Players and officials alike have been discussing the merits – or otherwise – of reverting to a best-of-three format. Read what others have to say on our Facebook page or leave comments of your own.

But the truth is, if you stop changing, you stop growing. And in this constantly changing world at lighting speed, if you stop growing, you die. In other words, you either grow or you die!

This concept applies to businesses as well. And only the best of businesses realise this before it’s too late and always find a way to innovate. If we really want to keep improving our beautiful sport of squash, we must treat it as a business.

The reason I started with this introduction is that I feel most people are opposing the best of 3 (Bo3) idea purely because of FEAR OF CHANGE. I am not saying the best of 3 is necessarily a better idea. I personally haven’t fully made up my mind yet. But what I’m trying to say is, let’s try not to be emotional while thinking about it, and just try to stick to facts and numbers to have a more constructive discussion.

Needless to say that we all want to keep our sport as great as it is, but it’s always a balance between innovation and tradition. We need to continue finding ways to make it more friendly to the viewers, but of course without losing the identity of our sport.

Here are all the pros and cons of changing to best of 3 that I’ve thought about and/or read on social media in the past couple of days, with my take on each.

CONS – WHY BO3 MIGHT BE A BAD IDEA

Less Physical

Most people believe and are proud to call squash one of, if not the toughest sport in the world, and converting to best of 3 would take away the physicality of the game.

No one can deny that the best of 3 would definitely take away a big part of the endurance in the game. However, the term “Physicality” consists of not only 'endurance', but also 'speed'.

Because players know that now they’ve got maximum 3 games to play, the speed of the game will dramatically increase (as it did in Dubai), which will require players to be even more fit if they want to stand a chance at this pace.

As a simple example, I’ve played with Shorbagy at least 7 or 8 times in the last 2 seasons, with 3 of them going to five games. By far, the most physically challenging for me was our 2/1 encounter in Dubai at the World Series Finals (not to mention that it was definitely the highest quality of squash we played against each other).

To sum up this point, James Wilcock perfectly put it: “An 800m race isn't any easier than a 1500m race”.

Short Matches

Some matches will be extremely short, especially when a higher ranked player is playing a significantly lower ranked player or in lower tier tournaments.

Here’s a good question: Would you rather watch 2 games of a one sided game or 3 games? I don’t think there’s a right answer; hence this point is not really valid.

No Chance To Recover

Some people argue that the best of 3 gives you no real chance to recover. If you lose your head for just a streak of points, it can cost you a game, which means half of the match.

This is certainly a valid point, but is it really a bad thing to punish someone who’s careless one or more patch of the match? On the contrary, in my opinion, it is an advantage as will be discussed below in the pro #5 “Every Game Counts”.

Upsets

There is a concern that the best of 3 will create more upsets, and will give a chance to lower ranked players to beat the top guys.

This was the same argument when scoring changed from 9 (with a hand out) to 15, and same when it changed from 15 to 11. But if these two cases taught us something, it is that the top always remain on top, regardless of the scoring system.

Besides, upsets are a positive thing to any sport. Upsets create stories. And stories mean more engagement by the fans around the world.

Spectators Love 5 Games

Yes, it definitely does create a lot of drama, and no one can deny that. However, if we take a close look at most of the 5 setters, even the best of them, rarely does it happen that ALL 5 games are highly contested.

Usually one player or the other drop at least one game for various reasons. Either they thought the gap in score was too far that they decided to concede, or they felt too tired that they wanted to conserve energy for the following game. Whatever the reason is, this game is pretty dull to watch.

Many people believe – including myself – that the Ramy v Shorbagy match in the 2015 Gouna Final is the best squash match played in recent years, if not in history. The 3rd game was conceded by Ramy.

Even this year’s match of the season, Gaultier conceded the 4th game in the semi-final of the ToC vs Shorbagy.

These players are certainly not to blame, and it is completely within their rights to do so, but if we change to best of 3, the number of those 'dull' games would be tremendously reduced.

If you think those are two random matches, here’s another random sample of the 1st big six tournaments of the Men’s 2016/2017 season, with the statistics of all 3/2 matches from the 2nd round on. At least one game was dropped in 61% of these matches.

It Has Always Been Best Of 5

Some people believe that it’s one of the basics of squash. There isn’t such a thing as 'basics'. We need to be always flexible to change to improve…

PROS – WHY BO3 MIGHT BE GOOD

More Fun To Watch

As mentioned in point #1 in the 'CONS’ section above, players know that now they’ve got maximum 3 games to play, the [pace] will dramatically increase (as it did in Dubai).

This will raise the bar of the level of squash, which will make it more fun to watch than it already is; hence will attract more viewers and fans around the globe.

Every Game Counts

Now because players know that they can’t afford to lose one game, we will have many less slow starters, games conceded, or lapses of concentration.

Again, the longer periods of concentration means that the crowd will be entertained throughout the entire match, and not lose attention at any point during the game.

Fresher Legs In The Latter Rounds

How many times have we seen semi-finals and/or finals blown up because one of the players reach that round physically dead? Just to name a few; myself in Ahram final, Nick at the US Open, Tarek in St George’s, Shorbagy in Qatar, James at the British Grand Prix, Nick at the British Open, and not to forget of course, Max Lee in Macau.

The later rounds, and especially the final, is the climax of any tournament, so to see many of them not contested at the highest level because one of the opponents is physically struggling is such a turn off to all the squash fans, let alone the promoters of the tournaments.

Many might argue that the more physically fit deserves to win because they’ve either beaten their opponents easier to reach this round fresher, or they’ve trained harder to be fitter than their opponent in similar situations. Completely valid point, but it is a question here of whether we want the fitter to win and blow up the final, or give both players a similar chance of recovery by playing shorter matches and reduce the risk of a poorly contested final.

More (And New) Faces On The Glass

Shorter matches will give space and time to promoters to accommodate more matches on the glass; therefore, we will get to see more matches on SquashTV. This will give a chance to lower ranked players to have their matches aired live on TV.

Round Robin In Lower Tier Events

For players starting their career on the PSA World Tour, sometimes it is too expensive/hectic to travel all the way to another country with a chance of losing 1st match and getting nothing back in return.

With the best of 3 format, there is an idea of dividing players in the lower tier tournaments into groups where they play a round robin (i.e you get to play at least 3 matches).

This will push more players to go, as they will guarantee more match play (i.e more experience), and there’s a better chance to earn money as each match win is compensated.

This will also encourage promoters to hold more and more tournaments, as they are guaranteed to watch lots of squash.

This creates a loop of happier tournament organisers AND happier players, hence a healthier organisation overall that attracts more and more people to join the PSA World Tour.

Longevity

Some people believe that the best of 3 format will give more longevity to the squash player, as there will be less mileage in their body as the grow older.

Not necessarily true. Yes, less mileage, but much more intense matches through the years which will wear down the body just as equally.

There are really strong points for both sides. No opinion is wrong or right, but let’s hope that we don’t resist the idea of best of 3 just because, 'emotionally', we are opposing change. Just imagine we hadn’t yet changed from 9 scoring with a hand out to the 15 scoring, then from 15 to 11, then from a high tin to the low tin. We would have been way behind by now.

And rest assured, if it turns out that the PSA is to implement it, it will be only 'trials' at the beginning, and in smaller tournaments. If it proves bad, then let’s stick to the best of 5. But let’s be open to give it a fair chance of evaluation.

P.S: The best of 3 does not necessarily suit my game. If anything, I personally prefer the best of 5. However, the game is way bigger than any individual and we need to put the growth of our sport the top priority over anyone’s own benefits.