Melbourn lost 9-15

Supposedly luck will even out over time. Now I don’t believe this is actually true, but let’s go with it for now as an explanation of how the 2nds, off the back of two 3-2 wins that included one string won 3-2, ended up losing this game 2-3 with one string ending 2-3 against!

What would turn out to be a weird and uncomfortable night got off to a discombobulating start as Jan Brynjolffssen built a 15-3, 12-6 lead over Stephen Axford… only for Cambridge’s skipper to pop his head over the balcony to say they had got their order wrong and Stephen was their no.4 and not their no.3! After a brief pause and a consideration of “what now??” it was decided that Jan and Stephen’s (non-)match hadn’t been physical enough to make playing the right people impossibly challenging. So it was a reset and redo.
That meant Jan (3) taking on Nick Askew instead. For two games this went very nicely as Jan absorbed Nick’s power game and counter-punched him into deep tight corners with mistakes flowing as a result. Leading 2-0 and with a game-and-a-half already in his legs Jan wanted to wrap things up quickly, but a mixture of him overpushing and Nick changing his tactics to hit with less force but much greater accuracy allowed the Cambridge player to build a substantial lead in the third (11-3 at one point). Jan began to close this, which was obviously making Nick tense, but a key point at 10-13 went to the Cambridge player and he round things off to his audible delight.
The fourth was very back and forth until a good run saw Jan win 8 points out of 11 to lead 12-9. With the finishing line in sight and aware that the lactic was building he got a bit tight and conservative, which Nick seized on to turn things around again to reach game point first. A good depth in this rally generated a loose ball that was inviting for a backhand volley drop kill. Jan went all out for the shot, putting hearts in mouths (especially his own) as the ball sailed towards the front wall, but it found exactly the right spot: 14-all. A deep tight backhand drive in the next generated an error and a match ball, which was converted with an ace as Nick pushed all the way up to the service line, very central, to take it early… and Jan sent the ball around him by aiming for the nick in the service box and again precisely finding his target. That completed a 15-9, 15-7, 10-15, 16-14 win.

Whilst all this was happening things were equally dramatic, though along rather more traditional lines, between Kate Bradshaw (1) and Hamish MacKenzie next door. Squashlevels indicated that a tight match was to be expected, with Hamish shading it in the end. Spot on as it turns out, but a lot of sweat was shed before that outcome was reached! Game one went the Cambridge player’s way as he kept his nose in front and pushed Kate deep enough for her attacking shots to be just ever so slightly ineffective. However Kate fought back, and was as they say “on it” in games two and three, holding a high ‘t’ and pushing off powerfully to cut balls out at the midcourt. This meant she was in the attacking position which is where she is deadly – Hamish later commented “She didn’t miss a drop all night!” The games were tight, but Kate was 2-1 up and an upset win seemed possible. Sadly it didn’t quite last as Hamish, realising he couldn’t afford to allow Kate to intercept on the service line, put both more stick and more variety on his drives. That got the Melbourn player turned into the back corners again, where her game is less effective. Not ineffective, as anyone caught out by that deadly backhand drop shot played from basically on the back wall will attest, but with an extra bit of flight the opponent has slightly more chance to make a retrieve from the front corner. Fine margins, but when the match finishes 3-2 and the game scores are (Kate first) 12-15, 15-13, 15-13, 9-15, 12-15 fine margins are all there are between the two players!

Second on to Court 1 was Aidan Hird (4), with Stephen Axford returning to the fray to play the player he was supposed to be facing! After some initially nervous rallies a spell of cleaner play from Aidan saw him recover from 2-4 down to establish a 9-5 lead in the opening game. Those demons are never far away though and a burst of errors made things tight again… only for Stephen to offer a gift back to the other way at 8-10 that was of critical importance to getting Aidan feeling OK and over the line. Game two saw Aidan trying to hit deeper as his attempted kills were being picked up on the service line. However he took the pace right off to do it, and instead Stephen was intercepting, still at the service line! This was less effective from Aidan’s perspective (more so from Stephen’s) and meant the Cambridge player raced out to a 6-1 lead in the second. Aidan gritted his teeth from here, winning in two or three point bunches and almost never letting more than a single one go. It was hard, hard work but it turned things around to get him two ahead. The third saw another change in style, this time to the right pattern – hit to deep but hit HARD, taking Stephen’s time away. Some initial doubts were present about this strategy, leading to an initial 4-6 deficit, but once Aidan committed and realised it was going to work he finally began to relax and play Squash near the level we see from him in practice. An 11-3 burst of points followed as he wrapped up a 15-10, 15-12, 15-9 win.

Aidan’s victory had us 2-1 up, but that was about to become 2-2 when Will Bradshaw (5) was presented with his nightmare style of opponent, embodied by Cambridge skipper Jonny Hughes. Jonny has a technique all of his own devising, the eyeball test marking it as unconventional and unlikely to work, especially when put against Will’s classical, coached approach. This undersells Jony though as for all its funkiness his method works pretty well (or he wouldn’t be playing County Division 3 Squash!) and being experienced he knows where his strengths and weaknesses lie - that made him determined not to play an up-and-down the wall game against Will that Will would win! Play on your own terms, etc.
It came down to who could impose their style on their opponent, which is a scenario that many Juniors struggle with – basically Jonny appreciated that this was how the game would be won and lost whereas Will was just playing Squash! End result was Jonny repeatedly breaking the game up, hitting the ball to unconventional angles, being a tall bloke who was somewhat in the way and generally making things feel bitty and unlikely. That denied Will the rhythm he needed to establish his patterns. A masterclass of an experienced adult getting under a talented youngster’s skin and winning a match where the kid was arguably the ‘better’ player but the adult was unquestionably the more effective one on the night. Will lost 9-15, 8-15, 9-15 and was a rather frustrated and forlorn figure at the end of it. ☹

So it all came down to the second string, which pitted Liam Murphy against Peter Connaughton. And… I’m not sure what to say about this game, because it went very badly from Liam’s perspective. There were few signs of the problems to come in the opening game which Liam won 15-6, utilising all his considerable attributes of fitness, patience and core strength to retrieve absolutely everything and completely neutralise Peter’s game. The second appeared to be heading the same way as Liam rattled out to a 7-2 lead… but ‘rattled’ is the key word here as Peter then found a few nicks, which made the game closer.
Liam, somewhat misled by the opening game into believing he should be winning easily, started to lose his focus over these ‘lucky’ winners for his opponent. Loss of focus quickly led to mistakes from Liam’s racquet as his patience evaporated (‘I’ve got to kill this before he get YET ANOTHER nick’). This was disastrous against a player like Peter, who is deeply calm – Liam was making unforced errors to gift Peter points, but Peter wasn’t about to reciprocate. And rather than this being a brief interlude it became a vicious circle, only getting worse to the point where Liam had lost it completely by game four, resulting in a conduct warning after his rage against his own failing game went too far. It all added up to a 15-6, 11-15, 13-15, 7-15 defeat that also gave Cambridge overall victory.