Cue Master

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 933, 28 March 1930, Page 7

Cue Master

LINDRUM’S PHENOMENAL PLAY EXCITES ADMIRATION OF ENGLISH BILLIARDS CRITICS

"HAS REVOLUTIONISED GAME” i Geniuses, although an exception is I made occasionally by the caricaturist, | are in appearance just ordinary human j beings. A more everyday, matter-of-course, | one-in-the-crowd young man than Walter Landrum could not be found, writes Harry Young in an English newspaper. Yet he is a genius who has revolutionised billiards as a breakbuilding spectacle. Deportment departed with John Roberts, whose stately entrances and j exits would,, if copied by our presentday exponents, be a cause for amusement rather than the awe which John created in his paying guests. Hence it is for his ai tistry alone that Lindrum shines. Up to last season the usual number of points our leading professional players were scheduled to i score in a fortnight’s game was J 16,000. Even then the sessions were not always limited to two ■ hours. During the past fortnight ( in sessions absolutely restricted to two hours, Lindrum scored | 30,817. This is such stupendous scoring, and such an advance on anything he has done before, that one wonders how long and how far he will continue to improve. I i With the exception of the two matches he lost to Willie Smith after winning tlie first three—such inex- ! plicable results as to warrant the assumption that he was paying his host and sponsor in England a pretty compliment—his career since his arrival here has been one of persistent advance. Always he has been doing a bit better, always scoring' more. Having seen all the old-time champions—W. Cook, Joseph Bennett, John Roberts, Charles Dawson, and such great players as W. J. Peall, E. Higgle. W. Mitchell, Hugh McNeill (a left-„ handed player as Eindrum is), J. North,* C. Harverson, W. Spiller and F. Bateman—l believe the artistry of all these men is combined in Lindrum. If he has a weakness at all it is the j mass€ stroke. At this Roberts and I Bateman rarely failed. Lindrum over j here has failed more often than not ; and even when successful makes the stroke appear difficult in comparison with the old masters mentioned. Many are inclined to ascribe this weak spot to his short stature, but this does not appear to trouble Falkiner, who Is the best present-day 5 * exponent of the stroke, and is no taller than Lindrum. This handicap makes Lindrum’s break-building the more wonderful. He claims, however, that the mass§ is one of his best strokes, so we here may have been unlucky. The question is, when will he reach his zenith? He is not yet 30. John Roberts at 50 was a 40 per cent, better player than he was at Li-ndrum's age. j Lindrum himself, modest and anas- : j suming as he is, admits that he is : j playing better since his arrival in Eng- j i land than he ever did in Australia. 1 j There he has been for years “starv- | ing” for somebody good enough to j play against. I “There is no reason,” he said, “why ! j I should not improve on my present j form. I have my off days but am i always trying to do my best, and my f ambition now is to make a 4,000 break. ! , I am fit and well and find your much i maligned climate most agreeable. The i English people and the players have i been very delightful. This has j given me great encouragement, and j when I go home in April I shall be all the time looking forward to a return visit next autumn.” A typical Lindrum break includes a bit of everything. A few “in-off’s” from hand, a drop cannon, a hundred or so by the orthodox top-of-the-table methods, then a string of cannons nursed down the left-side cushion as far as the middle pocket. A few more losing hazards follow, then up to the top again, and so on. It is all very interesting but very deceptive, because I it makes the most difficult game ever i invented appear the easiest. It would ' be a platitude to say that Lindrum is the best player in the world. ITis j genius for the game is beyond super- i j latives.