The Panther and the Gazelle
The rivalry between France’s Camille Serme and Egypt’s Hania El Hammamy has developed into a highlight of the sport. El Hammamy’s victory in front of the pyramids in last season’s World Championships, overturning a two game deficit, set the tone for the Egyptian’s breakthrough season. Fast forward four months, and Serme’s five-set victory in their next encounter at the Windy City Open was an instant classic. The pair are drawn in the same group at the upcoming World Tour Finals, and should meet each other in the semi-finals of the Manchester Open if matches go to seed.
Ahead of their next encounter, Cross Court reflects on their most recent contest, at Cairo’s Black Ball Open in March 2020. La Panthere Camille Serme took the first of four fearsomely contested games – three of which were won by the minimum two point margin – before the Egyptian won three games in a row to progress to the quarter-finals. We look at the numbers underpinning match-long trends, before turning our attention to specific moments on which this contest turned.
The T
As any player knows, controlling the T is the name of the game. It’s drilled into youngsters starting out in the sport and applies to the pros who have mastered their craft. Assigning numerical values to players’ dominance of the T – tallying total shots and calculating percentages – allows for rigorous comparisons of players’ performances. At Cross Court, one of the main ways we measure a player’s control of the T is by the number of shots they hit from the mid-court – a player hitting a shot from this region has little ground to cover when returning to the centre between strokes.
It is no surprise, therefore, that throughout the match each player’s ability to hit from the mid-court region was a strong predictor of success. Serme won Game 1 with 35.7% of shots hit from mid-court, 6 percentage points up on El Hammamy (29.7%). This was Serme’s highest proportion of shots from the mid-court throughout the encounter, and it was the only game she won.
But over the course of the match, El Hammamy came to dominate the mid-court region more and more. In Game 2, Serme (28.7%) still hit more from mid-court than El Hammamy (25.1%), but the Egyptian had almost halved the percentage points difference between the players, from 6.0% to 3.6%. By Game 3, El Hammamy had levelled this metric, both players hitting 23.9% of shots from mid-court. In Game 4, El Hammamy (25.8%) continued the trend, hitting more from mid-court and enormously restricting Serme’s ability to play from this region - in this final game, La Panthere hit just 21.8% of shots from mid-court.
The benefit of viewing controlling the T in numerical terms like this is that patterns emerge which aren’t necessarily discernible to the naked eye. For instance, the only game in which El Hammamy hit more shots from mid-court than Serme was Game 4; yet the Egytpian won Games 2 and 3 as well. In purely quantitative terms, the French player could be said to have dominated the T in two games to El Hammamy’s one. But what turned the tide in favour of El Hammamy here was her ability to disrupt Serme’s playing style, while all the while maintaining her own game plan.
The Egyptian was remarkably consistent in her mid-court shots throughout the encounter, ranging only from 23.9% of shots (Game 3) to 29.7% in Game 1, a difference of 5.8%: put simply, her mid-court game did not change. And just as important as the shots you hit are the shots you make your opponent play. As the match developed, El Hammamy was able to force La Panthere away from the T with each successive game, as shown in the graphic above. Serme’s Game 4 mid-court intercepts of 21.8% was an enormous 14 percentage points down on her Game 1 tally: while Serme hit one in three shots from around the T in Game 1, El Hammamy restricted her to just one in five by Game 4, and reaped the rewards.
Differing approaches
Another trend to fall out of the whole-match data was a numerical reflection of El Hammamy’s relatively proactive and Serme’s comparatively conservative playing styles. La Panthere’s extraordinary levels of fitness and concentration mean she is happy to sit in and establish lengthy exchanges in the knowledge that her opponent is more likely to make the first error. With her speed across court and range of hitting options, on the other hand, the Gazelle El Hammamy will often try to force the issue, looking to dictate rallies.
Such opposing approaches are evidenced neatly in two metrics: the players’ differing use of the back wall, and in their respective winner and error counts. Throughout the contest, Serme used the back wall much more frequently than El Hammamy; hitting groundstrokes after the ball has hit the back wall affords a player more time, slows the tempo and lengthens the points, all of which would favour the French player and frustrate the naturally aggressive El Hammamy. Across the match, Serme allowed El Hammamy’s drives to hit the back wall on 37.3% of her groundstrokes; El Hammamy, by contrast, elected much more frequently to intercept the ball before allowing it to rebound, on just 26.4% of groundstrokes.
But more telling yet of the different playing styles was the players’ winner and error counts across the match: in all four games, El Hammamy hit more winners and unforced errors than Serme, a natural consequence of attempting to dictate play. But neither a proactive nor conservative playing style is necessarily better than the other: despite Serme’s lower numbers across both metrics, the ratio of Winners:Errors by both players was remarkably similar. Across the match, El Hammamy hit 26 ‘winning’ shots - outright Winners, or Forced Errors by Serme - but hit 24 Unforced Errors. Serme hit 17 winning shots, and 16 Unforced Errors.
The only bar really out of place is El Hammamy’s Error count in Game 1, towering above the other totals. Committing errors is the risk any proactive player runs when looking to force the issue, as the Egytian handed Serme 8 of her 11 first game points. One major element behind El Hammamy’s turnaround in Games 2, 3 and 4 was her ability to reduce her error count without sacrificing her naturally proactive style, maintaining her level of mid-court intercepts, volleying rates and impressive winner count.
The business end
Arguably the most important pattern to emerge out of El Hammamy’s winner and error count was her ability to turn on the style when it really mattered: crucially, in the ‘business end’ of games, the Egyptian was able to drastically reduce her error count. In 31 business end points – defined here as any points contested after one player had reached 8 points – El Hammamy hit 14 winning shots and only 5 Unforced Errors, a ratio 3 times better than her match average. How did El Hammamy rise to the occasion?
ONE BENEFIT OF DRILLING DOWN INTO THE PERFORMANCE METRICS UNDERPINNING SQUASH MATCHES IS THE ABILITY TO PICK OUT WHAT PLAYERS DO DIFFERENTLY IN CLUTCH POINTS.
Whether an intentional tactic or a by-product of trying to seize the initiative, the major feature distinguishing these points from others contested throughout the match was El Hammamy’s volleying. In these business end points, the Egyptian increased her volley rate markedly, from 18.1% of shots to 24.2%. More revealing still, in those business end points won by El Hammamy, she volleyed 28.6% of her shots; when Serme won business end points, El Hammamy was only able to volley 16.9% of shots. Considered differently, when Serme restricted El Hammamy to a volley every six shots, the French player prospered; when the Gazelle volleyed every third or fourth stroke, she took the game away from Serme.
While a numerical approach can shed light on match-long trends, it also helps dissect important moments in any contest. Deep into Game 3, at one game all, the match was on a knife-edge. At 10-7, Serme had three opportunities to close out the game and take a 2-1 lead, but El Hammamy won 6 of the last 7 points to get over the line. What did El Hammamy do differently to put together this game-winning run?
In these Game 3 clutch points, El Hammamy’s approach changed significantly from her tactics up to that point; the Egyptian, known as the Gazelle for her pace around court, made a deliberate attempt to increase the tempo of the game. In these points, El Hammamy practically never hit a slow shot (i.e. slow drive or lob), slowing the tempo on just 7.9% of shots, a marked gear-shift from her match average of 18.7%. She volleyed more frequently (23.7%) – once again up on her match average of 20.0% – while simultaneously not allowing Serme to volley. The French player could muster a volley on just 11.1% of shots, well below her match average of 18.3%.
Footage from SquashTV. El Hammamy went on the charge to close out Game 3.
Not only did El Hammamy drive a change in the types of shot both players were playing, she also forced a shift in where these shots were played from. She made Serme retrieve from deep more frequently than previously, on 77.8% of strokes, fourteen percentage points up on la Panthere’s match average of 63.5%. Over the course of the encounter, the average length of rally was 14.9 strokes; in these final Game 3 points, this figure plummeted to 10.6. Faced with an uphill battle, El Hammamy closed out this crucial game by turning the rallies into short, sharp, high-paced exchanges, thundering the ball low into the front wall, and relentlessly pressing each return. It’s a draining tactic, reliant on huge levels of exertion, and one that’s unsustainable over the course of a game or match. But when employed for a matter of minutes, it’s a fantastic weapon to have in your arsenal, and is testament to the range of styles the Egytpian can call upon.
We await the pair’s next encounter with baited breath. How will El Hammamy reduce her error count without sacrificing her naturally aggressive style? How will Serme maintain control of the mid-court region for extended periods? How will La Panthere look to counter the Gazelle’s blitz-squash? The long, COVID-enduced lay-off will only add to the unpredictability - who wins this one is anybody’s guess.