As I mentioned in the Morning Coffee column earlier this week, the Norwegian croquet video prompted a flurry of e-mail discussion. Mostly it was centered around whether or not it was roque. I received later communication that it pretty closely resembles Kentucky Clay Court rules. That's one aspect that makes the video intriguing, but for me it prompted several thoughts.
SURFACE
It does indeed look like a clay court surface. I am aware of what are likely two roque courts nearby my base here in Kansas City. One is located in Stanberry, MO and the other is in Chillicothe, MO. The USCA District President for Missouri, Billy Bob Breeden visited both and posted photos on the Overdrive site. Both of those courts are sand based and Breeden indicated that they play a form of nine-wicket (in one case, the rule is that you can't play off other balls until clearing wicket three). He also relayed to me that courts like this were common across small towns in America, often placed in the town square and serving as a weekly gathering place. I could probably do a full essay speculating on what could have caused the extinction of that practice.
The key though is that Breeden indicated that he had no real criticisms with the sand surface and this video certainly makes the clay surface seem appealing as well. If the play is relative to a standard grass court, then I believe the question becomes whether or not sand or clay shouldb be promoted as the lower cost alternative to grass that should be promoted for court building in the United States?
I have come to believe that the USCA's primary stagnation on membership is primarily a court infrastructure problem. Mainly that there are not enough public courts. I would suggest that ambassadors in the U.S. might have a better chance with public partnerships if sand or clay can come in at a fraction of the startup costs and reduced overall maintenance. We have some info available on sand court building, but do we know much about clay?
VIDEO
How interesting is a two-ball break through extremely wide wickets on a perfectly flat surface? Certainly it's a lot more interesting with an inset that shows a second perspective. Can anyone else see the potential for multiple camera shots based on this video? Can you envision a scenario where the main window shows a replay of a player making (or missing) a tough shot in slow motion, while two other insets show players in progress on breaks on two other courts during a team test? Or perhaps during the ACWC quarterfinals? Critics of croquet as a televised sport view it as we see it in amateur video -- a soundless shot that follows one player on a break with all of the stalking, practice swings and fiddling around on croquet shot setups. The truth is sports broadcasting today has a much greater array of tools to show multiple games in progress while illustrating key points with graphics and replays. The pace of croquet and the fact that most (at least in America) actually understand the principles of the game probably make it one of the best sports for television to showcase all of the modern broadcasting bells and whistles. People outside of the sport will of course balk, but I don't think we can successfull convey the concept to the outside world until we as croquet players can envision it.
SMALL BALLS
It looks to me like the balls utilized in the video are under-sized. The discussion about interactivity at the top levels of the sport is always active, so unless the concept of smaller balls has already been dis-proved I would add a reminder that smaller balls are probably the easiest way to make the game more challenging without modifying the rules. This of course assumes wickets sized down the 3.25" ball size would be implemented and that quality weighted balls could be manufactured at this size. Smaller balls present a greater challenge in a number of ways: 1) Less target area on roquets (3/8 in.) 2) Rushes are far more challenging overall a cut-rushes can become a real adventure 3) The ball to wicket weight ratio further favors the wicket, so there is a reduced ability to over-power a wicket.
Of course, changing balls and wickets is an infrastructure challenge across the world for the sport, but it would be a nice boom for equipment manufacturers. Probably the greatest negative from such a change is that it would likely make the game far too challenging for 99% of the players.
NINE-WICKET VS GC VS AC
Especially from Association proponents, we've seen recent concern about the rapid growth of golf croquet versus the AC game. In general, I believe filling up courts is a good thing as it creates the pressure to build more courts. However, I do think it's appropriate to be proactive to ensure that Association (and all bonus shot croquet) is still in a growth mode in addition to GC.
My approach to new players at this point is to quickly assess their psychological make-up. Social players clearly are steered into GC. People who are strategic and more competitive generally come with a pre-conceived concept about the sport and expect the race to the stake. After some trial and error, I fully believe the nine-wicket game (on reasonably cut grass) is the best introduction to bonus shot croquet. There are three main reasons.
First, the pattern for nine-wicket is inherently easier to follow and that just accelarates progress. Inside that circular six-wicket pattern, new players truly seem to get over-whelmed. In addition, in America virtually everyone I have ever "introduced" to the game has played the nine-wicket layout.
The second reason is that breaks are much easier to perform and conceive on the nine-wicket layout.
And finally, the turn in nine-wicket is such a great skill builder as you essentially score four wickets in a relatively short time frame while getting in a bunch short game split work. It also builds the foundation for two-ball breaks. And despite the extra wickets, the games are shorter. In fact, I really feel between 9W, US and AC you'll get the same result if put the same two players on the court for any of the codes, it's just how fast will you get there?
How does this apply? I've viewed nine-wicket as an American game. Still, I am really seeing now that variations of 9W are played across the world in much greater numbers than I would have imagined. I wonder if there should be an attempt to consolidate the rules and further is nine-wicket the best introduction for players in the AC empire to the bonus shot game.
I should also add that 9W has one additional benefit. You can fit three 9W courts into the area of two six-wicket courts.
WIDE WICKETS
The wickets are so wide on the court in the vidwo, I found myself asking -- what's the point? The first one to set a rush to their wicket can run a two-ball break and that's pretty much that. However, the speed of the break was nice. Are we obsessed with making the wickets too challenging? Would players relax a bit more with say a 1/4 inch gap and play faster, thereby allowing for more games. I'm not sure, but watching the video reminded me of many games where I've left a break out on the court and the opponent runs for a bit then stuffs a hoop. The game extends when it really should have been over. I'm not convinced, but it does get you wondering about a shorter version of croquet with fewer and easier wickets and more best of nine- or eleven-game matches. I guess the example would be the nine-ball billiards we see on ESPN. It appears most of their matches are best of eleven. Let me repeat ... I'm not convinced, but I am throwing it out there as a discussion point.
And there you have it. I was skeptical of the link when it was forwarded to me, but I have to admit, the video engaged me and obviously triggered quite a bit thought.