European Open 2025, Sarajevo, March 11-16

sjm said:
Good point. Today's matches lacked drama, but great pool sells, too, and Oi offered it in the semis and Filler offered it in the final. This was a great event, and all at Matchroom should be delighted by their fine production.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I buy it that great pool sells to casual fans, which I am assuming MR is hoping to attract and are necessary to continue growth. Even with the most watched sport in our country, the NFL, everyone knows that channels change and folks start tuning out during blow outs. It is why most of the big professional sports go to great lengths to ensure some degree of parity.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an answer and kudos to Filler for being so dominant, but I can understand why Emily looked unhappy.
trob said:
That’s what tiger woods did to golf and it made everyone get better so I call bs on that . Nothing is set up wrong. Filler is just that much better then everyone else right Now.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I am sure you remember the Tiger-proofing golf courses did during his prime. Lengthening holes, tightening fairways, letting rough grow, etc. All in an effort to give the guys who couldn't drive the ball 350 yards a fighting chance., and reward precision play.

Like you, I believe it will ultimately drive improvement across the board, but at the same time, you want enough interested new fans to continue growing the talent pool.
 
  • Love
Reactions: sjm
I’m a former baseball pitcher. I had every pitch except a knuckler.
It would have been great if batters 1-6 received 2 strikes and 7 balls and batters
6-9 got 3 strikes and 6 balls.
Why would a 6 game winner with a 7.4 era be in the running for the Cy Young with a 20 game winner with a 2.3 era?
Ohhh! I have an idea. Let’s change the ball and strike counts so the weaker pitcher has a chance to win 20 and win the award.

Josh said it plain as day for the world to hear.
He was happy to have Shane and Fedor as competitors. He gave them the respect they deserve for the work they put in that drives him to work harder and harder.

Handicap events are for amateurs.
If you want to be one of the big boys well you better do the work the big boys do.
If they put a 4 pack on you and open the door then you have to step up, gain control of the table and fire back.
When the best get in the box don’t kid yourself that they have less pressure than their weaker opponent.
When you are expected to win there is an extreme amount of pressure and the lesser player really has nothing to lose.
Many times the lesser player has a bad showing because they get caught up in the moment and take to the heat.
It’s hard to get to the top and even harder to stay there.

I will take winner breaks all day everyday.
I don’t care if the score is 13-0.
 
jokrswylde said:
I don't know if I buy it that great pool sells to casual fans, which I am assuming MR is hoping to attract and are necessary to continue growth. Even with the most watched sport in our country, the NFL, everyone knows that channels change and folks start tuning out during blow outs. It is why most of the big professional sports go to great lengths to ensure some degree of parity.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, and it's definitely a grey area.

On the one hand, TV seems to go all out to showcase the best in every sport. When baseball is shown prime time, we rarely get the most competitive game, instead getting a game featuring at least one of the best teams, most often the Dodgers or Yankees. In football, we get a steady diet of the KC Chiefs, the most dominant team in recent years. In televised tennis, in round one of a major, we've always gotten Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Serena against an unseeded player, assured of a blowout, and those matches are always on center court.

Do fans want to see the most dominant players or the most competitive matches? The answer is not cut and dried, but TV (at least in America) seems to believe we'd rather see a game/match in which at least one of the players/teams is considered one of the best.

Matchroom, at least to a point, seems to feel the same, otherwise why would they have shown Shaw vs Romppanen, in which nobody could possibly have even imagined an upset, during a round that featured ten matches that figured to be more competitive? Simply put, they know Shaw is an elite, popular player who can produce great pool, and that fans enjoy watching him even against an opponent that cannot possibly beat him.

It's a debate for the ages, and it is one you have framed well.
 
sjm said:
Excellent post, and it's definitely a grey area.

On the one hand, TV seems to go all out to showcase the best in every sport. When baseball is shown prime time, we rarely get the most competitive game, instead getting a game featuring at least one of the best teams, most often the Dodgers or Yankees. In football, we get a steady diet of the KC Chiefs, the most dominant team in recent years. In televised tennis, in round one of a major, we've always gotten Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Serena against an unseeded player, assured of a blowout, and those matches are always on center court.

Do fans want to see the most dominant players or the most competitive matches? The answer is not cut and dried, but TV (at least in America) seems to believe we'd rather see a game/match in which at least one of the players/teams is considered one of the best.

Matchroom, at least to a point, seems to feel the same, otherwise why would they have shown Shaw vs Romppanen, in which nobody could possibly have even imagined an upset, during a round that featured ten matches that figured to be more competitive? Simply put, they know Shaw is an elite, popular player who can produce great pool, and that fans enjoy watching him even against an opponent that cannot possibly beat him.

It's a debate for the ages, and it is one you have framed well.
Click to expand...
Touche'. You make some great counter-points. I especially like the Chiefs and yankees comparisons, as I would venture that there is a sizeable percentage of folks tuning in to watch in the hopes of seeing them lose. I know I was a huge Eagles fan this Super Bowl, just because I wanted the Chiefs vanquished! Filler and especially Shaw might grab some of those "want to watch them lose" viewers...at least in this country. I have no clue how they are viewed worldwide.

I think you or one of the more *ahem* "seasoned" ( :giggle: ) posters would be able to compare it historically. Sure, there have been periods of dominance, where it seems like one or two players were going to win before the tournament started....

I was not a huge fan during prime Earl, Varner, Sigel, Efren...I was just getting into watching pro pool when it seemed Archer was winning everything in the 90's.

The big difference, as I see it, is that MR is the first in a while to make real run at establishing a global tour with majors, where corporate sponsorship dollars and viewers are paramount. As you stated, It is a balancing act, and I would assume why EF is paid the big bucks, to fade these kinds of issues. I just hope she doesn't get snatched up by some other big corporation when they see how much of a rock star she is.
 
FrankieD said:
Congrats to Filler. He came off as both humble and gracious in the post match interview with Karl and Emily. I think Matchroom would be foolish to exclude him in any 9 ball event. Love him or hate him, he's a monster on the table and good for pool.
Click to expand...
did he scream like an animal and jump on top of the table when he won? (when i saw the way the 7-9 combo lined itself up i turned it off)
 
sjm said:
Very well said. Winner breaks can definitely amp up the pressure. That said, Matchroom has, in many ways, made the break much less important. Nine on the spot with a very small break box (about a diamond wide) has made even the four pack a very endangered species in WNT majors.

As we learn every December, even with alternate break, the pressure is also amped up when the race is to five. It's a big part of why we enjoy the Mosconi Cup so much.

I've often suggested that "winner breaks" format is an example of something the fans want but most players do not. The "winner breaks" format brings more excitement to pool, and Matchroom seems to understand this as well as anyone. That's one of the reasons why the Matchroom majors are pool's best events.

One thing that is undeniable is that Matchroom just produced a first-rate event. In the words of Carly Simon "nobody does it better."
Click to expand...

both break formats has its merits. for longer races on tight equipment, winner break is often fair. you're right that they're not putting big packs together, but if they break wet consistently they can often weld CB behind a safe OB, and still control the table.

IF the level of play rises further it may come a point where ko ping chung's 11-0 shut out match isn't so unique. then a re-evaluation may be needed. i would favor longer races and/or shorter shot clock if it comes to that.
 
markjames said:
did he scream like an animal and jump on top of the table when he won? (when i saw the way the 7-9 combo lined itself up i turned it off)
Click to expand...
He didn't scream. No, he didn't get up on the table, either, even though I think Matchroom likes it when its winners do so.
 
skogstokig said:
both break formats has its merits. for longer races on tight equipment, winner break is often fair. you're right that they're not putting big packs together, but if they break wet consistently they can often weld CB behind a safe OB, and still control the table.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the At Large stats say that the breaker won just 59% of the racks at the European Open. With looser pockets at the recently completed Las Vegas Open 10ball, At Large stats indicate the breaker won just 52% of the racks. In my view, the suggestion that the breaker is consistently controlling the table in their first inning does not stand up to scrutiny.
 
markjames said:
did he scream like an animal and jump on top of the table when he won? (when i saw the way the 7-9 combo lined itself up i turned it off)
Click to expand...
Not at all. Even when asked by Karl Boyes about Fedor and Shane, Filler was gracious to them and stated they also help elevate his game. He won with maturity.
 
mike page has an interesting take on the break format in post #306 in this thread

SA96-
Alternative breaks would be much better for semi-finals and finals.
It would give us closer games.

mikepage-
It gives a close match score. But it is only an illusion that it is a closer match.
 
FrankieD said:
Not at all. Even when asked by Karl Boyes about Fedor and Shane, Filler was gracious to them and stated they also help elevate his game. He won with maturity.
Click to expand...
Of course, Josh is right. The presence of other elite players is what enables the greatest champions to reach their highest heights.

On the forum, we've often noted how the absence of any rivals probably caused Jean Balukas, the most dominant player in the history of pro pool, to fail to reach her highest possible level. Josh Filler does not have that problem. As Josh fully understands, Fedor and Shane, and a few others, have done a lot to push him higher and higher, and Josh now plays 9ball at a level that I would never have imagined possible.

As so many others on our forum have, quite reasonably, offered, relative to his contemporaries, we haven't seen a player dominate his competition like this since Earl in his prime. Just like Josh, Earl often scored blowout wins in major tournament finals.
 
Last edited:
markjames said:
mike page has an interesting take on the break format in post #306 in this thread

SA96-
Alternative breaks would be much better for semi-finals and finals.
It would give us closer games.

mikepage-
It gives a close match score. But it is only an illusion that it is a closer match.
Click to expand...
Mike is right. If you fall behind in a race to eleven by 8-4, you are almost dead with alternate break, but with winner breaks you can work your way back in. You do get a few more close matches with alternate break, but even small deficits are not easily overcome when your opponent has half of the remaining breaks. Hence, the illusion.
 
markjames said:
mike page has an interesting take on the break format in post #306 in this thread

SA96-
Alternative breaks would be much better for semi-finals and finals.
It would give us closer games.

mikepage-
It gives a close match score. But it is only an illusion that it is a closer match.
Click to expand...
Sample size, sample size, sample size.... ad nauseum.

Anyone that thinks two tippity top pros aren't continually going near hill/hill in an alternate break format, need to remove their noses from their calculators.
 
sjm said:
Mike is right. If you fall behind in a race to eleven by 8-4, you are almost dead with alternate break, but with winner breaks you can work your way back in. You do get a few more close matches with alternate break, but even small deficits are not easily overcome when your opponent has half of the remaining breaks. Hence, the illusion.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that IF you screw up you're stuck relying on your opponent to screw up. Which is just as unlikely as it was that you had in the first place.

However this argument is reliant on the premise that a elite pro will screw up, and that providing alternate opportunity otherwise is moot
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
trob said:
That’s what tiger woods did to golf and it made everyone get better so I call bs on that . Nothing is set up wrong. Filler is just that much better then everyone else right Now.
Click to expand...
Or the strings of absolute dominance by teams in Formula 1. Get better or get eaten.
 
sjm said:
Very well said. Winner breaks can definitely amp up the pressure. That said, Matchroom has, in many ways, made the break much less important. Nine on the spot with a very small break box (about a diamond wide) has made even the four pack a very endangered species in WNT majors. Per At-Large stats pertaining to the 2025 European Open, break and run was a 23% chance and breaker won the game 59%. Who breaks matters less than it ever has at the Matchroom majors.

As we learn every December, even with alternate break, the pressure is also amped up when the race is to five. It's a big part of why we enjoy the Mosconi Cup so much.

I've often suggested that "winner breaks" format is an example of something the fans want but most players do not. The "winner breaks" format brings more excitement to pool, and Matchroom seems to understand this as well as anyone. That's one of the reasons why the Matchroom majors are pool's best events.

One thing that is undeniable is that Matchroom just produced a first-rate event. In the words of Carly Simon "nobody does it better."
Click to expand...
This is why I like the new race to 3 sets of 4 format with winner break in each set. Gives players equal chances to run a pack and stop the bleeding in the overall match. Players trading blows is fun to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top