A most interesting letter appeared in The Observer of April 23 from Mr. G. M. Kelson, an old gentleman player for Kent, whom the editor of The Billiard Monthly well remembers to have seen playing many times for his county in the beautiful Mote Park at Maidstone as many as forty years ago. Very singularly Mr. Kelson was the gentleman player whom the editor had in his mind when answering Question No. 44 in this month's issue, although he little imagined when doing so that "G. M.," as the Kent schoolboys of 1870 affectionately called Mr. Kelson, was still not only in the land of the living but hale and keenly interested in sport as of yore.
Mr. Kelson used to wear a flannel jacket of many colours and would sometimes keep it on during play. The present writer wonders whether Mr. Kelson remembers that coat of "the summer of his career" as well as he does.
In his letter to The Observer, under the heading "Tiring Billiards: What Changes are Desirable?" Mr. Kelson writes:—
You suggest that there is a way of putting a limit on any particular billiard stroke, and that the principles of the game should remain as they are. Quite so; and these words of yours are cheered to the echo by all true lovers of sport. Of course, you were referring to the long spells of losing hazards we are now accustomed to see played.
Undoubtedly some steps must be taken sooner or later to deprive a match player of keeping possession of the table from the time he enters to the time he leaves the room.
Although it may be a little tiring to constantly see a man occupy the table for hours together, I fail to see why the pet stroke he goes in for should be barred any more than the pet stroke of a cricketer who stays at the wickets during the whole afternoon. No stroke, in my opinion, that can be made fairly either on a billiard table or on a cricket ground should be barred.
If, for one instance, we take the spot stroke of yore, what could have been fairer? Surely the monotony of those winning hazards could have been considerably reduced by placing the "spot" nearer the top cushion?
Coming now to Gray's remarkable losing hazards, briefly, would not the best solution be to decrease the width of the pockets?
If these hazards were barred because of Gray, we might just as well prohibit "cuts" and square leg hits at cricket.
In my day these were made to perfection by C. G. Lyttelton and "Mike" Mitchell respectively. They not only delighted the spectator, but made the game attractive and interesting. And how the people flocked to see them!
What a rush there was for seats! May I never see the day when these strokes are excluded from cricket or when legitimate strokes at billiards are boycotted!
My opinion in respect of cricket now that the bat so frequently beats the ball is not to preclude your groundman from preparing the very best wicket possible, but rather to decrease the width of the bat or increase the thickness and height of the stumps —even have four instead of three.
A wicket such as I met with in the summer of my career, when I managed to scrape up three figures without a blow for a blow, was indeed a golden gift of the gods.
It has often been my wish to express my opinion on these matters, and more than once have I realized that lost opportunities seldom recur. Even in the days of top hats I handled both bat and ball, and may have been a clumsy cricketer considering the blows I got. Some of them most certainly were owing to the rough state of the ground.