You did a great job. Matter a fact if I ran ESPN I would get pool back just to have you announce it. Can everyone be john Madden, no. But I can tell when someone knows what their talking about and it makes what ever I'm watching more interesting.
Just my opinion on the commentary.
- Thread starter RobDeBank
- Start date
You did a great job. Matter a fact if I ran ESPN I would get pool back just to have you announce it. Can everyone be john Madden, no. But I can tell when someone knows what their talking about and it makes what ever I'm watching more interesting.
Jay, my only beef was you slamming Earl even when it wasnt needed. There was a spot where Daz was talking about the 8 ball skidding and you went on and on about how Daz was made Earl was talking during his turn. That had nothing to do with what Daz was talking about. I was yelling at my computer, NO JAY . anyway, as always I enjoyed your work and look forward to working with you again soon.
If one (Earl) can get away with talking and his other crap I think more players should start doing it. Why does only Earl get a pass to shark? If a few dozen started doing it maybe promoters, TD's, and refs would get off their asses and stop it all. What, because Earl draws a crowd? Big deal. Everyone could do W/O those 50-100 people that crowds around his table and in some cases are the ones that set him off or gives him an excuse to go off. If Earl wasn't there most of those 50-100 people would spread out over the rest of the tournament. I'm tired of how many people Earl draws. He draws mostly people that are there anyway. Johnnyt
Sorry, I may have missed that. I did see Earl talking to the crowd during Darren's turn and I ASSumed that was what was going on. I wasn't able to hear Darren's mic during that match (technical glitch in our equipment). For the most part the European players totally tuned Earl out, to their credit. I'm sure Johann had a lot to do with that. Thanks for correcting me.
My observation Johnny is that Earl is most distracting to his partners and HIMSELF! After he started going off he missed some very makeable shots and even had a brain fart one rack with BIH. He tried a very difficult combination on the nine (and missed badly) when the run-out was staring him in the face. He even realized it after he sat down, shaking his head and talking to himself. Wonder how many people noticed that.
For the most part the European players totally tuned Earl out, to their credit. I'm sure Johann had a lot to do with that. Thanks for correcting me.
Definitely so, Jay. After Mika nearly rattled the two ball in the winning rack of a doubles match won 6-3 by Europe, Jimmy Wych interviewed him. Earl was on the losing team.
Jimmy: I noticed that Earl had a few words for you after the match. What did he say?
Mika: He said "you missed that two ball."
Jimmy: And what did you say to him?
Mika: I said "why are you talking to me?"
I laughed and laughed.
FWIW, even though the American team did not put forth their best game in this year's Mosconi Cup, I thought Earl's performance was better than all the other players. He played MUCH better than Johnny, Shane, Dennis, and Rodney. Aside from his tableside antics and misbehavior, his pool-shooting was better than the others on his team. Johnny's game didn't show up. Shane missed a few shots he normally doesn't. Dennis and Rodney didn't seem to have their head in the game.
I personally prefer commentary from (retired) professional and knowledgable players rather than professional commentators.
@ Jam,...:canoodle:
I'm not sure I understand how it works. 
Individual players' records. For this, I counted a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves), and a win and a loss for everyone in the team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths). For each player, the first record is for singles, the second for doubles, the third for the team match, and the fourth is the total. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet undefeated; worst records -- Hatch and Archer with no wins. No winning records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
0-1, 0-2, 0-1, 0-4.....Archer
0-1, 1-2, 0-1, 1-4.....Strickland
0-1, 1-3, 0-1, 1-5.....Morris
0-1, 2-0, 0-1, 2-2.....Van Boening
0-1, 0-3, 0-1, 0-5.....Hatch
Instead, counting half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, and one-fifth of a point for each player in the team match, the records were as follows. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet; worst records -- Hatch and Archer. All losing records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
Archer: 0 - 2.2
Strickland: 0.5 - 2.2
Morris: 0.5 - 2.7
Van Boening: 1.0 - 1.2
Hatch: 0 - 2.7
USA Total: 2 - 11
Atlarge's thread ---> SOURCE
Individual players' records. For this, I counted a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves), and a win and a loss for everyone in the team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths). For each player, the first record is for singles, the second for doubles, the third for the team match, and the fourth is the total. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet undefeated; worst records -- Hatch and Archer with no wins. No winning records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
0-1, 0-2, 0-1, 0-4.....Archer
0-1, 1-2, 0-1, 1-4.....Strickland
0-1, 1-3, 0-1, 1-5.....Morris
0-1, 2-0, 0-1, 2-2.....Van Boening
0-1, 0-3, 0-1, 0-5.....Hatch
Instead, counting half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, and one-fifth of a point for each player in the team match, the records were as follows. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet; worst records -- Hatch and Archer. All losing records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
Archer: 0 - 2.2
Strickland: 0.5 - 2.2
Morris: 0.5 - 2.7
Van Boening: 1.0 - 1.2
Hatch: 0 - 2.7
USA Total: 2 - 11
Atlarge's thread ---> SOURCE
Last edited:
I am going to find Atlarge's stats. I guess that will tell the story. I haven't perused them yet.
49-76
Individual players' records. For this, I counted a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves), and a win and a loss for everyone in the team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths). For each player, the first record is for singles, the second for doubles, the third for the team match, and the fourth is the total. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet undefeated; worst records -- Hatch and Archer with no wins. No winning records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
0-1, 0-2, 0-1, 0-4.....Archer
0-1, 1-2, 0-1, 1-4.....Strickland
0-1, 1-3, 0-1, 1-5.....Morris
0-1, 2-0, 0-1, 2-2.....Van Boening
0-1, 0-3, 0-1, 0-5.....Hatch
1-0, 2-0, 1-0, 4-0.....Souquet
1-0, 1-2, 1-0, 3-2.....Immonen
1-0, 3-0, 1-0, 5-0.....Feijen
1-0, 2-1, 1-0, 4-1.....Appleton
1-0, 2-1, 1-0, 4-1.....Boyes
Instead, counting half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, and one-fifth of a point for each player in the team match, the records were as follows. Best records -- Feijen and Souquet; worst records -- Hatch and Archer. All losing records for the USA; all winning records for Europe.
Archer: 0 - 2.2
Strickland: 0.5 - 2.2
Morris: 0.5 - 2.7
Van Boening: 1.0 - 1.2
Hatch: 0 - 2.7
USA Total: 2 - 11
Souquet: 2.2 - 0
Immonen: 1.7 - 1
Feijen: 2.7 - 0
Appleton: 2.2 - 0.5
Boyes: 2.2 - 0.5
Thanks, Johnnyt. I did edit most post, but I still can't figure it out. :embarrassed2:
According to those status, which player had the better performance between Earl and Shane? Can you ascertain the difference?
Stu, I stand corrected. :blush:
I still don't understand what those statistics mean and how you even got to those percentages. Math wasn't my best subject in school, I guess. :scratchhead:
I'm more of an English major. :grin-square:
I stand corrected is nice but I like I was wrong better. Johnnyt
I was wrong in thinking Earl's pool-shooting performance statistics were greater than Shane's.
As soon as I saw Earl even looking at that combo I was screaming to myself "NO!". The balls were ALL spread nicely. All I was able to do was do a
face palm.
I've created a monster because Keith now knows how to navigate on the computer quite well, and he watched a lot of this year's Mosconi Cup coverage.
He commented that he was taken aback by some of the commentary at this year's Mosconi Cup. He said it seemed like one of the commentators picked apart the American players at every opportunity, never giving them an ounce of credit when they did make a good shot. I noticed the same thing.
I realize it is hard to fill in the dead space or air time when you're on LIVE television, but it seems like the commentary should be neutral and not one-sided; in other words, give credit when credit is due, even if you don't like the team and/or any of its members.
He commented that he was taken aback by some of the commentary at this year's Mosconi Cup. He said it seemed like one of the commentators picked apart the American players at every opportunity, never giving them an ounce of credit when they did make a good shot. I noticed the same thing.
I realize it is hard to fill in the dead space or air time when you're on LIVE television, but it seems like the commentary should be neutral and not one-sided; in other words, give credit when credit is due, even if you don't like the team and/or any of its members.