how did these two get on the mosconi team

To be fair to all the top players, format and game, would make all the difference. Long race SVB can't be beat. Short races between Dachaine and ANYONE can be a toss up.

I would put SVB ahead of all and then Dachaine slightly ahead of Shuff, and the rest of the feild playing 10 ball, but there again, it's a toss up.

races to 11, 9ball, winner break, big table is going to be a coin flip any day.


best,

Justin
 
master_cueist said:
So let me see if I can understand your logic...You are putting 2 kids over Archer, correct? And you are putting SVB over all of them? Now, 99% of the time I am going to agree with SVB over all of them, but here is where I get a little lost with your logic...Didn't Archer hand SVB his ass in a TAR match? So you are saying those 2 kids who wouldn't gamble straight up with SVB are better than a guy who HAS AND WILL gamble with SVB straight up and beat him.
Click to expand...

Brandon Shuff is 29 years old. So why do you provide rhetoric instead of results?
 
master_cueist said:
So let me see if I can understand your logic...You are putting 2 kids over Archer, correct? And you are putting SVB over all of them? Now, 99% of the time I am going to agree with SVB over all of them, but here is where I get a little lost with your logic...Didn't Archer hand SVB his ass in a TAR match? So you are saying those 2 kids who wouldn't gamble straight up with SVB are better than a guy who HAS AND WILL gamble with SVB straight up and beat him.
Click to expand...


This was a fluke deal, and JA won't gamble with Shane. They played for free money in the middle. JA took how many years to hook up with Shane???

JA is living legend. At one point he was the best, and can still hang. But let's face it, he sat well outside of the top five ranked players for a reason...
 
jhanso18 said:
This was a fluke deal, and JA won't gamble with Shane. They played for free money in the middle. JA took how many years to hook up with Shane???

JA is living legend. At one point he was the best, and can still hang. But let's face it, he sat well outside of the top five ranked players for a reason...
Click to expand...
thats why nobody has shown up at his pool room to gamble with him.theres a big difference between tournaments and gambling.johnnys still one of the best gamblers.
 
jhanso18 said:
This was a fluke deal, and JA won't gamble with Shane. They played for free money in the middle. JA took how many years to hook up with Shane???

JA is living legend. At one point he was the best, and can still hang. But let's face it, he sat well outside of the top five ranked players for a reason...
Click to expand...



Because he doesn't play in many tourny's anymore? I thought JA brought it at the US Open.....
 
TheNewSharkster said:
Because he doesn't play in many tourny's anymore? I thought JA brought it at the US Open.....
Click to expand...


Can't take anything away from the way the guy plays. I just think if your going to make things fair, give the spots to the guys that sacrificed and played the tournys.


I think JA will be one of the best Coaches we could ask for at the MC. I can't wait to see him in that role. I think he would be right up there with CJ as one of the best picks available to coach. I think JA brings twice as much in leadership as he does in talent.

To be clear, I know Johny can still play. I just don't think he can play like he use to, as best I can tell.

I think you should just take the top 5 guys and role with it.


best,

Justin
 
JCIN said:
Then we will agree to disagree Jay. Race to 5, 9 ball with gaffe rules is not my definition of pool. It is good TV though and thats what matters.

Based on your reasoning race to 1 sudden death 7 ball would be the most exciting pool ever on TV.

I'm glad Matchroom does the Cup every year and they do a fantastic job but it amuses me that people lose their minds every December over it and start throwing great players under the bus because they dont play 100% perfect.
Click to expand...


Actually the winning team must win 55 games in the eleven winning matches to take the Cup! And Europe and USA played something close to 150 games before there was a winner this year. That's a lot of pool in my book!

I do agree that there is nothing more exciting than a hill-hill match, where it all comes down to one game! I don't care if it's 10-10, 8-8 or 4-4. You do know that in the Challenge of Champions they play one game matches to decide the winner, after each player has won one Race to Five. I'm not so sure I agree with this, but I'm not the one putting up the dough. :wink:

I don't see any problem with the rules either. Alternate breaks gives both players chances at the table and adds importance to the opening lag. Having to get three balls down or past the head string makes the cut break risky, although it isn't quite as bad as you might think giving up control of the table. Now if it was BIH that would be a severe penalty for a failed break. I also like the 30 second shot clock with one extension per rack. No one gets the luxury of examining a shot endlessly. They have to get up there and shoot!

Anyway, that's how I see it and it absolutely makes sense for television. This way they are able to show entire matches without editing LIVE! We never left the air while the matches were in progress, being live on SkySports 4-5 hours each night. Now that's coverage! And there were MILLIONS of viewers every night! Let's compare that with 500 people watching two guys play a marathon session online and you tell me who has the better formula. Just saying.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC
jay helfert said:
I don't see any problem with the rules either. Alternate breaks gives both players chances at the table and adds importance to the opening lag. Having to get three balls down or past the head string makes the cut break risky, although it isn't quite as bad as you might think giving up control of the table. .
Click to expand...

I would love to see the stats of how many turn over of control ended in a win for the non breaking player/players... I saw quite a few


I think that if you are going to put the 9 on the spot...then change the break requirements..

Then again...just make it 10 ball and solve all the problems...

R
 
jay helfert said:
Actually the winning team must win 55 games in the eleven winning matches to take the Cup! And Europe and USA played something close to 150 games before there was a winner this year. That's a lot of pool in my book!

I do agree that there is nothing more exciting than a hill-hill match, where it all comes down to one game! I don't care if it's 10-10, 8-8 or 4-4. You do know that in the Challenge of Champions they play one game matches to decide the winner, after each player has won one Race to Five. I'm not so sure I agree with this, but I'm not the one putting up the dough. :wink:

I don't see any problem with the rules either. Alternate breaks gives both players chances at the table and adds importance to the opening lag. Having to get three balls down or past the head string makes the cut break risky, although it isn't quite as bad as you might think giving up control of the table. Now if it was BIH that would be a severe penalty for a failed break. I also like the 30 second shot clock with one extension per rack. No one gets the luxury of examining a shot endlessly. They have to get up there and shoot!

Anyway, that's how I see it and it absolutely makes sense for television. This way they are able to show entire matches without editing LIVE! We never left the air while the matches were in progress, being live on SkySports 4-5 hours each night. Now that's coverage! And there were MILLIONS of viewers every night! Let's compare that with 500 people watching two guys play a marathon session online and you tell me who has the better formula. Just saying.......
Click to expand...

I watched it on ESPN and listened to you for 4 days. I was a little surprised to hear you in England as we had been on the phone just (it seemed like) the day before. I'll admit the format and the whole deal is pretty exciting, but I also think JCIN has a point, its sorta not pool. Maybe the format makes stuff too close and maybe the cream doesn't have a chance to rise. maybe that's good as close matches are maybe what we need for interest.

Was the audience really that large?

Kevin
 
RShellhouse said:
I would love to see the stats of how many turn over of control ended in a win for the non breaking player/players... I saw quite a few ...
Click to expand...

Glad to answer your question!

The total number of illegal breaks was 16 (11% of all breaks), of which 10 were wet and 6 were dry.

So "illegality" was the sole cause of turning over control of the table to the opponent after the break in 10 games (7% of all breaks). Of those 10 games, the breaking side won 3 games and the non-breaking side won 7 games.
 
There is no question that the best five players on current form were at York Hall last week representing te USA.
Four of them got there by putting in the time and performing well in the necessary events. Nobody who was on the fringe of that top four (Rodney, Stevie, Earl, Oscar or Corey) would feel that they would have a prior claim to one of the team spots.
Nor would they with the Matchroom wildcard. Johnny was an inspired pick by Matchroom and he was an inspiration to his team mates.
The Scorpion is a gentleman and a class act.
 
AtLarge said:
Glad to answer your question!

The total number of illegal breaks was 16 (11% of all breaks), of which 10 were wet and 6 were dry.

So "illegality" was the sole cause of turning over control of the table to the opponent after the break in 10 games (7% of all breaks). Of those 10 games, the breaking side won 3 games and the non-breaking side won 7 games.
Click to expand...

Jay...so with those stats I am going to have to disagree with you about the breaking rule...when it does come into effect it has a drastic 70% difference in the outcome of the game....

It makes a huge difference and as it was brought about (as far as I was told) to directly remove Corey's soft break perhaps some other determination of a legal break could be used other than giving away control of the table..

R
 
RShellhouse said:
Jay...so with those stats I am going to have to disagree with you about the breaking rule...when it does come into effect it has a drastic 70% difference in the outcome of the game....

It makes a huge difference and as it was brought about (as far as I was told) to directly remove Corey's soft break perhaps some other determination of a legal break could be used other than giving away control of the table..

R
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you. It actually made only four games difference overall, 7 to 3 on the outcome of those games. And how many of those four games were won by Team Europe? I don't think the break rule affected the outcome of the Cup in any significant way.
 
jay helfert said:
I have to disagree with you. It actually made only four games difference overall, 7 to 3 on the outcome of those games. And how many of those four games were won by Team Europe? I don't think the break rule affected the outcome of the Cup in any significant way.
Click to expand...


Math is problem...:rolleyes:
 
jay helfert said:
I have to disagree with you. It actually made only four games difference overall, 7 to 3 on the outcome of those games. And how many of those four games were won by Team Europe? I don't think the break rule affected the outcome of the Cup in any significant way.
Click to expand...

Its ok...we can agree to disagree.... we look at the stats differently...to me...70% (7 out of 10) of the time that the person broke (illegally but made a ball) the other person then won the game If it is the hill-hill game well then yes it could drastically change the outcome...and how many matches went hill hill this year?

I think the change in the break rule was necessary but to me there has to be a better way...

R
 
jay helfert said:
This ain't complicated, seven minus three equals four! Now tell me who won those four games. How about if they are split two to two? Now how important in the outcome was the break rule?
Click to expand...


On a positive note, your math is better than your commentating. Which isn't saying much. (no offense, obv)
7 times out of 10 times = 70%, no matter how much Helferting you do with words around the numbers.

That is all.
 
El-ahrairah said:
On a positive note, your math is better than your commentating. Which isn't saying much. (no offense, obv)
7 times out of 10 times = 70%, no matter how much Helferting you do with words around the numbers.

That is all.
Click to expand...

No offense taken. The numbers don't lie, it takes people to do that. I offered a simple explanation of what those numbers actually mean and you couldn't handle that. I was there and the break rule did not materially affect the outcome of this years Mosconi Cup, no matter how much you would like to believe that it did.

Good luck with your next Jihad! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top