Billiard and Cricket Parallels

A most interesting letter appeared in The Observer of
April 23 from Mr. G. M. Kelson, an old gentleman player
for Kent, whom the editor of The Billiard Monthly well
remembers to have seen playing many times for his county
in the beautiful Mote Park at Maidstone as many as forty
years ago. Very singularly Mr. Kelson was the gentleman
player whom the editor had in his mind when answering
Question No. 44 in this month’s issue, although he little
imagined when doing so that “G. M.,” as the Kent schoolboys
of 1870 affectionately called Mr. Kelson, was still not
only in the land of the living but hale and keenly interested
in sport as of yore.

Mr. Kelson used to wear a flannel jacket of many colours
and would sometimes keep it on during play. The present
writer wonders whether Mr. Kelson remembers that coat
of “the summer of his career” as well as he does.

The Letter

In his letter to The Observer, under the heading “Tiring
Billiards: What Changes are Desirable?” Mr. Kelson
writes:—

You suggest that there is a way of putting a limit on
any particular billiard stroke, and that the principles of the
game should remain as they are. Quite so; and these
words of yours are cheered to the echo by all true lovers of
sport. Of course, you were referring to the long spells of
losing hazards we are now accustomed to see played.

Undoubtedly some steps must be taken sooner or later to
deprive a match player of keeping possession of the table
from the time he enters to the time he leaves the room.

No Fair Stroke Should be Barred

Although it may be a little tiring to constantly see a man
occupy the table for hours together, I fail to see why the
pet stroke he goes in for should be barred any more than
the pet stroke of a cricketer who stays at the wickets during
the whole afternoon. No stroke, in my opinion, that
can be made fairly either on a billiard table or on a cricket
ground should be barred.

If, for one instance, we take the spot stroke of yore,
what could have been fairer? Surely the monotony of
those winning hazards could have been considerably reduced
by placing the “spot” nearer the top cushion?

Coming now to Gray’s remarkable losing hazards,
briefly, would not the best solution be to decrease the width
of the pockets?

Would Anyone Bar “Cuts” and “Square Legs”?

If these hazards were barred because of Gray, we might
just as well prohibit “cuts” and square leg hits at cricket.

In my day these were made to perfection by C. G. Lyttelton
and “Mike” Mitchell respectively. They not only
delighted the spectator, but made the game attractive and
interesting. And how the people flocked to see them!

What a rush there was for seats! May I never see the day
when these strokes are excluded from cricket or when legitimate
strokes at billiards are boycotted!

My opinion in respect of cricket now that the bat so frequently
beats the ball is not to preclude your groundman
from preparing the very best wicket possible, but rather to
decrease the width of the bat or increase the thickness and
height of the stumps —even have four instead of three.

The Maintenance of the Perfect Wicket

A wicket such as I met with in the summer of my career,
when I managed to scrape up three figures without a blow
for a blow, was indeed a golden gift of the gods.

It has often been my wish to express my opinion on
these matters, and more than once have I realized that lost
opportunities seldom recur. Even in the days of top hats
I handled both bat and ball, and may have been a clumsy
cricketer considering the blows I got. Some of them most
certainly were owing to the rough state of the ground.