World Cup of Pool 2017 (13-18June2017), London /Scotch Doubles 9 Ball
- Thread starter spartan
- Start date
It was genuinely nice to Shane and Sky get along so well on the table together.
Against the Taiwanese there was a lot of smiles and high-fives and I think this a great sign for the future.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Against the Taiwanese there was a lot of smiles and high-fives and I think this a great sign for the future.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
JC
Coos Cues
I bet Sky would like to have a mulligan on that BIH on the 1 ball in rack 12. Leading 6-5 aggressive offense seemed like the right play but that's looking pretty risky now. There were many tight safety strategies available with that layout in hindsight.
Who would have thought that would be the last time at the table for USA? Hadn't seen a package like that from Austria all tournament. They really rose to the occasion and took it home.
JC
Who would have thought that would be the last time at the table for USA? Hadn't seen a package like that from Austria all tournament. They really rose to the occasion and took it home.
JC
Yup, two critical mistakes there by USA. First, Skyler leaving Shane hooked, and then Shane fouling on the fairly easy kick after wasting a lot of time and then having to rush the shot (because they had already used their extension on the prior shot).
USA got to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 first, but then lost that critical Game 12 and could only watch as Austria finished them off with a B&R 4-pack.
A few stats from the USA's 5 World Cup of Pool matches.
Made at least one ball on the break:
• USA -- 92% (34 of 37)
• Opponents -- 100% (24 of 24)
• Combined -- 95% (58 of 61)
Broke successfully (made at least one ball and did not foul):
• USA -- 89% (33 of 37)
• Opponents -- 83% (20 of 24)
• Combined -- 87% (53 of 61)
Breaker's side won game:
• USA -- 70% (26 of 37)
• Opponents -- 50% (12 of 24)
• Combined -- 62% (38 of 61)
Break-and-run games, on all breaks:
• USA -- 35% (13 of 37)
• Opponents -- 29% (7 of 24)
• Combined -- 33% (20 of 61)
Break-and-run games, on successful breaks:
• USA -- 39% (13 of 33)
• Opponents -- 35% (7 of 20)
• Combined -- 38% (20 of 53)
In the finals, B&R's numbered 6 for Austria and only 1 for USA. So prior to that match the counts were 12 for USA and only 1 for the opponents through 4 matches.
[Note -- I did not view the last 2 games of the USA/Finland match, but I assumed they were B&R's for USA based on a news release from Matchroom Sport.]
Made at least one ball on the break:
• USA -- 92% (34 of 37)
• Opponents -- 100% (24 of 24)
• Combined -- 95% (58 of 61)
Broke successfully (made at least one ball and did not foul):
• USA -- 89% (33 of 37)
• Opponents -- 83% (20 of 24)
• Combined -- 87% (53 of 61)
Breaker's side won game:
• USA -- 70% (26 of 37)
• Opponents -- 50% (12 of 24)
• Combined -- 62% (38 of 61)
Break-and-run games, on all breaks:
• USA -- 35% (13 of 37)
• Opponents -- 29% (7 of 24)
• Combined -- 33% (20 of 61)
Break-and-run games, on successful breaks:
• USA -- 39% (13 of 33)
• Opponents -- 35% (7 of 20)
• Combined -- 38% (20 of 53)
In the finals, B&R's numbered 6 for Austria and only 1 for USA. So prior to that match the counts were 12 for USA and only 1 for the opponents through 4 matches.
[Note -- I did not view the last 2 games of the USA/Finland match, but I assumed they were B&R's for USA based on a news release from Matchroom Sport.]
Couldn't agree more. They had just been gifted rack 11 after Mario's shot he should have never missed seizing momentum in the match. Then Shane plays a brilliant safety to open rack 12 resulting in ball in hand. I was immediately thinking 1 more great safe, open up the 3 at the same time and USA would have been off and running towards the finish line. Instead, we gave them rack 12 along with all the momentum we had and Austria took it and ran. Congrats to them. Congrats to Team USA on a good run as well
I agree. And in this event, ¾ of the teams (24 of 32) were eliminated with a race to just 7.
But, hey, it's a made-for-broadcast event, and Matchroom knows best what works for their bottom line. Do the short races with winner breaks create excitement? Only 4 of the 24 races to 7 went hill/hill, none did after that. In 5 of the 6 quarterfinal and semifinal races to 9 the loser won 4 or fewer games.
[But, at least, the potential was there for a big package to overcome a deficit.]
Last edited:
Lets compare.
Winner breaks: lots of boring blow outs with the occasional close exciting match.
Alternate breaks: lots of close exciting matches with the occasional boring blowout.
Seems like a no brainer but plenty of other people seem to like the boring blow outs for some reason. Another bonus for alternate breaks is that it puts a lot more pressure on both teams and more pressure adds to the excitement.
Last edited:
In my opinion, it does create excitement as losing a turn on the table can suddenly change everything in a hurry.
For example, USA vs. Finland QF match where USA was down 2-4 and FInland played what appeared to be decent safely (with one ball visible). SVB made a great bank on 1 to start the rack and USA ended up 9-4 win (Finland didn't get back on the table until it was 6-4 USA). This can only happen in winner break.
And at least on QF and up, the race was increased from 7 to 9 (with final a race to 10). And, I love the additional pressure of single elimination format.
There is no question that it creates exciting moments like these. What people conveniently forget about is all the lopsided boring matches that it creates as well. Is it worth having to fade all the additional boring matches that aren't close just for those occasional really exciting ones? Some say yes, some say no, but I think many more would say no after alternate breaks became more mainstream and they got more used to the idea.
Personally I think people are mostly just stuck on winner breaks because that is what they are used to and that if all events exclusively used alternate breaks for a couple of years the majority probably would not want to go back to winner breaks. There is just too many more exciting matches with alternate breaks, and you will still have the big come backs that create those extra exciting moments on occasion under that format too.
Another thing I think people conveniently fail to think about is that every popular sport in the world that I can think of has rules in place designed to ensure that both sides get about equal opportunities to score. Do basketball, and football, and soccer, and baseball, and hockey, and tennis, and volleyball and literally just about every other single popular sport have it all wrong and pool is the only one that has it right?
I mean when the Lakers shoot a basket, they should get possession again right? That way you might get to see the Lakers score ten or more baskets in a row before the other team even gets to touch the ball. What a game changer that could be. How exciting right? When the 49'ers score a touchdown, they should receive the next kickoff right? That way when someone fails to score it could be a real game changer. You might get to see the 49'ers score seven touchdowns in a row before the other team even gets possession of the ball. How exciting huh? The only reason people prefer winner breaks in pool is because that is what they are so used to that it is the only way they can think of pool. Once they got used to alternate breaks in pool they would prefer it just the same way that they prefer alternate scoring attempts in every other sport on on earth--because it is a superior format in a number of ways.
And I can't think of another sport in which you can lose without ever participating. [If the match starts with a coin flip.]
Also, some people prefer winner breaks because they like to see B&R packages. However, with alternating breaks we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks. I call these "alternate-break packages" in my stats threads. Or, we can look at the "packages" created by a string of B&R's from both players.
Not every contest trades turns...and IMO boxing and 9-ball are war games.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...VI1lAJSMKxG1OrLzg&sig2=dC48LJADM_74pWcl3Gayrg
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...VI1lAJSMKxG1OrLzg&sig2=dC48LJADM_74pWcl3Gayrg
Boxing is no exception. It also has rules in place to allow both sides about equal opportunities to score just like about every other major and popular sport on earth. The way boxing does it is that both sides are always participating at all times, and both sides are always allowed to be offensive at all times. Boxing is equal in the available opportunities for scoring just like every other sport on earth...except for winner breaks pool. But pool is the only one that has it right, right? All the other sports on earth are obviously just idiots doing it all wrong with their alternate but equal scoring opportunities and that's why all those other sports don't have any fans and why everybody hates all those other sports right? Or could it be that pool is the lone idiot hold out that has it wrong?
On a side note, as far as the "like to see packages" argument that you usually see for winner breaks, if packages are so great why isn't everyone begging football and basketball to change the rules to allow the scoring team receive the ball again so that the fans can see those wonderful packages that are so great that you can't do without them? A, because they know that format is dumb for a number of reasons, and B, because they still get to see the same packages, its just that they are broken up by the opponents attempts but the packages are still there so they aren't even losing out on the packages to begin with. People don't like alternate breaks for pool simply because it isn't what they are used to but once they got used to it most would prefer it just like they prefer it with every other sport on earth.