This was the first major of the third year of the Matchroom Tour, so 9 on the spot is not deeply embedded in the game's history.
Yes, at both the Mosconi Cup and the World Pool Masters, 9 on the spot was used to mirror conditions used on Euro-tour.
UK Too Slow
- Thread starter Island Drive
- Start date
Yes, at both the Mosconi Cup and the World Pool Masters, 9 on the spot was used to mirror conditions used on Euro-tour.
I wasn’t really referring to just MR events Stu, sorry for any confusion. The move of the 9 to the spot experiment started long ago in US Open events before moving back to the 1 on the spot in 2006 I believe it was, whichever year it was that the Open went to the Club Rack as the rack for the event. I believe the reason Barry cited for going back to the 1 on the spot,after several years of 9 on the spot was the predictability of the break shot.
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification.
I know, but that doesn’t address the performance gap. I was just referring to matchroom and using fair comparables to ensure similar set ups, environments and playing levels. I could have pulled from other events that were closer to 19%. I’ve never seen a 40% BnR stat for a 9 on the spot in event.
My point in all of it is the 9 OTS experiment is nothing new. Experimentation started over 20 years ago and has been fairly common for almost 10 years in several events. Bottom line is it never solved anything as the players just went to a cut break and BNR % on avg. was at 25-30%.
I commented on this as it seemed your assertion from the initial post of yours I quoted, was that you felt it was the reason for the dismal BNR % in the UK Open instead of the change in pocket size when the pocket size clearly seems to be the culprit.
they went to 9 on the spot again. when shane won his last US open it was 9 on the spot, template, three point rule and break box
They went back and forth a few times, 9 on spot in early 2000’s for several years, then back to 1 on spot in 2006 I believe and then back to 9 on spot again in 2014-2015 I believe.
It’s really all kind of silly as while the wing ball is automatic with 1 on the spot, it still is almost automatic, along with 1 in side with 9 on spot using cut break. Changing it never really solved anything.
Many then suggested 10 ball, but high level players have several breaks for that as well with either of two balls or both balls behind the one going in the side and the 1 ball dressing up by the corner, or the 4 railers in the corner depending on how it’s breaking on a given day.
At the end of the day it seems the choice is to take the pockets to 4 1/8” which toughens it up but still allows 9 ball to be played in a recognizable fashion, or if everyone thinks that’s too easy, then just go to 15 ball rotation instead.
Or do a six ball rack.... then place three balls in line with the head ball on the rack bottom.
Last edited:
Playing correctly isn’t exciting. Pool isn’t a spectator sport. I suggest you watch hockey instead.
Given time, someone will solve that puzzle too!
To me, the break has never been the problem. IMHO, the only way to make the game of pool not look too easy for the pros is to tighten the pockets, lengthen the shelves, or make the facing angles tougher.
I cannot tell you how many times in a professional match I've seen a ball shot down table, make contact with the rail between the middle diamond and the diamond close to the corner pocket and still go in. Pro pool shouldn't look like it's being played on a Valley table.
I have no opinion on what the pocket specs should be on a table at a professional tournament. I'll leave that one to somebody with more knowledge. I do, however, think that the players input should be taken into consideration.
Thx.......
When you've beaten Strickland 4 sets of 9 ball race to 11 $500 a set.... then I'll listen to your negative comments...otherwise, I'll stick to my own observations and personal experiences.
bm
You do realize what this means?
1. As long as the sport has no excitement to spectators, nobody will watch it.
2. If nobody watches it, there will be no incentive for sponsors to put money into it.
3. If there are no sponsors, price funds will be slashed and venues/equipment will be downgraded.
4. If there are no good prices and inconsistent venues and equipment, recruitment to the sport will diminish.
5. Diminshing recruitment will lead to a death spiral for the sport.
6. Pool will become an amateur only sport, played by older and older, fewer and fewer players.
Personally, I don't think pool becoming an amateur sport is necessarily the worst thing in the world, if it means that the sport is at least preserved. What I DON'T want is for the sport to become bastardized into a second rate snooker wannabe, and THEN having it become amateur dominated. At least preserve the unique features of the sport. These pockets are KILLING the game, making it boring and unwatchable, even to people who love it.
Agree 100%. that guy's a tech obsessed geek who cares only for his gadgets. i keep him on ignore.
Point taken. I have a little more to say about perceived difficulty vs spectatorship but that is a pretty good response. Fair.
L.S. Dennis
Well-known member
A strictly enforced 25 second shot clock, and finally standardize the pocket size of all events. Possibly 4.5" pockets would be a good size to bring excitement back into the game. Pool as it's become is simply unwatchable even for us pool nuts! Nine ball was meant to be a fast and loose game for television, it's become anything but!
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
I actually don't see what the fuss is about... 4" is harder, yes, marginally for someone who would consider themselves capable at playing. As it is new, and as such, fresh in the minds of players, there's naturally new pressures in tournament environment that wouldn't otherwise be there. This will be adapted to and overcome when the game is standardized for a length of time that has allowed for adjustment.
I know the attitude of the average player where I am is probably very different to the US, more akin to Central Europe in its perception of pool as a sport, or something that is for people wanting to take seriously when playing, as opposed to bashing balls around a table. But I really fail to see how it could be described as 'ruining the game' - I think the game will adjust, and aggressive play won't be lost... I think players will adjust. I posted in another thread about the adjustment/renovation of the biggest American tabled halls here, switching to Rasson table (4.125" majority and 4" matchplay/TV tables)
I think slightly longer races, and therefore more opportunity to see games swing in the balance, would encourage players to take those risks that they won't when they know they're done for if they bottle a shot on tables with smaller pockets. I also agree that enforcing shot clocks earlier in the events would be beneficial.
Standardisation, and adjustment to that standardization is required.
Last edited:
If pool is becoming unwatchable with excessively tight tables, MR will adjust. Not worried about that. They need eyeballs.
Not sure I am in favor of longer races. For TV purposes, matches should rarely exceed two hours. Pool can't get away with tennis-style marathon matches and retain a crowd.
I'd rather see shorter matches with alternate break than longer ones with winner breaks. What if a player goes up 8-1? Rest of the match is likely to be a drag.
The other approach that I am warming up to is Predator's use of sets. Two of of three sets with races to five. Or three out of five sets with races to four. Not shot tiebreakers.
Ouschan said the benefit of a sets format is that it gives a player a chance to recover if his opponent jumps out to a big early lead. Once someone has a big lead they almost always win. Sets makes and keeps a match more competitive, especially with winner breaks.
Not sure I am in favor of longer races. For TV purposes, matches should rarely exceed two hours. Pool can't get away with tennis-style marathon matches and retain a crowd.
I'd rather see shorter matches with alternate break than longer ones with winner breaks. What if a player goes up 8-1? Rest of the match is likely to be a drag.
The other approach that I am warming up to is Predator's use of sets. Two of of three sets with races to five. Or three out of five sets with races to four. Not shot tiebreakers.
Ouschan said the benefit of a sets format is that it gives a player a chance to recover if his opponent jumps out to a big early lead. Once someone has a big lead they almost always win. Sets makes and keeps a match more competitive, especially with winner breaks.
I like the idea of a 25 second clock if the larger (4.25" to 4.50") pockets are used. The players are simply going to miss more shots from NOT being able to walk around the table 3 or 4 times and getting up and down on the shot several times before pulling the trigger. This will turn the table over at least several more times in any given match. It will also make pool more watchable.
I like 25 second clock with 4.25" pockets. Just my opinion. But, geez louise, let's standardize SOMETHING!!!
Considering you can miss or make a ball by a few hair widths of distance, .1" is fairly large. 4.5 is probably the ideal pocket size for pool, MAYBE 4.25 at the pro tour. The only thing very tight pockets do is make it about impossible for all but 4-5 players to have any chance of finishing in the top 2 spots.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Amen,