A few thoughts on lower entries in one-day tournaments. I personally seem to have had a bad year. I played in January at Nuneaton, losing to Roxton in the Final. The next one fell in St Valentine's week, and the March one was on Mother's day. (Brian Harvey's business is that of Florist and Nurseryman. Ed) In April I was on holiday and I can't remember why I didn't make it in May. The weekend of the Guildford event I was at a wedding. Now my mother is in hospital which meant that I missed the one at Thorne, and it makes future events a bit uncertain. The point I am making is to show just one person's reasons for not being at events which he would like to be at, I have my personal reasons and lots of other players will have theirs. It should also be remembered that a one-day tournament can be very expensive particularly for people from the South-West, London area. Perhaps not quite so expensive for those in the Midlands as most events are staged between Birmingham and Leeds. Most trips I make are between four and five hundred mile round trips and therefore cost between £40 and £50 in petrol. Maybe another reason is the entry fee increased to £12, which as you can see makes an expensive day out although for my part always an enjoyable one. My thoughts, along with others, may throw some light on the decline in entries.
You might also be interested in the following figures. This year I have taken on running the Wessex Billiards and Snooker individuals. On looking at past records I find that since 1988, when there was a very high number of entries, entries have been on the decline as shown (both games):-
| 87/88: 232 |
| 88/89: 192 |
| 89/90: 158 |
| 90/91: 109 |
| 91/92: 118 |
| 92/93: 95 |
| 93/94: 64 |
Although I have urged the area reps to encourage more entries this year, with only a few days to go, response so far could see entries down again.
The Taunton League which had four snooker divisions is now down to three with billiards struggling to survive. Speaking to a friend last night the picture seems to be the same in the Yeovil area, they have lost 12 snooker teams and billiards hanging on with 7 teams.
I have been interested in the variety of letters suggesting ways of making the game more attractive for spectators and therefore more viewable on television. Whilst they all have some merit, I think we must face the fact that only a player or devotee is truly able to appreciate the subtleties of the game; the gentle use of side and slow drag, the minute manipulation of the cue ball, things that make so much difference in maintaining the tight control so necessary in making breaks. These things are just not visible, except to the trained eye and then often only at close range. Changes to the rules and to the style of matches, whilst maybe promoting a more open and attractive game, would still not avoid this problem, but would remove one major element from the game - the thrill of that really big break. It is audience participation and anticipation that makes for good viewing and, unfortunately, billiards does not readily lend itself to this.
Snooker, on the other hand, has tremendous advantage as a spectator port. It is colourful, powerful, full of excitement, and spectators are involved not just in a battle of skills but also in a battle of wits. Will the power shot into the pack allow the player to carry on his break, can he get that snooker when needed? Will he be able to manipulate the cue ball in and out of baulk avoiding the baulk colours? All of these things, and many more, add to spectator involvement and to a sense of anticipation and give the game that something extra. I personally can see no way that billiards can hope to compete with snooker on this basis and I think that the future depends on developing junior participation in the game, backed by proper coaching and supported by a well organised league and competitive structure, to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. However, I live in hope that someone will find the magic formula that will give billiards a big boost.
During the time I was in Germany I attempted to develop some business for Thurstons of Liverpool and as a result it was my great pleasure and privilege to become well acquainted with the late Mr Norman Clare who was a veritable mine of information on all matters connected with billiards having spent a lifetime in the field.
During several of our meetings both in the UK. and in Germany, he was obviously very concerned about the important aspect of table dimensions and correctly pointed out that the 'Imperial' playing surface could vary because, whilst the length and width of the slate bed was specified, the cushions could protrude over the edge of the bed by, "not more than two inches and not less than one-and-a-half inches."
Thus, whilst it is clear that the length and width of the playing area between the cushion faces could vary from table to table by up to one inch, it should also be remembered that the distance between the baulk line and the spot could vary by the same amount. Norman was a great advocate of the greater standardisation offered by the 'Metric' table with a tolerance of + or - 3 mm on the length of 3.5 metres and width of 1.75 metres measured between the cushion faces. The overall size of the metric table would be slightly smaller than that of an imperial, but Norman claimed that top-class players who had played on the metric version had found no difficulty - which is hardly surprising - and in some cases didn't know what they were playing on - which is very surprising. Maybe he only experimented with snooker players! However, close tolerances would appear to be desirable. Whatever happened to the metric table?