 |
AUTHOR'S NOTES:
First published: January 1995 John Riches
CONTENTS
Digital edition v1.0 2003 by cleinedesign. email jballant@smartchat.net.au
My aim in writing this booklet, as with the previous booklets, is to make people think by presenting to them some ideas which they may not have previously considered. In this way I hope to make a small contribution toward raising the general understanding of the game, and the standard of play in this country.
As with the other booklets, I have tried to avoid the temptation to merely repeat things which are adequately explained in other books on the game of croquet. Here you will find no detailed explanation of peeling or wiring or standard openings or the standard leaves after the first nine hoops have been made.
Instead, I have largely endeavoured to update and extend the material introduced previously in relation to technique, strategy, tactics, coaching and the psychology of the game.
Those who have not read the previous booklets may encounter a few unfamiliar terms such as "trap lines" and "ideal leaves", but this should not hinder them from understanding the main points I am trying to make.
The booklet consists of about 100 separate articles organised into sections which deal with various aspects of the game. Some of the articles could have been placed in more than one section, and occasionally there will be a small amount of overlap from one article to another, where an idea is repeated and explained in further detail.
Some of the articles (about 20 in all) have been previously published in the Australian Croquet Gazette, or the Queensland Croquet Newsletter, or the SACA Coaching Committee's newsletter. They are repeated here in order to make more complete the coverage of the particular topics under consideration, and for the benefit of readers who may not have had access to the above mentioned publications.
John Riches
John Riches was introduced to the game in 1978 at Port Pirie in northern South Australia. Although he was still on a handicap of 15 (on the old scale, or 22 on the new), he was permitted to enter for the division 3 medal in 1979, because he was a schoolteacher and it was the only tournament scheduled during school holidays. He won every game and completed two triple peels, which resulted in his handicap being immediately reduced from 15 to 1.5 (or nowadays 22 to 6.5), which was probably the most rapid handicap reduction in history, and put him straight into division 1.
John gained state selection in 1990, but was later omitted from the team when he stated that he would be unable to practise on Sundays with the other members of the team.
His recent playing achievements include
Just prior to the first publication of this booklet John has again been selected in the state team to represent SA in Perth during March 1995, and this time it is expected that his unwillingness to attend Sunday team practices will not be an obstacle to his participation. (Later news: John won all his interstate singles games in Perth and also defeated world champion Robert Fulford in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open singles event.)
In the May 1995 official ranking list he was ranked no. 2 player in Australia, behind Dean Paterson. In addition to playing the game, John has been active in trying to bring many new ideas to the administrative side of our game, and not surprisingly has at times had to face strenuous opposition from those whose ideas are more traditional and who do not want to see anything change.
He is currently (June 1995) serving as Chairman of the ACA Laws Committee, Chairman of the SACA Laws Committee and Secretary of the SACA Coaching Committee.
My first booklet "Croquet Technique" was an attempt to explain in some detail the way in which each of the basic shots should best be played, and the reasons for using the particular method recommended for each shot. The following few articles take things further, covering some of the finer points which a player needs to know in order to achieve greater consistency with his shots, and so that he will more quickly be able to put things right when they start to go wrong.
The reader may note that not every shot is covered here. For a fuller explanation of right-angled splits and the basic splits and rolls he is referred to the above-mentioned booklet.
Take-offs and hoop approaches are covered from the coaches' viewpoint in section 8.
I thank the National Coaching Director, Jane Lewis, for some of the ideas in the article "Swing high, swing low".
In previous articles I have stressed the importance of working on improving your tactics, as it is in this area that most games are won and lost between players of roughly equal ability. However, it is also important that a player knows how to discover quickly what is going wrong with a shot that is not working satisfactorily, and how to put things right.
This requires a sound understanding of the basic elements needed to ensure the success of each different type of shot, and a good coach can be of tremendous help, since the player is unable to watch himself to find out what he is doing wrong.
The science of "Error Correction" is probably the most important part of a coach's training, and is the reason why a player seeking help should always go to a trained and accredited coach rather than to just any good and experienced player. The likely causes of errors will vary from player to player, and the coach must not only be able to diagnose the error (which can require a great deal of expert knowledge), but must also know how to go about correcting it. Simply telling the player what he is doing wrong is not good enough, unless you can also tell him how to ensure that he puts it right.
For the roquet, there are many things to be considered, but the elements most likely to be the cause of error for most players are the following:
|
Years ago it was common to see stop-shots with a ratio of 1:10 or even 1:12, but nowadays players seldom seem to achieve better than 1:6 or at most 1:8.
The main reason for this change is that the Dawson Mk 2 balls are noticeably less elastic (i.e. less "lively") than the older Jacques balls, and in order to cope with this change players are tending to use heavier mallets.
It is far more difficult to play good stop-shots with a heavy mallet than with a light one, but players feel that with the Mk 2 balls the extra weight has advantages which outweigh (!) any reduction in stop-shot ratio. Some have wrongly suggested that the switch to more rigid shafts, rather than the older flexible cane or metal shafts, which has accompanied the increase in weight, can be considered as another factor; but such thinking is misguided. In fact, it is easier to play a good stop-shot with a rigid shaft than with a flexible one; and one reason for having a more rigid shaft is just this - it is necessary to allow the playing of a reasonable stop-shot with a much heavier mallet head. The error in thinking that the older flexible shafts permitted one to play better stop-shots seems to have arisen from the fact that the flexible shafts were usually fitted into lighter heads, and the weight of the head was the dominant factor.
Here are some hints which may help you to improve your stop-shots, even if you do have a mallet weighing well over 3 pounds:
 |
In actual fact, the margin for error is greater for the roll shot to Y2 than for the stop-shot to Y1, and it is more likely that the rush will be obtained when the striker's ball travels the longer distance. The physics and mathematics which supports this conclusion is too complicated to explain here (those interested are invited to write to the author for a copy of the fuller explanation), but it means that in a match situation it is usually wiser to compromise and send black, not in front of 2-back, but 2-3 yards behind it, so as to narrow the angle of the stop-shot and allow a greater margin for error. This should be remembered in any situation where one needs an accurate rush and may be tempted to use a wide-angle stop-shot to obtain it.
It is important for the beginner to understand that for most shots the height of the mallet BACKSWING should determine the length of the shot (i.e. how far the ball goes). Too often players try to limit the height of the backswing because they believe that a high backswing makes them inaccurate with their roquets.
There are several points to consider here:
If the player wants to hit a ball the longest possible distance, but only has a low backswing, then the extra strength needed for the desired result must come from the player's own muscles and body movement, instead of from the natural fall and follow-through of the mallet. Many players grip the mallet with their hands apart, which in itself may cause the mallet to be pushed off line, while the extra force used in hitting at the ball can cause jarring and tendon damage above the wrist. Sudden body movement forward can make the player unbalanced and tense. How tiring!
If the player feels that control is lost during the forward movement of the mallet, then PROVIDED THAT THE HANDS STAY TOGETHER, he could try moving them a short distance down the mallet handle. Keep the backswing high for long shots, reducing it for short shots. To move the ball only 12 inches, the backswing need only be about 6 inches. To move the ball fast across a distance of 35 yards, the backswing must be as high as the player's stature allows.
Well-meaning players often observe someone else (frequently their doubles partner) using a high backswing, and it is obvious that the mallet is being turned off line at the top of the backswing. They then suppose that this is a source of error, and suggest that a shorter backswing may enable the player to swing straighter and more accurately. In actual fact, very few players maintain a straight mallet line throughout the whole of their swing. While there is likely to be some advantage for the player if he can manage to keep the mallet head pointing in the right direction at all times, the only thing that really matters is the direction in which it is pointing (and travelling, which is not necessarily the same!) at the instant when it contacts the ball. The player will usually straighten the mallet well before the mallet reaches the ball, so the turning of the mallet at the top of the backswing need not be a cause for concern. It is also important to realise that a high backswing does not necessarily mean that the shot must be hit hard.
The principle to remember as a coach is that an unnecessarily high backswing is far better than one which is not high enough. It is quite possible to play even the shortest of shots with quite a high backswing, simply by bringing the mallet forward more slowly; but to play a long shot with a short backswing would require the player to provide force with the muscles in his forearms and wrists, diverting these muscles away from their more important task of maintaining the direction of the swing. Players should be encouraged to develop a high backswing and an unhurried forward swing. There should be no additional force imparted from the forearms and wrists as the mallet contacts the ball. The timing of the correct, unhurried swing can be practised quite easily by swinging the mallet with the top hand only. The bottom hand should play no part in pushing the mallet forward or hurrying it through. This hand should be used only to guide the direction of the swing. The grip should not be tight or tense, but should be light and comfortably relaxed. Some players think that a tighter grip will prevent the mallet from twisting if the ball is contacted off-centre; but it is far better to ensure that the ball is hit in the centre of the mallet face, which is achieved more easily by using a relaxed grip. The tension of the grip should be felt as a light pressure in the finger tips, and this tension should be evenly maintained during the swing without any tightening of the grip. When practising, the player should make himself aware of this tension and concentrate on maintaining it evenly, so that he will learn to do it automatically in a match situation.
All coaches are therefore urged never to suggest that a player shorten his backswing for single-ball shots such as roquets, rushes or hoop running. Even stop-shots should be played with a high backswing. The only possible exceptions are pass-rolls, and hampered shots where a high backswing is impossible.
In many situations the best way to establish an immediate break is by playing a wide-angle split-shot. Unfortunately, one frequently sees players failing to take advantage of the opportunity because they lack confidence in their ability to control the shot, so they resort to a take-off or simpler type of split-shot which fails to load the following hoop accurately before making the current hoop.
This often means that they do not succeed in getting the break fully set up, and it is even more unfortunate that they later tend to attribute the loss of a game to missed roquets or failed hoop attempts instead of their unwillingness to play the correct shots.
The left-hand diagram below shows a situation where the player of red has made hoop 1 from his yellow partner ball and roqueted it at point R. Now he is about to send it to point Y near hoop 3 while the red ball goes to point B so that it can rush the blue ball to hoop 2. Most players do not find this shot difficult, but when confronted with the situation shown in the right-hand diagram it is a very different matter. Here the only difference is that the blue ball is in a different place, making the angle of the split much wider. The reason why many players would now hesitate to attempt the wide-angle split is that they do not understand the difference that the wider angle makes to the way the shot has to be played. The dotted lines on the diagrams are intended to give an idea of strengths of the forces involved in shots of this type.
Strength: The strength of the shot is represented roughly by the length
of the line RS on each diagram. Though the red and yellow balls travel the same
distances in each of the two shots, the line RS is shorter for the wider angle
 |
Direction: The mallet should be swung straight along the line RS in each case. Players often find this difficult because there is a strong psychological temptation to follow through around a curve, ending up in the direction the red ball is to travel. This temptation must be strenuously resisted if you hope to keep accurate control of both balls.
The simplest way to get the correct direction is to find point A, which is halfway between where you want the two balls to finish. It is far easier to find this point on the lawn than it is to imagine a parallelogram with its furthest corner (S) out on another lawn or behind a fence! Since RAS is a straight line, aiming at point A is the same as aiming at point S. Note that this line of aim does not halve the angle of split. Note also that in the first diagram the line of aim is about 2 yards to the right of hoop 6, while in the second diagram it is about 1 yard to the left of the same hoop. In addition, the direction will usually need to be adjusted slightly to allow for "pull" and spin on the balls. This involves swinging not directly at point A (or S), but a few degrees from this line on whichever side the striker's ball will go. In these examples the red ball is going to the left of the line RAS and yellow to the right, so the line of swing, allowing for "pull", will be slightly to the left of the line RAS.
Mallet slope: The most difficult and vital adjustment for the wider angle shot is that you must get back off the shot, so that your mallet has much less forward slope than for the narrower angle. (If you use the alternative method of accelerating through the balls instead of sloping the mallet forward, then you must use far less acceleration.) In the examples shown, the red ball travels almost half as far as the yellow ball, which requires a slight roll for the narrower angle. However, the wider angle shot in the right-hand diagram must be played as a very sharp stop-shot, with a flat mallet and the mallet stopping instead of accelerating. The reason for this is that when the angle is wider the yellow ball is no longer so squarely in front of the red (striker's ball), which will now go too far unless a stop-shot action is used.
 |
In addition, it is necessary to practise regularly the commonly occurring split-shots, e.g. the split from hoop 4 to load hoop 6 while going to a ball near hoop 5 as shown in the diagram at right, which is for most players the simplest of the basic splits. The player must understand the type of adjustment that needs to be made when the (black) 'target' ball is placed in different positions around hoop 5. Four positions are shown in the diagram, but other positions between the ones shown need to be practised as well, and the same should be done for other split-shots, from any other hoop to the following two hoops.
For position 1, most players will need to aim about a yard to the left of the peg, and have the mallet tilted slightly forward. This should be practised until good position for both balls can be achieved consistently. Then the player should be able to adjust the stroke for position 2 by keeping the same line of aim, but increasing noticeably the forward slope of the mallet, which must be maintained as the mallet contacts the ball. This will give the striker's ball more forward roll, so that it goes further than previously. (An alternative method would have been to increase the acceleration through the ball.) The additional distance also requires that the stroke be played with a little more force, which is obtained by using a slightly higher backswing.
For position 3 it will be necessary to change the aiming point (i.e. line of swing) by moving it another yard or two away from the peg and toward hoop 5. The forward slope, backswing and strength of the shot should all be similar to those needed for position 2.
Position 4 can be achieved by using roughly the same aiming point as for position 3, or perhaps a very slight further adjustment away from the peg; but requires the player to use much less forward slope of his mallet (i.e. "get back off the shot"), and needs less force than the shot to position 3.
The player who wishes to achieve a high standard of accuracy should practise playing these shots, with the striker's ball going to any of the four (or more) positions, until the adjustments become more or less automatic. Then he can proceed to some of the harder splits, e.g. from hoop 2 to hoops 3 and 4; or from hoop 1 to hoops 2 and 3, learning to make similar adjustments for various positions of the 'target' ball. Note that in a game it may be necessary to make a further adjustment for the fact that the shot is being played from somewhere other than just behind a hoop, and this also needs to be understood. The split from hoop to hoops 6 and 7 is complicated by the possibility of the peg interfering, and the split-roll from hoop 3 to hoops 4 and 5 will be hardest of all to control and adjust with any degree of accuracy.
After thus learning to adjust the splits for the required finishing position of the striker's ball, the player should be able to concentrate on more accurate placement of the croqueted ball which is being used to load the next hoop. Contrary to the belief of most players, this is actually the ball whose accurate placement is most critical to the continuance of the break.
Only after the type of adjustment needed in each case is fully understood will the player be able to play these shots with complete confidence that the balls will actually go where he wants them to go.
Besides possibly roqueting and hoop running, the rush is a shot which can go wrong more easily than any other. In order to play good, consistent rushes and immediately correct any error that creeps in to the rushing technique, a player needs to understand and keep in mind the following principles:
 |
One often hears players attributing the loss of a game to the fact that they "kept sticking in hoops". The problem is usually best rectified by working on improving their hoop approaches, rather than their hoop running; but nevertheless there are several points that the player must get right in order to be able to run hoops confidently and consistently:
 |
The mallet is used sideways, with the handle almost parallel to the ground, and as it contacts the ball the mallet is moving both downward and backward. It may seem surprising that it is possible to hit a ball forward by moving the mallet backward, but this is actually what happens, and this fact ensures that the ball will not be "crushed" against the far hoop leg. Because the mallet is moving backward away from the hoop leg, it cannot be still in contact with the ball when the ball hits the hoop leg!
It is important to select a line of aim which ensures that the ball is hit away from the near hoop leg. This is easier to do if the player can contrive to have his arms in what seems a rather awkward position, so that he can sight along the mallet head, which is directly in front of his eyes, as he contacts the ball. The shot is played while kneeling on one knee, and with one hand quite close to the mallet head.
Readers who are interested in this shot are urged to use the information given here as a basis for experiment, but will probably still need the assistance of a coach who has been shown the shot and can can demonstrate it competently.
 |
 |
 |
Cannon with a used ball. The first diagram shows a situation where red is for hoop 5 and yellow is for hoop 2. The player of red has taken off from yellow to the opponent's balls in the 3rd corner. He has roqueted blue, and had hoped to create a cannon by rushing it into the corner where black was on the corner spot; but blue did not finish in the corner as intended. Now he can take off from blue trying for a rush behind black to hoop 5, but sees little prospect of setting up a break in this fashion. He could also send blue to hoop 2 with a stop-shot, turn around and roquet black (a roquet of 4-5 yards which may not be a certainty), and then place black at hoop 5 before returning to yellow with an excellent leave in which there is an opponent ball at each of red and yellow's hoops. There is yet another option which most players would overlook. He can use a gentle stop-shot or roll to send blue into the 3rd corner square, yardline it so that it is in contact with black, and then roquet black gently without disturbing blue, so as to create a cannon in the 3rd corner in which black is the roqueted ball, and the third ball is blue, which has already been used. He can now move blue (he can indeed, though people who do not understand the laws may dispute this) and arrange a cannon in which black is split to hoop 2 and blue is simultaneously rushed to a position near hoop 5. Note that he cannot claim the roquet on blue, because he had used it previously, so he will finish the turn by hitting red out near yellow, and make a break on the next turn unless the opponent roquets. The player of red needs to be careful when playing the cannon to ensure that the red ball stays in the lawn, and also that he does not double-hit the red ball. Neither of these things would matter in a normal cannon, but either would end the turn when blue is a ball which has been already used. In the second diagram the player of red wants to set up for yellow, which is for hoop 1. He would like to place the opponent's balls near hoops 1 and 2, and set yellow a rush to either of these two hoops. Once again, the best way, provided you have practised it, is by rolling blue into the corner square, then roqueting black to create a cannon with the used ball. Once this idea is understood, and has been practised, other situations in which it can be used will readily come to mind. The hardest part is to actually think of it in a match when you are under pressure!
Roll cannon. In the third diagram red has created a normal cannon in the 2nd corner by roqueting black. However, red is for hoop 6, and there is no way a normal cannon can be used to load 1-back while rushing blue to hoop 6. Instead of leaving black behind in the corner, red can set up a break by playing a "roll cannon". This shot is arranged by placing the three balls in almost a straight line (actually, black, which is the middle ball of the three, should be about 1mm to the right of the line through the centres of the other two balls when viewed from the corner), and using a pronounced pass-roll action to roll both red and blue to hoop 6. Black should finish near the 1-back hoop if the shot is arranged and played correctly. The shot is actually easier than it at first may sound, but the player will need some practice at it in order to convince himself that it requires much more of a pass roll than one might think, due to the weight of two balls, rather than one, in front of the striker's ball. Red may possibly roquet blue on the way to hoop 6, but most times it will at least finish close enough to make the roquet on the following shot. Note that it is difficult to fault this shot by "pushing", as the weight of the third ball causes red to remain in contact with black for quite some time.
For some years I had the privilege of working with a mallet craftsman, advising him from the point of view of a croquet player on various aspects of mallet design. We tried out just about every idea you could think of, and some that would probably never occur to you. We discovered all sorts of things that do not work, including things like putting all the additional weight at one end, fitting the handle off centre in the head, sloping the handle at various angles, shaping both the handle and the head in various eccentric ways, and many more.
One of our ideas that did work - the "Magic Mallet" - was written up in the Australian Croquet Gazette and drew little comment or interest, until I won the SA Division 1 medal in 1990 using such a mallet. Suddenly there were protests about the legality of the "Magic Mallet", and when it was established after much argument that the design did not in fact contravene the Laws, moves were immediately made to have the Law relating to mallet construction (Law 2 (e)) altered so that the "Magic Mallet" became illegal.
Most of the many things we discovered about mallet construction would be of little interest to anyone other than a maker of mallets, but in the following few articles some points are explained which may be of value to coaches and players.
 |
The Level 2 Coaches Manual contains an interesting section on "peripheral weighting". One problem in sports such as tennis, squash, cricket, badminton, etc., is that it is difficult to always hit the ball in the middle of the racquet or bat. When the ball is hit off-centre the racquet tends to twist in the hands and the ball goes in some direction other than the one intended. By distributing the weight as far from the central axis as possible it has been found that the effect of off-centre impacts can be considerably reduced. Those with an understanding of the laws of physics regarding momentum and inertia will readily understand why this is so, and will probably wonder why it took the experts so long to think of it.
The top diagram shows a latest-style tennis racquet with additional weight distributed on the sides of the frame. The same idea has been applied to other racquet sports, and both cricket bats and golf clubs are being produced with a scooped-out centre at the back of the bat or club, and additional weight added to the sides.
Some years ago, well before the Coaches Manual was published, one of our leading players had a similar idea and designed a mallet head with a flat, oval cross-section as shown (approximately) in the second diagram. A comparison with a standard square-faced mallet (dotted lines) will show how the weight has been removed from the corners of the square and redistributed on the sides, further from the central axis. The mallet head was made of very heavy Mulga wood and did not require the addition of lead weights, but if it had, then he presumably would have asked that they also be placed at the sides as shown by the small dark circles, rather than in the centre of the mallet face or with holes drilled in the bottom of the mallet head along the central axis as has commonly been done in the past.
Does it work? We can only offer the player's personal opinion that it does indeed serve to enlarge the "sweet spot" on the mallet face and increase the likelihood that the ball will travel in the desired direction even when struck slightly off-centre. He has not conducted any objective tests or come up with any evidence to support this opinion, except that he claims to roquet much better (most of the time!) than he did with previous more conventional mallets. This, of course, may well be due to factors other than the design of the mallet head, but the idea of using peripheral weighting in the design of croquet mallets is at least worthy of further consideration and experiment. The concept can be carried to a far greater extreme than in the mallet described above. e.g. by making the mallet head hollow, or of very light wood, and adding weighted strips along the sides of the head away from the central axis. We would be interested to hear any further ideas on this matter, or on any other aspect of mallet design which may help improve the general standard of play.
In recent years there seems to have been an increase in the number of players with wrist problems. The reason for this increase is not clear: some believe that the less elastic Dawson Mk 2 balls have been a contributing factor, while others suggest that it could have resulted from the trend to more rigid mallet shafts instead of the older more flexible metal or cane shafts.
With almost all players being taught to use centre-style and play long rolls with the bottom hand well down the handle, flexibility in the shaft is no longer considered so desirable. Although the rigid shaft may possibly result in a little more jarring on some shots (this is debatable, as many insist that they get no jarring from their rigid shafts), the rigidity is preferred because it allows greater control and accuracy in rolls and split-shots, as well as a better stop-shot ratio. A player with a rigid shaft has one less variable - the whippiness of the shaft and its effect on the ball - to control, and this is what makes possible the greater accuracy.
Whatever the reason, coaches are likely to be approached by players with weak or injured wrists seeking advice on whether they should continue trying to play the game, and if so, what changes they should make in order to better cope with the problem.
While it does not come with any authority from a medical viewpoint, our suggestion is that the coach should consider offering the following two pieces of advice:
The heavier mallet will also tend to swing more smoothly through the ball - similar to hitting a tennis ball with a croquet mallet or a croquet ball with a sledge-hammer - and this alone can markedly reduce wrist strain.
We suggest that instead of the average type of mallet which weighs under 3 pounds, the player could try one weighing around 3 pounds 4 ounces. Three and a half pounds would be an absolute maximum, as there are also disadvantages inherent in the additional weight: the player will find it harder to play stop-shots and harder to retain accurate control of "touch" shots such as long take-offs and delicate hoop approaches. These disadvantages should be offset by an improvement in roquets and rushes; and most importantly less strain on the wrists. Several players with wrist problems have tried this out and found that they were able to continue playing good croquet when it had appeared that they may have had to consider giving the game away.
For very long rolls on heavier lawns the player could try using a side-style swing. This is not normally to be recommended (though some leading players do it) because the additional force gained from the higher backswing which the side-style allows, is accompanied by a reduction in accuracy due to the increased difficulty of keeping the eyes and weight directly behind the shot, and achieving a straight swing and followthrough. A player without wrist problems, regardless of stature and strength, should not need to resort to a side-style swing for any type of shot. However, the player may find it necessary at times to trade off some of the accuracy he would otherwise be able to achieve in order to lessen the risk of worsening his problem.
Many years ago mallets were made with wide bevels on the end faces and usually also with brass strips around them. The purpose of both the bevels and the brass strips was simply to stop the wood from splitting or chipping when the ball was struck near the edge of the mallet face.
In recent times hard plastic ends have come into common use, but many players and manufacturers have failed to realise that the bevels and brass rings are now neither necessary nor desirable. There are various hampered shots which will occur in games from time to time and can only be played satisfactorily if the mallet has no bevelled edge, so in such situations the bevels can be a distinct disadvantage. Brass strips are unobjectionable, except for the additional cost - but why pay for something you do not need?
Mallets have traditionally been made so that they will 'balance" horizontally when supported at a point about one-sixth of the way from the bottom of the head to the end of the handle. There does not seem to be any compelling reason why the fraction one-sixth should be better than any other fraction, and in fact some leading players have used mallets with additional weight added to either the head or the handle, causing it to balance at a quite different point.
The advantage for a manufacturer in balancing all mallets similarly is two-fold: (a) The construction process is made more standard and therefore simpler; and (b) When a player switches from an old mallet to a new one he will be able to adjust to the feel of the new mallet more quickly if the balance is the same, even though the total weight may be different. Thus it is more likely he will be immediately satisfied.
It is also worth noting that in recent years there has been a trend toward heavier mallets, and this seems to have been a response to the reduced elasticity (or apparent "deadness") of the Dawson Mark 2 balls. Most players have found that the increased weight needs to be accompanied by a more rigid handle in order to allow the playing and accurate control of stop-shots and certain split-shots.
 |
My swing, like that of most players was probably not quite straight and symmetrical; and this perhaps caused the ball to come off the mallet face at slightly different points with noticeably different consequences. If the mallet face has to be square, then at least some rounding of the corners would seem to be justified by these considerations.
The material in this section drew a considerable amount of interest when published in the Autumn 1994 issue of the Australian Croquet Gazette. In addition to the amusement it provides, it may prove helpful to others who have not already seen it.
I must point out that the explanations in no way represent the official views or interpretations of the ACA Laws Committee, and the blame for any errors or misleading statements rests squarely on the shoulders of the author alone. For this reason the reader is encouraged not to take all of them too seriously, and to check them out for himself in the Laws book if he is in any doubt.
For those interested more seriously in the Laws and refereeing I have available a "Croquet Referees Guide" which was published in October 1994 and used by the SACA Laws Committee as a basis for their Referees Training Course. Further details are given on the final page of this booklet. NOTE: Since this section was written the Laws of Croquet have been revised so that "folk-laws" 2 and 4 no longer apply.
It is now not possible for a hoop point to be scored in any faulted stroke unless the limit of claims has been passed before the fault is discovered (see "folk-law" number 2); and a fault will end the turn in some 'compound error' situations where formerly the turn would not have ended (see "folk-law" number 4).
There is now a 'five-second' rule which applies in determining whether or not a ball had come to rest before it moved (see "folk-law" number 16); but it applies only when the ball was stationary for 5 seconds or more in a position where it did not require testing.
The game of croquet abounds in folklore, which is a body of advice, rules, principles and experiences derived from the accumulated wisdom of players from the past and passed on by word of mouth to each succeeding generation.
There are sayings which relate to technique, tactics, equipment, administration, clubs, lawns, and any other aspect of the game you care to think of. The following is a collection of folklore items which
relate to the laws and refereeing. See if there are any you have not heard before:
You will probably have heard almost all of these sayings many times. Perhaps you will be able to add to them many other common croquet platitudes. One could probably make a similar list covering other areas of the game, e.g.
Technique: "To give your ball topspin when running a hoop, lift your mallet up through the ball."
Tactics: "Never set up in the middle of the lawn."
Handicapping: "You are likely to ruin a young player if you bring his handicap down too quickly."
And most famous of all: If you can't roquet, you can't play croquet", meaning that if you want to win more games, you should concentrate mainly on improving your roqueting ability.
The fascinating thing about the "Folk-Laws" is that not a single one of them is true; and many players will be surprised to learn that the four pieces of "advice" at the bottom are incorrect also!
 |
Tactics: One frequently sees players reducing their chances of winning by following this misguided advice. Certainly, you should not normally leave your balls deliberately in the middle of the lawn by choice. But in a situation such as the one shown in the diagram at right, where the player of red has played a poor hoop approach shot and cannot make the first hoop, he should sit red in the lawn near yellow so that the opponent at least has to hit a roquet in order to get the innings. Hitting red out of play to the border somewhere concedes black the innings without him even having to hit a roquet, and (depending on the positions of the opponent's clips) will probably also make it risky for yellow to shoot at any ball on the following turn if, say, black shoots at blue and misses.
Handicapping: This silly idea has been used as justification for deliberately retarding the development of many a promising young player, when he has achieved results which clearly show that his handicap should be rapidly brought down. An improving player should actually be brought down ahead of his actual results, since the results will inevitably lag behind his improving ability. The handicap he plays on now is based on results achieved some time in the past, and since then he will almost certainly have continued to improve.
Most Famous: This foolish saying ("If you can't roquet, you can't play croquet") causes problems for coaches, by making the player think that the main thing he has to do in order to win more games is improve his roqueting ability. At any level of play, with the possible exception of international competition, the ability to control split-shots and hoop approaches is far more important than the ability to hit roquets. If you want to win more games you should concentrate on improving your croquet shots and your tactics, rather than spending hours trying to bring about a small increase in the number of long roquets you are likely to hit. Many top-level games are won without the winner having to hit a roquet longer than 2 -3 yards; but the ability to play controlled split-shots is essential.
Many and varied are the dodges tried by players in an attempt to gain some sort of psychological or tactical advantage. Some of them are perfectly legitimate, e.g. in a doubles game leaving the ball of the stronger opponent, or the one who is not yet around, right out of play. Others may be such that they do not contravene the Laws, but would be regarded by certain people as highly unethical. Still others amount to downright cheating. You and I would naturally never engage in dubious practices. We mention a few here merely so that we can be well prepared to counter them when we encounter opponents whose ethical standards are not as high as ours.
If you know of other good ones I can use - in my articles, of course - please write and let me know.
[Later note: When the Laws were revised in the year 2000, changes were made so as to prevent all of the above underhand "tricks" except the first. However it will probably not take long for players to think up new ways of taking advantage of an unwary opponent - particularly one who is not familiar with the laws. The above can still usefully illustrate the type of thing one needs to be alert for.]
Some of the following articles have been published in the SACA Coaching Committee's Newsletter during the past three years, and include ideas contributed by other members of the committee, to whom I am grateful for their assistance.
Since the Newsletter has a very limited circulation the articles are included here, together with others, in the hope that both coaches and players in the wider Australian croquet scene will benefit.
Once again it must be stressed that coaching is far from an exact science. The committee has been giving a lot of consideration during the past three or so years to solving not only the problem of how things should be done, but also how they should be taught.
The results of all our work can be seen in the booklets of notes for the coaches training courses at various levels. These are available, or in the case of levels 2 and 3 will become available in the future, through the National Coaching Director. Those interested should in the first instance seek the advice of their State Coaching Director, as other material may be preferred for various reasons in some states, or provided in addition.
It is also likely that in some states there may be a policy of making the material available only to accredited coaches, and there can be sound reasons for such a policy.
The role of the croquet coach has been traditionally seen as one of showing the player how to play the various shots, and when things are not working out as desired, telling him what he is doing wrong. In recent years we have come to realise that as coaches we need to be involved in such things as establishing practice drills, psychological preparation, teaching tactics, planning the competitive programme of a player, and goal-setting for competitive events, as well as developing the correct attitude toward risk-taking, ways of coping with unusual or unfavourable conditions, most effective use of hit-up time, etc.
As just one example, let us return to consider a player who is missing roquets because he was hurrying his forward swing. (See the later article "More on error correction" on page 74 for further discussion of this particular problem.) After diagnosing and correcting the error, the task of the coach is far from finished. He still needs to set practice drills for the player, and establish a means of assessing whether or not the problem has been satisfactorily remedied. Then he needs to help the player set goals for competitive play, e.g. concentrate on unhurried swings during the hit-up before a game, then hit both balls into play and (later) run hoop 1 without hurrying the forward swing. There may need to be other times during the game as well, e.g. on the first stroke of every turn, where the player will find it necessary to consciously think through the idea of a higher backswing, relaxed arm and wrist muscles, and unhurried forward swing.
Very few errors can be corrected with any degree of permanency without this type of goal-setting for match play. No matter how much time the players spends at practice, and how many times he repeats a perfect, unhurried swing, he will still be likely to revert to his old habit of hurrying the swing in match play under pressure, unless he makes a deliberate and conscious attempt, at one or more specific times during the match, to ensure that he puts into effect the things he has learnt while practising. The player needs to play the shot with a changed goal: instead of thinking, "I must make this roquet (or hoop or rush)", he thinks, "I must use an unhurried forward swing", and even if the shot is missed he can consider that he has to some degree succeeded if he did in fact manage to achieve this more basic goal. He may lose a game or two at first, but he would probably have lost them anyway, and it is more important to ensure the winning of future games by correcting the error in technique, rather than to win the current game.
After the competition the coach should seek feedback from the player, e.g. "Did you remember to use a high backswing and not hurry the forward swing as you hit the balls into play? And did this help to establish the timing for later shots?"
If the problem remains, then more work on it is needed, and if not, then attention can be given to a different problem. It may also be necessary for the coach to assist the player in planning a particular programme of practice sessions and competitive play. The timing of such things is not always entirely under the control of either coach or player, but it will usually be possible to designate certain periods of the year, when there are no competitions of supreme importance, in which attention can be given to correcting any slight errors in technique and the practising of unusual shots such as roll-cannons, very long pass rolls (e.g. from the fourth corner, to load hoop 4 while going to a ball at hoop 3), jump shots, hampered shots, etc.
As a major competition approaches attention can be diverted to the fine-tuning of basic shots such as gentle roquets over 5-6 yards, wider than usual rushes, take-offs from corner to corner, hoop running, and other shots where any error is likely to be one of judgement and timing rather than one of technique.
Psychological preparation is another important factor, and can include preparedness to cope with or counter the style of play of particular opponents, or ways of assisting your partner in doubles, as well as ways of handling specific lawn and weather conditions.
It all leads up to one incontrovertible fact: every player competing at top level, as well as every player who wishes to improve rapidly, should have a personal coach who is both accredited and trusted. In others sports such as tennis, golf, athletics, etc., no -one would expect to be competitive at a high level without the regular services of a competent coach. Why is it that leading croquet players in the past seem to have adopted the attitude that it is beneath their dignity to seek specialised coaching advice? Fortunately, this attitude is gradually changing, and before long everyone who plays at or near state level will be forced to have regular coaching sessions in order to remain competitive. Such a change can only be for the good of the game, and lead to a general increase in the standard of play.
When teaching JUMP SHOTS, be aware that the different types of grip (standard, Irish, Solomon) probably will have a bearing on where the student places his hands. A player with the Solomon grip needs to hold the mallet at the top of the handle. However, a player with the standard grip is likely to get on better if he shortens the grip somewhat; and a player with the Irish grip will probably need to use a shorter grip still in order to achieve similar results without placing undue strain on the wrists. A coach should be wary of assuming that the way of playing a shot which he finds best for himself will also be best for any particular student.
When players are asked to perform a series of set drill exercises, (e.g. play 5 stop-shots from the 1st corner to load hoop 2 and gain position no more than 1m in front of hoop 1) and record the results, their recorded percentages will usually need to be considerably reduced in order to provide a true indication of current ability.
This fact was reinforced recently when one of the exercises mistakenly set as "homework" for a group of players being coached was to play a 'right-angle split' from 1m behind hoop 1, sending the croqueted ball to within 2m of hoop 4 and the striker's ball to within 2m of hoop 2. Everyone recorded success rates of 60-80% on this shot, although the shot is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible. It seems that they were very generous in their estimation of the 2m distances involved!
It is probably a good thing to think positively, and have confidence in your ability to play difficult shots with a reasonable success rate; but if you base too many of your tactical choices on such wishful thinking instead of on an objective consideration of percentages, things are likely to come unstuck somewhere.
The most reliable way for the coach to find out whether or not the student has mastered a shot is to have the student perform the tests with the coach present. On many occasions players have insisted that they can take off from one corner to within 3m of a ball in another corner almost every time; but when given a strict test their success rate is less than 30%, which shows that they definitely need more instruction and further practice.
In advising players about stance, grip and swing it is important that a coach begin by asking such questions as:
The correct positions for the player's feet and hands will depend on the answers to these questions, yet we could all probably quote experiences where a coach has tried to give advice to a player about his stance or grip without realising that the player is, say, right-eyed and left-handed; or right-handed but has no dominant eye.
The coach needs to know how to check such things, as the player may not know whether he is right- or left-handed, nor which, if any, is his dominant eye.
A full explanation of the effects of handedness and eye dominance on stance and grip would require far more space than is available here. We advise coaches who wish to be better informed on these matters to seek detailed advice from a member of the state coaching committee. For now, we will simply state the following general principles without further elaboration:
Croquet coaches and players seem to be in no doubt as to what constitutes a right- or left-handed stance and grip. In a right-handed grip the left (non-dominant) hand is placed at the top end of the handle, and the right (dominant) hand is placed underneath. In a right-handed stance the left foot is forward of the right foot.
I assume that I am not the first coach to have noticed that the percentage of croquet players using a left-handed grip and stance seems to be far higher than the percentage of left-handed people one would expect to find in the general community. This has led me to wonder whether or not the traditional idea of what is "left-handed" is in fact correct. There is no doubt that when most players were playing side-style the above description of a right-handed grip was correct, as this method involved having the hands well apart and providing most of the force with the bottom hand. However, most right-handed side-style players actually use what (going by the above) would be termed a "left-handed" stance - that is, they have their right foot forward.
Nowadays most players are taught to play centre-style, keep their hands together, and swing the mallet with the top hand rather than the bottom one. Perhaps there is a need to rethink the traditional ideas concerning the grip and stance that as coaches we automatically recommend to players, depending on whether they are right or left-handed.
This question has arisen in my mind, partly because, like many others, I am very right-handed at everything else, but play croquet "left-handed" because to me it seems more natural. In fact, to me it seems that I am playing right-handed, since the strength of the shot comes from my right hand, and the left hand is used only to guide the direction of the swing.
What, then, would be the effect if when the next person who asks me to teach him the game and says that he is right-handed, I were to suggest that he adopt a "left-handed" grip and stance as I myself do? I have always regarded the fact that I am left-handed at croquet and nothing else as one of my many idiosyncrasies, which like the others should not be passed on to those I coach. But now I am no longer so certain that I am doing the right thing. I do not have the nerve to go against all the accumulated wisdom of the centuries and recommend a "left-handed" grip to a right-handed player, as it could well prove to be disastrous and ruin any chance he may have had to ever become proficient at the game. Then I would blame myself forever after, and deservedly so. No coach should recommend anything other than what he knows is most likely to be of greatest benefit to the player. At present I have no evidence to support or even suggest that a right-handed person is likely to benefit from being taught to play left-handed; but all the same I cannot help wondering whether there may be more for us to learn as coaches in this area.
A further complication arises from the fact that almost all right-handed people are also right-eye dominant.
This means that if they are taught to play with a left-handed grip and stance, they will suffer (as I do) the minor disadvantage of needing to swing the mallet vertically below the eye which is on the same side as their front foot. This causes the thigh on that front leg to interfere somewhat with a straight backswing, unless the stance is a very wide one, or the front foot is consciously placed at what seems an unnatural distance from the line of swing. This is something I must keep on consciously reminding myself of, and is a source of error on those occasions when I forget and place my right foot too close to the line of swing which should be directly under my dominant right eye.
It would be possible, but probably not desirable, to explain all this to a newcomer and suggest that he experiment, hoping that he will work out for himself the way of doing things that will best suit him. However, this is in general not a satisfactory teaching method. The newcomer is likely to learn far more quickly if he is not confused by being shown a number of alternative methods and having to choose between them on the basis of ignorance and no experience. Most players will get on best if the coach makes one clear recommendation as to the grip and stance that is most likely, in the judgement of the experienced coach, to suit that particular player. No doubt there will be rare occasions when we get it wrong. In such cases it should become evident fairly quickly that the player is not coping satisfactorily with the things we are asking him to do in the ways we are asking him to do them, and at that stage the player may be advised to experiment with different grips and stances in the hope that he will find something that suits him better.
In my experience, however, a player who cannot cope at all with the standard grip and stance is not likely to get on well with any other; and once a player is managing reasonably well it will be very difficult to change him, which again raises the question as to what we should be teaching him in the first place.
 |
It is unfortunate that many players have been given poor advice in past years and this is part of the reason for the inconsistency in their take-offs. This highlights the danger of accepting coaching from untrained coaches, as one still hears advice such as the following being passed on by wellmeaning but ill-informed club-mates:
We do not have room here for a full consideration of the many finer points of this shot, but the accompanying diagram and the following principles will give some idea of the correct teaching method:
This method of lining up and playing hoop approaches was explained in my booklet "Croquet Coaching: Error Correction" and has been incorporated into the official course notes for the training of coaches.
In comparing the Circle Method with the standard method of playing and teaching hoop approaches, the following should be noted:
 |
The method is described as follows: (see diagram)
 |
 |
 |
As the angle becomes wider you will find that the striker's ball starts to slip across the surface of the croqueted ball, instead of the ball surfaces gripping on each other (and the balls immediately moving apart) as they do for narrower angles.
This slipping of one ball against the other in wide -angle shots means that the striker's ball will tend to go too far and the croqueted ball will fall short of the desired destinations. To correct for this, stand a little further back and use less mallet slope while also changing the line of swing a little more into the croqueted ball to lessen the slipping effect and make it go further. Most players who have used the method for some time will learn to make this adjustment almost automatically whenever they are approaching from a position so far around behind the hoop that the angle of split between the desired directions of the two balls exceeds 60 degrees or so. (See 4th diagram)
 |
It seems more sensible to look at an upside -down V underneath the balls as shown in the right-hand diagram, and imagine the central line added to make an arrow shape which does indeed point somewhere. We should never assume as coaches that because a concept is perfectly clear to us, it will be equally clear to those we are teaching!
Some good players are very adept at not only making hoops themselves, but assisting much weaker doubles partners to do so as well. Others do not know how to go about helping their partners, and instead of seeing it as an interesting challenge, they see the task as a frustrating one leading to despair.
Here are a few hints that may help you when you find yourself in such a situation:
One of the most common errors committed by players is hurrying the forward swing in single ball shots (roquets, rushes and hoop running). This is often most noticeable when the player is a bit nervous or out of form, which results in the shot being mistimed. The backswing is shortened and the forward swing is hurried, with the mallet being pushed forward by wrist and forearm action instead of being allowed to swing smoothly through under its own weight.
In most cases the player will be unaware that he is doing this, and when the coach points out the error to him, he will not know how to go about putting it right. As a coach, you will need to do more than simply tell the player what he is doing wrong. One excellent way of attacking the problem is to place a ball on the yardline and ask the player to roquet it from about 6-7 yards away without any ball crossing the boundary. The shot must be played very deliberately, with a fairly high backswing, and repeated many times until both distance and direction are adequately and consistently controlled. Then, when the correct (slower than before) timing is well established, the player can try longer roquets with the same deliberate action, trying to feel that he is keeping the mallet on the ball as long as possible, and 'sweeping' it rather than 'hitting' it. He should also concentrate on keeping the shoulders still during the swing, and should practise running hoops with a similar deliberate and unhurried action.
Most players find that the shot in which they are most likely to hurry the forward swing is the rush. Whenever rushes are played at practice or in matches, the player should consciously try to maintain an even grip tension throughout the swing, relax the muscles in his wrists and forearms, and use a long, flat swing from the shoulders. The distance of the rush should he controlled by the height of the back-swing. For a very long rush, use a maximum back-swing, firm grip, and still let the weight of the mallet do all the work.
As your Coaching Committee, we are constantly seeking to find better ways of teaching the things a player needs to know, so that we can pass the information on to our coaches. The most difficult area to teach is undoubtedly tactics, and we have been giving it our attention for some time now, especially since we have been working on ideas for the new Level 2 and Level 3 syllabuses.
We have decided upon satisfactory ways of teaching such tactical ideas as the theory of trap-lines and ideal leaves, when to peg balls out, the tactics of pegged-out games, and many others. However, there are some topics which we are still trying to discover an effective way of teaching. One of these is the idea of percentage play. This is of major importance, since the justification for all tactics must lie ultimately in percentages.
The need for it is illustrated by th