Let The Coaches Coach and The Trainers Train

A couple of years ago I wrote a post about what I would do if I could go back and coach myself now knowing all that I know. I mentioned a number of things, but there is something I would add to that list. One are I would definitely like to go back and do is work with a personal trainer and even take some group fitness classes. When I was young I had a treadmill, stationary bike and a weight machine in my basement. Even though it was great to be able to do some cross training and certainly something is better than nothing, I really I had no idea what I was doing or how much to do of everything.

Even as I got to university I generally ran our team practices along with the off court training.  I would often take the team to run hills and do wind sprints by the squash club. On court we would do random drills and often finish with some court sprints. When I was a kid I just don't think any junior worked with personal trainers. Parents already invest enough money into lessons, camps and tournaments so what's the point of a personal trainer, especially on a weekly basis? At the university level we all knew the importance of off court training, but again we weren't specialist so we just did what we thought we should do. The idea of working with a personal trainer never even crossed my mind. At university I was on a very tight budget on I couldn't afford such luxuries. I always worked hard, but to get the most out of it that effort needs to be guided into the right direction.

Now that I'm 35 and have had 1 knee surgery and many years of coaching under my belt, I've finally come to a realization that I have to regularly work with a trainer, see a physiotherapist and get a massage. It helps now that I can write off a portion of these expenses through my work medical coverage, but still it is a difficult concept spending a few hundred dollars per month of these luxuries. The difference now is that they are all essential, especially trying to deal with the decades of playing and coaching.

If I could go back to a child and coach myself I would very much like to work with a personal trainer and have someone help set up a training program for me. As a squash player you're never quite sure how much of what to do and parents are always cautious about their kids lifting weights. Squash is such a 1 sided sport so it's an essential part of self care and not only will it help your squash game it also will help you avoid long term overuse injuries which I have been dealing with the past few years.

I know from taking the level 3 coaching courses in Canada that squash coaches are expected to be able to plan out an athletes physical training. To me this is absolutely ridiculous because this is not our area of expertise. I never had an annual training plan when I played and I've worked with some pros that don't use one. I think they can help some people, but are not necessary. And what good is an annual training plan if we don't know when to mark up which type of training? I mean sure I know we need lots of cardio and agility and I can help improve your court movement. I know strength training is important, but not too frequently during the season. But how am I supposed to tell a pupil how often to do which exercises and which types of training are best at certain times of the year? They have people who are specifically trained to do this so why in the world would someone expect me to know how to do this as well as a trained expert on the subject? Surely I should I only be expected to know how to coach?

Most squash coaches can get you fitter. We can run you through some ghosting an court sprints and circuits. But knowing the specifics of the technique for each movement, duration, intensity and frequency is something personal trainers should handle. Learning how to lunge and squat properly is critical in training and for squash training. I don't know any professional sport in the world where the coach runs the conditioning part of an athletes training. I heard awhile back that the fitness and conditioning coaches in football are the most important parts of the coaching staff.

I believe that our kids would be better off with a personal trainer working on this part of their game and the coaches focusing on the squash side of it. This is the beginning of building a team around an athlete. Being a well rounded athlete is essential to playing at a high level of squash and avoiding injury. The only way we will optimize the hours we spend off court training is learning how to do it properly, so I am all for personal trainers/strength and conditioning coaches.

How young should kids begin working with a trainer? My trainer says around grade 8-9 is when a kid is most trainable and is a great age to start working with a trainer. Kids bodies adapt so quickly if they are working on the right areas with proper technique. I wish I had this opportunity when I was a kid, because I had the shots and racquet skill, but was quite small compared to the other kids so would get overpowered. I also dealt with some knee problems on and off. These are things no squash coach I had could have fixed. These are areas I believe that a quality personal trainer could have helped me with though.

It's so hard maintaining a high level of every type of fitness trait throughout an entire season. We shouldn't worry about slightly lapses in 1 area if we are concentrating on another area. I know I often stopped strength training during the season because I was on court so much, but this is another area i wish I had stuck with even just to maintain my strength and off season training gains. Being young and not having the money to fund proper training was a real issue for me. So how could I have changed this? I could have tried to get a group of 3 or 4 of my peers together and work in a group setting with a trainer. I could have also signed up for some group classes like a spin class or yoga. Sometimes in squash we think we can do it all by ourselves because it's an individual sport, but the sooner you realize you can't and shouldn't the better off you'll be.

If you fortunate enough to have a great trainer in your corner you'll know how much they're helping you for your game. Even now when I play a strong player, I normally have the shots to contend with someone, but it's the physicality of the squash at this level which I have trouble with. I know it's not genetics, it's simply a matter of proper training. Look no further than Paul Coll or Fares Dessouky to see how important off court training is. The way they can move on court and for how long is because of the off court training. As you get better in squash you should be spending more and more of your time training off court. Not only are you trying to get fitter, stronger and faster, but also avoid injuries. You've got to be healthy to compete and handle the physical demands to play at the highest level.

Looking back at the old sign posted up in my squash club as a child, 'Get Fit To Play Squash, Don't Play Squash To Get Fit' holds more and more truth to me now. Back when I was a kid it was more about the endurance, Jonah Barrington insane level of endurance. I don't know how many of the top players lose these days because of aerobic endurance, it's more the intensity and pressure of the rallies, or even injuries. In hindsight it's easy now to say that Ramy is probably dealing with his injuries from major overuse, which is also a necessity to becoming a top squash player. How would things have been different for him if he had a top personal trainer working with him as a child? We rarely do proper training to prevent injuries until they begin to occur, but that doesn't have to be the case with squash.

How much of what you need to do off court to train for your level of squash depends a lot on your body type, genetics, your style of squash and your training history. I feel it takes an extremely experienced personal trainer to know exactly what is best for each person. There's simply too many individual differences one must take into account that it's unrealistic to expect a squash coach to have this wealth of knowledge. Training people in large groups as a squash coach can offer some overall strength or fitness benefits, but if you have lofty goals for playing at the highest levels you must seek beyond your coach for the strength and conditioning compartment.  It takes a team of special individuals to allow 1 person to succeed. They likely charge as much or more than you squash coach will and unless you understand just how important they can be to your success I doubt you will invest in one. Hopefully I've given you a few reasons to reconsider this.

Let the coaches coach and the trainers train. Coaches should be able to help you with your technical, tactical, mental and squash specific movement patterns, but the off court training does not fall under our realm of expertise. Squash Canada, like most other countries should change their coaching curriculum accordingly. I believe they should include more mental skills training and discuss about how to build a team and program to allow kids to succeed from the grassroots to pro level. I think they should also want coaches about doing too much physical training with their athletes when they are unqualified and their students could get injured. The challenge here is that if many of our athletes aren't already doing some fitness training outside of squash we feel we must include some in our practices. It's simple to include fitness training into a group session, but if it is exercises are done without the knowledge or ability to correct form there is not much good coming from these sessions.

Check out the new full length solo hitting film available for purchase at SeriousSquashShop.com/collections/coaching-videos The Secrets of Solo Hitting is a 64 minute instructional video on what I know best, coaching/solo hitting. This includes 30 of the best solo drills with tips on how to best perform each drill. The sections are divided into 1) Straight Drives 2) Midcourt and 3) The Short Game. There is also a Technical Testing section and a Bonus Tips one. Stream or download your copy today. To date there are over 60 copies sold to keen squashers from all over the planet. Here's an in depth preview video about it from my youtube channel:

The Evolution Of Squash

I guess I'm dating myself by mentioning that when I was finishing up playing competitively I was still playing you had to serve to win a point and the games went to 9 with a set 1 or 2 at 8 all. After my last year of varsity squash the point a rally (PAR) scoring change was adapted by the College Squash Association. Once or twice a year I'll have the kids play this scoring method for a match and most of them don't like it. I don't blame them, I don't like it either, but back then it was how the game was played. The new scoring system has definitely changed the game. And although match times have gotten shorter at the amateur level, at the professional level the matches can still be nearly as long as each rally carries more importance (although I know this also has to do with how frequently they are mopping up sweat and video reviewing let decisions). The scoring, equipment and court have all contributed to the current state of the game and I'm going to discuss a few of the ways that I've noticed the change, both positively and negatively.

Back when you had to serve to get a point people generally went for more attacking play wen they were serving and played more defensive when they were returning. The idea that was you could take a bit more risk when you were serving because your opponent wouldn't actually get a point if you happened to make a mistake. It also meant that if you're serving you have at least some momentum and this is a more opportune time to play a more attacking shot. So this part of the tactics of squash has definitely changed. You'll see at the pro level players being equally aggressive when returning or serving because they can score a point at any point.

The scoring has helped and hurt beginners. It is less likely that a player will get bagled playing PAR scoring, but they can also lose a game in the blink of an eye. This is why I still encourage new squash players to play to 15. Squash is only fun when you're having rallies and you get a good workout. If a game is done in under 5 minutes it's way too short to accomplish both feats.

The scoring has changed the tactics in a number of other ways too. Currently it is much more difficult to come back in a game. Back in the day people came back from down 0-8 or 1-8 quite frequently. Nowadays you very rarely see someone lose a game when leading 10-0 or 10-1. It's simply a matter of stats in this case. The person at game ball only has to win 1 point and not 2 in a row with the old scoring method. So this can be good and bad depending on which style of player you were. If you are a slow starter you would probably do better with the old school scoring method. If you're also not as fit you're probably better suited for the current style because you find it easier mentally to push even when you're fatigued for that last point or 2 knowing all it takes is 1 good shot or lucky bounce.

Going along with the theme of fatigue is another issue that is lost on current players because of the scoring system. When you had to serve to score a point players would be more prone to lose their concentration in a match. Nowadays big points near the end of a game come up quite quickly where focus is generally not as big of an issue. You are also more likely to have adrenalin pumping to help you fight through the fatigue when the end is near. When the games were to 9 and players traded a number of handouts without scoring more than a single point it was very difficult, especially as a kid to keep your concentration for the duration of a game. Generally juniors go through more ups and downs emotionally and with their focus so the old school scoring method did not favour them for these reasons.

Many of us associate the new scoring to the more attacking style of play, but is that really the reason? Is the equipment, lowered tin and slower double yellow dot ball or glass court not more critical factors? The racquets are lighter, the grips aren't made of leather or towel and the string allows for more power and spin on the ball. Also with the wide use of video analysis and elite coaching, players are learning to add all the extra layers into their games that were probably going unnoticed many years ago. Although the scoring has made a significant change to the style of game I believe these other factors have had a larger influence.

I don't know anyone that wants to see a 100 shot rally with only length hit, but a 50+ shot rally using all 4 corners is exciting and much more physically demanding. This style of play has changed the fitness requirements required to play squash. Back in the day aerobic endurance, one's ability to tolerate pain and their mental toughness were probably the most important traits of a successful squash player. Nowadays these are all still important, but speed, agility and power are much more critical. I've noticed that Gaultier and Matthew are looking a bit slower compared to some of the young guns currently rising up on the tour. No doubt that Matthew and Gaultier would still do exceedingly well at aerobic fitness tests against any other pro payer, but naturally your body slows down just a bit when you get in your mid 30's (yes I know from experience!). I feel if the tin was raised back, the scoring was changed back to 9 and the equipment was from the 80's or 90's they would still be winning almost every title. I think Nicol David would also be more successful under these more attritional conditions. Actually, Gaultier has more problems with his concentration so maybe this wouldn't help him as much as Matthew. Although these conditions may favour certain players, I'm glad that the equipment and scoring has changed as it's made squash more entertaining to play and watch.

It's easy to see that the players have evolved because of the equipment and scoring. Do we have the right balance between attacking and attrition? I wonder how the game will evolve in the next 20 or 50 years? Hopefully it stays attacking, but also remains physically demanding. It's the balance of the technical and tactical skill under extreme duress which makes the game so challenging and breathtaking to watch at the professional level. Watching a few of the hardest hitters play I do think the ball needs to slow down just a bit or the court temperature drop. I don't enjoy watching a player like Mohamed ElShorbagy win on sheer power (he would definitely still be one of the top back on the higher tin with the old scoring). ElShorbagy once had a really solid short game, but I haven't seen it on display much this season. Gaultier too relies mostly on attritional length to win. If the ball is so fast the players can't attack short when they get an opening the ball is a too quick in my opinion and we are on the verge of bringing back attritional squash. If I was ElShorbagy I would ask for a new ball at the start of every 3rd game in his matches because I can't imagine someone maintaining the pace he can create with a fresh ball.

Maybe the men should lower the tin another inch or just use a 2 dot ball on the glass court instead of a 1 dot. Just pace and athleticism takes away from creativity and the chess tactically gameplay that I love about squash. The pace has made ElShorbagy a 2 dimensional player (court coverage/endurance and pace). I see so many kids now that only focus on hitting the snot out of the ball and don't develop other areas of their game. And what's troubling is they don't know any better because they get away with it against most other juniors. I want to see the layers develop in a players game and to all be on display at the highest level of the game. It's up to the PSA and the WSF to ensure that tactics and creativity are continually rewarded at the top of the game. I understand that speed and pace are critical factors (as they should be) they just shouldn't be the only ones in my opinion. As a coach if I want a player to attack more I simply add targets or bonus points for winning or hitting the target at the front of the court. I just hope squash doesn't fall into the grip it and rip it and the best athlete always wins as opposed to best squash player. The game scoring, equipment and tin height have all attributed to rewarding attacking players and making the game more enjoyable to watch, but have they done enough? If the PSA wants to see more Superman dives they should give players more opportunities to be out op position on the court by either lowering the tin, slowing down the ball so the ball stays shorter on drops and boasts, making the court longer or wider or adjust the scoring once again!

I can't finish off today's topic without a quick mention about the rules. This is a simple way the game must evolve to improve squash from a players and spectators perspective. There is so much inconsistency between refs and left open for interpretation. The 1 obvious rule which is always taken advantage of is giving your opponent direct access to the ball. Most players appear to think that just because their opponent has hit a loose ball around the middle and they are standing around the T that their opponent must go around them. To my knowledge this is not stated anywhere in the rule book. I also can't stand when players counter drop and don't clear out afterwards. The ref often states the shot was too good, and although that may indeed be the case, who really knows if the player doesn't have any chance of retrieving it. I don't know why they haven't made it a stroke decision every single time a player hasn't made every possible effort to get out of their opponent's direct path to the ball regardless of the quality of their shot. Good players know exactly where their opponent is coming from and they can get out of the way if they were forced too or otherwise they may choose to play a different shot when they would otherwise be unable to clear their drop. So please WSF and PSA change this rule and get rid of the blocking and reduce the number of 'lets' called in our game and clean up the flow of the game. Who's with me?

Have you checked out the new items at SeriousSquashShop.com yet? Yes, I've designed some Serious Squash merch! Pick up a cap, hoodie, bandana, tee, tank top or a sport psych wristband! Use the code 'SSROCKS' to receive 15% off your order.

Cultural Differences That Influence Our Squash Game

Today I was once again thinking about my trip to Asia and the Penang Junior Open. I've already discussed some differences in how the kids are raised and the style of play. Anyone who's been to a busy city in Asia and seen the aggressive drivers and scooters know what I'm talking about. This goes well beyond the squash court.

This will be a little receptive for some of you, but I feel is an important point. In North America generally children are babied and coddled too much. We are always worried about people getting sick or injured. We try and do everything within reason to prevent these unnecessary situations from arising. But the real issue is when is too much? How often do we actually live our lives instead of just get comfortable simply being alive? There is a difference between the two. In some of the countries I visited kids are working at their parents shops and driving scooters around without helmets, swerving in between gridlocked cars. Avoiding dangerous situations seems smart to us, but it can also make us avoid living and enjoying our lives. We think too far ahead to a potential consequence and in turn avoid the action altogether.

Let's get back to squash. You may be wondering how coddling our children and protecting them from the dangers of the world influences their squash game. I have a couple of beliefs about this. The first one is about the style of play. As coaches here in North America we hate seeing unforced errors. Keep the ball in play; hit it deep; wait for mistakes. Just like how we drive here. We're very careful and yes, we probably have fewer accidents (just guessing), but that doesn't make us become better drives, does it? I witnessed some amazing driving overseas. Certain curves and maneuvers I would never dream to try. And yet these people do it all the time and have gotten good at it. I believe the same can go with attacking and learning to attack from all over the court. I know length sets everything up, but this is definitely something that got me thinking about how we play vs. what I saw some of the other kids play like.

My second point here is about the psychological aspect of our societies. Here in Canada the pedestrians have the right away, cars let other cars in and so forth. That just isn't the same in Penang or Bangkok. You have to be focused and be smart about crossing a busy street. Over here people are picky and are generally unhappy with their jobs, but in many situations I witnessed people were just happy to have a job and worked very long hours. They don't finish at 5pm and get weekends off, their work was their life. I'm sure it wasn't that long ago that things were like that here in Canada, and of course there are still some places and people that fall outside of this middle-class territory and struggle each and every day. So you're probably asking again, how does this relate to squash?

I feel that people from tougher upbringings generally are used to working harder and can more adapt at handling unpleasant conditions (such as fatigue). Squash generally isn't a low income sport, but that is changing slightly with the creation of the Urban Squash Programs around North America over the past 10-15 years. But in some countries this is the way of life for a lot of people. I don't feel this applies to everyone, but I do think most people from cushiony upbringing don't like to get their hands dirty. And if you want to become a top player in squash you have to be incredibly determined and will have to overcome a number of physical and psychological barriers; so yes, you will have to get your hands very dirty to become a professional squash player.

I should also mention that I read in a book recently about how Kenyan runners walked 5 or 10 miles (can't remember the exact number) each way to school and this was a major factor to why they were gifted runners. How many kids do that these days?

So odds are most of my readers are feeling bummed out now. I doubt I have my followers from low income countries or families. So the big question is what can you do to change this? Here a few ideas.

- travel and see for yourself
- anyone can gain mental muscle. step back and give an honest opinion on your lifestyle.
- walk more, drive less
- play attacking squash and make make more errors http://www.serioussquash.com/2015/05/improve-your-game-by-making-more.html
- hard yards in the gym or the track. not only does this strengthen your body, but your mind. when the going gets tough on the squash court you have to be comfortable with your body feeling uncomfortable (and learn how to deal with those negative self-destructive thoughts)

When I was in Thailand I was driven around on a scooter a few times without a helmet. It was pretty scary at first. I obviously can't suggest people do this or anything dangerous. If you have the option to use a helmet of course I would highly recommend it. This is more food for thought.

If you want to play professional squash you are going to have to not care about money so much. But this is a planned topic for a future post titled, 'So You Want To Go Pro.' I see less emotion from Canadian squash players then I did overseas. Do they want to win more, or are we afraid of expressing ourselves because of what others may think? If anyone has read Jonah Barrington's book, Murder In The Squash Court you will know he gave up being the chair of some committee because he felt he had to behave a certain way that was detrimental to his development.

A similar thing is discussed in a current book I'm reading called, 'David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants' by Malcolm Gladwell (pictured below). Gladwell claims that kids who lost at least 1 parent when they were young held a large portion of head political jobs in the U.S. and the U.K. throughout the course of history, but that also a higher than average degree of these children end up in prison. A kid can go either way; the death of a parent can motivate you and lead to greatness or you can struggle and never move on. Gladwell asks who would wish this upon a child, knowing this could improve their chance of becoming more successful? The answer is obvious, but it gets you thinking. It's an interesting read.

That's it for today. I hope this has got you thinning a bit about how you live and how you play squash.  I think it's important to think for yourself and not just do what everyone else does just to fit in. Watch good players and learn from each of them. If you're able travel and watch or play some international tournaments I'm sure you will learn lots from the experience.

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?