The Mysore Lamp, 1991 World Professional Billiards Championship

Hyatt Regency Hotel, New Delhi, India

Russell retains the Title

The World Professional Championship was played in New Delhi from the 26th to the 30th of July having been postponed from May when it was thought unwise to hold the event during the Indian elections. Subsequent events showed this to have been a sound decision. Fifteen players gathered for the championship a notable absentee being Eddie Charlton who had commitments in Australia established before the date of the postponement. Playing conditions were excellent, the hospitality abundant, the interest spectacular. There was extensive newspaper coverage and much of the tournament including the whole of the final was shown on television.

The first shot of the tournament was played by Mr. Madhavrao Scindia, Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism, as he officially declared the tournament open. The more serious proceedings then got under way as defending champion Mike Russell took on Welshman David Edwards on Table. 1. whilst ex Champion Norman Dagley opened his campaign with a match against Des Heald on Table. 2. Neither Edwards nor Heald were considered to have any chance and that was the way of it though Edwards had the satisfaction of a break of 179 against Russell. In the absence of Charlton, Clive Everton got through without striking a ball in anger though the Snooker Scene Editor would have preferred to have played the game before - had he won - taking on Russell in the next round. Mark Wildman had an awful game against Williamson and John Murphy was far from his best against Gilchrist. Foldvari had an easy win against Ray Edmonds. The shocks and controversy were reserved for the games involving the Indian representatives.

Shock Defeat for Ferreira

Michael Ferreira has won the World Amateur Championship three times, he is the only player since the war to make a thousand break in competitive play and in the same game he made a 900. He has won National titles galore. Hugh Nimmo from Scotland is a charming man, a great enthusiast for the game, but would be the first to admit that he is not in the topmost flight of players. Result Nimmo 1463- Ferreira 742. It is rather like Mansfield Town (say) going to Anfield and beating Liverpool 6 - 0 in the F.A. Cup. It just cannot happen and more than one enthusiast seeing the result shrugged his shoulders and reckoned it was a misprint. It is reported that Nimmo had already booked his flight home - but it was no misprint. Ferreira has recently been put in overall charge of the legal affairs of the large Multinational where he is employed and has recently had little time for any practice. Michael writes to BQR:-

"Ever since taking over the legal department of the company I work in, I have been absolutely snowed under with work. I literally did not touch the cue for three months before the Championship in Delhi and I paid the price."

Ferreira pays tribute to Nimmo's determination to take advantage of the situation. Well done Hugh - you will certainly remember this championship if you never win another game of any kind.

Close Controversy

Hartlepool Left Hander Bob Close led Geet Sethi by 414 at the half-way stage having bad a fine 252 and an average of 29. But Sethi was far from finished and obtained position right at the end of the session with a spectacular shot:-

"The white was behind the spot, the red about two feet from the bottom left comer pocket, and the cueball close to the jaws of the top right comer pocket. Playing with a raised bridge hand and taking his time, Geet smacked the red into the centre of the corner pocket. The white bounced off the bottom cushion and rolled dead right for the pot off the spot just as the bell rang." (M. Ferreira)

On the resumption Sethi took his break to 150 and, despite the controversial finish, Michael Ferreira considered this shot to mark the turning point of the game. This break was the start of an Indian comeback resulting in an astonishing and unfortunate ending. With some four minutes to go and with a lead of 35, the Indian let the Englishman in. Close checked the time, and in no hurry, began what he thought would be a match winning break only to be frustrated as, with his score at 17, the bell sounded. There was pandemonium as the spectators mobbed, applauded, and garlanded their hero with Close protesting that there were still two minutes for play.

When the hubbub subsided it was generally agreed that there had indeed been a couple of minutes left for play but by then was too late. There is no suggestion that the occurrence was anything but accidental and there were some other similar discrepancies in timing, but none of them had any bearing on an outcome. It is, of course, possible that Close would have broken down at his very next shot, but, considering the Cleveland man's tenacity and depth of experience, it is hard to imagine that he would have done anything other than hold the table to win by just a few points.

That Russell should beat Everton and that Gilchrist should beat Nimmo came as no surprise though the Scotsmen, boosted by his victory over Ferreira, did well to lose by only 296 points after the Middlesbrough player had made a break of 305.

Foldvari v Williamson was a dour, low-scoring, affair Foldvari getting home by 97. With some twenty or so minutes to go Foldvari lead by about 150 and reckoned himself to be home and dry. But Williamson has shown before that he can play the game at speed when he wants to or needs to and he gave Foldvari something of a shock by scoring high speed breaks of 70 in 3 minutes and 60 in under three minutes (Des Heald) but Foldvari hung on to reach the Semis.

Dagley's Great Effort

This was one of the best matches of the tournament. Sethi scored breaks of 74, 110, 178, 240, and 103; Norman replied with 63, 65, and 147 but found himself over 400 in arrears at the interval. The second session was quite different. From the, "Times of India, "- "The Englishman returned to hit back with a vengeance and had a break of 359 to start the second session. Suddenly the match was wide open and Dagley notched a break of 130 on his 43rd visit to the table and was ahead 1088 - 979. It was now Geet's turn to show his fighting ability and breaks of 46 and 143 had the Indian marginally ahead at 1277 -1113 with about ten minutes left. Geet potted the white as he seemed to be nursing the balls to the top-of-the-table and had no choice but to bring both balls behind the baulk line. Dagley went for the cannon and nearly got it. The chance was all Geet needed to sew up the match with a 73 which ended when he missed a straight red. But by then it was all over for the second seed for he needed to make up a leeway of 251 points in just over three minutes. Dagley had managed 49 when the buzzer sounded."

It was a great match. Dagley was uncomplaining (Has anyone ever known him to complain about a result?)

"You can never hope to give away 400 points and beat a player like Geet Sethi. I did manage to come back but then he came good once again at the end. I am not disappointed as I played my best. Only he was better."

Both matches ended on something of a controversial note. The Foldvari/Sethi match was characterised by some typically careful play by the Australian and some perhaps rather too hurried play from the Indian. Though Foldvari had made a magnificent break of 312 he was still behind at the interval though by only 25 points. The lead changed hands several times when, with some ten minutes to go Sethi faced a double baulk. The, "Times of India," :-

"Geet went for a three cushion cannon and missed narrowly, a shot he successfully executed two visits later but by then it was too late. Foldvari played a calculated game, repeatedly asking for the balls to be cleaned and thinking deep before taking shots. All in the game for the Australian who had a lead of more than 50 points and needed only to prevent Geet from scoring which he did with a great deal of success."

This could perhaps be called gamesmanship, but Singh Malik, sports correspondent of the, "Statesman," saw it rather differently:-

"Foldvari, displaying excellent matchplay tactics and a shrewd game plan succeeded in bottling up Geet's mercurial style of scoring. Foldvari played like a true professional, his persistency paying off in the end. On this day he was decidedly better than Geet."

Geet Sethi has been wearing glasses for some time but says that he is now quite used to playing in them. He had no recriminations regarding Foldvari's tactics. When asked if the Australian Champion's slow-paced game had upset him he said

"I don't think so. I've played with much slower players and won. For instance, Williamson. He is slower than Foldvari and I beat him by over 600 points. So the point I am trying to make is, when he (Foldvari) chose to slow down the pace it did not surprise me. I've played with him before and know his pace. "(Times of India.)

And on the subject of spectacles:-

"No, the glasses have nothing to do with it (the loss). I've been using them for the past four weeks and have practiced for four hours a day since then. Now - I am quite used to it." (Times of India.)

And so Robby Foldvari beat Geet Sethi by 47 points to arrive at the final of the Professional Championship for the second time in his career The last time he got there (1986) he won the title.

The Russell/Gilchrist match was quite a different affair. Gilchrist scored more than either Sethi or Foldvari and Russell scored more than both of them put together. Russell had a double century and a 193* in the first session to take an interval lead of 401. Gilchrist fought back and with about an hour to go the difference was only some 400 points and, given the speed at which Gilchrist can score, the match was by no means over. But the Middlesbrough player was not producing quite the form of his earlier games and the issue was settled with a great break of 411 from the defending champion. Singh Malik of the, "Statesman," describes Russell's play:-

"Mike Russell gave an exhilarating display of the arts and graces of the game of Billiards to outclass Peter Gilchrist by 1907 - 1024 and enter the final. Russell was the picture of confidence. Breaks of 259 on the 9th, 76 on the 10th, 127 on the 11th, and 61 on the 14th demonstrated a high class of consistency. The second session saw the champion in full cry. A 127 break on the 34th visit was followed by a classic effort of 411 on the 37th visit. The break ended when Russell, instead of opting for a thin in-off red, chose to play a follow through red in-off. It was a treat to see him command the movement of the ball following the "Floating white," method. In an endless continuity of red pot cannon on to the white sequence it was fascinating to see the absolute control over his cue ball as well as the object white."

The one slightly jarring note was that with about half-an-hour to play and with T.V. coverage Peter chose to abandon the superb billiards of which he is capable and indulge himself in all sorts of fancy strokes and big pots. It is not the first time that the Middlesbrough player has indulged himself in this way. It looks bad and he lays himself open to the charge of demeaning both himself and the game. Better to have played out time with one of his triple centuries. Peter Gilchrist is one of the most personable young men in the game, he is a fine player, and a very good sportsman, it is just a little sad when he resorts to play that would be perfectly acceptable in an exhibition game but looks badly of place in a championship match whether the game be won or lost.

Never-say-die Foldvari Outclassed

Mike Russell retained his World Title in great style but full marks to Robby Foldvari for putting up a great fight, playing billiards to the last gasp, late visits of 143 and 81 * unfinished reducing Russell's winning margin to a respectable, from the Australian's point of view, 395. However, there is no doubt whatever that Russell is in a class by himself. At the stage of the match when there was a suspicion of some danger he proved himself more than a match for his opponent in safety play, and Foldvari's rather deliberate style of play bothered him not in the least. There is little doubt that the Champion played well within himself and could have put his foot on the accelerator at any time had there been real need. Foldvari was the first to show with a break of 117 and 126 points on the board after three visits before Russell had scored. But there is an air of inevitability about Russell's game and this final was no exception. His first scoring visit was 243 followed by 200. His interval lead was 122 though Foldvari, was ominously on 175* There was an unusual bout of safety in this first session:-

"Both balls were on the bottom cushion and the red at the opposite end of the table. Four times each player just knocked the opponent's ball along the cushion waiting for the other to take the initiative. It was Foldvari, trailing by more than 200 points, who was forced to break the deadlock, though Russell could notch only 14 points from the opening. ("Times of India.")

Russell remarked "It suited me fine as I was comfortably ahead and the clock was ticking away."

Foldvari needed to take his break into the four or five hundreds. He has twice made thousand breaks in practice - what would he have give for a four figure break at that moment? As it was he broke down at 194 but added another century at his very next visit to take the lead. At this point, Russell, as he has done to so many opponents so many times, simply moved in for the kill. A break of 263 followed by a double-baulk or two, put the Australian under pressure:-

" - after potting the object white proceeded (Foldvari) to play the hazards. Being in deficit, the Aussie was under pressure and it got reflected when he flunked a standard centre-pocket loser to leave Russell on." (Times of India)

Breaks of 80, 210, and 89 were the final nails in the coffin leaving Foldvari some 600 points behind with less than a half-hour to go. The Australian made the score more respectable as he enjoyed himself with relaxed breaks of 143 and 81*. Russell, too, enjoyed himself and tried his hand at a few nurseries:

"Russell enjoyed himself and even gave a shot at playing nursery cannons along the top cushion much to the delight of the packed stands. The nurseries, a common sight during the Joe Davis and Walter Lindrum era, are virtually extinct, and Russell has to be thanked for serving this delicacy." (Indian Express.)

The only player who seems to have much of a chance of beating Russell (In a major tournament) would be an in-form Geet Sethi. If Russell adds nursery cannons to his game then, one suspects, that even Sethi's chances of taking a major will have been diminished.

Finalists Facts

Russell played 16 hours billiards and scored 6955 an average 434.7 points per hour. His opponents totalled 3550. Russell thus scored almost exactly at a ratio of two points to his opponent's one - twice the points and at twice the speed. His breaks (over 100) were 101, 127, 127, 129, 131, 132, 180, 193, 200 204, 210, 211, 218, 243, 259, 263, 355, 404 and 411 - 19 breaks over the century totalling 4098 points.

Foldvari in his 16 hours scored 4016 at an average of 251 points per hour. His opponents totalled 3686. The Australian's century breaks were 103, 103, 105, 111, 111, 117, 125, 134, 143, 146, 148, 190, 194 and 312 -14 breaks over the century adding up to 1942 points.

These figures speak for themselves and serve to emphasise the gap between Mike Russell and the rest of the players. Robby Foldvari has established himself as the World's No.2. The above figures illustrate the difference in scoring power between No.l and No.2. Foldvari may - or may not - retain his position when the next World Championship is played but there is very little doubt who the No.1 will be - barring accidents.

The story comes to mind of the amateur squash player who entered a tournament only to find he had been drawn against the world champion in the first round. On his way to the court a friend remarked that it was hardly worth while him turning out. You never know replied the amateur, he might break his arm. Well, yes, he might, said his friend, but I don't think he'll break both of them.

The Drop Cannon - Red to White Tom Terry It may be recalled that in the last of the series of articles on Top-of-the-table play, "Getting there," I discussed drop-cannons at some length but only from the point of view of the cannon as played from white to red. This article proposes to take a look at the cannon red to white - based on what I have read and what I have observed.

Russell and the Cover

Discussing drop-cannons in my last article I mentioned that one of the dangers inherent in the shot is that of getting a cover. Chatting some time ago with that very good amateur player, Tony Done of Chester, he asked me if I thought that Russell got covers in the same way as ordinary mortals. I have thought about this since then and have come to the conclusion that he simply does not. I estimate that I must have spent around 100 hours watching him play and I have played him myself some half-dozen times. I have detailed notes on many of these games - certainly on all of his Mini-Prix finals and on all of his games in Professional tournaments (In England.) I do not once recall Mike breaking down at the spot-end because he was covered; I remember him playing two or three fine masse strokes to get out of trouble and I can well recall the endings to many of his fine breaks but I cannot recall him ever breaking down through covering from a drop-cannon. It must have happened but I don't recall seeing it. The moral of this is that if the drop-cannon is played accurately and at the correct strength then the cover can generally be avoided even by mediocre players and almost always avoided by the very best players. Others have made kind remarks about my previous article, I always reply that if you really want to know something about the stroke, then sit at the baulk end when the champion is playing and observe very carefully where the cue-ball is spotted, whether any side is being used, and try to imagine the feel of how the cueball is being stroked and the object balls caressed into position. I might add that it does no harm whatsoever to do the same thing when Norman Dagley is playing. Other particularly fine exponents of the stroke are, in my opinion, Bob Close, Jack Karnehm, and Ian Williamson. Amongst amateur players I have always thought that Ron Sunderland (Luton) has a particularly good touch on the stroke.

White to Red rules O.K

To judge from the literature it most certainly does. To take just two examples from the heavyweights of billiards writing. J. P. Mannock discusses drop-cannons from pages 336 - 343 in his, "Billiards Expounded," Vol.1. He has four diagrams showing the shot being played in the manner described in my last article as being the best way to play the cannon but all show white to red. Riso Levi in, "Strokes of the Game," Part 3, pages 616 - 634 has 25 diagrams of more-or-less orthodox drop cannon positions only three of which show red to white. Furthermore, in his section, "Getting position for a Drop Cannon," Levi has 35 diagrams only 4 of which show the red ball being played into cannon position. The distinction is by no means academic. Red to white is played in an almost entirely different way from white to red. The reason for their bias is, I think, fairly obvious. Both of these writers were great advocates of the losing hazard game and continually warned against dabbling at the spot-end. Indeed Mannock goes so far as to describe top-of-the-table play as a passing fashion (Page.306.Vol.2.) How wrong can you get. For both of these writers (and many others) the drop cannon was considered as a stroke merely to get the red into a correct orthodox position for the in-off game. I am quite sure that with the red ball in position for middle pocket play either Levi or Mannock would have thrown up their hands in horror had any pupil of theirs played the red short for a drop cannon. And yet this is precisely what must be done if the player wishes to get to the spot-end by such means. Old Riso wouldn't have reckoned much to the following,

Positioning the Red

Clearly the object of the kind of cannon under discussion is that of placing the red near a top pocket preferably for a pot (a very clever player might sometimes be trying to gather the balls into a close position.) There are two basic possibilities. One is to double the red across the table to the opposite corner pocket and the other is to keep the red on the same side of the table it was on before the stroke was played. Which method is used depends almost entirely on how far the red is positioned above the middle pocket The second option open to the player is when the red is positioned rather further up the table where doubling the red would involve playing a faster shot and possibly making the cannon from the top cushion. In this position the red must be taken fuller and it may be necessary to use check side to get a run-through effect: -

Doubling the Red

If the object white is near the cushion and behind the spot then, at least in theory, there must be a position where the red could be played exactly half-ball and the stroke result in perfect position. In practice the stroke is invariably played rather fuller than half-ball and often with side. The nearer the red to the line of the middle pockets then the fuller must be the stroke and the more for the necessity of a touch of check. Placing the cue ball correctly is obviously the most important factor closely followed by playing at the correct strength. Both come about by dint of experience and practice. Whilst the novice usually plays his strokes too hard, this is a shot that long observation leads me to believe is quite often played too slowly - even by good players. There is a travel of some six feet from red to white and about the same distance is involved in getting the red over into the corner, it is not a particularly slow shot.

As the red is placed progressively further up the table the cannon approximates more nearly to a half-ball stroke until the position is reached where, in order to double the red and drop gently on the white, it is necessary to use a little running side. The running side drop cannon is, I think, much harder to control than the, "deep," cannon played with a little check. Sethi will sometimes show a slight trace of annoyance when he has not brought the red far enough down the table to play a "full' cannon, and if position is so important for such a player how much more important is it for players who are not able to handle the more awkward shots with the skill of the great Indian cueman.

"Holding" the Red

Keeping the red on the same side of the table as when originally positioned is sometimes referred to as, "holding," it. The further up the table the red ball the more the necessity for holding it. Clearly there comes a point where it is neither possible to double the red nor make a direct cannon. At that point the stroke to be played can no longer be described as a drop cannon. Some beautiful cannons may be made, usually played rather full and quite often with check side. The very good player can often choose whether to play the balls for the top-of-the-table or whether to gather them in the hope of playing a few nurseries.

Dangers

The red to white drop cannon is a stroke in which many things can, and often do, go wrong. One has only to watch mediocre players for a short time to see just how many things can go wrong that do not seem to happen when the best players are performing. That does not mean of course that the problems do not exist for high class players. The problems are inherent in the stroke. It simply proves that with care, thought, and practice, the problems can generally be overcome. The two most common poor outcomes are, the cover, and failure to get the red into a reasonable position.

The Cover

Just a fraction of an inch out in the contact - end of break. As a well-played red to white drop cannon involves the cue ball making a very gentle contact with the object white it is obvious that only the merest fraction of a bad contact will result in a cover (or a cover in reverse - a "jap").

Some players try to drop on outside of the object white but this is far from easy. The direction of travel of the cue ball drifting across the nap will often cause the cannon to be missed altogether. The answer to this one lies in practice and experience. The best players seem to know instinctively when a cover is most likely and take action to avoid it. When the object white lies on the top cushion as it may often do when a player has played a cross-loser after a spell of postman's knock, then the standard play is to drop full on the white causing the cue ball to kiss back an inch or two.

Badly positioned Red

The most common fault is that of not getting full enough on the red resulting in a double which cuts the red well below the pocket. The second most common fault resulting in bad red position is that of playing the stroke too hard. The main problems then, are covers and bad strength. Both can be overcome by intelligent practice though few players will develop that control attained by the best professionals.

An Experiment

Sometime when you have a spare half-hour and a table available you might like to try a little experiment. Set up an ideal drop cannon and mark the position of the balls. Play the shot and mark where the balls finish. Do this a dozen or so times. This really is a bit of an eye-opener. From exactly the same position it is quite surprising how differently the balls may finish and they never finish in exactly the same spots and yet there may be quite a good leave every time. What a fascinating stroke the red - white drop cannon is. What good positions may be obtained and how rewarding for the player who is prepared to devote some time and thought to this key stroke.

---