So, I've been giving this some thought. After watching a few matches from the 14.1 tournament in Maryland and drawing from my own personal experiences, I've begun to wonder how much of an advantage there is to not breaking. I know when you're new to 14.1 and the break seems like a bit of a mystery, you always pass on breaking with the hopes that your opponent (likely equally as bad as you) will botch the break and leave you plenty of opportunities. Once you get to a decent amateur level or professional level though, don't the odds begin to change a bit though?
So, here is my question - Have there been studies conducted on the professional level that show the breaker is at a disadvantage? I would venture to say you could focus on a handful of statistics like this:
All questions should be breaker v. racker and specifically apply to the initial break, not subsequent mid-game breaks:
1. Who is the first to pocket a ball
2. Who is the first to run more than 5 balls
3. Who wins the game
If this doesn't make sense, let me know. I'll be happy to go over this again.
So, here is my question - Have there been studies conducted on the professional level that show the breaker is at a disadvantage? I would venture to say you could focus on a handful of statistics like this:
All questions should be breaker v. racker and specifically apply to the initial break, not subsequent mid-game breaks:
1. Who is the first to pocket a ball
2. Who is the first to run more than 5 balls
3. Who wins the game
If this doesn't make sense, let me know. I'll be happy to go over this again.