World Pool Masters (22-25 May2021) Winner $25K

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
According to most of the (Brit) commentators, only a snooker background keeps your fundamentals solid. :rolleyes:

One thing that Chris Melling always says when he's commentating is "he missed because he jumped up on the shot," which I think is mostly not true. Of course you see causal players unable to deliver a straight stroke because they're doing all kinds of twists and turns while shooting, but at this level, jumping up is probably more of an effect than a cause of missing, IMO. It's a reaction to having a bad feeling about the shot and trying to steer or trying to "take it back" after you shoot.
 

Scrunge19

Registered
I’ve been enjoying having the players step into the booth to give their viewpoint on the matches. I’d rather they keep the commentary team limited to one of the players, Karl, and Allison and then just do away with Phil Yates. He is so obnoxious and brings very little to the broadcast that one of those other three people couldn’t do better.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One thing that Chris Melling always says when he's commentating is "he missed because he jumped up on the shot," which I think is mostly not true. Of course you see causal players unable to deliver a straight stroke because they're doing all kinds of twists and turns while shooting, but at this level, jumping up is probably more of an effect than a cause of missing, IMO. It's a reaction to having a bad feeling about the shot and trying to steer or trying to "take it back" after you shoot.

it's probably a bit of both. if your reaction theory would be 100% true we would see john higgins and neil robertson jump up on their missed shots. we don't.
 

SBC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The way everybody except Shane and Filler are playing makes me feel.like I could be number 3 in the world.

Everybody missing easy shots the past 2 days.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
it's probably a bit of both. if your reaction theory would be 100% true we would see john higgins and neil robertson jump up on their missed shots. we don't.
That's a good point. In snooker, whether they pot the ball or not they always freeze on the shot. In pool, there is a lot of flinching and movement. Eliminating that type of movement is the easiest way to reduce misses without actually changing anything in your fundamentals.
 

SBC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jesus Kaci still dogging...

Maybe an invitational even with only 2 favorites and no audience is hard to get motivated for.
 

Scrunge19

Registered
Agreed. The wild card is Kazakis. He's going to be on a mission to avenge that loss to Alcaide.
I think Kazakis could benefit from working with a sports psychologist. He does not have the confidence or killer mindset that the other top pros possess and it shows when he's at the table. Every match he plays is done so on the edge of a knife where he can either win or fall apart completely.
 

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
According to most of the (Brit) commentators, only a snooker background keeps your fundamentals solid. :rolleyes:

One thing that Chris Melling always says when he's commentating is "he missed because he jumped up on the shot," which I think is mostly not true. Of course you see causal players unable to deliver a straight stroke because they're doing all kinds of twists and turns while shooting, but at this level, jumping up is probably more of an effect than a cause of missing, IMO. It's a reaction to having a bad feeling about the shot and trying to steer or trying to "take it back" after you shoot.
You may technically be right but many players take your view one step further and think since the movement is an effect then it's really not as important as most of us think. The way I look at it is -- if you stay still -- you force your subconscious to experience the shot in it's totality. If you force yourself to experience your misses in stillness, you begin to miss less. Even at the top level, I know players who are not still, and you can almost see how they are giving themselves a free pass to miss by their body movement.

So for me, being still doesn't help me make the current shot as much as it prevents me from missing the next one.
 

SBC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Kazakis does all he can to make himself a nervous wreck. Shouldering every shot for the past few rack. Like he's praying the ball finds the hole.

2 hours and 10 minutes....just wow. Somebody always has to win a set.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
jesus christ, kazakis did not deserve to win that but still he won. complete wreck. kaci failed to punish him, played poor safeties, made poor shot selections. very weird match.
 

jasonlaus

Rep for Smorg
Gold Member
Silver Member
Kazakis does all he can to make himself a nervous wreck. Shouldering every shot for the past few rack. Like he's praying the ball finds the hole.

2 hours and 10 minutes....just wow. Somebody always has to win a set.
I watched a few racks, way to slow to watch it all
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
An interesting contrast in style in the Kaci/Kazakis match. Kaci was the straighter shooter, but showed far less tactical insights than Alex.

Kazakis was the better tactician in the first eight racks, but at 4-4 had nothing to show for it as Kaci outshot him a bit. Then the match got a little crazy.

Rack 9 was one of the wildest racks you'll ever watch. Kazakis broke a cardinal rule of tactical play that says that you should never push out into a two way shot. Kaci promptly knocked in the free shot offered but faltered on the runout. Kazakis froze himself to the seven and had to play safe, and Kaci was near the head rail facing a super-tough shot on the seven. I can't blame him for opting to play safe instead of going for it, but his object ball placement on the safety was very poorly considered, and it cost him the rack at a huge moment in the match.

In rack 10, Kaci went wrong again as he ducked the one ball and Kazakis made the shot, getting a terrible roll in the process, but staying in the safety battle with an exception distance-oriented kick. Kaci eventually beat Kazakis to the shot and made a nice bank shot to set up a possible runout., eventually cashing in a nice shot on the six-nine combo.

Rack 11 was one in which Kaci showed better tactical technique. Kazakis missed the seven, luckily leaving Kaci just a bank that I thought he'd play, but he opted for a safety. He missed what should have been a routine snooker, but this time, he did a nice job with the seven ball, staying in the safety battle. Kazakis ducked the seven superbly to the head rail, and Kaci bet the rack on the long bank, missing to fall behind 6-5.

Rack 12 also came down to tactics. Kazakis broke wet but was snookered. He pushed into a tricky safe, and Kaci, whose safety play had been letting him down time and time again, passed it back. Kazakis hit as pretty a safety as you could imagine, beating Kaci to the shot, but went wrong on the runout, so a match that looked over went to double hill.

In rack 13, Kaci was again called on to play a safe, and got it wrong on the two ball, but Kazakis missed his third ball in three racks. Kazakis won the match after Kaci failed on a bank after getting wrong on the three.

It's a match Kaci should have been able to win, but he lost it with poor tactical decision making and execution. Kaci has a far higher ceiling than Kazakis as a player, but I think Kaci should study this match, for as a tactician he needs a lot of development. Kazakis is very good at stealing a few extra good looks at the table, and once Kaci learns to do the same, he'll have a chance to win even the most difficult titles in pool. Otherwise, he will struggle to win the racks that must be fought hard for against the most elite players.

I see a lot of similarity between Kaci and James Aranas. They are two young and truly remarkable cueists who shoot so straight it's downright scary, but both must learn far better technique in beating opponents to the shot if they are to start winning in the game's biggest events. The potential is there in both cases, but they must add some skills to ever be counted among the game's top five.

Finally, I strongly disagree with Skogstokig. Kaci did not deserve to win that match. Too many errors in both conceptualization and execution down the stretch. He let several racks get away with poor judgment in some key spots.
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think the difference between Filler and SVB is that you can practically see the gears working in Shane's head before almost every shot.

Filler is just always on cruise control.

SVB 2
Filler 1
 
Top