The U.S. Squash Doubles Committee and Canadian Squash Doubles Committee have voted to transition to a first-to-15 scoring system for hardball doubles squash. The change will go into effect in the fall of 2013 for the 2013-2014 season.
While the decision has already been made, the new rules will become official when they are voted in by the World Squash Federation at the Annual General Meeting in October.
The previous method of scoring required that players would go into a tie-break set in the event of a 13 or 14 point tie. At 13-all, the player who reached 13 points first would have the choice to play the game to two, three or five more points. At 14-all, the same player would decide between one or three more points.
The new scoring will eliminate the tie-breaking sets and all games will be won by the first player to reach 15 points.
The decision is influenced in part by positive feedback from the SDA Pro Tour, the men’s professional doubles tour in North America, which has been using the first to 15 scoring system for the last two years. The new scoring method is also already used in U.S. and Canadian league play.
“We believe that it makes sense to go to no tie-breakers. It is more exciting, with more simultaneous game balls,” said Tony Swift, head of the U.S. and Canadian rules committees.
“It’s also simple for beginners and new fans to understand.”
The simplified scoring system will also make movement between singles and doubles squash easier for players.
I am not a doubles player, but i would ask why do oyu find it necessary to once again muck with a system that nobody was complainging about in a need to harmonize with a profressional level format? You already did this to singles and have significantly influenced that game to its detriment.
If it’s not broken – dont fix it!
I’m not a big doubles player but I agree re: singles–PAR to 11 only really makes sense for the pros IMO, just like the lower tin (amateurs could still do PAR but to 15 like previously).
M, above, has a point. There is tactical thought that goes into the decision: Who’s about to get the return, which partner is serving, is it their first hand or second (if it’s your decision and you’re serving, it’s always your second hand), and do you feel that you have to count on a quick win or will the odds be in your favor if you draw it out? You detract from the fun and “strategery” of the game by eliminating it. And I’ve never met a new doubles player who didn’t “get it” after the second time they used it.
And as M said, too much was done with the softball singles game a few years back. I miss having two serves, which also took away some of the creativity and tactical flavor from the game, and made the service much more milktoast, contrary to what you wanted to do. Conversely, I agree with PAR scoring, though, to keep the game moving along and make each point count…except for lets…still a challenge.
I think we agree that there are clear advantages for the team who arrived at the tied score first to choose one of the options; depending on the state of the game, momentum, the relative skill levels, which server is up, which side he/she is serving from, the political affiliation of the opponents, etc., etc. Surely even a beginner can grasp the concept of a choice of 2, 3 or 5, or 1 or 3 depending. This is not rocket science, nor is it exclusive or arcane. After one game anybody with an IQ of over 25 should have understood it. And it certainly adds some piquancy and subtlety to the game.
If we want to make the acceptance of the game more universal, (I think it is happening anyway up to a point) changing this particular rule isn’t going to do it. Are we going to change the rule of choosing which side to start serving from because it is too complicated to remember, or the choice of which team member starts serving? Surely having a whacky scoring system of 15, 30 and then 40, with advantage to the winner of the last point at deuce, (which surely should be 2, shouldn’t it, not 40-40?) is just as complicated to remember for tennis players? Or maybe game should be changed to the first to 3 to make that game simpler? Tennis rules at 5 games each are much more complicated than anything in doubles squash, and then they change for the final game, (suggesting that the whole thing was a bad idea to start with, instituted simply to shorten games for TV).
My suspicion is that it is the problems of watching squash on TV with the small ball, the size and layout of the court, etc., and the relative scarcity of courts to play on, added to the expense for disadvantaged children (and adults), which are hindering wider acceptance. But look how many people come to watch the pros in the glass court on Grand Central Station. So it is changing.
Also there are national issues. Nobody in America would understand why millions watch cricket avidly on TV in the UK, India, Australia, South Africa, etc., etc. I bet squash is much more popular in Pakistan than baseball or ice hockey, partly because there are courts everywhere, often outdoors, and presumably sometimes free of charge, like city tennis courts.
It is a much bigger and more complicated issue than the method of scoring in tied games. There are many more things here to discuss and I am sure that later respondents will hit some of them! Hint: social, class, educational institutions, financial, snoberry, TV, Olympics, etc., etc.
Peter
I started playing doubles over 10 years ago and really like the current scoring system because it adds suspense and strategy to the game. Deciding how many points in overtime is strategic depending on who is serving and what hand it is. It is not difficult to learn and frankly makes for a more interesting game.
what a shame! and just to please/mimic the pro tour?
What in hell is complicated about the 13-13, and 14-14 tie-break system in place? The current scoring method offers much more tactical decision-making and suspense than a “bang, one more point and you’re dead” process. we need to stop this foolishness. i dont play singles any more but isnt it necessary to win by two points?