Ferez S. Nallaseth Re-Replies to Kenneth Tuttle April 28, 2014
Dear Mr. Tuttle,
In the Squash World I am known as Ferez -
please feel completely free to join the others! I have been
caught up in 'stuff' and know that I owe you the courtesy of an
appropriate reply :
But right now I am involved in a delicate
balancing act and as much as I would like to, will have to defer doing
so. Although without systematized studies neither of us can say much on
the subject there are points I will try and clarify. Much of what I
outlined (by no means a complete proposal) is available in articles
posted on various sites and addresses your concerns. However, I do
believe that several points from them can be consolidated and better
explained.
(1) First of all, I do not believe that
access to and the low numbers of courts are the primary problem - it’s
a chicken and egg thing! Communicate the game (i.e. televise it) much
better and the money, clout, players and courts will follow. Do not
improve this communication significantly and Squash will continue
losing out to highly 'televisual' sports e.g. Ice Skating Ballet,
X-treme Sports etc.. Please visit the links below:
I do agree that it is a concern and have
heard so, from many players - including that young girl you quoted, who
started this conversation and has accomplished so much.
(2) Yes it’s true that reports suggest that
Squash is on the decline in 3 of the 4 traditional super powers in the
game. But look at the numbers of places around the world that it did
not exist a short 10 years ago and you will find some relief in these
dismal figures. After all 25 million players in 188 countries and a
game that has lasted 140 years makes for anything but a bad collection
of figures!
(3) All this again comes back to the
critical importance of communicating a game that is technically
difficult to communicate! The numbers of courts available are improving
steadily e.g. the program by US Squash to convert Racquetball
courts and the altruism by Green Enterprises that funded the
StreetSquash complex in Harlem, as well as similar Urban Squash
programs across the US. In addition courts are springing up around the
world especially in Asia, Latin/South America, Africa and Europe
(including in Beijing, Moscow, many former East Bloc nations). In fact
today's SquashSite (4/25/2014) has a report of a new complex in Surat,
India being inaugurated by India's first World top 20 ranked player,
Saurav Ghosal, not to mention courts in small towns in the South and
the North of India that have existed for decades).
To go back in time when I lived in the then
non-Squash intensive South of the US (1976-1989), i.e. Georgia and
South Carolina - we found converted courts and each other literally in
the woods. Now even more courts are being built. For example
Greenville's Washington Park Squash Courts, those in Aiken owned by the
Bostwick Family, a court in the US Navy Supply School and the YMCA in
Athens Georgia, a court in the Hilton in Augusta, Georgia, 4 courts at
the University of South Carolina, in Columbia with new courts added and
expansions being planned, 2 courts at the University of Georgia, in
Athens and whole complexes and clubs in Atlanta, Georgia. Yes, they
were only made available to a select few, I understand that public
courts are irreplaceable and the numbers of courts are not a panacea -
but neither is their absence the primary problem! Should the game
become popular through improved communication (televisual) all of them
will become available - to Universities and Schools and Urban Squash
Programs. There are/were many other cities and states in the
non-traditional South with courts!
(4) Finally, the relevance of my point
about Badminton being easier (and cheaper) to play than Squash could
have been better explained. It was based on a method that came as close
to being scientifically tested as is possible for Racquet Sports.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmZXJlem5zcXVhc2hkb2NzfGd4Oj
c3NjIyYTk5MzJjOGRmZjQ
First of all Badminton is far more 'televisual' than Squash - the
dribbling at the net and the lobs with the dying Shuttlecock at the
baseline seem to allow cameras to pan in more effectively and thus
engage audiences. All the complexities of televising Squash and its
myriad problems have been outlined elsewhere:
(5) A backyard game of Badminton requires a
clothes line, a couple of Racquets and a Shuttlecock - easily afforded
around the the world, including in most developing nations which is
probably the main reason for the success of the game. I know this from
watching it thrive in India where I grew up. And yet participants and
spectators in street Cricket, which is even more easily played and
affordable as a team sport, completely outnumbered those in Badminton!
Badminton simply does not have the same magnitude of problems in
popularization (as an intrinsically popular game) as Squash does! I
think that it would be safe to attribute its growth to the far greater
participation, far easier promotion and far lower economic cost of
play - rather than a result of some administrative foresight! I know that at our core we share very
similar and deep concerns about the game. I value your opinions and
hope that those who are in control will factor them in their decisions
as much hangs in the balance in the immediate future.
