Tight Matches Dominate Skill Level Championships

Text and Photos by Jay D. Prince

Joe Russell, who needed five games to get past Adam Perkiomaki in the Men’s 6.0 quarterfinals and  another five to withstand a valiant effort by Dent Wilkens in the semis, upset top-seeded and defending champion, Jacques Swanepoel, in a culminating five-game marathon in the final.
Joe Russell, who needed five games to get past Adam Perkiomaki in the Men’s 6.0 quarterfinals and another five to withstand a valiant effort by Dent Wilkens in the semis, upset top-seeded and defending champion, Jacques Swanepoel, in a culminating five-game marathon in the final.

If there is one thing that is lending credibility to the U.S. Squash Skill Level Championships, it is that the concept of matching “skills” is working. No, not all of the kinks have yet been worked out with respect to this event being up to snuff as a “National Championship,” but the shortcomings are not only being lessened, they are truly limited to benefits that are expected of such lofty characterization. That being said, the Fairmount Athletic Club in King of Prussia (PA) offers beautiful courts and private-club amenities. And U.S. SQUASH stepped up its game with buffet dinners on both Friday and Saturday. This year’s event will be remembered for quality competition.

For years, the ongoing debate has been whether or not the Skill Levels should be a separate event from the Age Groups—a topic that has been addressed repeatedly in this magazine. But those conversations have been had with less frequency as the Skill Levels has continued to develop in its popularity. And while the Age Group Nationals (becoming better known as the U.S. Masters) continues to stand out with its cocktail parties and dinners, the competition on court is arguably becoming more intriguing at the Skill Levels. True, the skills at the top of the age group divisions is superior to its counterpart in the lower divisions of the Skill Levels. But far less common at the Skill Levels is blowout matches. While 3-0 wins are commonplace in the early rounds at the Masters, four and five-game matches can be found throughout the Skill Levels. Which is as it should be.

Equally compelling at the Skill Levels is the fact that, in 2010, not one Champion won in 2009—though one did come close. In the Masters, repeat winners are the norm, if not expected.

In 2009, the Men’s 6.0 was a five-player round robin that was won by Jacques Swanepoel who was, at the time, one of the teaching pros at Fairmount AC. This year, 16 players entered the 6.0, including standout junior player, Gary Power, perennial Masters champion. Dominic Hughes, and Swanepoel…and Joe Russell, who at one time was ranked in the World’s top-50.

Hope Prockop (R) swept through the round robin Women’s 5.5 without dropping a game, including a confident 11-7, 11-7, 11-6 final playoff over Juliana Lilien.
Hope Prockop (R) swept through the round robin Women’s 5.5 without dropping a game, including a confident 11-7, 11-7, 11-6 final playoff over Juliana Lilien.

While Hughes displayed his trademark court savvy and ball control skills, he couldn’t keep up with the youthful—and talented—Dent Wilkens (of U.S. SQUASH) in the quarters. Both possess fabulous skills, but in this case, one of the “wildcard” factors—youth, stamina, and quickness—that is often present in skill level divisions gave an edge to Wilkens.

Also entering this year’s event was Jason Jewell who was a fixture in the Men’s S.L. Green Championships for years before taking several years to get his non-squash career going. And while he couldn’t keep up with Power in the quarters, he proved his mettle in his opening round after falling behind two games to one.

This year’s 6.0, however, belonged to Swanepoel and Russell. Russell, who survived a scare in the semis after Wilkens  took a commanding 2-1 lead, promptly fell behind 2-1 to the top-seeded Swanepoel in the final. What most watching the two run each other ragged for those first three games expected was for Swanepoel to slam the door in four. But Russell had other ideas.

The contrast in styles is stark. Swanepoel hammers the ball with big, aggressive strokes. Russell displays a fluidity that will make you envious; his creativity on court mesmerizing. While always looking to attack, Russell plays shots that ensure his ability to play another, including a drop shot from far forward in the court that he lifts six feet up the wall to buy him time to retreat from the front—while keeping the ball just inches from the front wall on the bounce. It was Russell’s creativity and efficiency that carried him forward.

Despite continued attacking play by Swanepoel, Russell earned separation in the middle of the fourth and managed to take the game 11-7. The fifth, tension-filled and entertaining, will be remembered for Russell’s gutsy fortitude as he shocked both Swanepoel and everyone watching by capturing the title, 11-9.

Beth Ann Fedorovich (R) ran the table in the Women’s 4.5 round robin, including her last match on Sunday when she stopped Beatrice Querel in four games. Fedorovich’s decisive match came on Saturday when she outlasted Julie Kessler (who finished second), 11-8 in the fifth.
Beth Ann Fedorovich (R) ran the table in the Women’s 4.5 round robin, including her last match on Sunday when she stopped Beatrice Querel in four games. Fedorovich’s decisive match came on Saturday when she outlasted Julie Kessler (who finished second), 11-8 in the fifth.

At the other end of the event was the Men’s 3.0. Another feature of the Skill Level Championships, and part of what makes it a difficult tournament to forecast, is that seeding is a challenge at best. In the Men’s 3.0, neither of the top two seeds got past their first round. And the final featured just one of the top-four seeds, in the form of Sami Kureishy, easily double if not triple the age of his counterpart in the finals. And his opponent sported a familiar last name in US squash—Park.

Those who followed the junior girls and now intercollegiate squash will remember Emily Park. Her brother, Luke, has now won his first National Championship at just 13-years-old as he stopped Kureishy 11-8, 14-12, 11-7 in the final.

Perhaps the only continuing disappointment in the US National events is that the women’s divisions are not generating the numbers of entrants that the Association would like to see. This year, there were just three women’s divisions at the Skill Levels, with both the 4.5 and 5.5 featuring round robins and the 3.5 drawing 14 players. However, except for the 5.5 that was dominated by Hope Prockop (first place) and Juliana Lilien (second place), there were more five-game matches in the women’s divisions than in any other. The Women’s 3.5 saw the No. 3 and No. 4 seeds reach the final with De Anna Schmitz (3) and Lulu Chou (4) battling it out in a tight four games before Schmitz secured the win. Schmitz had been pushed to five games in her semi against top-seeded Jill Steck, and she needed four to get through the quarters. And in the women’s 4.5, Beth Ann Fedorovich secured her first national championship, requiring five games to beat second place finisher, Julie Kessler, 3-11, 11-7, 9-11, 12-10, 11-8.

The location for next year’s U.S. Skill Level Championships has not been announced. But Fairmount AC has firmly established itself as worthy of hosting this rapidly developing event. And with further build-out by U.S. SQUASH, it is conceivable that conversations lamenting the separation of the Skill Levels from the Masters will become a thing of the past. Participation continues to grow, particularly in the higher skill divisions, and the competitiveness throughout all of the divisions is lending credibility to the U.S. SQUASH Ratings System. There is still work to be done, but if “sandbagging” was commonplace in the past when ratings bordered on arbitrary, it is clear that such practices are not taking place now. If they were, five-game matches would be the exception rather than the norm, and  increased participation each year would be doubtful. And adding further intrigue is the burgeoning expectation that repeat winners are no guarantee.