Stu Davenport was a world number 3 in the 1980’s and won the 1986 US Open. He now spends a few hours a week helping young players adopt the “full-on-attacking” style he was known for.
He can be found at studavenport.nz
It’s 40 years exactly since I won the US Open.
Watching Paul Coll win it this year set me thinking: what has changed in professional squash? In what way is it different? I thought I’d document some of the less obvious ways that the game has changed at the professional level.
Photos from Stu’s Facebook Interview
A lot of changes…
Firstly, we know the following: Rackets have got a lot lighter, and the heads of rackets have got bigger, enabling shorter swings and faster racket work. Shoe technology has transformed the on-court movement. If you put shoes from the 1980’s on modern players they would look like they had their legs tied together. Lastly, the players physical preparation and the technology around it has advanced hugely. The modern professional player moves faster and for longer periods – that’s a fact.
Let’s unwrap the above in some more detail starting with racket technology.
Rackets…
Jahangir Khan once said to me while we were sitting waiting for a flight that he didn’t understand the focus on technique in the squash swing.
He said that, as far as he was concerned, the squash swing was about “forearm and wrist” – nothing else. I don’t think that anyone is in doubt that he was ahead of his time.
The rackets of the time meant that swings were bigger but the preparation was NOT where the work was done. The work was done by wrist and forearm close to the point of impact. That was his point. And furthermore, the adjustments that were made to particular situations were done by the wrist and forearm.
The size of the head creates a larger sweet spot and a “margin for error”. Where this shows is for instance playing short from half court. The modern pro is sharper and more consistent playing short from half court even when under pressure. You have a way bigger stable surface to present to the ball.
“When you get out there, you don’t have all day, it’s absolute chaos” – Jonathan Power
It seems to me that so much of the training for squash is based on “best case” scenarios.
Everyone practices as though they have all day or at least that is what the youtube videos tell me. But when you get out there – you don’t have all day. Jonathan Power describes it as “absolute chaos”.
The reality is you are rushed, you are tired, the referee is putting random decisions into the mix and you can barely remember what the strategy was let alone how to apply it.
Pace & Deception…
The pace of the modern game makes this even worse. I surveyed some footage comparing 1980’s squash with modern squash and the average rally has each player playing 4 more shots per minute. Doesn’t sound like much – well run that out over 80 minutes and you might change your mind.
What the rackets have also done is open up the possibilities for deception. You can shorten your swing and you can delay and fake more easily. When you combine this with the fact that everyone can get more balls back – it’s so important to have deception in your bag of tricks.
There was also deception in the 1980’s. Qamar Zaman and Brett Martin were masters but generally they were confined to holds and flicks. The range of what I call “ working” deceptive shots now is incredible and they are played from front, mid and back court and even on the volley.
I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that if an aspiring young pro doesn’t have some deceptive weapons in their game they are going to hit some sort of ceiling.
When you watch players adopt this sort of “all out attacking style” the first feeling I get is that they are not afraid. Watching the young players like Noor Zaman and Aly Abou Eleinen go ”full-on-attack” and playing a very large percentage of their shots close to the tin you can see the confidence they have that they simply will NOT miscue. They won’t frame it and that is a direct consequence of the bigger sweet spot.
The sum of these changes has meant that it is less viable to adopt a defensive type approach when playing. I would go so far as to say that a Chris Robertson or Jonah Barrington style of play, however effective they were in their time, just wouldn’t cut it now.
This is not a criticism – they would probably have adapted to the new reality as well ?
Photos from Stu’s Facebook Interview
I can hear people asking where Paul Coll fits in ?
He virtually doesn’t play deceptively at all and has an extremely structured swing that rarely varies. Of course, he is a real exception.
He is also a sneakily early hitter of the ball. He has devised this patient waiting game built on amazing movement and incredible stamina. When you are leading the pack in fitness and you never make a mistake – why would you try to shorten the rally ?
Rules…
What has also changed is the rules and the interpretation of those rules.
I’m going to suggest that in the 1980’s probably 80% of decisions resulted in a let. It was harder to block and get something out of it. Decisions were more predictable because it had to be really clear the player couldn’t get to the ball for it to be no let. It was more predictable and it could get boring.
Refereeing now has introduced a type of “lottery” system.
Even seasoned watchers of the game (including commentators) cannot predict with any sort of consistency what a call is going to be.
I’m not sure whether this is good or bad but it’s definitely different. Players also have more of a public profile, there is more discussion around the players in social media and SquashTV so the players bring context to the decisions. Without getting into individual players, the discussion around some players simply cannot be self-contained. The referees are acutely aware of the “talk” around the game, and this cannot help but influence their decision-making?
This influences both positively and negatively.
It may be hard to imagine that squash had a higher profile in many ways in the 1980’s driven by the sheer number of participants of the game, mostly in Europe. When Paul Coll won the 2026 US Open there was virtually no coverage in New Zealand television or in what’s left of the print media. This wasn’t the case in 1986 but of course this may be more of a reflection of how mass media has changed than the sports profile.
But Ramy…
As for the general standard of play – I remember sitting with Jahangir Khan watching Ramy Ashour win the 2006 World Juniors in New Zealand. We were both absolutely blown away by the quality of his squash.
The discussion turned to whether we would have been competitive at this junior event when we were at the top of world squash. Our conclusion was that I certainly wouldn’t have beaten Ramy when he was world junior champion and Jahangir was in some doubt whether he would either.
I think that says a lot.
