In response to Ali Farag’s well constructed comments on the Best of Three debate fellow Egyptian Tarek Momen offers his counter opinions.

From Momen

Talks about changing the format to Best of 3 have been the centre of attention the past few days with players and fans arguing for and against. Naturally I found myself caught up in the middle of all this watching in anticipation and wanting to participate in every conversation to present my views.

I’m against changing the format to Bo3 but I read Ali Farag’s article and I liked how organised it was – breaking down the issue into Pros and Cons.

So I want to provide the fans and the players with a counter argument using Ali’s format. That is to show why some of us don’t think it’s a good idea to make the change using the same list of pros and cons.

The CONS (for moving to bo3)

(As listed in Ali’s article as follows)

Less Physical

I agree with Ali when he said the game would definitely lose part of its physicality – “the endurance part”. I also agree that the pace would go up as a matter of urgency, since we would only be playing for a maximum of 3 games which makes it exciting……but do you know what could even be more exciting?? Players going all out first to 11 points just for 1 game (Like fencing they go first to 15).

I guarantee you in that scenario the pace would be even crazier and the game would definitely be exciting………But at what cost?

The true physical aspect of the game would be completely lost and the type of fitness required for the sport would be a new one (based on explosive power only).

Physicality is a huge component of our sport and we can’t sacrifice it. Let’s not forget that!

Not to mention the viewers won’t get their money’s worth which takes us to the next point.

Short Matches

I believe one of the perks of watching squash is the fact that a good match can never be too long – unlike Tennis where you can watch an absolute cracker but still get bored in the middle because it’s too long.

With squash the best of 5 format in my opinion has the right balance, when it’s short it’s not too short and when it’s long it’s never too long.

From a viewer’s perspective the duration was never the issue, the debate is all about excitement and quality.

No Chance to Recover “Mentally”

Ali had an interesting argument here about how hard it is to recover mentally if you don’t start the match fired up and in the zone. In his opinion a player who isn’t sharp enough in a short time span maybe doesn’t deserve to be the winner and it really is a valid argument and one way of looking at it.

But what about rewarding those players who can keep their heads together during that brutal 5th game until the very end. Shouldn’t that be rewarded? And isn’t that what squash is all about?

Imagine a scenario where you have a 15 minute classroom for a semester vs. a 45 minute class and you’re trying to assess the students in both classes based on their attention span. I bet you anything the 15 minute class will have most students absorbing over 90% of the material whereas the other class will offer exceptional, average, and below average students.

That’s the kind of distinction I’d like to see in squash not to mention a lot more material will be provided in the 45 minutes class (for the viewers delight).

Upsets

I actually don’t have an issue here with upsets, because they’ll happen in any format and they’re part of any sport not just squash, so I don’t really think it’s a big deal to consider.

Spectators Love 5 Games

I absolutely agree, the fans just love it when it goes to 5, no question about it and I consider this one of the main drawbacks of the potential Bo3 format.

With Bo3 the fans wouldn’t get to witness great comebacks from 2-0 down. There’s a completely different thrill and excitement for spectators when they see how players deal with physical and mental fatigue towards the end of a long match – we would be sacrificing this in a Bo3 format.

Ali had an interesting point here about players conceding games in a match, claiming it’s dull for the spectators and it might be true for some of them. However, I believe those games to the knowledgeable crowd are part of the story of the match. They’ll see it as a tactic to regroup and finish off the job……how many players have dropped games and ended up winning because of applying that strategy? I think as a viewer when I see a full match with it’s ups and downs, with all the drama of letting go then getting back at it……it’s what makes it all worth it to the viewer.

THE PROS

(As listed in Ali’s article)

More Fun to Watch

This point has been discussed already and we’ve established that the pace will go up and it’ll be exciting, but as I said if we’re only looking at that aspect then we might as well consider going a step crazier and aim for the One game 1st to 11 or maybe 7. That’ll definitely be even more exciting.

Every Game counts

I think we discussed this thoroughly in the Cons and I still believe that all games are important but if dropping a game could be a part of the winning strategy on the day then it’s definitely worth the shot.

Fresher Legs in the Latter Rounds

I agree with Ali, this is causing big problems towards the end of tournaments and a solution must be offered to make sure the semis and the finals are contested at the highest of levels.

But instead of switching to best of 3 I believe a rest day should be introduced either after the quarters or the semis or both. This way we can allow for extra time for players to recover and guarantee great quality finals.

The solution suggested here is an added cost to the promoters obviously, but I believe at this stage it has become a must for the players’ sake and the viewers.

More and new faces on the glass

I don’t believe this is a big issue since most tournaments already schedule all matches on the glass starting the first round.

It’ll be a matter of finishing a bit earlier which I’m sure will be more than welcomed by the PSA Crew with all the work they have to do all day long :D

Round Robin in Lower Tier Events

Ali discussed the possibility of having round robins in smaller events which is convenient for players who travel so far only to lose in the 1st match.

I agree the aforementioned format will allow these players to play more matches but I’m not sure if they’ll be making more money out of it. After all the prize money won’t change and it has to be distributed amongst a certain number of players, so I don’t see how playing more matches could change that unless the whole system of prize money breakdown changes.

Longevity

I agree with Ali here, longevity has nothing to do with competing in a best of 3 or a best of 5 format.

Finally, I’d like to say Squash just as any other sport needs to evolve. Change is always good to keep things exciting but I don’t see moving to Bo3 format will do the trick, and that’s just my humble opinion.

Tarek Momen