At the end of the1999 season the Budleigh Salterton club started planning its programme for the following season. As usual discussion took place on how to interest new members to join and start playing croquet. We had read the account of the use of the CA’s indoor mat, which could be borrowed free of charge, but concluded that the cost of hiring somewhere in the town, and the transport costs, would make quite a hole in our budget. However, one of the committee thought he could make it pay its way, and it would be a good opportunity to get to the heart of the local community, as we realised only too well that many people, even those who had lived in the town for many years, had not discovered our rather tucked away club.

     The committee member was Roger Bowen, and he set about finding out what the costs would be and seeking grants. His efforts resulted in a small local grant, and the club agreed to foot the remaining costs in the hope that even a small success would result in subscriptions which would cover the cost. To widen our catchment area he decided to include Exmouth, whose croquet club had sadly folded in recent years.

     Roger enlisted the help of Peter Jones to help with the publicity, which included fliers in local newspapers. Peter had managed to get himself on the radio and mentioned the demonstrations. The Public Hall in Budleigh Salterton and the hall of the Methodist Church in Exmouth were booked for two days each, and teams of members volunteered to be in attendance to welcome visitors and demonstrate.

     The mat duly arrived and was housed in the club until D-Day. Fortunately the three sections of the mat rolled up to a size which Roger could accommodate in his estate car, and on the due day it was taken to Exmouth, set up, and a notice put prominently outside. Everyone waited expectantly – would anyone come in? Yes they did. Not in their hundreds, but those who came expressed great interest. All were invited to a coffee morning to see the facilities at the club, and many came. This was all repeated in Budleigh Salterton, where, being on home territory and with the greater publicity we had achieved, we were rewarded with increased numbers. We met the same degree of interest, with many signing up for the coffee morning, so we felt it was all worthwhile.

     Coffee morning day arrived, and over 100 turned up and were warmly welcomed to the club. In the end a large number signed up for the coaching course, and over 40 of those eventually became members and have since become a welcome and enthusiastic part of Budleigh Salterton Croquet Club.

     Will we do it again? Yes, certainly.

On page 12 of the November Croquet Gazette Roger Bowen described the successful venture and mentioned that with publicity the total cost was £480, more than covered by an astonishing 40% increase in club membership! Well done to Budleigh. Ed 

That’s the question I often hear when I talk with croquet players who don’t go to tournaments, or with members of clubs that are not part of the CA. The answer may be a bit of a surprise: rather a lot, actually. I will outline the work the Croquet Association and its committees do for clubs and the majority who play croquet – that’s beginners, improvers, golf croquet enthusiasts and those who enter Federation events. 
Development: 
· makes grants and loans from the CA to Federations and clubs to improve playing facilities. 
· advises clubs that apply for grants to Sport England. A lot of its work is done via Federation Development Officers. 
Coaching: 
· sets standards for coaches, including training and examining them. 
· publishes manuals and operates the CA Merit Award Scheme. 
· works closely with Federation Coaching Officers. 
Golf Croquet: 
· responsible for the laws of this variation of the game that has equal status with association croquet. 
· appoints referees and organizes national events. 
Equipment: 
· sets standards and gives approval of balls and hoops. 
· works with manufacturers on research and development of all types of equipment. 
Handicapping: 
· responsible for policy and the appointment of handicappers. 
Laws (Association Croquet): 
· amends the laws and regulations for tournaments. 
· examines and appoints referees. 
Marketing: 
· advises member clubs how best to promote the game locally and increase their membership. 
· publicizes croquet in all the media. 
· oversees CA sales, including discounts to CA members. 
Publishing: 
· responsible for The Croquet Gazette and the CA’s website that gives all the latest croquet news. 
I am truly amazed at the huge amount of work the CA gets through  when we employ only a Secretary and one part-time assistant to help with administration. The reason we cope so well is that over 60 croquet players volunteer to sit on our committees. They are real enthusiasts who have decided to put something back into the game that is giving them so much enjoyment. We could not function without them. You may agree that if the Croquet Association didn’t exist, clubs would quickly have to invent it if they wished to carry on playing the game. So if your club belongs to the CA you may well think that the contribution you make from your subscription (around £6 per year) to help fund us is really quite a bargain. If your club should be one of the few that is not already a member of our national body for croquet, do please ask your committee to consider it - we would very much like you to join us. 

The Budleigh July tournament of 1898 attracted more attention than usual, for a player of unrivalled skill was to take part. A certain Mr.C.E.Willis had the previous year won the Open Championship at Wimbledon and it was put about that he was everywhere recognised as being the best player existing. 
       The earlier rounds of the All-Comers Challenge Singles were watched with great interest, especially the match between Mr.Willis and Miss Elphinstone Stone, a very fine player and the leading local lady. It was soon seen that this lady, as well as all his other opponents, were quite outclassed by Mr.Willis. Interest languished and it was felt that nothing in any way approaching a match was likely to be seen. Finally a novice, a young lady of twenty-one, who had never played in public before, was left to play the final round, best of three games, against Mr.Willis. This young lady had hitherto had easy victories. ‘That is the luck of the draw,’ said the cognoscenti. ‘This young lady reaches the finals and gets the second prize without opposition. It means that all interest in the tournament is over.’

 
Lily Gower

       This judgement was soon proved to be over-hasty however. A strange rumour was carried to players still involved in matches on distant lawns. The novice was playing very well, and was running rapidly ahead of her formidable opponent. Soon, so it was reported, a ringing cheer startled the quiet town of Budleigh Salterton. Miss Gower, the novice, had won the first game. As can be imagined, the interest was now enormous.     All the spectators, and every contestant not actually playing a game, gathered round the lawn. Every stroke of the game was watched with breathless interest. Mr. Willis produced some of his finest play and won easily. Again the habitual commentators were in evidence with such remarks as ‘She was lucky in the first game but experience tells in the end.’ They were, however, completely confounded, because in the third game Mr. Willis had only five shots. Lily Gower went round in two breaks of 11 points and 12 points, and won by 26 points in thirty-five minutes.

 

C.E.Willis

        In the autumn of the same year the Maidstone Club had requested the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club to allow their two challenge cups to be played for at Wimbledon because of a typhoid scare at Maidstone. Lily Gower entered this tournament and the following excerpts from a contemporary account of the tournament will give an indication of her performance on this occasion. 
       ‘…..A novel feature of the meeting was the competition for the Maidstone Challenge Cups…One of these was the Open Challenge Cup, kindly presented by Mr.Ayres. This was in the hands of Mr.C.E.Willis. The other was the Ladies’ Challenge Cup, won at Maidstone last year by Miss Elphinstone Stone. The meeting was further remarkable, in as much as it introduced to the Wimbledon grounds the brilliant young lady player who beat Mr.Willis two games out of three at the Budleigh Salterton Open Finals. Miss Gower put her name down for both competitions. 
       ‘… On Wednesday morning an important struggle took place, when Miss Gower found herself confronted by Miss Elphinstone Stone, the holder of the cup. The game fluctuated at first, but Miss Gower was not long in getting one ball round to the last hoop, assisted by one very forward and difficult break. Then, with the other ball for the fourth hoop, she laid a trap for her opponent. Miss Stone fired, and her doom was sealed.    Miss Gower went off after the shooting ball, and with a fine break of thirteen points, ran out. The grounds were difficult after the long drought, and the players were a little puzzled with Ayres’ spade hoop, which below the surface is a flat and sharp iron wedge, which gives an exact 4-inch, and is far more rigid than a hoop in an iron socket. 
       ‘……On Thursday Miss Gower continued her victories.  In the afternoon, as winner of the Maidstone All-Comers, she was called upon to play one of three games with Mr.C.Willis, the holder of the challenge cup. Miss Gower soon obtained a lead, but, breaking down at No.4 hoop, let Mr.Willis in; but in a short time he went over the boundary, and it was soon evident that this delicate young lady, although exhausted from having played several games in the hot sun, was a very formidable opponent. She pushed on ball after ball with difficult breaks; she lost the innings three or four times, and at once recovered it by amazing long shots. In the gloaming she pegged out, having defeated the Champion of the United All-England Association by 21 points. 
       ‘……The splendid success of Miss Gower on this occasion gave rise to difficult questions. Were these victories due to simple good fortune? This was the theory of some of her detractors when the subject of her previous victory at Budleigh Salterton was discussed. But as folks watched her calmness, her judgement, her confident and easy skill, a second question arose. Had any player ever played like this on the Wimbledon ground before? Miss Gower is very young, very delicate-looking. She stands quite upright to her stroke, and takes aim by putting the mallet in the first instance over the ball. She then strikes with confidence, careless apparently, whether the object ball is six feet or six yards away. Her tactics are simple – to scheme for the 4-ball break at all seasons. At this she is very deadly. 
       ‘……Few will forget the excitement caused by her final game with Mr.Willis. She got in first, and kept the advantage until one ball was a rover, and the other to go out.       Then Mr.Willis got in with a long shot, and on the stroke, working the most difficult and brilliant break that he perhaps has ever played, became a rover with the intention of pegging her out. But he missed the peg, and the young lady got in once more, and became a rover with both balls. Again Mr.Willis got his chance, and this time he pegged out one of Miss Gower’s balls. The excitement became very great. Mr.Willis was working round his second ball with masterly boldness, and the young lady sending shot after shot within an inch of the winning peg. Then came the climax. Mr.Willis reached the last hoop, and the next break would have finished the game, when suddenly a shot more deadly than the others traversed the ground and hit the peg plumb-centre.’ 
        The ‘Ladies Field’ magazine considered this victory epoch-making…’It proved that a woman, if armed with up-to-date implements, can compete with success in the severe and prolonged conflict of nerve, endurance, and hard work which a week of match croquet involves…’ 
        Lily Gower played with a long-handled mallet weighing three pounds. In aiming she placed the mallet head over the ball and covered a black spot on the mallet with the handle, which she held very tightly with the right hand and very loosely with the left. She played her stroke entirely from the right wrist.

Lily Gower was daughter of Erasmus Gower of Castle Malgwyn near Cardigan, and she went on to become one of the all-time great women players. 

  The first issue of the Croquet Association Gazette appeared on Wednesday 27^th April 1904, and the remaining parts of Volume 1 on 30 subsequent Wednesdays between then and 29^th March 1905. Each issue consisted of 16 foolscap pages of fine print, with occasional photographs of celebrities, and four un-numbered pages of advertisements. The latter were mainly from croquet equipment manufacturers, of which there were no fewer than five. The secretary at the inception of the Croquet Association was Henry C. Needham, and the editor was C.D.Locock, the author of ‘Modern Croquet Tactics’, published first in 1907. He remained editor until 1915.

 

The Editor C.D.Locock (right) and the CA’s Hon.Secretary Lt-Col Hon. H.C.Needham,

pictured compiling the first edition.

 

The prolific nature of the Gazette continued until the outbreak of war in 1914. For example the 1909 edition consists of a great tome of 312 pages with almost as many separately numbered pages of advertisements. The latter included those for tournaments, for croquet equipment, and for hotels. Many hotels ran croquet tournaments. For example the Bath Hotel at Felixstowe claimed five full sized lawns, and the Edinburgh Hydropathic advertised ‘The best croquet lawns in the Kingdom’.  

 

Croquet Clubs

 

          Croquet clubs (many of which are no longer with us) seemed on the whole to be much better endowed with courts, and were all busy with tournaments (80 listed in 1909).  There were in those days about 2000 members of the Croquet Association and many of these must have attended a large number of tournaments, judging by the number of entries recorded. For example, at the two Bournemouth Club tournaments there were over 200 and over 300 entries. Incidentally the Bournemouth Club used to play at Dean Park before it was disbanded many years ago. The new Bournemouth Club is of course situated in Southbourne.   

 

In June of 1909 the Hurlingham tournament had record entries of 36 in the A Class Singles, 72 in the B Class Singles, 136 in the Handicap Singles, as well as 12 pairs of Open Doubles, and 62 pairs of Mixed Handicap Doubles. The meeting was reported as being very successful thanks to the manager, who spent 8 hours’ work on the draw alone.

 

Tournament Reports

 

        Prominent features of the gazettes were the tournament reports (as they still are) but some of the accounts were really quite long and often included digressions or anecdotes that make amusing reading now. Here are some snippets.

 

From the Sidmouth Tournament:

……..The plan of drawing lots for events at the commencement of each day’s play appeared to give general satisfaction, and when the referee was seen playing on the worst court, some of the competitors thought that a kind of croquet millennium had arrived. Miss W. Heap, a lady who will not be out of her teens for some time, distinguished herself by winning both the ‘B’ Singles and the ‘B’ Handicap. Her accurate hoop running from anywhere from 3 to 5 yards – her usual position for a hoop – and her delightful innocence or disregard of any tactics other than rolling two balls from any distance to her hoop were refreshing to watch….

 

From Newcastle, County Down:

…….A rather curious thing happened on Friday afternoon; a player busy with a break looked up and saw a cuckoo sitting on the second hoop……..

This was followed next week from the Peels by:

………The players were cheered by the songs of the birds and the distant voice of the cuckoo. It is true that we did not notice any cuckoo enjoying the play while seated on a hoop. Such incidents are reserved for Ireland, yet we occasionally thought we caught a glimpse of one sitting IN a hoop…….

 

It is probably true that all accounts of croquet tournaments mention the weather. In 1909 the tournament scribes had much to say on this subject, as by all accounts, it was an atrocious summer.

From Felixstowe in June:

…….The two courts extemporised from the lawn tennis club were, well, what such courts are bound to be, and when the cold spell set in towards the middle of the week and the North-Easter was blowing, they provided as much fresh air to the square inch as the most voracious appetite for Felixstowe could desire………

At Lincoln in June:

…….It was the stuff you wash in that we perpetually lived in from morning till night…..we played in it, walked in it, sat down in it, and the referee sometimes even lay down in it.     Good fresh water, we understand, costs 3d a gallon in Lincoln, so the expense must have been ruinous, but all seemed to go home pleased, a fact on which Mrs A.King Brook the Hon.Sec. may well be congratulated, as her duties were considerably trying at times in a tempest with rain falling at a rate of 10/6d a square yard……..

 

Correspondence

 

        The correspondence column was a major feature of the Gazette and controversial topics were discussed at length and sometimes with cutting sarcasm, but always most politely. The fact that replies to letters could appear in the following week’s issue tended to keep interest from flagging. The laws in those days were still in a state of flux and there were consequently many letters posing questions that had arisen in games, and reading them makes one realise how fortunate we now are to have such a comprehensive law book. Correspondence on controversial croquet subjects would require an article to itself so I give below a selection of excerpts from letters on various other subjects.

 

The following are the last two in a series of seven sarcastic letters:

A Protest. May I express in the invaluable Gazette how tedious I find Mr. Capell’s contumelious letters? Can’t you persuade him to adopt a more amusing style?      

Yours faithfully, J.W.Hawtrey, May 5^th 1910

A Reply. A member of the Croquet Association, Mr. Hawtrey by name, is suffering from boredom. So profoundly interesting a fact he naturally hastens to make known to his fellow associates. As the tediousness of my letters has unwittingly produced this unhappy condition in Mr. Hawtrey, may I offer him my sincere sympathy, a sentiment which I feel he will readily extend to myself, when I tell him that I too have similarly suffered every week, after perusal of most of the letters in the Croquet Gazette. Hitherto with a modesty which now appears excessive I have abstained from uttering a ‘protest’, and have endeavoured to think with a tolerance for others which Mr. Hawtrey might strive to emulate, that many of these communications are deeply interesting to your readers. I fear, however, that I can but hold out slight hopes to Mr. Hawtrey that his criticism will in any way alter the wording or character of my letters. His remedy, however, is simple. Let him study the signatures of your correspondents before he reads the letters, and those to which my name is appended let him pass by unread.  Mr Hawtrey is so bold as to suggest that I should attempt to be amusing. Heaven forbid! For I should then be violating the most solemn traditions of this worthy journal. It would require the satire of a ‘Junius’ and the wit of a Sheridan to raise its pages from the ‘damnable dullness’ into which they have fallen.    

Yours faithfully, Arthur Capell, Chorleywood.

After which the Editor closed further correspondence on the subject.

 

       The following letter appeared in the Gazette of 16^th January, 1913, and gave rise to considerable correspondence.

Sir, It is a sad sight to see youngsters from public schools, and Varsity undergraduates taking part in croquet tournaments. When the English representatives did so badly at the last Olympic Games, many said that the nation was becoming soft. These critics would probably think their opinion justified when they saw young fellows deserting cricket and football to play a soft game like croquet. While we are young our quick eyes and good nerves can best be utilised while we are playing a fast bowler with a deceitful break, or while we are shooting at goal with other fellows charging at us. This view was generally held some twenty years ago, and we should have laughed at any schoolfellow or fellow undergraduate performing with a croquet mallet. Surely the Croquet Association might set an age limit to men taking part in croquet tournaments, for the sake, not so much of croquet itself, as of English athletic standards.

The following tongue-in-cheek criticism seems a little unfair.    It started……

 

…….In Notes of the Gazette of May 6^th 1909 I read: ‘The new design on the cover, in celebration of the completion of the fifth year of the Gazette, will probably not escape notice.’  That simple remark doubtless proved correct. For my own part I noticed it with astonishment, and since then with pain, grief and amusement……..What can be said in favour of the present design? Nothing that I can see, except that the surface of the field – I cannot write lawn or court – apparently does credit to the groundsman. On the other hand the picture is ludicrous in every way……..

 

The letter continued in similar vein for some way, and concluded:

 

….But in all seriousness, could we not have a more appropriate design for the coming season?

 

      The design turned out to be the same for 1910. It was at the top of the front page of each issue, often accompanied by a Jaques advertisement for ‘Glisglos’ Compo Croquet Balls at 20/- per set of four! Prices of other equipment are equally startling, e.g. ‘Corbally’ mallets at 10/6d. How times have changed.

 

The cover of a 1909 Gazette

I have been told that to many club players, who have never reached the dizzy heights of advanced tournaments, the mysteries of the ranking system are hard to unravel. The SWF Top Twenty, which has now appeared in the last four editions of SWAN, is compiled by extracting the first twenty names of players based at SWF clubs from the ranking list compiled at the end of the previous playing season. The list is compiled by Chris Williams and appears on his Croquet Records website athttp://www.butedock.demon.co.uk/. It is based on the Elo system used in chess and it  needs a degree in mathematics to decipher it (for those so inclined see the technical section at http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/)

Basically to appear in the rankings a player must have played at least 10 singles games under advanced rules in the preceding 12 month period. Only tournament games are included, but these include inter club tournaments in the UK. Therefore singles games played in the Mary Rose and Advanced Play League qualify for the rankings, whereas games played in internal club advanced tournaments do not.

Obviously some players play far more frequently than others, but as long as a player has at least 10 qualifying games he can maintain his ranking. The number of games played and won is listed, however, so that it is possible to see whether a player is improving or gradually falling down the rankings. The index on the right hand side will be familiar to all players who keep a handicap card (where an index of 2000 equates to a scratch handicap), but the actual position in the ranking list is determined by the ‘grade’ figure in the left hand column. This is because there is a complicated points system in operation designed to give greater weight to certain tournaments, such as the Open Championship, and to balance the results achieved against the standard of the opponent. A 5 handicap playing in his first advanced tournament would obviously gain more ranking points by beating a minus player than by beating another 5, and amongst players of similar standard a win against an ‘in form’ player will net more points. The grade is the ‘smoothing’ of the index, and by and large a player with a higher index than grade is on a good run of form.

By the early twentieth century the skills of croquet players had improved so much that many tournament games between top players were won by 28 points, with the loser never taking croquet. Certainly this happens all too frequently today, but nothing like so frequently as it did then. There were several reasons for this difference. First, the balls had to be played in sequence, so that at the end of his break, the player could easily lay a break for his partner using the ‘dead ball’. Second, there were no lifts, even for close wiring, so that the opponent was left with no shot at all. Third, breakdowns in a four-ball break were less likely because the hoops were four inches wide, and the old Hale setting with the two centre hoops close together, and the ‘turning peg’ (hitting which scored a point), was easier to negotiate than the present Willis setting.

 

As a result of all this there were numerous suggestions put forward in the Croquet Gazette during the early years of its life. Some of these were adopted, albeit at a much later date. However, one that had considerable support from such distinguished players as Cyril Corbally and G.F.H.Elvey was never adopted. It is interesting to read some of these proposals and to see how the alternative suggestion of the ‘Either Ball Game’, as we play it today, was proposed, almost one feels, in desperation, to avoid banning the four-ball break.

 

The Four-Ball Break – A Remedy

 

The correspondence started with the following submission from Cyril Corbally which appeared in the Croquet Gazette of 18^th June, 1908, under the above heading. The Beddow Cup referred to is now The President’s Cup: -

 

…… When the spot stroke in billiards became merely a test of steadiness, it was abolished, and some years afterwards the anchor stroke met the same fate. We have an anchor stroke, or rather turn, in first class croquet, the four-ball break, and unfortunately it is still with us.

 

When a first class player begins one on a good ground he feels that if he fails it will be through blundering, and if he succeeds he will only bring off what is a twenty-five to one on chance, and in the process there will be no hazards to be overcome by thrilling efforts, which, if successful, will be a source of great pleasure; nothing but the monotony of baby strokes and fear of breaking down. The result of the break is interesting; the making of it very dull. This is not what good croquet can, and therefore should be.

 

The abolition of wiring increased the evil and took away one of the few varieties of the game. Three-and three-quarter inch hoops make three-ball breaks much more difficult but have only a slight effect on four-ball ones, while they encourage baby strokes and poky croquet to the detriment of more enterprising and dashing styles. Why not bar the four-ball break in ‘A’ Class events? We have alternatives in hoops, balls and settings; why not one more?

 

The rule I have tested is “A player shall not take croquet off more than two balls in his or her turn”. It is simplicity itself:  it encourages shooting, and if desired, the beneficial return of wiring, because to combine wiring and laying a game is so difficult under it that it is seldom worth while trying.

 

          It increases the difficulty of peeling and consequently pegging out one’s opponent, and it gives their proper place and importance to the many difficult and pretty shots and approaches for which there is very little scope in present first class croquet.

 

          The rule deserves to be, and I hope will be, tried in good ‘A’ Class events during the summer, and if it is well received it could be put to the vote of the selected ten whether they should play it in the Beddow Cup or not.                                   Cyril Corbally………..

 

           This was followed in the next week’s issue by a supporting letter from Elvey who had tried out the game with Corbally. He clarified the proposal by stating “A player at the beginning of his turn may roquet two balls, and after making any point, may roquet the same two balls”.

 

          There was also some support from a middle-bisquer: -

 

……..May a player seldom able to figure in public tournaments express his very cordial support of the plan suggested by Messrs. Corbally and Elvey for the elimination of the four-ball break? It is in my judgement the bane of the game, and may well prove its ruin…….It is urged that the game, already difficult enough for the moderate player, would become almost impossible if he were deprived of the assistance of the fourth ball; personally I think there is not much in this objection. The moderate player regards the live ball as a deadly enemy, and will rarely touch it except to drive it to the remotest corner of the lawn; that is probably the chief reason why he remains a moderate player. The ‘two-roquet’ game will not hamper him when he is in, and it will give him more chance of getting in when he is out.                                                                      “Two Roquet”………

 

Some Objections

 

Here are comments from two of the many objectors: - 

 

……...May I venture to express my opinion that the two-roquet game would prove to be most uninteresting for most of the tournaments carried out under the flag of the Croquet Association, where the majority of players competing are not of championship form.    Two or three point breaks would become the order of the day, and perhaps two-ball breaks would be thrown in to make things lively.  Who would be most bored, the players or the spectators? The game, now so fascinating, is very good as it is, and the four-ball break has justly made it so. Why abandon it?                 J.Brewin Holmes…………………          

 

……..Are there going to be two sets of rules for croquet in future: one set for the ’A’ players and another set for the ‘B’ players? For this is what those gentlemen who object to the four-ball break are leading up to. And would this radical change be conducive to the real interests of the game? Do the second-class golfers have a bucket into which to hole their puts instead of the ordinary orifice? Do second class tennis players use a net a couple of inches lower than their superiors? Are inferior billiard players supplied with a table with pockets six inches wide? In cricket should the wickets be narrower and the bats broomsticks?………….

 

          There were also many facetious letters with suggestions for such things as the eight-ball break, abolition of the boundary, specially prepared undulating lawns, etc.

 

The “Choice of Balls” Game

 

          The Either Ball Game was first suggested by a Mr. Payne in 1903, and was again proposed in the 1905 Gazette by one Gilbert Coventry. It was introduced as an alternative in 1913, but it was not until 1920 that it was adopted exclusively. Here in 1908 we see it suggested as an alternative to the ‘two-roquet’ game.

 

……..The objection to the four-ball break appears to me to be, not in the break itself, but in the complete control it gives to the in-player over the position of the balls at the end of the break, and his consequent ability to leave an exceedingly difficult shot for his opponent. This would be effectively remedied by the proposal made by Mr.Tickell (1908) to allow the player at the commencement of his turn to play with either of his balls. The in-player could then only leave a shot half the length of the lawn, and, if this was missed, he would still have only a three-ball break to start on, and probably not even that. The out-player would have a better chance of obtaining the innings and the in-player would obtain a second break only as a result of definite skill……………..

 

Other correspondents supported the proposal, including one who even suggested adopting both the either-ball game and the two-roquet variation.

 

Conclusion

 

          It must be admitted that many of the criticisms of the four-ball break expounded by Corbally and his supporters do still apply today in top class games in spite of the narrower hoops, the either ball game, the more difficult Willis setting, and the lifts at one-back and four-back. This is no doubt due to the even greater skills of present day players, and possibly to better lawns.

 

         Is it perhaps time to consider a further modification to the laws, for example contacts at one-back and four-back? One might even try the two-roquet game.

 

         Incidentally the sequence game makes an interesting variation, especially for doubles, where partners are bound to take alternate turns. Try including it when you are organising a croquet fun afternoon.

  

 

Cyril Corbally

Lord Tollemache, whose great tome on croquet was published in 1914.This dealt mainly with the old sequence game, but he included a chapter at the end on the either-ball game.      Note the circles round the hoops. These were another innovation intended to increase the difficulty of the four-ball break. One had to run the hoop from outside the circle.

As gleaned from Keith Aiton, David Magee, Chris Williams and James Mackay

 

If you want to play better croquet try spending say 10 minutes per day, just before you go to bed, imagining what it would be like to play better croquet. Imagine that you are on a croquet lawn, playing a game, and that every time you have to make a roquet you do, every rush goes exactly where you want it to go, every croquet stroke sends the balls to the right places, every hoop stroke works just as you would have wished. Immerse yourself in the experience so that you can see what you would see, hear what you would hear and feel what you would feel just as though you are really there. The more real you can make it the better. Feel the confidence growing. Experience the joy of knowing that everything you want to do will work just as you want it to. If you want to, say to yourself "This is me. I am this good. This is how I play croquet." Keep practising and playing, always with the same degree of confidence. If you play a bad stroke, dismiss it. Tell yourself that you are better than that. If you are practising and you feel yourself becoming frustrated, stop. Spend some time recovering your confidence and then resume practising. This is a very important skill to acquire for playing competitive games, as you have to recover quickly from a bad stroke in order to approach the next one in the right frame of mind.

• Place two balls a yard apart on the west boundary roughly level with hoop 1. With a third ball (as striker's ball) take-off from one of the balls, getting a rush on the other one to hoop 1. Rush to the hoop, approach it and run it so as to obtain a rush back to the ball remaining on the west boundary. Rush back to the west boundary and repeat the exercise.
• Place a ball in each corner and then with another ball as striker's ball play round the corners via a roquet and take-off from each of the balls in turn, leaving the balls in the corners (not as easy as it might sound).
• Place a ball on the yard line and line up the other three balls, say, three yards into the lawn. If you can hit the ball on the yard line with all three balls in succession then move the three striker’s balls back a yard. Otherwise repeat the exercise until you can roquet the ball on the yard line three times in succession. Continue moving back a yard each time you are successful. If you have two sets of balls you can aim for seven roquets in a row, and you can use bisques to mark off your starting points, removing them as you master each distance.
• To improve the accuracy of your rushing, place a ball a yard dead in front of a hoop. Then place a striker’s ball a yard from that ball and try to rush the target ball (or cut rush it as you build up more confidence) through the hoop. As you improve you can try from further away or give yourself a bigger angle.
• Practise a three ball break, always keeping a ball at the peg.
• Set up a four ball break but concentrate on making the striker’s ball travel as short a distance as possible on each shot. This makes you concentrate on getting rushes.

The contributor who signed himself “NOT GEORGE” submitted no less than five short stories to the Croquet Gazettes of 1912 and 1913. They were all about a fictitious character named Professor Ibbelgen. This, the first story, appeared in the issue of 19^th September 1912  – Allen Parker.

 

          I daresay a good many people will remember an advertisement in the Croquet Gazette some years ago, which related to a Professor Ibbelgen’s eye-wash. The result of this eye-wash when used before a match was to render a roquet the length of the ground as easy as one a yard in length. I had never met anyone who had used the stuff, and the matter created but a faint impression on my mind.

 

          Last year a great friend of mine, Asquith, the well-known croquet player, wrote to me urging me to come and play in the Eastbourne croquet tournament. He had just become engaged to a most beautiful and delightful girl, a Miss Jones, who, amongst many other attractions, possessed that of being an adept on the croquet lawn, and he was anxious that I should make her acquaintance. Well, I went, I saw, and I was conquered, and I congratulated my friend most heartily on his engagement.

 

          The day after I arrived Asquith had an unexpected business call to London, and with some difficulty he obtained leave from the referee for the day. His fiancée had to play her first round in the A Opens at 10 o’clock, and as she, a two bisquer herself, had to meet a man named Follette, also a two bisquer, it seemed that it might be a somewhat exciting match.

 

          In Asquith’s absence I had promised to look after Miss Jones and her mother, and I took a seat beside the latter when the match began. The morning was dull and cloudy at first, and the light just right for croquet. Later on the sun came out at intervals.

 

          Each player won a game somewhat easily. At the commencement of the third game Miss Jones hit her tice, got a perfect rush to the first hoop from one of the adversary’s two balls in the third* corner and proceeded with a very nice 3-ball break. But when she came to the sixth hoop she laid up rather far away, and missed the hoop altogether. Her adversary rose, and as she addressed her ball again, he cried out “But you didn’t go through the hoop, Miss Jones.”  “Oh, yes I did” she replied, and went on with her break.

 

          There was a subdued murmur amongst the spectators. The adversary subsided into his chair with the heavy croquet frown, which the striker’s opinion, alas, so often causes, and I felt hot all over. The game went on without incident, the sun occasionally appearing and disappearing behind the clouds.

 

          Presently Miss Jones got round with a 4-ball break with her red, and ran it with yellow up to 4-back, and again left herself a longish shot for her hoop.  Again she missed it clean, and again her adversary rose, again she claimed to have run the hoop, and giving but one more long shot, which the adversary in his annoyance missed by about seven feet, she went out.

 

          Everybody was talking about “that Jones girl’s cheating.” I was in a terrible quandary. On the one hand, could I stand quietly by and see my best friend marry a croquet cheat? On the other, how could I possibly say such a thing to him about the girl he loved? And how could a girl with such a face and with such wonderful, honest, lovely eyes, be a cheat? To look into those pools of limpid blue, and think of the owner cheating at croquet, was to make one doubt one’s senses, and yet dozens of people had seen what I had. I was indeed a gloomy, grumpy man all that day, wandering about and wondering what I was to do.

 

          In the evening I really couldn’t face Asquith and his friends at dinner, and made the excuse of a prior engagement to go off and dine at a restaurant attached to the hotel.     Here I met an old Cambridge friend dining with a somewhat long-haired and be-spectacled companion whom he introduced as Professor Ibbelgen. In the course of dinner my friend said, “I know you are a great croquet player, Washington, and it may interest you to know that Ibbelgen here is the inventor of that eye-wash that made such a stir in the croquet world some time ago.”

 

          The word “croquet” at once reminded me of the incidents of the morning, and plunged me into a gloomy abstraction, and I did not notice much of what the professor was saying until he said “And after all I found these minute crystals, which acted like a telescope, through coalescing on the retina of most eyes, yet in eyes of a particular quality of limpid blue had their edges dissolved, and in a bright light made the owner of the limpid blue eyes see crooked. So my invention was a failure and I have given it up.”

 

          My friend and the professor both thought I had gone mad. I got up, rushed from the table, knocking over my chair as I did so, rushed upstairs, burst into the Jones’ private room, and almost shouted to Miss Jones “Do you use Ibbelgen’s croquet eye-wash?”    Miss Jones blushed becomingly, Asquith rose in an endeavour to soothe his old friend suddenly gone mad, and poor Mrs. Jones looked quite frightened.

 

          “I tried some today for the first time” said Miss Jones, “as I found a bottle in a chemist’s shop here.”  “Heavens be praised.” I cried.  Explanations followed. Miss Jones, with the referee’s consent, given because of such extraordinary circumstances, scratched to the adversary, and all was joy and peace.

 

          “Fancy,” said Miss Jones, “an up-to-date place like Eastbourne still advertising a silly old thing like that.”

 

*Note.   There was no B baulk in the old sequence game. 

The contributor who signed himself “NOT GEORGE” submitted no less than five short stories to the Croquet Gazettes of 1912 and 1913. They were all about a fictitious character named Professor Ibbelgen. The first story was published in last year’s SWAN. This, the second story, appeared in the Croquet Gazette of 24^th October 1912  – Allen Parker.

 

     It is said that we are all mad on some subject, however sane we may be on all other matters, and I had a curious instance of this in connection with the occurrences that environed my second meeting with Professor Ibbelgen.

     I was beginning my croquet season this year with the Spring meeting at Southdown.    My friend Asquith, who had been spending the winter abroad with his bride, was coming too, and a number of other croquet friends, so that I expected a very pleasant week’s croquet.

     The meeting did not begin until Tuesday, so I travelled down from town on Monday, and had an invitation to dine that night with a rather well known local player named Philemon.

      This individual, a bachelor who lived in a large house overlooking the croquet grounds, was, I think, the keenest croquet player I have ever met; he appeared to think of and live for nothing else.  His handicap was ½-bisque, and his great ambition was to be a minus-bisquer.

     There was a rumour that on one occasion he had asked his adversary in the final of an “A” open event to dine with him before the match, and had done him so extremely well that his opponent, instead of being merely put off his game a bit (as rumour said his host had intended), had been obliged to scratch and interview the doctor next morning instead of the referee.

     I did not attach any credence to this story, and had no hesitation in accepting the invitation of Philemon, whom I had always found a most agreeable, witty and entertaining companion.

     When Philemon’s party had assembled that Monday night, I found a pleasant gathering of men croquet players, the only stranger being the Professor Ibbelgen whom I had met at Eastbourne last autumn. He appeared to take a great interest in croquet, and told me that he considered that really scientific croquet could only be played on an absolutely true surface, such as a sheet of ice, and he said that he had found that hollow iron balls covered with cork, on such a surface, made an excellent game.

    “We had a most interesting tournament in Stockholm last February”, he said; “it was only marred by the accidental drowning of the referee, which occurred through his walking on thin ice, when called upon to decide a very doubtful point”

     I noticed during dinner that the men present were all those in Philemon’s half of the draw in the “A” singles, and I wondered if there was anything in the aforementioned rumour. However, the dinner was excellent and at its termination no one appeared to have taken more than a moderate amount of wine.

 

     Before we settled down to bridge, as we all stood chatting in the smoking room, the conversation turned somehow to hypnotism.  “My friend Ibbelgen here”, said Philemon, “is a dab hand at it, and I believe, could hypnotise a cat”.

     Presently it came out that Ibbelgen could in some cases hypnotise people against their will, and as he was challenged to try the present company, he made us all sit down, and then produced a longish, narrow metal funnel, with a small electric bulb above the narrow end.

     He placed the narrow end to his eye a short distance away from it, and the wide end he presented to each of us in turn, and we gazed at his eye for about 60 seconds, it seemed to me. He then said “Well I can’t do any thing with you now; you are all too strong willed. I really believe that croquet has a tendency to strengthen the will, as I have often noticed the peculiar obstinacy of a croquet player in sticking to his opinion, even when the referee has given a decision against him”.

     We then settled down to bridge, at which the professor was a topping player, whatever he may have been at croquet on the ice. At 11.15 the party broke up after a most pleasant evening.

     Next day the tournament began. Philemon beat me somewhat easily on Wednesday in the “A” opens, but not owing, I am sure to his excellent dinner on Monday, as everyone on Tuesday morning was as fit and flourishing as possible.

     On Thursday morning Philemon met Asquith, and each won a game. In the third game Philemon, getting the balls at once, made a nice break to 4-back with his red, he then took his yellow to 3-back, having peeled the red through 4-back with some difficulty on the way. He broke down at 3-back and let Asquith in. The latter took blue to 4-back, and, as Philemon failed to hit in, appeared likely to go out with black. He had peeled blue through 4-back, when I noticed Philemon lift his hat and wipe his forehead, and I knew how bitter his disappointment would be if he were knocked out.

     Directly after this Professor Ibbelgen appeared on the ground, and came and sat near the winning peg. Asquith continued his break with black, peeled blue through the penultimate, and left it near the rover hoop. In attempting to peel it through the rover hoop, he failed, so ran the hoop himself and laid up to go out next turn, wiring both red and blue from yellow.  Philemon again shot and missed. Asquith then roqueted red with blue, both lying close to the rover hoop, but, to everyone’s stupefaction, he proceeded to lay up for and run the rover hoop the reverse way.

     Philemon stalked on to the court, and after a short discussion, the referee was called.    It then appeared that after some further discussion Asquith saw his mistake, which he had been unable to do before. “What a donkey I am, must be a touch of the sun, I think,” he said. “Sorry to have bothered you,” to the referee. Philemon did the last two hoops with red and pegged black out, and then finished the game with yellow.

     In the afternoon Philemon played against Follette; the latter was shooting very well, but kept on playing with the blue ball of his opponent instead of with his own red. He must have done this five or six times, and lost both games thereby.

     The professor, who was sitting near me, said, “Is it that our friend is colour blind?” It certainly looked like it that afternoon. Winning this event put Philemon in the final, and as it turned out he had to meet Mrs Asquith on Saturday morning. She had been playing very well, and had certainly not needed any eyewash to help her shoot, as her shooting across the ground had been one of the features of the tournament.

 

     She won the first game somewhat easily. Philemon looked like winning the second, when Mrs. Asquith shot in, went round and was just about to peg Philemon’s live ball out, when, just as she swung forward for the hit, she let go her mallet, knocking the two balls to either side of the peg, and seized her left hand with her right, saying, “A bee has stung me.” Her friends crowded round, and it appeared that there was an irritating little red mark the size of a threepenny piece on her hand, but no sting as far as we could discover.  “I didn’t see the bee,” said Mrs. Asquith, “I only felt it.”

     I myself had been rather close and had noticed a curious kind of flash near Mrs. Asquith’s hand just as she dropped her mallet.

     Philemon went on and won the game. In the third game Mrs. Asquith suddenly dropped her mallet, again complaining of a bee having stung her. There was another little red mark on her hand, rather near the first one, and again I was certain I had seen something in the air near her. The general opinion was that it must have been some kind of large gnat or dragonfly which had stung her, and we were all much puzzled.

     Anyway the double sting quite put Mrs. Asquith off her game, and she kept looking round, and seemed to be paying more attention to the imaginary bee than to her game, with the natural result that Philemon won somewhat easily.

     He had barely pegged out when there was a crackling noise at the other end of the court, and the turning peg was seen to be wreathed in flames burning fiercely.

     Whilst people were crowded round wondering how it had caught fire, there was another crackle on the next lawn, and the winning peg, just as a player was pegging his adversary’s ball out, burst into smoke and flame.

     The referee was appealed to later on to decide whether it was a peg out or not, but as the striker’s opinion was amply corroborated by the scorched condition of the front ball, he had no option but to give it in the striker’s favour.

     Meanwhile, I had been keeping my eyes open, and the moment the first peg caught fire, I bolted out of the ground and hurried to Philemon’s house. “Is Professor Ibbelgen in?” I asked the footman.  “He’s in the observatory, Sir,” replied the footman, referring to a room in a high tower in the house where Philemon kept his big telescope. “Don’t trouble to come, I know the way,” I said, and rushed up the stairs to the observatory.     Unceremoniously dashing into the room, I surprised the Professor, as I had hoped to do, in front of a curious large instrument in front of the window overlooking the croquet ground.

     “Now Professor,” I cried, “the game is up, and unless you want to get into serious trouble, you must make a clean breast of everything.  I am sure you burnt those posts and hurt Mrs. Asquith’s hand, as I saw a gleam coming from this window.”

     The Professor, who I am sure had been reluctant to keep his invention secret, and was rather pleased than otherwise at being found out, at once caved in.

     “Well Mr. Washington, “ he said, “ our friend Philemon is, as you know, very anxious to get his handicap down at croquet. He had heard of me in connection with my celebrated eyewash, and was much disappointed when he found it was no good to him. I am, however, as you may guess, a somewhat ingenious man, and I told him that, for a consideration, I had two other ideas which would help him to achieve his end. That night when you dined here, I did really gain sufficient hypnotic power over you all, by my instrument, to have the power of distorting your judgement, at any rate for a few days.     And this instrument I have here is an elaborate and extremely powerful burning glass. I call it a helioball. The sun’s rays fall into this immense and somewhat oval reflector, they are thence reflected into this row of lenses, most of which are in pairs, and have water enclosed between them. In the water I have a certain preparation, and in the partial refraction that takes place, the non-heating part of the sun’s rays is eliminated*.

     By these means, and with this telescope sighting apparatus, I can throw a ray of burning light, intermittent or otherwise, a considerable distance, and to an exact point.

     By throwing certain numbers of the lenses out of action, I can lessen the heat of the rays I throw. By careful experiment, I ascertained exactly how powerful a ray it was necessary to throw in order to cause pain to a player’s bare skin on the courts below.     Unfortunately your quick eyesight detected the gleam, and as I saw you look up here, I burnt the posts in the hope that your attention would be distracted, and you might think the phenomenon some extraordinary effect of the sun’s rays direct. I was to receive £100 from Philemon for my services.

     I told the Professor that the sooner he retired to his own country and devoted his attention to ice croquet, the better it would be for him, as I was not sure whether he would be prosecuted or not.

     There was a painful scene between Philemon and the club committee. The former was known to be an honourable and upright man in every possible way outside croquet, but on this subject he was undoubtedly mad.

     Eventually Philemon gave a solemn undertaking that he would never play in a tournament again. The committee decided not to proceed against Professor Ibbelgen for Philemon’s sake.

     Mrs. Asquith summed up our feelings towards the Professor pretty well that evening, when after a discussion of all the circumstances, she said, “Well, I am rather sorry he isn’t going to prison after all, because then at least he would have got his hair cut!”

 

*Note. Quite the opposite would happen.   The water would absorb part of the heat. [AP]

REPORT ON SOUTH WEST FEDERATION HANDICAP CONFERENCE

 

SUNDAY 20^th MARCH 2005 AT NAILSEA CROQUET CLUB

 

 

The conference started with a welcome address by Cliff Jones, Chairman of the South West Federation and Chairman of the CA handicap committee. He thanked everyone for coming and said that he was pleased that Don had agreed to take on this co-ordination role.

 

Don Gaunt, South West Federation handicap co-ordination officer then gave an introduction to the conference, its purpose and the day’s programme. He also explained his role, that of co-ordination. He was not there to dictate policy but rather to see that policy was correctly understood and applied throughout the Federation. He introduced the topics for the day and how they would be discussed.  He highlighted some common misconceptions: that handicappers had no powers to adjust handicaps outside the automatic system; that just because someone had won a game easily, their handicap was wrong; that 14 point and full bisque games did not count.

 

He made the point that there is no such thing as a perfect system. However, almost any system that rewarded success and penalised failure would eventually balance out ability. The main problem was how quickly it would do that. Too fast and it could be discouraging, too slow and it could lead to banditry. The CA automatic system is a compromise and like all compromises it has problem areas. This is why handicappers still play a vital role in ensuring that handicaps are adjusted when such problems arise.

 

He made the interesting observation that if the perfect system existed and player’s ability could be completely matched, the result of any game would be solely due to chance, not skill! Although such a system could not exist it did mean that the better a system was, the more effect chance had on the result.

 

The conference then moved on to the three syndicate exercises.

 

1, What should a club handicapper know? This considered what knowledge a club handicapper should possess in terms of how to assess ability, limits of responsibility and monitoring duties.

 

There were a number of points on which all syndicates were agreed.

 

1. Handicappers should have;

 

1. A good working knowledge of the game (but not necessarily the ability to play it!).
2. Read and fully understood the current issue of the CA guidelines.
3. Completely understand how handicap cards are filled in (including advanced and 14 point games).

 

1. Wherever possible, the club handicapper should be someone who regularly goes to the club.

iii.                  He/she should be readily accessible.

1. There was considerable support for a book of games played and results to be kept.

 

Other points raised by one or more syndicates were;

 

• A good knowledge of beginners and their progress, particularly potential bandits.
• How to devise tests to establish ability. 
• Regular checking of cards. 
• The ability to be tactful when changing handicaps.
• Be aware that players can be erratic – a purple patch may not indicate a permanent improvement.

 

2 Beginners handicaps. This looked at how to allocate handicaps to new players, what that should be and what process should be used to adjust handicaps as basic skills are learned.

 

The most significant point to come out of this discussion was the feeling that all clubs should start their beginners at the same handicap. Where there was disagreement, was in what that value should be. A straw poll held by DG showed roughly a 50-50 split between 24 and 26.  Many thought that the CA should issue mandatory instructions but DG and CJ pointed out that it was not in the CA’s power to do so. However CJ did say that the CA guideline was for 24.

 

Club cards as well as CA cards (where appropriate) were also held to be a good idea. The general consensus was that club cards should be used as guidance for the handicapper rather than as an automatic system (not of course applicable where this is the only card).

 

Additional points made were;

 

• Where a club started above 24, players should not play in the B league until they reached the CA’s 24. This was not universally agreed. 
• The setting of initial handicaps and subsequent improvement should make use of “Principles of Handicapping” by Bill Lamb. 
• Run a beginners only tournament with the club handicapper observing. 
• Club handicap cards should include all competitive games. Again there was some disagreement because players often used friendly games to try things out. 
• Use full bisques. 
• Many, but not all, felt that beginners should only play on short lawns.

  

3 Handicap harmonisation, which considered differences between club abilities and how to overcome them, training for club handicappers, complaints and appeals procedures and player awareness of the limitations of any handicap scheme.

 

There were not as many concrete suggestions from this discussion.  This might have been due to syndicate fatigue, but discussion showed that in fact delegates were very happy with the present level of training and procedures. Several people expressed complete satisfaction with the way that their problem had been dealt with.

 

There was, however, a lively discussion regarding the small club problem where just a few players continually played each other, sharing out their points. The net result was that good players ended up too high and steady players too low in their handicaps. DG said that he was very willing to help in this situation, as indeed he was in any other similar problem.

 

Other points that were brought out were;

 

• It is important that club handicappers should liaise and discuss with other club handicappers. 
• Handicap committees should have a range of abilities. Not unanimously accepted. 
• Recognition that a single federation match result, like a single game result, was an indicator rather than absolute proof.

 

There was a brief general discussion on international handicaps, also on bisques in small lawn games. CJ would look at this latter point.

 

The conference finished at about 4pm with general thanks to DG for organising the event and to Nailsea Club for hosting it and providing an excellent lunch.

 

Addenda

 

15 clubs and about 25 people attended.

 

A few clubs that could not attend sent letters beforehand. Below is a summary of their main points where not already covered above.

 

John Barber from Broadwas said that they run a season-long tournament where players gain points for breaks in a game e.g. a three hoop break gains 1 point, four hoops gain 3 points etc. (The scale used and whether bisques may be used can be decided by the club – DG). The points gained would be entered onto a chart as would a breakdown of the breaks in the “day book” of results.

 

W Simpson from Lym Valley said that they have three levels of handicap for beginners – a starting handicap, a provisional handicap after a few months and a definitive handicap at the end of the year. Only then does the player use a card for automatic changes.

 

Alison Thursfield of Cheltenham says that their handicappers will offer advice to small club members at Cheltenham handicap events. She makes the point that Cheltenham player’s handicaps are likely to be pretty close to the national average because of their exposure to a large number of visitors (this will of course apply to other large clubs in our federation – DG).