Nicol David At The 2016 Hong Kong Open

I wrote a couple of blog posts a while back on Nicol David and I thought it was time for a new one. She's such an icon in squash that she deserves much more than 1 post! David just lost in the semis of the Hong Kong Open, but won a number of tight matches prior to this. She's such a feisty competitor and always comes prepared to leave it all on the court. I felt she was a bit lucky to come out on top against Joelle King and also went 5 in her 1st round match against Tesni Evans. The previous year of Davids career reminds me a bit of Roger Federer now in tennis. Federer still gets consistently close, but hasn't won a big event in quite some time. Is David facing similar fate? Can she get back her world #1 or is she just hanging on as high as she can for as long as she can? Has everyone else caught up or has she fallen back to the pack? Should she change her game? What can she learn from the other top ladies on tour? How has she tweaked her style and has it helped? These are some of the questions I thought would make for an interesting post so let's get to it.

A lot has been made of Nicol David holding her racquet higher up on the grip. I heard one of the commentators at the HK Open mention that Jahangir Khan suggested this and apparently he  to do this himself. Back when Khan was dominating the squash tour the racquets weighed twice as much as they do now so I don't see the relevance or similarities. Moving your grip up makes the racquet a bit lighter, allows you to be closer to your shot with a smaller swing so you should be a little more exact. While moving your grip down to the bottom of the handle gives you more leverage for power and a greater reach allowing you to get a few more balls back in play and stay a tad more central through each shot.

I assume these change were made because she feels like she has better control and touch. I watched most of her matches from this event and I don't see any obvious change in her short game. I see some good drops, but also a lot that sit up for her opponent. I feel like the style of play most of the women she struggles with are very attacking and hard hitters so I would think the extra reach would suit her well. I've played around with the height of my grip over the years and when I did hold it higher I would still be able to lower it when I felt some pressure developing in a point. Now I just hold the racquet at the bottom because I'm not very tall and I need that extra reach. I really feel like I have to run that much further from the T when I choke up on my grip so personally I don't like it. So I don't see this change helping David, unless she believes it does. Yes, the placebo effect. Wether it helps or hinders her game is irrelevant, it's how she believes it impacts her that matters. If she feels her short game is better like this it probably will be because she believes it is and confidence is a must for this area of the game. Do you think her short game was more accurate in this event? I'm sure she has a nice cushy contract with Prince, but do you think she would benefit from experimenting with some other models or even other companies if she wants to make her racquet a tad lighter Or do you think it's more about lowering her target and looking for winners as opposed to working shots?

What else could Nicol David do to try and get back her world #1 ranking? Should she play with more power and more attacking like some of the other top ladies? That's not really her game and her opponents do that better so I don't think she can completely change her style of play and do it better than people that have practiced this style their entire careers. I felt like the way Annie Au played at this event against Nour El Sherbini could teach David a thing or two. Au is very petite, but plays tactically sound squash and uses her strengths and knows how to avoid her weaknesses. She has a tremendous forehand counter drop and volley drop and relies on her accuracy to win. She lifts the ball consistently, but can also hit with a lot of pace when there's an opening. I really think continuing to polish David's volley drop and counter drop would help her immensely. I feel Au's short game was much stronger. It doesn't mean David needs to use her short game more it just has to be more accurate when she does. Currently I feel like she isn't as ruthless or fearless when she attacks short and with the lowered tin this is an area she could still improve. She doesn't use much deception compared to the Egyptian women so if you're easy to read and you're not overpowering you better be pin point accurate.

One thing that was very evident in her loss to Nour Gohar was how defensive she was playing from the back of the court. Rightly so she didn't want to get into a slugfest with Gohar. It was quite obvious how high and deep she was aiming for her length as she was intentionally overhitting all of her drives, while Gohar was letting it rip on most shots and applying pressure consistently. Maybe David felt like she needed to lift the ball and hit it that deep to give her time to get up on the T or perhaps she was trying to slowly wear Gohar down by letting the Egyptian punch herself out. I felt like later in the match there were signs of Gohar's pace slowing slightly, but I still believe the best defence is a good offence. This doesn't mean I think David should begin hitting everything harder, but simply focusing more on the depth of her drives so Gohar doesn't have so much time to set up and transfer her weight into the ball and hit it 1,000 miles per hour. from the back corners; as soon as this begins to happen you are always going to be reacting and on your heels. There were so few dying drives from David and her drops were still generally a bit too passive and sat up so I thought tactically it wasn't a good matchup for her.

Really when it comes down to it it's tough to change your game more than minor bits when you are in the later stages of your career. If there's any chance of David getting her #1 ranking back I feel she's going to have to really focus on being a bit more proactive and attacking. How much she can change is unclear, but I wouldn't make any drastic changes just subtle refinements. I think there are so many hard hitting and strong attacking players it's tough to win by lifting the ball consistently. I can see on 1 hand that David would be difficult for the other women to beat because she is very consistent with what she does and doesn't make many unforced errors, but I also get the feeling her opponents also feel quite comfortable in the rallies as they are able to dictate a large portion of the points.

Nicold David has definitely brought a large group of players up to her level and now some appear to be just slightly ahead of her. She has won the Hong Kong Open 10 times straight until this one so it's not fair to say her play has declined much or at all, but she isn't winning 90% of her events anymore so it's only normal to ask some questions and analyze why.

I love watching the clash of style when she plays an attacking player. She is in excellent condition and stays very focused, but will that be enough to win more titles? In the next couple of years she will start to slow down and her game will have to evolve if she is going to continue to stay near the top of the game. Does this mean she will play at an even slower pace, become more proficient at attacking or maybe more sneaky and wise? Time will tell. I'll always cheer for her as she's done so much for our sport and to improve the standard of the women's game, I just hope we get to see her win a few more big titles and have an opportunity to get the world #1 spot back! Jonathon Power did this at the end of his career, so it can happen in the later stages of your career. She definitely still has a shot at every event she enters, it's just the increased depth means it's only getting tougher. Good luck Nicol!

By the way I'm taking Amanda Sobhy in 5 and Ramy Ashour in 4 tonight! Don't forget to check out my new squash merch store at SeriousSquashShop.com

Who's The Best Squash Player Of All Time?

Today I'm going to talk about a hypothetical situations. After watching the British Open and seeing Jahangir Khan in attendance it gets me thinking. Every sport tries to compare their current stars with previous legends of the game. Tiger Woods has always been compared to Jack Nicklaus and is chasing his total majors and now that same spotlight is shining on Rory Mcilroy. While people in baseball are often compared to the likes Ted Williams or Babe Ruth. In hockey many compare Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky to current top stars. How would these record holds stack up against the current crop of stars? Certainly to be mentioned and compared to one of the all time greats in your sport you are doing something right.

Today I want to talk about two of the best when I was young; well Jahangir (pictured below) was at the end of his career when I was beginning to play and Jansher was just beginning to dominate. Both Khans were very steady and made very few unforced errors. They were extremely fit and I've heard that Jahangir just walloped the ball. Clearly the equipment advances and the glass courts with the lowered tins have changed the style of play that is successful at the highest level. But even now we see top players that are very traditional and conservative while others are much more attacking and aggressive. How would the Khan's have played in the modern game against the current crop of stars?

Who wouldn't like to see a healthy Ramy against either one of them?

It's hard to guess how the Khan's would develop as squash stars in today's game, but the one thing that wouldn't change is that thy would be two of the fittest and mentally toughest of any era. I'm sure they would still have immaculate length, but would they be more attacking? Would the Khan's have been able to dominate in today's game as they did back in the day? I can't think of any reason to think why they wouldn't.

Jansher Khan

I'm more curious as to how the Khan's would play. I assume the success of these players had a big part in how future generations of people were taught and played. We learn by watching the top players and see what makes them successful. But as equipment changed allowing the players to be ore deceptive, have a shorter swing and hit the ball harder it's interesting to think how these legends would play with them.

I do have a couple of old school small frame squash racquets that I use once in a while. What I notice when I use these racquets is that they provide excellent training tools for your swing. You need to have your racquet prepared early to hit it to the back, while the racquets nowadays you can flick your wrist and hit it down the wall if the ball is warm. Another thing I notice right away is that you cannot be as attacking. With the older racquets you learn when a shot is really on and when you may get away with forcing it a bit with modern equipment. I feel that most top players think they can attack almost anything from anywhere which of course may be true, but there are still better times and situations to attack short. I think it is more clear cut with the older frames. If you try and force it when it's not on with a heavy, small head frame you are going to make an error or pop it out loose more times than not.

From everything I heard it was the Khan's discipline and work ethic which enabled them to be so successful. I have no doubt that they would adapt and still be the best in today's game. Ramy in recent years went an entire year without losing a match, but that doesn't come close to the 5+ years that Jahanagir did the same. You could always argue that the depth of the competition is stiffer now, but I think that would only have made them even stronger.

So I haven't really answered my proposed question yet. I don't really know, but I'll take a few guess. I think the Khan's would play very attritional as well. Jansher was so efficient with his movement that he could play long matches without slowing down unlike any of his competitors. I don't think this would change. I think Jansher would still have extremely long rallies and wouldn't shoot from behind his opponent, or if he did it would be so random that it would almost always work. It's been awhile since I've seen Jansher play, but I also remember how well he volleyed and counter attacked. I think this style would still win today. So I guess I don't think either of them would play like the top attacking Egyptian players.

I could also speculate about how Ramy would have matched up 20 or 30 years ago with the old equipment on the standard court with the standard height tin? Maybe the game wouldn't have caught the interest of a young Ramy if he grew up with a small wooden racquet. I don't know. All we can do is speculate. But one thing I know for sure, is that I at least find it way more enjoyable to watch attacking and open squash. So although this sorts some players game more than others, you can attacking or neutralizing if your length, fitness and mental toughness is top quality.

I should also note here how much the change in the scoring has changed how the game is played. Up until about 9 or 10 years ago we used hand in, hand out scoring to 9. This means you had to be serving to be able to get a point. It made matches much longer and physical which likely played into the strengths of both Khans.

What matchup would you have liked to seen? Maybe Goeff Hunt, the late Hashim Khan, Jonah Barrington or Chris Dittmar versus Gaultier, Elshorbagy or Matthew? Or more recently Peter Nicol or Jonathan Power? Who would be the best of all of them at their peak? Does your winner change depending on the scoring, court or equipment they used? Who's the best of all time?

For those that haven't seen either Khan play here's a link of them playing one another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtzhAcmgVvY, but this is near the end of Jahangir's career. You can see that here the scoring was actually point a rally to 15 and the 2 are actually playing on a glass court. When looking back on footage of them the first thing you notice is the extremely poor quality of the video. It's hard to follow the ball. I remember back in the early 90's having to wait months after a tournament to finish to get a copy of the finals and it would be on VHS and the quality extremely low.

This also gets me thinking what squash will look like in 20 or 30 years time. Will it continue evolving as quickly as it has? What style will the top players play? What will the equipment be like? Will the racquets become heavier again or even lighter? I feel that string and grip shape may change the most. Will the scoring method change again? Will the tin be lowered even further? Is there a kid out there now who will transcend our sport? Will it be a version of one of the Khan's? Or more like Power? Ramy? Or perhaps a mix or something completely altogether?