Stats show very close results despite the fact that the game was based on building straight patterns and waiting for an opening but now there's more improvisation and short balls (Egyptian style)
Nice observation. Yes, the stats show very close results. A couple of things are missing (my own observations and what others have pointed out): 1. Overall accuracy of hitting was not as consistently high as it is in the modern day rally (although this varies from rally to rally, match to match etc.). 2. The advances in technology definitely allow for a more attacking style of play. Something that wasn't as easy back then. I will upload some clips of solid deception with heavy racquets even 30 years ago, but what we'll see is that it isn't deception with the wrist as it is sometimes now. It was body momentum, timing, the forearm etc. Thanks for your comment and engaging in the conversation.
Love the video. When was the Jansher/Jahangir match because they look like early graphite racquets? You can see the little triangle just before the strings. Showing my age there. Gautier is awesome but the other three are certainly battling it out for greatest of all time...
Thanks James. I believe that the match is from 1990? I'm not 100% sure but I believe it's the mennen cup. Epic battle between the two Khans. I appreciate you watching and sharing a comment. - Ahad
I've got a Bsc in Sport Science and enjoy these kind of analysis. I was able to see both Jahangir and Jansher play live when I was in Singapore in the 80's . I picked up squash in 1979 when I was 15, and so have played with the wooden rackets . Now in my late 50's I still play at a recreational level but the improvement in gear has helped me still play at a good pace, and prevent injures. I agree that the game has changed but I do remember that in the past the Europeans tend to play a more defensive style when compared to the Asian players. So maybe there is a cultural aspect to how certain players approach the game, which has been documented in sociology of sport.
Thanks for sharing Rob. I agree with you about cultural differences in game style. It seems that the more attacking style has started to permeate most cultures now! A lot of it also comes down to personality from what I've seen. So many sociological factors to consider. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts 🙏🏼 - Ahad
No very long rallies at that time .Peter Nichol was one who was part of old and new time and his success in new era shows that game has been eased a lot in his second era after 2000 . He was unbeatable for long time and adjusted easily afterwards
Thank you for taking the time to comment Julien. I appreciate your kind encouragement. I'll keep the videos coming. Several more are on the way! I hope that you enjoy them.
¡Great work!. I also think that, although the game pace is similar, the quality of the shots doesn't look same. Maybe it's because of the bouncier ball they used back then. That, combined with the VERY soft LETs, makes it difficult to compare the retrieval aspect of the game, which is where I observe the most differences.
Thanks for sharing Miguel. I agree with you. Several factors at play, but absolutely, the overall hitting quality is not as deadly. I'll see if I can find more old videos to highlight the skill and accuracy. The soft let's are absolutely true. In my opinion though, some of the modern refereeing has gone too far to the other side. Thanks for supporting the channel. I hope that you enjoy other videos as well! 🙏🏼
Thanks for this. The two Khans would easily fit into the game today as you've shown.......like Ramy and Greg they had that innate ability to read the game so well and were extremely fast around the court. Compared to back in the day however(when Jahangir started his career in '79 and the black yellow dot Dunlop ball was used) their games would have been very different with very different stats to what you've provided. Some of those games(what little we do see of the archives) make the players look almost pedestrian by comparison. Jahangir's appearance really changed the game as we know it.........he was such a commanding force.
Thanks for sharing Steve. I agree. Jahangir truly did change the face of the game. So many similarities over the years, yet many differences as well. I'm glad that you're enjoying the videos. Stay tuned for more! ☺️
Apart from equipment etc I think height of tin was also different in those days, and was higher. That would also lead to a different style versus the current style.
Absolutely correct. The lower tin makes the movements on court harder (makes the court feel larger) because the ball stays shorter. It definitely makes the game tougher and more dynamic! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, - Ahad
hey cool video. enjoyed it. the squash players at the top then would still be among the top today i feel. question - can you do a video with grip tips. hand/finger position, size of grip, types of grips stuff like that, high vs low grip. and just maybe some info on what the pros are doing with it. just subbed also. look forward to following your content. thanks
Thanks AR Proformance--a very interesting analysis! Some random observations: By purely objective measures (e.g. the numbers of WO and BO won), these two Khans are clearly the greatest players of all time--the only argument is who was the better player (a separate TH-cam video shows Peter Nicol, Ramy Ashour, Thierry Lincou and others nominating Jansher as the GOAT). In another time, Hashim Khan was also arguably a contender, given his short career at a relatively advanced age ... With Hi-Ho scoring to 9, the matches were typically longer than modern PAR11, hence requiring more endurance (I thought the modern game was more dynamic, but your analysis of shots per second appears to debunk that idea!) Regarding lets, the rules have become stricter, requiring the striker to play on if there is only minimal interference (thank goodness!) Modern rackets are indeed lighter and more powerful, requiring less effort to strike (you can see that the Khans have to 'wind up' their backswing more)--and the modern rackets therefore also facilitate easier hold and deception (BTW at the risk of being pedantic, the Khans were actually playing with composite rackets here, as these first appeared in the early or mid-1980s--initially with similar head size to wooden rackets, but capable of generating more power--and at the time typically around 150-160 grams compared with wood around 200-220) The depth of player quality during the Khans' era was indeed great: as you note, the Martin brothers, Del Harris, Chris Dittmar, Ross Thorne, Ross Norman (etc.)--whether the depth is greater now, I'm not sure (although the Egyptians are certainly providing great quality) And the player who, but for a botched knee operation in his mid-teens, might have become the GOAT--the brilliant Ramy Ashour, who combined Jansher's anticipation. movement and skill with Jahangir's athleticism Again, thanks for the great review and the stats
Thank you for the detailed comment and education re racquets! Much appreciated. I appreciate your knowledge. Please keep sharing and enjoying the videos!
@@ARProformance you're welcome! I just had an online conversation with 'goldenerasquash' on Instagram, where I mentioned the greats who nominated Jansher as the GOAT [e.g. Nicol, Ashour, Shabana]--goldenerasquash responded: "Only issue with that is that those players didn’t play Jahangir, I would take the word of players they played them both through their prime - Rodney Martin perfect candidate. According to Dittmar it’s Hunt and Jahangir easily 1 & 2 followed by Jansher": instagram.com/p/COCmRM2LLmX/ A fair comment by goldenerasquash, as they both would have played them at or near their prime. Re Dittmar's comment--Hunt was undeniably up there, but he didn't dominate to the degree the JKs did (PS I'm Australian)
@@petereedy6092 Hunt was unquestionably awesome, definitely the GOAT of his era... until Jahangir came along. The latter's record against Hunt speaks for itself, even allowing for age differences. As for the eternal Jahangir v Jansher debate, I still can't make up my mind; they were so brilliant, in different ways. Their head-to-head record is ridiculously close; I believe one of them won a few more points, whilst the other won a few more games. Can we call it a draw? And yes, with modern equipment and training, they'd hold up just fine against the Ashours, Shabanas, Shorbagys and Farags.
Very interesting analysis, thank you very much! Ahmed has highlighted my main spontaneous comparative thought, namely that the game now has much more improvisation and short balls although one has to acknowledge the short games that the Martin brothers, Dittmar and particularly, a bit later, Jonathan Power displayed. Ahmed's comparison however still stands out and is even more striking if one looks at the women's game. Susan Devoy, Martine Lemoigne, Sarah FItzgerald and that cohort of course had the short game as part of their boquets but were mainly about power. From that angle, once you adjust for the generational differences of fitness, I think they could battle well with the generations from Nicol David to the mighty Egyptians of today but would have nothing on them in terms of variation and shot-making ingenuity.
There is definitely a change 👍🏼 overall hitting quality has improved (so many technological changes help in that regard). I found it really cool that the overall speed was quite comparable (although as you pointed out Jack, the quality was different). Thanks for sharing the insight and for supporting! - Ahad
Interesting analysis. Notwithstanding the advances in technology, training methods and lower tins; you have to ask some players that almost transcended or touched both eras. Admittedly difficult to do. Peter Nicol maybe springs to mind. His assessment and other players (Robertson, Shabana, Eyles, Hunt and others) are of the view that Jansher was the absolute greatest. At his best, almost unbeatable. At 17 he beat Ross Norman. 18 world Junior and Senior Champion. Not to mention world titles and British Opens. He also absolutely dominated the super series event one year winning every match 3-0 and no match lasted longer than 42 minutes. Jansher would beat Ashour and Gaultier. Gaultier’s game is ideal for Jansher. He’d have a little more to do with Ashour but the result would be the same.
Thanks for sharing Brian! It's an impossible question to answer, although I too think that Jahangir and Jansher would adapt very well to the modern game and be quite dominant. In my opinion the more dynamic nature of the game - due to technology etc. - would have made it more difficult to win for as long as Jahangir did (the 9 point scoring system gave a greater buffer in terms of errors), but regardless I too think that both Khans would have done extremely well! I hope that you enjoy the other videos. Ahad
@@ARProformance Yes. The hand in hand out with scoring is right. It could be 2 all for five winning rallies. I saw Jansher beat Adrian Davies of Wales 27-0 in a competitive match. It was unbelievable. Jansher was almost impossible to put the ball away against. Nicol speaks of him hammering Eyles for about 8-9 points in the up to 15 scoring system. If you couldn’t hit almost outright winners against Jansher you were in trouble. In addition, it was very difficult to get in a position to create a really good opening. Jansher would toy with Ali Farag. I’ve great admiration for Farag but his game is ideal for Jansher. Pity, the game doesn’t have the profile it should. Squash consumed my childhood years. Wonderful memories of playing and watching the best in the world. I remember once going to the Irish Open in Cork when I was about 13-14 and watching Gawain Briars and Stuart Davenport and following them around the place like a love struck teenager. I was hyper with excitement in the days leading up to it and was thrown out of class for being giddy. I just was counting down the minutes so I could see these players play. 😂😂
Haha! I have that same giddy love you the game that you do. Even when completing in the PSA tour I was genuinely excited and relished the idea that I was in court with top players. The few opportunities I did get to train with the truly world class players was like a boyhood dream come true. I was always so nervous for the first few minutes, almost in disbelief that it was happening! Haha. I can only imagine how Jahangir and Jansher would have fared against the current players. Your recollections are powerful! I can imagine a scenario similar to yours. If only...
@@ARProformance I played Peter Nicol once in the Leinster Open. I was beaten 9/5 9/2 9/0. A little better than his opponent in the Round of 32 who lost 27-0. I practiced with Zarak Jahan Khan Austin Adaragga, Hiddy Jahan. Sadly, only keeping the ball warm for them but it was magic. Derek Ryan was always a gent and Irish No 1 and World ranked 8. He gave me plenty of his court time. Lovely days. I miss them.
That's amazing! You've had some fantastic experiences!!! Must have been wonderful. It's incredible to see the difference in their levels compared to us mere mortals 🤣 thanks for sharing! Ahad
For me the best players are janher and ashour. And depende of the rules can win one or the other. With the old rules it think janher and now probably ashour
another great video clip with interesting analysis keep up the great work that generates new insights into the game due to the advances in racquet technology i feel that the game today is played with more flair as it allows for more improvisation and quick reflexes... the older racquets were definitely more clunky and less stiff racquet control is also much easier today therefore leading to more wrist flicks and more powerful shots players can also get more aggressive and vary the pace more greatly than in the past i guess all the above just makes for more interesting squash
Thanks Nicholas! Much appreciated. I agree with your comments. The technology has definitely made it easier to be 'fancy' / dynamic with the flicks, greater holds etc. It's interesting to see the older players holding etc. too, although they used slightly different technique to do so. The same wrist flicks weren't really a thing back then! Definitely makes for more interesting squash. I was a bit surprised to see the stats when I was conducting the analysis. These are obviously tiny samples, but it makes for an interesting discussion!
They are definitely unrivalled in their records and dominance. Fantastic athletes and human beings. Thanks for contributing to the discussion Khalid 🙏🏼 - Ahad
i have feeling the clarity and quality of video have an impact as well...
Stats show very close results despite the fact that the game was based on building straight patterns and waiting for an opening but now there's more improvisation and short balls (Egyptian style)
Nice observation. Yes, the stats show very close results. A couple of things are missing (my own observations and what others have pointed out):
1. Overall accuracy of hitting was not as consistently high as it is in the modern day rally (although this varies from rally to rally, match to match etc.).
2. The advances in technology definitely allow for a more attacking style of play. Something that wasn't as easy back then. I will upload some clips of solid deception with heavy racquets even 30 years ago, but what we'll see is that it isn't deception with the wrist as it is sometimes now. It was body momentum, timing, the forearm etc.
Thanks for your comment and engaging in the conversation.
Love the video. When was the Jansher/Jahangir match because they look like early graphite racquets? You can see the little triangle just before the strings. Showing my age there. Gautier is awesome but the other three are certainly battling it out for greatest of all time...
Thanks James. I believe that the match is from 1990? I'm not 100% sure but I believe it's the mennen cup. Epic battle between the two Khans. I appreciate you watching and sharing a comment.
- Ahad
Your videos and their analyses are amazing and a gargantuan source for learning
Thank you for the kind words. Really appreciate the support,
- Ahad
I've got a Bsc in Sport Science and enjoy these kind of analysis. I was able to see both Jahangir and Jansher play live when I was in Singapore in the 80's . I picked up squash in 1979 when I was 15, and so have played with the wooden rackets . Now in my late 50's I still play at a recreational level but the improvement in gear has helped me still play at a good pace, and prevent injures. I agree that the game has changed but I do remember that in the past the Europeans tend to play a more defensive style when compared to the Asian players. So maybe there is a cultural aspect to how certain players approach the game, which has been documented in sociology of sport.
Thanks for sharing Rob. I agree with you about cultural differences in game style. It seems that the more attacking style has started to permeate most cultures now! A lot of it also comes down to personality from what I've seen. So many sociological factors to consider. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts 🙏🏼
- Ahad
No very long rallies at that time .Peter Nichol was one who was part of old and new time and his success in new era shows that game has been eased a lot in his second era after 2000 . He was unbeatable for long time and adjusted easily afterwards
What an interesting analysis, as always. Thanks a lot for sharing 👍
Thank you for taking the time to comment Julien. I appreciate your kind encouragement. I'll keep the videos coming. Several more are on the way! I hope that you enjoy them.
Excellent analysis 🧐
Thank you Abid 🙏🏼 I appreciate your support,
- Ahad
Wow, great analysis man! (Sean Oh here.)
Thanks Sean! Glad you enjoyed it!!! I enjoyed creating doing it!
라미아셔조와
¡Great work!. I also think that, although the game pace is similar, the quality of the shots doesn't look same. Maybe it's because of the bouncier ball they used back then. That, combined with the VERY soft LETs, makes it difficult to compare the retrieval aspect of the game, which is where I observe the most differences.
Thanks for sharing Miguel. I agree with you. Several factors at play, but absolutely, the overall hitting quality is not as deadly. I'll see if I can find more old videos to highlight the skill and accuracy.
The soft let's are absolutely true. In my opinion though, some of the modern refereeing has gone too far to the other side.
Thanks for supporting the channel. I hope that you enjoy other videos as well! 🙏🏼
Thanks for this. The two Khans would easily fit into the game today as you've shown.......like Ramy and Greg they had that innate ability to read the game so well and were extremely fast around the court. Compared to back in the day however(when Jahangir started his career in '79 and the black yellow dot Dunlop ball was used) their games would have been very different with very different stats to what you've provided. Some of those games(what little we do see of the archives) make the players look almost pedestrian by comparison. Jahangir's appearance really changed the game as we know it.........he was such a commanding force.
Thanks for sharing Steve. I agree. Jahangir truly did change the face of the game. So many similarities over the years, yet many differences as well. I'm glad that you're enjoying the videos. Stay tuned for more! ☺️
Excellent Analysis! Very insightful.Loved it.
Thank you Vikram for your comment. I hope that you continue to enjoy my other content 👍🏼 thank you for supporting the channel!
Ramy is the most talented squash player of all-times.
He was a remarkable player! 👏🏼🔥
- Ahad
Apart from equipment etc I think height of tin was also different in those days, and was higher. That would also lead to a different style versus the current style.
Absolutely correct. The lower tin makes the movements on court harder (makes the court feel larger) because the ball stays shorter. It definitely makes the game tougher and more dynamic!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
- Ahad
hey cool video. enjoyed it. the squash players at the top then would still be among the top today i feel. question - can you do a video with grip tips. hand/finger position, size of grip, types of grips stuff like that, high vs low grip. and just maybe some info on what the pros are doing with it. just subbed also. look forward to following your content. thanks
Thanks for watching and commenting Matt. I'll add your request to the list 👍🏼 stay tuned, and please share the content with your Squash buddies! 🙏🏼
The 2 KHANS with modern equipment will be unbeatable by the new players any time of the day.
It's a mouth watering scenario. I wish it were possible to test the hypothesis! All the best,
- Ahad
One correction in jahangir and janshers video, they are using graphite rackets with small head and not wooden.
Thank you!
Very well done.
Thank you kindly!
Thanks AR Proformance--a very interesting analysis!
Some random observations:
By purely objective measures (e.g. the numbers of WO and BO won), these two Khans are clearly the greatest players of all time--the only argument is who was the better player (a separate TH-cam video shows Peter Nicol, Ramy Ashour, Thierry Lincou and others nominating Jansher as the GOAT). In another time, Hashim Khan was also arguably a contender, given his short career at a relatively advanced age ...
With Hi-Ho scoring to 9, the matches were typically longer than modern PAR11, hence requiring more endurance (I thought the modern game was more dynamic, but your analysis of shots per second appears to debunk that idea!)
Regarding lets, the rules have become stricter, requiring the striker to play on if there is only minimal interference (thank goodness!)
Modern rackets are indeed lighter and more powerful, requiring less effort to strike (you can see that the Khans have to 'wind up' their backswing more)--and the modern rackets therefore also facilitate easier hold and deception (BTW at the risk of being pedantic, the Khans were actually playing with composite rackets here, as these first appeared in the early or mid-1980s--initially with similar head size to wooden rackets, but capable of generating more power--and at the time typically around 150-160 grams compared with wood around 200-220)
The depth of player quality during the Khans' era was indeed great: as you note, the Martin brothers, Del Harris, Chris Dittmar, Ross Thorne, Ross Norman (etc.)--whether the depth is greater now, I'm not sure (although the Egyptians are certainly providing great quality)
And the player who, but for a botched knee operation in his mid-teens, might have become the GOAT--the brilliant Ramy Ashour, who combined Jansher's anticipation. movement and skill with Jahangir's athleticism
Again, thanks for the great review and the stats
Thank you for the detailed comment and education re racquets! Much appreciated. I appreciate your knowledge. Please keep sharing and enjoying the videos!
@@ARProformance you're welcome!
I just had an online conversation with 'goldenerasquash' on Instagram, where I mentioned the greats who nominated Jansher as the GOAT [e.g. Nicol, Ashour, Shabana]--goldenerasquash responded:
"Only issue with that is that those players didn’t play Jahangir, I would take the word of players they played them both through their prime - Rodney Martin perfect candidate. According to Dittmar it’s Hunt and Jahangir easily 1 & 2 followed by Jansher": instagram.com/p/COCmRM2LLmX/
A fair comment by goldenerasquash, as they both would have played them at or near their prime. Re Dittmar's comment--Hunt was undeniably up there, but he didn't dominate to the degree the JKs did (PS I'm Australian)
@@petereedy6092 Hunt was unquestionably awesome, definitely the GOAT of his era... until Jahangir came along. The latter's record against Hunt speaks for itself, even allowing for age differences. As for the eternal Jahangir v Jansher debate, I still can't make up my mind; they were so brilliant, in different ways. Their head-to-head record is ridiculously close; I believe one of them won a few more points, whilst the other won a few more games. Can we call it a draw? And yes, with modern equipment and training, they'd hold up just fine against the Ashours, Shabanas, Shorbagys and Farags.
Great analysis
Thank you Khalid 🙏🏼
Very interesting analysis, thank you very much! Ahmed has highlighted my main spontaneous comparative thought, namely that the game now has much more improvisation and short balls although one has to acknowledge the short games that the Martin brothers, Dittmar and particularly, a bit later, Jonathan Power displayed. Ahmed's comparison however still stands out and is even more striking if one looks at the women's game. Susan Devoy, Martine Lemoigne, Sarah FItzgerald and that cohort of course had the short game as part of their boquets but were mainly about power. From that angle, once you adjust for the generational differences of fitness, I think they could battle well with the generations from Nicol David to the mighty Egyptians of today but would have nothing on them in terms of variation and shot-making ingenuity.
Thanks for sharing your perspective! I'm glad that you found value in the video. I hope that others pique your interest as well 👍🏼
Ahad
I think the quality to the back is a different level nowadays
There is definitely a change 👍🏼 overall hitting quality has improved (so many technological changes help in that regard). I found it really cool that the overall speed was quite comparable (although as you pointed out Jack, the quality was different). Thanks for sharing the insight and for supporting!
- Ahad
Great Job doing the analysis, you are a master
I appreciate the kind words Ruben 🙏🏼 thank you,
- Ahad
Great analysis!
Thank you Mustafa! 🙏🏼 Stay tuned for lots more this week!
I think this is a very interesting analysis.
Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed it! 🙏
Interesting analysis. Notwithstanding the advances in technology, training methods and lower tins; you have to ask some players that almost transcended or touched both eras. Admittedly difficult to do. Peter Nicol maybe springs to mind. His assessment and other players (Robertson, Shabana, Eyles, Hunt and others) are of the view that Jansher was the absolute greatest. At his best, almost unbeatable. At 17 he beat Ross Norman. 18 world Junior and Senior Champion. Not to mention world titles and British Opens. He also absolutely dominated the super series event one year winning every match 3-0 and no match lasted longer than 42 minutes. Jansher would beat Ashour and Gaultier. Gaultier’s game is ideal for Jansher. He’d have a little more to do with Ashour but the result would be the same.
Thanks for sharing Brian! It's an impossible question to answer, although I too think that Jahangir and Jansher would adapt very well to the modern game and be quite dominant. In my opinion the more dynamic nature of the game - due to technology etc. - would have made it more difficult to win for as long as Jahangir did (the 9 point scoring system gave a greater buffer in terms of errors), but regardless I too think that both Khans would have done extremely well! I hope that you enjoy the other videos.
Ahad
@@ARProformance Yes. The hand in hand out with scoring is right. It could be 2 all for five winning rallies. I saw Jansher beat Adrian Davies of Wales 27-0 in a competitive match. It was unbelievable. Jansher was almost impossible to put the ball away against. Nicol speaks of him hammering Eyles for about 8-9 points in the up to 15 scoring system. If you couldn’t hit almost outright winners against Jansher you were in trouble. In addition, it was very difficult to get in a position to create a really good opening. Jansher would toy with Ali Farag. I’ve great admiration for Farag but his game is ideal for Jansher. Pity, the game doesn’t have the profile it should. Squash consumed my childhood years. Wonderful memories of playing and watching the best in the world. I remember once going to the Irish Open in Cork when I was about 13-14 and watching Gawain Briars and Stuart Davenport and following them around the place like a love struck teenager. I was hyper with excitement in the days leading up to it and was thrown out of class for being giddy. I just was counting down the minutes so I could see these players play. 😂😂
Haha! I have that same giddy love you the game that you do. Even when completing in the PSA tour I was genuinely excited and relished the idea that I was in court with top players. The few opportunities I did get to train with the truly world class players was like a boyhood dream come true. I was always so nervous for the first few minutes, almost in disbelief that it was happening! Haha.
I can only imagine how Jahangir and Jansher would have fared against the current players. Your recollections are powerful! I can imagine a scenario similar to yours. If only...
@@ARProformance I played Peter Nicol once in the Leinster Open. I was beaten 9/5 9/2 9/0. A little better than his opponent in the Round of 32 who lost 27-0. I practiced with Zarak Jahan Khan Austin Adaragga, Hiddy Jahan. Sadly, only keeping the ball warm for them but it was magic. Derek Ryan was always a gent and Irish No 1 and World ranked 8. He gave me plenty of his court time. Lovely days. I miss them.
That's amazing! You've had some fantastic experiences!!! Must have been wonderful. It's incredible to see the difference in their levels compared to us mere mortals 🤣 thanks for sharing!
Ahad
For me the best players are janher and ashour.
And depende of the rules can win one or the other.
With the old rules it think janher and now probably ashour
They were both phenomenal players. No doubt about that! :) All the best,
- Ahad
another great video clip with interesting analysis
keep up the great work that generates new insights into the game
due to the advances in racquet technology i feel that the game today is played with more flair as it allows for more improvisation and quick reflexes... the older racquets were definitely more clunky and less stiff
racquet control is also much easier today therefore leading to more wrist flicks and more powerful shots
players can also get more aggressive and vary the pace more greatly than in the past
i guess all the above just makes for more interesting squash
Thanks Nicholas! Much appreciated.
I agree with your comments. The technology has definitely made it easier to be 'fancy' / dynamic with the flicks, greater holds etc. It's interesting to see the older players holding etc. too, although they used slightly different technique to do so. The same wrist flicks weren't really a thing back then!
Definitely makes for more interesting squash. I was a bit surprised to see the stats when I was conducting the analysis. These are obviously tiny samples, but it makes for an interesting discussion!
The two Jay’s were the best of all times. Hunt was great but did not have any competition only when Jahangir came into limelight.
They are definitely unrivalled in their records and dominance. Fantastic athletes and human beings. Thanks for contributing to the discussion Khalid 🙏🏼
- Ahad