SJM Thoughts on Matchroom's New Event

sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
While I might have posted in the thread on this event, I have so many thoughts on the just-completed Matchroom event called the Championship League Pool that I decided to start what is only my second thread in the last fourteen months. My intent is to compare notes with others that watched the event.

My Thoughts on the Championship League Pool Event

I saw a lot of this event on DAZN and will share my thoughts. To finish on a positive, I'll cover the negatives first, but in the final result, the event was a triumph.

Negative 1: A Not Very Elite Field
By WPA Rank, 8 of the world’s Top 20 players are Asian. Not one of those 8 was in the field. By Fargo, 12 of the world’s best 20 players are Asian. Not one of those 12 was in the field. Of course, COVID figured here, but I hope 2022 will bring a more internationally balanced, more elite field. When interviewed by Mike Howerton, Emily Frazer expressed commitment to revising Matchroom’s field filling rules to assemble the most elite fields possible. I’m Emily’s biggest fan, but I feel she didn’t deliver on that commitment. Of course, there were extenuating circumstances, including COVID and the controversy concerning the sponsor patches, but this was disappointing. I’ll keep an open mind and hope this is resolved for the 2022 event.

Negative 2: The Group 1 Advantage
Seven players got preferred treatment they didn’t earn. For example, Kazakis (WPA #9, Fargo Rate 800) had a stronger case for inclusion in Group 1 than Melling (WPA #27, Fargo 784). Matchroom indicated that next year, inclusion in Group 1 will be on merit, but I feel it was mishandled this year.

Negative 3: The Round Robin is Almost Time Wasted
If you need only be in the top four of seven to get to a group semi, where top finishers have no edge, round robin matches are not very important. I see why some would just advance the top finisher, but I don't mind having the top four reaching group semis under different conditions. For instance, if the top seed got two on the wire in their semi and the second seed got one on the wire in their semi, the round robin would be more important.

Negative 4: Not Enough Alex Lely in the Booth
Boyes is certainly a decent commentator, but Alex Lely is far better, offering more insightful, more accurate analysis of the play.

Positive 1: Short Races and Golden Breaks Count
I love short races. Errors are magnified, offering Mosconi-like tension. Even group semis and finals are races to five. Golden breaks count, too!

Positive 2: The Inclusion of Top Women
I love the fact that top women were in the mix, though disappointed that they were all European. Of course, for all I know, some non-European women were invited and declined.

Positive 3: Tough Equipment
I was pleased when Matchroom set up the equipment tough at the 2020 Mosconi Cup, befitting elite players. They did the same at this event.

Positive 4: Matches Have Referees that Rack the Balls
Our sport has always fared best when there's a referee and when that referee also racks the balls. Matchroom gave us this.

Positive 5: Short Breaks Between Sessions
Nobody does it like Matchroom. The breaks between matches are very short, ensuring that the excitement is maintained for the length of every session, I’ve often attended events that had some long breaks between matches on the stream table. That never sits very well with me.

Positive 6: Innovation
I'm OK with the format as a novelty. Variety has a place and I applaud Matchroom for trying something that's new to pool.

Positive 7: Incremental Investment in Pro Pool
Matchroom, pool's top event producer, has, through the conception of this new event, increased its investment in pro pool, and that's good for the pros. Thanks are also due to Predator, the event's title sponsor.

In Conclusion
The field was not super-elite, the draw gave unearned preferences to some, and too little rode on round robin results. That said, the positives greatly outweighed the negatives, and Matchroom gets very high marks for their new production. Thanks to all at Matchroom for a job especially well done. The conception and execution of a new event at this troubling moment in history is a remarkable achievement and reminds us, once again, that it is Matchroom that sets the standard in our sport.

What were your impressions of this event?
 
Excellent Post.

I agree my issues were with the Group 1 advantage and the round robin format. Not that I'm against it, it just seemed weird as applied here. Minor nit - on two well-known occasions, the refereeing was sub-par (the racking of the 9 on the wing, and the bad call on the Gomez kick, as well as the treatment of Gomez afterward). But that didn't really affect anything in a substantial way IMO. Easily fixed as well. Also, the inclusion of top women is a great move that I hope continues, especially as the "break advantage" continues to evolve in the era of template racks and alternate break formats.

For the pros - I am excited to see a large entity like Matchroom throwing weight behind pool, experimenting with formats, and providing opportunities for players. For a start, and this seems like a start, it's very exciting and doesn't exhibit any of the flakiness or risk prior ventures have posed (cough, IPT). The Pros much outweigh the cons IMO.

The feeling is somewhat bittersweet, I have to confess, in that if Matchroom grows, it will probably become more European centered and USA based pool will lose leverage, and perhaps, less talent will be generated than what we could have otherwise offered. Just the musings of an American wishing things were better here for our industry, however. I suppose you can tell me its been that way and has been steadily moving further toward Europe and Asia for years now, and that's the way it is.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
While I might have posted in the thread on this event, I have so many thoughts on the just-completed Matchroom event called the Championship League Pool that I decided to start what is only my second thread in the last fourteen months. My intent is to compare notes with others that watched the event.

My Thoughts on the Championship League Pool Event

I saw a lot of this event on DAZN and will share my thoughts. To finish on a positive, I'll cover the negatives first, but in the final result, the event was a triumph.

Negative 1: A Not Very Elite Field
By WPA Rank, 8 of the world’s Top 20 players are Asian. Not one of those 8 was in the field. By Fargo, 12 of the world’s best 20 players are Asian. Not one of those 12 was in the field. Of course, COVID figured here, but I hope 2022 will bring a more internationally balanced, more elite field. When interviewed by Mike Howerton, Emily Frazer expressed commitment to revising Matchroom’s field filling rules to assemble the most elite fields possible. I’m Emily’s biggest fan, but I feel she didn’t deliver on that commitment. Of course, there were extenuating circumstances, including COVID and the controversy concerning the sponsor patches, but this was disappointing. I’ll keep an open mind and hope this is resolved for the 2022 event.

Negative 2: The Group 1 Advantage
Seven players got preferred treatment they didn’t earn. For example, Kazakis (WPA #9, Fargo Rate 800) had a stronger case for inclusion in Group 1 than Melling (WPA #27, Fargo 784). Matchroom indicated that next year, inclusion in Group 1 will be on merit, but I feel it was mishandled this year.

Negative 3: The Round Robin is Almost Time Wasted
If you need only be in the top four of seven to get to a group semi, where top finishers have no edge, round robin matches are not very important. I see why some would just advance the top finisher, but I don't mind having the top four reaching group semis under different conditions. For instance, if the top seed got two on the wire in their semi and the second seed got one on the wire in their semi, the round robin would be more important.

Negative 4: Not Enough Alex Lely in the Booth
Boyes is certainly a decent commentator, but Alex Lely is far better, offering more insightful, more accurate analysis of the play.

Positive 1: Short Races and Golden Breaks Count
I love short races. Errors are magnified, offering Mosconi-like tension. Even group semis and finals are races to five. Golden breaks count, too!

Positive 2: The Inclusion of Top Women
I love the fact that top women were in the mix, though disappointed that they were all European. Of course, for all I know, some non-European women were invited and declined.

Positive 3: Tough Equipment
I was pleased when Matchroom set up the equipment tough at the 2020 Mosconi Cup, befitting elite players. They did the same at this event.

Positive 4: Matches Have Referees that Rack the Balls
Our sport has always fared best when there's a referee and when that referee also racks the balls. Matchroom gave us this.

Positive 5: Short Breaks Between Sessions
Nobody does it like Matchroom. The breaks between matches are very short, ensuring that the excitement is maintained for the length of every session, I’ve often attended events that had some long breaks between matches on the stream table. That never sits very well with me.

Positive 6: Innovation
I'm OK with the format as a novelty. Variety has a place and I applaud Matchroom for trying something that's new to pool.

Positive 7: Incremental Investment in Pro Pool
Matchroom, pool's top event producer, has, through the conception of this new event, increased its investment in pro pool, and that's good for the pros. Thanks are also due to Predator, the event's title sponsor.

In Conclusion
The field was not super-elite, the draw gave unearned preferences to some, and too little rode on round robin results. That said, the positives greatly outweighed the negatives, and Matchroom gets very high marks for their new production. Thanks to all at Matchroom for a job especially well done. The conception and execution of a new event at this troubling moment in history is a remarkable achievement and reminds us, once again, that it is Matchroom that sets the standard in our sport.

What were your impressions of this event?
Click to expand...
Stu, good analysis, but I would add the Aramith Black ball sets used to your negative column - in my opinion the number one negative.

I realize it’s all about $ as Matchroom has a deal with Aramith to use their balls for all Matchroom pool events. Why not just use the extremely popular Aramith Tournament ball sets as opposed to the highly criticized and not nearly as well selling Aramith Black sets?

The orange/pink 4-ball and purple 5-ball are nothing less than ridiculous, in addition to the black and yellow 9-ball. It’s bad enough that they come up with a new colors like the brown 7-ball, but to change existing colors like the purple 4-ball to now a purple 5-ball, I would love to hear an explanation as to why that makes any sense?
 
Last edited:
Most of us pool fans are used to double elimination tournaments, and these group round robins are quite different. I liked this approach with lots of sub goals along the way, like making it to the group semi-finals or not getting eliminated, that a pure round-robin lacks. What’s unusual to me is the asymmetry of some of the matches, like when one player is already in the semi-finals but the other needs to win. It adds something extra that doesn’t happen in elimination formats, and I liked it more than I thought I would. Of course that asymmetry creates an incentive to cheat too, which also adds some, um, interest to the situation.

sjm, how do you compare these group-type formats vs. double elimination?
 
Excellent recap as usual. I watched bits and pieces and glad you mentioned Alex Lely's commentary. He knows how to translate his knowledge easily and concisely.
 
I also thought it was a terrific event! I was engaged in what was going on, tracking who would make the playoffs, how well players did against each other in multiple face-offs. I thought there was far more drama and tension that in the usual double-elimination tournament.

I didn't like the balls. Predator's choice to effectively swap the colors of the four and five just seems like a bad decision.

Kudos to Matchroom and Predator for putting on a fine event.
 
Good review! I agree more or less with all your points. I'll add my thoughts on some of the negatives:

Negative 1: A Not Very Elite Field

I think (hope) this will improve post-Covid. Also, as the Matchroom series takes off and players see the value of ranking points they might be more inclined to play in events other than the World Championship and US Open. Fingers crossed it all goes well and a tier 3 event is added in North America and also in Asia.

Negative 2: The Group 1 Advantage

Not perfect this year but at least the tournament is now up and running. Albin Ouschan plus the top 6 ranked players will be invited to join Group 1 next year. I'd like to see a more brutal approach to elimination by copying the snooker version of the event where those who finish 6th and 7th are eliminated from the groups - this allows 3 new players to enter on days 2-7. Those who finish 2nd and 3rd in Group 7 take 2 of the 3 Group 2 places the following year, with those finishing 4th and 5th entering Group 3 - so those who enter late but play well enough to stick around are rewarded for doing so (the "following year" could be the "next event" if a similar event were added in Asia or America or elsewhere).

Negative 3: The Round Robin is Almost Time Wasted

I like this format. Lots of matches between all the players. I would like it tweaked to reward a higher placed finish by giving those who finish 1st and 2nd more reward for their round robin play and giving them a double chance of reaching the final:

1st Semi-Final: 1st v 2nd - race to 5
Elimination Final: 3rd v 4th - race to 5
2nd Semi- Final: Loser of 1st Semi-Final vs Winner of Elimination Final - race to 5
Final : Winner of 1st SF vs Winner of 2nd SF - race to 7 (still short enough to be in line with the general format, but long enough that a non SF1 winner will have earned the title if they take it down).

Overall, I think it's a great addition. I'd like to see some tweaks that raise the stakes but I still really like it as it is.
 
I understand the merit-based approach to the seeding was lacking. I gave it a pass. It’s clear future events will be based on Matchroom Rankings. But it is Matchroom. They remind me of HBO with boxers. It’s all about taking care of the people the audience is invested in their story. I am okay with that to a degree.

I love the format. I want to see my heroes play, a lot. It doesn’t work for a 128-man field but this isn’t the US Open. Short races are more interesting. It’s not about determining the better player. It’s about making someone rise to a moment of glory. And it had all these little beautiful glory moments. The shot clock needs to be in place at the start and on the picture.

The scenery was better than the Mosconi Cup. They created compelling visuals. And it is clear that a real audience would help, but the silence is way better than the fake cheering at Mosconi Cup

It is interesting watching players fatigue over the days and have a resurgence later. It’s neat seeing new blood come in. It’s intriguing seeing someone go home. If this was reality TV there would be a tiki torch extinguish ceremony.

Overall it’s a shame that they couldn’t present Jayson, Filler, Gorst, SVB, Sky, and others. The patch thing didn’t bother me at first. But now it’s clearly a shame. I don’t blame the players. It’s not just an event patch, that was a competing industry brand patch. And not subtle. They had enough plastered everywhere. They need to work that out next time.

And for women, they made this event. I probably wouldn’t have watched if it weren’t for them. Kelly really shined. I really want to see Siming in Matchroom events. They need to keep doing this.

I abhor the balls. It feels wrong to me when the 4 is pink. That’s like a 90s ESPN thing on blurry broadcasts. The 4 is supposed to be purple. The 5 being purple is just stupid. I don’t want to have to run my brain through a mapping algorithm. It’s as bad as the 6 and 7 Cyclop balls. It honestly angers me as I see it. I don’t mind the black stripes.

Personally I hate DAZN. I don’t care about other sports. So the appeal for me is just pool. And it needs more. And it needs to let you rewatch events long after they are completed. I’d rather just need Matchroom.live. But the Matchroom Calendar is likely all going to be on DAZN so which this year is enough events to be more worth subscribing annually than it is to just subscribe one month then cancel. So this might have been the tip of the iceberg to convert me.

The commentary worked for me. I don’t see Karl as a MC captain because he just doesn’t carry gravitas. But he does a great job at blending color commentary with play-by-play. I think pool will one day think more about how it needs both. For every JJ you need a Wych. For every Lely you need a Helfert. For every Appleton you need a Forsyth. And Karl is growing in his color commentary. He knows when to raise his voice and build drama.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of the positives listed above.

One negative, for me... why play so darn much pool to just have two guys play a race to five for the title? If winning the whole shooting match matters, then there has to be more effort to determine a rightful winner and in this sport that always means a longer set. Much longer.

Money: In the long run does it make sense that there are ways to have non-winners of an event make more money than the winner? To me that seems to be an inherently flawed structure. I think they need a payout structure that guarantees the event winner will also go home with the biggest check. As fans, we should never be invited to figure out how you can make more money by manipulating the system and losing on purpose to stay in the group play.
 
BRussell said:
sjm, how do you compare these group-type formats vs. double elimination?
Click to expand...
Round robin as utilized in this event is not really fair as those who display sustained excellence in the round robin are not sufficiently rewarded. I like double elimination better, but my favorite is double elimination to qualify and then single elimination in the late stage (which is what we get at the WPA World Championships, the US Open and the China Open). Nonetheless, I'm fine with this format being used once a year. I doubt this format will ever replace today's tournament methodology.
 
I think there could be a big future for this type of event if it grows. It gets a lot of players screen time and moves quickly. Agreed there’s a few things that could be tightened up but I think it could work well as a tour type of thing once everything gets back to normal. I would love to see this event multiple times throughout the year in different countries with a grand final at the end featuring the winners or top seeded players.
 
ChrisinNC said:
I realize it’s all about $ as Matchroom has a deal with Aramith to use their balls for all Matchroom pool events. Why not just use the extremely popular Aramith Tournament ball sets as opposed to the highly criticized and not nearly as well selling Aramith Black sets?

The orange/pink 4-ball and purple 5-ball are nothing less than ridiculous, in addition to the black and yellow 9-ball. It’s bad enough that they come up with a new colors like the brown 7-ball, but to change existing colors like the purple 4-ball to now a purple 5-ball, I would love to hear an explanation as to why that makes any sense?
Click to expand...
I think they're using them because they're trying to increase awareness of the black balls (or drum up interest in an underperforming product SKU if you're a cynic like me).
 
The number one negative to me is the balls. Absolutely horrible idea and Emily's attitude towards them is flat out wrong.
Number 2, The referee, puts the 9 on the wing in the Fisher match, completely blows the call in the Gomez match. Once again Emily's attitude and response was wrong again.
Number 3, Matchroom was wrong in dealing with the players and the patches/ advertisers. There were ways to deal with this to get the best players there and they didn't do it. I'm sure some sponsors are still pissed over the MC promotional material.
Number 4, DAZN really bad move on Matchroom.
I am concerned about the future with Matchroom. Emily's attitude seems to be one of obey or your out. She is a great promoter but knows shit about pool and some of her decisions really show it. I hope she gets someone on her team that can help steer her in the right direction on some of these missteps.

On a positive note
I enjoyed the format, gave us a lot of good pool. I agree there should be more reward for doing well in the round robin. Thank you for including the women. I would like a little longer race. I think 9 would be better. Less Karl in the both more Alex. Kudos for even getting an event of this size together.
Overall I thought it was a good event, nice to have some variety in the pool scene.
 
terpdad said:
I think they're using them because they're trying to increase awareness of the black balls (or drum up interest in an underperforming product SKU if you're a cynic like me).
Click to expand...

i don't think that's very cynical, it's probably correct. aramith is a sponsor and like predator they have an influence on the products used. in fact, they are in the business of producing a product that is actually too durable, which leads to not many returning customers --> they need to trump up a new demand for a novelty variation of the product
 
Really enjoyed the event. One change I'd like to see is with the break form/length of the race.

Change the races to 7 (or 6).
Change to winner breaks until a player is on the hill, then the trailing player gets all the breaks. If goes hill-hill, relag for the final break.
 
I posted all of this in another thread but I feel that it is worthy sharing here, as it might inform some of our opinions regarding the format (round robin, advancing from the round robin without any added advantage, etc.).

The group winners typically had five wins, but not always. In order, they had 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5 wins.

Eliminated players typically did have one win: 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1

Making the playoff (advancing from the round robin) always was done with 3 wins, but in four of the eight days it had to go to a tie breaker, so 3 wins got someone in and 3 wins left someone out half the time.

Winning the round robin didn't correlate with winning that day very well. Position after the round robin for each days' winners: 4, 2, 1, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4

5-4 sets per day, from the 24 sets played: 6, 4, 7, 1, 12, 5, 7, 7. That's 25.5% of sets.

5-0 sets per day, from the 24 sets played: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 2, 1. That's 9.9% of sets.

The competitiveness of each day can be measured by total losses (96 games would be lost in a perfectly competitive day with all 5-4 sets). The total losses per day:
66, 53, 59, 38, 65, 50, 65, 61

Day Four was pretty much a dog, with only 38 games lost, one 5-4 set and five 5-0 sets.

Day five was great, with 65 games lost, twelve 5-4 sets and only one 5-0 set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top