Sept 22 Nash Cup 2014
Day 1–2014 NASH Cup
Men’s 1st Round Qualifying
Matches started a little later than initially scheduled today. If this did any one thing, it certainly heightened the tension within the club as professionals nervously prepared to take to the court and compete to make the final round of qualifying.
Joe Chapman (BVI, WR 111) v Strachan Jarvis (CAN, local): 11-4, 11-5, 6-11, 11-7 (37 mins)
Joe started the first game quite well and found his length within the first few rallies. Strachan, initially starting slower, did well to draw level with Joe during the first game at 4-4. However, a combination of accurate hitting from Joe and some errors from Strachan resulted in Joe running out the first game 11-4. More confident in his hitting, Joe forged an early lead which he steadily built upon bringing him to 9-3 at one point in the second game. Strachan managed to bring this back to 9-5 before Joe snatched the last two points to win the second 11-5. 2-0 to Joe yet it was clear Strachan was not being out played. Rallies were well contested and constructed by both players. Joe’s consistency and accurate hitting, perhaps, edging it for him so far. The third game was a different affair altogether, with Strachan starting at blistering pace and bringing the ball in short and straight off Joe’s loose cross courts on a number of occasions. Strachan showed great strength and poise when doing this and simply kept at it. Good deep hitting was rewarded with clean put aways after he had forced some loose shots from Joe. 5-0 to Strachan became 9-1 and although Joe did well to claw back some points Strachan did enough to win the third game 11-6. With Strachan now firmly in the ascendancy Joe’s markedly better hitting at the end of the third, despite losing the game, paid him dividends in the fourth as he carried this improved form into the next game. Both players started equally, trading points like boxers trading blows. 1-2 combinations being thrown by both players. 2 points to Joe followed by 2 points to Strachan. The next point to Joe followed by the next point to Strachan. 2-2, 3-3 and a flurry of points from Joe taking it to 7-4. Both players now striking the ball low and hard with great accuracy and adding variations of pace and spin. Most impressive was some of Strachan’s use of height from the back court to alleviate the pressure Joe was exhorting on him from his sublime hitting. Jab, jab, duck and jab. Strachan returning the favour with 3 points of his own. 7-7 and the crowd roaring their approval. This was now a real contest and they wanted more. Screeching from shoes as players dove and slid to retrieve short angled boasts and deft drops mixed with thunderous wallops as the players drove the ball into the back of the court forcing it past each other with great pace. Gone were the earlier variations of pace and spin; this was primitive, survival stuff, raw and engrossing to watch. Who would succumb first? Who would falter if a jab hit home and take that backward step allowing a follow up flurry of punches? It could have been either and alas for local supporters it was Strachan. Losing concentration, the wrong choice of shot, a tired half step can happen to anyone. But to players just about to break into the world’s top 100 less so and this is where Strachan came undone. Joe maintained his intensity while Strachan lost his and the last 4 points of the match losing the 4th 11-7.
Joe: Strachan really hung in there early on and started playing better as the match went on. He really put me under pressure in the 3rd. Thankfully I was able to come through in the 4th.
Strachan: Felt quite nervous in the first two games but physically felt fine. Once I found a better length my game came together in the 3rd and 4th. Just lost my way right at the end. Didn’t feel tired during the match which I’m a bit surprised at given the pace of the game so I guess I’m happy enough with the way I played. Congratulation to Joe, he played well.
Nicholas Sachvie (CAN, WR 218) v Thomas Brinkman (CAN, WR 238): 11-7, 4-11, 5-11, 12-10, 11-5 (46 mins)
Nick started the first game exceedingly well. He looked sharp and his accurate lengths and volley boasts were getting the better of Thomas’s excellent retrieving skills. 3-0 became 7-3 became 11-7. A comfortable first game to Nick. Now take what I’ve just said and reverse it. Thomas picked up some excellent balls, put Nick under some pressure and with the assistance of straight drop outright winners off some of Nick’s boasts Thomas ran out a comfortable winner of the second game 11-4. And it was a similar story in the 3rd, being 11-5 to Thomas. Then came game 4 where everything and anything happened. Nick took an early lead 3-0. A quick point to Thomas after picking up another of Nick’s boasts and another well constructed rally from Nick brought the score to 4-1. Then Thomas went on a run of 6 unanswered points. Quite where they came from I cannot say. Both were playing well but perhaps not as deep as before and maybe getting caught out a bit with their court positioning. In any case, points were accumulating and Thomas had forged ahead 7-4. And after Nick lost the last rally he broke his racket over his leg with a resounding twack! To add insult to injury he received a conduct stroke for this frustrated act leaving the score 8-4 in Thomas’s favour. Despairing at his luck Nick lost 2 of the next 4 points while wrestling with his composure. Oh we’ve all been there, this reporter quite likely more than most! 10-6 to Thomas who now had 4 match points. And it was as if Nick had a mammalian reflex. Having grappled with his composure and sedated it he started playing solid squash. Good length and boasts the now visibly tiring Thomas was struggling to get to. But did he leave it to late? Incredibly, he didn’t, and ran out the 4th game winning the last 6 points to take it 12-10 and into a decider. Nick took an early lead in the 5th winning the first four rallies to give him a 4-0 lead. Thomas managed to pull back a few points but Nick kept scoring with his consistent positional play that Thomas just couldn’t match like he had earlier in the match with his excellent retrieval skills. Nick took it 11-5 in the 5th. Well done to both players and especially to Thomas who conceded a stroke on match ball to Nick after the referee allocated a let.
Nick: Started well but lost my way a little in the middle of the match. Somehow pulled it back. Thomas played well and I enjoyed the match.
Thomas: I was 2-1 up and exhausted. Somehow I made it to match ball but my legs had gone and I was gassed. Congratulations to Nick, he deserved it after coming back in the 4th.
Our prophetic tournament organiser, Jay Nash, was smiling more than a Cheshire Cat when I passed him today, deliriously happy that his prediction of a 5th set between Nick and Thomas came true!
Adrian Leanza (USA, WR 157) v James Van Staveren (CAN, WR 407): 7-11, 4-11, 6-11 (32 mins)
What a match from James. Not only did he overcome 250 world ranking places in his win against Adrian but he did so with the best hitting I’ve seen so far in this tournament. Rallies went a bit like this: Adrian would hit a good tight length and James would hit one a little better forcing a looser shot from Adrian upon which James would unleash some ferocious and incredibly consistent hitting into the back of the court. It reminded me of Peter Nicol (former World No. 1 and World Champion) in his pomp. And Adrian did not capitulate by any means despite the immense pressure he was under. He hung in until 7-8 in the first before James pulled away at the end of the game winning it 11-7. But it was all James in the second game with his relentless accurate hitting shot after shot matched only by his wonderful retrieval skills when they were needed. He charged into a 7-0 lead and ran out the game winning it 11-4. Adrian hung in early on in the 3rd but at 3-4 James again pulled away. No ball was out of reach as he appeared to pick at will where he would place it. The 3rd finished 11-6 and congratulations must go to James for a simply wonderful wonderful display of squash. And commiseration’s to Adrian who came up against someone playing sublime unanswerable squash.
Adrian: Well played to James. He played amazingly well today.
James: I think I played well today but I think I also maybe stopped Adrian playing his best shots too since I started so well. I enjoyed the game and I’m looking forward to playing in the qualifying final tomorrow.
Adrian Ostbye (NOR, WR 317) v Michael McCue (CAN, WR 128): 6-11, 5-11, 4-11 (21 mins)
Adrian charged into a 6-2 lead in the first game. A mixture of fast hitting and advantageous volleying getting him points early on. But Mike, with all of his 189 world ranking places between him and Adrian played a simple game. Displaying excellent self control, no tricks, no exaggerated body positions, a little deception and consistently building very controlled rallies and waiting, waiting for that perfect attacking opportunity which he executed wonderfully. From 6-2 down Mike scored 9 unanswered points to take the first game 11-6. And the second and third games were similar. Precise play from Mike who kept accumulating points when opportunities arose and if they didn’t he’d refuse them and play another controlled shot. This was a kind of surgery by Mike. No risks just beautiful controlled play that was difficult for Adrian to deal with. He stayed in it but ran out the second game 11-5 and the third 11-4 to Mike.
Adrian: Mike played great squash today and deserved to win. I maybe forced things a bit instead of being a bit more patient.
Mike: Very happy with my play today although Adrian started so well in the first. I didn’t panic and kept to my game plan. Happy to be in the final of the qualifiers tomorrow.
Sunil Seth (GUY, WR 149) v Kale Wilson (TRI, WR 249): 11-7, 11-8, 11-5 (27 mins)
Well I’m surprised they didn’t go through a dozen squash balls during this match such was the power Sunil was generating both on the forehand and backhand sides. Kale, not as big a hitter as Sunil, was maneuvering him with clever holds and use of his wrist to change the direction of the ball at the last second. It was a great contrast of styles and a very close match despite it being 3-0 in Sunil’s favour. Rallies were long and attritional and punctured with the sound of Sunil’s impressive heavy walloping of the ball. After letting Sunil take an early lead in the first game Kale managed to get close at 4-5, 6-8 and 7-9 before Sunil took the last few points to win the first game 11-7. The second was all Kale for most of it. Good length, great working boasts and then that wrist again throwing Sunil the wrong way. Kale was ahead at 6-2, and again at 8-6 before forfeiting two points through strokes against him to let Sunil in again at 8-8. The hard hitting Guyanese gladly accepted the invitation and took the next 3 points to win the second 11-8. The third was a cagey affair with Sunil always being a few points ahead. Kale brought it back to 5-8 but Sunil again played strongly towards the end of the game to win 11-5 in the third. Interestingly, members of the crowd claimed to have witnessed Sunil playing a ‘misuzi’ shot into the knick not once but twice! Both times I was checking in on another match. Unlike a normal volley a mizuki is played with the other side of the racket by turning your wrist over thus deceiving your opponent and spectators too of course. Having interrogated Sunil after the match regarding this shot and if he played it or not I’m still none the wiser but I will be keeping a very close eye on his next match in the hope of seeing a repeat!
Kale: It was tough in there today. The courts were warm and the ball was lively. I lost 3-1 to Sunil recently and I was hoping I could push him further today. But he played well and deserved the win.
Sunil: I absolutely didn’t play a mizuki shot today. And I’d think I’d remember if I did! (In answer to my mizuki interrogation) Kale played well today but I played the big points at the end of each game a bit better. It was 3-1 some weeks ago so I wasn’t taking anything for granted today.
Jay Fleishman (CAN, 412) v George Parker (ENG, 197): 4-11, 5-11, 6-11 (24 mins)
In a match up between the youngest and oldest competitors in the event it was the young English man, George Parker, who triumphed. Jay from the off struggled to cope with George’s mixture of pace, shot accuracy and variations of speed. And on top of all that his speed onto the ball was phenomenal as well as his deception. As times he had the gallery swaying along with Jay, expecting the ball to be going one way but instead sending it he other. George very quickly entered into a commanding 7-1 lead in the first game and he ran out a winner 11-4. The second was similar with George again taking another big lead, 7-2 before Jay managed to pull a few points back before George won the last 4 points and took the game 11-5. The third was closer but Jay as always just a few points behind. George took the third 10-6.
Jay: He has great deception and got me on the back foot a number of times today. Would have liked to have played a bit better but George deserved to win.
George: Happy with the way I played. I found a good length early on and despite some loose shots in the second overall I’m happy with my performance.
Jan Van Den Herrewegen (BEL, WR 167) v Francisco Mendez Correa (MEX, WR 382): Game 1, 1-0, retired (1 min)
Unfortunately in the second rally of the match Francisco had to retire.
Francisco: Unfortunately I couldn’t continue. I wish Jan luck in the rest of the tournament.
Jan: Never nice having to pull out of a game so I feel sorry for Francisco. Looking forward to playing tomorrow.
Bradley Hanebury (CAN, Local) v Matthew Serediak (CAN, WR 119): 2-11, 3-11, 9-11 (23 mins)
The final match of the first round of qualifying proved to be a very entertaining affair with local Brad Hanebury taking on WR 119 Matthew Serediak. The initial rallies and the high tempo proved difficult for Brad with Matthew striking the ball superbly with great pace and cutting it severely for short winners. Mathew won the first game 11-2 and the second 11-3. He even managed to hit Brad with a serve as Brad was recovering after a tough rally and slow to react! But the third game was very different. With a boisterous local crowd behind him and having refuelled after his break between games Brad stayed on an par with Mathew up until 5-6. At which point Mathew had a run of four points with Brad visibly tiring to lead 10-5. Brad dug deep and played his best squash of the match winning four superb rallies to trail Mathew 10-9. Alas for Brad, it was a bit too late and Mathew managed to take the next point and hence the match. Well done to both players for a very entertaining game.
Brad: I think this is the first time Mathew has ever beaten me!
Mathew: It’s the first time I’ve ever played Brad!
Commentary by Karlis Zauers