Thanks for the corrections. EO I had to guess at which way you rounded so I knew I could get off by one. And in hindsight the Turning Stone numbers did seem a bit out there.
I edited my post for posterity sake.
Break Stats -- 2022 European Open Pool Championship (9-Ball), August 2022
- Thread starter AtLarge
- Start date
I edited my post for posterity sake.
No, the event had some of the same problems and, I posted at the time how poorly most of the players broke. The pockets were looser at the International, but the combination of nine on the spot, break box and very tight tables (and, yes, the tables played very tough at the European Open) is new territory, and it, similarly, made some vey elite players look lost. At the 2021 International, both SVB and Filler had a rough go of it with the break.
This is not the most exciting type of nine ball to watch.
Stu, for these three percentages for the aggregate results of, say, the Last 64 or Last 32 or Last 16 matches in a big pro event -- successful breaks, breaker won game, and break-and-run games -- what would be your idea of the "correct" or "best" percentages (+ or - a bit) to strive for in choosing 9-Ball conditions (equipment and rules)?
Last edited:
Something I haven't heard mentioned -- In all (but one) of the previous events with a narrow break box (i.e., not a full 2 diamonds wide), it was about 9" to each side of the long string. From what I could see on the screen, I believe it was narrower for this event, about 8" to each side. Could that have made a difference in the breaking results?
The one previous exception I remember to the 9" size was at the 2013 Mosconi Cup, where a box of about 6" to each side of center (along with the 9-ball on the spot) produced results of 33% successful breaks, 44% breaker won, and 10% B&Rs. And the Diamond table may have had just pro-cut pockets. So if I am right about the 8" in this Euro Open event instead of 9", they have gone 1/3 of the way from the 9" to the 6". What horrors will we see if they go to 6" when they get to 4" pockets?
The one previous exception I remember to the 9" size was at the 2013 Mosconi Cup, where a box of about 6" to each side of center (along with the 9-ball on the spot) produced results of 33% successful breaks, 44% breaker won, and 10% B&Rs. And the Diamond table may have had just pro-cut pockets. So if I am right about the 8" in this Euro Open event instead of 9", they have gone 1/3 of the way from the 9" to the 6". What horrors will we see if they go to 6" when they get to 4" pockets?
it's the same break rules as the pre-matchroom US open too.. didn't see too many complaining when shane won that in 2016 over JL chang.
i found the recent UK open problematic, especially in the early rounds. snooker players who never had played pool just tapped the rack and the wing ball was wired. i just think there should be more to it than that. with the one on the spot and a template anyone can make the wing ball. even emily could do it.
I am uncomfortable- I find myself disagreeing with your point of view for maybe the first time
I liked the fact that the break didn’t guarantee a win. I agree that it should be over 50% so that there is some advantage and I think that happened with the magic rack stats in the earlier rounds
So I would suggest this format but magic rack all the way- I think changing half way through is wrong anyway, the winner should be the best player on the same conditions throughout
I probably prefer this harder breaking more in the same way I prefer to watch a tennis match where the games aren’t just decided by huge great servers. Yes a good (well practiced) breaker should be rewarded but not by too much.
Just my 2 cents!
I would like to see breakers wins the game in the 55-57% range and break and run at about 35%. It can be easily argued that we’ll get just that once the players get a handle on the new breaking rules, but I can’t imagine they will all put in the time until they become convinced that Matchroom will stick with this break rule, and it might be hard to convince them of that given Matchroom’s inclination to tweak and tweak and tweak some more.
The chaos that these new rules created at the European Open was a result of sudden change for which players had neither the time nor sufficient incentive to prepare.
I’m optimistic that if this rule is maintained for the entire 2023 Matchroom Tour, things will settle and become more orderly and the game will become more entertaining to watch. As always, I buy into Matchroom’s vision, but the growing pains were hard to endure for this particular fan.
Thanks for all your wonderful stats!
Last edited:
I think it’s clear the World Pool Championship was equally if not more off the mark in the other direction.
Yeah, that’s a fair point. The happy medium was at the UK Open, which produced one of the most exciting Stage 2 play I have ever watched. In Stage 1, oddly enough, there were two seven packs, the most electrifying being Robbie Capito’s seven pack during his 9-0 win over Albin.
Still, as I have noted, I think the growing pains associated with the new break rule will likely be behind us a year from now if Matchroom stops tweaking the break rule, so I will try to hang in there until then.
Last edited:
Yes, but with breaker wins 50%, which was the percent at the European Open, the break isn't part of the game at all.How about not paying attention to breakers percentages at all, and any player running out from ball #1 (or lowest ball) 40% of time (or more)?
That's a stretch of course, but I intend to express my opinion that the break should not be as big part of the game as it still is.
By the way, I'm totally fine with your view here. I reckoned many serious players and diehard fans would like the more tactically oriented game of nine ball, but you'll never convince me that this is what the casual fan wants.
If Matchroom had always believed that this was what the mainstream fans wanted, their Youtube highlight reels would have featured lots of defense and kicking, but their highlight reels in all events in 2022 prior to this one never focused on anything but the runouts. The same is true in snooker, a game far more balanced between offensive and tactical play. The highlight reels in snooker rarely contain anything but the offense. Those who have put together highlight reels in the past in both pool and snooker have always understood that what gets the mainstream fans excited is when one player controls the table for a long stretch, not tactical play.
The changes that Matchroom has made may prove popular with some, but until owning the break is at least some kind of advantage (and even 55% breaker wins the rack will be enough for me), there's a problem here. In my opinion, until the break and run returns to the game (27% break and run rate is very weak), the casual fan will be less inclined to watch.
Nonetheless, I'm in Matchroom's corner and I believe that if they stick with this break, a very big if given their track record, the stats will go to where I think they should be. This was a case of too much change too soon.
That's an aggregate stat for everyone playing in the matches I tracked. Don't forget that the match winners generally do quite a bit better than the match losers, even 50% to 100% better on that stat. In this event the 50% figure broke into 59% for match winners and 39% for match losers.
The statement that the match winners do better than the match losers is near meaningless. Neutralize the advantage associated with the break, as they did at the European Open, and the better player still won the majority of the racks, but it cannot necessarily be interpreted as meaning that they outbroke the loser. It was apparent from watching the matches that the winner often failed to outbreak the loser, and that the match was decided by the superior after-the-break skills generally found in the case of the better player.
That is a valid comment, but would it not apply to all, or most, events where the successful-break percentage is about the same for the two groups (winners and losers), especially when the 1-ball is racked on the spot, the break is from anywhere behind the line, and a ball goes in nearly every time. And that means that even when the breaker-won-game percentage overall is considerably higher than it was for this event, with winners having a much higher result than losers, it may not at all be because of of the break. I.e., in your words, it may still be that "the break isn't part of the game at all."
Of course similar successful-break percentages for the two groups may not mean that the quality of the breaks was the same for the two groups in terms of number of balls made or table layouts after the break. I can easily give results for the former (1.6 balls per successful break for match winners and 1.5 for match losers in this event), but I do not yet have anything on the latter (table layouts) possible difference.
In post #27 you didn't say where you'd like to see the successful-break percentage. Regardless of its overall level, does it need to be significantly different between the winners and losers for us to say that it was "part of the game?"
Sort of. I'd say it's statistically insignificant (or, if you prefer, very inconclusive) when Fargo rates of the two contestants are not comparable between the two players. Although it's still not quite conclusive, it is very meaningful when two players having a fairly comparable Fargo (let's say within 25 points) sqaure off, as after-the-break skills will be fairly comparable. In Stage 2 matches, the Fargo rates will often be within this range., although Cinderella stories were aplenty in the European Open, as four of the eight quarterfinalists were ranked 38th or worse in the World based on Fargo, and their average Fargo as a group was an estimated 799. In contrast, the average Fargo rate of the eight quarterfinalists at the UK Open was an estimated 809.
Yes, it's very tricky business to properly gauge the extent to which the break can be weighed in evidence in the results, and I admire you for the effort that you make. The "break and run" percentage of all players combined gives a much better sense of the extent to which the break is dictating results, along with "breaker won the game" stats for matches in which players with a comparable Fargo squared off, but one must still proceed with caution in reading too much into the latter number, as after-the-break skills are dictating more and more racks in this format than is customary, even in the case of players of comparable skills.
I don't think a big disparity is needed in the "breaker won the game" stat to say the break was a significant part of the game. A few percentage points should suffice in the case of players having a similar Fargo. I'd be fine with breaker winning 55%, and as I've previously noted, if Matchroom sticks with this breaking rule for a year, I think we'll get just that, as players will gradually get better with this break. Hence, I believe things will sort themselves out if Matchroom discontinues the practice of tweaking the rules/equipment. The future looks bright to me.