What's the Point of this Bloody Game
Joe Kneipp goes down in the Second Round

by Joe and Dan Kneipp, Live at Grand Central Terminal, New York, 25 Feb 2003
All content © 2003 Squashtalk, photos: © 2003 Debra Tessier

[view the mens draw/results]    [women's qualifying draw/results]

That is obvious.

I’m referring to what often happens in tough close matches.

Often when a match goes to 4 or 5 games and the scores are close you can single out a couple of defining points in a match often at 12-12, or 13-13
when the whole match is won or lost. It’s quite often not in the fifth set and it’s the point that signifies the turning point between one person winning (or possibly winning) to the other player taking the momentum and ultimately the match. Let me use other games and other players to illustrate it better.

Chris Walker and Olli Touminen each had one specific point that led to them losing their first round encounters and exiting the tournament. Walker played against Parke and took an early two game lead. Both of these players are very fit but Parke would probably be considered the fitter of the two.

So obviously the longer the match goes the greater the chance of it swaying Parke’s way. Walker the shot maker of the two would be hoping to finish the match quickly being aware that a longer match would benefit Parke. So once the match got to 14-14 in the third game with Walker having match ball this became the defining point in the match that determined for Walker if he won or lost. Parke won the point an then ultimately the match, making that one point the crucial turning point.

Touminen’s situation was very similar in his first round match against David Palmer. Palmer is the fitter of the two, but both players love a high paced game. The Fin took a two game lead and then got to 13-14 in Palmer’s favour in the third. Same story. If he wins the next point he’s three rallies away from a momentous victory, but if he loses the point it’s quite likely that Palmer’s fitness and experience will see him through the match. He lost the
point with an error and subsequently the match. So the turning point in that match came down to one wrongly chosen or badly executed shot. Take that away and it’s possible Olli would have been in the second round and not the World Champ.

The most obvious example of this was also against David Palmer but his opponent was John White in the final of the World Open. Palmer has won their last two encounters in five (the second being Dutch league) and benefits the longer the match goes. White had two match balls in the fourth, but as he lost these he also lost the coveted title.

I think my game was similar, although not as dramatically emphasised and obvious as White’s, Walker’s and Touminen’s situation. We approached the 2nd round match against Palmer knowing that my fitness was the lowest it has been for awhile and not in the same category of Dave’s. I have had to withdraw from a couple of tournaments recently with a recurring injury. The most frustrating part of that is surprisingly not abandoning the match that you’re in the middle of, but the fact that the injury then hampers the next
couple of weeks of training. Which therefore has an effect on the following
tournament meaning that one injury ruins at least two tournaments. But fitness isn’t just about being able to run and run, it is also about avoiding injuries and being able to keep your body in good shape, which Dave has done better than me leading up to this tournament therefore he is the fitter of the two of us.

I won the first game comfortably but a more motivated Palmer and higher intensity of rallies saw the second game remain a tight contest for its duration. We were aware that for me to win the match I needed to take the second game as well. The longer the match went the more likely it wouldn’t see me as the victor. The turning point in this game? 13-13 in the second and I needed to win that game. Obviously when you’re on court you never think ‘If I don’t win the next two points I’m not going to win this match’ and obviously it’s never over, but with the wonderful gift of hindsight, that would be the part of the game in which I had my greatest chance to win the match and I was unable to take it.

The worst situation in a match where you think it hinged on a couple of points is if bad refereeing decisions become the deciding factor. Or a dubious pickup or mishit ball. That hurts. But regardless of all of this theorising and game analysis what it comes down to is that when these pivotal parts of a match appear, players like Palmer, Nicol and Power almost
always win the point. A simple thing like this can be the difference between a first round player and a tournament champion. Ask Olli Touminen. Or Dave Evans from the World Open. Not many people would be able to say off the top of their head what stage of the World Open former British Open Champion Evans made. He lost to Palmer in the 2nd round, but was within three points of taking the match in the fifth set. One player goes on to win, the other
gets forgotten. Because of three points.

No amount of analysing of the situation matters until you do whatever it takes to be the bloke that always wins those few points where the balance of the match hinges.