CROQUET COACHING: Whole-Match Tactics CROQUET COACHING: Whole-Match Tactics 13 March 2009
collected by Leo Nikora from the Nottingham Board
| Samir Patel |
I'd like to see what different players' views are on whole match tactics and/or psycology and how they compare to single games. For example, would you approach the first game of a best of three (or five) differently to a single game? Clearly there's an element of all-or-nothing for a single game, but does that encourage or discourage you from playing more aggresive openings and shot selection? For the purposes of this, it seems sensible to assume an opponent of broadly similar standard, otherwise the difference in playing standard will probably have more impact on your tactics than the state of the match. What about after the first game? I've heard the argument that having won the first game of a best of three with little (or no) play by your opponent, an aggressive opening is good since they are unlikely to be on top form, and you don't want to give them a few turns in a defensive opening to play themselves in. I've also heard the argument that you should take a more defensive line, on the basis that you don't want to give them the opportunity to play one good (or lucky) shot for a break which allows them to play themselves back in. Clearly both can't be right! |
|---|---|
| Jim Bast |
This will be a helpful question, Samir. Thanks for asking it. I look forward to seeing the responses. In particular, I have wondered about Rob’s play against Chris in the semis at the Worlds last year. I believe that Rob won the first two of the Bo5. Then in game three it appeared to me that Rob chose shot/strategy selections that were quite out of the ordinary for him. Of course, I haven’t seen Rob play enough in recent years to make that assessment with any certainty. But I do remember having the feeling that he would not have made many of the choices in that third game had he not been up 2–0. |
| Robert Fulford |
The main tactical factor in the match I had with Chris and every match at United in last year’s worlds was the playing conditions. I certainly took one shot in that game that no one else at the venue seemed to agree with. Chris had just bounced off 2 to on the west boundary 3 yards north of 2. My ball (the other having been TPOed) was for 3 and was a yard west of that hoop. Chris’s other ball was a yard off the yard line north and a couple of yards east of 2. I shot at Chris's hoop 2 ball. For the same reason that it's said the TPO is great for Chris because it takes me out of my stride, this shot is good for me because I still have the pace of the lawn and it is a relatively easy position for me to get going from. The key shots I need to get the balls ahead of my break are my some of my favourite shots, a square split followed by probably a cut rush. Picking up a break from next to nothing with a big roll or by making a series of long rushes to hoops was always going to be very low percentage on that lawn. I'm very unlikely to finish as a result of hitting Chris's peg ball. By playing cagily I would probably have got more chances but I thought my one good chance (ignoring the significant scope for Chris failing to finish if I miss) added up to more than all those chances put together. Personally I thought a rasher shot was Chris going for hoop 2. He could have just played into corner 1 and I would have had virtually nothing. As it was he was lucky to bounce off to the boundary. (I had plenty of luck at times in the match too, so I can't really complain.) It was better to start game 4, having lost game 3 relatively quickly, rather than possibly having lost after a long 3 ball game where I might have lost the pace more and maybe floundered in a few attempts at very difficult turns. However I doubt it is worth biasing your tactics much for this. |
| Ian Burridge |
This was an undeniably interesting position and as you say the topic of much debate at the time (the commentary shows that at least Wixy agreed with you!) I believe it probably was your best chance of winning the game and if presented as a puzzle on the Nottingham list with no background as to the state of the match, previous turn etc probably the correct play. In my opinion it is when whole match tactics are applied that it begins to look dubious, you have found some positive whole match issues from your perspective but surely these are dwarved by those from Chris's perspective? He has just taken a non-percentage line of play (sign of desperation?), been very lucky with the outcome, has struggled to get into the match, just not taken his game winning opportunity and has probably played what he thought could be his last shot in the event if it failed and you take a shot which hands him the game on a plate (as far as that were possible given the difficulty of the lawn). I said at the time I was unable to decide whether or not it was right or wrong but in my head the argument for it being right was the fact that on a strictly percentage basis it may have been the best chance of winning the game but on the other side of the coin it was potentially disastrous from a whole match perspective because of the easy win it gifted your opponent. I find it impossible to buy the positive whole match spin that you trying to put on the shot selection. |
| Strat Liddiard |
I did not as you know see the game and my remarks are as though this was about "a problem on the Nottingham list". I respect both Rob’s and your analysis of the decision process and am minded to agree with Rob but it is still in my view possible (probable) that you are touching on a curious intangible that I would argue occurs in any contest in which the deciding event is not entirely random. (Backgammon is an example where a decision can be verified as correct or incorrect statistically on a computer) As I understand your comments you are saying that in "normal" circumstances or even, perhaps "less unusual" circumstances Robs decision was correct but in these "extraordinary" circumstances a safer line of play would be stronger. How much of this view do you think is due to knowledge of the outcome of the game, match and indeed tournament and also even without these factors the passage of time to consider outcomes (post-match analysis). How will it help you and in the future in such situations should you find yourself in such a situation? |
| Ian Burridge |
I think your interpretation of my comments is a reasonable one. Although my main point was that I really couldnt accept the explanation that the shot was potentially good from a "whole match tactic" point of view in my opinion it is clearly poor in this regard, it was this specific point I was really taking issue with. As I was commentating on the game there is actually a record of my opinion and this suggests that I thought Rob should shoot but at the nearer ball. This shot was guarded by the ball on the boundary and so a miss gave away as much as missing the shot Rob took (although the hitting probability was clearly appreciably more). My post match analysis has clearly led me to believe that Rob shot at the correct ball but left me questioning if shooting was the correct thing to do. I now believe that the gain of hitting the nearer ball (>50% chance) on the lawn in question was not great enough to justify the risk of missing - in this regard there is no doubt I have been swayed post the event by comments of the players as to the difficulty of the lawn. Post event comments and analysis have also led me to believe on a strictly probabilistic basis shooting at the boundary ball may have been Robs best chance of winning the game. However unlike shooting at the near ball missing is now more likely than hitting which I think changes the whole match factors considerably, you are now taking a shot likely to result in giving the opponent a laid 3-ball break for the game, this being the case due consideration needs to be given as to whether or not this is appropriate in the circumstances. There is no doubt that at the time I was surprised that Rob shot at the ball he did (I dont think I had considered it — I believe he made the selection quite quickly, I might have got there in the end!), as were many others watching a significant proportion of whom were surprised that he shot at all (at the time had he shot at the near ball I think my view was that he had some balls to take it without being surprised, it was after all only an 11 or 12 yarder). Had he hit the shot he took and finished it would have been held up as an example of excellent play and aggressive tactics in difficult conditions (or more likely forgotten being the shot that led to a forgettable onesided 3-0 demolition of his opponent). However instead he missed and his opponent went on to complete a remarkable comeback and win the title, there is no doubt that the position is memorable (and being discussed now) because of where it led. Whether or not it was a failure of whole match tactics on Rob's part will no doubt remain a matter of debate (the conclusion of which may change over the years to come if more games are played in similar conditions — I think everyone was out of their tactical comfort zone in Christchurch). I think it comes down to the fact that ultimately croquet is a results based business, Rob shot, missed and lost the match, for these reasons the choice will always be questioned. Having said that the only person in a position to correctly evaluate all the factors is the player on the lawn at the time and if Rob is still happy with his selection then it was the right shot. I am strongly of the view that the only person you have to be able to justify your shot selections to is yourself and if you wake up the next day or a year later believing you did the right thing then you did. Having said all that if I find myself with a 20 yarder to hit in the semi-final of a World Championship to get into the final I think I will probably take it! If you didnt take it and failed to take croquet again that would be bad wouldn't it? Whole Career Tactics — if you get such a chance make sure you take it! |
| Bob Kroeger |
What is the definition of whole match tactics? |
| Ian Burridge |
I can't find my copy of Wylie and am struggling to write a succinct definition myself but basically I would define a whole match tactic as a tactic employed due to some perceived later benefit (more typically in a match situation but also possibly in a single game) as opposed to simply looking at the turn in which the tactic is employed. Rob's example is a later physical benefit to himself (retaining the pace of the lawn for the next game) sometimes the perceived benefit will be psychological rather than physical. Personally I would probably tend to lump pre-match tactics/game plan (ie what openings to employ, whether or not to TPO, whether to go to 1-back or 4-back) under the heading whole match tactics too, but I am not sure that everyone would. Looking at it from this angle you can see that whole match tactics can also be viewed as your overall strategy for the match influencing your shot selection throughout. Perhaps this is most easily demonstrated from the point of view that most players will be familiiar with modifying their general tactics depending on whether they are the favourite or the underdog in any particular game. So I believe whole match tactic is used to both define a general strategy, as well as being applied to single shots or turns. |
| Stephen Mulliner |
A classic example is the decision to attempt a TPO having hit the lift when game and break down in a best of three. The idea is:
|
| Ian Burridge |
It is interesting that Stephen should give this as the example I nearly included in my initial response was from the 2006 Opens when I was game and break down against Fulford not having had croquet. My pre-match intention had been not to TPO but when I hit my last lift not having previously had croquet I decided to do one to try to achieve (b) as set out below despite the fact I had decided that a TPO did not represent my best winning tactic in its own right. The fact that I broke down on a 3-ball break to win the ending rather indicated that by pre-match assessment of the TPO as a tactic was correct but I left the match feeling quite satisfied with the tactics that I had employed. |
| John Riches |
Many years ago I watched a best-of-three doubles match between two Englishmen and two Australians. A well-known UK player played his ball from hoop 1 and shot at his partner ball on the east border. He missed, and one of the Aussies started a break, making a few hoops before breaking down. In a somewhat similar situation with roles reversed a turn or two earlier the Aussies had hit away into a corner, refusing to go together and risk presenting their opponents with a relatively easy break opportunity. The UK players won that game and the next one; and after the match I commented to the UK player who had taken the shot that it seemed he was taking a considerable risk, and was a tactical choice that our players probably would not have made. He said, "They were playing nervously and had not settled down. Hitting away would have taken all the pressure off them. I suppose we could have lost that game, but we would have won the next two anyway!" The UK players were apparently prepared to sacrifice the first game, or at least a break, for psychological reasons in the belief that it would increase their chance of winning the match. I have never been certain whether he was 'having me on' and actually expected to hit the roquet, in which case the justification for taking the risky shot would have been in percentages, rather than in the realm of psychology, but I like to believe that he was using "whole of match" tactics. |