SVB Get's Bad Rap Not Winning Worlds
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
Yep, I'm just like you. When it's your turn I'll be standing still on the sidelines, just watching you shoot. And I won't be talking to anyone either when you're shooting. I'm not one of those guys who runs around the table to see if you're hooked. It really doesn't matter to me since it's still your turn to shoot. To me that's an amateur move.
Brent, I'll take Lee Vann, Dennis, Wu and Shane and you've got the field for 100. A little sweat bet
Brent, I'll take Lee Vann, Dennis, Wu and Shane and you've got the field for 100. A little sweat bet
Nah. I'm pullin for Dennis, can't do that.
It was Cardiff. I was there that year.
It was notable in that it was the first year that Darren Appleton played in it - coming through qualifying school. Chris Melling also qualified through qualifying school that year too plus another unknown (on here) English pool player, Phil Harrison..
My editor and I went to interview Steve Davis for a UK website. After the interview we popped up to the press room to see Luke Richie (matchroom press officer) and get up to date with events and happened to notice a beer fridge stacked top to bottom with the primary sponsors beers. Some weird and unusual brand as I recall, plus a load of crates stacked next too.
"Help yourself guys, it's all freebies"
About three hours later, the entire press team and us were completely bollocksed. We wandered down to the arena, which was closed to the public by then and watched the great Efren Reyes beat someone (I cannot recall) for £1,000 at one pocket.
Serious hangover the next morning.
IIRC, Chris Melling got through to the semi finals that year..
EDIT - was not correct on Melling, he got to 9th in the 2001 event:
http://www.csns.ca/Charts/WPC01F64.pdf
Was correct on Appleton though:
http://www.csns.ca/Charts/WPC02F64.pdf
I claim a free bun please!
Last edited:
Nope, not that simple.
'Best' doesn't mean shane beats every other player 100% of the time.
'Best' means shane beats them more than 50% of the time.
You can look at individual games, or short sets, or long sets.
But no matter how you package the race, there is always a chance the weaker player can win.
It might surprise you how big that chance is, and how little the race length affects it.
Let's say Shane has a 2% edge on Alex in 10b (they're tied 1-1 in TAR races to 100).
If they played a bunch of races to 11, shane would win 57% of them. Alex would still win 43% of them.
"OK so that race is too short. But if we lengthen the race then the better player should definitely win".
Surprisingly, if you lengthen the race all the way to 100, Shane's odds jump to 71%.
But alex still gets there 29% of the time.
So, even lengthening the set to 100 isn't enough to DEFINITIVELY answer who is best,
and no multi-player tournament can do race to 100 realistically anyway.
So in that sense you're right: alternate break easy-9-ball-break doesn't absolutely prove who's best.
Neither does race to 100 with no magic rack and 10 ball.
Neither does a 10 foot table, 4 inch pockets, and so on.
Tournaments cannot definitively prove who is best, unless you want to do race to 1000 or something
and have it last a full year. All they can prove is who's playing best THAT DAY.
And to fairly prove that, both players must get chances.
Each player getting 10 breaks, and a fairly predictable ball on the break, fits the bill.
Brent, I'll take Lee Vann, Dennis, Wu and Shane and you've got the field for 100. A little sweat bet
I'll take that bet now
(I'm surprised that none of the 4 Jay picked made the quarter finals)
That kind of proves my point that the sets are not properly showing who the best player is enough. If the best player is only seeing a 60/40 win percentage against a weaker opponent in a tournament format then that sport needs to adjust things. Federer against the 20'th best tennis player in the world when he was in his prime was a very strong favorite to win that match, not 60/40, more like 90/10, and that is how it should be.
Pool needs to fix things so that it is 90/10, not 60/40. They can do it many different ways and likely the correct path would be a blend of tougher equipment and adjusting the sets to best of 3 sets race to 9/win by two in each set or something like that.
If the tournaments are not allowing the best player to prevail in their matches against weaker players the vast majority of the time then the tournament format is broken. It IS that simple.
Me too. There are people who think matches would go too long due to prolonged tie breakers but the rare moments you get those long grueling alternate break battles where people are trying to hold serve (their break) in order to stay alive the excitement the audience would have would be higher then at any other moment in a match. The tie breakers in tennis are win by 2 and they are intense, the tie breakers in golf can go many many holes but there is never a dull moment watching two pro golfers playing heads up sudden death golf trying to win that skin that wins the tournament.
That should IMO be one of the first changes done to pool and TBH it would be very easy to implement and anyone thinking of running a pro event should seriously consider switching over to doing that from now on as a start to fixing some of the many things broken in professional pool.
and you could then get rid of the round robin and just go single elimination right from the get go. Seed the event if possible too.
Ultimately that is exactly the direction I would take if I were in charge. The seeding would require a proper tour and professional player status (Q School) to materialize.
You're talking #1 vs. #20, but shane vs. alex is more like #1 vs #2/#3.
But anyway, I get what you're saying. You'd like to see the better player come out on top 90%
of the time, if possible.
My point is, due to the funny nature of pool (one player often doesn't get to play), that's just not realistic.
Say we changed the tables and pockets to 10' and 4", and that gives one player a 55/45 edge,
where before he was 2% the underdog.
In a race to 11 we're still at 70/30.
To reach 90/10 we'd need like a race to 80. It's just not realistic.
No point in going nuts on the equipment when it barely changes anything.
This is just the nature of tournaments: They must be kept short, and short = less fair for the better player.
Goes down in history? I would way rather win the us open vs the world championships. The us open i saw on espn as a kid and I never even heard of the wpc til about 10 years ago. I've never seen the wpc on tv in my life. I don't know about other countries. So I think anyone who wins the us open twice is gonna be remembered. Lol
Like I said Donny you are smarter then you look
Yes
and I believe that most American pro players fall short on the world stage because of a lack of discipline. Pool is a sport, and to play a sport well, you have to pattern your whole life around it. You have to eat right, not drink too much, get your rest, stay in good physical shape and strong, and train, train, and train, and stay focused on your goals.
I can see the difference everytime an European pro plays an American pro.
and I believe that most American pro players fall short on the world stage because of a lack of discipline. Pool is a sport, and to play a sport well, you have to pattern your whole life around it. You have to eat right, not drink too much, get your rest, stay in good physical shape and strong, and train, train, and train, and stay focused on your goals.
I can see the difference everytime an European pro plays an American pro.
Yes, the Predator World 10-Ball Championship, 2007.
Shane is more disciplined than maybe anybody in pool and many other sports.He knows its a grind.There is no question in Shanes mind that doing what he is doing is exactly the way it is supposed to be.His handicap is not a burden,it is a gift.Talent can be defined in many ways and Shanes may be that he can remain comfortable at a table for long periods of time tinkering with many aspects of the game.
Shane is not interested in groups of people making conversation,he'll twiddell his thumbs for a while but he is way more comfortable at a table and will bolt.He will leave this tournament,get some feedback from family and friends, break everything down and apply them to his game and move on.
Last edited:
By mentioning Hendry's name you have answered your own point. If Hendry had never won a world title and was simply "the best snooker player over really really long matches and/or for money" you would likely have never heard of him and never used him as an example.
World Champion is World Champion, be it whatever the distance, whatever the sport and whatever the strength of the field..