EDITORIAL

IN the course of a fairly long, and somewhat chequered, career, I have attended, and taken part in, all sorts of benefit and testimonial performances, but I never yet attended one the success of which approached that which was achieved by the complimentary performance to Sergeant-Major Fitzgerald on Christmas Eve. A full report of it appears elsewhere, but I cannot resist the temptation of writing a few lines on the subject myself. There are few better known men in London than the stalwart Sergeant-Major, and, the better you know him, the higher grows your liking and respect for him. If there is a big professional match the first inquiry is, "Can we get the Sergeant to preside at the pay box?" and, similarly, when the Billiard Association used to promote important competitions, a similar effort was always made, and, by the courtesy of Messrs. Thurston, it was usually successful. This sort of thing speaks for itself.

THE Grand Hall has never presented quite such a scene as it did on that eventful Monday afternoon, and, long before the time fixed for the start, there was not a seat to be had. Had the room been twice as large it would have been easily filled, and late-comers, who had previously purchased tickets - no seats were reserved - found that there was no chance of getting in. A sovereign, and even more, was cheerfully paid by several people for standing room, indeed, as I re- marked in returning thanks for the beneficiaire, I think we might safely have taken the Albert Hall. A success like this is not achieved without very hard work, and too much praise cannot be accorded to the small committee of management - Messrs. V. Mansell ("The Sportsman"), S. A. Mussabini ("Manchester Sporting Chronicle"), G. Reid ("The Sporting Life"), and H. Young ("The World of Billiards"), for the manner in which they laboured in the good cause. However, I am quite certain that these gentlemen do not require praise from me, the wonderful success which crowned their efforts will be their sweetest reward. It was an ideal committee - only four men, each of them thoroughly understanding his business.

THE performance must have created a record in one way, for I have never heard of any previous benefit at Which every man who had promised to perform turned up, and, moreover, turned up in good time, so that the programme was carried out in its entirety exactly as it had been arranged. Diggle and Reece were naturally compelled to get home for Christmas, but every other prominent professional of the day played in the " Flying Handicap," and not only played, but took the game as seriously, and worked as hard to win as though there had been a prize of £500 to be won. There has been much good-humoured chaff over Weiss, who is certainly about the slowest player amongst the professionals, carrying off a "Flying" Handicap, and not only carrying it off, but doing so without having a single point scored against him in any of his three heats! I wonder what were the odds against the popular Australian accomplishing such a feat. He would not be likely to do it again if he played every day for a month, with three very indifferent amateurs, instead of being opposed to Dawson, Stevenson, and Cook.

THE exhibitions of fancy strokes proved highly popular. Mannock, who often gives a really good show in this line, was a trifle "off colour," and, if once the performer loses confidence in these sort of strokes, failure is inevitable, but De Kuyper and Weiss -pleased the public immensely. I was rather anxious that the proposed pool should be abandoned, for it was getting late, and I was afraid that it would prove something of an anti-climax. However, several prominent amateurs had arrived to take part in it, and, as a gentleman present very kindly offered a prize of £5 to the winner, it was played as advertised. Mr. A. J. Browne and Inman were the last pair left in, and the former managed to angle his dangerous opponent and won. Instead of asking the donor of the prize to purchase a trophy for him, Mr. Browne, in a very sportsmanlike manner, handed over the five pound note to swell the amount of the Sergeant- Major's benefit, which it is quite hoped will reach nearly £80, though the exact amount cannot be calculated until all the outstanding tickets are accounted for.

IN the introduction to the account of the recent game between Stevenson and Lovejoy at the Brompton Road Saloon, which appeared in THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS, the following sentence occurs: "His (Stevenson's) most extraordinary performance was on Saturday evening, when he only went to the table twice, and, as he had only one completed innings, his average was one of 749." Dealing with this same subject, "Hazard," in the course of an extremely interesting article in The Sporting Life of December 24, expresses himself as follows: - I have no doubt many will question the correctness of the average of 375 on Saturday evening, and will probably argue that as Stevenson got his points in two innings, his average should be returned as 750. Certainly, had the same performance been accomplished at any other stage of the match, it would have ranked as a 750 average, but the moment Stevenson arrived at 9,000 the game was at an end, therefore his second innings was, to all intents and purposes, completed. Were this not so, we might have the spectacle of seeing Stevenson gathering his 750 points at one visit and returning an average of what - 750 - no, but nothing. I mention this point here, because, as I heard the matter discussed at the conclusion of the match - and, on the, principle that what is discussed at one place will be at another - it may save useless and unfruitful argument. A moment's reflection will tell you that in this matter of billiard averages, no other form of calculation is possible.

Now, in my opinion - and I have thought the matter over very carefully - "Hazard" bases his argument on false premisses. He writes that, "the moment Stevenson arrived at 9,000 the game was at an end, therefore his second innings was, to all intents and purposes, completed." In this I think he is wrong, the game was completed, but Stevenson's innings was not. Take the parallel case of cricket. When the tenth wicket has fallen the innings is over, but the not-out man has not completed his individual innings, and it is not counted as an innings against him when the averages have to be reckoned. Then I think "Hazard" is in error when he writes that, were Stevenson to make his entire 750 points in one visit to the table, his average for the session would be, not 750, but nothing. I maintain that it would be 750, and again fall back on cricket for a like instance. According to " Hazard," were a man to play six innings for six times not out - a by no means impossible case - and make an aggregate of 50, his average would be nothing! This is not the case, however, and it would be returned as fifty.