Melbourn won 12-3

The 2nds have been on a rollercoaster in recent weeks. Beat Nuffield IV on 25th June – go top. Lose to Gosling in a top-of-the-table clash on 2nd July (no report :-( )… but lose narrowly enough to stay top. But the advantage was gone, so a 12-1 defeat to Letchworth the following week (9th July) – down to fourth. However a 12-2 win over Ickleford on 16th July, combined with defeats for Gosling, Letchworth and Nuffield 5ths… and whizz back up to top spot again. Cue a 9-5 defeat to Radlett. Back down to second going into this match, against a Nuffield V side just behind us in third.

The first to try and keep their lunch down was Matt Walker, at 3 this week and up against Tareq Ismail, who was making his team Squash bow. Tareq looked rather nervous in the first game, which allowed Matt to run away with it, which was very helpful with confidence fragile after some disappointing outings recently (Matt the most disappointed of all – he sets high standards for himself). The nerves were always hovering, especially as Tareq settled into things and made games two and three much tighter. The Nuffield player has the quality to operate in the lower Divisions of the Herts Leagues and hopefully will continue to do so. He will win games at #3 if he does, but not this debut one as Matt had far too much experience of the situation, using it to seal out a 15-5, 15-12, 15-13 success. One that will hopefully improve his feeling for his game in the coming weeks.

Next up was Mark Oppen (1), playing just his second team match of the summer after spending a while out of the country. He was taking on Joe Turton, who we have come across before as a Kimbolton player.
Mark hadn’t got much Squash in during his break, and this was also a hot and stuffy night. These combined in game one to flare his asthma up very noticeably – a player still standing with hands on knees whilst his opponent is serving is pretty rare. For it to happen at 8-4 in the first game is VERY unusual. The end of the first game was all about getting off court to get the airways open again and some breath into the lungs.
The second was the critical one of the match, as a comeback from two games down was unlikely – could Mark turn things around quickly enough to level up. It was touch-and-go at times, and there were plenty of “Leisure Centre boasts” or to give them their Melbourn name “Oppen boasts” which are generally indicative of Mark struggling physically. But there was also decent slices of good play and a kernel of an idea as Mark started lifting over Joe’s volleys. The tension mounted towards the end of the game, but Mark got over the line at 15-11… and that, basically, was that.
The plan of lobbing was put into full effect from game three on, and it proved a very effective one as Mark was able to gently guide the ball with no pace but lots of accuracy into the back corners, really challenging Joe’s volley – clearly not his preferred shot. Mark won the next two with increasing ease, coming out in possession of a 4-15, 15-11, 15-9, 15-5 win… and some obvious relief that he had got it done in four!

What Jan Brynjolffssen (2) would have given to get off the court in four games. But no, the last match on, which pitted him against Julian Craxton, was going to run-and-run. In the end it totalled 162 points, which is 32.4 per game, so at least a tie-break in all. Or, indeed, 27 per game in a best-of-six, with the average game score being 15-12! Oof.
A major contributor to this accumulation of points was an opening game that, at times, seemed it might never finish. 13-all, 14-all, 15-all, 16-all. On and on it went. Game points were going either way, and going unconverted as it rolled onwards. The tension both built and dissipated, as when ever other game is a game point, they become mundane! Finally, finally, Jan got himself yet another chance at 23-22 and found a cross-court backhand drop across Julian’s bows to seal the game 24-22.
His reward for all of that was only a one-game-to-love lead, which became one-game-all after Julian really found his range in game two on his impressive array of put aways. The average rally length in the match would barely have surpassed three shots, with hardly any exchanges in the 5 range, which is the norm with Julian. His kills and racket skills are spectacular, his movement less so. Jan’s strength is also his shot making rather than movement, which made for very short, sharp exchanges. First strike Squash in excelsis.
Game three had the potential to be decisive, especially as it was close towards the end. Julian had the first game point at 14-13, but Jan saved it. He then earned himself one at 15-14 and opted to loft a serve up to test Julian’s volley. Well, in theory. In practice Jan didn’t really get hold of his serve and rather than being lofted it instead floated straight into Julian’s wheelhouse. He responded by despatched it peremptorily, and two points later it was 2-1 to the St. Albans player. Oops.
One characteristic of games 1-3 was Julian rattling out into a 6-, 7-, 8-2 lead and Jan coming back. Game four was different as it was nip-and-tuck in the early stages. 4-all, 5-all, 6-all. If Jan could come have the better of the end of the game again, as he had basically done in the first three (even the ones he lost, game 2 was 13-5 at one stage and ended 15-12!), then he was onto a good thing in the fourth. And yup, that is exactly what Jan did, accelerating away in the mid-game to ease himself level.
Do it again, right? Well, for most of game five, yep, exactly. Jan’s patterns were working. Not complex ones, to be sure, but effective against an opponent whose strength is not his movement. Julian knew the one-two punch of pushing him deep and then dropping into the backhand corner was coming, but often enough for Jan he couldn’t do anything about it. This got Jan to match ball at 14-10. Serve, loose return, volley backhand drop opportunity, and… *choke* far too high, up Julian trundles to punch it away, chance gone. OK, there will be another opportunity at 14-11, won’t there? Erm, no, clean three shot rally from Julian. 14-12. And repeat. And repeat. And we were into another tie-breaker! This match is never going to end! One more quick kill rally gets Julian to match ball. But this time it’s the Nuffield player who doesn’t get enough on his serve to the backhand side, and this time it’s Jan who is clutch at putting the backhand volley drop return away. Next rally sees a good serve generate a loose high ball down the middle – close-out and volley drop into the forehand corner. 16-15. And on match ball no. five Jan is in the rally, albeit under pressure. He gets another backhand drop opportunity, this one far more difficult to put away than the chance at 14-10. But whereas that was hung up to dry this one goes in millimetre perfect, as close to the tin as possible without touching it. And we were finally done. Game scores (deep breath) were 24-22, 12-15, 15-17, 15-10, 17-15. I hope you feel exhausted just reading about it!

12-3 to the 2nds overall. What did this mean for the league table. Well, we jump back up to top again. Obviously.  It’s a fortnightly thing. However the advantages are a bit bigger this time as nearest rivals Letchworth, Gosling and our opponents in this one (Nuffield V) were all beaten. So maybe, maybe, we can stay top for longer than seven days in a row this time around? Watch this space…