A lot of the "contenders", i.e. players outside the top four, are as good as, or sometimes even better than, the top four at single ball strokes. If you tested them out in shooting, hoop running or rushing contests then they could hold their own. However, if you gave them a test that combined single ball and croquet strokes then then would fall over almost immediately.

Someone told me that Reg [Bamford]used to practise making 1 with a rush to 3, rush to 3, make 3 with a rush back to 1, rush back to 1, make 1 with a rush to 3 and so on for as many repetitions as he could. I don't know how many repetitions Reg could manage, but having tried it myself I know how difficult it is.

Now you may wonder what an exercise like that has to do with winning a game of croquet, but in Reg's case it is his combination of excellent rushing and accurate croquet strokes that enables him to make sextuples look trivial. Or you could watch Rob dig out a break in situations where other people don't. Or you could ask yourself whether you hope to get another turn when your opponent has a 3 ball break to finish. Against the top four you almost never do!

For anyone out there who wants to compete with the top four the clues are all there as to what is needed. It amazes me how few people connect the dots.

I agree with your notion about combining single ball and croquet strokes; but then, I know few people that can match Rob [Fulford] or Dave [Maugham] in shooting, nor many that can match Reg or Chris [Clarke] in croquet strokes. So although I agree with your points, what is it that you're sugggesting that we attempt to do differently (aside from the making 1 & 3 on a continuous loop, which sounds suitably stretching!)?

One thing I've noticed over the years is that I'll often be good at EITHER sending a ball in a straight line OR sending a ball a certain distance, rarely both in combination (and rarely neither). I'd love to really understand why this is; any suggestions about what's going on with the mind-muscle link?

The first thing to do is to analyse as objectively as possible where your play falls short of the play of whoever your role model of the ideal croquet player is. In other words, what does the ideal player do that you don't (at the moment)? One way to do that is to watch that player and ask yourself after every stroke "Could I have done that?" Now, the answer may well be "Yes", but the real question is whether you would always do it, or would you have managed it and thought "Phew, that was lucky."

By the way I know lots of players who CAN match Rob and Dave in shooting and Reg and Chris in croquet strokes. The reason they DON'T (at the moment), is that they haven't consciously set themselves high enough standards and then gone out to practise to achieve those standards. How many times do you step up to a croquet stroke and identify the exact spots you want the two balls to land on, or the spot where you want a rush or a hoop stroke to end up? How many times have you lined up a shot and picked out the exact spot on the target ball where you want to make contact? Try it and see what happens. (Oh, and notice the times it works rather than the times it doesn't! <s>)

On the matter of accurate croquet strokes, I noticed an example while watching Bamford finishing a sextuple at Jersey. He just needed a straight rover peel and was taking croquet from peelee about a foot due East of Rover to get back to a penult pioneer a couple of feet NW of penult. I guess most would content themselves with a thin take-off leaving peelee SE of rover, and later get a decent rush on peelee to get it in front of rover. Not Reg; he took great care lining up the stroke and got the peelee to bounce off the North-Eastern sector of the East wire of Rover, ending up about a foot in front of Rover, while of course avoinding peg and getting a perfect rush to penult.

(The immaculate turf at Jersey is helpful in lining up such accurate croquet strokes).