The Lindrums (father and son) created a very favourable impression as soon as they arrived in this country. I have had the pleasure of meeting both of them, and I was struck with their pleasing manner, and their willingness to state their views frankly, without the least tendency to boasting. I am very much mistaken if Fred Lindrum does not make a big stir in English billiards before he returns to the land of his birth at the end of the Billiard season here.
It is rather an odd coincidence that the father of each of the two young Australian players now over here—both of which accompany their sons—should have played for the Championship of Australia. It was in 1887 that Mr. Lindrum, senr., defeated Harry Gray by 1,147 points in a match for £200 and the title of Champion.
Here again are instances of brilliant ability in Billiards which has descended from one generation to the next. We are all familiar with the well-known examples of John Roberts, senior and junior, and William Cook, father and son. There are other remarkable cases of this aptitude for the game in the same family. Herbert Roberts, a brother of John Roberts, was a fine player, and one of the best hand stroke performers ever seen. Stevenson has a brother who was making plenty of three-figure breaks a few years ago.
Harverson's brother, then a staff-sergeant in the Royal Marines, managed to get into the final of the first Army Championship; and it is fairly well known there is billiards in the Inman family besides that exploited so well by the tenacious "Mel" of that ilk.
Much of this might be put forward as evidence of hereditary talent; or is it the opportunity and the example of practice in very early youth? Who can say? Most probably both natural aptitude and early practice play their part, but we incline to the opinion that the latter is the greater cause of excellence in the art.
To return to the Lindrums, it is gratifying to note that young Fred has already fixed up many important matches with our leading players, and will play frequently at the Grand Hall, commencing this month with his match against Reece.
By the time these notes appear in print the public will have an opportunity of knowing something about Lindrum's form, but one has only to see him handle a cue at practice to recognise a player of extraordinary ability. He has a splendid natural cue action, rather reminiscent of the perfect action of W. Mitchell, and he makes every kind of stroke with all the ease and certainty of one of the very best.
He is very keen on meeting Stevenson and Gray, but I fear that if he is returning to Australia at the end of next April he will not get a game against either of them. Gray must be booked up months ahead, and what with the Tournament, the Gray matches, the Championship, and many important exhibition engagements the Champion has plenty of work before him until April is pretty well over.
For a man who has scored several four-figure breaks by red ball play, Fred Lindrum is very emphatic concerning the "all-red route." Interviewed by a "Sporting Life" representative, he said: "Billiards is not a two-ball game; it should be played with the three balls, and I think those who control the game should do something to compel all three balls being more frequently brought into play than is the case in the huge red-ball breaks we have had recently."
A very laudable sentiment, but how difficult from a practical standpoint may be judged from the articles on the subject which have appeared in this paper, and also the "Sporting Life." My Editor has warned me off the rules in this red-ball controversy, so I must content myself by remarking that it will doubtless come out right at the finish.
But if I may not comment on the rules, perhaps I may be permitted to ask a question. In the Harverson-Reece match at the Grand Hall, Harverson potted the white in one of the top pockets and then played a double baulk, "with malice aforethought," as the solicitors say.
It was rather a pretty safe stroke, and Cecil stood admiring it until the balls ceased to roll and settled down inside the baulk line. Then he picked Reece's ball out of the pocket, and trundled it gently into baulk, with the result that it collided with one of the balls in baulk. Reece was a long way ahead, and in a light and airy manner claimed a "foul," grinning openly as he did so.
But before a decision could be given he picked up the disturbed ball and replaced it in the position it occupied before the accident.
I want to know what the correct decision should have been under the circumstances. Obviously, Harverson had no business to pick Reece's ball out of the pocket, and could not have complained if a "foul" had been given against him. The fact that Reece replaced the balls had nothing to do with the point at issue, as only one foul can be dealt with at a time and in rotation.
Now comes the curious part of the business. The rules provide that all sorts of "fouls" may be given against a man in play, but I cannot see anything which empowers a referee to give a "foul" against a man who has finished his break by completing a non-scoring stroke in a perfectly fair manner.
I have no comment to make, Mr. Editor, not a word. Wild horses will not drag a single word from me—you turn your "red-ball expert" on to the problem.
Quite the most remarkable feature of the season to date is the improved form shown by men in the running for the Championship. Inman and Reece must be mentioned first in this connection, and it is undeniable that both men are playing better billiards than they ever have.
Reece has the record break of the season to his credit, Gray's breaks excepted, and Inman played so wonderfully well against the Champion in a Tournament heat that he must be credited with real improvement on any previous form. This points to a very keen struggle indeed when the doughty pair meet at the Grand Hall in their money match, and he would be a bold man who would venture to predict the winner.
There is a rather curious stipulation in the articles for this match. It is laid down that the non-striker must take a seat behind the baulk line, and so far as I am aware this is by way of an innovation. It has been on previous occasions arranged that the non-striker must seat himself clear of the table, but this is the first time I have noticed such a distinct definition of the "sitting area" of the non-striker.
It shows how keen the men are, and a battle royal is sure to be seen when they get to work at the Grand Hall on the 4th inst. May the best man win, and may I be there to see.
Mention of the Champion reminds me that his three matches against George Gray have been fixed up quite satisfactorily, and a real test of strength between the pair is sure to be seen.
Stepping almost straight off the steamer into the billiard room, it is scarcely surprising that the Champion failed to do himself justice in his heat against Inman, and I am sure we shall see him doing far better before the season is anything like over.
Stevenson looked remarkably well, but his "sea legs" were too strong to permit him to play as well as he looked. He started in fine style, and followed the example of Reece by knocking up a three-figure break off his opponent's initial miss. But he failed to keep it up, and was too often "at sea" as the game progressed.
The wonder is that he played as well as he did under the circumstances, as a voyage must put a great player off his game for some little time after landing. I know what a very short voyage did for a player who, if far from "great," was distinctly "useful," and thereby hangs a rather,funny story.
The player in question went to the seaside for a holiday, and put up at a private hotel which boasted a good full-sized billiard table. Arriving early in the day, he went for a trip on the briny during the afternoon. The sea was rough, and we had better draw a veil over the experience afloat.
However, the trip was short, and on returning to the hotel my friend felt so much better after a rest that he sauntered into the billiard room and played a quiet game with the marker. But he found the table continually trying to hit him in the face, the cue seemed to squirm about like a live thing, the balls absolutely zig-zagged on their courses, and after giving an exhibition at least seventy-five per cent, below form, my friend threw it up in disgust and retired to bed.
Next day he found the marker had entered him in a handicap just commencing at the hotel, and had awarded him half the game start! Not wishing to spoil sport, my friend said nothing, but in his first game promptly pulled out two breaks of over fifty, and worked the marker up to a frightful pitch of mingled rage and astonishment. As a matter of fact, he scored his points in three consecutive visits to the table, which is useful form for a man receiving 125 points in 250 in an ordinary hotel handicap.
He explained afterwards, and insisted upon being re-handicapped and playing the game afresh. He was made to owe 250, and then won the handicap. Tradition has it that ever since this experience the marker in that hotel, before handicapping a strange guest, always asks politely: "Have you just come off the water, sir?"
Dawson was another cueman whose looks belied his billiards. I have never seen the popular Yorkshireman looking more fit, but he was not in convincing form against Aiken. At times there was a flash of the old Dawson, yet it is evident that he has yet to "find himself" once more.
There is hope, however, as Dawson always took plenty of time to play himself into form when he was constantly before the public. This was a marked characteristic of his game, and it is only reasonable to assume that it is now more pronounced than ever on account of his prolonged absence from first-class billiards.
Aiken played supremely well, and Dawson was distinctly unlucky to find the Scottish Champion in such grand form. I have never seen Aiken play better billiards. He controlled the balls to perfection, and made his breaks with an air of effortless mastery reminiscent of Diggle at his best.
I have great faith in Tom Aiken, perhaps more than he has in himself, as I cannot help thinking he has enough billiards in him to make a bold bid for the Championship one of these days. I hear that London air and London ideas on "parritch" do not agree with him, but he must harden himself to our Southern shortcomings in these matters, and make up his mind to take the Championship Cup to Bonnie Scotland.
George Gray has been busy among the minor players in the provinces, and appears to have done well enough all round except against Smith, of Darlington. But the young Australian has not been piling on four-figure breaks in his old sweet way. Perhaps he is holding them in reserve for use as required later on, perhaps he cannot make them under the changed conditions. "Wait and see."
Tommy Newman has been playing extremely well away from London, and has simply smothered opposition in the provinces. Breaks of from two to three hundred are nothing to him, and if he continues to improve the highest honours of the game are surely before him.
During his game with John Roberts, Newman struck me as quite one of the improving sort, and it would be interesting to have the candid opinion of the veteran on the lad's abilities and prospects. John Roberts knows a world-beater when he sees him more or less in the rough. He predicted the success of Stevenson, and made no mistake when he saw George Gray handle a cue.