This article concludes the series on Top-of-the-Table play with an overview on methods of how position is obtained. I must emphasise that this article, as the two previous ones, is based on my observations of the world's best players and a comparison of their methods with what has been written by the great masters of bygone days. Firstly, readers may be interested in a few facts taken from the Strachan U.K. played in March and how these relate to my observations on the Floating White.
There can be no doubt that Mike Russell and Geet Sethi are currently the World's best players. It could be argued that these are the two best players to emerge since the war though there are those who would argue the claims of such players as Ferreira, Dagley, or Barrie. That however is another story and readers views would be welcome. But look at some figures from the Strachan. Russell and Sethi both played 14 hours billiards over five days. It is worth noting that in the old days a top player would play more competitive billiards in the space of a fortnight than Russell or Sethi get in a season. In those 14 hours of play Russell scored 7009 points which is an average of 500 an hour with the following breaks:-101, 107, 119, 123, 124, 127, 134, 135, 137, 141, 149, 169, 178, 187, 191, 282, 289, 297, 335, 336, 446, 606. Sethi scored 7480 points - an average of 534 an hour and making breaks:-100, 112, 118, 121, 129, 132, 142, 170, 173, 190, 195, 199, 255, 300, 312, 314, 359, 380, 580, 690. The only other players to top the 200 mark were Ian Williamson (349) and Peter Gilchrist (225.238.294.) The rest of the field thus scored four breaks over 200, three of these coming from one player, whilst Russell and Sethi scored 15 such breaks between them both once topping the 600 mark. This is without even considering the dozens of breaks in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Sethi therefore scored 4971 and Russell 4743 in breaks over the century. I saw most of the play and a good 95% of these points were scored at the spot end and by Floating White. There were short periods of Postman's knock, whilst losing hazard play existed only to place the balls in position for getting to title head of the table.
Potting the Red
It seemed to me that both Russell and Sethi were potting the red even more than I suggested in the article on Floating White (B.Q.R. Feb.) Two types of pot in particular seemed to occur so many times that it could not have been chance. Russell made extensive use of the deep screw pot in positions where Sethi seemed to prefer to leave the cross-loser. Sethi played a pot often when the cannon seemed on.
This emphasises the confidence that these two players have in their potting ability and how they utilise this to build up their breaks so rapidly. Both were timed when in full flow (from 100 - 200) and both could score the century in under 5 minutes though the average time was perhaps a little over 5 minutes, with Sethi a second or two the faster. The Indian player used the cross-loser more than Russell and he also displayed an uncanny ability to play the long-loser to leave the object ball wherever he wanted for the drop cannon. Russell didn't seem to need to do this, he appeared just that little more secure in his overall positional play and it was something of a surprise that he ever broke down. I have thought at times this season that Mike was not playing quite so well as in the year when he won the World Title, but his play in the Strachan was wonderful to watch and possibly better than ever. But let us take a look at how top-of-the-table position is obtained and with particular reference to the leading players of today.
There are three ways two of which are methodical:-
1. The drop cannon
2. From the middle pockets
3. By opportunism
The Drop Cannon (Red on spot) So called because the cue-ball reaches the second object ball at a slow pace and may be said to have dropped on it. For the average player this means playing a rather slow half-ball cannon from hand aiming to knock the red towards a top pocket and bring the white up towards the spot and this is usually played in a rather nap-hazard manner the player being quite satisfied if he leaves the red on and more than satisfied if at the same time, the object white lands in a good position. If the red happens to be the first object ball then he tries to double the red towards a top pocket and not move the object white very far. All sorts of things can - and do - go wrong. The average amateur generally reckons he has been unlucky when the leave is a bad one - as so often is. The truth of the matter is that the average player has been just as lucky when he gets a good leave as he has been unlucky when he gets a bad one. The average amateur then, plays his drop-cannon quite slowly and aims to hit the red thinly knocking it towards the pocket. As often as not this results in the cue ball being left tight on the top cushion with object balls either side, or with the object balls on the top cushion with the cue ball in-between. Every player will recognise these classic after positions from a badly played drop-cannon.
It is interesting to note Joe Davis' general view concerning the drop-cannon, "if you are careful enough to play thickly enough on the first object-ball when handling these cannons, you can scarcely go wrong with them, and too much attention cannot be paid to this point." Well Joe, I think I am not alone in wishing that my drop-cannons could scarcely go wrong.
Lindrum's view as expressed in his "Billiards," 1930) is quite opposite to that of Davis. Lindrum P.48, "Speaking for myself, I do not trust the drop-cannon absolutely, well knowing that it may trick me positionally at any time."
and
"But if he (The Amateur) kept a record of the bad leaves he gets from his drop-cannons I am sure the figures would surprise him, and he will see there is enough in my point to make him chary of leaving drop-cannon position if he can avoid it,"
So there you have it. The world's greatest ever player tells us to avoid the drop-cannon because it cannot be trusted and (probably) the world's second greatest ever player tells us that you can hardly go wrong with it.
It is interesting to note that Lindrum's influence may still be seen in the play of one of the best modern players -Robby Foldvari. Foldvari studied the game with O'Donoghue who had studied the game with Lindrum. Foldvari tells that it is only fairly recently that he has started to make any kind of extensive use of the drop-cannon and had always thought that the best way to the spot end was via the middle pockets - a direct link with Lindrum through O'Donoghue. Robby's willingness to make some changes to his method of approach to the spot-end is not a little influenced by Mike Russell who certainly favours the drop-cannon approach and whose ability to control the balls in a drop-cannon is sheer billiards magic. (Foldvari also admits to playing more floating-white than he used to but that is another story.)
So what is the correct approach, the method that is most likely to leave good position every time provided that the strength is not wildly incorrect?
The best method, and that that is used by the top players of today (and I am pretty sure by the top players of yesterday - and the day before that!) is to play the stroke in such a manner that the cue ball strikes the red ball full in the face and bounces it a few inches from the top cushion. Jack Karnehm put it to me better than anyone when he said that the cue-ball strikes the red full, but not full from the player's view but full considered from the direction of travel of the cue-ball. This avoids lining the balls on the top cushion, if played just a little too hard then an in-off is left, and if the balls do cover, the fact that they are not on the top cushion means that a top-cushion cannon is usually available. Jack gives another useful tip about drop-cannons, many players, he maintains, allow their eyes to stray towards the red-ball. Fatal, says Jack, you must keep your eyes on the first object ball.
Karnehm recommends spotting the cue-ball for a thick contact and playing with check side. There are countless variation in drop-cannon play but the general rules are to take the first object-ball (white) rather full and to strike the second-object-ball (red) also full to bounce it from the top cushion. Generally speaking, the further the white down the table the more likely you are to need a touch of check side whilst with the object white further up the table the more likely will it be necessary to spot the cue-ball slightly wider and to use a little running side. In both cases this is to keep control over the run of the first object ball so that it may finish nicely near the spot. Mike Russell is a master of the drop-cannon and it is his preferred way of getting to the spot end.
I have made no remarks concerning the cannon where the red is the first object ball, and I have not mentioned other types of drop cannons where the balls might lie over to one side of the table or where there may be a 'short leg' or a 'long leg' type of cannon. I propose to make a survey of these type of shots in a future article. The whole of drop-cannon play cannot be covered in a short article such as this. Let us move on to the second method of taking the balls to the spot end, Lindrum's preferred method, by working from the middle pockets.
Obtaining position for top-of-the-table play from middle pocket play is, in theory, fairly straightforward. It is simply a matter of playing an in-off the white to place it behind the spot and then potting the red. Delightfully simple to write about it, rather harder with a cue in one's hand.
There are two important points to make about the position as shown in Diag.8. One practical and one psychological. From the practical point of view it is important to keep in mind that it is not often that the balls roll conveniently into such good middle pocket position, they have to be worked there and this again is easier said than done. How many times does the average player have the balls in this position in the course of a game? almost certainly less often than he might think. The second and, "psychological, "oint is that, when in this position it is hard not to play the in-off game. Many players who would like to score a few points at the spot end think in terms of making a few from the red and then going to the head of the table and as often as not quickly break down. They do so because they are playing neither one method nor the other. If the player wants to play at the spot end then I think he should get there immediately allowing for the fact that it may be necessary to play a loser or two to get the balls just right for taking to the top - OR - he should play the red ball and be done with it. It takes a very good player indeed to alternate at will between the two methods.
If the player has made up his mind to go to the top, then from the position shown, it is a fairly simple matter to play the white into a suitable position. A little practice and a little care will lead to some mastery over this stroke. Robby Foldvari says that he aims to place the white on the top cushion from this position; I have not spoken to Russell on the matter but observation would suggest that Mike is more likely to place the white to one side of the spot in preparation for his particular brand of the floating white. The placing of the white depends to some extent on the position of the red and how the player intends to take his pot. If it is a relatively simple matter to play the white into close proximity with the spot, potting the red is quite another matter. The best player I have ever seen at placing the cue-ball from the middle pocket pot is Norman Dagley. At his best Norman never failed to leave the cue-ball ideally placed for the continuation. Speaking to him about this he said that he varied his method according to the table. On fast tables he preferred to pot the red by a thinnish shot and bounce from the top-cushion, whilst on slower boards he would play the pot fuller and firmer running up the table to obtain position without using the top cushion. The lesson here is that the secret of the shot is strength and that the distance the cue-ball will run after taking the red is determined by how thickly or thinly the pot is set up. The shot needs a deal of practice and, despite there being a fair margin of error, is surprisingly easy for the average player to get it wrong time after time. There are variations, the red may sometimes need to be potted with screw or stun depending on where the player wants the cue-bail to finish. The answer to this one is that the player should practice until he finds what type of pot and what angle to take best suits his own temperament and the limitations of his own particular cueing ability.
Practice should be methodical and purposeful. The keen player will keep a record of his progress. Walter Lindrum is interesting on the question of practice. He advocates "earning position," - it is all very well to arrange the balls mightily convenient for the opening of a break - thus, in time, you begin to take such leaves as the sort of thing you expect, but are rudely disillusioned when you are pitted against a skilful and resolute opponent, who may have more than a little knowledge of safety play, and so arrange matters that he will beat you badly before one of your favourite leaves is presented for you to begin with. Lindrum. "Billiards" (P40).
In this series of articles I have tried to discuss Top-of-the-Table play in general terms both from the point of view of my own ability which is limited, and the point of view of my observations of very good modern players, which I claim to be as extensive as anyone's. The message is perhaps that as man does not live by bread alone, neither does the real billiards lover exist merely for the red ball, lucrative and skilful scoring method that it is. Billiards is an art, a means of expressing one's personality and mood. Whilst it is foolish to be reckless it is a mistake to be over cautious, remember that Lindrum himself reckoned that big breaks seemed to elude the man who would not take a risk now and again. So try new plays, do not be put off by failure or by losing a game or two, remember that billiards is a recreation, play the game for the sake of the game and enjoy it.
With regard to the top-of-the-table I have found the following books to be the most useful:
Walter Lindrum. "Billiards."
J. P. Mannock. "Billiards Expounded." Vol.2, (hard to find)
Jack Karnehm. "Understanding Billiards and Snooker."
Murt O'Donoghue. "Advanced Billiards."
Richard Holt. "Teach Yourself Billiards and Snooker."
There will, of course, be many other books with good sections. The ones recommended are a personal choice though Lindrum is essential reading.