SJM Final Thoughts on the 2023 US Open

[Cameron Smith]

I would hold off on making final judgments on the pockets. It took several years of the big foot challenge before the players finally hit their stride on that table. In the early days commentators were saying that .800 was close to world class, but now I think they are often in .900s.

Even though the 4” pockets have only been around for a year as the norm, it’s still relatively few events compared to what they are normally playing on. And for many players, it’s hard to find a 4” pocket to practice on if you don’t have your own set up at home.

 

[The_JV]

I would hold off on making final judgments on the pockets. It took several years of the big foot challenge before the players finally hit their stride on that table. In the early days commentators were saying that .800 was close to world class, but now I think they are often in .900s.

Even though the 4” pockets have only been around for a year as the norm, it’s still relatively few events compared to what they are normally playing on. And for many players, it’s hard to find a 4” pocket to practice on if you don’t have your own set up at home.

As someone who has zero invested and no potential financial obligation. I think it would be awesome if pool rooms held the course with the norm 4.5" pockets but had one "MatchRoom spec" table.

The potting success the public saw during the last couple days of the Open does not convey how difficult the conditions were. I guarantee you the players from this Open have far more respect for what Little Ko accomplished during his semi final win.

 

[BasementDweller]

I don't mind the tight pockets. I think tough pockets are the way to go for the Major tourneys.

But there is a 2nd option:

Only regularly replace the bed cloth on tourney tables and go with a slightly bigger pocket. Broken in rail cloth would help all the players play with more confidence, and speed things up as players would be more dialed in on their positional and kicking routes. While at the same time, effectively tightening the pocket. Amazing kick shots and bank shots make for good TV too, and you'd get more of that with broken in rail cloth. I think....maybe not though.

Pool has just always had this problem with fresh cloth. It makes all but the smallest pockets play too easy. There's just not a perfect solution for this problem but this is why there's always been this disconnect between what's considered difficult for a tourney vs what you'd like to have in your local room.

What would be more difficult a Diamond with 4 1/4" pockets with broken in cloth, or the 4" pockets used at the US Open?

 

[The_JV]

What would be more difficult a Diamond with 4 1/4" pockets with broken in cloth, or the 4" pockets used at the US Open?

Good question... These 4" pockets played small. Smaller than what you'd expect a 4" to play. I didn't have a means with me but I really did want to know the actual facing angle. I'm sure part of it was the deep shelf as well.

Problem with worn cloth, is how to manage / equalize the conditions. As it currently stands, the main table was only in use for the last couple of days, and sparingly. It would have played faster/looser than anything else in the room after baking for a few days under the lights. None of the players would have been accustomed to it's play when they first touched it.

Now imagine worn cloth on every table... Literally every table could potentially play differently. Honestly I think the random wear would make things worse. At least now you can grow accustomed over the first day or so and get dialed in.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...I think it would be awesome if pool rooms held the course with the norm 4.5" pockets but had one "MatchRoom spec" table. ...

Probably be taken over by the one pocket gang.

... I don't know if the area refs were instructed to only "ref" if under request by the players. However I did witness several situations were refs were watching questionable circumstances from their chairs but did not engage to ensure a call could be made. ...

The usual instruction to area refs is to stay in your seat unless called over. Unasked for intervention might be seen as favoritism.

 

[BasementDweller]

Good question... These 4" pockets played small. Smaller than what you'd expect a 4" to play. I didn't have a means with me but I really did want to know the actual facing angle. I'm sure part of it was the deep shelf as well.

Problem with worn cloth, is how to manage / equalize the conditions. As it currently stands, the main table was only in use for the last couple of days, and sparingly. It would have played faster/looser than anything else in the room after baking for a few days under the lights. None of the players would have been accustomed to it's play when they first touched it.

Now imagine worn cloth on every table... Literally every table could potentially play differently. Honestly I think the random wear would make things worse. At least now you can grow accustomed over the first day or so and get dialed in.

You may be right. I just think things are different than they were a couple of decades ago. Etiquette is different. Players aren't using powder as much, chalk isn't as messy, and it's not being left all over the rails anymore. So I think it's possible tourney tables could be used for a couple of YEARS without the rail cloth being replaced and our tv's and devices would be none the wiser.

I don't know...I might be overthinking this or overlooking the logistics of it, but it's certainly a big part of the small pocket formula.

 

[sjm]

some pro players will take unnecessary long time no matter the conditions, just because they can. this needs to be addressed. if they can't have that many refs they need to figure out something else.

Yes, some of the players take so long that even a one-minute shot clock would speed them up. Give players forever to shoot and that's just how long many of them will take. Pool at snail's pace is not exciting to watch.

 

[pwd72s]

My thanks to JV for posting his "dead money" review. A very enjoyable read giving me a good impression of the experience.

 

[spartan]

4 inch pocket is not as tight as snooker only 56% coverage of pocket compared to 63% for snooker. The prior event, Connecticut Open was on looser pockets and there were many big comebacks - players down by huge margin make comebacks like nobody's business.
Tighter pockets separate the boys from the men as we have seen at US Open.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Pool vs Snooker pocket size is more about the straight pool facing vs the curved snooker rounds. In pool, we can make about any shot from about any approach angle. In Snooker, half the shots are not even available due to the angle of approach, when an OB is near a rail.

This difference IMO results in pool being naturally aggressive, while snooker is naturally passive.

If the pockets become too difficult in pool, (by whatever technical means), pool will loose its agression. Pool won't have a chance in hell if that were to happen.

I love what MR is doing for our sport. I really think they focused on the wrong thing the whole year from a rules/equipment standpoint in the pocket size. They should have instead spent all that thought/execution energy in making every player play at a quick pace. Either via technology, lighting a fire under each player's butt, etc. That would have done way more for the viewer than 4" pockets.

 

[Island Drive]

Yes, some of the players take so long that even a one-minute shot clock would speed them up. Give players forever to shoot and that's just how long many of them will take. Pool at snail's pace is not exciting to watch.

The US Open Kaci/Shaw match was just this.
A 45 second shot clock, BUT if your down/swingin' you can stay every time for an extra 8-10 seconds.

BUT, Shaw played ''lights out'' Extremely aggressive 9 ball, the way it's meant to be/4'' would not allow this type of Agression.
Shaw put together racks and kept play Movin'.

But Kaci, wore out his Welcome 55 second ea shot.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Too add, I believe the whole movement (by MR) to go SMALLER than Diamond Pro Cut pockets, which we all know are tight as hell in typical worn-in pool hall scenarios, was to eliminate the chance of a ball falling if it brushes the rail on the way in. I personally think that's a byproduct of Emily and Barry being from the Snooker side of the world. They look at pool pockets and say they are huge and point to those scenarios. And on the youtube chats with the snooker bangers, they do the same thing.

That doesn't happen in snooker due to the rounds.

The irony is, in pool, it still happens when the pockets get tighter. There is no way to avoid it, it's due to the pocket face being straight. You'd probably have to change pool tables to have snooker rounds if you wanted to completely eliminate it. Then you are back to the scenario where pool becomes completely passive.

There was nothing wrong with a diamond pro cut pocket size at 4.5", even for the elite.

 

[Island Drive]

All cloth wears ''in''.

 

[The_JV]

I was killed by them but enjoyed the 4" targets.

IMO they should stay but there are other aspects to the pockets that could be altered to increase the likely hood of a well stuck ball dropping.

• Facing angle: I want to say they kept the typical 142. This could be dropped to 141 and make a notable increase in success to those who have 'split the wickies'.
• Downward Facing angle: This helps direct the ball into the throat of the pocket. Diamonds are improved with more angle to compensate for deep shelves
• Shelf depth: Although the shelf depth shortens as you decrease pocket size. I doubt it's reasonable to ask Diamond to shave down the shelf when the other two options could compensate.

Keep the small openings but alter the other aspects so otherwise good aim is rewarded.

 

[Rocket354]

There was nothing wrong with a diamond pro cut pocket size at 4.5", even for the elite.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not convinced that 4.5" is tight enough for the elite. The recent Connecticut Open demonstrated that. Lots of packages to the point that it got boring--and that was at an (advertised, at least) 4 3/8".

I don't know where the line of "too tight" begins, but the problem with the evolution of games is that it might not be clear for years. If players are used to an attacking/aggressive style of play then that will remain the predominant style for a while, even if it isn't necessarily the optimal style given the new equipment specs. But once some players (likely newer) start having success with different strategies then the tide would turn.

One of the highlight shots of the tournament was a fairly sharp cut down the rail. If shooting a shot down the rail becomes the highlight shot of a match, then the pockets are too tight. I've played on tight 4" tables before where it was impossible to make a shot down the rail with anything more than slow/medium pace. That wasn't fun, and detracted from the game.

 

[BlueRaider]

What if I find interesting about the tightening of the pockets in these tournaments is that the same guys tend to rise to the top regardless. You don't see a guy who is perhaps lacking in other aspects of the game suddenly have a big, unforeseen advantage because he's a ridiculously straight shooter.

It seems that among the guys who are good enough to win a U.S. Open, their ball pocketing/straight shooting abilities are already so refined that tight pockets aren't much of a limiting factor in their games. But it does serve to make the skill gap massively more apparent among the lower-level pros and below, who must contend with conditions that, unless they are gluttons for punishment on their home tables, they likely rarely experience outside of one pocket-centric tables.

 

[Bob Jewett]

What if I find interesting about the tightening of the pockets in these tournaments is that the same guys tend to rise to the top regardless. ...

True. I think one result is that you will see fewer sub-800 players going far across the brackets. I think of the wheat/chaff separating properties of a competition in terms of how many significant tests of skill per minute/hour there are. At tennis each player is tested every few seconds for hours. At long-run games like 14.1 or some carom games, the real tests may only happen every five minutes or so. The smaller pockets at pool don't increase the number of tests but they make each test harder.

 

[sjm]

What if I find interesting about the tightening of the pockets in these tournaments is that the same guys tend to rise to the top regardless. You don't see a guy who is perhaps lacking in other aspects of the game suddenly have a big, unforeseen advantage because he's a ridiculously straight shooter.

It seems that among the guys who are good enough to win a U.S. Open, their ball pocketing/straight shooting abilities are already so refined that tight pockets aren't much of a limiting factor in their games. But it does serve to make the skill gap massively more apparent among the lower-level pros and below, who must contend with conditions that, unless they are gluttons for punishment on their home tables, they likely rarely experience outside of one pocket-centric tables.

Excellent post! I've always believed that on any equipment and with any format, the cream will rise to the top. Still, even at the top, the skill sets differ, and some will benefit from certain specs and certain formats.

Most importantly, though, the game the pros are playing may be different when equipment is modified, and ultimately, the question is "on which equipment will the game of pool be most entertaining?"

You can get a very deserving and elite champion whether the specs are 4", 4 1/4" or something else, but it's a slower, more tactical game, with fewer difficult shots attempted with 4" pockets. Maybe that's the way Matchroom wants it, but I wonder. Maybe that's the way the players want it, but I wonder. Maybe that's how the fans want it, but I wonder.

In the end, it doesn't matter what either the players or the fans want. Matchroom must present professional pool in a way that makes it as marketable as possible. I'll accept their judgement, but I'm not convinced they've got this right.

 

[stewie]

Very nice write-up Stu! It was nice to quickly say hello to you. I saw the last 2 days in the 3 table set-up. I wouldn't worry about the break. Some figured it out how to make the one into the side, but even in the quarter finals Yapp still struggled with the break, so it's still quite difficult to dial in and be consistent. Slightly different table conditions might be actually a nice challenge contributing to this. Layouts after the break seem to be challenging to a good degree. Chung was just exceptional at playing position and running the table.

What boggled my mind, was how they did the shot clock. On the main TV table it sometimes stopped working, but when it worked there were visuals for the players. For the 2 streaming tables, there was no visual shot clock. They had a referee and a time keeper at a desk, who would say "10" and "5". When Zieliński lost to Yapp, he had what seemed to be 5 or 6 brain farts, where he rattled balls, which should have been easy for him (no big cut, no bank, not obstructed). I wonder if he was fearing the shot clock he didn't see. How difficult should it be for Matchroom to put up an extra screen or integrate the shotclock into their scoring? There is an app for scoring they use often in Germany, which does just that.

 

[maha]

of course the players should be able to see the shot clock. and the time needed to shoot a shot is relatively short so giving so much time just slows things down. one or two time outs for an extra 20 seconds is fine per game.
it should be you just have to make your decision quickly or lose your turn.