Evaluating the level of play on Earl Vs SVB, how good was it?

KoolKat9Lives

KoolKat9Lives

Taught 'em all I know
Silver Member
I hate to start yet another Earl/SVB thread, but it seems the chatter has been more about anything BUT the level of play.

I wish I could play a few hours on that table, I believe it would help me better understand just how good the play was.

I'd like to hear detailed analyses of the play ON the table.

Thanks,

Matt
 
While I don't have enough time now to offer my in depth analysis, I will share a couple of observations.

The fact that the table was 5 x 10, that extra playing field required that some serious stroke shots be made in order to move whitey around for position. Complicating this was the fact that the pockets were gaffy - seemed like power stroke shots had to be dead center to have any chance.

Shane shot okay but no where near the level we're used to seeing him play. I watched him miss plenty of shots that had zero to do with table size or bad pockets. He just dogged a lot of them. And how many times did he run the first 7 or 8 balls, then miss the next ball leaving Earl just a couple of balls to win that rack?

Earl showed off his amazing shotmaking and positioning skills in what seemed at times like a clinic. He also dogged some balls, the pockets robbed him a few times, but overall, he looked very strong on that tough table. Amazing, really.

Best,
Brian kc
 
Last edited:
Shane showed moments of greatness. Earl played at a level bordering super human. The table was reportedly extremely tough. It was reported so by both players in the match as well as John Schmidt so I can only assume it really was that tough. The only one of the three not surprised & blown away by the level of play Earl demonstrated was Earl himself. Shane was shell shocked. I look at Earl's skill that match as that of idiot savants, like the rain man. He appeared completely disfunctional at everything else except the game. He played it at a level normal people would never be capable of. Normal people can't even get their heads around it. He was great. At the moment he was arguably the best player ever. He was spearing shots from 10 feet away with dead nuts accuracy, on a table that had a roll & was far from perfect conditions. The level of play that match was likely the best ever recorded on video.

Shane is commonly accepted & revered as the greatest living player on Earth. He struggled at his best & was able to inspire awe at moments. He paled in comparison to Earl, who made what Shane was struggling with look easy. The level of play was mind numbing.
 
qbilder said:
Shane showed moments of greatness. Earl played at a level bordering super human. The table was reportedly extremely tough. It was reported so by both players in the match as well as John Schmidt so I can only assume it really was that tough. The only one of the three not surprised & blown away by the level of play Earl demonstrated was Earl himself. Shane was shell shocked. I look at Earl's skill that match as that of idiot savants, like the rain man. He appeared completely disfunctional at everything else except the game. He played it at a level normal people would never be capable of. Normal people can't even get their heads around it. He was great. At the moment he was arguably the best player ever. He was spearing shots from 10 feet away with dead nuts accuracy, on a table that had a roll & was far from perfect conditions. The level of play that match was likely the best ever recorded on video.

Shane is commonly accepted & revered as the greatest living player on Earth. He struggled at his best & was able to inspire awe at moments. He paled in comparison to Earl, who made what Shane was struggling with look easy. The level of play was mind numbing.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell.....

good post
 
I only got to watch a little bit on the last day, but I wasn't so much impressed with Earl's shot making as much as I was impressed with his position. The guy was running the cue ball 3+ rails on a 10 footer and stopping perfect every time like it was routine. Of course that's not to say that his shot making wasn't top notch.

Shane was making some good shots, but he was getting out of line too often. Tough tables like that really punish position errors because recovery shots are nigh impossible. He would run a bunch of balls and come to a point where he had so many tough shots in a row that he just missed. I think that's why it looked like he was just selling out to Earl a lot of the time. Things like that really weigh down on players.
 
Last edited:
I said in another thread that I've always considered Earl the best "big table" pure power 9 ball player that ever drew breath, and he showed that side here. To bad about his demeanor.
I will say I'd rather see matches on 10ft tables played on GOOD 10 footers. But I don't believe this idea of 10 footers being the wave of the future to bring pool to the masses, or even that the best path forward is to continue to try making conditions impossibly hard. Sure, put 'em on a 12ft table with 2 3/4" pockets, and they'll mostly look like fools. Then what does the pool community have to show. A bunch of the world's best that can't run 6 balls in a row? Who do you market that to?
I'd expect some players are going to be judicious about gearing their practice toward a playing environment much different than the norm, too.
Something tells me Shane will be looking for some 10ft practice time along the way, though...
For us pool nuts, though... I'm ready to enjoy the next test of the monsters.
 
Last edited:
i played on the table for a few hours about a month ago, the pockets were as tough as they looked. the felt on the rails was 760, bed was 860. one corner pocket in particular seemed tougher than the others. at the time i didn't notice a roll in the table, but after the match i rolled a ball down and it did roll off a tad. i think the talk about the roll was overblown a bit.

then again everything about this match was overblown, why do you think that is? because of the size and difficulty of the table! it made the match more dramatic and immersive, didn't it? that tells me that it has a future, even if just in TAR matches for the immediate future then go from there.
 
qbilder said:
Shane showed moments of greatness. Earl played at a level bordering super human. The table was reportedly extremely tough. It was reported so by both players in the match as well as John Schmidt so I can only assume it really was that tough. The only one of the three not surprised & blown away by the level of play Earl demonstrated was Earl himself. Shane was shell shocked. I look at Earl's skill that match as that of idiot savants, like the rain man. He appeared completely disfunctional at everything else except the game. He played it at a level normal people would never be capable of. Normal people can't even get their heads around it. He was great. At the moment he was arguably the best player ever. He was spearing shots from 10 feet away with dead nuts accuracy, on a table that had a roll & was far from perfect conditions. The level of play that match was likely the best ever recorded on video.

Shane is commonly accepted & revered as the greatest living player on Earth. He struggled at his best & was able to inspire awe at moments. He paled in comparison to Earl, who made what Shane was struggling with look easy. The level of play was mind numbing.
Click to expand...



Nothing to add to the above. Well written!
 
youngstownkid said:
i played on the table for a few hours about a month ago, the pockets were as tough as they looked. The felt on the rails was 760, bed was 860. One corner pocket in particular seemed tougher than the others. At the time i didn't notice a roll in the table, but after the match i rolled a ball down and it did roll off a tad. I think the talk about the roll was overblown a bit.

Then again everything about this match was overblown, why do you think that is? Because of the size and difficulty of the table! It made the match more dramatic and immersive, didn't it? That tells me that it has a future, even if just in tar matches for the immediate future then go from there.
Click to expand...

where did you play on the table a few months ago?

Slim
 
I don't listen to commentators or read the chat for these Streams.

I watch the players and the shots they make and miss.

I only saw Sunday's b'cast and what I saw as a guy that played like Earl Strickland of the late 80s early 90s against some kid that just couldn't put it together.

Shane's game was off by 25-30% IMO and Earl's game was almost flawless. Earl's multi-rail shape was great, while Shane kept coming up short or long or hooked with his multi-rail efforts.

Just an observation. I enjoyed the efforts of both players and compliment TAR20 and staff for a very fine production.
 
Shane was hitting the ball way too hard. Earl would move the ball around with a softer stroke which seemed to make the balls go down instead of rattle.

Besides pocket better, Earl played better safes, kicked better and played better position. The only thing Shane did was break better but he couldn't run out so it didn't matter.
 
mnShooter said:
Shane was hitting the ball way too hard. Earl would move the ball around with a softer stroke which seemed to make the balls go down instead of rattle.

Besides pocket better, Earl played better safes, kicked better and played better position. The only thing Shane did was break better but he couldn't run out so it didn't matter.
Click to expand...

Break better? I think he went maybe 15-20 breaks straight without making a ball and when he did he almost never had shape on the 1.

That said, earl played nearly flawless while shane kept getting out of line as has been stated.

That about sums it up.
 
It seemed like Shane's break on the 10 footer wasn't nearly as effective as it is on a 9 footer, but Strickland's break wasn't much different than his normal break. I wouldn't give a breaking advantage to either player in that particular match.
 
SLIM said:
where did you play on the table a few months ago?

Slim
Click to expand...

the owner had the table set up in his garage for a few weeks. he wanted to set it up to see if it would be ok for the match. he couldn't set it up in the pool hall that far in advance because there wasn't room for it. the pool hall is a huge league hall, and he couldn't afford to take any tables out, so he just put it in his huge garage, heaters and all.
 
I watched only 20% of the games, so I can't speak knowledgeably about the whole match.

But what do the scores show? Consider this.
- The final margin of victory was 17 games.
- After 57 games, Earl was ahead 34-23 -- a margin of 11 games.
- After 175 games, Earl was ahead 93-82 -- a margin of 11 games.

So, after Earl built that nice lead on Day 1, they played even for the next 118 games. If Earl was showing lots of brilliance during that period, Shane must have done pretty well himself to keep up.

The very end of the match was all Earl. He won 7 of the last 8 games, and 10 of the last 12.
 
Folks should realize as well that Shane was only "losing" the first day. Day 2 & 3 he actually played par with Earl. It wasn't as elegant & beautiful to watch but he cleared as many racks as Earl. He wasn't playing bad or sub-level to his normal speed. That table was really that unforgiving & brutal. Earl just shined.
 
Maybe the better player won. I wonder how many matches I could have won if I played my best and had no excuses. Eliminate the "iffys and haddies" from your game and you probably never get beat.
 
Here's what I saw:

- Neither player had an effective break. The break was taken out of the game as an offensive issue.

- Earl played better position on the 10 footer than Shane. He made fewer positional errors and left himself easier shots at better angles - more suitable for the 10 footer. Shane left himself longer shots at more difficult angles.

- Earl looked comfortable on the table, especially with his long cue reaching for sdhots. Shane really did not look comfortable. His stances were disrupted by reaching and he played poorly with the bridge.

- Earl shot straighter on the 10 footer than Shane. He was able to execute power stroke shots more effectively and move the cue ball with spin instead of power. It was phenomenal to see how his shots hit center pocket again and again.

- Shane and Earl both played exceptional, creative safety games. This big table put a premium on smart safeties. Earl tended to leave Shane longer shots that tempted to be shot - but were far more difficult than they looked. Usually Shane played smart. Shane tended to play lock-up safeties that were nearly impossible to kick. Earl got a lot of them but missed quite a few too.

- They both have a tremendous kicking game. I was really impressed with it. I would say Shane actually out kicked Earl and out kicked-safed Earl. Shane seemed to have ball-in-hand more frequently than Earl.

- The BIG difference was simply offense. Shane messed up a lot of his outs with positional errors or missed shots. He left too many long, difficult shots for himself and this table just wouldn't allow those kind of shots to have any margin of error.

Eventually Shane's confidence was shot and he couldn't get momentum going. He started dogging and that was that.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Atlarge, the score did not tell the story of what really happened. I know you said you only watched 20 percent of the match. Yeah he won by 17 games but he totally dominated Shane in every aspect. Earl was brilliant! he made that table look like a barbox!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top