After making the first break to hoop #4-back I set a diagonal spread leave with an opponent ball at hoop #2 and another opponent ball two feet south-east of the peg. My opponent picked up the ball from hoop #2 and shot from B-baulk through my balls into the 4th corner. I now have a rush toward the peg for my hoop #1 ball. Where should I rush it to?

1. 1-2 yards short of the opponent ball near the peg, followed by a
   short stop-shot to get a dolly rush to hoop #1, without attempting
   to properly load hoop #2?
2. 4-5 yards short of the opponent ball, followed by a stop-shot to
   load hoop #2 and get a rush to hoop #1?
3. half-way between the peg and hoop #3, followed by a wide-angle
   split-shot to load hoop #2 and get the rush to hoop #1?
4. half-way between the peg and hoop #5, followed by a narrower-angle
   split-shot to load hoop #2 and get the rush to hoop #1?
5. hoop #2, followed by taking off back to the ball near the peg to
   get a rush to hoop #1.
6. somewhere else, or one of the above with a different follow-up?

5 feet short of the ball at the peg, followed by a stop shot loading 2 well, getting a dolly rush to hoop 1.

If you can't play a decent stop-shot, 1 and 2 are both okay.

The most important thing is to get an easy rush to hoop #1. A poor hoop #2 pioneer can be sorted out later, though if you can be pretty sure of acieving both you should.

The choice of ideal rush point needs to take into account the types of croquet stroke you can play accurately.

The choice of intended rush point needs to take into account the expected margin for error (or "variation" as they say nowadays) in the first rush itself. This for me rules out the 1-2 yards short option (1), since there is too little margin for over-rushing. (I know you asked "where should I rush to" but a better question is "where should I attempt to rush to").

I personally would attempt to rush to 3 to 4 yards short of the peg ball so that straight drive will put a ball 1 yard South of hoop #2and give me a 2-foot straight rush on peg ball to hoop #1.

I am a little surprised that no-one has at least mentioned the possibility of rushing 2 yards short of the ball at the peg, croqueting a ball to 2, and getting a rush to the ball in/near corner IV. Maybe that's not realistic if the ball is genuinely SE of the peg as opposed to ESE as it would normally be with the other oppo ball well SW of hoop #2.

Usually in a game the ball at the peg is not as far as two feet away from it, so the possibility is not there. Usually again I don't play for it, playing for a rush to hoop #1 instead, but on the occasions where I have overplayed my ball and accidentally obtained a rush to corner IV it's been useful in setting up a standard TP! A similar situation can arise where the ball at the peg is lifted and a shot missed from corner III, although the ball left SW of hoop #2 is a lot further away from corner IV.

Or rush well north of ball at peg, croquet it back down south-east of hoop #4, rush to hoop #1, make hoop #1, send croqueted ball to hoop #3 going to corner-IV ball, send that to hoop #4 gaining dolly rush on partner to hoop #2.

My reason for asking is that I have been involved in some discussion of the importance of rush-line theory and the extent to which we as coaches should be teaching it. I thought it might be relevant to find out whether or not contributors to this forum, when they need to load a hoop ahead and also get a rush to the current hoop, would prefer to play the croquet stroke from a point on the rush-line or from a point which allows them to use a stop-shot going across the rush-line.

So far the replies have all preferred the latter, which suggests that rush-line theory will be of very limited value in 3-ball breaks. Nor, it seems would it be the preferred way of loading hoops in a 4-ball break, as again a stop-shot would be preferred for similar reasons.

That means that its main use will be in a 4-ball break with a "moving pivot" ball - i.e. rush the pivot-ball to a point on the rush-line of a wayward pioneer and from there send it back into the middle of the lawn. But even here there would be situations where the stop-shot is preferred by the top players.

My suggestion (nothing new, and open for criticism, as we are still revising our attitude to rush-line theory), would be something like:

1. Work out where you will want to send the croqueted ball (i.e. the one you are about to rush somewhere), whether it is to a load a hoop or to a useful "pivot position" in mid-court.
2. ook at the point you would like your striker's ball to finish in order to obtain a useful rush for the next ball you will go to (after the one you are about to rush).
3. Draw an imaginary line from the first of these points to the second, and extend it by about a quarter (or less if you can play accurate high-ratio stop-shots). This gives you a third point — the one to which you should rush the ball.

This method may sometimes coincide with rush-line theory, but most times will not. It will allow you to put the balls where you want them in a way which most people in this forum apparently consider the easiest and safest, giving the maximum chance of continuing the break. I am not sure that the coach needs to mention rush-line theory at all if this teaching method is used. However some will no doubt disagree with me; and perhaps they would say that the method I have explained actually involves a version of rush-line theory?!

I have to agree with Chris and Martin. A straight croquet stroke is much more reliable than a split one, even going across rather than down the rush line.

The critical ball on this croquet stroke is the striker's ball. The stop shot allows you to place this ball from relatively close. Either of the split strokes along the rush line means the striker ball will have to travel further.

There are plenty of croquet strokes in a break in which the position of the striker ball is not so critical (e.g. going to a good pioneer which you don't need to rush anywhere precisely). In this case, split strokes and use of the rush line may be as good as stop shots. To some extent it depends on the amount of control you have over the previous rush. Rushing onto the rush line may be much easier than rushing to the spot to play a stop shot. But typically the top players will all aim to play stop shots rather than splits. A good example is laying the hoop #3-back pioneer going to a hoop #2-back pioneer. Where can you play this stroke from and where do you ideally play it from?

There is still value in [rush-line theory] for three balls breaks. For example, it may assist when playing your approach shot in deciding to where you would like a rush.

In four-ball breaks, a player with good stop shots would try to play as you describe, but if you don't get the rush you want out of a hoop, rush line theory will let you plan a way forward.

E.g. You are playing a 4 ball break and have run hoop #3. You have a ball 2 yards north of hoop #4 and your pivot 2 yards south-west of the peg. You had played for a rush to near the peg in order to have an easy stop shot to load hoop #6 and gain a rush on the pivot, but instead have a rush towards hoop #2. I have seen on several occasions in this type of position, a mid-bisque player just tap the rush, or worst hit it a few yards, and find they now have a big roll stroke, coming across the rush line and possible also with hoops in the way. If instead the rush is taken across the lawn to the rush-line from pivot to pioneer the croquet stroke, while still a roll stroke is much easier.

I think you are being overly precise [your description of rush-line theory]. Players need to consider regions rather than points. There is often an area from which you are happy to play the next stroke, but it isn't always circular. In my example above, if you had instead got your desired rush to near the peg, you might want to consider trying to rush to between the ideal stop-shot point and the rush line since that gives you a margin for error and anywhere in that region is still an easy stroke. Of course, you might also want to make sure you didn't get the peg in the way...

However, in general terms your approach works — Work out where you would like the balls to end up and then work backwards from there through where you would like to play each previous stroke until you get back to where you are. I think there is something along these lines on the Oxford site with an overly complex title (Retro-Synthetic Break Building). [See also, Using the Rush Line by Allan Parker.]

My priorities when looking where to rush for the next croquet stroke tend to be;

1. 1 avoiding furniture at any point
2. having space to get the croqueted ball as far as I want
3. minimising the length of the croquet stroke
4. rush-line theory

Having said that, there are plenty of positions where my priorities would be different. e.g. normally I would say 3 (above) particularly means minimising the length the back ball travels, but on a peeling break minimising the length the peelee travels often becomes number one priority.

The more reliable you become at croquet strokes, the less importance rush- line theory will have.

I've never been a proponent of rush-line theory.

The most accurate stroke we use when approaching a hoop is the straight (or near straight) stop shot. When I want to get to a spot accurately, I imagine a hoop 2 feet beyond that spot.

Works very well for many yard line situations too; more accurate and more useful than a thin take-off.

This is very interesting. For years I have imagined hoops in various places around the lawn for the purpose of practising hoop approaches before I have to play one for an actual hoop, and also to get an accurate rush when it does not mater too much exactly where into the lawn the croqueted ball goes.

And Rob Fulford wrote, "The more reliable you become at croquet strokes, the less importance rush-line theory will have."

That has been my conviction also, but our Coaching Committee does not necessarily share my convictions on all hings.
Also, Wendy would no doubt make the point that she uses rush lines when coaching people who have not "become reliable at croquet stroke". I have always thought that coaches should concentrate on teaching croquet strokes, particularly the ability to split from any hoop to the next two hoops. If the player cannot do that, you will help him most by teaching him do do it, rather than spending time on anything else.

Thanks also to Paddy. I had heard someone suggest that option to me some time ago, but have never used it myself and had forgotten about it.