The Puma and the Dragon

In this piece, we review the most recent encounter between Welshman Joel Makin and Peruvian Puma Diego Elias, the 3rd Round clash at the Windy City Open, March 2020. With Makin (25) and Elias (23) the youngest players in the men’s PSA Top 10 rankings, this is a rivalry likely to dominate the next decade of the professional game. Going into the game, Elias had previous performances on his side, leading the head-to-head 3-1; but Makin’s 1 had been the most recent encounter between the two, just two months earlier in January’s Tournament of Champions. A match up finely balanced, encouraging a host of fellow professionals to eschew recovery time and watch from the stands.

This match neatly demonstrated the qualities both Elias and Makin are renowned for. For stretches, the mercurial Elias was playing squash on a different level – at times he even seemed to be toying with Makin, pulling him around the court with ease and arrogance. But this only created fertile ground for Makin to demonstrate his extraordinary resilience and stamina, quietly chipping away to pull himself back into contention. The pair’s differing styles only adds to this emerging rivalry, and was neatly reflected in the players’ performance metrics throughout the encounter. 

Over the match, Elias and Makin differed consistently in how advanced or deep on court they tended to hit from. Elias hit 25.7% of shots from the mid-court region – often indicative of a player looking to force the tempo by intercepting an opponent’s attempted deep shots. Makin, on the other hand, was more reactionary, hitting 20.9% of shots from this region, 5 percentage points down on his opponent. 

And while Elias (57.7%) and Makin (54.2%) hit from deep at the approximately the same rate, their shots from advanced regions were wildly different. Elias (16.6%) hit just 1 in 6 shots from the front, while Makin (24.9%) hit 1 in 4 from this region. In contrast with mid-intercepts, shots from advanced positions are often indicative of a player electing to push an opponent to the front. While intercept positions are not the whole story, these figures do provide good empirical support for Elias’ more ‘proactive’ and Makin’s more ‘reactive’ styles.

The differing approaches of Elias and Makin are reflected not only in shot position but in shot type. A player keen to dictate play will often look to volley, increasing the tempo of the rallies and privileging stroke play over endurance. By contrast, a player looking to bring stamina to the fore will often extend the rallies by slowing the tempo, trying to establish lengthy exchanges from the graveyard. This is Makin’s forte, earning him a second-place entry in the rallies of the decade with his 160-shot, 4-minute exchange with Mohamed ElShorbagy. 

Elias’ attempts to dictate play and Makin’s willingness to extend the rally are reflected in the rate of volleying and tempo-slowing shots, respectively. Across the encounter, Elias volleyed 18.7% of his shots; Makin, on the other hand, volleyed much less frequently, on just 11.4% on shots. For slow shots, these numbers were reversed. Elias looked to take pace off – be it with slower drives from the back or lobs from the front – on just 7.4% of shots, while Makin hit 18.3% of his shots slowly. While Elias looked to raise the tempo by volleying once every five shots, Makin sought to diffuse the pressure with a slow drive just as regularly.

Further indication of Makin’s resilience can be seen in the typical length of rallies. In those rallies Makin won, the average number of shots was 14.8; but in those rallies won by Elias, this figure rises significantly to 17.8 shots. In other words, Elias had to work 20% harder for the points he won than Makin had to for his points. It’s one of Makin’s great strengths – he makes you earn every point you win. 

Staying in rallies for longer not only increases your chances of winning the one at hand, but equally importantly drains your opponent of energy for subsequent exchanges. No better example of this came at Point 10 in Game 1. Makin had extended the previous rally expertly, a 48-shot exchange, the fourth longest in the match. By making Point 9 so brutal, Makin in effect bought himself Point 10, with Elias tinning an ambitious drop on just his second shot. Game 1 Point 15 was almost a carbon copy: Elias tinned an early cross court drop after a draining Point 14, knowing his chances in two successive long exchanges were slim. Winning a 50-shot exchange is one thing, but you suspect Makin’s coaching team derive just as much pleasure from these ‘cheap’ follow-ups.

With Makin’s game built around athleticism, Elias knew he’d have to test the Welshman in other areas. One example of Elias tipping the scales back in favour of stroke play over stamina was his deliberate attempt to target Makin with body shots. On four occasions late in the first game – including twice on Game Point – Elias elected for a body shot from the front over hitting past Makin with width. Makin would fancy his chances at a good retrieval from deep, but adjusting your body to hit a competitive reflex return privileges skill over fitness. Elias removed Makin’s movement and strength from the equation, and reaped the rewards, overturning a 9-6 deficit to take the first game 12-10.

Coverage from SquashTV

Game 2, a microcosm of each player’s best qualities, warrants particular attention. Elias roared into an early lead, demonstrating the kind of stroke play that has led many to earmark him as a future world-beater. But at 9-3 down, Makin produced a masterclass in concentration and resolve, winning the next 6 completed rallies to level at 9-9. It was the best of Elias, followed by the best of Makin. And the numbers behind these golden patches are revealing. 

In the spell where Elias was untouchable, opening up a 6 point lead, he drastically cut the number of times he allowed Makin to hit from mid-court. In the first 12 points of Game 2, Makin could only muster 15.7% of shots from the mid-court region, significantly down on his match average of 20.9%. Elias moved Makin around the court expertly, forcing the Welshman to hit one in three shots from the front of the court, up from a match average of one in four. By contrast, over the next 8 rallies (2 lets), Makin hit a whopping 27.3% of shots from mid-court, 7 percentage points above his match average and a 12 percentage point swing from Elias’ golden spell. In Makin’s purple patch, he dropped not a single point. It is further indication of just how important dominating the mid-court can be. 

And while lengthy exchanges from the back play to Makin’s stamina, he is skilful enough to win points proactively too. In his 6-point streak, he pressed much higher, hitting just 41.8% of shots from deep (match average 54.2%), and took the game to Elias with his hitting – this was the only spell in the match where Makin (9.1%) in fact hit fewer tempo-slowing shots than Elias (10.2%). 

At 9-9, Elias raised his game again, forcing Makin to the front corners with boasts from deep, before gluing the ball to the side-wall to get over the line 11-9. In this fascinating second game, both players had the opportunity to display the skill which has propelled them to the top of the men’s game.  

Although he may have recovered in the second game, Makin would have known the pitfalls of allowing a player like Elias to open up a lead. Elias is at his best when playing free-flowing, carefree squash. Afford him a head start, and the pressure eases, allowing him to express himself even more freely. Makin broke the vicious circle in Game 2, but Game 3 was a stretch too far.

Elias’ squash was unplayable at times

The Puma roared into a lead, and this time would not be tamed. Pulled from pillar to post, Makin will no doubt start their next encounter with the scars of this defeat. Elias, though, will be well aware that any drop in performance leaves the door open for the Welshman. It’s a contest that promises intrigue for a decade to come. Elias won the Windy City battle, but the war is still young.