I agree with the spirit of this post but not with its logic.
What I like about this post is that is stresses an important truth about learning the game. Studying how the pros play is one of the most critical aspects of learning the game and, as you've done well to point out, Accustats makes it possible to do this and learn volumes from doing so. Hence, I agree with you that to lack a great thirst for studying the great matches of the past is to overlook a great learning resource.
Where I disagree is that the commentary, which I find to be very cursory, represents anything even approaching a full analysis of the play. A full review of the play froom the standpoint of instruction must reference choices made and choices foregone, and what makes one better than the other. It must also reference stroke selections and strokes executed. It must explain the cause of errors, and there are dozens of possible causes of an error. Needless to say, commentators don't have time for detailed analysis of the play, so nobody can fault them for their superficial review of the play.
A good instructor, however, can offer a much more detailed analysis and can even spend a few minutes discussing a key shot, position, or tactic with a student when it's deemed appropriate.
As you say, a true student of the game absolutely must study the great matches, but I'd argue they must also have an instructor who can evaluate and discuss all aspects of their shot selection, shot design, and shot execution on a shot by shot basis.
I agree Stu to a certain extent. No question there is not enough time to do a full analysis of a shot during the course of a match. BUT, there is often something obvious that a player has done wrong before or during the execution of the shot that a good commentator will point out to his audience. I can't tell you how many times I've wondered out loud about a shot I would see a player lining up to shoot. Why shoot a low percentage shot when a safety is a better option? And after they miss the shot, they walk back to their chair shaking their head. So if you're paying attention you just learned something about when to shoot and when to play safe. And what constitutes a bad (or low percentage) shot.
This also can happen when a player is not comfortable with a shot. When you see them get down and get back up a couple of times. That uncertainty will often carry over to how they execute the shot. Especially if they still look unsure when the clock is running down. We have an old saying which is very often proved correct, "Think long, think wrong!"
I've also seen a nervous player shoot quickly after only one practice stroke. The cue went off in his hands is the expression I might use. That's nerves baby! Same thing when a player misses a relatively easy shot after making a hard shot. It happens frequently, when a player relaxes after making the difficult shot and doesn't fully concentrate on the next shot. Often it shows up as a missed ball or bad position. These (and many more) are all things that a good commentator will notice and remark about. And an observant viewer can learn from.
One more thing that I've personally pointed out on many occasions is how much tougher a shot becomes when the player elevates the butt end of his cue. When you jack up to shoot a shot, it dramatically increases the chance of missing it. And often they do. Even great players miss, especially when they aren't thinking clearly. Some just do it less, like Ralf who rarely makes a mental error.
Last edited: