Oscar vs Chris Reinhold

[ChrisinNC]

Not surprised at all.

Yeah, Oscar hasn’t been playing that much, but once he got in stroke, this really wasn’t a fair match if they were indeed playing even. Experience is a big factor.

Chris must’ve played really good that second set and the same for Oscar in the final set.

 

[AtLarge]

Based on their FargoRates of 779 and 748, Oscar would be expected to win roughly one-quarter more games than Chris over the long haul. If the scores for the 3 sets posted in this thread are correct, the 3 sets totaled 84-65, fairly close to expectation.

 

[MattPoland]

Yeah, Oscar hasn’t been playing that much, but once he got in stroke, this really wasn’t a fair match if they were indeed playing even. Experience is a big factor.

Chris must’ve played really good that second set and the same for Oscar in the final set.

Some matches are won by playing better than your opponent. This wasn’t one of those performances.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Some matches are won by playing better than your opponent. This wasn’t one of those performances.

Not quite sure what that means? Are you saying both of them played below their ability or are you saying this match was won/lost when the game was made, based on the differential in their big $ match experience?

 

[Island Drive]

A very important concern about Any money match.

Who picked the table, cloth, cue ball and location for this match?

 

[EL'nino]

A very important concern about Any money match.

Who picked the table, cloth, cue ball and location for this match?

Very true points but on any table with any cue ball at any location I'll take Oscar over Chris.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Very true points but on any table with any cue ball at any location I'll take Oscar over Chris.

A lot of people don’t realize the advantage that Oscar has having Ernesto as a father, role model and coach.

Nobody knows how much better a player Ernesto could have been 30–40 years ago in his prime if the Camel tour and multiple tours since then hadn’t worked him to exhaustion setting up all the tables on ridiculously short notice for the events for many years. He never had time to practice and he was too worn out from setting up all the tables the day/days and sometimes all night before the tournament to play his best in his tournament matches, for that reason, and still does to this day.

Most also have no idea what a great instructor Ernesto is. He worked with Robin Dodson leading up to her match win against Jean Balukus, which indirectly led to retiring Jean from playing on the women’s tour. When his pool table mechanic days are over which will likely be relatively soon, he plans to start instructing more regularly.

 

[Tin Man]

Not quite sure what that means? Are you saying both of them played below their ability or are you saying this match was won/lost when the game was made, based on the differential in their big $ match experience?

Matt has made three posts in this thread about the relatively low quality of play.

But everything is relative. Poorly compared to what? Compared to elite international players at the peak of their game (this seemed to be the comparison in his first post)? Compared to Chris/Oscar on their best day and on new cloth and soft equipment?

Maybe he's right, and he's pointing out that they performed below their typical level and it was a grind session. But more and more these days as we get inundated with Matchroom streams showing the top 10 players in the finals when they're having their best day, and with social media highlight reels, it is easy to have our standards influenced a bit on the unrealistic side. The same way that young girls develop impossible beauty standards because everyone they see online is filtered to look like a goddess and that's now what they see when they look in the mirror.

I haven't played as many money matches as either of these two but I've been in the ring and a lot of the time it isn't pretty, it's gritty. I have one match that was streamed and it was super tough. 10 ball and balls weren't going on the break for a number of reasons. Totally different game than when you make 1-3 balls and everything floats apart. We were on a pool room table with worn cloth, 10 balls with clusters and problems, and there was a lot of running three balls and getting into moving battles again. In those circumstances it's hard to get a rhythm and opportunities that might seem routine when you are in gear can be tough, especially under the lights. Anyway, I won this match and afterwards everyone was really critical of me and basically said I won because my opponent played bad. Which may be true, but part of the reason he played bad is because I starved him of the opportunities he needed to get anything going.

In short, good and bad is all relative, and most of what we see is pretty good when we let go of perfection as the standard. Just my two cents.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Matt has made three posts in this thread about the relatively low quality of play.

But everything is relative. Poorly compared to what? Compared to elite international players at the peak of their game (this seemed to be the comparison in his first post)? Compared to Chris/Oscar on their best day and on new cloth and soft equipment?

Maybe he's right, and he's pointing out that they performed below their typical level and it was a grind session. But more and more these days as we get inundated with Matchroom streams showing the top 10 players in the finals when they're having their best day, and with social media highlight reels, it is easy to have our standards influenced a bit on the unrealistic side. The same way that young girls develop impossible beauty standards because everyone they see online is filtered to look like a goddess and that's now what they see when they look in the mirror.

I haven't played as many money matches as either of these two but I've been in the ring and a lot of the time it isn't pretty, it's gritty. I have one match that was streamed and it was super tough. 10 ball and balls weren't going on the break for a number of reasons. Totally different game than when you make 1-3 balls and everything floats apart. We were on a pool room table with worn cloth, 10 balls with clusters and problems, and there was a lot of running three balls and getting into moving battles again. In those circumstances it's hard to get a rhythm and opportunities that might seem routine when you are in gear can be tough, especially under the lights. Anyway, I won this match and afterwards everyone was really critical of me and basically said I won because my opponent played bad. Which may be true, but part of the reason he played bad is because I starved him of the opportunities he needed to get anything going.

In short, good and bad is all relative, and most of what we see is pretty good when we let go of perfection as the standard. Just my two cents.

When playing for the $ stakes apparently they were playing for, regardless of how much of it was their own, the pressure has got to be off the charts and the only thing that matters is winning, not how you do it.

Also I heard it was an extremely tight pocket table and if it wasn’t newly installed cloth, that would be way harder than any table conditions encountered in most every pro tournament.

 

[MattPoland]

Matt has made three posts in this thread about the relatively low quality of play.

But everything is relative. Poorly compared to what? Compared to elite international players at the peak of their game (this seemed to be the comparison in his first post)? Compared to Chris/Oscar on their best day and on new cloth and soft equipment?

Maybe he's right, and he's pointing out that they performed below their typical level and it was a grind session. But more and more these days as we get inundated with Matchroom streams showing the top 10 players in the finals when they're having their best day, and with social media highlight reels, it is easy to have our standards influenced a bit on the unrealistic side. The same way that young girls develop impossible beauty standards because everyone they see online is filtered to look like a goddess and that's now what they see when they look in the mirror.

I haven't played as many money matches as either of these two but I've been in the ring and a lot of the time it isn't pretty, it's gritty. I have one match that was streamed and it was super tough. 10 ball and balls weren't going on the break for a number of reasons. Totally different game than when you make 1-3 balls and everything floats apart. We were on a pool room table with worn cloth, 10 balls with clusters and problems, and there was a lot of running three balls and getting into moving battles again. In those circumstances it's hard to get a rhythm and opportunities that might seem routine when you are in gear can be tough, especially under the lights. Anyway, I won this match and afterwards everyone was really critical of me and basically said I won because my opponent played bad. Which may be true, but part of the reason he played bad is because I starved him of the opportunities he needed to get anything going.

In short, good and bad is all relative, and most of what we see is pretty good when we let go of perfection as the standard. Just my two cents.

Lots of scratching on the break from Oscar. Both players missed quite a few routine balls, at some points returning the favor back and forth in the same rack. Numerous times Chris failed to get out with ball in hand. In one example he hooked himself on his first shot with ball in hand. Very few table runs. Sometimes it seemed they could muster a 2 or 3 pack. But moreso it seemed nearly every single rack had a safety battle usually from blowing position. The number of times they played safe and gave their opponent a full look at the ball was much more than I would've expected. And yeah, at the level of international competition you tend to see stronger responses kicking back out of a safe. The only real highlights was that Chris was breaking fantastic and both were jumping pretty sporty.

I do get that second set was 8+ hours and the third set was played immediately after the same evening into the wee hours of the night. Fatigue is certainly severe at that point. But to look at the score alone and conclude Chris must have played well to win set 2 and Oscar must have played great set 3 really doesn't describe it. I know players can have an A game and B game. This match showed their B game at best, glimpses of their C game, and ended with Chris's D game. The wheels fell off.

Nobody likes reading that about themselves. And I get nobody likes perfectionist entitled fans making unrealistic expectations of their performances. I love both these guys. Root heavily for them. It's just worth noting these weren't "A Game" performances. I know the game and conditions are different, but if someone thinks Oscar should've been on the USA team instead of Wolford then this match didn't provide any evidence to support that despite what the scoreline would suggest.

If anyone else tuned in, I'd love to hear if they had a different perspective.

 

[Tin Man]

Lots of scratching on the break from Oscar. Both players missed quite a few routine balls, at some points returning the favor back and forth in the same rack. Numerous times Chris failed to get out with ball in hand. In one example he hooked himself on his first shot with ball in hand. Very few table runs. Sometimes it seemed they could muster a 2 or 3 pack. But moreso it seemed nearly every single rack had a safety battle usually from blowing position. The number of times they played safe and gave their opponent a full look at the ball was much more than I would've expected. And yeah, at the level of international competition you tend to see stronger responses kicking back out of a safe. The only real highlights was that Chris was breaking fantastic and both were jumping pretty sporty.

I do get that second set was 8+ hours and the third set was played immediately after the same evening into the wee hours of the night. Fatigue is certainly severe at that point. But to look at the score alone and conclude Chris must have played well to win set 2 and Oscar must have played great set 3 really doesn't describe it. I know players can have an A game and B game. This match showed their B game at best, glimpses of their C game, and ended with Chris's D game. The wheels fell off.

Nobody likes reading that about themselves. And I get nobody likes perfectionist entitled fans making unrealistic expectations of their performances. I love both these guys. Root heavily for them. It's just worth noting these weren't "A Game" performances. I know the game and conditions are different, but if someone thinks Oscar should've been on the USA team instead of Wolford then this match didn't provide any evidence to support that despite what the scoreline would suggest.

If anyone else tuned in, I'd love to hear if they had a different perspective.

Thanks for the reply Matt! Well said!

Agree with all of this. You get it and said it right. They were at the bottom half of their performance range. You weren't criticizing, just reporting.

I think that most people have really warped ideas of how people play from watching highlight reels and finals matches. When you go to these big tournaments and watch early round matches you see the truth. While the level of play today is higher than ever and talent is deeper than ever, you still see a lot of mistakes from most players in most sets. Those that grind through tough matches and get momentum pick up speed, and once you hit the final rounds you see great pool. But if you just grab two guys on their average day and throw them on a tough table with pressure and roll the camera the truth comes out. This is a super tough game and these guys are very human.

So I'm not at all surprised to hear how this played out. Oscar played Omar Al-Shaheen about 3 years ago and despite having gotten to the finals of the world championship earlier that year he lost to Oscar and it didn't look much different. Money matches are something else!