Gareth Potts vs SVB.. who wins?

I think you are raving mad. I certainly don't and I can see no evidence of anyone else doing so either.

Utter crap frankly.

Just the other day I was defending him in the other troll thread about SVB vs O'Sullivan..

So now "some" = "all"? You invented the language, don't read more into what's said than you need to.
 
Of course that's not what I'm saying. If Shane's break is better than another player (which is pretty much always the case), he might still get to the finish line even if his opponent is a better potter/cueist than him. Obviously his break would have to be good enough to overcome any shortcomings in potting ability. In the world of A8B, 10B and even 9B if anti-softbreak rules are put in force, Shane is a favorite against a lot of players I would consider better pure potters than him.

An example is Darren Appleton. I think Darren is a better cueist, has better fundamentals and is a slightly more accurate shotmaker than Shane. But these strengths of Darren's are not enough to overcome Shane's break.

But I think calling Shane a 1-trick pony ignores the fact that he excels at 1p against seasoned veterans, despite that game removing the power break entirely. If you've never played a significant amount of one-pocket you wouldn't appreciate just how hard it is to run 8-and-out consistently. It requires immaculate cue-ball control, and some days Shane makes it look extremely easy.

And he excels at bank pool as well, where the break is not as important. Plus he is a 200+ ball runner at straight pool on 4-inch pockets, despite hardly ever playing the game.

While I agree that some fans of SVB are blinded by their lack of exposure to the pool world outside the US, I think some of the E8B and snooker players have an irrational hate for him.

If their break is weaker than Shane's then their game is weaker.....
 
If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, then his game is weaker.

Touche..

A player's "game" is just the sum of their parts. The break is just a part. Potting is just a part. Strategic play is a part etc. etc. The player who wins more consistently has the better "game".

If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, but his break is able to overcome that weakness than his overall "game" is better than the other player. You don't get any points for losing with clean fundamentals in cuesports.
 
A player's "game" is just the sum of their parts. The break is just a part. Potting is just a part. Strategic play is a part etc. etc. The player who wins more consistently has the better "game".

If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, but his break is able to overcome that weakness than his overall "game" is better than the other player. You don't get any points for losing with clean fundamentals in cuesports.

Exactly, people love to point out Shanes break. If the rest of his game lacked then his break wouldn't even make a difference .
 
If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, then his game is weaker.

Touche..

Not really


A player's "game" is just the sum of their parts. The break is just a part. Potting is just a part. Strategic play is a part etc. etc. The player who wins more consistently has the better "game".

If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, but his break is able to overcome that weakness than his overall "game" is better than the other player. You don't get any points for losing with clean fundamentals in cuesports.

That sounds about right

Exactly, people love to point out Shanes break. If the rest of his game lacked then his break wouldn't even make a difference .

makes sense to me
 
A player's "game" is just the sum of their parts. The break is just a part. Potting is just a part. Strategic play is a part etc. etc. The player who wins more consistently has the better "game".

If Shane's fundamentals are weaker, but his break is able to overcome that weakness than his overall "game" is better than the other player. You don't get any points for losing with clean fundamentals in cuesports.

I think the point others are making, is that the break (in their opinion) is a disproportionately important aspect of the game (on American style tables).
 
Last edited:
Exactly, people love to point out Shanes break. If the rest of his game lacked then his break wouldn't even make a difference .

Not necessarily true. Obviously it depends on how much they are lacking - and the rest of Shane's game is obviously pretty damn good.

The 8-ball set he played against Orcollo springs to mind. Dennis never missed a ball, never played safe; he got outbroke. In that match, it was the break that made the difference.
 
Not necessarily true. Obviously it depends on how much they are lacking - and the rest of Shane's game is obviously pretty damn good.

The 8-ball set he played against Orcollo springs to mind. Dennis never missed a ball, never played safe; he got outbroke. In that match, it was the break that made the difference.

Didn't DO put an 8pack together? I personally don't think his break pays off as much playing 8b as it does 10b. A good example is Corey. Every player has strong points in their game but without a well rounded and complete game .. It won't make much difference . The break will only carry a player past the 1st few balls in rotation games. I know Shane has a better break but he worked hard to get it there.
Thats just my opinion of course
 
Last edited:
I think the point others are making, is that the break (in their opinion) is a disproportionately important aspect of the game (on American style tables).

Agree with this. Tighten up the pockets and he does struggle a bit which means his fundamentals are weaker than some of the other top players.
 
SVB has NO CHANCE of beating Potts at C8B. He has NO CHANCE of beating Potts on any other table than one with buckets for pockets. You do not appear to understand the skill it takes to play on E8B, C8B or snooker tables. Try it sometime.

Did you not see the 2013 C8B final? Do you seriously think SVB can live with that? SVB finished 9th - I presume that was one match, one defeat. SVB has ONE weapon - the break - and Potts has that sussed already.


So that 7 pack he put on Alex on 4" pockets or whatever was a total fluke. The huge packages I've seen him string together on his old practice table with 4" pockets must have never happened...

Here's the difference, JUST THIS YEAR. 3 months in.

SVB
$16,000 1st DCC 2014 10B Challenge
$16,000 1st DCC 2014 9B Div.
$5,000 1st US BBox C'ship 2014 9-Ball
$4,250 1st US BBox C'ship 2014 10-Ball
$3,500 1st TAR 39 Van Boening/Reyes
$2,000 1st USBT C'ships 2014 Open Bonus
$3,800 2nd US Open One Pocket 2014
$3,000 2nd DCC 2014 Master of the Table
$850 8th DCC 2014 1P Div.
$1,500 9th Chinese 8-Ball Masters 2014
$470 9th US BBox C'ship 2014 8-Ball
$650 11th DCC 2014 9B Banks Div.

Garreth Potts
$50,000 1st Chinese 8-Ball Masters 2014
$8,150 1st 2014 Blackball World C'Ship

SVB has five 1st place tourney wins, two very strong seconds, and finished top 10 in the only tournament he's played that Potts won. Potts might be a slight favorite at black ball and C8B, but if they ever play what odds are you giving?????????????? I'm guessing a really strong NONE. That's the point. SVB is a stronger player at every other game but C8B, and black ball. MAYBE straight pool.

Everyone bird chirps till its time to bet the feed, then they magically turn to crickets.

Just another case of how VOR, Thaiger, think they know so much but both have admitted to being... not so good???, but some how have a better understanding than the rest of us stupid Americans. I have dedicated countless hours to better understanding, fine tuning, and honing my game. I'm far from a pro, but I have come a LONG way in a very short time.

The first thing you have to learn about bar box 8ball, is to have cue ball control. The tight quarters combined with usually very poor conditions, teach you to keep whitey in check. Shane cut his teeth competitively with this game, he seldom gets careless with the CB.

His break is huge, lets not kid anyone, but if Shane was TRULY a 1 trick pony as you seem to be suggesting, why hasn't anyone figured out his game and pounded him. Corey can't, Donny couldn't, Appleton can't, no one can. I'm not saying he can't be beat, but NO ONE likes Shane's action. Even Dennis doesn't like it. He takes it, works with it, does what he can, but he certainly doesn't go around looking for it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, explain this phenomenon?!?!?!?!?!! No one wants to rob the 1 trick pony, WHY???
 
Last edited:
The Chinese 8-ball Masters was a 16-man invitational field, so 9th place means Shane lost his first match and finished in last place.
 
The Chinese 8-ball Masters was a 16-man invitational field, so 9th place means Shane lost his first match and finished in last place.

Sweet, so the only tourney this foreign guy that nobody knows won was a single elimination tourney with a 16-man field. Way to go
 
Actually, just checked and it was double elimination to start. Shane went 1-1, then lost to Potts 15-6. Potts DOMINATED the field from start to finish.
 
Sweet, so the only tourney this foreign guy that nobody knows won was a single elimination tourney with a 16-man field. Way to go

"nobody" I assume means you, I know of him as do most English players.
"foreign" I can only imagine the inference.
 
"nobody" I assume means you, I know of him as do most English players.
"foreign" I can only imagine the inference.

I was being "facetious". Are you familiar with that term?
My entire point being that, in every thread like this, all of the foreign contingent comes out of the woodwork to say how overrated SVB is and how so and so from some European or Asian country would walk all over SVB in whatever game, etc...

What I find funny is the fact that SVB would horsef#$$ any of them for the cash and they could all win more than they'll ever see in their entire lives if they would like to try him some. Then these same idiots say that gambling doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah

Same story, different thread.

Tell Mr. Potts that he can win more than he won in that 16-player tourney if he wants to try SVB in an all around of 8-ball, 1-pocket, 10-ball, snooker, 9-ball, and straight pool. But I'm guessing that he would say no because I'm assuming he's smarter than most of the clowns posting about him being a better overall pool player than SVB.
 
From now on, any idiotic post by someone from another country posting about how someone is better than SVB because he hasn't won some short race tourney in Bumblefu@#, Wherever simply gets a "You're a bloody moron" reply.
 
Back
Top