World Cup Of Pool (9-14 May2021) $250K Prizemoney

tuffstuff07

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Crazy they are still having shot clock issues. Filler might have fired Daz up now

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk
 

Scratch85

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Kudos to Matchroom and all the players involved in this World Cup! I found it very entertaining.
 
  • Love
Reactions: sjm

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Kudos to Matchroom and all the players involved in this World Cup! I found it very entertaining.
Agreed. The level of play may have been lower than we've ever seen at this event, but the drama was real and Matchroom provided many thrills.

Germany is the real story here, but I'll probably remember this WC of Pool as much for the cinderella run of the #32 seeded Slovakia, which tied for third place. Fantastic!
 

gxman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How much was first and second?

Matchroom is always good money. No entry and maybe travel expenses taken care of too.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Plenty of other balls slopped in in this event but nobody complains till the finals 🤔
Exactly right. Josh Filler's match at the 2020 DCC Bigfoot with Lee Van Corteza was, arguably, decided by two fluked ten balls by Lee in the last few racks. Perhaps the rolls that cost Josh back then were paid back in spades today by the pool gods. Credit to Filler for acknowledging his good luck today and showing great sportsmanship in apologizing to Appleton and Boyes in the post-match interview, but as Albin Ouschan noted, that's nine ball.

Call shot was a factor in the death of the straight pool era. I always hated having to listen to the referee announce the shot, sometimes failing to even hear it, and even then the referee rarely announced the pocket. As bad as that was, straight pool on television was even worse.

Snooker is not call shot, and sometimes wild things happen, but so what? Mark Selby had a major fluke in the semifinals of the World Snooker Championships near the end that largely spelt the end of Bingham's chance to advance to the final. Luck is a significant part of every sport worth watching, and it's part of what makes us watch. Good efforts are often penalized and bad efforts are rewarded in sports. Good efforts will, on average offer better results, and that's good enough for me.

As a fan, if I watch nine ball, I know the shooter's intent on every shot, specifically to hit the lowest numbered ball and pocket something or gain a defensive result. Nobody needs to explain or announce anything. Texas Express rules are very fan friendly, and in my opinion, ten ball will never replace nine ball as the primary tournament rotation game unless it drops the call shot requirement.

To loosely quote Irving Crane, "you may not get half the rolls today, but over a pool lifetime, you'll get half the rolls and that's good enough."

Of course, I do understand that any time popular players are the victims of bad luck, the forum will rise up in favor of call shot, but call shot just doesn't work when it comes to streamed or televised pool. .
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
So Koniar broke the first game and scratched, how is it okay that he just shot that kick on the two? Wouldn’t it be his partner’s shot?
I am guessing only breaks are rotated across racks. Other shots are rotated within each rack
spartan is correct. The non-breaking team could choose either player to take the first shot of the game for their team. It then alternated within that game. What you saw with Koniar shooting twice in a row for his team happened many times in these matches.
I think it was a mistake that didn’t get noticed. All the other matches the shots have been rotated. Guy who makes the 9 ball doesn’t break etc.
No, who broke the next game was not determined by who made the 9-ball. Breaks were alternated within each team. So if Joe and Sam were a team, and Sam made a 9-ball, the breaker for the next game was not necessarily Joe. It was Joe only if Sam was the most recent breaker for their team, no matter how many games ago that was.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Silver Member
spartan is correct. The non-breaking team could choose either player to take the first shot of the game for their team. It then alternated within that game. What you saw with Koniar shooting twice in a row for his team happened many times in these matches.

No, who broke the next game was not determined by who made the 9-ball. Breaks were alternated within each team. So if Joe and Sam were a team, and Sam made a 9-ball, the breaker for the next game was not necessarily Joe. It was Joe only if Sam was the most recent breaker for their team, no matter how many games ago that was.
I hope the players were not responsible (under penalty of a foul) for remembering who was supposed to break next.

There was a comment that Team X kept choosing Player Y to shoot the hard shots, which I didn't understand at the time. With the non-breaking team having the choice of order, I can see how that would be possible.
 
Top