Thoughts on the American Squash game from an International viewpoint;

What can we do to help our sport move forward?

‘O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!’

Robert Burns, from his poem ‘To a Louse’

I am not entirely sure that I can justly claim ‘an international viewpoint.’ having spent the greater part of the past 19 years here in the US, but I do travel a fair amount and having represented the US as a national coach and team manager on four continents and having competed over the past few years in the UK, the US and Europe, I have been exposed to a number of different systems.

Let me say first and foremost that this article is intended to highlight ways in which we can further improve a national game that is already ( in my view) doing tremendously well.


Let’s look at what we have to be thankful for:

What makes United States Squash as healthy as it currently is?

Well, there’s no doubting that beyond passion, the biggest single commodity required for Squash to succeed is cash.

We need cash for facilities, to attract world-class coaching staff and to make Squash feasible as a profession, to fund our national governing body, to promote interest in the game, to make it possible for clubs to succeed as businesses and for underprivileged programs to flourish (more on the surprising importance of these later).

Without cash there is no development, no Squash careers, little enthusiasm and in short little chance of long-term survival.

American Squash, in relative terms, is cash rich.

So why is American Squash, across the board, so financially strong ( in comparison with almost every other national game)?

The reason very simply, is Inter-Collegiate Squash.

Now readers may not be aware, that the US is the only nation in the world where Varsity teams ( in the form of Inter-collegiate athletics) are an official and essential part of University life.

There is a fundamental pipeline in this country that feeds the health of our sport.

This is how it works ( starting at the end of the pipeline and working backwards to the beginning):

Financial success is a necessity in the United States. Employers need first class, well-educated employees. Entrepreneurs need first class educations. The Universities who provide first class educations need funds. Where do the funds come from?
From Alumni and Alumnae of those institutions who go on to become successful.

What constituency of students tend to be the most successful? Athletes (apart from Glee club members – and even that is a kind of sports team). Athletes tend to fill about 10 or 11% of the student bodies of most elite Universities and Colleges. That 10 or 11% will eventually provide about 33% of the development funds ( financial gift giving) of those Colleges and Universities. Of course this is an approximation, but talk to the bursars of most first class institutions and that’s what they’ll tell you.

If employers are seeking well-educated competitive employees, that know how to knuckle down under competitive pressure and learning institutions know that those individuals will be the most successful of their graduates, then it stands to reason that schools are going recruit a certain number of those individuals, make damn sure they have a good time that they will never forget, and look after them well into their dotage.

Parents, sharp cookies that they are, quickly recognize that if they want their child to have an edge in the extremely competitive world of college admission, getting their child involved in a sport where recruits are few and far between is a sensible move. Particularly if it is a lifesport that emphasizes sportsmanship ( although this can be an issue with College and Junior Squash) and is fun and healthy.

Right now there are simply not enough American girls playing Squash and just barely enough boys to fulfill the recruitment needs of US Collegiate Squash teams.

That being the case – the door is wide open to families who get themselves organized early in the game.

Hence, bring on the expert Squash coach who can teach excellent fundamentals, and produce a competitive player who will in due course become a recruitable athlete.

So we have probably the most broad and deep talent pool of Squash coaches in the world.

So families pay membership fees, hire Squash coaches, buy equipment, join US Squash, go on the road to play tournaments, and pay for intensive programs of summer tuition.

If that seems expensive – compare the possible outcome of a Squash playing alumni who has gained a first class education and experience and can compete for a six figure income only a couple of years after graduation, to that of a student of similar intelligence that didn’t have squash to gain them an edge in the admission game. Ten or twelve thousand dollars spent on Squash for an average of 5 or 6 years is a small price to pay for the advantage of the opportunity that it may bring, but it is a very valuable cash input to the national Squash program.
Hence the relative wealth of US Squash. Because the pipeline I have described does not exist anywhere else in world in anything like the splendour of the US inter-collegiate system.

So we have the cash to fund activity.

Most of our facilities are built as conduits for the pipe-line. And what beautiful facilities they are. The business of athletics is understood better in this country than anywhere else. Facilities first and foremost are clean. Clubs have program directors and professionals to promote activity. More activity leads to more revenues: people play, lose, want to get better, book lessons, buy more equipment, enter more competitions, spend more time at the facility, spend more money, encourage associates to join etcetera, etcetera.

So we have first class facilities.

In order to keep the facilities and the people active we have developed pretty good organizational skills.
The advent of the feed-in consolation is a wonderful and powerful organisational tool.
Because of it, the number of matches and the consequent additional data provided increases the competitive environment, within a specific constituency, in a manifold way.
Players therefore maximise their playing experience against players of their constituency.

So we have a lot of competitive opportunity – within each constituency.

Another consequence of the Inter-collegiate pipeline is that, when students graduate – or certainly when male students graduate, a proportion of them go on to play adult squash in the various metropolitan hotspots in the US where the game is successful. This in turn creates enough of a seedbed to attract the relatively large group of international transplants that form a good percentage of active adult squash players in this country. Some of the US college alumni play with some of the international players and so we get some exchange of playing styles in the adult Squash community. Of course a fair number of college players graduate and go into elite country clubs and downtown clubs where they play against other former college players. Some of them end up exclusively playing doubles.

So another benefit of the Inter-collegiate system is an active community of adult squash players.

A love of the game is something that can be addicting. Not just for the sake of the exercise, but for all that the game offers, individually and to the community.

College squash players that play with their team for four years are often imbued with a passion for the sport that lasts all their lives. In most this manifests itself as enthusiasm to play or even coach the game and in maintaining long-term bonds – even lifelong – with the team mates they struggled through match after
match with. This is laudable and adds to the constituency of Adult squash that I have described above.
However in one original case, a love of the game that developed in college was combined with a vision that may hold the key to the long-term health, success and survival of our sport. I am speaking of Greg Zaff, the founder of Squash Busters. The success of that program and the corresponding programs that have arisen around the country are well documented and are deserving on continual praise, observation and support. But that is not the issue that I am interested in here. I am not sure whether Greg’s original vision encapsulated the effect that I believe now to be uniquely benefitting our sport as a result of his actions, but whether or not he did, something unique is happening.
I will describe this effect later, but for now suffice to say, that without Inter-collegiate Squash there would be no underprivileged squash programs.

So we have Greg Zaff, his colleagues and the whole realm of Squash programs for ‘at risk’ or underprivileged youth.

To round off the strength of US squash I would add that in John Nimick and his Event engine organization we have the lynchpin of the professional squash tour. Until the advent of Arab and Asian interest in our sport, the US pretty much single-handedly led the world squash tour financially.
Mark Talbott was drawn up by the Inter-collegiate pipeline. Without the pipeline Hashim and Sharif Khan would never have been here, the WPSA and the countless duels between Ned Edwards, Talbott, Khan and Nimick would never have happened. We wouldn’t have had Demer Holleran, Alicia McConnell,
Latosha and Shabana Khan, Ellie Pierce, Tim Wyant, Julian Illingworth,
Gilly Lane, Michelle Quibell or Amanda Sobhy or Dylan Murray or Olivia Blatchford (serious competitors on the international scene). I sure as heck wouldn’t be here.

So we have a great deal to be grateful for and many strengths, mainly centered on the bounty of college Squash.

Where then can we go from here?

In a classic SWOT analysis one goes through Strengths and then on to Weaknesses followed by Opportunities and Threats.

However I hesitate to talk about Weaknesses. Rather I would prefer to offer my observations as to how I believe we can make our Strengths, stronger.

Strengthening our Strengths

In my analysis of the strength of US Squash I highlighted (by placing in italics)
those key areas that I believe have positioned our national game favorably.

It is clear to me from my time spent as a professional in England, Germany and Holland that in most areas I describe above, those countries lag far behind. Certainly they have no Collegiate pipeline driving the process. No resulting cash injection from parents seeking to improve their children’s career opportunities. No consequent infrastructure of multitudinous world-class coaches earning a world-class income. Few if any world-class facilities – and hardly any really clean ones – important as cleanliness is a paying member’s number one priority. No development funds and departments – although the UK has the lottery to fund its national governing body and elite programs.

And yet, the level of player produced by the UK and to a lesser degree Holland and Germany, continually and continuously outstrips the level we produce here. On the world tour England with its lack of a collegiate pipeline and the consequent low-level of funding ( except at the elite level), its generally below par facilities, lack of programming and organization, has 50 full-time players playing on the PSA tour. Egypt has around 40. Australia about the same. Canada – a country of perhaps a tenth of our population has at least 15. Mexico has 11 or 12.
The US currently has 3. On the women’s WSA tour we do have a four players playing regularly – Amanda Sobhy is doing particularly well – ranked 18 at the time of writing. However the only time our world tour players interact with the rest of our community is in National championships.
They almost never interact with our top collegiate players. Or our top adult players.

Consequently there is almost zero trickle down effect.

As I mentioned earlier in this piece, we have a tremendous Inter-collegiate program. Tremendous in numbers ( at the time of writing there are 75 men’s teams and 40 women’s team). Tremendous in terms of inter-collegiate competition ( there were 448 scheduled matches this year in the men’s division). But practically non-existent in terms of competition outside of the college ranks. Maybe twenty players play two or three times outside of college each year.

So, by and large, College players only play college players.

What’s wrong with that, you might ask. Well let’s consider. What is the focus of a college squash program? Winning. The coach’s job depends on it. The team’s funding depends on it. The college depends on it. Win. Win. Win. What’s wrong with that, you might ask.


Even an entry-level sports psychology course will tell you that sport is a process oriented pursuit, not outcome oriented. Spend all your time thinking about the result and you will make no progress in improving the process. You will be distracted, fearful, overly aggressive. The end will justify the means. Added to which you are letting the hormones of 17 to 22 year olds take charge. Not a group well-known for deep consideration before action.

I hear horrified readers indignantly declaring, ‘We have wonderful college coaches who maintain control and prevent all that.’ And I agree – to a point. We have some extraordinary human beings in our college programs. Men and Women that to do their utmost to guide and groom powerful young beings and in many cases guide their charges well into their majority. But let’s face it, one man or woman, whose job is on the line based on their win/loss rate, trying to coach, mentor and guide sometimes as many as 15 or 18 young hormone charged people, with their corresponding maturity of judgement? I have attended many inter-collegiate matches and have been a College coach myself. The coach cannot control what is going on in five different courts, when emotions run high. The concept of fair-minded, strategically thoughtful play has no chance when constantly confronted with the specter of winning/losing. Between trying to administrate, recruit, fundraise, look after the academic performance of their charges and keeping up with NCAA rules, there is almost no chance for a College squash coach to try to coach their players – in the sense of intensive coaching to improve the player. Some players will improve by osmosis – playing against the better players on the team. But the number one player on a college team will almost always reduce their rate of improvement once they go to college. How can they but do so? They spend almost every waking moment playing against players worse than them. This is a well-known fact among elite level coaches in both the Tennis and Squash world. College Tennis and Squash programs are in general the last resting place of once promising world-class talent. Even if they don’t perish there, they certainly experience greatly arrested development.

US College Squash players generally play only in their own constituency.

This is by no means a criticism of students at US colleges. US college students are at least comparable in terms of potential relative to their international counterparts, if not better.

However if forced to spend their time only playing against their own peer group, the resulting lack of experience leads to a curbing of their learning curve.
In the UK, Holland, Egypt, Malaysia and many other countries, students lack the benefit of organized athletics. However they are not limited in their competitive experience. They play open competition. They may play adult amateurs, they may play professionals, they may play up-and-coming juniors. The complexity of their competitive diet is much, much richer than their American counterpart.
It is actually unusual for them to play solely against their own constituency. Therefore they see more styles. The are encouraged to behave with more tact and respect. The need to consider how to play more than the outcome of their matches. They have to learn more ‘ways of skinning a cat’ if you will.
In addition, certainly in the UK, the foundation stone of competitive development is the club league and the club team match. In this environment even hormonal youngsters urgings are tempered by having to play against older and younger members of society. In these circumstances students are more likely to remember their bearing. And if they don’t an older more experienced member of the squash community will have a quiet word with them and nip errant behaviors in the bud.

This is the normal course of development of Squash in the UK. Mixed play during the week in club and team leagues, interspersed with tournament play ( both mixed and in constituency) at the weekend. Six or seven years of this type of experience and players develop a strong understanding of the game, a more balanced mentality and the ability to pass that wide range of experience on.

Acceptable behaviors are easily forgotten in an atmosphere of peer group confrontation. When is the last time you looked at US Squash’s Sportsmanship and Code of Conduct rules? Check ’em out and tell me if you think the way our young squash players address referees and opponents remain within the guidelines.
As a reminder I am looking for ways to strengthen, so what I am pointing out is as a precursor to the solution.
In the Strengths section earlier in this article, I mentioned several powerful constituencies in the US squash sphere. I have talked about College squash – the most important constituency insofar as the over all health of the sport is concerned. Junior Squash is the next most vibrant constituency.
Much of what I discussed in the section about College squash applies to Junior Squash.
American Junior squash players rarely play against adults or college players. They play junior after junior perpetuating more and more junior strategy, junior behavior, junior fears, junior aspirations.
What chance does a child who wears a t-shirt that states: ‘Beat Hotchkiss’ on its front, have of working on process?

Once again the question arises: Do the teacher/coaches of our scholastic system have enough time to teach/coach well enough to give our junior players the fundamental understanding of the game that is required for them to be able to improve at the rate that they are capable of? I think the answer is that, in general, those juniors who are able to access intensive personal coaching either from a vibrant local guru/pied piper or during vacation visits home, have a better chance than those that are limited to playing solely on a school team but none of them can improve at the rate of their full potential unless, in addition to intensive coaching and practice, they are playing against a full spectrum of squash playing opposition which includes adults, students and, yes, sometimes other juniors.

In the UK, historically, thirteen and fourteen year olds have entered club league competitions and then club teams as soon as they are able. The consequence is that they become steeped in the lore of the game very quickly, both in terms of understanding the game and the accepted etiquette of the game.
In the US at many Junior events, players are speaking in less than polite fashion to each other and the referees, hitting the ball to themselves in the warm up way more than twice ( I have seen juniors hitting the ball to themselves as many as twenty times before hacking the ball impolitely across to their opponent, who has been standing, unsure of what to do, for minutes at a time) and generally are unaware of acceptable modes of behavior.

As I mentioned previously, US Squash has written an excellent ( in my view) Code of Conduct and Sportsmanship that either Coaches, Parents and Juniors are failing to implement or simply are unaware of. Either way patterns of behavior are increasingly ugly and isolated in competition against Juniors only, these behaviors seem to be become ingrained.
The beauty of systems where players play across constituency boundaries is that they are exposed to a great variety of tactics, physical fitness and capacity and sportsmanship. Squash is a game of mind, body and soul – and all of these need nourishment and direction.

So the US Junior player constituency plays in their own constituency, in the main.

Every playing constituency requires motivation, a pump if you will, to drive the pipeline. The beautiful thing about US Squash is that the College game provides a terrific pump to drive the pipeline. That is, insofar as Junior Squash is concerned. When it comes to adult squash, the pipeline churns out a powerful stream of College players, who then may or may not enter the adult ranks. Motivation for some is in short supply. Having played four hard years of Squash, it is not uncommon to hear comments like, ‘ Thank God that’s over, I will never have to play again.’ Thankfully there are only a few that have that attitude and many former players are swept into the ranks of the downtown city center clubs in the larger metropolitan centers and perhaps a little more slowly into the country clubs of their childhoods. Where they play in their own constituency in the main.

A few metropolitan centers have leagues where the odd junior pops up in a team once in a blue moon. And quite a few College alums feed into inter-club play. Of course those players have learned only the etiquette of Student squash, so they are ill-equipped to conduct themselves appropriately in the Adult squash world. If they are fortunate enough to fall into a league where standards of conduct are well established then they quickly learn how to carry themselves. Philadelphia has a well established league as does Boston. I haven’t played in either of them so I can’t comment on the organization and sportsmanship maintained there. Both my wife and I played New York league and I can only say that then (back  in the mid to late nineties) it was by far the worst standard of sportsmanship and match organization of any league I have experienced in my life as a squash player. Matches weren’t refereed. Players didn’t play in order ( frequently a number 1 would play a number 3 or whoever was ready to go on court) and players rarely bothered to stay to watch their team mates or to have a social drink afterwards. It was a travesty of the game. Happily the New York squash organization – Metropolitan New York SRA is one of the finest these days – so I am sure things have changed.

If higher standards were set, the trickle down effect of sportsmanship and strategy could only help the levels of play.

There are some motivators for adult play. The few leagues around the country do encourage some participation. Excellent tournaments such as the Hyder, the Price Bullington, The Friends of Squash Grand Masters, The William H White, The Eastern States and of course the Nationals all encourage some participation. And the introduction of regional skill level events has pulled a few more players into the fold. Of course many players just play for exercise and a love of the game. But by and large, adult players only play against adult players and the participation in open tournaments seems to have decayed in many areas.

More motivators are needed.
One such that is enjoying great success in the UK is the regional masters series and the opportunity to play for one’s country. The North South East West and Midlands Masters events are all qualifying events for selection to the England team in your age group, with every age from 35+ to 70+ for men and 35+ to 55+ for women offering the opportunity of an international cap. Few things pull harder at the heart-strings than the opportunity to play for your national flag. For sometime I have been trying to push for such an opportunity for American masters squash. Who among our wonderful group of masters players wouldn’t kill for the opportunity to wear the Stars and Stripes against the Maple Leaf of Canada or the Mexican Eagle?
I have tried to promote this idea with US Squash but as yet it hasn’t been met with much enthusiasm or support. (STOP PRESS: US SQUASH HAS JUST APPOINTED ME TO CHAIR THE US MASTERS COMMITTEE -SO HERE WE GO- 10/12/12) The English masters team offered to travel to the US to play against a US team, another chance to fight the revolutionary war on the Squash court! Unfortunately again this proposal didn’t result in an enthusiastic active response. Last year the World masters was held in Germany and all the great playing nations of the world sent their best players to compete for world honors. Except the USA. Eight American residents attended – several of whom were internationals now resident in the US. I asked US Squash to publicise this event at last year’s nationals in Rhode Island and my request unfortunately was not deemed to be of sufficient importance to warrant the official backing that I had hoped for.
( NB – For those readers that are interested in American representation on the world scene: The British Open Masters should be taking place in Nottingham, England in June of this year and The World Masters will be taking place in Birmingham England in July of next year. To monitor British, European and World Masters events, regularly visit http://www.englandsquashmasters.com

UPDATE 10/12/12

Several US players did attend the World Masters in Birmingham in England in July and met with considerable success. In particular Sue Lawrence won the women’s 50+ and Dominic Hughes had an incredible run to reach the final of the Men’s 50+ after beating the number one seed.

The World Masters Games to be held in Turin, Italy in August of 2013 has just announced that, after initially not including Squash, it will in fact be included – so get ready!
Additionally if you wish to play in a high level Masters tournament and like to travel – the English Regional masters events are all open events and you are welcome and encouraged to play in them. You will find their details on the website mentioned above also.)

I am personally disappointed with the lack of drive behind Masters representative Squash. It seems to me that Masters players are often the people whose check books open to support the US Squash association and that, such financial support could only be increase were there an official organization of national Master’s team qualification events and international test matches against Canada, Mexico, The Caribbean and even European, Antipodean, Asian and African teams.
Enthusiasm drives participation and participation increases support – for the game as a whole.
If we are to see US squash thrive in the way that I believe it to be capable of – the Masters constituency must be driven to interact with both the Junior and College constituency and one sure way to do that is to increase numbers, teams and cross-constituency competition.
The US under 19 team should be playing annually against the US over 40 team, the U16 against the 45+ team., Colleges should have a US College team playing against the US 35+ team or the National team and so on and so forth. This is the way to increase interest and support – by interaction.

We are after all playing the same sport and we should all be a part of the same team. Go US Squash!

The adult Squash players and particularly the masters constituency of US Squash are a powerful constituency. They have the capacity to seriously support US Squash and its programs. However they need powerful reasons to stay involved. Otherwise, with aches and pains and injuries, the draw of the golf course and general apathy due to a lack of interesting and new goals, they will drift away and be lost to the game.
Adult squash players need motivation. National team representation would be a powerful motivator.

US Adult squash players tend to play in small circles within their own constituency.


So enough of the doom and gloom. Remember we do have some of the best raw materials of any nation in world squash today.
Our issue is that in large part* ( see bottom of page) our individual constituencies of players don’t mix.
We need to get all of our players playing with and against each other.
We need to be a team.
We need a catalyst.
And – while it isn’t yet affecting everyone – we’ve got one.

Greg Zaff gave it to us.

Squash Busters, Street Squash, CitySquash, Squash Smarts, Squash Haven, Metro Squash, Chucktown Squash to name but a few.
These are the bright lights of the future of US squash. Veritable beacons!

Why? Because like no other program, these programs bring us together.

Where else can you find, Juniors, College Students, recent Alums, Parents, powerful business people and old farts like me, all working together in Squash?
Only at these programs.

Perhaps Greg Zaff saw all this when he had his light bulb moment and conceived the idea for Squash Busters. I don’t know. I am sure that everyone involved is primarily there for the benefit of the ‘at-risk’ children that they are helping. But the benefit to US squash in breaking down the barriers between the isolated constituencies that have hitherto had practically nothing to do with each other, is immense.

Every one of these programs ought to be holding an annual fundraising tournament and every Junior player, College player, Downtown and Country club player, adult and masters level player should be playing in it – against each other.
We should have team leagues that follow that example and the schools and colleges need to come out of their ivory towers and play against everyone in the melting pot.
Where possible players should play in their skill level against opposition of all ages and genders. Learn from people of worldly experience, be delighted by the willingness of youth, be amazed by the development of new skills, surprised by the wiliness of age.
Of course periodically each constituency should play and be tested within their own group. But not all the time!

Let US Squash use the example of Squash Busters and its peer programs. Mix up the melting pot! Motivate all players to play!

We have a wonderful Pluribus.
Now we need to move toward becoming a wonderful Unum.

Richard Millman 3/5/11

* Programs on the West Coast and some other small playing populations do integrate more than the norm for mainstream ( and particularly East Coast) programs. Although originally this may have been due to lack of numbers, it has resulted in some first class play and players. I dearly hope that as playing numbers increase, these West Coast programs and others don’t lose their fully integrated playing programs and end up as segregated as their East Coast counterparts. Owing to geography Canada has positively influenced these programs. Additionally international coaches have found it easier to grow playing systems that they grew up with in their home countries in these locations, than perhaps they would have, had they had settled on the East Coast.


Note: I originally wrote this piece in 2011. I have added a couple of comments today and I am generally optimistic about Masters Squash if we can overcome the apathy that daily life sometimes imparts.

I  have just returned from the US Open where I saw two particularly relevant events that relate to this blog.

1. The brilliant college player Todd Harrity played the Scottish journeyman squash player Alan Clyne. As I expected Harrity exploded into the first game at a pace that no human being could maintain – as is the wont of college squash players. After the initial shock Clyne settled down to absorb Harrity’s attacks. Harrity won the first – demonstrating the talent and ability of America’s best and then having over-committed, faded as I expected him to – hardly able to keep the ball in play over the last game and a half.

2. I watched the America’s journeyman Squash player Chris Gordon – who has spent 6 or 7 years on the PSA tour learning his trade, play in the main draw against the brilliant Egyptian Hisham Ashour. Far from exploding into the first game, Gordon focused on patient, extremely tight, absorbing limiting play while countering Ashour’s  mercurial brilliance. The result was that Ashour was frustrated and Gordon combined both the street knowledge and the deep mental and physical stamina that he has learned during his time studying at the University of Squash – the PSA. Gordon won – his greatest ever victory in Squash.

I remember Chris when he was 12 years old. A decent junior, but no genius. No-one would have accused him of being brilliant. But from that less than stellar junior beginning he has achieved results that few Americans in history have achieved.

Now not all American squash players want to be world class Squash players. But if a few of the brilliant players such as Harrity put in some steady work for four or five years on the PSA – while studying at the same time – as so many of the other PSA youngsters do, maybe our players might learn to play mature squash –  in stead of the whack and back, over testosteronosed  version that so often is the result of Inter-collegiate play.

Which will be the first college team to have the vision to encourage its players to play at least 8 professional events per season? Whoever they are – they will do more to advance American squash collectively, than anyone has ever done before.

This is, in my opinion, potentially the finest nation for the development of  Squash. But without stars to reach for, will we strive for averageness or try to persuade ourselves that our top players are better than they actually are?


Published by millmansquash

Richard Millman, a world renowned Squash Professional, has trained children, high school students, and adults to achieve all levels of proficiency and realize the enjoyment they derive from squash. A multiple time National Coach for the United States, Richard has steered many teams to championships and successes! His students include British Junior Open Champion, Michelle Quibell, as well as multiple National junior and adult champions. With his wife Pat, England’s 2010 Captain of the Ladies over 55+ team, and 2010 US National Champion over 55, Richard brought his vision and enthusiasm for this sport to the United States. A regular contributor to Squash Magazine, Richard is also the co-author of "Raising Big Smiling Squash Kids," with Georgetta Morque, and "Angles, A Squash Anthology." Richard's 30 year love for Squash is infectious. His love for kids is infectious. Put these two loves together, and you can't help but want to get involved as well.

11 thoughts on “Evolution?

  1. I’m afraid I find most of this analysis a bit silly and what is true doesn’t illuminate much. It relies on the assumption that cash and coaching are the keys to producing successful players. It offers statements that are patently untrue as evidence for a highly questionable thesis. Hashim Khan came to the U.S. drawn by the “pipeline?” There was no pipeline in those days and Hashim coached at a Men’s club with few or no juniors.
    What produces top players is quite simple. Large numbers of quality athletes playing a sport against each other with passion. In the U.S. there are a few large groups of juniors playing in pockets, but only a small number of them would be good enough athletes to make a good high-school team in a more popular American sport like basketball. You’ll notice that a number of the more successful U.S. players have done fairly well in other sports, but they are the exception, and they are practicing, in squash, largely against inferior athletes.
    The passion- the pleasure in the game that keeps 10 year old Canadian hockey players out on the pond in the moonlight, 8 year old Ghanaians kicking balls made of rags for 6 hours without lunch, tiny Chinese playing table tennis on broken concrete tables (top class facilities?) is largely absent from the American junior squash scene. Why? Among other things too damn much coaching and too much parental interest in the “pipeline.” The kids are invariably doing tons of drills with a few supervised games. The coaches, to improve their market, are mostly (not always) teaching a very conservative and rather dull game intended to improve their immediate prospects by producing tournament victories for their charges. The kids are actively discouraged from playing what Hashim calls the “joy game.” When do you see two friends out there alone, battling for a couple of hours in a first-to-7-games-no-let’s-make-it-9 kind of competition?
    You may look at that paragraph and say,”Canadian junior hockey is massively organized.” The fact is, though, that the passion of the junior hockey players is such that it survives the system- it’s not the system that inspires it.
    Millman rightly condemns the sportsmanship displayed in much junior squash. Far from needing more reffing or play with adults, though, they need more time just PLAYING with each other, instead of treating every foray onto the court as part of a long term business plan to make the “pipeline.” Let them learn to sort their own problems out. When I do stand behind the glass and watch two U.S. juniors play a (theoretical) friendly, I see them constantly turning their heads after every interference looking for an imaginary ref to help with the most obvious calls, as if they assume their opponent is incapable of playing fairly. In all sports constant adult supervision has this effect. The other day, though, I watched 8 or 9 boys at a high-school practicing parcour together. The support and coaching they gave each other was magnificent- the competitiveness was entirely friendly, and the spotting they gave during dangerous moves was enthusiastic and sincere. Take a look at the level of energy you see demonstrated by the kid designated to feed in a drill at a junior squash clinic and you’ll not be impressed. (Don’t worry, in a few years parcour will be another organized sport.)
    Coaching has to be a support platform for people with inner motivation to excell. A kid who’s playing 10 hours a week can benefit from some lessons. Sure, a coach can feed that motivation a bit. But unless large numbers of kids catch the fire of squash you won’t see quality players emerge. Squash is quite simple sport which is not hard to coach. There are certainly different levels of caoching ability, but the disparities are exaggerated by the tendency of quality players to congregate around better known coaches. When the best kids are always playing with each other they pull farther away from the pack. Does anyone imagine that if twenty of the best 12 year old basketball players in NYC suddenly took it into their heads that they wanted to play squash against one another 2 hours a day and 6 on weekends that they would need much more than rudimentary coaching in the strokes to surpass the current U.S. juniors?
    Sports are cultural phenomena. The kids you see on skateboards practicing tricks are there only because they love it. A few of them love it so much they stick at it long after the others have moved into other pursuits. Some actually become pros. So far, U.S. culture has not produced as many passionate squash players as skateboarders. Is this a result of coaching and facilities and competition against adults? Christopher Gordon obviously loved squash enough to stick at it and achieve the fine result Richard notes above. Congratulations are certainly in order. But what lesson can be drawn from it aside from the obvious one that if you stay at something and work hard for a long time you may have some success?
    Richard has a clear commitment to improving the game in the U.S. More power to him. He seems to believe, though, that it is the institutions of British squash that are responsible for the players’ success. The institutions are built on a substructure of passion for the game- of large numbers of people playing with or without support. Attempts to drive U.S. squash from the top down are doomed to disappoint. I still recall the U.S. soccer coach sometime in the 90’s remarking,”We’re never going to win big with a bunch of over-coached middle class kids using set plays.” In squash too we need to get back to the “joy game.”

    1. Hi Sacha,

      I agree with much of what you say, although I am not sure what you mean about ‘much of this analysis being silly’ since you go on to agree with some of it and to use it as a platform for further commentary.

      I have to say that the reason Hashim ended up here in the US was because of the collegiate/scholastic pipeline that created a market that was financially viable for him and his children here.

      Of course the better the athlete the better the chance that the sportsman is going to be first class – provided they have the passion.

      My own view is that US kids don’t do enough solo – Squash after all being a pursuit wherein the participants are using survival skills no different to animals in the wild and therefore needing to develop their capacity to improve their own positions more even than their capacity to attack their opponent.

      With regard to rudimentary coaching of top athletes being enough – I take issue with that since technical skills are a key requirement. An extraordinary individual perhaps can be self taught – but that is rare.

      Thanks for taking the time to reply and I hope that we will both continue our efforts to evolve the sport – even if with slightly different viewpoints,



  2. Great article Richard.I have read your articles in the US squash magazine and they are very good.The problem with most coaches today is they do not coach,they just manage and set programmes,the art is missing but people like you and I are perceived as old fashioned,remember Tony Hands if you had not helped him and given him a great base and then passed him on he might have struggled.You are a coach and sometimes people do not understand the fine art of the game.You should be very proud of what you have achieved in the sport of squash and the most important thing is you have a passion and a love for the game.which you carry with you every day of your life,you should be very proud of yourself.It was good to see you at the US Open and you looked the best I have seen you in years.Keep up the good work.

    Best Wishes

    David Pearson.

    1. Hi David,

      Thanks so much for your kind words. I take your comments very much to heart and I certainly hope that your legacy of developing players from beginning to end is inherited by future coaches – rather than the worrying trend of financially motivated coaches to attempt to kidnap existing players.

      I often remember and relate to my students and peers my memories of coming into Chapel Allerton and seeing you training an 11 year old boy and being amazed at how he had developed both his primary focus and his peripheral awareness. The pressure drill you did with him had you feeding the ball anywhere and him having to retrieve with a straight drop. As the practice ensued I was amazed that there was almost nothing that he couldn’t get – despite deception and pressure from yourself. His name was Simon Parke and as he climbed to the top of the PSA, I never forgot that little boy and his coach – working hour by hour together to achieve excellence. That is true mentorship – and it is rare.

      Please continue your legacy – it has changed the face of Squash.



  3. Hashim moved to Detroit, to a club without a junior program around 1960 when there was no college recruiting. I understood you to mean by the “pipeline” the effort of parents and junior squash players to use squash to improve their chances of admission to elite colleges. That simply didn’t exist in 1960.

    I guess what I reacted to in writing “silly” was largely the impression I got that you think intercollegiate squash should be at the service of the sport of squash, rather than at the service of college students. I believe that recruiting is way out of control and silly anyway- who really cares if a college has a great team as long as the kids are working hard and learning? Even in football and basketball the myth that winning teams improve alumni giving has been exploded. I believe recruiting has had a serious negative effect on sportsmanship- both in the juniors, where the kids are playing for the wrong reasons, and in college, where coaches became reluctant to discipline the recruits they had begged admissions to accept. I played around 100 matches in college without refs and remember (vividly) only two where I felt my opponent chated me. By the ’90s cheating was everywhere and we instituted reffing. I saw plenty of instances of cynical reffing anyway. You may recall the meeting where you argued that it would be “educational” for the kids to learn to ref. I asked if that skill was really as valuable as learning to play fairly, but of course at that point cheating was so bad we knew something had to be done. In addition the professionalized juniors (professionalized in the sense that they are playing for extrinsic purposes, not for love of the game) are, as you say fed up after college and quit. Can this really be good for the game? I believe the pipeline is responsible for most of the ills in U.S. squash, and is not likely to provide solutions.

    I don’t really think no coaching is needed- I was a coach for years. I do believe, though, that the sport is way over-coached in the U.S. Kids take too many lessons and don’t have enough fun. They don’t experiment, because they’re always under the eye of a coach. Experimentation improves skills, gives deeper understanding of technique, and is just plain fun. Coaches, though, are milking the current perception that endless lessons are needed, and making a pretty easy dollar at it. I did it for years myself.

    Cheers, Sasha

    1. Hi Sasha,

      I am sorry if you misunderstood my point about inter-collegiate Squash. Far from thinking that inter-collegiate athletics should be at the service of Squash, my point was that Squash is a tremendous beneficiary of inter-collegiate athletics. I celebrate that fact but would like to use that springboard to help US Squash move even further.

      Of course for the vast majority of players, college squash is simply a moment on the journey as they move forward into a productive career in some other field and I for one am grateful for the privilege of the time that those many extraordinary individuals spend in our Sport. However all collegiate players would benefit if the system pursued excellence at the highest level – my point about the PSA and WSA being the ‘University’ of Squash. The consequent evolution of understanding that would result would change the game in the USA.

      And if a few individuals decided that they wanted to pursue Squash to the max – then that is their decision – and would benefit the sport in this country and the entire world.

      Forgive me for having some regard for the development of the sport. It is the pursuit of my life and I continue to try to help move it forward. It doesn’t distract me from my complete understanding that people come first – before the sport.

      I do indeed remember the Inter-collegiate coaches meeting at which I propounded the concept of International refereeing. You may or may not recall that just as we were on the cusp of instigating the International refereeing system ( that had been working very well throughout the rest of the Squash playing world for many years without bias) that certain coaches scotched the proposal at the last moment because they could not believe that players would be able to referee without bias. As a result, the ridiculous system ( in my opinion) of having one member of each team officiate each game with equal power together was instituted. There then followed the most disastrous debacle whereby players abused the system with the most shocking bias while little or nothing was done to prevent it.

      Such a shame that win loss records were more important than the proper nurturing of fair minded people.

      It seems to me that evolving the game and more importantly the people within it is truly the altruistic mission of those of us that have chosen to try and spend our lives in Squash helping people using the sport as a vehicle.

      Finally – to make ultra clear the pipeline concept: The game of Squash in the United States as a whole owes its financial well-being in the main to scholastic and collegiate Squash. Hashim would never have found a living here if it were not for the many players that were funneled through the scholastic pipeline to the collegiate pipeline, allowing them to rise in society from those hallowed institutions and become financially capable of paying the membership dues that paid Hashim and his son’s salaries and developed the sponsorship that paid for prize money. That is the American advantage – and it is unique in world squash. I celebrate it and seek to build on it.


  4. Hi Richard,
    Why do you want people to “use squash as a vehicle” rather than playing the game for sport? I understand Greg’s Squashbuster concept- the idea is to combine some proficiency in squash with some academic ability to give kids who might not otherwise be considered by fancy prep schools or colleges a better shot. Is this idea, though, really a generally applicable approach to increasing participation in a game? You’ve even agreed that it produces people fed up with squash by the time they graduate.
    You seem to be arguing that in the 1950s people were getting into “hallowed institutions” on the basis of their participation in scholastic squash. You seem to think that without squash, then, these folk would not have become financially capable of joining private clubs. I don’t think this is remotely true. In those days if you attended the kind of prep school that included squash in its extracurriculars you were virtually assured entry into a “name” University with or without a sport. The pipeline then was one of class background. Certainly very few people brought up outside that clubby WASPy background played squash, but it was not the squash, with perhaps a few very rare exceptions, that gave people entry.

    The interesting social phenomenon is this. During the 60s and 70s elite colleges began cutting back a bit on their legacy admissions and making a greater effort to attract kids from outside the prep school scene. At the same time these colleges were beginning to recruit more agressively outside what were once the “major” U.S. sports. You know the next bit as well as I do. Squash turned into a miniature program of affimative action for the country club types whose children once gained entry by virtue of their family connections.
    I’m afraid I can’t join you in “celebrating” this. The old system was profoundly immoral in that it gave the imprimatur of an elite university to people who hadn’t earned it with their academic efforts. The new system is perhaps not as overtly exclusionary, but to give admissions preference to a kid who grew up at a country club, with every academic opportunity, because he plays a sport most of the country has never heard of can hardly be called fair.
    It was certainly clever of Greg Zaff to look for a way to turn this system to the advantage of people otherwise outside it, and that, at least, I can celebrate.
    An interesting parallel can be drawn to aptitude tests, which were adopted by some universities, in part, because it was believed that Jews, who were entering elite universities in greater numbers, achieved results by hard work (how unfair!) rather than by “natural ability”. The theory was that aptitude tests (eventually the SATs) would measure natural ability and lazy WASPs would keep their places at their grandfather’s schools. The Kaplan schools arose in response to the SATs. They were inexpensive and gave kids from various schools a chance to excel. That might be celebrated.

    I’ve known kids who were told by universities things like, “We’d love to take you for your squash, but we’ve turned down the valedictorian at your school three straight years, and you’re not even in the top 25% of your class. It would be too embarrassing for us to take you, unless you transfer to another school where they know the score.” No, I can’t celebrate that.

    Squash is a great game for fun and exercise. I live now in a country with no squash and I miss it. Selling squash as a route to college or wealth, though, does not benefit the sport, it diminishes it.
    You’re a good guy, a fine player, and a coach who has more than done his part in increasing participation in a great sport. I can’t join you, though, in celebrating the “pipeline.”

    Cheers, Sasha

    1. Sacha,

      I want to ‘use squash as a vehicle’ because I particularly like helping people. My use of the sport to do that doesn’t in any way prevent people from simply enjoying it. Far from it. I think you will find that the many hundreds of people that I have taught over the past 35 years enjoy both the sport and their lives and have found that a wonderful vehicle toward that enjoyment has been what they have learned with me.



  5. Hi Richard,
    I too am from the UK and have lived in the USA for just 3 years now.
    I have to say that I agree more with Sasha in the area that he is commenting on.
    The way I see it, if by the assertion ‘cash rich’, you mean that squash is an expensive sport (and your pipeline seams to lead that way), then the effect on the population of squash players is to restrict it to those that can afford it. Anything that restricts the pool of players is not good for the sport.
    So looking at the private/country club approach to squash, this leads to expensive facilities.
    Comparing that to the UK, such places do exist in the UK, but they also have ‘community centers’, which are subsidised by a local council and make all sports (not just squash) available to everybody (no membership required) at a more affordable cost.
    A sport being more accessible, means a greater population size, which means you can build the pyramid higher.
    And on the subject of the behaviour of players – this has nothing to do with the game of squash. It is much more to do with the culture of the population involved in the game.
    I learned at the age of 8, that if I was more interested in something (like the subject in an english comprehension test, which I normally did average on), then I would do much better at it.
    So I say play for the fun of it – and out of that larger population of players you will get your stars.
    I do agree with you about the lack of mixing of all the various player groups. Even in the adult leagues here (the USA), its all restricted to players of a certain level only allowed to play others of a similar level. When I played for teams in the UK and we were going to play a match in which we knew we were going to get slaughtered, we still looked forward to the evening – a chance to play a better player, see how you would do and have a drink together after…

    1. Hi John,

      I don’t mean that Squash is an expensive sport. By ‘cash rich’ I mean that we in the US are fortunate that there is a continuous flow of money into the sport which enables a flourishing game at many levels. I would personally like to see much more middle income involvement in the sport which I think could be achieved by getting participants that historically have played little league baseball and travel soccer involved. It will need a concerted effort by all involved in the development of the sport including Governing bodies, club owners and coaches. A little sacrifice/investment by all would result in a much broader base of participation and support in the long term. The danger of only harvesting the low hanging fruit is that little development of future ‘fruit’ is happening and if we keep going back to the same supply we are in danger of it drying up – apart from the fact that it would – as you say – restrict it to the population that can afford it.
      I think there is potential for a great opportunity, but it needs to be developed.


  6. I completely agree with you about the development and involvment from more areas. That’s why I’m starting to look into building a new squash centre – a large one, aimed to accommodate larger groups of juniors. I would really appreciate your input on such a project – if you could email me directly ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: