick, then the volley is hit short and to stay near the sidewalls. If the opponent is near Nick, then the volley is hit to drive the ball into the rear court.

D. Nick's whole tactical game is built around the volley, and using the volley to create pressure, eliciting either errors, or weak shots that can be easily put away.

To sum up Matthew's tactical approach even further:

Tactic #1. Send the ball to the back, allowing time and space to take a forward position on the T.

Tactic #2. Look for volley opportunities to attack, when the opponent has not returned to a central position, or is late getting into position.

Tactic #3. If the opponent has managed to return to a good position on the court, then revert back to Tactic #1.

-----------------------

Yes, Nick's game is that simple, and it is that good. Two World Open titles, and three British Opens, along with so many other titles attest to the efficacy of Matthew's tactical approach.

What has made this a successful approach to winning, is Nick's patience, determination to stick with the plan, high level of fitness, and extreme consistency and accuracy of shots. Even if his opponents know what Nick is going to do, he does it at such a high level of performance that there is only one player who regularly gives him any trouble (That being Ramy Ashour).

Observation and Analysis: Nick Matthew in the Mid and Fore Court

The video that I've linked to, is the semi-final of the US Open in 2009. It is a match that Nick won over Gregory Gaultier, and was at a time that Nick was starting to climb the rankings, after a long injury layoff, towards his achieving the #1 position during 2010.

Prior to this match, Gregory had a winning record against Nick winning 7 of 10 previous matches on the PSA tour. Including this match, Nick has won 5 of the 7 head to head matches since then. And of course since then, Nick's tournament titles include the 2010 and 2011 World Opens.

In the previous article of June 11, 2012, we looked at Nick's game in the rear court. Now with this next video, we want to observe Nick's tactics in the mid court and fore court.

This particular video is more than 1.5 hours long. And the match itself is about 83 minutes long, the first game taking 36 minutes. So you may want to watch this match in segments :-)

For the first game observe, and look to answer the following question:

1. In the mid court, and fore court, when Nick is forced into a long stretch to hit the ball (usually a fairly long lunge step), what is his most common tactic to stay out or get out of trouble?

When it is time to watch the second game of the match, observe so as to find the answer to these questions:

2. What does Nick typically hit when he has a volley that is low?

3. What does he hit when the volley is between waist high and shoulder height?

4. What is the common shot when the volley is above the shoulder?

As you go into watching the third and fourth games, look for answers to the following:

5. When both players are in the mid court area, and Nick is about to hit the ball from a position that is nearly on the center line, what does Nick generally hit?

6. Alternatively, when both players are in the mid court area, but Matthew is more to one side, with Gregory in the center, what is Nick's tactical choice?

7. When Nick is in the fore court, balanced with time to choose his shot, what is his usual tactic, when Gregory is also in or near the fore court area?

8. What is different in Nick's tactics when he's on balance, in the fore court, but Greg is more to the mid court or even coming out of the rear court?

----------- The link to the video:

If the link above does not appear in your browser, then please copy and paste the link as follows, and this should take you directly to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skk9fEqwBWQ

Now, assuming that you've watched the complete match, or some portion of it, and you feel that you've got a good sense of Nick's tactics in the mid and fore court areas, here are a couple more questions to ponder for analysis.

9. In this match, where would you place Nick on the continuum of playing styles (full on attack on one end, and completely defensive on the other end)? How was Nick applying pressure on Gregory?

10. What do you think was the main factor in the winning and losing of this match? And how was this precipitated?

One thing that everyone should have noticed as they observed this match, and looked to analyze what's happening, is that answering these questions, is not as straight forward as when we looked at Matthew's rear court tactics.

Why is this so? Because when a player is in the rear court the opponent is typically somewhere in the T area. So it's relatively easy to see what a player is likely to do, the habits or tendencies are more obvious, because most of the time, the opponent is around that T area.

But when the player is about to hit the ball, in either the mid court or fore court areas, the position of the opponent is not always the same. So the variability of a good player's shot selection increases, as we see an increase in the different positions that an opponent might be in at the moment the player hits the ball. As well, we have to factor in whether the player is hitting the ball on the volley, half volley, or after a full bounce.

In watching this video, with the intent to answer these questions, there has been a purpose to it all. After watching the two videos, and contemplating all the questions, the observing, analyzing student of the game should now be able to start getting a sense of what I call 'positional play', meaning that a player chooses his shots based on the position of the ball, AND the opponent.

It is important to understand, that positional play, is not the same for any two players, as when analyzing any player, we have to take into account all of the attributes of their game: technique, speed, fitness, general tendencies (attacking vs. defensive).

The reason for initially choosing Nick Matthew, is that his game is well honed, consistent, simple, and very successful. A good place to start for squash students who are beginning to observe to learn.

Next we'll be summing up the analysis of Nick's tactics.

Reply to Delphi's recent comments on the post of 21 March

Dear Delphi,

As you noted in your third sentence, the point is that a player must find a happy medium somewhere around the T. 

The happy medium being a position in the central area, that allows a player to effectively cover both the front and the back. Most players move forward better than towards the back, thus can play further away from the front wall. However, if a player really struggles to get to the front, then a central position that is closer to the front is appropriate. But this will put that player at a disadvantage possibly, when they meet an opponent who can hit drives (lengths) for good depth with accuracy.

Generally for most players running forward is easier, than turning and running back to a corner, and then adjusting to a good hitting stance, compared to a more simple run forward.

If you wish to read the new article published on June 11, then you will see specific reference to Nick Matthew and his rear court tactics. His rear court tactics (shot selection) is significantly related to why he positions himself so far forward on the T.

At the same time, while Nick is always trying to be forward on the T, this restricts his options in the rear court. If Nick wanted to have a full range of shots available to him in the rear court, then he would not be able to take such a forward position during the rallies. Nick's positioning, is a result of his preference to use the volley to attack his opponents, but then this preferential tactic for attacking, has ramifications for what he can do in other areas of the court. Nick Matthew is more the exception than the rule at the professional level, when looking at his court positioning. But, he makes it work for his game, because he understands the limitations versus opportunities.

Every player has strengths and weaknesses: physical, as well as technical, and he or she must take these into consideration when figuring out what strategy suits them, and thus deciding what tactics make for an optimal combination to impose these on the game or match at hand.

Reply to Cory's comments for 11 June Article :-)

Dear Cory,

You've done a great job, picking up the pertinent points. The only thing that I'd add to your comments would be that when Nick hits a ball in the rear court, that is at knee height or higher, he still returns that ball to the rear court, although with a flatter trajectory.

As a coach, my approach is to challenge my students to become as independent as possible. And this means getting players to observe, analyze and then gradually incorporate what they're learning into their own game, where and when appropriate.

So now that you've made your initial observations, and they were correct, the next steps are to analyze:

1. What does Nick accomplish with his rear court tactics?

2. How does this coalesce with his attacking tactics?

Please note though, that to answer the second question, it's important to go onwards and make observations about Nick's mid court, and fore court tactics. 

I'm currently looking at a couple of other, longer videos of Nick that will be better for looking at his mid to fore court tactics. I'll be adding a new article to the blog in a couple of days with a link to the next video, with further discussion, and questions ;-)

Observation and Analysis: Nick Matthew in the Rear Court

As as been mentioned previously on this coaching blog, any aspiring player needs to study the game, and that means watching video of top players. Improving as a player is not just about drills and techniques. Nor is it only about strategy. It is very much about what tactics you use to impose your strategy on the ball and the opponent.

If all players could be placed on a continuum, that continuum would have a pure attacker on one end, and a strict defensive player on the other end. In a game like squash it is rare to find a player who succeeds at one extreme or the other. There are the exceptions, however most top players would fall near the middle, but leaning to one side or the other.

For example Peter Nicol was definitely a defensive player, near the extreme, who kept the rally going until the opponent either made an error, or hit a really loose shot that made for an easy easy winner. In Peter's waning years, and now on the Legend's Tour, he's incorporating more attacking strategy, which aids in keeping rallies shorter. Whereas Jonathon Power was considered a consummate attacking player, willing to shoot for a winner from anywhere on the court. (Although in times of fitness he was willing to rally a bit.)

Anyway, where you are on this continuum, is part of determining what your  game philosophy is. Whether you're an attacker, a defensive rally player, or somewhere in the middle.

Tactics are the specifics of how you implement your philosophical style while playing and working the opponent around the court.

Below is a link to a youtube video of Nick Matthew playing Peter Barker. Now as some may or may not know, Nick has won the past two World Opens, and just recently won his 3rd British Open. So he's certainly a good player to be looking at, and breaking down his game, looking for facets that one can incorporate in their own game.

As you watch this video, I've chosen this one in particular because the tactical area to be observed is very well illustrated here.

When I say 'tactical area', I'm referring to a particular area of the court, and I generally refer to three areas: Fore Court, Mid Court, and Rear Court.

And for everyone to understand my coaching intention, I look at one of these areas in isolation, and analyze what tactics (shot choices the player makes) the player uses that support his or her overall strategy.

As mentioned in this article's title, we want to look exclusively at the rear court, and what does Nick Matthew do from this area.

So set aside 15 minutes or so to watch this video. And you should be looking to answer the following questions:

1. What is the basic tactical approach of Nick when he is hitting a ball that is in the rear court (meaning behind the service box)?

2. What does Nick typically hit when he's retrieving the ball that is nearer to the floor, below knee height?

3. What is Nick more likely to hit when the ball is bouncing up, near knee high?

4. How does Nick's tactic in the rear court impact the opponent?

---------------------

In case the link does not show properly above, then just copy the webaddress as follows and paste it into your web browser, this should take you directly to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrSed3CbSac

----------------------

Now, hopefully you've been diligent in watching the video, and answering those four questions.

The first thing I'd like to note, is that the answer to the first three questions should be fairly straight forward for everyone. There's not a lot grey area for those questions and answers.

In answering question #4 there could be differing opinions, and certainly if we looked at video of Nick playing with different opponents the answer would change.

However, interestingly, Nick's rear court tactics are quite stable and consistent across opponents and years.

It would be good for those who are truly interested, to try and view a number of  videos available on YouTube that show Nick playing. What one will find is that from years back until the present day, Nick essentially plays the same tactics from the rear court, and who the opponent is doesn't matter either.

As mentioned, with two World Opens, and three British Opens on his resume, Nick is one of the premier players on the international scene. It is true that he does have his nemesis in Ramy Ashour. And to find out why, will be another video observation and analysis for the future.

But in the meantime, let's sum up what we can say about the game of a two-time PSA World Champion, three-time British Open Champion.

First is that Nick is extremely consistent with his strokes out of the rear court. He's very accurate, and he has a very low error rate.

Consistency: Accurate, Low-Error rate

Second is that Nick is very disciplined. He never wavers from his rear court tactics. As you would or should have noticed in your video analysis, is that Nick does not attack from the rear court. What his rear court tactics do, is to give him the time and space to return to the T, and hunt for the volley opportunities that he uses, to very effectively attack his opponents.

Discipline: Adhering to Strategic Philosophy and Tactical Plan

Thirdly, Nick is supremely fit. Tactically playing as he does from the rear court, means that the rallies will naturally be longer, against most top opponents, as unless they are attacking, Nick will keep the rally going until he gets hits chance at an attacking volley.

Fitness: Being able to play as a relatively fast pace for a long time.

Keep your distance on the backhand

One of my players recently came to me with a dilemma. He said that although in matches and training with me, his backhand was fairly consistent, he was experiencing significant difficulties with hitting good backhands when he was drilling solo.

Now, bear in mind, that I advise all of my students to spend at least a couple of hours practicing solo in between coaching sessions. Virtually all of the great squash players have at one point or another specifically said that this is one of the biggest contributors to their success, the hours of solo drilling.

Now this particular student has been quite dilligent about getting on the court regularly in between our coaching sessions. And up to this point his solo sessions have been a great contributor to his steady progress and development as a competitive player.

So we went out to the court, but I stayed behind the glass to observe his solo practice. What became evident was that the distance between the body, and the ball was the same on both the forehand and backhand. During his solo practice this player was visually controlling the distance of the ball from his body, and he was keeping the distance the same on both sides. Biomechanically, it is easier to handle a ball on the forehand side that has come in closer to the body. But the same distance on the backhand side actually inhibits the stroke, resulting in less control, less power.

Thus, I advised this student to ensure that he increased the distance between the ball and the body on the backhand, compared to the forehand. This made the difference, and his stroke production was much more similiar to what he would hit when in a rally, or drill, and having to stretch into the ball.

---------

The take away here:

1) Keep more distance from the ball on the backhand, then you have on the forehand.

2) When you're doing solo practice, try to keep your movement, positioning, and strokes as 'game-like' as possible.

No Quarter Given

At some point in one's playing experience, no... I should say, often enough in one's competitive life we come up against an opponent who, everyone around the court, expects to win, the opponent expects to win, and maybe within ourselves, we expect it too.


When we are playing this kind of match, there are basically two scenarios, one is that the opponent is far enough ahead of us in level of play that the outcome really is a foregone conclusion, the opponent doesn't really have to sweat, and will still win comfortably. 


The second scenario is when the opponent should by all rights win, but they will have to work for it. It's not a cakewalk, they will have to run and sweat. But if the opponent plays to their potential, then a win is very very good bet. 


And this is where we step in today, considering our mental tenacity, when we're expected to lose.


So let's go look in on a match that Billy had last week. Billy was at the club, he had finished one hour of cardio exercise in the fitness centre, and had been on the court alone, practicing strokes for about 20 minutes when Wilson came in.


Now Wilson is the new top gun in town, having recently arrived. And except for the very best two or three players in the club, Wilson has been pretty much tearing through the rest of the players the local area has to offer. Nobody has been able to cope effectively with his speed around the court, his youthful fitness, and his power game, hitting low drives from all over the court, straight and crosscourt.


As it turns out Wilson was meeting up with another player named Marshall, but since Marshall wasn't expected to arrive for awhile, Wilson and Billy started to knock the ball around together.


Up to now, Billy and Wilson haven't been on the same court together. Billy has seen Wilson play, and watched Wilson win against a number of mates, and he's seen Wilson lose to the Club's top player. So Billy while not having played Wilson, does have some ideas. Specifically, Billy wanted to keep the rallies from becoming a fest of power drives, low drives, and more kill drives.


In the first game, it can be said, that Billy having had a significantly longer warmup, was the more accurate, and that told the difference, as he took the first game. But Wilson wasn't really far off the mark, the score was close. And Wilson was, near the end of the game, showing why he was the expected winner.


In the second game, Wilson really stepped up, was more accurate, and was pretty much dominating the rallies, Billy was pretty much reactive the whole time. The only thing that helped Billy get into the rallies was his return of serve. He was pretty steady in getting the ball straight and deep, which at least got the rally started well. 


Once the rally got started though, Wilson's low driving game was pushing Billy all over, side to side, and towards the back a lot. The speed was pretty much overwhelming Billy at this point, and his trajectory was pretty much the same as Wilson's, staying below the service line. 


Billy's accuracy down the sides was still pretty good, and thus he was staying in the rallies for awhile, but except for Wilson's occasional errors, Billy was hard pressed to actually get ahead in the rallies and put any pressure on Wilson. So the second game went to Wilson, and it was pretty clear that Wilson had the edge.


Over the interval, Billy recognized that he had fallen in to the trap of playing along in Wilson's driving game, and that he had not done much to take the ball out of Wilson's comfort zone. So going into the third game Billy set his mind to working the ball higher, keeping the rallies moving around, and not allowing the ball to stay low.


This shift in Billy's approach, one could say, took Wilson by surprise, and allowed Billy to get a decent lead in the scoreline. Early in the game Billy was keeping the ball higher, this resulted in Wilson's error rate going up, as he tried to hit winners or high pressure drives from a higher contact point. Additionally, with hitting power drives from a higher contact point meant that his shots actually became a bit more playable for Billy, slightly less pressuring. 


Wilson did adjust and started getting the better of the rallies, but the initial lead that Billy had built up, was just enough to sneak home in extra points.


The fourth game started out much like the second, Wilson creating decent pressure with drive serves, Billy getting into the rallies with good length service returns. But Wilson gradually built up a lead, as Billy couldn't keep the ball up in the rallies, allowing Wilson to keep the ball low and fast.  


And this is where the learning takes place. At this moment, down 2-7 in the fourth game, starting to feel the tiredness, the muscles are getting sore, the shots losing their accuracy, and the opponent becoming more confident, more assured, this is when a player has to decide: 'Am I going to give this away, or am I going to Give No Quarter, and make the opponent win this game the hard way?'


Billy chose at that moment, that he was not going to let the game just 'slip away'. Billy reminded himself of his strategy for countering Wilson's power game. Which was to keep the ball up, taking every one of Wilson's power drives and hitting it up on the front wall. 


In the end, the game still went to Wilson, 11-9. But he had sweated, he had run, and his muscles were probably burning a bit with the effort. But most importantly, Wilson had felt Billy's resolve. He encountered Billy's mental strength. Billy sticking with his game, keeping the ball up, kept Wilson out of his comfort zone, had elicited weak shots that he was able to put away, and really had won the second half of that fourth game.


Going into the fifth game, Billy's legs were really feeling it now. The hour of cardio in the fitness centre, and the first four games had taken their toll. Wilson once again got a lead, 6-2. And once again, Billy had to make a choice, let the match slip away, or not. Giving way, would have been fair enough, Wilson seemed to be moving well, he was focused, and Billy's legs were feeling sore whichever way they moved, and that meant getting to the ball every so slightly late, and thus Billy's shots didn't have the accuracy or lift that he needed.


But rather than let it slip away, Billy committed to leaving everything on the court, if he loses, he loses, but he'll know that he gave his all, on the night. Billy focused on his shots. He didn't think about running, didn't think about how to hit the ball higher, he just thought about where he wanted the ball to go. 


Billy did well, running, chasing, keeping the ball in play, keeping it up, attacking when the weak shot presented, Billy had the momentum, he got back to 8-9. But then, an errant shot, gave Wilson the easy kill, and now it was 8-10. And once again Billy had a choice, tired and sore, it's no disgrace now to lose. He's shown the mettle from which his competitive fire is forged. It would be easy to accept that now the game belongs to Wilson. 


But Billy, having come this far, twice already having made the conscious decision to make every shot force Wilson one more further. Yes, an error off Billy's racket will give the game away, but Billy practices regularly, he trusts his shots. So he's going to make sure that Wilson wins the game with good play, nothing less. With each serve, and serve return, Billy reminds himself of his objectives, what does he want to do with the serve, and what he wants to do in the rally.


The fifth game went to extra points, and in the end Billy went to the showers with another win in the books. 


The take away here:


Often things are not equal between opponents, but when one player decides that no quarter will be given, that can often make up the difference, and then some.


Focus on the one or two things that you can do, to counter the opponent's shots that pressure you. Many times, just dulling the opponent's attack, is enough to disrupt their game, so that they begin to doubt themselves. When you have your opponent questioning their own game, you've created an advantage for yourself. Now the difference between you and the opponent, is likely negligible, and the match now winnable. 

When all things are equal ......

Stick with your strategy!


Shall I say it? Squash is probably the most complex of all the racket games. In fact some would probably argue that squash is one of the most, if not the most, complicated of all one on one athletic competitions.


There are simply so many different strokes that can be played from every position within the court, all thanks to the four walls, that confine, or maybe better said, 'define the game.'


Thinking about it, realizing that it would be easy to come up with eight different shots that could be hit from anywhere on the court, it's clear that we're dealing with a complexity that you would need a computer in order to calculate the permutations of how a rally might be played out.


Fortunately, it is rare to meet a player who under the pressure of a fast moving rally, can actually effectively produce all eight options from every spot on the court. Those kinds of players are usually identified by one of a several two word descriptors: Top Twenty, Top Ten, World Champion.


For most players, even the professionals, in a rally that they are trying to win, there is some pressure being exerted, there is a certain predictability to their positioning on the court, and their choice of shots. And yes, most if not all players have their favorite situations where they are sniffing for a winner. This too has it's predictability.  


Thus, with this understanding let's continue on to a match in progress:


A player, let's call him Billy, is playing a match, with someone he's played with before, and this player (Ricky) is particularly fast around the court, he gets to everything. And when Billy does go to hit an attacking shot, Ricky always gets to the attacking shot, no matter where it is.


In the past, when Billy and Ricky have played, Billy would win a majority of times. But, the matches were hard, the rallies and scores were close. It was always a close call. 


The most recent time that Billy and Ricky played, Billy changed his approach a little bit. He changed his approach to the rallies, by NOT changing his strategy. 


Previously Billy would get stressed by the closeness of the game score, and the seemingly inability to shake Ricky off. Billy is obviously the better player, in particular his positioning, and the accuracy of his shots, but rallies with Ricky always seemed to be a 50/50 bet. 


Being unable to get some distance between them on the scoreline would cause Billy to push harder, going for shots he'd not normally go for. This had not been a winning change of strategy, the games were still close, with Ricky even taking one of the most recent matches.


What Billy did this time, was stay with his normal style, picking and attacking when he normally would, but he was expecting Ricky to always get the ball. And what Billy did was just continue his strategic placement of shot after shot. 


Billy realized that he wasn't losing rallies with his strategy, he just wasn't playing the strategy long enough for it to work. He was changing his strategy, and thus giving up the slowly building advantage that he had been getting.


See there actually wasn't anything really wrong with Billy's shot selection, it was just that Ricky is so surprisingly quick around the court. But what happened in the past is that Billy would hit his attacking shot, and then being surprised with Ricky's speed, Billy was not ready to take advantage of Ricky's next shot. 


This most recent time when they played, Billy played his normal game, hit attacking shots when he usually would, to the normal places, BUT, Billy was expecting and ready for Ricky to get there. In being ready, Billy was then able to not only get Ricky's next shot, but he was able to continue the attack by continuing to build the pressure. 


This time the match ended up with a dominant performance on the part of Billy, leaving Ricky wondering what hit him.


In the past, Billy, chagrined that Ricky was getting to every at attacking shot, would start trying new and different shots in attempting to gain control of the rallies and win the points. In leaving his normal strategy, you could say that Billy was entering an uncharted shallow bay. 


This then actually favored Ricky who could run anything down. The thing was, while Ricky could run everything down, in particular anything hit short in the front corners, his shots were predictable, and not very tight. Thus, once Billy started expecting Ricky to get to those shots, and he knew where to position for Ricky's  likely replies, he was often finishing off the rally with the next one or two placements.


So while the game score was very close in the beginning, Billy in staying with his strategy, just tweaking a little bit, expecting the rally wouldn't end, was ready to continue his normal attack.


Billy shifted gears, but with the same strategy and style he knows well, and thus methodically and simply pulled away from Ricky, and the end score revealed a dominant performance.  


There is another example from Billy that bears sharing, as it illustrates in another way how sticking with one's strategy pays dividends.


Billy soon after playing Ricky, had an opportunity to play a match with Sydney. Now Sydney was from Northern Europe, was very slim, very tall, with an excellent length of reach. In addition Sydney was an efficient mover from the centre court area. 


Sydney is very adept at moving efficiently and quietly from the back court and mid court, to the front court, in particular when he has sent his opponent into the the front court with a drop. And Sydney would use his long reach to intercept and smartly place for winners, many shots that would usually get past the majority of opponents. 


Billy had only played Sydney once before, and while winning the match, it had been very hard, and very close. Only Billy's determination and fighting spirit had gotten him through that one. Most certainly not a strategic success. 


This time, as the first time, the rallies were developing similarly, Billy was finding that Sydney was often in great position cutting off shots and knocking them away for winners.


The first time Billy had played against Sydney, it was the same story, Billy's shots in the front corners were easily handled by Sydney, and Billy was finding himself under huge pressure, it didn't matter whether he hit short, or tried to hit long. Sydney handled it all.


From outside the court, what one could see, was that Sydney liked to hit short, sending his opponent into the front court, then he would very very quietly follow up the opponent, and be only one nice long step from retrieving any front court shot that his opponent might hit. Sydney is able to do this, hovering further forward than most players could, because his long reach enabled him to still cover (intercept) the majority of shots that might be hit long.


On this day, Billy having recently learned about sticking with his normal strategy even when the game is tightly contested, knew that he'd be better off not changing his game. But then something had to change, otherwise this would be another long and tough match.


This time, pretty well into the first game, the scoreline is very even, it was 4-4 I believe, and Billy noticed something. Hitting out from the front left corner with a crosscourt lob, Billy noticed two things. One, he noticed that Sydney had followed up behind him, and was very near the front of the court, and two, he noticed that Sydney easily reached up and blocked the lob, and hit if for a winner down the opposite side.


Billy had already noticed earlier that Sydney was coming forward, when Billy had been sent to the front corner, but when Billy realized that this gave Sydney the opportunity, with his wide reach, to take advantage, to take control, Billy knew something had to give, but on this day, he was not going to change his normal strategy.


In considering, how to respond to Sydney's ability to intercept and thus control the rallies once they got into the front court, Billy didn't want to start going for shots that were out of his normal range.


So Billy made some adjustments, not changes. He made two adjustments in particular.  He hit the lobs higher, and he hit his crosscourt drives wider.  


Now against normal opponents, these two adjustments would not have been very effective. The higher lob, is dropping in shorter, not going as deep in the court, so normally doesn't pressure the opponent as much unless he was out of position. The wider crosscourt also, is not so effective because it rebounds out  somewhere in the midcourt area.


In this case however, because these two adjusted shots, were able to get past Sydney, and in doing so, the shots took advantage of Sydney's difficulty in turning and moving into the backcourt area.


After Billy had hit a couple of higher lobs, and wider cross court shots (that went for winners), Sydney changed his positioning. Sydney stopped following Billy into the forecourt area, and he stayed back around the T, so that he could cope with the high lobs and wide cross courts.


When Sydney did this, it immediately opened up the front court for Billy, which then opened up the rest of the court too. 


By two small adjustments, Billy had been able to negate Sydney's strengths. Strengths coming from his height and reach, which he used specifically to advantage by quietly invading the forecourt (behind his opponent who had just been sent into a front corner). And thus Billy was able to force Sydney back to a more traditional positioning on the court. Once that happened, Billy was controlling the rallies, and went on to a very comfortable win.


--------------------


So what is the take away?


1) When you're in a hard match, close rallies, tight scoreline, changing your strategy is not the first answer.


If the rallies are tight, and the scoreline is close, you can take that to mean that at the moment all things are equal. That means you're not losing..... You're just not comfortably winning. So you only need something small, to make a difference, and sway the balance in your favour.


2) Following on the policy of staying with your strategy when the match is close, we do want to recognize that 'adjustments' need to be found, and implemented.


Somewhere in these tight rallies, there is something, there is some clue near the 'edge.' A little tidbit of information, maybe a little habit of the opponent, or a particular strength, or specific weakness. And it's this information, coupled with making one or two small adjustments, that can make a significant difference in the scoreline.


When you're in close matches, it's better to stick with your strategy, and make small tactical adjustments within your strategic framework.


If the scoreline is not close, and you're the one behind, that means you're losing. This is different, and can indicate a needed change of strategy. But that's a story for another time :-)

Length is Relative

Often it is the only thing that players and coaches talk about, in particular coaches. And every instructional book out there talks about it. Every list of top squash tips mentions it. If one scanned all the material out there it would be pretty clear that great length on the drives is the single most important contributor to winning matches.

So if great length on straight drives is the most common piece of coaching out there, what else could be said about it? Well, maybe let's start with why 'length' is important, by identifying what great length achieves.

The other most common coaching tip out there, is to control the T, meaning always strive to get back to the T after every shot. So this is where 'length' comes in. If you hit the ball to the back corner then you are forcing your opponent to leave the T and go chase the ball, while you simultaneously move to  take up position on the T.

The basic premise is, that the player who spends more time on the T, will dominant the rallies, and likely win the games and match. Much like a football team that keeps the ball in the opponent's half of the field, controlling possession, increasing scoring opportunities, while denying the opponents their opportunities. 

So assuming that your opponent has heard this advice, we know that he or she will be laying claim to the T area, just as you surely wish to do. And thus, this is where 'length' comes onto the scene. It is the long shots going towards the back corners that forces your opponent away from the T, and gives you the opportunity to step into the position of control.

What's important for new and intermediate players to understand is that length is relative. Meaning the shot into the back court does not have to be like those hard flat long drives that we see the professionals hitting (sometimes monotonously). 

Really, what a shot to the back court needs to do is achieve three things: 

1) The shot needs to take the opponent away from the T. 
2) The shot needs to force the opponent to turn and move away from the central area, towards the back. 
3) The shot needs to give us the time and space, to move into the T area. Or at a minimum, allow us to move to a position that is further up in the court, with our opponent behind us, as they are hitting the ball. 

If our shot accomplishes these three objectives, then we've given ourselves a dominant position on the court, and the pressure is now on the opponent.

To be honest if we hit any shot that achieves these three objectives, then we've succeeded in putting pressure on our opponent. It could be the hard flat drive to the corner (this is the shot everyone talks about), it could be a high slow lob, it could be a cross court drive that hits the side wall and gets behind the opponent, it could be a slow but slightly high drive, it could be a medium high but slightly faster lob. 

At beginner and intermediate levels of play we can often achieve these objectives without ever having to hit the flat deep drive to the corner. And that's the key point here. As competitors, we don't need to be thinking 'hit long and hard to the corner', what we need to be thinking is: "Make the opponent turn, and move towards the back of the court, and let me get in front."

As players get better (meaning probably about high C grade and up), the hard deep fast drive to the corners becomes the predominant shot hit for length. But up to that high intermediate level, the hard drive is not the only effective means to achieve our objectives. In fact there are world class players who continue to use a wider variety of shots to push their opponents to the back.

I want my students to be aware and thinking about what they want to accomplish with a shot. They need to know the 'why.' If you know that the 'why' is that we want the opponent turning and moving to the rear, and we want the T for ourselves, then it's easier to focus on the 'what' (what shots will achieve this).

The takeaway here?

Any shot that makes your opponent turn and move towards the back, while you're able to step to a central spot near the T, has put heaps of pressure on your opponent, and given you a favorable position on the court.

Whatever level you play, the shot you hit, if it makes the opponent turn and move away from the T moving back, giving you control of the central area, then you've hit a great length ;-)

Length is Relative: relative to the abilities of your opponent, relative to your position and that of your opponent, relative to the pressure you can exert on the opponent. 

Digging out of the corners: the missing ingredient

The corners of the court are by far the most difficult areas to deal with. And saying that I mean both the back and the front corners. Usually players and coaches only talk about the back corners, and never really discuss the corresponding difficulties of the front corners. But I'd like to do so here.

The front and back corners are difficult for different reasons.

The back corner, as anyone who has had to hit a ball that has ended up there knows, is difficult because of the back wall restricting the racket swing. It is because of the back wall preventing a normal swing through to the ball, that many a boast are played as the seemingly only option.

And most of the time the boast played, it is a low boast the stays up front in the opposite corner. And of course this is exactly what the opponent has hoped for. Driving the ball into the corner, forcing a boast as the only option, and thus being able to amble up from the T, and softly return the boast with a drop into that front corner, very often for a clear winner.

The thing is, a low flying boast, is really only useful as an attacking shot, when you've got the opponent out of position. If your opponent is near the T when you hit a low boast, then really, you're only attacking yourself.

When we watch the top players, one should note that boasts hit out of the deep corners are almost always hit high, in particular when the striker is under pressure. Top players rarely hit low boasts out of the deep back corners, unless they are going for the surprise factor, or they are not under undue pressure.

The high boast out of the deep corners, does two things: it brings the ball back deeper into the court usually close to mid court, and the high boast gives the player time to move back to a more central location before the opponent will be able to hit the ball. The high boast that comes back to the mid court area, and gives the player sufficient time to return to the play, dramatically increases the odds that the player will be able to stay in the rally.

So all players who aspire to improve their games should be practicing and incorporating into their games the high boast out of the back corners.

------------------------------

Looking at retrieving shots hit into the front corners, really the two dominant shots are the straight drop and the crosscourt (either high or flat). And it should be noted that beginners to intermediate players tend to hit flat when going crosscourt.

When a player is at a stretch, running to the front corner, the natural full swing will pull the ball crosscourt, and the more the stretch the more likely the shot will have a flatter flight path.

As for the player moving to the front corner and dropping the ball straight, whether at a stretch or not, it can be very difficult to get the ball to stay along the wall, or drop into the nick. And yet a hitting a drop at this moment, is really only effective if the ball goes into the nick, or stays close to the wall. Otherwise, a drop that is out from the wall, simply invites the opponent to come in and drive the ball hard to the back. And at many levels of play this is an outright winning shot.

Going into the front corner, a player really has two options: play a drop, or hit a deep shot. The drop is hit when the player feels he can reverse the pressure and trouble the opponent. Alternatively, if the player feels pressure retrieving the ball in the front corner, then a high lob to the back court is really the best answer.

----------------------

The most common coaching point given to players when they move into the corners is to: bend the knees. This is the first and foremost teaching tip. Of course bending the knees is important for nearly all strokes in squash. And I'd argue that, even for overheads bending the knees, if possible, is best.

But there is something else that players need to focus on in order to develop their game in the corners:

In both the front and the back, a player can improve their consistency, their control, and increase options by doing one simple thing.

When swinging and hitting the ball, the player should do their utmost to get their hand and wrist down to the level of the ball itself, so that upon contact with the ball, the racket is in a near horizontal position.

Doing this puts the biomechanical pivot point of the wrist on the same plane as the ball, this is what increases the player's options, power, and control.

Of course bending the knees helps to accomplish this racket position, and knee bend aids in generation of power, but only the knee bend without the hand/wrist getting as low as the ball, will still result in a restriction of the player's options.

Getting the hand/wrist low not only makes such shots as the high boast much easier to hit, but it also allows the player to straighten out the swing and hit any number of shots along the wall, avoiding the boast completely.

In the front corners getting low with the hand/wrist does the same thing, it makes a high lob relatively easy, makes controlling direction more simple, so hitting straight or crosscourt are options, whether high and soft, or flat and fast. And with this low hand/wrist position it is much easier to control a drop, and place it softly into the wall or nick.

------------------

So the take away?

When you're going to the corners, focus on getting your hand/wrist down to same plane (level) where you'll hit the ball.

Once you're comfortable with hitting from this low hand position, then you can start developing your different shots: lobs, drives, drops, boasts, all from the same position (with the hand/wrist at the same level as the contact point).