I disagree. I think that it illustrates the problem. The point is so tiny with the arrow that it's actually easy to line up wrong imo. And when the arrow is removed.....forget about it.
However anyone can compare for themselves which is the point. Make an arrow and try it. Set up the same shots.
I agree that the point of the arrow is so tiny, that it would be easy NOT to roll the cue ball exactly over it.
But good perceptive aimers do NOT use a spot on the table to aim. That's the problem with these ghostball discussions. And it perhaps is also the issue with those aiming system advocates who downplay ghostball technique -- i.e. that they are not or have never used it correctly. You don't aim at a minute spot on the table. That's just wrong, and I would agree wholeheartedly with your contention that it's not easy to roll the cue exactly over that arrow's point, much less trying to do that with an invisible spot on the table.
Rather, when using ghostball -- and I've said this before -- you aim at the *volume* of the ghostball as it would sit in that spot contacting the object ball for a pocketing alignment. It's much, *MUCH* easier to aim at a 2.25-inch target than a 1-mm point or a "speck." In essence, when you're aiming at the "volume" of the ghostball, it's much easier to hone-in to the center of where that cue ball needs to go. You're replacing the "ghost" of the cue ball at that alignment with the object ball, with the physical cue ball itself. You can say that you're replacing the ghostball with the cue ball. It's that simple. People are actually quite good at doing that, and this skill is leveraged in other sports as well (e.g. American football, baseball, etc.).
One other benefit of using the entire volume of the ghostball, is that you have multiple "edges" to align with, rather than a single spot itself. Although I rarely use ghostball anymore, I can still imagine an entirely-formed ghostball at its alignment with the object ball (I pride myself in having good perceptive abilities), and what I do, is to imagine a set of train tracks from the cue ball's position where I'm cueing it, to the volume of the ghostball's position at that position at the object ball to pocket it. Or, think of a "pipe" laying on the table that I'm shooting the cue ball through, where it exits at that exact position with the object ball to pocket it. In other words, I use BOTH EDGES of the cue ball and the ghost ball to do so. In other, other words, I'm using *lines* and not minute spots. And even then, my focus when aiming is NOT anywhere (not even remotely) on the cloth. It's actually right on the object ball itself.
The snooker back-of-ball technique I use leverages this "train tracks" method, in combination with fractional aiming. (Remember, I have that "lookup table" of common ball fractions / eclipsing alignments memorized.) The beauty of using ghostball *properly* (and not as Duckie claims) is that you have multiple checks and balances, that balance out.
Yes, it still requires good visualization technique to "see" those invisible train tracks, but this is made much easier by using both edges (the leftmost edge and the rightmost edge) of both the cue ball, and the ghostball, to do so. I find it actually comes naturally for me. (I was once an excellent baseball player in my day.)
So those players like Duckie who say you're supposed to aim at these things called "contact patches" on the cloth or what-not, are doing it all wrong. In fact, the logical extension of the arrow is that it's supposed to teach you to
visualize the cue ball at that position at the object ball. It's end goal is NOT supposed to teach you to aim at 1mm points on the cloth.
-Sean
