The British Open was held at the Barbican Centre, London, and was contested by Title Holder (2 years) Peter Gilchrist, Ian Williamson, Norman Dagley, and Geet Sethi, the players who had qualified at Kenilworth (B.Q.R. Oct. P.18.) The venue was prestigious but the chosen playing area was not really suitable for billiards. The Tournament had originally been scheduled for the Blue Exhibition Hall but changes at the last minute to the Garden Terrace. The Terrace is on the top floor, and is a lofty hall covered with a glass roof which admits of far too much artificial light for billiards. On one side of the table was several rows of unraised seats and on the other a vertical drop of some thirty feet down to the gardens from which grew all sorts of exotic plants and one large tree in particular which almost overhung the table. The temperature dropped considerably in the evening affecting both the players and the playing conditions. Attendances were not all that good but they have often enough been worse; the best turnout was for the Dagley - Sethi match on the Saturday afternoon.
The Tournament was held at the Barbican as part of the commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the death of the great Austrian composer. Mozart was a billiards player himself and spent many of his evenings in Salzburg back-street cafes drinking coffee and playing carom (not to mention womanising) as a relaxation from musical composition though, from all accounts, writing music came as easy to him as writing a letter is to any ordinary person.
As the billiards was part of the Mozart Festival it had been suggested that the players should play in period costume and readers may have seen a photograph of a player thus attired. This absurd idea was rejected out of hand by the players. Gilchrist for e.g. remarked that he would have been perfectly willing to have entered into the spirit of the thing and put on fancy dress for an exhibition game but that he did not think it appropriate for a serious championship match in which he was to defend a title he had held for two years running. The players in fact all dressed immaculately for the occasion - and rightly so. It seems that the peculiar idea came from the Tournament, "aster of Ceremonies, "ne Jed Ford. Mr. Ford is a newcomer on the Billiards scene. Mark Wildman was asked where he found Jed and replied that he didn't - Jed found him. Jed tried very hard to put some, "life," into the proceedings. Before introducing the players and officials for the first session on the Friday evening, Jed asked all the spectators to turn to the person on their right and shake them by the hand. As the Editor of this magazine was on the right hand end of the second row he naturally had no-one on his right to shake hands with so that was O.K. Jed's next jolly wheeze was that everyone should then turn to their left and kiss their left hand neighbour. Fortunately there was no-one on the B.Q.R editors left either, and as the nearest spectator was a rather elderly bald-headed gentleman it didn't seem worth moving. Jed was quite willing to talk to anyone who would listen and he explained that billiards was his favourite game and that he regularly made fifty-breaks. He also explained (many times) that he was, "n Show Business"and that he, "would make thing happen." Making things happen seems to have included billiards. It would have been nice if he could have made something happen to Ian Williamson ( A Scud missile?) To be fair to Jed (Can that possibly be his real name?) he did have one or two ideas regarding the format of the Tournament which made good sense.
There was a parallel Carom tournament. Two of the players, Torbjorn Blomdahl of Sweden, and Ludo Dielis of Belgium did not turn up. Italian champion Marco Zanetti helped fill the gap joining Martin Spoormans of Belgium and Christoph Pilss of Austria to play a round-robin the winner to meet the winner of the British Open for the title of Biathlon Champion.
The first game was between Title Holder Peter Gilchrist and 1988 U.K. Professional Champion Ian Williamson. Gilchrist made a 22 at his first visit to the table, 0 at his second and 78 at his third breaking down at a cannon with the object balls not a foot apart. At 147 he missed an in-off in the middle pocket. Williamson meanwhile had made an 82 and a 35 and he took the first game, a game which had lasted 55 minutes. The Leeds man had a 96* in the second. Gilchrist won the third but never looked like winning the match losing 4 - 1 after 3 hours and 35 minutes playing time an average of 43 minutes per game. Williamson scored 704 points at an average of 18.5 whilst Gilchrist scored 393 at an average of 10.1. This works out that the players scored between them at an average of 5.1 points per minute with the session ending in almost sub zero temperatures at 11.40.p.m. Those are the dismal statistics. Peter Gilchrist, who is naturally a quick moving and fluent player whose average time for a century break is something just over 5 minutes, was quite unable to cope with the Leeds player's snail-like approach to the game. Gilchrist's apprehension was fairly obvious and his mounting frustration as the evening wore on was very apparent. In the last game Williamson made a 42 break which took just over 9 minutes. At one stage in this break the object white came to rest on the jaws of the left hand top pocket. It was not clear from the spectator's viewpoint whether or not an in-off could be played by taking the jaw or the cushion first. The Leeds man studied the shot for what seemed like an eternity. It appeared that he was going to try an in-off. He took the long rest and discarded this in favour of the half-butt. Not liking this he put the cue away and searched under the table for his extension which he screwed into place with extraordinary care; finding that this also was not really suitable he eventually decided that he would need the long rest - the very implement he had tried first off. What followed was laughable - he played a simple pot white, a shot that he could have reached over and scored with no trouble whatever even allowing for the fact that being a left-handed player the position was on the wrong side of the table for him. This sort of thing is quite inexcusable for a Professional player. This magazine has cited Ian Williamson's play as a good example for any young player being a model of correctness. His ability is not in any doubt, but he really must try to speed his game up. It has been said that Walter Lindrum and the nursery cannon killed off Professional billiards. B.Q.R. is not quite so sure, if Lindrum had been playing at the Barbican it's a pretty safe bet that it would have been difficult to get in and they would have needed a thousand seats rather than the hundred or so that they did have. The Gilchrist -Williamson match started with some thirty or so spectators and finished with just Gilchrist's parents, Williamson's father, and the B.Q.R. Editor.
| Ian Williamson
| 4 | Peter Gilchrist
| 1 |
This was contested by ex World Champion Norman Dagley and Twice World Amateur Champion Geet Sethi from India.
The match was in complete contrast to what had gone before. Dagley plays at a relaxed pace but scores at a deceptively quick rate, whilst Sethi is as fast, if not faster, than Russell. The shortest game lasted just 10 minutes, the longest 30 minutes. There were 6 centuries and a 96* Dagley scored 715 points at an average of 23.1, Sethi 715 at 21.2 and between them the players scored at a rate of 9.6 points per minute. At last there was billiards which could truly be described as Mozartian, billiards of the champagne variety, billiards to lift the spirits and remind us all of what a great game it is. Sethi had but two visits in the first game - 146 and 6*. The Indian ran out with 100 in the second whilst Dagley ran out with 141 in the third. The fourth was the longest game Dagley taking it with 68* to level at 2 -2. Sethi took the next in three visits - 13.117.and 21* and followed with yet another century in the sixth but lost it to 96* from Dagley. All to play for in the last. Sethi broke, Dagley scored and made 134. Sethi got in but missed a relatively easy pot into the middle in working the balls to the spot-end. Dagley then clinched the game and the match with 17*. It was a wonderful match played in a wonderful spirit. It attracted the best crowd of the weekend and it was the greatest of pities that there had to be a loser.
| Norman Dagley
| 4 | Geet Sethi
| 3 |
| Norman Dagley
| 7 | Ian Williamson
| 5 |
Play started at 7.44.Saturday evening The average length of games dropped, mercifully, to 29 minutes, still overlong for a Professional 150 up, but better than the previous evening. Williamson took the first with beaks of 63 and 54. Wins then alternated the session finishing at 3 games each. The Leeds player had a 93* in the third and Dagley a 79 in the fourth. It was not until the fifth that there was a century. This was an effort of 113 from Williamson. The B.Q.R. editor had been starting his stopwatch at the opening shots of both players and this break was timed at 19 minutes and 48 seconds. Dagley made a century in the sixth to level at 3 all and his 110 was times at 8 minutes and 8 seconds. Scores.
Ian Williamson started very well by taking the first two games making breaks of 144.74. and 69*. During these two games Dagley visited the table 8 times and scored just 28 points. For all his vast experience the ex World Champion was looking a little frustrated and thoughts surfaced that even he might find Williamson's style of play difficult to cope with. Dagley, however, would not have won all the things that he has won if he had difficulties in coping with awkward opponents; but the necessity for action was urgent, at 5 - 3 the Leeds man needed only a couple of games for the Title to be his. Dagley's determination was very obvious as, with his first real chance of the session he took the 9th game with a great 136*. The tenth was his in just two visits - 13 and 137*. 5 all. Williamson was frozen out of the eleventh scoring only 25. Dagley one in front with two to play. The twelfth game saw some cautious play from both men. Williamson was in first with 45 breaking down when in good position. Dagley followed with 31 and, as it proved, a decisive run of 73. Williamson got in again but at 30 missed a middle pocket in-off. A relieved Dagley then finished of the game and the match with 36* to take his first British open Title.
It was an interesting Tournament, not an unqualified success but neither was it a total failure. The best attendance was for the Dagley - Sethi match in which spectators were treated to a feast of superlative billiards. The Gilchrist - Williamson match started with some thirty or so but these dwindled to a mere half-dozen after the interval. Several men said that they would not come again to see the kind of billiards that had been played and, frankly, they cannot be blamed. It was something of a disaster for the game that Peter Gilchrist was unable to show any form on the Friday evening. When in flow the young Middlesbrough Professional is one of the most attractive players to be seen anywhere. Williamson's display in his semi-final could be seen as having a detrimental effect on the, "Gate," at the Final. It is hard to see what can be done about slow play and referees are put in a difficult position.
The other negative factor was that the match arena itself was rather unsuitable and very cold. Billiards needs a much more intimate atmosphere than was to found on this occasion.
There were TV cameramen in evidence at various times during the games but it was not easy to ascertain when or if any play would be shown. The National Press was nowhere in evidence.
A Carom tournament was played, "parallel" to the English Billiards and the winner was to play the Open Champion for the Title of Mozart Biathlon Champion. Two of the invited players, Torbjorn Blomdahl of Sweden and Ludo Dielis of Holland did not turn up. Italian Champion Marco Zanetti was asked to play. Zanetti, together with Martin Spoormans of Belgium and Christoph Pilss of Austria played a round-robin. Pilss was eliminated and Zanetti then beat Spoormans 15 - 9 to win the Tournament. The game was the three-cushion variety. As Zanetti had a plane to catch Spoormans was invited to play in the grand final. The English billiards was won by Dagley 200-77 whilst Spoormans won the Carom 20 - 3. In order to balance the disparity in scoring, each cannon was multiplied by ten Spoormans was thus declared the Biathlon Champion by 277 points to 230. Dagley had not played carom before and by the time he had adjusted to the table-size and speed of cloth and cushions it was too late. It was nice to see Mozart himself turned up to present the prizes. He looked a little pale but as he has been dead for 200 years this is only to be expected.
Recent additions to the Professional ranks:-David Barton. David Causier. John Caven. Mark Hirst. Patrick Morgan (Australia). Mohammed Shauq. John Sinclair. Dave Seddon.
'Paddy' Morgan is a good player, Irish by birth he emigrated to Australia some years ago. Dave Seddon qualified for the recent World Amateur in India.but was unable to travel. Shauq was a winner in last year's Teesside Open under 21. I have never seen Sinclair play billiards but he is certainly a good cueman. David Barton and John Caven are also unknown to me as players but Caven is a great enthusiast for the game. I feel that maybe the best of this bunch is David Causier. Causier has a flair for the game and an uninhibited approach that reminds me of the Russell of some four years ago. If Causier stays in the game and refines his play I think he will be a challenger for major honours by the time he is 21 or 22. There is not a lot left to play for this season. The Strachan U.K. is expected to take place in Sheffield in March and definite news of the European Open, is not yet available Good luck to all of them. (Ed.) Championship Qualifiers It seems that some remarks made in the last issue of this magazine may have upset some players as pointed out in the editorial. The two players mentioned by name i.e. Paul Cavney and Steve Saunders were not named because they were any worse than many other players and I had not then seen either of them play. The names were mentioned in connection with a criticism, hopefully constructive, of a system of play whereby, in the event of a player not turning up, a not-so-good player could qualify for the final stages of a major tournament whilst a star player (Russell) could be eliminated by a draw based on an idiosyncratic seeding system. Take, for example, The World Amateur Champion Manoj Kothari who, together with Indian Champion Subhash Agarwal is set to turn Professional. I have it from Geet Sethi (and others) that these are two brilliant players It would not make very much sense for these to come to England together with Sethi to play each other in the early rounds of a World Championship to be held in India. Does this make the point? If billiards is ever to be much of a spectator sport then the best players are the ones who must be presented to the public in the final stages of important championships and a format devised to ensure this whilst at the same time giving the not-quite-so-good players the opportunity of getting through. It should not be beyond the wit of the Billiards Committee to do this.
As regards the players mentioned, I have see Paul Cavney play. He is a fine cueman who, with practice, could be an excellent billiards player. As regards Steve Saunders I have been told that there are two players of this name. One is a top class professional pool player based, I believe, in Ilford, whilst the other is the Steve Saunders who played at Kenilworth and made a rather poor impression as a billiard player. This is confusing to say the least.