(updated 27-jan-10 22:31 )    [DRAW/RESULTS]     [Also read: Rob Dinerman's Account]

MAGICAL WITCHRAFT FROM RAMY ASHOUR
On paper the semi-finals were mouthwatering prospects. In reality both were  disappointing.  Karim Darwish failed to provide a decent challenge to James Willstrop in a match lasting  a scant 37 minutes (in fact, actual playing time was 32 minutes). This was followed by another Egypt vs England match with Ramy Ashour playing so incredibly well that Nick Matthew could find nothing in his considerable arsenal to counter-act the magic in Ashour’s racket. In fact, some of the brilliant young Egyptian’s shots were so other-worldly that in times past he would found himself on the ducking stool accused of witchcraft.

Ashour has a different  hold on his racket: he holds it like a conductor holding a baton, seems to point it at the ball rather than hit with it and puts the ball under a spell. Am I getting carried away here? No. That previous sentence could be an understatement. Ramy Ashour is really a remarkable player; Peter Nicol said he has never seen anyone play the game the way Ashour does.

MATTHEW GOOD, ASHOUR ON A DIFFERENT PLANE
The strange  thing is that Matthew did not play badly: after losing the first  game 11-8 he came back strongly to run away with the second 11-6 in just 12 minutes. We all naturally thought we were in for a re-run of the Saudi final,  a fantastic battle that went five games.  Sadly that did not happen.

That second game proved to be a lapse in concentration from Ashour who came out and stormed through the third  to win 11-2 in four minutes. Yes, FOUR MINUTES! Against the world number two!! (Sorry about the exclamation marks, which I never use, but sometimes words fail).

Matthew played the ball tight and he played good length, but Ashour can scrape the ball off the wall and hit it cross-court into the nick. He can reach ‘way above his head and, with a snap of his wrist send the ball from the back of the court into the nick in the far corner.  And always, when his opponent least expects it, he  can produce a winner from out of nowhere.

The game was played at a cracking pace with few long rallies and although they were using all four corners (there were perhaps four rallies that featured left wall rallies) it became evident that Matthew was having to work harder. One example was that he allowed Ashour’s lobs to get to the back wall before playing them, meaning he had to run into that back corner, whereas Ashour was volleying everything and Matthew’s lobs were suddenly snapping back at him before he had time to get back to the T.

The fourth game started with a marvelous rally, one that epitomized what the modern game of squash is all about: all corners, all shots, marvelous racket skills and lightning court coverage. It ended with Ashour driving the ball low past Matthew to win the point. That rally surely was the indicator of the match. After that peak, Matthew’s lost a little verve. Perhaps he had been demoralized by the third game debacle, but a more reasonable assumption was that he had been made to do too much work and that he realized that Ashour was almost unbeatable playing at this level. We should remember a couple of years back when Ashour burst on to the scene and was beating everyone, Matthew was the one player who beat him – twice.  And I am sure he will beat him again. It is beyond credulity that Ashour can produce this sort of form every time. If he does, we’ll borrow a ducking stool from the Victoria & Albert Museum.

DARWISH WHERE ARE YOU?
The other semi-final? Hardly worth talking about. 

James Willstrop is playing at probably his best or at least as well as he has every played. Darwish, it appeared, would rather have phoned in his game.  From the very start he was careless and lacking in speed. Four errors in a row, silly, careless errors, the sort that I see at my squash club, (Indeed I constantly play those shots myself) – helped Willstrop to an 8-2 lead and he made no mistake in  taking the game 11-6 in  nine minutes. Willstrop played intelligently, moved the ball around and made one error in the entire game. He must have walked off the court thinking that Christmas was real early this year.  In the quarters he had a near walk through in straight games over Amr Shabana and now this from the former world number one.

There really is not a lot more to say about this match: the second games was more of the same,  11-5 to Willstrop in 10 minutes.  You would think that Darwish would try to get some long rallies going to play himself in but he kept going for backhand drops and kept finding the tin. He did hit some winners at the front on his more accurate forehand, but his strategy was woeful.

The third game started with Willstrop winning the first  point and then slipping at the back of the court to lose the next one. He gestured his puzzlement at his slippage – there seems to be no sweat or other reason as to why his leading foot slipped.  As he has just go back to top form after an ankle operation, there was obvious concern about the slip and true enough he lost the next four points on errors to give Darwish a lifeline  at 6-2  (and a touch of self-respect).  And then a stroke for Willstrop as Darwish, sluggish, failed to clear and from that moment on Willstrop was over his ankle worries and back on course, dominating the play and running out an 11-8 winner.

Willstrop deserved the win,  but should not put too  much store in the victory. He will of course be delighted at his  energy saving, which means after two virtual walkovers he will arrive at the final  with his tanks full. I hope he was watching the other semi-final with his father/coach Malcolm. They have 24 hours to figure out the Ashour code.

RESULTS, 2010 Tournament of Champions   [Main Draw]

Semi-finals:
[6] James Willstrop (ENG) bt [1] Karim Darwish (EGY) 11-6, 11-5,  11-8  (37mins)
[5] Ramy Ashour (EGY) bt  [4] Nick Matthew (ENG) 11-8, 6-11,  11-2,  11-3  (49mins)