I'm confused: which? I'm the one who doubts the 8 passes. If it did, the window for position would be sufficient since bumping the 2 at the correct speed, one is bound to have position on either the 6 or the 7 if one did not get on the 8. But again, I doubt the 8 had room to go into the corner, partly judging from Niels's shot selection.
As to the draw shot into the 8 and 5 with the 6 as insurance he attempted, as mentioned earlier, he would have needed to shoot it more slowly to keep the cue ball from sliding as far on the tangent line before the draw takes. Much more slowly in fact in order to bump the 5 on the bottom side. Missing the 8 altogether and glancing up table off the 5, he could have ended up on the foot rail with no shot at all (not even the 2 he could see from where he landed).
Giving a top player the benefit of the doubt, my guess is the 8 had no pocket, so his shot selection can't be second-guessed, except that there would have been more conservative (less impatient) ways to go about this position.
As to my shot selection, what I like here would be to shoot the 11 with follow, falling right under the 6 with the cue ball, shooting the 9 from there with follow (and a trace of inside/left English to lengthen out the field/triangle of position), preserving the 6 as insurance and the 2 as break and 7 as key ball unless something better comes up once I shoot the 9 and open the balls from below (going into the 8 with the cue ball).
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Last edited: