Proposal for Change of the Doubles Squash Rule

Proposal for Change of the Doubles Squash Rule
2007-12-25
_________________

Revision History:
2007-12-18: First version.
2007-12-25: Extended the analysis section considerably.
_________________

This page describes the various alternatives to the present Doubles Squash Rules that have been brought forward.
_________________

Present Rule

5. Squash change player at 11
The squash will be played as a singles in two parts up to 21 as normal with the additional
rules below: -
a) The player with the highest World (singles) Ranking in the pair will play as the No1 player
against the other pairs No1 up to 11 points first then the No2 players take over to finish the
set etc. If any of the pairs play out of the ranking order, the offending pair will automatically
lose the squash to zero and the opponents will register a win with the full allocation of point's.
b) If one of the pairs, does not have a World (singles) Ranking then that player will have to
play No 2 at the squash. The ranked player will play No 1 in the pair.
c) In the case when both players in the pair do not have a World (singles) Ranking, then the
pair will decide themselves who plays first, but this order counts for the whole tournament.
d) In Mixed Doubles, the women play each other first and then men take over to finish the set.
_________________

Alternatives for Change (Can be used straightforwardly as a basis for voting):

On the scoring:
A1) "Keep as is." (i.e. one set to 21 - with a switch at 11)
A2) "Two Sets to 11"

On the player order:
B1) "Keep as is." (i.e. highest world ranking plays first.)
B2) "Let Each Pair Choose" - for each match
B3) "Let Each Pair Choose" - for the whole tournament

On the player order in mixed doubles:
C1) "Keep as is." (i.e. Ladies first)
C2) "Men first"
C3) "As in doubles"

Recommended by Rules Officer:
A1 + B2 + C1

Reason: Let's keep it simple! For a more detailed analysis see below.

_________________

Clarification of the alternatives (exact wordings):

1) A1+B1+C1 = "Keep as is"

As in the present rule above but with modifications of the wording in order to e.g. clearly separate the areas where the three choices defined above are to be made:

Squash: Switch Players at 11
a) Scoring:
The squash is played as one singles set in two parts up to 21. In the first part player A1 (from team A) faces player B1 (from team B). When 11 is reached the players are switched so that A2 faces B2 in the second part of the set. The scoring is kept at the switch so that A2 takes over A1's score while B2 takes over B1's score.
b) Player Order:
b.1) Within each pair the player with the highest world (singles) ranking plays first while the one with the lowest ranking plays last.
b.2) If one of the players in a pair does not have a world (singles) ranking then that player plays last while the ranked player plays first.
b.3) In the case when both players in a pair do not have a ranking, then the pair will decide themselves who plays first and this order then counts for the whole tournament.
b.4) If any of the pairs play out of the ranking order, the offending pair will automatically lose the squash to zero and the opponents will register a 21-0 victory.
b.5) In mixed doubles, the women play each other first while the men play last.

2) A2: "Two Sets to 11"

As in (1) above but with (a) replaced by the following:

a) Scoring:
The squash is played as two separate sets to 11. (A margin of 2 points required for victory as usual.) In the first set player A1 (from team A) faces player B1 (from team B). In the second set player A2 faces B2.

3) B2: "Let Each Pair Choose" - for each match

As in (1) above but with (b) replaced by the following:

4) B3: "Let Each Pair Choose" - for the whole tournament

As in (1) above but with (b) replaced by the following:

b) Player Order:
b.1) Each pair chooses themselves which player plays first. The pair that does not serve first has the advantage to be able to wait with their choice until they have heard their opponents' choice. If the match is part of a tournament the order shall, for each pair, remain the same for the rest of the tournament. If this rule is violated the offending pair will automatically lose the squash to zero and the opponents will register a 21-0 victory.
b.2) In mixed doubles, the women play each other first while the men play last.

5) C1, C2, C3: Mixed Doubles

These are the three Mixed Doubles alternatives (the third "as in doubles" alternative should only be applicable when the world ranking is not used.)

C1: In mixed doubles, the women play each other first while the men play last.
C2: In mixed doubles, the men play each other first while the women play last.
C3: In mixed doubles, the player order is decided in exactly the same way as in men's or ladies' doubles. This means that each of the women might face men in each of the two parts of the squash.

6) Recommended by Rules Officer

b.2) In mixed doubles, the women play each other first while the men play last.

_________________

Analysis

1) Why A1? (As present: One set to 21; switch players at 11.)

1.1) Against our Statutes.
With two sets to 11 in squash and one set to 21 in all the rest of the sports it would not be Racketlon as we define it in our statutes. Our definition of Racketlon clearly requires "equally formatted sets in each sport". According to paragraph 1.3;
_______

1.3 The following three principles need to be fulfilled in order for a game to qualify for the term racketlon:
• The game must include the following four sports: table tennis, badminton , squash and tennis
• The game must be built on the concept of a racketlon match involving the same two individuals (pairs in doubles) playing each other in all four sports - with equally formatted sets in each sport.
• Each rally must count, which means running score. The player (pair) who wins most rallies shall be the winner of the racketlon match.

This Definition shall not be changed except at a General
Meeting and by a proposal carried by a majority of four-fifths of the
votes cast..
_______

1.2) Simplicity!
1.2.1) The Maths (Players/Media/Audience)
The mathematics of Racketlon is complicated enough as it is! All Racketletes (perhaps especially the unexperienced ones that we are trying to attract to the sport) know that the adding up of the three previous sets to decide the overall score before tennis and the following calculations of how many points are needed for the Gummiarm are difficult enough to sometimes cause mistakes and confusion. With four sets to sum up instead of three before tennis (out of which two, confusingly, are to 11 instead of 21) the complexity would increase significantly.

1.2.2) Consistency with Singles
The consistency between doubles and singles results that we have today would be lost. Meaning simplicity lost and a bit of confusion added.

1.2.3) Consistency with the other sets
In addition to the fact that the inconistency between sets would be against our statutes (see above) one could also ask how the records would look in the eyes of the audience and media? Consider the result from the recent World Championship final:
Krenn/Dickert - Vesely/Kudicke +11
(tt:21-9 ba:10-21 sq:15-21 te:21-5)

With two sets to 11 it would look something like:
Krenn/Dickert - Vesely/Kudicke +11
(tt:21-9 ba:10-21 sq:11-8, 2-11 te:21-5)

Or perhaps:
Krenn/Dickert - Vesely/Kudicke +11
(tt:21-9 ba:10-21 sq:13-19 te:21-5)

Arguably not that pretty... Simplicity is king!

1.2.4) Measurability.
Arguably one of the major strengths of Racketlon is that one's performance gets so clearly measurable - as in "I got 3 last year against Kärkkäinen in table tennis. Since then I have trained a lot so this time I got 10!" It's very easy to talk about since it is such a simple measure. Some of this simplicity and therefore the measurability would be lost with two sets to 11.

1.3) Charm!
The single set split in two parts has its charm. In line with the idea of doubles it arguably forces the two players of the team to work more closely together than if there had been two separate sets simply since they play within the same set - the first player striving hard to give his partner a good start, which might in fact have a real impact (both psychological and in terms of the stamina needed to finish off the game) on the last player's performance(!)

It could also be argued that the lack of symmetry adds charm in its own right.

1.4) Fairness?
The main (and only?) argument behind the "two sets to 11" idea is that since it is symmetric it is also the most "fair" solution. But how good an argument is that really? Does "fairness" really follow from symmetry? And how symmetric are the other three sports? A really good badminton player can dominate the game in badminton (try playing with Peter Gade!) - and the same is certainly true in tennis (try playing with Roger Federer!) Table tennis might be more symmetric given the fact that the players take turn in hitting the ball but here too a poor player can get away with playing it safe leaving all spectacular shots to his partner.

I would argue that the other three sports are far from symmetric and that the best players in each of the pairs (and the difference in strength between them) will probably have more impact on the final result than the poorest players. And, on average, this is exactly what happens in squash too when the two best players play last. So, given that the two best players actually get to play last, it can be argued that the "one set to 21" arrangement is more in line with the "doubles symmetry" of the other three sports than "two sets to 11" would be.

1.5) Conclusion
Let's avoid two sets to 11! It just makes the result records and score keeping more complicated without leading to any real gain apart from boring symmetry. The mathematics of Racketlon is complicated enough! And it would remove the charm of partners working closely together - in doubles spirit - within the same set.

Besides, it would be against our statutes!

2) Why B2? (Let Each Pair Choose - for each match)

2.1) Simplicity!
From the perspective of simplicity the B2 rule is:
2.1.1) simpler in writing (no need to regulate what happens if one or both of the players do not have a world ranking; no need to regulate what happens in case of a violation of the rule)

2.1.2) consistent with the rule for the other three sports (The serving side decides who, within the pair, starts to serve; the receiving side then decides who, within the pair, starts to receive. The receiving pair has the advantage to be able to wait with their choice until they know the serving pair's choice.)

2.1.3) and simpler to enforce (no need to worry about keeping track of which order each pair has chosen; no need to worry about punishing offenders; and no need to worry about what world ranking each of the players have!)

2.2) Independence of context.
An, arguably very important, aspect is the fact that the B2 rule works the same irrespective of context! It does not matter (a) whether the match is played within a tournament (as is the case for B3, which stipulates that a pair has to maintain the same order throughout the tournament) or (b) whether the match is played before or after one of the players took part in his first world ranking event (as is the case for B1, where the world ranking is used to order the players).

It does not feel right that aspects like these two - that are normally, in other sport, irrelevant! - should have great power to influence the outcome of a match in the way they do at present! In the extreme it can mean the difference between 11-21 and 21-11, as seen from the example below. That's an overall difference of 20 points!

Example:
let x and y indicate the ability of the players so that (for pair A) player Ax is better than player Ay - and (for pair B) Bx is better than By.
Ax is an exceptionally good player while Ay is an exceptionally poor player.
The ability of Bx and By are both average.
a) Ax plays last:
Ay vs By: 0-11, Ax vs Bx: 21-0 => Overall score: 21-11
b) Ay plays last:
Ax vs By: 11-0, Ay vs Bx: 0-21 => Overall score: 11-21

2.3) Best players decide. No anti-climax.
Most people would agree that it is desirable to let the two best players have the biggest impact on the outcome of the squash rather than the two poorest players or some other combination. Not only is this in line with the symmetry of the other three sports (as discussed above), it is also to be generally expected (on average at least) that a fight between the two best players (say Eliasson against Kärkkäinen) will have the highest entertainment value of the various possible combinations. And it should be fairly clear that it is better to let the most entertaining fight decide the squash rather than an "anti-climax".

And this is what B2 most often achieves. If the pairs get to choose they will most often let the best player play last, simply since that is the position that generally has the biggest impact on the result. A really good squash player can e.g. turn a 0-11 score into a victory 21-11. Provided that he plays last. If he played first he might achieve 11-0, which would not necessarily lead to a squash victory.

B3 (requiring the players' choice to stay the same throughout the tournament) also achieves best players last. And it should actually be a bit better at it than B2 since, in an individual match, there are some cases when a pair could gain advantage by letting the best player play first rather than last. If the choice was made for the whole tournament chances would increase that a pair would choose to put the best player last (unless, of course, they base their choice on considerations for one single particular individual match - e.g. the final - disregarding all the other matches that they might see as easy victories).

2.4) Tactical Element.
2.4.1) Best player first.
It can be argued that the option to surprise by putting the best player first adds an interesting tactical element that is in line with the spirit of doubles. As seen from the example below "best player first" can, in the extreme, be a big advantage turning a defeat 0-21 into 11-21 (i.e. an over-all difference of as much as 11 points) in the case when both players in pair A are much better than their respective counterparts in pair B. In this case pair B's only chance to get points will be to throw in their best player against the worst of pair A. It will then be enough if Bx is, at all, better than Ay for pair B to reach 11 points.

Example:
The players rank as follows:
Ax
Bx
Ay
By
...and the difference between them is in all cases extremely big.
a) Best players last:
Ay vs By: 11-0, Ax vs Bx: 10-0 => Overall score: 21-0
b1) Pair B (having the advantage to choose last) chooses to put their best player first:
Ay vs Bx: 0-11, Ax vs By 21-0 => Overall score: 21-11
b2) Same as b1 but Bx is only slightly better than Ay:
Ay vs Bx: 10-11, Ax vs By 11-0 => Overall score: 21-11

In fact, as soon as Ax is good enough to keep Bx at zero it will clearly be a good idea for pair B not to "waiste" their best player on Ax but use him against Ay where he will have a better chance to score points. The tactical considerations will boil down to an estimate of where the difference in ability between Bx and By will have the biggest "leverage". If B only think they will lose a couple of points by replacing Bx with By against Ax, while thinking that they will gain more by replacing By with Bx against Ay then they should logically do the switch and put their best player first.

So, it has to be said that this tactical element is not that small since it might make a difference of up to 11 points, and since it will not be that rare that Ax is much better than Bx. Which means that it will fairly often be important to have the advantage to choose last in squash. And it follows that it will often be important to win the toss before the match starts. (which eventually might lead us back to the originally proposed single toss rule; "1+2+1")

As soon as the difference in strength between Ax and Bx is reasonably small, however, it should always be an advantage to let the best player finish the set, given the fact that this is where the set is decided.

2.4.2) "Favourit/Nightmare" Opponents.
Adding to the tactical considerations of the "receiver choice" most players will have "favourite" or, alternatively, "nightmare" opponents in the sense that playing styles and other factors might lead to results that do not match general playing strenghts. This aspect too makes it clear that it is an advantage to be able to choose last.

2.5) Conclusion.
Letting the players choose makes for a simple rule that normally lets the two best squash players decide the set by finishing it off. The "per set" variant might be a little better at letting the best players play last. But the "per match" variant is simpler and has the great advantage to work the same irrespective of whether the match takes place within a tournament or not! And the tactical element of it can get quite interesting (there is more to it that one sees at first!) - although it does have the downside of adding importance to the toss.

Let's keep it simple! Let each pair choose. "The serving side decides who, within the pair, starts to serve; the receiving side then decides who, within the pair, starts to receive." For all four sports!

3) Why C1? (As present: "Ladies' first!")

"Ladies first" would admittedly be an exception from the B2 rule of letting each pair choose per match. But it seems justfied given that C1 is most probably the rule that is best of the two at making the two best players play last. In addition, we want to avoid a situation where relatively weak ladies are forced to face relatively strong men for tactical reasons. And it's so simple that it can be summarised in two words that everyone will understand; "Ladies' first".

_________________________________