Manalo vs. Bustamante -- two bad safeties

P

PoolSharkAllen

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Check out the new Bustamante vs. Manalo video clip that was recently posted on the youtube web site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQPGzwcuy3w

I believe this match was taken from the IPT King of the Hill Shootout. In this video clip, Bustamante missed making the 9, which then rolled up against the 2.

Manalo now has several options that he could have played. Manalo could have made the 3-ball and at least a few other balls too, followed by a timely safety play. Manalo even had the flexibility to reposition another ball closer to the cluster for an eventual cluster buster. All Manalo needs to do to ensure the win is make sure that Bustamante can't bank the 9 into the opposite corner.

So what does Manalo do? He plays safe and shoots the 6 closer to the corner pocket (see page 1 of the cue table link below). This is a huge blunder as Bustamante takes an intentional foul by knocking the 7 away from the vicinity so that Manalo can't break open the cluster.

With ball-in-hand, Manalo then compounds his previous blunder by attempting to play another safe off of the 6 ball but he bungles that too...and eventually loses the game.

What was Manalo thinking with these two very weak safety attempts?

http://CueTable.com/P/?@3ABiv1BDxF4...1VDxF1VEWI1dHAJ1dHhQ1dGrP1kMrE3kYlG3kXQW3kXQY
 
> After watching the video,I agree on 2 different points,but disagree on another. The shot Marlon chose on the 6 the first time was heads-up,no doubt. It looks to me like it was designed to get Francisco to kick at the 9,which would have probably worked on anyone but a truly world class player and student of the game. In a sense,he was forcing the opponent to try and not give up ball in hand,while also forcing him to seal his own fate by clearing the 9 away from the 2ideally. Here are the points I agree with. One,that was an awful bad blunder by Marlon on the 6 the second time,no way on Earth he made a good hit there. He was correct on the idea,just executed it real bad,or the slow table beat him because he was trying to go rail first,bump the 6 off the side rail,and back out in front of the cue ball,completely burying him. That would have surely gotten him ball in hand with Francisco on 2 fouls,and given him a brick to hide the cue ball behind for number 3. The other point I agree on is the big pocket the 9 was banked into,it looked like it hit the rail a foot from the pocket or more. Either that or the slow cloth they've been claiming to use isn't as slow as they might want. Tommy D.
 
Last edited:
Tommy-D said:
> After watching the video,I agree on 2 different points,but disagree on another. The shot Marlon chose on the 6 the first time was heads-up,no doubt. It looks to me like it was designed to get Francisco to kick at the 9,which would have probably worked on anyone but a truly world class player and student of the game. In a sense,he was forcing the opponent to try and not give up ball in hand,while also forcing him to seal his own fate by clearing the 9 away from the 2ideally. Here are the points I agree with. One,that was an awful bad blunder by Marlon on the 6 the second time,no way on Earth he made a good hit there. He was correct on the idea,just executed it real bad,or the slow table beat him because he was trying to go rail first,bump the 6 off the side rail,and back out in front of the cue ball,completely burying him. That would have surely gotten him ball in hand with Francisco on 2 fouls,and given him a brick to hide the cue ball behind for number 3. The other point I agree on is the big pocket the 9 was banked into,it looked like it hit the rail a foot from the pocket or more. Either that or the slow cloth they've been claiming to use isn't as slow as they might want. Tommy D.
Click to expand...


Good post.
 
I really can't believe that bank dropped. I thought the equipment was supposed to be tough. Maybe it was just that pocket (which I doubt), but it was ridiculously generous.
 
Tommy-D said:
He was correct on the idea,just executed it real bad,or the slow table beat him because he was trying to go rail first,bump the 6 off the side rail,and back out in front of the cue ball,completely burying him. That would have surely gotten him ball in hand with Francisco on 2 fouls,and given him a brick to hide the cue ball behind for number 3..
Click to expand...
We've discussed this to death previousy, but IMO, if he was going for 3-fouls, there were at least two better ways, better lock-up potential, easier to execute, and overall, more depth. I don't think there's an 8-ball player out there that would have chosen his shot as primary, secondary, or tertiary.

The key, IMO, is that Franscisco cleared the 7-ball on his foul. If your going to lock up a safe in this spot, and your opponent just cleared out your best break out ball, I tell my players that a strong safety should include placing a break up ball back in play by the cluster.

Fred
 
Cornerman said:
We've discussed this to death previousy, but IMO, if he was going for 3-fouls, there were at least two better ways, better lock-up potential, easier to execute, and overall, more depth. I don't think there's an 8-ball player out there that would have chosen his shot as primary, secondary, or tertiary.

Fred
Click to expand...

Hey guys, I wasn't aware that this was discussed previously.

At least now I know that the IPT has a 3-foul rule, so I have a better idea of what Manalo was trying to do even though it was very poorly executed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top