What does it mean to be the best? I pondered this recently while studying the lacquered hardwood board at the Greenwich Country Club listing past winners of the North American Open Doubles Tournament. How many winners – spanning more than 50 years – were American? Most. It wasn’t until the last 10-15 years that the names of foreign players appeared on the board.

Does – or should – the nationality of American (or North American) winners matter?

This question is at the center of heated debate right now about one of two key rule changes before the U.S. Doubles Committee (I’m one of 15 members of that committee). One new rule allows professionals to compete on the men’s side (female pros could always compete). The other – more controversial change — would allow only U.S. citizens to compete for the national doubles championship.

I think barring foreign players is a problem – especially for the women’s game.

Yes, doubles squash, unlike softball singles, is a North American game. There are two doubles courts in Scotland. But all other hardball doubles courts are in the U.S. and Canada.

The U.S. Nationals Doubles Championship Committee wants to close the Nationals to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen beginning in 2013. Advocates point out a benefit: this will enable them to use the championships to determine the best American men’s and women’s teams. The rule allowing pros to play in the men’s draw, as well as the women’s draw, will let the same pool of players compete in the US National Doubles Championships as in the US Open Pro Doubles, which will happen in 2013.

The committee has already voted to open up the men’s nationals to professionals. There are, after all, American professional men, like top 10-ranked Preston Quick, who give back to the game and play numerous events. Guys like Preston have been excluded from the US Nationals in the past because of their pro status, but that made little sense to the committee. The thinking: Shouldn’t the best American men be able to play the US Nationals? Sure.

But what about the best players? Do we potentially want two Australian pros, like Damien Mudge and Ben Gould to win a US National title? This question was harder for the committee to answer.

For me, the solution has more to do with our long-range goals. I believe that closing the US Nationals to non-US citizens would be detrimental for doubles – and could even kill the women’s game, which we are trying desperately to grow.

My own player development reflects the problem. I grew up playing squash outside of Philadelphia, often considered the hub of squash in the United States. I had three key coaches between the ages of nine and 14: Wendy Berry (British), Imran Khan (Pakistani) and Dominic Hughes (British). I didn’t have an American coach until I played for Kirk Randall , at Exeter.

Ironically, it is these coaches, who work with juniors day in and day out, for months and years at a time that our governing body, US Squash, works with to promote the game. Historically, the US has not been the birthplace of great squash players. Great players have come from Commonwealth countries. But as the sport’s US profile has grown, in part because kids and parents view it as a gateway to an elite college, players from abroad have come here to coach and train.

When the women’s committee or doubles committee seeks help because women are dropping out of the game after college at alarming rates, who do we turn to for help?

The coaches. These British, Pakistani, Australian, New Zealand and South African players are US Squash’s greatest ambassadors of the game. They not only train athletes, but instill in them a lifelong love of the game. And these pros, especially the female ones, have proven to be invaluable in creating squash communities that keep the game alive once athletes have left college.

Narelle Krizek started the pro women’s doubles tour from nothing—she’s Australian. Suzie Pierrepont coaches the National Championship winning women’s team at Greenwich Academy—she’s British.  We use these women to promote the game. Are we really ready to tell them they can’t play in the premier doubles event in the US?

Pros aside, the proposed rule change will effectively kill the effort to get younger players into the game. Many recent grads from Harvard, Trinity, Princeton and Cornell, who have taken up doubles and are traveling to tournaments will now be denied the right to play and win a US National title. These women are not teaching pros, nor are they US citizens—the best players on our American teams are from other countries.

As a volunteer I’ve been working to get these players onto doubles courts and into tournaments. What message so we send in barring them from Nationals? These women don’t play pro events – they work full time. It seems contradictory to have them play other events – but not this one.

Amid this debate, as a US doubles committee member, I keep thinking about what my mentor, Morris Clothier told me to do: “Grow the game of doubles.” He never said to grow it just for women, or Americans, or young people. He just said to grow it.

Closing one of the most prestigious events on the calendar to non-Americans does the opposite, keeping the pool small,  and keeping talented (and involved) athletes out of contention. The best players should play this tournament, regardless of citizenship, because the best doubles players are the ones who show up to Apawamis at the end of March, have paid their entry fee, and play the game that will get them into the finals, and onto the plaque commemorating excellence.

SOMETIMES YOU LOSE – AND IT’S OK. The Women’s World Cup championship game between the U.S. and Japan honored the rise and intensity of women’s soccer. The back story was compelling: The U.S. Team’s dramatic run-up with Abby Wambach’s YouTube-play-it-again (and again) headers versus the determination of a team whose nation hungered for a win in the wake of the tsunami. The game was memorable for being both gritty and elegant. It reflected best things about sport: A game played hard and well – and fairly.

THERE ARE OTHER COLLEGE SPORTS BESIDES FOOTBALL AND MEN’S BASKETBALL: The sex abuse scandal at Penn State is just the latest and most troubling reminder of the power gap between big-time sports programs and other teams on campus. The power dynamic is further skewed by commercial quests of big-time teams that – as in the cast of conference realignments – change which other colleges a team will play. The Big East, for example, beginning this year will stretch from San Diego to Providence – and it’s not just football and basketball players getting on planes and missing classes. It’s field hockey players, cross-country runners facing six-hour flights to away games. Might college sports need a new structure – one that separates big-time sports-entertainment ventures from the extracurricular activities of student-athletes who fully intend to stay all four years and earn a degree?

GIRLS CAN DO WHAT BOYS CAN DO: We saw Justine Siegal become the first female to throw batting practice at MLB spring training. The Olympic Committee (finally) voted to add women’s ski jumping in the next Winter Olympics in 2014. We saw high school girls, including Monique Howard playing football – on the defensive line — and saw girls and boys in Massachusetts competing for swim titles. In New Jersey, a boy wasn’t allowed to play on a high school field hockey team, but a co-ed field hockey team in Princeton is growing and USA Field Hockey now wants boys to join the sport. Rigid gender divisions may still rule in sports, but common sense (and budget pressures) are changing the landscape and revealing that – gasp – males and females can compete with and against one another (or in the same events). We don’t, in other words, need to start with gender as a hard dividing line (most especially in school and recreational sports).

THE WOMEN’S MARATHON RECORD IS STILL 2:15:25. The IAAF’s decision to change the rules by which women runners can compete for world record times in the marathon – and the decision to revoke and then reinstate Paula Radcliffe’s 2003 London Marathon record – reveals challenges ahead. Women being paced by men can run faster. It reflects the maturation of the sport to require particular courses (only loops) and conditions (women’s race separate) for an official world record. It’s a quest for uniformity in a sport that takes place out in the natural world. But what about other factors? Rain? Temperature? Winds? Crowds? Seeking a standard may make sense for record books (though eliminating mixed-sex races narrows the acceptable pool and, in real time, sends a negative social message by exaggerating the gap in male and female performance). We are far from the days when running the distance was the simple point. But the pacing issue still lacks resolution. Men may still have rabbits, and it’s helped spur records. Women can’t have male rabbits, but they do need female ones.  We now need women who are able and willing.

The 2011-2012 NCAA basketball season has just kicked off, which means thousands of women are making their debut at the college level.

Even the most talented recruits, however, need more than raw skill to make an impact.

College presents new obstacles: increased intensity, expectations, and pace. Players must figure out how to navigate athletic and academic commitments – and find their place on a new team. It’s tough to go from being a high school star to sitting at the end of the bench.

Cindy Blodgett, assistant coach at the University of Rhode Island (which has six freshmen this year), says this can be a major issue to overcome.  “The college game is so different because you are no longer automatically the best player on the court.  You have to earn playing time from the start of pre-season and every practice is as competitive as a game.”

Some players do struggle with the pressure and the transition to college play. Some colleges are aware of this and trying to help. (At Wellesley College, first-year athletes are paired with an upperclass athlete who is a member of another team to provide support and advice).

Freshmen who go to practice with the right work ethic and attitude, however, often find their niche. After all, coaches are also trying to figure out how to get the most out of their new faces.

URI assistant Kelly Morrone works on smoothing the transition by trying to help freshmen fill roles on the team that may be lacking. “I ask [players] what they keep hearing the coaching staff say that this team needs — and to focus on one or two of those things.”  Players can use that information to work on their strengths and fill needed roles on the team – and earn minutes.

Players seeking ways to stand out must also be patient in dealing with sometimes unwanted attention from coaches.  Rather than thinking that a coach is “out to get them,” players should realize that coaches are often their biggest advocates.

Nerlande Nicolas, who sat the bench throughout high school before going on to be a four-year starter at Rutgers-Newark, credits her transformation to figuring that out.

“I matured a lot as a college player in simply understanding that I have to trust my coaches and understand that their criticisms and corrections aren’t a personal attack at me, but rather, they help me improve my game.”

Players who buy into a program of play and trust their coaches can find themselves in a position of real value. Making that leap, says Nicholas, is difficult and requires working harder than you’ve ever worked before. For players who find their way, the rewards are invaluable.

As freshmen take the floor with their teams this season, fans watch and try to pick out the talent, the personalities, and, of course, their favorites. It’s exciting to see the drama unfold, and new players begin to make their mark on the game.

The Playbook: Year 3 

An occasional series about University of Rhode Island Women’s Basketball Head Coach Cathy Inglese and her quest to turn around a program.

By Laura Pappano

The URI Women’s Basketball team opens the season Friday at the University of Delaware and enters Year Three of the Inglese Era squarely in rebuilding mode.

“We will live and die with a young team,” Head Coach Cathy Inglese said last week from her office in the Ryan Center. With last year’s seniors gone – including scoring powerhouse Captain Megan Shoniker – and senior talent Lara Gaspar out for the season with a torn ACL, five freshmen recruits, says Inglese, “will play a lot.”

(The five freshmen are: Rhode Island native Corinne Coia a 6-4 forward; guard Teneka Whittaker; guard Megan Straumann; guard Sydney Lewis; and guard Marie Byrnes.)

Injuries are a challenge in every sport and for every team (last year recruit Emilie Cloutier was out) and, some suggest, are becoming an epidemic in college sports as more players start younger and play year round. (Article here). Despite a spate of pre-season injuries — ankles, a concussion, strains — Inglese says this year’s recruits bring real potential.

“This is the best class of players we have brought in at URI,” says Inglese. Building a program, in other words, is just that — building. You don’t go from attracting fair recruits to luring superstars overnight, says Inglese. “Each year I try to bring in a class that is better.”

Young means certain things. For example, says Inglese, don’t expect lots of mid-game adjustments; the goal is to scout well and set a strong game plan in advance. In games and practice, she says, you emphasize basics – and repetition. During games, players will look to the sidelines — not, say, a senior leader on the court — for guidance.

“We as a staff can’t assume anything,” says Inglese.  “We have to be the ones directing them and reinforcing on a continual basis. We need to make sure we are communicating what our expectations are.”

In practices, assistant coach Stephanie Tobey is pressing for consistency in effort and skills. She wants them to “understand what it means to come everyday and bring a complete a focus and be in the zone.” And there are constant reminders of a basic directive: “Chin the ball” to keep it from opponents.

Who will be a scoring machine? Unclear. Who will emerge as a key player? Wait and see.

That’s part of the fun.

What is apparent is that these kids are eager. They have a strong work ethic and are pushing the whole team. “My assistants are out there everyday with kids who want to come to practice early or come in between classes. That never happened my first year or so,” says Inglese, adding that more players are also asking to watch extra film.

So what will the season look like?

“We are going to be a work in progress,” says Inglese. “That will be frustrating, and at times, exciting.”

URI staff members Chris Passmore, Cathy Inglese, Cindy Blodgett, Stephanie Tobey, Nerlande Nicholas.

By Laura Pappano

Lately, major marathons have become a showcase for record-breaking male performances and today’s New York City Marathon was no exception: Kenyan Geoffrey Mutai finished in 2:05:05, setting a new course record (all three top male finishers broke the record).

So much men’s record-breaking has been going on, in fact, that American marathoner Meb Keflezighi predicted that a two-hour marathon was not only possible, but “hopefully we can see it soon.”

This is not happening on the women’s side. But something else IS happening: We have more top women runners, more contenders, more speedy women clustered at the top of marathon finishes. Consider New York.

While Ethiopian Firehiwot Dado won New York with a 2:23:15, New Yorker Buzenesh Deba was just four seconds behind — and the top 10 female finishers were within 5:48 of Dado. Last year, the top 10 women were within 1:35 of one another.

Obviously, each year’s particular field changes, but if we go back a decade – to 2001 – top finisher Margaret Okayo’s time of 2:24:21 was 7:22 ahead of #10.

In 1991, the difference between Liz McColgan’s 2:26:32 and #10 was 14:34.

In 1981, Allison Roe’s winning time, 2:25:29 was 17:21 ahead of 10^th place.

In 1971, we didn’t even have 10 top women, but let’s just say that the gap between #1 Beth Bonner at 2:55:22 and #4 was, well, nearly two hours.

This, believe it or not, is progress. In the decade marks between 1981 and 2011, the top female finisher’s time improved by just 2:14, but the spread between #1 and #10 over that time improved by a stunning 11:33.

Yes, we need to be faster, to break records – and we can. But to have so many top women in contention is surely a start.

By Ashleigh Sargent

Think of it as one step – literally a 12” stride – toward gender equity. This year for the first time, women and men will shoot from the same 20’9” three-point line.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided to move the women’s three-point arc from 19’9” after tracking the location of shots from three-point land. The NCAA’s study showed that the majority of three pointers taken by female players last season were taken from behind the (former) men’s three-point line.

In fact, the data show women shot an impressive 33% from this further distance, which is a higher percentage than from the 19’9” arc.

I got in touch with Kamile Nacickaite, a senior guard at Drexel University, who shot a stunning 47.8 percent from the three last year, giving her the best three-point shooting percentage of any returning NCAA DI player.

She’s game for the deeper arc. “I like this change,” she says. “It challenges players to work on their shot more.”

Nacickaite, originally from Siauliai, Lithuania, grew up shooting from the further three point line. And while that gives her an edge, she also believes the change will improve play. “The offense is more spread out, so it opens lanes for players to drive,” she says.

Drexel Coach Denise Dillon has mixed feelings. While she agrees with moving the line to make it consistent with the men’s game, she thinks it could be tough for shooters.

“The shooting percentage from the three-point line will drop.  It will take time for the players to become consistent from the new line,” says Dillon, who has noticed many shots being taken from just inside or right on the line, resulting in only two points. As a result, she thinks there may be fewer attempted threes than in the past.

To prepare, Dillon has her team doing more shooting drills from the line. “During drills the team appears comfortable with the distance, but in game-like situations many struggle with the range.” We’ll soon find out how the new line shapes play: The Drexel Dragon’s season begins November 6.

Any big change requires time to adjust. Initial struggles are to be expected. But putting the women’s three-point mark in line with the men’s only makes sense.

The international track federation’s (IAAF) decision to nullify women’s marathon records from mixed-sex events reflects a crude double standard: Men can have rabbits; women can’t.

The use of pacesetters is common in running, from short track distances to marathons. Boston and New York no longer allow pacesetters, but many marathons do, including Chicago, London, Berlin, and Rotterdam. (New York used to, paying rabbits several thousand dollars to set the pace and then drop out at the 25K mark).

By framing the matter as a gender problem — women’s marathon records can only count in women’s-only events — the IAAF conveniently sidesteps the more controversial issue: Should rabbits be allowed?

Competitive sport has long relied on athletic challengers meant to set a pace or spur improved performance. It is part of bicycle and car racing. While use of male practice squads in women’s college basketball spurred debate several years ago, the NCAA decided to allow them. (BTW colleges, including Ohio State are looking for a players).

Does the practice provide an unfair advantage? If so, are we ready to apply the same standard to men’s records achieved with the aid of pacesetters?

That would be a blow to many, including Roger Bannister who ran his historic sub-four-minute mile in 1955 — with the help of two pacers.

Until we have female rabbits (a thought) it’s easy for the IAAF – as it was for opponents of male practice squad players – to argue that women are relying on physically large and speedy males to improve their own performance.

But then, aren’t male runners using rabbits doing the same thing? And let’s remember: Paula Radcliffe really did run a 2:15:25 marathon (and in 2003 when she did it, no British runner, female or male, ran faster).

Nour Bahgat is first female on the Pro Squash Tour

By Sarah Odell

Egyptian squash player Nour Bahgat is doing what women at the top of their game do: Challenge the guys.

Bahgat, who won the 2009 Women’s Collegiate National Championship her freshman year, recently became the first female player to join the Pro Squash Tour.

Two weeks ago, she made her debut at the Bobcat Classic, held at Bates College in Lewiston, ME. Two weeks from now she’ll play at the Boston Open. She came out of the Bobcat Classic ranked at #20 in PST standings with 45 points. (Bahgat lost to Sean Wilkinson of Ireland in the quarter finals, 11-5, 11-4, 11-6.)

Nour, a senior at Trinity College in Hartford, CT, majoring in Environmental Science, shared thoughts in between classes.

FGN: As a college player, did you train with members of Trinity’s men’s team?

NB: I trained with the women’s team during regular team practice and arranged additional training with the men at other times.

FGN: Is there anything different about playing with men?

NB: I’m used to playing with men during practice. The rallies are usually longer and the game is at a higher pace. This is more challenging and helps to improve my game.

FGN: What appealed to you about the Pro Squash Tour? Did you ever think about playing on WISPA (Women’s International Squash Player’s Association)? What made you choose one over the other?

NB: The PST offers a number of tournaments that fit in my schedule. It’s a great opportunity to get some good matches and learn from some great players.  I’m looking forward to playing WISPA when the chance comes.  It’s hard to fit the WISPA tournaments in my school schedule at the moment.

FGN: What are your goals for playing on the PST?

 NB: Learn from this great opportunity of playing against men and have a good challenge.  Working on improving my game is always a goal whether I’m playing against men or women.

Most parents have been there: Wanting your child to try or do something so badly, knowing that she or he would just love the activity, sport, or food that you just might do anything to get them to do it…even bribery.

Is bribery OK?

Recently, for example, a mom bribed her son to participate in the first day of swim team practice, promising he could play Wii afterwards, even though it wasn’t his “Wii day.”  Shall I share that this was “Mini-team?” That the boy was five?

He did swim – and clearly looked like he was enjoying himself. So, any harm done?

I spoke with Michael Kaplan, M.D., assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center, about the tricky matter of using bribery to get kids to play sports. In the case of the swim practice, Dr. Kaplan doesn’t see a big problem because sometimes children do need encouragement or a promised reward.

“Everyone celebrates an accomplishment with a reward,” notes Dr. Kaplan. Adults go out to dinner after a promotion, for example. “It’s a tangible marker of an internal feeling.”

But all bribery is not created equal. When is it “pushing” and discourages instead of enticing? According to Dr. Kaplan, if a child needs a bribe in order to participate in a sport, it’s fair to wonder if they are old enough for the activity. Yet, he says, some children need a nudge to try something new. There is a difference, he observes, between bribery as a motivator to help a child get past separation anxiety to try a new thing – and bribery as a vehicle for routine participation.

Ultimately, says Kaplan, parents should want “human interaction to be the best motivator.” In other words, the “reward” should be about the relationship between parent and child, that is, parents letting the child know they are pleased with a smile, a hug, and praise.

Bribing may seem like an effective tool at the moment, but it doesn’t establish a relationship of trust between parent and child. As a result, says Dr. Kaplan, for a child already uncomfortable in a situation, the bribe becomes part of the process with which they are not comfortable. Bribery in that setting, in other words, not only has “no lasting impact,” but says Dr. Kaplan, it robs the child of feeling good about their accomplishment and the resulting boost in self-confidence.

And yet, the moments are not always clear-cut. As children get older, issues around sports get trickier. We parents naturally scrutinize our children (noticing when they make mistakes, wanting them to be the star). Parents must tread a careful path and recognize when encouragement becomes pushing and when discussing becomes bribing. Both create a pressure situation in which a child is compelled because they want an extrinsic reward (say, a parent who offers a child money for scoring goals). This won’t feed a long term dedication.

Certainly, there are times children need some outside motivation to attend practice or play in a game – especially if the sport or coach is tough. This would look like: “Play hard, do your best and we will celebrate after the game.” Or, “after this hard practice, we can go home and relax and watch TV.”

So how to avoid (as best as you can) bribing your kids to play:

·         Know that kids raised with empathy rather than ridicule will be confident enough to try new things (See Dorothy Law Nolte’s Children Learn What They Live). Children’s innate comfort levels vary. They don’t want to participate in swimming lesson or track team the first day? Let them watch. Or think about who is doing the wanting—does your child want to play or do you want them to?

·         Children exposed to playing games in an UNSTRESSFUL, fun environment will learn the skills to be confident players at the competitive level. If “competitive” means stressful or emphasis on winning, your child may not to want to play.

·         Playing sports is not always easy. Don’t forget to VALIDATE your child’s feelings. Yes, it is hard to try new things or to play soccer in the rain The coach is mean? Recognize that the coach might not be the most effective but encourage your child to play anyhow. But also, LISTEN. If they really don’t like the tennis team or the coach, and they’ve always loved tennis or never had a problem with a coach before, maybe this is not the team/coach for your child. There is a difference between quitting and finding a better fit. Or a different sport.

·         Your child does not have to be on the “best” team or be “the best” on the team to have a successful sports experience. If sports aren’t fun, your child won’t want to stick with it. So let go of your goals for producing a professional athlete. Be honest enough to realize that if you are the one with the athletic goals, maybe it’s time to join at adult league — for you.

(More on Dr. Michael Kaplan here, here, and here.)

Nearly two weeks after an intense World Cup tournament and a riveting US-Japan final that captured international attention, Women’s Professional Soccer has settled back into its season.

On Wednesday, the Boston Breakers and the Philadelphia Independence met at Harvard Stadium for a league match in front of over 3,000 fans. Play, in other words, was back to “normal.” But weren’t players physically and emotionally drained from the drama of the tournament? And how do you embrace as teammates players you battled so fiercely in Germany?

Like all WPS teams, the Boston Breakers’ roster boasts international players, including Aya Sameshima from Japan and Rachel Buehler of the US National Team. What did I see on Wednesday night? Buehler and and Sameshima slapped hands and chatted throughout the game. But the experience has clearly left a powerful mark on both.

FairGameNews spoke with Sameshima and Buehler about play and emotions post World Cup 2011.

FGN: How do you transition from the intense rivalry of the World Cup competition to being teammates again?

RB: I really don’t think it’s that much different—we play each other all the time in the league so we are used to it. We really care about each other and I’m always asking them how they’re doing and if they’re feeling okay.

AS: I think it is great playing with these women. Yes, Japan won the World Cup, but I don’t think our team plays at the level of the U.S. yet. I love to come here and learn and play with some of the best and with the Breakers I get to do that.

FGN: What is if like to be back on the field after the World Cup?

RB: Obviously some of us are still incredibly emotional from the rollercoaster of the tournament, but I think this gives us a good opportunity to focus on something else and kind of get over it. This gives us the structure we need so we don’t constantly dwell on the disappointment of the loss.

AS: It’s unreal. I still can’t believe we won and I am so proud. It feels great to be out here playing again with women that I really like.

FGN: Do you think your big win changed the way your country views women’s sports?

AS: I’m not sure the effect it’s had on women’s sports in general yet, but the soccer team is definitely attracting more attention and interest. It was a big deal and I think it will bring big change to women’s soccer in Japan.

Top: Aya Sameshima; bottom: Rachel Buehler

Photo: David Silverman/DSPics.com