Melbourn lost 10-4

Melbourn 2nds side at Nuffield (l to r): Jan Brynjolffssen, Aidan Hird, Moises Estrelles Navarro

After a season of ups and downs, the Herts League Division 4 title moreorless came down to this game – we were top, Nuffield were in third, but the St. Albans side were only 7 points behind and they had an extra game to play in everyone else. Basically it was winner takes all for the title.

The problem we had was form really wasn’t in our favour. We had been top at the midway point of the season after winning 7 of our first 9 matches. At that point Nuffield sixth in the table with just 4 wins. However the second half of the season had seen a change in fortunes: for us 3 wins and 5 losses, for our hosts here 7 wins and just 1 defeat. That had moved them to within 7 points of us, and with a game in hand as well. We need to win, ideally by 6 points. There were also some other teams involved, but the focus for the evening had to be on the match in front of us.

First up was Moises Estrelles Navarro (3), who took on home skipper Clive Baker. This was a match up of two players of very similar styles – hard running, getting loads back, but maybe not exploiting the openings presented at the front of the court as perfectly as they might hope. That made for a game about patience, waiting for the other player to make mistakes. For most of the opening game this was going well for Moises, but as the end approached he began to feel comfortable and push for winners… which resulted in errors instead as the lead leaked away and he eventually was edged out on a break.
Game two saw Moises digging in and playing to the plan – pump the ball deep when he had time, as him having time also meant Clive had the same and would likely chase down his drops. Play the very occasional kill if he could take it early and use Clive scrambling movement against the St. Albans player, but only attack in those circumstances (basically a counter-punch rather than a lead punch). This worked very well and Moises was level, but Clive dug in in the third to make things much closer. However Moises kept himself calm and saw the game out narrowly, despite some consternation about an out call that he (and the Melbourn players watching on) were bemused by, which seem to motivate Moises to play cleanly and sensibly at the key times.
The fourth game was another where Moises made the initial running, getting himself a lead, but then tightened up at the death as the desire to finish things off trump the belief in grinding, grinding, grinding to victory. There were moments when it looked like we might be heading to five, particularly when Clive got to game ball first at 14-13, but errors at inopportune times from the St. Albans player helped as Moises played three rock solid rallies, ending things by driving Clive deep into the backhand corner where he could retrieve: Moises won 15-17, 15-8, 15-12, 16-14.

Next up was Aidan Hird (2) against Josh Binmore, both making their debuts for these particular teams this season. Did I mention that it was a virtual league decider? Huh.
Game 1 started with Aidan looking to shake his nerves off and get his game going, but this proved difficult against teenager Josh, who was running everything down. One point, two points, three points… swiftly it was 7-0 to the home player and Aidan was clearly feeling in a whirl. Oddly enough being way down finally seemed to relax him a bit and the back half of the game saw Aidan using his game to his advantage, pushing Josh deeper into the court to build rallies for the attack from the service line. It was too late for game one, but this better pattern was maintained into game two as Aidan did a decent job of controlling the service line against Josh’s hard running and retrieving. As Aidan cruised to the game, all seemed well…
It wasn’t. Everything went wrong for the Melbourn player from this point. A few tentative points at the start of the third swiftly lead to over-pushing, trying to kill the ball from the back corners against a rapid player who was able to pick things up and was happy to control the front wall. Everything spiralled on Aidan from here as he got nervous again, which saw his feet stop moving properly, which in turn undermined him when Josh got a ball back he wasn’t expecting. By the fourth the belief had clearly gone, the match ending in a welter of errors as Aidan was beaten 12-15, 15-9, 4-15, 6-15 and once again left a match court wondering where Practice Aidan goes when people are watching.

That meant the Division 4 title practically rest on Jan Brynjolffssen (1) vs Jonathan Smith-Squire. It showed in a nervy first game which saw Jan confined to the back of the court, with his opponents might reach making all but the tightest shots vulnerable and many rallies cut short. A game down, it was clear a rethink was needed and Jan came back on with better focus, finding the tee off some accurate lengths and following defensive boasts forward more successfully. This consistent pressure was the Nuffield player making more “unforced” errors, and the points were traded to 14-12 against Melbourn, with a somewhat lucky winner taking the game but with spectators left optimistic the momentum had shifted.
The third started promisingly in a similar vein, but an encroaching injury saw Jan losing pace and struggling to retrieve as effectively. With the pressure slackened, a more composed opponent began putting away his opportunities to kill to finish the match off 3-0. Game scores were 6-15, 12-15, 6-15.

And that was that for our title chances. Not because Nuffield had gone past on the night, as the final score of 10-4 meant they only got to within a point of our total. But a result elsewhere saw Haileybury sneak a couple of points beyond our total of 144, and Nuffield still remain favourites for the title as they have a re-arranged match against Radlett to play from which they need 4 points to be champions… and 2 points to move past us to leave us third in the table. A disappointing end to the season, but with 10 wins and 8 defeats overall it’s pretty clear that we are at the right level playing in Division 4 and as such who wants promotion anyway?!?

With two rounds, plus one re-arranged game, left in the Herts Summer League Division 4 we were in the slightly absurd position of 8 of the 10 teams still being in with a chance of winning the title! This was down to the top end of the table looking like this going into the penultimate full round of fixtures:

All eight covered by just 16 points in a league that offers up to 12 points per match! One could say there is no standout team in this league… though why we would say that when we are top, I don’t know.
One side notable by its absence from the above table of contenders is Berkhamsted, who were instead engaged in a battle of their own with Ickleford to avoid bottom place – the two were level on 76 points from 16 games a piece prior to this clash, with both having 3-13 records. Given the situation, this was therefore a match the 2nds wanted a maximum of 12 points from.

First to seek that was Jamie Ware (3), who was taking on Mike Cowan. The opening phases of the match were scrappy, exemplified by Jamie putting the first serve of the match out – it took until point five for a rally to end with a good shot rather than an error, this first well executed shot of the match coming from Jamie’s racket. Things remained chaotic for most of the first game as play went at 1000mph and about 1% control. However this worked for Jamie to take the game… but he wasn’t happy with how he was playing.
He was even more perplexed after the second had got away 15-13 to leave the match at one game all. Which was frustrating for his watching teammates as most rallies were being decided by whether Jamie played a winner or a loser – Mike didn’t have the shots to threaten him but Jamie was feeling under pressure anyway and overplaying. Jamie finally managed to make himself believe he was comfortably the stronger player midway through the third game, and began to play the sort of clean, up-and-down-the-wall but with punch Squash that had been available to him throughout. This saw game three go from 6-all to 15-8 in Jamie’s favour.
The same Squash was also the basis of a comeback from 10-4 down in the fourth, after Jamie had made a slew of errors to dig himself that hole. Being behind relaxed him, the clean Squash came back, the game recovered to 10-all… and the anxiety resurfaced leading to more scrappy rallies. Mike had the first game point at 14-13, but Jamie saved it with a clutch drop, accurate when he had to be. One match ball went past at 15-14, but the next at 16-15 was converted as Jamie came through 15-9, 13-15, 15-8, 17-15 to record a useful win for his side.

We then split on to two courts as both sides were available on this particular evening and the journey back to Berkhamsted is a long one for the away side. Jan Brynjolffssen (1) was up against James Barron on Court 1, with Matt Walker (2) taking on Grant Kleiner on Court 2. Let’s take Matt’s game first… and let’s also say he wasn’t exactly confident before it as he had run into Grant before in the opening half of the season and had lost that one 3-1. Grant is one of those players who are not particularly mobile but have exceptional racket head control, so go for kills on everything… which is just about Matt’s least favoured style to come up against. He wants rallies to develop to allow him to settle in, which one just doesn’t get against Grant. However Grant’s strength, his kills, also speaks of his weakness, his movement, with the game plan for Matt very clear if not necessarily easy to execute. Focus hard on the serve and return, hold a high ‘t’, watch the ball and chase the drops down to bunt any sort of counter in – that, if up, will probably be a winner.
Game 1 started well, Matt winning the opening 5 rallies, then went totally away as Grant won the next 8, but Matt forced himself forward at that point and reclaimed the initiative to recover the lead again and claim the game in the end. From here on out he was generally a handful of points ahead in games; never comfortable, never able to relax into a pattern as Grant doesn’t allow a pattern, but always with Matt having the upper hand. There were a few wasted opportunities as Matt couldn’t quite get himself to trust the open drop was going to be a winner at times – when he didn’t go for it and tried to wrong-foot instead he found himself not wrong-footing a player who hadn’t moved but hitting it straight to his opponent instead! However grit and determination were to the fore as Matt ground things out, getting himself to match ball at 14-13 in the third, and then converting it with a backhand drop that Grant couldn’t get forward to. Matt won 15-12, 15-11, 15-13.

Meanwhile Jan had started very well against James, who is another unconventional player: a brilliant forehand and superb hand-eye but with a weak backhand that he tries to hide – it wasn’t until game three that Jan managed to make James play a backhand return… and that was with serving to James’ backhand side on every hand-in! Backhand side, but not backhand shot as James would position himself with his back nearly on the side wall. As I said, unconventional. However in game one Jan coped with this very well, gaining points as he was able to pick up James’ low drive shots and use the pace of them against the Berkhamsted player. That resulted in a run of 10 points out of 11 in Jan’s favour and a clear 15-5 first game conversion.
Gannes two and three proved trickier as James changed his play, going for more variety in shot making rather than the power kills that Jan was having joy countering. Jan mostly struggled to put runs of points together, with game two in particular getting exceedingly close – a key mistake at 12-10 leaving Jan feeling nervous. However, he got to game ball first at 14-13 and this time it was James with the error, attempting to play a forehand volley from his backhand side to a weak shot from Jan, and tinning it to hand the game away. That put Jan into a considerable (two game lead) which he converted into a 3-0 win thanks to a very good run of points from mid-game as he repeatedly found a near perfect length – one stretching forehand that second bounced into the back nick drawing an “It’s not fair!” from James. Jan eventually got home 15-5, 15-13, 15-11 to complete the 12 point night the team was after. As stand in skipper he also offered this post match comment ““We knew we needed 12 poitns from this evening, which adds pressure, especially against somewhat unconventional opponents. But we all got there in the end. It puts us in a good position for midweek – six sides are still in contention, but whereas most of the others are relying on other results we have put ourselves in a position where only our score matters. There is still work to do to win the title, but it’s something we know we are capable of achieving.”

Melbourn lost 5-10

At string 3 Moises Estrelles Navarro took on Paul Carter. His left-handed opponent had experience, deft touches and trickery, along with clever positional play. Moises, however, was in a rich vein of form and his ability to retrieve and his continuously improving shot selection would prove the difference.
In game 1 Moises stormed out of the block to take a 1:6 lead, bringing an energy that Paul didn’t seem to be coping with. It was unsustainable however and Paul managed to claw his way back into the game, adding some variation to his shot and making Moises work harder. Moises managed to stay in it and at 9:9 it was interesting to see who would take the initiative. Moises went for it, hitting winner after winning to take the game 10:15, a reward for his determination.
Game 2 was a much more even affair, Paul having got to the pitch of the match. He was competing well, finding some vulnerabilities in Moises game, catching him out of position. In truth Paul was comfortable throughout and took the game easily 15:10, setting up the match nicely. Moises struggled a little with his drives in this one, giving Paul many half-court opportunities, which was something he was intent on resolving in the next game.
Game 3 was a close affair throughout. Moises continued to give up half court balls, but less so, and was working hard to remedy his drives in particular. Moises outworked his opponent to nudge ahead at the right time later in the game, a touch of tiredness becoming evident in Paul’s game as Moises again went brave, going for it, and was again rewarded with a series of winners to take the game 12:15.
Moises knew he wasn’t playing his usual fluid game, but also know that if he continued to work hard and keep focused, the match was there for him. The fourth game followed a very similar trajectory to the third but Moises was able to bring in a few more drops and boasts, indicating his higher level of confidence in his game. Staying a few points ahead of his opponent, Moises was able to close out the game 11:15 and the match 1:3 to keep his winning streak intact.

Next on was the hosts Rory McGurk against Matt Walker in the second string encounter.
Rory started having control of the game and making Matt run around the court. That saw Matt fall 9-14 down, but at this point he went icy cool and starting to play winning drives and a few good drops to claw it back to 14-14. A mistake from Rory took Matt to game ball, which he took with a super good boast to win a game he had seem sure to lose.
The second started with a 4-0 lead for Rory, but Matt elongated rallies to recover to 3-4. A few good pick ups from Rory then was it move to 7-3 before Matt’s favoured volley-drop game came into play to close up again to 6-8. But it wasn’t enough as Rory fairly took the second 15-7.
Matt found a more controlled game as he came into the third with nice length, width and good drops. This saw him race into an 8-2 lead. The players then exchanged a few points with Matt getting to game ball very comfortably ahead 14-4. After a couple of chances had passed a solid rally with good drives with width and depth opened up a front corner for a winning drop volley. 7-15 and 1-2 in Matt’s favour.
The fourth game started as the second had as this time it was Rory roaring ahead, building a 7-2 advantage. Some points were exchanged, but it was soon 12-4 to Rory which was too much for Matt, who had lost a bit of accuracy to recover on Rory, who had simultaneously gained it.
Matt brought his best game to the decider, opening an initial 5-2 lead. This was soon wiped out and the games was a close one: 6-6, 8-8, 9-9, 10-10 – nobody wanted to lead! Matt’s luck was out as Rory found some nicks with cross courts to get himself to match-ball, which he converted with a mistimed but also stone dead drop to win it 15-10, taking the match Chantry’s way 3-2.

Last on court were first strings Mark Douglas (Chantry) and Colm O’Gorman (Melbourn). The pattern of the first game played out similarly in the second, as Mark moved Colm around the court. Colm's trademark retrieving kept him in touch, but he struggled to impose control on rallies and was ultimately played out of both games without establishing a strong enough foothold to mount a sustained challenge.
At 2-0 down, the third game had a very different feel, with Colm moving and anticipating well, find length and touch that eluded him to this point, and forcing Mark to turn, retreat and play out of the back corners. The pressure soon started to induce errors that would have been unexpected in the first two games. With a much more evenly-balanced contest emerging, small margins would decide the outcome of this game. And so it proved, but unfortunately, those margins went the way of the host and with them the match. Game scores were 10-15, 11-15, 13-15.

Skipper Colm’s post-match comment was that he was “Delighted to see Moises rewarded for playing positive and attacking Squash, even when he knew he wasn’t playing particularly well, and credit to Matt for playing such a high quality and entertaining match which could have gone either way in the 5th.”