Lindrum — the MAN, and his four figure breaks
By W. G. Clifford
Recognised as one of the leading Billiards and Snooker Authorities of the day, our contributor writes with force and upon fact. He will in future contribute a regular discussion on Billiard Problems and Personalities.
There has been a lot of talk of late about John Roberts and Walter Lindrum. It is marvellous how people simply bridge time at a jump from one to the other. They converse almost as if no other great players had ever handled a cue, which is very far indeed from just. It is also a sheer waste of words, as it is futile to attempt to compare the billiards of John Roberts with the game as Walter Lindrum plays it.
The old wizard of the cue excelled in scoring no matter where the balls went. He scored more brilliant individual shots in an hour than modern professionals do in a week, and did it on purpose, framing his game to make big shots and plenty of them instead of leviathian breaks. That was where his showmanship was so incomparable in his day, but he would be hopelessly beaten if he played the same spectacular stuff against the leading professionals of the present.
He simply could not afford to do it, nobody could. A thousand break would be a sensation with Walter Lindrum instead of a commonplace if he left himself “in trouble” as often as John Roberts did with set purpose. That is why no comparison is possible. On the one side you have a grand old showman displaying every thrill stroke-play can give. On the other you have a genius of the cue appealing to the public with thousand-break billiards played as to the manner born, a marvellous achievement.
In one respect, however, Roberts stands supreme. As a creative artist he evolved top-of-the-table billiards when the spot-stroke was abolished. Lindrum, and all the other great ones between him and Roberts, can show nothing to equal this in originality of conception and execution. We must not blame them, the limitations of the game give them very little scope to devise fresh scoring methods. Apart from freak effects, such as the notorious “anchor” cannon and its related sequences, Claude Falkiner has brought some fresh touches into masse play, Newman has advanced the game as regards exquisite accuracy in positional cannons off a cushion. Smith has shown the possibilities of the “double” in billiards as well as pool games, and this about exhausts the list.
It remains to be seen whether Walter Lindrum will show us anything “out of his own head,” so to speak. He has done so much that it is almost ungenerous to expect this, especially as the only scope for inventive genius must take him towards the masse for positional purposes, a refinement of such exquisite delicacy that it would be churlish to criticise him for leaving it alone. He does enough, and more than enough, without expecting him to make the balls twirl in little curves when a straight ball movement will keep his break moving on orthodox lines.
Not that Lindrum is a dull exploiter of the orthodox. He is master of every department of the game, and can switch from one to the other in a style which is full of variety. He will make a hundred or two at the spot-end with the alternating red-winner movement. Then he is away on a run of nursery cannons. This brings him to the middle pocket, which I believe he could pass without losing nursery cannon position if he tried to do so. But he prefers to play in-off (red as a rule) into the middle pocket. Then he will score a few’ hazards from hand just to let the people see he is master of the open game. Very little of this is enough for him, and ere long he will have the balls placed approximately as in my first diagram.
“There or thereabout” will suit him provided an ordinary sort of middle-pocket shot is offered from hand off either ball. If he liked, he could keep on playing middle-pockets until “the limit” of 25 consecutive hazards stopped him. I know he could do this at will, but it is not Lindrum’s way, being too mechanical for his love -of the art of the game. So he plays in-off white as in diagram, leaving white near the centre of the top cushion. Next shot, he goes in-off red, and leaves the position shown in diagram 2. From this he pots red and runs his ball up the table for spot end play once more. So he continues, mixing things delightfully in what really amounts to a series of breaks made by exploiting every known scoring method to sheer perfection. The result is a thousand break or more. How many more might it be? Well, to be frank, I do not think we know. I saw Lindrum make two breaks of over 2 thousand in successive sessions, and I do not grade this as more than an average taste of his quality. He alone knows how much better he might do if seen at his very best on the top of his form, and it did not surprise me to see him pass the third thousand in a single break.
Much to our regret, and I believe to his, he must go back without our championship cup. It is not my intention to rake over everything that kept Lindrum, McConachy, and Smith out the premier event. I know all the facts, the truths, and the half-truths, as well as the inner history of the vendetta against official control of billiards which began when the elder Roberts lost the first championship in 1870. That vendetta ended when our visitors were given to understand very plainly that, no matter what breaks they might make, the control of the game and its championships was vested in a governing body of gentleman amateurs who were determined to rule billiards as the M.C.C. controls cricket of the Jockey Club governs racing. It cost us a record championship to make this fact plain, and I think it was well worth it.
From the foregoing it must not be wrongly inferred that Lindrum or McConachy wanted to interfere with the government of billiards. They had no such desire, but other influences, too powerful for them, were at work. As I was organiser of the which started the B.C.C., in opposition to the old Billiard Association. I have a good deal of inside knowledge of what was really behind the endeavour to coerce the governing body into “terms” for the entry of Lindrum and his colleagues in the championship. Knowing what I do, I am indeed thankful that the B.A. & C.C. insisted on keeping its place at the head of the game. This gives us a clear course for our future championships, and should make Lindrum “another Roberts” in undisputed supremacy for the next twenty years.
But, as Roberts did when he beat Bennett “by the length of the street” for the old championship, so must Lindrum beat the best that enter the championship arena of to-day. Unless he does this he will come to be regarded as an exhibition player only, a marvel, of course, but with nothing beyond this in reputation. “Lindrum’s just made another thousand break, I see.” people will say with a yawn. “Wonder when he will make ten thousand, and why does he keep out of the championship?” Then, very probably, they will go over to the club to see a couple of amateurs play billiards in which there is the fighting interest of a handicap heat.
Lindrum can supply that “fighting interest” as far as the next best player in the world can stand up to him “in the pit.” Make no mistake about that. I journeyed from London to Newcastle on purpose to see him play. We had a chat together after wards. and never once did he even hint that he could give another professional a’ start of a single point. I could name others who, with a tithe of his obvious justification, would have been loud in “shouting the odds” about giving all and sundry a start and a hiding. But that it is not like Lindrum, he does not boast, does not belittle another man. That shows the heart of him is sound, and tells the story without words we read when we know a man can fight.
Motor Owner, Wednesday 01 January 1930