The destroying players' rhythm argument makes no sense to me - surely this makes it more challenging to run the table every time you break if the break alternates? Which in turn makes it more important to hold your break because a miss or a mistake can be punished? Players being in the zone, totally focussed and not missing as a result is conducive to good straight pool. But in a game where the object is to pot 8, 9 or 10 balls to notch one up on the scoreboard, it cannot be good for pool.
I buy the arguments about seeing players run x-packs being exciting but don't buy these same arguments as favourIng winner breaks being good for the game (the x-packs are only exciting when they actually happen). Play earn the break (win two in a row, one "on your serve" and one "against your serve" - and then keep it if you run out) and it becomes fair and actually pretty excitng as winner breaks can then happen at anytime during the race without damaging the purity of the game and the way the game is perceived by interested people who already take other games seriously.
I buy the arguments about seeing players run x-packs being exciting but don't buy these same arguments as favourIng winner breaks being good for the game (the x-packs are only exciting when they actually happen). Play earn the break (win two in a row, one "on your serve" and one "against your serve" - and then keep it if you run out) and it becomes fair and actually pretty excitng as winner breaks can then happen at anytime during the race without damaging the purity of the game and the way the game is perceived by interested people who already take other games seriously.