I'm sure that this won't be a popular opinion, but I would love to see Mike Dechaine in place of Corey.
SJM Slant on the 2018 Mosconi Cup
- Thread starter sjm
- Start date
I'm sure that this won't be a popular opinion, but I would love to see Mike Dechaine in place of Corey.
I agree that Tyler played great, but I was completely perplexed by his shot selection in match 17 on the final day vs Shaw. I can't remember the score, but it was still a close match at maybe 2-2, and Tyler, after making a few balls and looking good for another runout, was facing not too tough of a cut shot on the 4 or 5 ball, which obviously he had to feather gently and come around 2 rails (end rail, side rail) for shape on the next ball. For some reason he tried to hammer it with draw, missing badly and scratching. All I can think of is that he was so pumped up with adrenaline that he didn't think he could execute a relatively simple soft touch shot that was required in that situation. Do you recall the shot?
I hope this victory will inspire others to invest the time into this event. Having to choose from an in-stroke Bergman, Styer, Duel, Oscar, Hatch, etc. would be a great problem to have. Heck I would love to see Dechaine get back after it. He has a very high gear when he is on.
I know Pool players ain't getting rich, but 20k for several weeks worth of work isn't too bad, assuming their travel expenses were covered for the warm up matches and eurotour event....
I'm not sure I had a problem with this shot, which did look really bad, from a conceptualization standpoint.
Tyler's predicament, if I remember the position correctly, was that unless he got onto the right side of the four, he'd have to run into the nine as he played onto the five and his prospects for even passable position would have been poor if he'd opted for that. He'd have to go around the table to achieve it. He, ultimately, chanced the four-railer to get to the right side of the four. I think it was a reasonable choice. He only scratched because he missed his shot by a mile, and, yes it looked inept, but I'll defend the very aggressive pattern he chose.
Still, you're making sense. This shot was definitely one example of the moment (chance to get Team USA the eleventh and clinching point by beating Shaw) being too big for a rookie who played some solid pool up to that point. Tyler wasn't ready for a moment as big as that and that's OK in my book.
I see it your way. Woodward is the most obvious returnee and SVB and Billy Thorpe aren't far behind. They all played well in this Mosconi and are key cogs in the wheel that is Team USA. Deuel is probably done as a Mosconi wild card, but will have the opportunity to qualify on points, and maybe he can. Difficult to say regarding Tyler. He held up pretty well, but do you find yourself saying "Tyler is on his way to being one of the stars of the game" yet? Personally, I'm not able to say that. I need to see more, but the young fellow made a nice first impression and I wish him nothing but success going forward.
Finally, it is obvious that Jeremy Jones will coach Team USA soon enough. He has certainly earned the opportunity.
I just went back and looked at it again on youtube. The game in question, with Tyler trailing 2-1, Tyler made 4 balls on the break. After making a nice cut shot on the 1-ball, he left himself a reasonable cut shot on the 2-ball in the corner, with the 4-ball and 9-ball as the only 2 balls on that end of the table, and the 6-ball up table, so he just needed to play shape for the 4-ball by feathering in the 2-ball with a little outside. You are correct that he likely only scratched because he badly undercut the shot, but from what appears to me, on the 2-ball shot he just needed to swing the cue ball around 2 rails back to the middle of the table for a cut on the 4-ball. Where the 9-ball was located below the 4-ball, I don't believe in pocketing the 4-ball that the cue ball would have touched the 9-ball in going 2 rails with outside for shape on the 6-ball up table. By playing it the way he chose to play it, IMO it went from at least an 80% chance of making the shot with shape down to a less than 40% chance the way he chose to try to play it. Stu, if you're interested enough, go check out the tape of the match again to watch the situation / shot and get back to me with your thoughts. Thanks
Last edited:
I'll stand corrected if the nine was an avoidable obstruction. If so, I see this your way.
I really can't be bothered to watch the match replays. I write my posts mostly from memory, and occasionally from my notes. I usually remember the key shots and situations well, but maybe not this one.
We agree completely on the extent to which he reduced his chance of success.
I understand, and thanks. FYI, it took me like 2 minutes to find the match on youtube and fast forward to the shot in question, in the 4th game, to watch it a few times to confirm if my memory was correct, which it was. Stu, thanks for taking the time to give us your in-person observations at the event - I can only imagine it must have been awesome!
We must then conclude that this was a brain fart at a big moment in the Mosconi, and Tyler's conceptualization skills took a shot off to his own detriment.
If Mike Dechaine was able to bond with the team, then yes.
I know he posts and reads this forum. I admire his capabilities.
What made this year's team best was all five members bonded and were in unison. This is the ingredient that was missing previously in the past few years, I think.
If the players don't like each other, it ain't going to work.
YES, INDEEDY! Tyler led the way. It was a very important win.
shot selection
I found the shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_qn5E4qqM 24:49 is a good place to pause to see the layout.
I actually like Tyler's selection. If the cue ball was a little further to the right as we look at the screen so it was even with the object ball or slightly on the other side of it, then I think the soft shot is better. Maybe he could then even draw the cue ball to the side rail.
As positioned the rolling shot is certainly possible, but it is a 3/4 table shot on a cut shot that is less than a half ball hit, so slow rolling that isn't super easy. Meanwhile the 4 rail route is nearly automatic, the cue ball patch 'self corrects' and regardless of where it hits the 3rd or 4th rail the ball reverses to the middle of the table with a high level of consistency.
I actually think this improves his make percentage. If this was the 9 ball, how many pros would roll it in at pocket speed versus how many would hit it with 3-4 rail speed? Most would stroke the ball firmly as that improves make percentage. Of course if you have to hit it extra hard to get the distance you need then it starts dropping again, but on tournament diamonds that usually isn't a problem.
It really comes down to how soft vs how hard he'd have to hit it each way. I think he's a little longer and thinner than he'd want to be to slow roll it, and I think the 4 railer isn't far from the preferred speed at which you'd cinch that ball. Most of my life I lagged that ball, but I guess I've been avoiding that more of late. As always this is just how it seems to me, not saying it's definitive.
I found the shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_qn5E4qqM 24:49 is a good place to pause to see the layout.
I actually like Tyler's selection. If the cue ball was a little further to the right as we look at the screen so it was even with the object ball or slightly on the other side of it, then I think the soft shot is better. Maybe he could then even draw the cue ball to the side rail.
As positioned the rolling shot is certainly possible, but it is a 3/4 table shot on a cut shot that is less than a half ball hit, so slow rolling that isn't super easy. Meanwhile the 4 rail route is nearly automatic, the cue ball patch 'self corrects' and regardless of where it hits the 3rd or 4th rail the ball reverses to the middle of the table with a high level of consistency.
I actually think this improves his make percentage. If this was the 9 ball, how many pros would roll it in at pocket speed versus how many would hit it with 3-4 rail speed? Most would stroke the ball firmly as that improves make percentage. Of course if you have to hit it extra hard to get the distance you need then it starts dropping again, but on tournament diamonds that usually isn't a problem.
It really comes down to how soft vs how hard he'd have to hit it each way. I think he's a little longer and thinner than he'd want to be to slow roll it, and I think the 4 railer isn't far from the preferred speed at which you'd cinch that ball. Most of my life I lagged that ball, but I guess I've been avoiding that more of late. As always this is just how it seems to me, not saying it's definitive.
Excellent report, Stu. Thanks for the analysis.
Ouschan missed twice, both times on the 2-ball:
• a long, nearly straight-in shot in Game 1 of Match 8
• a long, straight-back bank in Game 2 of Match 11
Ouschan missed twice, both times on the 2-ball:
• a long, nearly straight-in shot in Game 1 of Match 8
• a long, straight-back bank in Game 2 of Match 11
Yes, let's hope this win motivates some of America's worthiest stars of both the present and future.
Do the stats bear out the conclusions I've drawn?
For example, I remember that in 2017, we saw the kicking very differently. I was a little more influenced by whether the right paths and speeds were selected and not just whether a good hit was made. I was soooo pleased with how much progress we made in kick shot conceptualization and Team USA did well with the jump shot, too.
Time flies, stu; that discussion was two years ago comparing results between the '15 and '16 Cups. And I certainly agree with you about kicking and jumping this year -- USA was better than Europe. USA had 5 kicking or jumping fouls to Europe's 12. Three years ago it was 16-8 the other way around. I haven't tried to relate those fouls to the number of escape attempts, but maybe I will (I think I said that 2 years ago, too:sorry
As for stats bearing out your conclusions -- yes, they did.
A couple little things:
• In your Q4, you said Thorpe's first shot in Match 15 was at 3-0 down. Maybe you meant his first open shot after a break. He did shoot twice in Game 1 (the break and a kick) and once in Game 3 (he fouled on a kick).
• You said Europe played pretty poorly and we got their "C" game. I'm kind of eager to see what the Accu-Stats TPAs are on all the players (and the teams in aggregate). Last year it was .782 for Team USA and .845 for Team Europe (source -- Accu-Stats via Billiards Digest). This year, both teams had fewer misses and fouls (in more games) than last year. I expect the TPAs to be better for Europe as well as USA. Europe missed just 21 shots (Pat Fleming may count differently) in the 124 games in which they went to the table (151 total games less USA's 27 B&R's), which is about 6 games per miss. Missed open shots are just part of the story, of course. And Europe won just one fewer game than USA.
Good job, stu, as always. You planning on turkey in Vegas next year?
[Edit -- I wonder how much the drop in missed shots, by both teams, was due to the table.]
Last edited:
Time flies, stu; that discussion was two years ago comparing results between the '15 and '16 Cups. And I certainly agree with you about kicking and jumping this year -- USA was better than Europe. USA had 5 kicking or jumping fouls to Europe's 12. Three years ago it was 16-8 the other way around. I haven't tried to relate those fouls to the number of escape attempts, but maybe I will (I think I said that 2 years ago, too:sorry
As for stats bearing out your conclusions -- yes, they did.
A couple little things:
• In your Q4, you said Thorpe's first shot in Match 15 was at 3-0 down. Maybe you meant his first open shot after a break. He did shoot twice in Game 1 (the break and a kick) and once in Game 3 (he fouled on a kick).
• You said Europe played pretty poorly and we got their "C" game. I'm kind of eager to see what the Accu-Stats TPAs are on all the players (and the teams in aggregate). Last year it was .782 for Team USA and .845 for Team Europe (source -- Accu-Stats via Billiards Digest). This year, both teams had fewer misses and fouls (in more games) than last year. I expect the TPAs to be better for Europe as well as USA. Europe missed just 21 shots (Pat Fleming may count differently) in the 124 games in which they went to the table (151 total games less USA's 27 B&R's), which is about 6 games per miss. Missed open shots are just part of the story, of course. And Europe won just one fewer game than USA.
Good job, stu, as always. You planning on turkey in Vegas next year?
[Edit -- I wonder how much the drop in missed shots, by both teams, was due to the table.]
Yes, I meant Thorpe's first open shot.
As for the TPA's, while they can give a sense of performance, they're far less meaningful when the event is played on a table having such huge pockets. No matter what Team Europe's TPA was, they were off in both offense and tactical play. No stats I could see would lead me to believe otherwise. I'll bet Team Europe's TPA was higher than last year, but their shooting was definitely not as straight.
TPA measures offense only, and if you looked at the TPA's alone, you'd think that the players at the 2018 Mosconi shot the lights out .... and you'd be wrong. These were the easiest conditions I've ever seen at a major pro event. For both sides, numerous balls not struck especially well were dropping and minor errors in position play could be more easily erased by the pocketing of some shots that would usually be considered chancy.
I'm already leaning no for the Mosconi in 2019. Having it on Thanksgiving is a pretty big problem. If the final day of the 2019 Mosconi is, as some have indicated, on Thanksgiving itself, I likely won't even watch.
I am thankful that the U.S. pulled it out. I was against Styer being on the Team, but he played well, and
they wouldn't have won this year, without his performance. I'll trust Johann, next time, but I believe jeremy
Jones made as much of a difference as Johann. I think Europe made a mistake by playing Kazakis in the
last match! I thought they would surely play Ouschan, Shaw, or Feijen against Van Boening, which to me,
cost them the Title. We know that any of these Players are capable of running out, or winning a Race to
Five Games. Experience, or the lack of it in Big, Pressure-filled games, and sheer experience seem to be
the key. Of course, you've just got to execute, and to me, Styer had a few lucky rolls, but I don't want to
take anything from him, because he played well. Europe has so many Stone-Cold Killers that weren't even
on the Team this year, that I worry about them now, as much as ever. Let's just enjoy this well-earned
Victory, for now, they deserve it, and the praise.
they wouldn't have won this year, without his performance. I'll trust Johann, next time, but I believe jeremy
Jones made as much of a difference as Johann. I think Europe made a mistake by playing Kazakis in the
last match! I thought they would surely play Ouschan, Shaw, or Feijen against Van Boening, which to me,
cost them the Title. We know that any of these Players are capable of running out, or winning a Race to
Five Games. Experience, or the lack of it in Big, Pressure-filled games, and sheer experience seem to be
the key. Of course, you've just got to execute, and to me, Styer had a few lucky rolls, but I don't want to
take anything from him, because he played well. Europe has so many Stone-Cold Killers that weren't even
on the Team this year, that I worry about them now, as much as ever. Let's just enjoy this well-earned
Victory, for now, they deserve it, and the praise.
A well reasoned post, but it's worth noting that the captain of the team trailing entering the play of Day 4 has, seemingly, always led off the final Mosconi session with his team's best players. If you lead off with your weaker players, you may not even reach the matches in which you play your best ones. The logic here is certainly arguable, but this is how coaches in the past have sized things up.
In the end, to win 11-10, Europe had to win Day 4 by five matches to one, so no matter what the lineup was, Europe was going to have to get solid efforts from just about everybody, not just its best two.
Last edited: