The principal feature of the present year in the world of billiards is undoubtedly the introduction into this country of handicaps played on the American system. That this system possesses many advantages over the ordinary one there can be no doubt, though it is open to several minor objections.
Billiards has of late made such rapid advances that breaks of 200 and even more are of almost daily occurrence, and are made too by men who do not even claim to rank among first-class players. It is therefore evident that any handicap in which the number of points was fairly adjusted, played now on the old system, in which a player losing one game is out of the handicap altogether, would be but a poor method of arriving at the conclusion as to who is the best player.
Still, the old system never fails to create an interesting series of matches, and for ordinary entertainments, in which a moderate prize only is contended for, is, in our opinion, superior to the American system, the great drawback to which is its tediousness. In fact a handicap determined by this method, to be successful, must be played but rarely, and then by only very first-class players. A series of games among amateurs, such as those who have contended lately in the Oxford and Cambridge Billiard Matches, would be simply insupportable. The players, never mind how valuable the prize, would play to empty benches, and even a record of the games would be impossible unless the members of the press, liberally supplied with strong green tea, took it in turns to relieve guard.
In another column will be found an analysis of the play in both the American handicaps that have been played this year. These tables have been calculated from the score of the games, which have been taken down as shown further on.
Perhaps the most interesting item in these tables of the analysis of play is the average made by each player in each game, and also his general average in the whole seven games played in each handicap.
This average is calculated by simply dividing the number of points scored in each game by each player— after deducting those given in the handicap as well as in misses by his opponent—by the number of innings in each game.
It will be remembered in the Manchester handicaps that there was a prize offered for the best average. This prize was a gold locket, and was presented by Mr. Ballard, the manager of the " Manchester Limited." On. referring to these averages, it will be seen that Roberts, jun., won the prize, being far in advance of all the others, Robert's average was a little over 29, while next to him comes Cook, with an average of 19. On referring to the average made by each player in the previous handicaps played in London early in the year, it will be found that both Cook and Roberts scored an average of 19 odd,. Roberts winning the prize, had there been one offered, by only a few decimal points. In comparing, also, the average made by some of the other players, it will be seen that the play in both handicaps was fairly uniform. Taylor's average in both is a little over 14. Stanley's average in the first handicap was 13 odd. Thanks probably to his wonderful break of 277 in his game with.
Alfred Bennett, his average in the second handicap is 15. It is a little curious that Alfred Bennett's average should have been better than that of Kilkenny in the last handicap, as Kilkenny won five games out of the six he played, and Alfred Bennett but four out of seven. It must be borne in mind, however, that Kilkenny is a somewhat cautious player. Of course, every time a man takes his cue in hand, even 'at starting, he has a chance of scoring, as there is always the red ball at any rate to play at, even though it may be in baulk. Every time, therefore, a player gives a miss, he may play the right game, but he necessarily lessens his average. In the late handicap, Kilkenny gave considerably more misses than any other player, viz., 35 in the six games be played, Cook being next, giving 25 in seven games.
It is, in fact, an open question whether it would not be advisable in. calculating a man's average to deduct the number of misses he gives—supposing them to be all misses for safety—from the number of innings. Should there be another handicap played in which any valuable prize is offered to the best average, the point is decidedly worthy of consideration, as otherwise there is a sort of premium offered for incautious play. However, we give the figures, and a few minutes with paper and pencil will show the difference counting a miss as an innings or not makes.
There is another point, however, in the late handicap, to which we would draw especial attention, and that is to the way in which the extra prizes were offered. The most essential element in a handicap is that each player should have an equal chance. The prize for the best average, the silver tankard, valued at fifteen guineas, and the silver fitted portmanteau—one for the best all-round and the other for the highest break, were given in a manner which quite overlooked the fact that the players were unequal. For instance, if Cook gives, say, Stanley 100 in 500, it means that Cook can score 50 where Stanley can only score 40. A break, therefore, of 300 by Cook is equalled, from a handicap point of view, by 240 from Stanley. Stanley's break, therefore, of 277 is, for him, a better break than Cook's 304, which gained the portmanteau. It is evident, too, that if either of the scratch men had happened to score 400 odd, none of the other players would have had any chance at all, as they could not have won even if they had scored the game off the balls at starting.
Of course, the thanks of the players, as well as the public, are very much due to gentlemen who offer prizes, and there is a good old saying that it does not do to look a gift horse in the mouth. Still, probably the intentions of the donors were to give every player an equal chance, and we simply call attention to the point as one at any rate worthy of a little consideration another time. The most striking feature in the late handicap is the magnificent play of the winner. We believe that on this occasion, Roberts, jun., has surpassed any play on record. To win every game in a handicap, in which it is impossible to say the points conceded were insufficient, is a rare performance, more especially when it is considered how much chance enters into billiards. Supposing each game to be "an equal chance," the odds against winning seven running is evidently 127 to 1. One good result of this magnificent play is to add increasing interest to the next match for the championship, which takes place on the 24th inst., the Monday in the Derby week.