Who will be ready to play the same game with Shane now?
- Thread starter beetle
- Start date
Not when they find out his BNR ratio.
I'd like to see Filler, Wu, both Ko's, and Change against Shane. I don't think anyone else has a chance. No Filipino today can beat Shane. Busty was the last one who did 10 years ago. No European can beat him, Shane bbq'd Shaw. The only European that is an unknown is Filler. From mainland China, only Wu is an unknown. That leave the Taiwanese (which Wu is originally...).
If I were Shane, I'd go to Taiwan for 2 months. Practice straight for the first month, and get time zone adjusted. Then, one month in, play Chang, Ko, Ko, races to 100 every week. Then go to China, and play Wu.
Of course, I'm just an armchair quarterback:grin-square::grin-square:
Of course, I'm just an armchair quarterback:grin-square::grin-square:
If I'm Shane, I'd stick with the LONG races.
Short races let people catch up if you stumble. You can come out ahead in games over the course of a few short sets, yet come out loser overall.
Shane has a winning gig going.
Why should he change it?
For the fans?
I think he'd rather stick with what's putting money in his wallet.
The commentators in this match said Shane was up 21 games on Shaw and Shaw came back to tie or take the lead (not sure which they said0. What was the final margin for that one? More or less than this one (+35)?
I agree.
It's easy for people to say they dont like long races. Why? Well, very few on the planet are gonna look at 100+ race as short.
But, if you are capable of putting 5,6,7+ packs together every few trips to table....lol.... well, that 100+ race all of a sudden looks MUCH shorter.
Remember people, we see things from "our" perspective. We (99.9% of the planet) can't do what SVB is capable of doing therefore, we won't have the same thought process.
Trying to do so is like someone having "little-man" syndrome.
Jeff
It's strange. In the 60s and 70s legends were told about 10 ahead sessions that lasted for days, and it was considered a badge of pride to play long sessions. Gambling was where the top players really earned their status.
Now many players look down at gambling and long sessions, saying that tournaments are all that matter and dismissing SVB as a gimmick player because he has a poor Mosconi cup track record.
SVB is a hybrid. He can gamble and play long sessions, and he has an impressive tournament track record as well. His rating has been in the top 3 for the last 12 years for a reason.
Yes, Filler, Wu, and Change could all give him a run for his money. And yes, he'd better be in top form if he wants to get even his share of tournaments these days with another 10-15 players that are nipping at his heels, young and hungry.
But pay the man some respect. He is a heck of a player.
Now many players look down at gambling and long sessions, saying that tournaments are all that matter and dismissing SVB as a gimmick player because he has a poor Mosconi cup track record.
SVB is a hybrid. He can gamble and play long sessions, and he has an impressive tournament track record as well. His rating has been in the top 3 for the last 12 years for a reason.
Yes, Filler, Wu, and Change could all give him a run for his money. And yes, he'd better be in top form if he wants to get even his share of tournaments these days with another 10-15 players that are nipping at his heels, young and hungry.
But pay the man some respect. He is a heck of a player.
i would add kaci to that list, and maybe kevin cheng
Well said!!!!
I get sick and tired of hearing people yap, yap yap about how boring it is to watch someone run rack after rack.....
LOLLOLOLOL
I say: read that again and again until "running rack after rack" is seen for what it truly is.
It's the sign of a true champion.
As for me, well, I will never get tired of watching SVB run packs. As a matter of fact, I enjoy watching ANYONE runs racks.
To go a little further:
All this horse crap is like people that say 14.1 is boring. We know why they think it's boring. It's because they don't know what their watching.
14.1 players like John Schmidt for example, can be watched and looked at as boring as hell OR a person can really pay attention and learn something IF they know what to look for.
Same thing with players like SVB. Watching him move around the table playing 10 ball is about like watching a HIGHLY skilled 14.1 player run big numbers.
How ANYONE cqn say ^^^^^^^^^ is boring and then say they love the games or are students of the game is beyond me.
Jeff
Yes, several players are "capable" of frequent large packages, but it rarely happens. In this SVB/Orcollo match, the largest package was 3.
Yep, I watched every second of it.
But, we agree he is extremely capable of putting 5 to 7 packs together at any time. And IMO, he's more out to put big packs together in longer races.
I watched Buddy Hall play an 8 ahead set and he was down 6 and ended up running out to 8 ahead several years ago at JOBS.
That was one of the most memorable matches I've ever watched. The match took over two days and I slept in my car for a hour or two so I wouldn't miss any of it.
Jeff
In Shane's first US Open year, 2003, I watched him play Marco Marquez 8 ahead for his apparently standard bet back then, $2,000. He broke and ran 5, and won the next two to get on the hill. Marco got one back, and then Shane won the next two to win the set. It took only a little over an hour, since Shane was mostly playing 6-ball after the break.
What was weird was that Keith McCready beat him that year in that Open in their winner's side match without ever making a ball on the break.
I didn't get to see either of those matches.
It's funny how some matches take hours and hours or even days to play then, the same two players play the same type set later on in a very short time.
It happens. More often than most think. Especially in gambling sessions, where the cheese is up for grabs on "that" set and not "x" sets later even if you get put on losers side.
Gambling is a whole nother mind set for most. I guess it was why some really great players preferred private matches back in the day...or at least that was one of the reasons.
Jeff
Take away the rule "rack your own / no checking of the racks" and you will see that Shane may refuse to get in the box with many of the elite players.
How much would Shane's "Successful breaks" percentage go down if he was not racking for himself?
Take away the rule "rack your own / no checking of the racks" and you will see that Shane may refuse to get in the box with many of the elite players.
How much would Shane's "Successful breaks" percentage go down if he was not racking for himself?
You keep ignoring the fact that NO ONE is going to play for 100k without it being rack your own.
These guys all know the same tricks. Shane just hits the rack better.
Get over it.