Paul Coll is very impressive in this match. I think he's someone to watch out for in coming tournaments. His fitness is incredible - I think he was only outplayed by Golan's shot selections. With a better strategy I think Coll could have taken this.
+conanthanoz19 He's had a bit of a surge up the rankings recently. Hard to get a lot of consistent high level training in New Zealand though. He beat Cameron Pilley in the Australian Open recently and that's about as high as you can go without relocating permanently to the other side of the world.
I hope he can continue moving up, I'd be happy to have a New Zealander (mens, Joelle King has been as high as world number 4 in the womens) to support. This is the first time I can remember actually seeing a New Zealand mens player in the squashTV highlights.
What an awful decision, Golan was only obstructed because he was hilariously out of position and his shot was so loose Coll had to play it from the T. It was a poor volley which Golan would have made but the ball itself was not very close to Coll and Golan would have been able to swing upon arrival. Yes let all day.
+M0odez Yeah, totally agree! Might I add, a stroke is preventing someone from hitting the ball... not stopping them in a direct path to the ball which would then be a let?
+Kalan Howse That's not correct. A stroke can result from preventing a swing, but it can also result from a number of other situations. In this case, I believe the referee awarded a stroke because Coll didn't make an effort to clear Golan's direct path to the ball. See rule 8.6.5.
+pritch68 While I'm too lazy to check the rules, I don't really agree with this. Why should Coll have to clear off the T when he is forcing Golan to do diagonal court sprints? Think about it the other way round, if your opponent hits a loose shot from the back and you quickly play a cross court drop, it's only ever a stroke if the drop comes back to you, otherwise the opponent is expected to make their way round you as you have played it from the T. In the case of an average drop shot, sometimes they might give a let and in most cases it's a no let!
+M0odez I'm unclear - are you arguing as to what the rules of squash *should* be, or what they *are*? On the latter, 8.6.5 is clear - if you don't make an effort to give your opponent a direct line to the ball, and the ball was get-able, that's a stroke. Your example is also wrong - it is not up to your opponent to make his way around you. There is no "entitlement to the T" in the rules, whatsoever. If you're talking about the former, okay - you are free to create your own sport with your rules :D
+pritch68 It's kind of what the rules should be I think :p I feel like Coll didn't have a lot of time to make any effort to clear the ball on this one. Is there nothing in the rules that stops someone deliberately standing directly behind the opponent where they think the shot will be played to and then claiming that their opponent is in the way? Usually when they are trapped behind where their opponent plays the shot to the commentators will say 'there's the shut-out' and everyone understands that it's good tactical play off loose shots to take your space and play to the opposite corner. I don't see how this was much different?
Paul Coll is very impressive in this match. I think he's someone to watch out for in coming tournaments. His fitness is incredible - I think he was only outplayed by Golan's shot selections. With a better strategy I think Coll could have taken this.
+conanthanoz19 He's had a bit of a surge up the rankings recently. Hard to get a lot of consistent high level training in New Zealand though. He beat Cameron Pilley in the Australian Open recently and that's about as high as you can go without relocating permanently to the other side of the world.
+QuasiELVIS Saw this game live and can saw that Paul Coll has amazing court coverage and speed.
I hope he can continue moving up, I'd be happy to have a New Zealander (mens, Joelle King has been as high as world number 4 in the womens) to support. This is the first time I can remember actually seeing a New Zealand mens player in the squashTV highlights.
What an awful decision, Golan was only obstructed because he was hilariously out of position and his shot was so loose Coll had to play it from the T. It was a poor volley which Golan would have made but the ball itself was not very close to Coll and Golan would have been able to swing upon arrival. Yes let all day.
+M0odez Yeah, totally agree! Might I add, a stroke is preventing someone from hitting the ball... not stopping them in a direct path to the ball which would then be a let?
+Kalan Howse That's not correct. A stroke can result from preventing a swing, but it can also result from a number of other situations. In this case, I believe the referee awarded a stroke because Coll didn't make an effort to clear Golan's direct path to the ball. See rule 8.6.5.
+pritch68 While I'm too lazy to check the rules, I don't really agree with this. Why should Coll have to clear off the T when he is forcing Golan to do diagonal court sprints? Think about it the other way round, if your opponent hits a loose shot from the back and you quickly play a cross court drop, it's only ever a stroke if the drop comes back to you, otherwise the opponent is expected to make their way round you as you have played it from the T. In the case of an average drop shot, sometimes they might give a let and in most cases it's a no let!
+M0odez I'm unclear - are you arguing as to what the rules of squash *should* be, or what they *are*? On the latter, 8.6.5 is clear - if you don't make an effort to give your opponent a direct line to the ball, and the ball was get-able, that's a stroke. Your example is also wrong - it is not up to your opponent to make his way around you. There is no "entitlement to the T" in the rules, whatsoever. If you're talking about the former, okay - you are free to create your own sport with your rules :D
+pritch68 It's kind of what the rules should be I think :p I feel like Coll didn't have a lot of time to make any effort to clear the ball on this one. Is there nothing in the rules that stops someone deliberately standing directly behind the opponent where they think the shot will be played to and then claiming that their opponent is in the way? Usually when they are trapped behind where their opponent plays the shot to the commentators will say 'there's the shut-out' and everyone understands that it's good tactical play off loose shots to take your space and play to the opposite corner. I don't see how this was much different?