I should imagine my own thinking on court is quite similar to many other top players, although we vary considerably in the application thereof. Players at all levels should have some kind of pattern, if only to make a tricky game a little less complicated.
Everything seems to happen so quickly in Squash that even the minutest amount of method can alleviate the madness of conflict! While a great part of my thinking cannot be applied in practice to its ultimate conclusion without an especial form of training far beyond the time quota of the average player, he can at least find in my own thinking a guideline to the format of his game and even choose one point relative to himself, perhaps a weakness, which he can now try to erase.
Self-examination is more difficult for the leading Squash players than for those in other sports because they so rarely see themselves depicted on film. But a continual self-analysis is advisable and in this way one can become much more capable of learning from victory as well as defeat.
I am only interested in one objective--winning. That is my all-consuming motivation, and the most powerful stimulus. Regardless of any friendship outside, on the court the opponent is a deadly enemy and I intend to destroy him--to do so is to survive.
Before I even reach the court I am well aware of the game I shall try to impose on most of my opponents. This I can adapt in play should the situation so demand, or prior to battle should I be faced with an unusual opponent. I KNOW in the changing room that I will knock-up, while preparing myself for the wholesale destruction about to take place! I will not puncture the tin in the preparation period, nor hit with full power until well warmed up. A sensible, accurate series of placements, mainly back to the opponent, is the best foundation. I shall gauge the pace of the court, check out the brightness, or lack of, in the lighting, and systematically bring myself to the 'moment of truth'.
When war is finally declared, whether serving or not, I shortly let the enemy know that the initial engagement will be brutally fought and no quarter given. Where armies are well-matched, any military historian worth his salt will tell us that neither initially will run amok, but with tremendous determination will sound each other out playing the percentages, eschewing the gamble, until a chink is exposed and the pressure is then further imposed.
My strategy is such and I am conveniently certain of a breakthrough because I know that he knows that I am the fitter man.
The basis of my game is LENGTH. Rallies are so much easier to win when the opposition has been confined to the rear by length strokes. When I am out-of-hand (the receiver), I am committed to getting the service back, by very exact percentage play, never granting a free point with an unforced error. My opponent is going to be made to realise that he has to win the point. I frustrate him with relentless length play and only place the ball short when I have almost carried him through the door or into the gallery! I only hit short from behind when extricating myself from a back corner and then that short ball will bounce high on the front wall enabling me to recover my position.
Now I have won the service and the thinking changes. I am still applying my fundamental length method, but there will be continual harassment and a much more positive attack. If I make an error the enemy gets the service and not a point--so all is not lost. Killing strokes are still played on the percentage basis--preferably when in front of the opponent and well-balanced, using drops and nick- kills.
I can now make more use of the strokes from behind my opponent and I find the boast is increasingly effective as he tires. All variations can be used but remember the best results come with discretion. Remember too that when you come to serve, you have a simple superiority--you have the ball and he has to wait for the 'Molotov Cocktail' to arrive. Ensure that it is explosive!
A final thought. I have so often been called ultra- defensive, just a physical machine devoid of strokes. There are so many 'pretty losers' and anybody can try for the dazzling winner and on occasions receive rapturous applause, and LOSE. Those players never win big matches but the reputations are sadly glamorised by the so-called cognoscenti. The hardest strokes to play and the best are the 'clingers', where the ball is brought so close to the side walls. Points are won outright or lead to winners, because the opponent can't return or does so badly. These 'lucky, boring', frustrating strokes are a central thread in my thinking. The gallery remains mute as the enraged enemy is drawn insidiously into the spider's web.