4.5" ProCuts are no issue for good players in 14.1. any tighter and the game would change for the worse pretty quik imo.
The smaller pockets are helping the weak players, its very deep and people don't see it.
- Thread starter smoochie
- Start date
Agree 100%. The bottom line is that the OP has this fantasy that the weaker player will get more wins due to rolls/hung balls. Not gonna happen. Maybe real short term like in a race to 5 9ball but other than that no chance. Really bad strategy if improving one's match outcomes means anything.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
If a guy is talking about rolls making a significant outcome in any game, you either want to gamble with him or look out and run because he might be planting a seed to hustle you.
The humidity in the air matters 1000X more in this game than an occasional lucky/unlucky roll.
I do hope he pontificates on his thoughts once he gets on the computer though. I'm curious and would like to hear his ideas.
Just for arguments sake, the better player is accustomed to tougher shots going and might be more vulnerable in that regard. In the end game for instance, the player with more wits than skill could shift into "snooker mode" to increase his chances.
He's just got it ''bass-ackwards'' is all.
I have to agree with you !
This could be the Dumbest post Ever IMHO.
I think this argument is very wrong, nothing really else to say.
i’ve watched a lot of the tourney this week including most of the round of 16 and the quarters. The players who lost, lost for a reason. It was plain to see.
in any case, you‘ve got:
SVB, the greatest ever, in the finals.
Skyler, a top 15 player who looks as good as ever (remember all the recent talk about him not being fully committed?)
Johann Chua, imo the best player in the Philippines, who is fully committing to the tour.
Mickey Krause, arguably the most improved under 25 player in the world this year. I’ve watched him a lot. He’s been fantastic. He has been taken under the wing by Niels Feijen, unquestionably the best current pro at teaching the game to others (watch his Youtube vids).
When Krause has lost, it’s usually been his nerves. As he settles down, watch out. He has all the tools to be a top 10 player and is well positioned to make the MosconI team.
i’ve watched a lot of the tourney this week including most of the round of 16 and the quarters. The players who lost, lost for a reason. It was plain to see.
in any case, you‘ve got:
SVB, the greatest ever, in the finals.
Skyler, a top 15 player who looks as good as ever (remember all the recent talk about him not being fully committed?)
Johann Chua, imo the best player in the Philippines, who is fully committing to the tour.
Mickey Krause, arguably the most improved under 25 player in the world this year. I’ve watched him a lot. He’s been fantastic. He has been taken under the wing by Niels Feijen, unquestionably the best current pro at teaching the game to others (watch his Youtube vids).
When Krause has lost, it’s usually been his nerves. As he settles down, watch out. He has all the tools to be a top 10 player and is well positioned to make the MosconI team.
I feel there is some validity in the initial post. I'll consider what I believe to be the two major assertions separately:
1. The Super-tight Pockets Make it Almost Impossible for Anybody to Dominate the Sport
I believe this to be largely true. The formula for winning has changed and those that tended to dominate with their break are no longer doing it. The 4" pocket, nine on the spot with a break box version of 9ball has been in use in the "field of 256 Matchroom majors" since August 2022. This equipment and rule set tend to bring more tactical play into the mix, and those unable to grind are not enjoying as much success as in the past. At Large stats show time and again that the break is less of an advantage than it ever has been. Even the three pack has become a very rare commodity and everybody is getting to shoot. Underdogs no longer have to sit in the chair for several racks at a time.
2. Super-Tight Pockets Favor the Weaker Player
With this suggestion, I disagree, but I would agree that a slightly less skilled cueist with very solid tactical skills has a better chance than in the past and, as the original post suggests, Cinderella stories are more likely than in the past because of it. Hence, these super-tight pockets CAN favor the weaker player, if the weaker player has a skill set that befits these conditions.
In short, while I can't accept the strong blanket statements made by Smoochie, I find some wisdom in the original post.
1. The Super-tight Pockets Make it Almost Impossible for Anybody to Dominate the Sport
I believe this to be largely true. The formula for winning has changed and those that tended to dominate with their break are no longer doing it. The 4" pocket, nine on the spot with a break box version of 9ball has been in use in the "field of 256 Matchroom majors" since August 2022. This equipment and rule set tend to bring more tactical play into the mix, and those unable to grind are not enjoying as much success as in the past. At Large stats show time and again that the break is less of an advantage than it ever has been. Even the three pack has become a very rare commodity and everybody is getting to shoot. Underdogs no longer have to sit in the chair for several racks at a time.
2. Super-Tight Pockets Favor the Weaker Player
With this suggestion, I disagree, but I would agree that a slightly less skilled cueist with very solid tactical skills has a better chance than in the past and, as the original post suggests, Cinderella stories are more likely than in the past because of it. Hence, these super-tight pockets CAN favor the weaker player, if the weaker player has a skill set that befits these conditions.
In short, while I can't accept the strong blanket statements made by Smoochie, I find some wisdom in the original post.
Last edited:
Interesting if unexpected perspective from you, Stu. I don’t agree, but willing to consider …
What I would disagree with the most is the idea that there are some very good players who excel tactically but are not quite as good at potting the ball (relatively speaking) as others. I’ve seen no such players. The best tactically (Ouschan is the best imo) are great potters.
Having watched a lot of this tournament, the best players who have lost have lost for obvious reasons. They didn’t play well, either because the break was off or they missed balls they usually make( not because of tight pockets either). It’s no mystery here.
Last edited:
Could be anybody. Krause has that marketability. That's big and especially so as pool struggles to stand it's ass up.
Those V.B. Diamonds played nearly like G.C.s when the cloth was new, and cheating corner shots wouldn’t bobble unless hit too hard. Once the cloth is well broken in though, all bets are likely off. Go figure. G.C.s covered in 760 back in the 90s seemed to play consistently throughout.
LOL.
Either you didn't watch these matches or you don't know what a pack is. The first break and run in SVB vs FSR by either player came in rack 7. There was safety play in rack 10. SVB did not run more than a 3-pack in the match.
A pack means consecutive break and runs and yes, the three pack has become a rare commodity in Matchroom majors, mostly reserved for the super-elite on the 4" pockets.
Strings being down is a function of the __modern, dry, dead out or nuthin__ ethic in vogue.
I stand corrected. I wasn’t sure if a "3-pack" meant break and runs or just consecutive wins. I should have looked it up before posting. My fault.
How many true 3-packs happened, I’d have to go back and look. But honestly not worth my time. I get your point.
As for the quarters, I watched them all. Just finished the Krause-Chung match on YouTube so i could really focus on Krause’s game.
While I am wrong about 3-packs, I stand by my others comments. I see zero evidence that tighter pockets help lesser players or hurt better ones.
In my mind, the winners break approach is a much bigger factor. Very good players can get on a roll and take down bigger names.
If alternative breaks were the rule, imo, it would be harder for lesser players to take down an SVB or Filler or Gorst.
The only way I could see tighter pockets helping the weaker player, would be that in high pressure situations with very tight pockets, a player who would consistently run out on loose pockets has a greater chance of rattling the last couple balls, leaving the weaker player easy outs.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to watching Krause tomorrow. Saw him play at Derby City, and it was clear that he was in the process of becoming an elite cueist.
If you read my post, I also disagreed with this suggestion, noting possible exceptions. Still, if you don't think underdogs are getting a lot more looks at the table in the Matchroom majors than in the past against the elite, you need to watch more closely. It has been true for about two years now.