How do you feel about it?

9balldiva

9balldiva

I play like a girl
Silver Member
Some of the tournaments now have implemented the alternating break format. Personally, I think that takes away from seeing a players full capabilities. If I am playing Archer, I already feel like I have no shot of winning, but if he breaks and runs 6 racks, in a race to 7...I believe that is a much better earned win!!

What's your take?
 
I know this really won’t answer the question. But I think tournaments should be more like tennis, giving each player an equal chance to break. Play two sets, one player breaks all games and then play a second set with the other player breaking all games. If it results in a tie then perhaps alternate the breaks for the third set.

I think alternate break is the fairest form, but you’re right in that it doesn’t represent a player’s true talent.

Rick
 
Alternate break is fundamentally fairer, but the better player will still always win. Consider if you are playing alternate break against and Archer and he runs all 6 of his breaks and you don't. You will still lose the match, the better player still wins. However the difference is that at least you always had a chance to put every other game on the wire. Otherwise even a strong player can be beaten if their opponent runs a large number of racks and closes a match out.

A lot of players don't like alternating break as if they find themselves a few racks behind they cannot string some racks together to recover their deficit. However if you think about it, if they are behind in an alternating break match it can only be because they failed to break and run on their own breaks at least as often as their opponent. It's like double-faulting every service game in Tennis and then whining that you cannot come from behing to win sets.
 
I dont like the format. I dont enjoy it as much as a fan, and I enjoy playing in that format as much either. As stated in another thread I think it should be winner breaks with a little longer race. I know the amount of time for each match could be a problem in a longer race, but if it was possible I think that would be the best format.

Ill also say that I dont like to see tournaments where the loser comes out of the loser's side and only has to win one set to win the tourney. Its a TV schedule thing Im sure, but Im starting to see tournaments that arent televised go to this type of format and to me its just not right for the person that won the winners bracket. Sometimes the winner of the winners bracket sets for a long time waiting for the loser's bracket to finnish and the first set is somewhat cold while the winner of the losers bracket has been playing all evening and is in stroke. I just dont see how both players could have one loss but now the one who lost first is the winner?
 
9balldiva said:
Some of the tournaments now have implemented the alternating break format. Personally, I think that takes away from seeing a players full capabilities. If I am playing Archer, I already feel like I have no shot of winning, but if he breaks and runs 6 racks, in a race to 7...I believe that is a much better earned win!!

What's your take?
Click to expand...


All I know is, when I've traveled all night for a tournament, it's nice to know that if I get a tough draw, I'm still going to get some opportunities at the table. Pool has got to be the only game you can lose without playing. It doesn't happen often but it really sucks when it does. I do find it a bit uncomfortable and often times, it promotes a closer match but overall, it's much more fair.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
All I know is, when I've traveled all night for a tournament, it's nice to know that if I get a tough draw, I'm still going to get some opportunities at the table.
Click to expand...

Do you think this gives you more, less, or no change in your chance of winning? When playing a tough draw it gives you more chances at the table, but also means you have to turn the table back over to the tough player every other rack.

True, there is a chance that your though draw could get control and not give you a chance at the table. But a player of your calibur could do the same thing to him. It would seem to me that the underdog might have more of a chance of pulling off the upset in a winner breaks format.

This is an honest question and would love to hear the input from some of the tournament players here.
 
I personally like the alternate break format as I think it's fair. It can be cruel, though. I lost a match to Kid Delicious last year where I played perfect the last 2/3 of the match but lost 10-7 because I made a few mistakes early. If it was winner breaks then the mistakes I made early wouldn't have mattered and I could've run the set out. I think that it was fair, though, that I lost since I did make more mistakes in the match than he did.

I think that it takes more energy to play a match this way as it's much harder to get into gear. It is more boring to watch though. Basically, whoever the stronger breaker is will always have a bit of an advantage but I do think that alternating the break will favor whoever plays better overall.
 
I've always felt that along with fast cloth and larger pockets, the alternating break format works almost as an equalizer in giving a lesser player more of a chance to get into a game. I think that's one of the reasons that we don't really see any one guy that simply dominates anymore like guys like Sigel, Varner, and others of that era did in their time. Now days, you throw 64 of the best players in the world, and anybody can realistically come out on top.
I, as a lesser player, admittedly would welcome the alternating break against a world class player because it would simply insure that I get some time at the table, however, guys like Stricktland, Archer, Immonen, Reyes, and others that put together packages have a very serious part of their game taken away from them with the alternating break. So considering that fact that it takes away the advantage of guys that can put six or more away consistently, the alternating break serves as nothing but an equalizer that is designed to give a guy (that can't run six packs consistently) chances at the table that otherwise wouldn't happen. Part of the beauty and strategy of 9 ball is keeping the guy in his chair for as long as possible so that when he does get to the table, he's too cold to do anything anyways.
dave
 
I will agree on several parts of this topic, Yes if your not able to run racks in bunches like 4 or more, yet can break n run consistently, yes the alternate break format works for that player, because even though he is a weaker player compared to the top pro's, he can run the rack when he is breaking and still has a chance to beat Archer or Reyes, or Strickland, because theres no need for him to hafta run 4 or more racks at a time just to keep up with them.

Now on the flip side, if your playing in any type of tournament you should know what your getting into, and if you are playing a guy who is putting racks together then you need to out smart him, when you get the chance to break.

And i will say i have been on the short end of the stick, the first big $ tournament i got into was a 50$ open 9ball tournament and i lost my first match 9-0 and i think i got to the table 5times, and each time i was kicking at a ball, and made 3 of them lol, but couldnt run-out.

Now should i complain nope, cuz i knew what i was getting into.

Also the one thing i dont like about the alternate break format is, its almost impossible to make a comeback win, if your down 3 or more games. Because even if your running out, or winning the game, your letting the other guy back to the table for a chance to win his game, and you have no control over it.

Now i would say that going to a Rack your own rule would be a plus, cuz then you dont hafta worry about people giving you shyt racks, and you can only blame yourself for a bad rack.

dave
 
woody_968 said:
I dont like the format. I dont enjoy it as much as a fan, and I enjoy playing in that format as much either. As stated in another thread I think it should be winner breaks with a little longer race. I know the amount of time for each match could be a problem in a longer race, but if it was possible I think that would be the best format.

Ill also say that I dont like to see tournaments where the loser comes out of the loser's side and only has to win one set to win the tourney. Its a TV schedule thing Im sure, but Im starting to see tournaments that arent televised go to this type of format and to me its just not right for the person that won the winners bracket. Sometimes the winner of the winners bracket sets for a long time waiting for the loser's bracket to finnish and the first set is somewhat cold while the winner of the losers bracket has been playing all evening and is in stroke. I just dont see how both players could have one loss but now the one who lost first is the winner?
Click to expand...

I agree. Winner breaks and true double elimination is the only way to play 9-ball or 10-ball and so on. There are a few things that make pool unique and in 9-ball that used to be two of them. Take that away, and you just make it more like everything else, and less marketable because it's not as exciting when you can't come back from behind at the end of a match. I believe it's easier to beat a top player with winner breaks. In my experience, you have to put them in their chairs for a long time if you want to win.

On the big tables in the pro tournaments I think I only saw a 7 pack 2 or 3 times, 6's are rare and 5's are not as common as you might think, because they're not usually winging at anything. Of course I couldn't watch all the matches, and that's without a perfect rack, which eliminates 9-ball from consideration as a pro sport imho, because it's too easy.

In 10-ball, the most I saw on the Camel tour was 4 from the break. Of course they played mostly 9-ball, and that's with bad racks.

Tony Ellin once said before perfect racks and Diamond tables were commonly used:"I'm not playing on the tour next year cause every time I'm up 10-1 on these loose tables I'm sweating every shot cause they play so easily!"

Longer races should be shorter in duration with a perfect rack, sometimes the players take forever to rack the balls, everytime, which draws the matches out and bores fans to death.

unknownpro
 
Tokyo-dave said:
I've always felt that along with fast cloth and larger pockets, the alternating break format works almost as an equalizer in giving a lesser player more of a chance to get into a game. I think that's one of the reasons that we don't really see any one guy that simply dominates anymore like guys like Sigel, Varner, and others of that era did in their time.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then how can Allison Fisher's dominance, be explained?


Tokyo-dave said:
Now days, you throw 64 of the best players in the world, and anybody can realistically come out on top.
Click to expand...
Assuming that this statement is true, how many here, would like to see pool transformed into a crap-shoot, or luck-of-the-draw contest? At first I think it does make it a luck factor. After I think about it a while though, I think the better player is still coming out on top. It may be that the only thing the better player, did better, is the lag shot, but the loser was still bested, none the less. Of course all this being said, I still prefer winner breaks, for the excitement of multi-rack runs.

Tracy
 
For me it depends on the length of the race. If the race is to 8 or more I think winner breaks is fine. If the race is to 5 or less then you need to use alternating break. The 6 or 7 range is where you sort of have to wonder what to use. When I watch the pros on TV, they have to use alternate break. If I see two great players are going to be playing and I turned it on to watch. Then my favorite never got to the table, I'd be very disappointed.

Actually I think that 'loser breaks' could be a very interesting format. Any thoughts on this?
 
StormHotRod300 said:
, its almost impossible to make a comeback win, if your down 3 or more games.
dave
Click to expand...

It can't be almost impossible. If you are down 3 games, it means your opponent managed to get 3 ahead early in the match. Why can't you expect to do the same thing? He did it...so can you!

If I'm up 6-0 in a race to 7, I put 6 games together. Why would I think that my opponent can't do the same thing?
 
pooltchr said:
It can't be almost impossible. If you are down 3 games, it means your opponent managed to get 3 ahead early in the match. Why can't you expect to do the same thing? He did it...so can you!

If I'm up 6-0 in a race to 7, I put 6 games together. Why would I think that my opponent can't do the same thing?
Click to expand...

If you're down 6-0 in a race to 7 you only need your opponent to come up dry or make a mistake once in a winner breaks format. However, in the alternate break format you need them to come up dry or make a mistake 3 or 4 times (depending on who won the lag).
 
landshark77 said:
I prefer loser racks.
Click to expand...

In most sports, when one side scores, the other side then get its chance to score. Make a basket, the other team gets the ball. Get a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. Why not the same in pool? Win a game, the other person gets the ball, breaks and has his turn at winning.

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
In most sports, when one side scores, the other side then get its chance to score. Make a basket, the other team gets the ball. Get a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. Why not the same in pool? Win a game, the other person gets the ball, breaks and has his turn at winning.

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Good point, as I said in my earlier responce. What about loser breaks?
 
woody_968 said:
I dont like the format. I dont enjoy it as much as a fan, and I enjoy playing in that format as much either. As stated in another thread I think it should be winner breaks with a little longer race. I know the amount of time for each match could be a problem in a longer race, but if it was possible I think that would be the best format.

Ill also say that I dont like to see tournaments where the loser comes out of the loser's side and only has to win one set to win the tourney. Its a TV schedule thing Im sure, but Im starting to see tournaments that arent televised go to this type of format and to me its just not right for the person that won the winners bracket. Sometimes the winner of the winners bracket sets for a long time waiting for the loser's bracket to finnish and the first set is somewhat cold while the winner of the losers bracket has been playing all evening and is in stroke. I just dont see how both players could have one loss but now the one who lost first is the winner?
Click to expand...


I am not sure, but I believe most tourneys make the loser bracket win 2 sets. The TV coverage is edited and I believe if the loser bracket guy wins the match they ONLY show the second match, because that was FINAL match and since they edit it out anyway... well thats all the time the allot...

IMHO I think they need to start televising Tourneys Live... If ESPN3 Came out a lot of these taped events could be shown live (at least Semis on in)... They could switch from one game to the other in the Semis kinda like they do in Golf (maybe with a minor tape delay so that you see the big shots... like golf). Pool would be much bigger sport if big events were televised live.

ESPN3 could have all these second and third tier sports... Bowling (Live not taped same deal)... Table Tennis... Pro LaCrosse... English Pro Darts... English Cricket Leagues... Not to mention European Club Soccer...

What a way to go global ESPN.... get on the stick...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top