[Concerning the semi-final match between Robert Fulford and Chris Clarke in the 2009 British Open:]

1. Fulford deserves special credit for (i) correctly deciding to use the sextuple [peel] as a tactic in the prevailing conditions and (ii) completing both the two he attempted; and
2. Clarke would have improved his chances of winning the match in those conditions by doing sextuples rather then triples. As it is, he contented himself in game 5 with a NSL [New Standard Leave], and Fulford hit the 16-17 yard shot and made a 1-back leave [to try a sextuple peel].
   

Sadly I was in a meeting for much of Saturday, so I didn't see very much of the singles semi-finals. However, what I have seen and heard of Chris's play in the last few weeks has been very impressive indeed. He has made virtually no playing errors at all (maybe one every five or six games, or fewer) and over that time has shot better than anyone I have ever seen over a period of a week or more, with a CD [critical distance (the distance at which the probability of hitting in is 50%)] probably in excess of 25 yards.

I can't agree at all with Stephen about the relative merits of sextuples. Top level croquet is crudely about counting your number of shots hit minus your errors and comparing with your opponent. Doing a tp reduces your opponents number of shots by 1, and doing a sextuple instead of a tp increases the length of one of the shots. Giving away contact is like giving away a hit. Going round 3rd turn reduces the number of shots by one too, so is basically as much better than going around 5th turn as doing a tp is better than going to the peg. At the level of shooting displayed in the semifinals, doing a sextuple instead of a triple was less significant than doing a triple instead of going to the peg.

Much as completing sextuples is satisfying and impressive to watch, and indeed also a great achievement in terms of skill, it is actually not very important in terms of winning croquet games. Far more important is reducing the number of errors (which means turns in which croquet is taken but a break to the desired point is not completed), and increasing your shooting prowess. Only at the level where the players are making very few errors and are shooting well does the ability to complete sextuples instead of triples make much difference to people's chances of winning.

I was discussing the semi-final between Fulford and Clarke which seems to fulfil perfectly the condition Jonathan stated above as a suitable vehicle for sextuples as opposed to triples.

Even if your CD is 25 yards, having a 35 yard shot to hit is not the preferred situation and he was fortunate to hit it. Had he missed it, Fulford would presumably have been about 80% likely to finish and win.

If anyone can come up with a logical and specific argument that invalidates my argument, I will be delighted to discuss it further. Jonathan's contribution does not.

It won't come as much of a surprise to hear that I disagree with you.

If one has a high SXP completion rate (a function of playing conditions and competence), then it is entirely logical to deduce that completing a SXP is preferable to a TP. The TP leaves a shot of 16 yards, a SXP a shot of 33 yards. My own experience tells me that good quality opposition hit the 16 yarder [left by a New Standard Leave] about 40% of the time, while the tea-lady [left by a Sextuple Peel Leave] gets hit about 15%-20% of the time. All other things being equal, a successful SXP'er will win more games doing the SXP when compared to doing a TP.

You are correct in presenting top level AC as a crude count of hits less errors. On the Hurlingham lawns last week (which were disappointingly easy), the error count is very low and match wins came down to who hit what and when. Reducing the probabilities of oppo hitting feature quite high in my priority list, hence my choice of playing the SXP. As a guide, if my probability of completion is above 75% (I know my own competency, so it comes down to an assessment of playing conditions), then I follow a SXP strategy. Last week, I judged my success rate at close to 85%.

I do not do the SXP out of a sense of challenge or to entertain or to show off. I do it to win.

The sextuple was clearly the correct tactic for you last week and is often the case. Jonathan and myself are not arguing otherwise. We are merely saying that doing a sextuple compared to a tp is less important than doing a triple compared to a 9-12-5 [going to hoop #4b in one turn, going to peg in next turn, and then pegging out both balls in last turn], or going round third turn. It is the fact that Rob didn't get a clip on 4-b third turn, and I did that helped win me the match.

Additionally, Jonathan is arguing that shooting is more important than sextupling in terms of winning matches. I think you would also agree with that point.

It is unclear whether I should have gone to 1-b or 4-b in the 5th game against Rob — I was very much in two minds (as I was about trying to go round 2nd turn). My reasoning behind not doing so was that Robert had missed his last three shots and had missed all 4 lifts in the previous 5th game deciders we have played.

Congratulations on another fine peeling performance. However, as usual in easy conditions, the better shots won — but unusually this time, it wasn't Rob and yourself.

[Reg Bamford's] figures indicate that for the attempting of sextuples to be a winning strategy, you have to be able to complete them at least 75% of the time. Anyone with a lower success rate than 75% who attempts one is clearly not maximising his chance of winning.

I have assumed that the completion rate of the alternative triple would be at least 95%.

I agree entirely [with Reg Bamford]. My only point is that the difference between an SXP and a TP in terms of actual winning probability (as opposed to difficulty) is relatively small, so you need to have a high completion rate for them to be worthwhile. Undoubtedly you did have a high enough completion rate at the Opens to justify them, as did Rob.

Chris thought his chance of completing a sextuple was not quite high enough to justify a 1b leave, and I agree it was marginal — obviously I am not in as good a position as him to judge. One extra factor was that Chris was making the first break, so was guaranteed another shot if Rob hit. Given Chris's shooting form, he was not much less likely to hit a 35 yard shot than a 19 yard shot, so that giving Rob a shorter shot is not as bad as it would be if Rob was one break from finishing. My main point is that, because Chris was shooting incredibly well, that actually meant he was better going to 4b than 1b. Such things are very marginal, and hard to judge accurately, but basically Chris's not making errors was the most important factor, his shooting was the second most important factor, his ability to go round 3rd turn was the third most important factor, and then doing sextuples instead of triples would have come behind all the others. Of course not making errors and being able to go round third turn was true of all the top players in the event this year, but still shooting was much more important than doing sextuples.

I had not intended to comment further but your (excellent) e-mail offers the chance to explain why there is no need for (and there should be no expectation of) total agreement in certain areas relating to croquet.  Different people can have different approaches even if they have a common objective.  If they have slightly different objectives, there is even more reason why they may have different approaches to the game.

I’ll make four short comments. 

First, I mentally gave Robert Fulford slightly more credit for the way he approached and played the match than I gave you because he went for sxps which seemed right to me given the conditions.  It is just my opinion, no doubt influenced by my personal liking of attempting them and sometimes completing them, but also based on what I thought of his chances of completing them and the clear need he had to give you the longest possible shots.  Fundamentally, he gave himself more difficult breaks and managed to complete them and, at a very basic level, I applaud slightly more when I see someone pull off a difficult feat compared to an easy feat.  That is just me and I don’t require everyone else to agree with me.

Secondly, while I do think that you would have improved your chances by going to 1-b, I don’t condemn your decision not to do so because the a priori odds winning are not a huge amount higher (my estimate is that you would be 65-75% likely to win by going to 4-b and 75-80% likely to win by going to 1-b).  The fact that Robert hit his shortish lift in game 5 after you went to 4-b is neither here nor there.  You have to take your decision earlier on.  But I hope you agree that the fact that you can justify your decision has no relevance to what I or any other observer might think of Robert’s performance relative to yours.

Third, the romantic side of me would have loved to see you go for a sxp in any of the games, but especially in game 5, and complete it.  This is a new point but one that is worth mentioning.  I think you would have been very likely to complete a sxp given how well you were playing.  I agree with Lemon [Tony Le Moignan] that you seemed almost to be coasting in your breaks and I suppose I regret it when I don’t see someone using more of their potential.  Against me you were excellent in converting delayed TP situations into standard TPs and I fully appreciate the Aspinallic dictum that you shouldn’t use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  However, there are times when a bigger issue or opportunity arises and it is an interesting window on an individual’s inner being when you see how they react to the opportunity, assuming that they see it.  For what it is worth, I think you had the chance in game 5 to elevate yourself even further in the game’s pantheon by showing (a bit like Humphrey Hicks and his triples in 1963) that, if sxps were required, you could reel them off.  It would have been enormously impressive and I would have been the first to cheer.  Maybe you’ll do this on another big occasion.  Only you can decide.

Fourth, my approach to the game is necessarily different to yours.  I am over 15 years older, cannot expect to last as long at the top as you, Rob and Reg not to mention a host of others.  I understand myself pretty well and, when playing for myself, I will do whatever I think most likely to achieve my goal.  These days, improbable though it may be, my goal is to win more major events and the NZ Open this year was a huge fillip.  Others might wish simply to “do better” as time goes on and might approach this goal by taking a safety-first approach but I find that that has a negative effect on me and I do better if I keep stretching myself.  That is why I sometimes do things that you would never do.  For me, losing in the Worlds in the quarters is little different to losing in the semis or the final.  It is still losing.  Others might be thrilled to bits to get through one more round and, if so, they should play accordingly but it is not what works for me.  Oddly enough, when playing for others, notably in the Mac, the responsibility that that entails has always justified a more conservative approach within me, in part because each match is an end in itself rather than a step to a final.  The key thing is to be true to yourself and to be a self-navigator, considering advice but always taking your own decision and accepting full responsibility for your mistakes.  I have four children of whom I am immensely proud and I have no doubt that the best thing Sarah and I have done is to encourage them to be self-navigators with strong values.

Clearly, much is dependent upon the expected completion rate of the SXP. Can you fathom a guess as to what is typical at the top level?

Also, assuming not all peels are completed, how often are you "punished" after the contact lift? [After failing a sextuple peel attempt, since first ball has not run hoop #1b before starting the second ball, if the second ball runs both hoops #1b and #4b, but fails to peg out, then opponent gets a contact lift.]

You asked about the completion rate of the top players sextuples. Stephen says he does them about 50% of the time, Reg said he was 85% last week. As a rule of thumb, I usually knock at least 10% off most players numbers when it comes to knockout events (and 20-30% off others).

What were the actual percentages of Stephen and Reg in this years [British] Opens?

I didn't see any contact leaves at the Opens. The sextuples were either completed or broke down.

Rob and Reg expect 80% or so in suitable conditions. I managed 67% during the Mens and Opens this year.

My experience of being punished when failing sxps has been mild, losing fewer than 20% of such games.

5 of the 7 1-back leaves that I laid during the Opens were hit! This is an unprecedented hit rate; in my career at any rate.

I only tend to play Supershots when I am playing a very strong oppo or when I feel I'm shooting well. Both those criteria were met. I also used it against Stephen Mulliner (and Dave Maugham first game of the event), but not against James Le Moignan who I got plenty of value out of playing defensive openings against.

Perhaps the strangest thing I encountered was Mulliner not playing a SS [Super Shot Opening] against me in the third game of the QF [quarter finals]. He said that he wanted to go round with 4 balls on the lawn, so he could lay a 1-b leave and regain authority of the match with a sextuple. It was about as successful as when he tried to show Reg Bamford he was ready to win the worlds by laying for a sextuple when 2-0 up vs Chris Farthing.

I should probably add that whilst I played defensive openings in games 1 and 2 against James, by game 3, it had become clear that he was in excellent nick and I played a SS in the decider.