tylerdurden
Verified Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,959
Let's just say for the sake of argument and discussion you are faced with an offensive shot you will make 40% of the time, and you are going to have to hit it pretty dang hard to execute it. At the same time, you do have some defensive opportunities, but they are not really going to be game openers or anything. Is it an easy choice? The point of this thread is I think we should be thinking about firing at this stuff more often. Let's go through some possible scenarios.
What if you fire this off angled shot in and run out behind it? Stuff like this can extend beyond being a game winner.... shots like this can turn into set winners by way of making your opponent shrivel.
You miss by 2 diamonds and leave the guy 4 hangers. Ok, this isn't so great of course, but I really think there is some things to discuss with this option. How do you think a guy feels when you are playing him and you just kinda shoot the most obvious shot percentage wise every time you get to the table, and you bunt every time you can. Guys get comfortable. It doesn't matter how good you are playing, you may be making him play his best pool as well via your shot selection. Shoot a very strong shot like this and it can make a guy think, no doubt.
I have seen some of the best players that ever lived kinda fly off the cuff and play like this quite often. I know people go bonkers over Ronnie's shot selection, but from what I saw he definitely was not always playing the percentages. I think he worked into his shot selection a certain, calculated percentage of "intimidaters" I'll call them. I would love to hear others comment on this because the only RA one pocket I have seen is the Golden 8 ball match with diliberto, so not much at all.
Another, and perhaps the prime, example.... and many here know I am a big big fan of the style and attitude he played with, Mark Tadd. I was lucky enough to see mark tadd play quite a bit. I swear to you, in the average match I would see him in with a very very good players, things would go back and forth... Mark would shoot a few fliers and miss them by 3 diamonds, then he would make one and run 3 racks off of it, and the other guy would get up there and crap all over the place and it was just a joke after that. And I know I used the number 40% above, but this guy would shoot at shots in important matches that were just so messed up, and he'd hit them a million miles an hour too. That reminds me, the added benefit also of the warp shots are you can get safe, luck in a ball, or any number of things.... the lucking in a ball factor does not come into play in one pocket very often of course. Sigel, imo, seemed to have the most sophisticated thinking when it came to when blast away shots were actual percentage shots.
Well, that is as wordy as I will be. Anybody think I have a point in there somewhere.... is the actual "wrong shot" the right shot sometimes? Do we think about things in terms of percentages too much? Is there not enough said about intimidating our opponents, and the fact that "normal" runouts and shots, even if executed again and again, are not really intimidating. Are there any percentages in "thoughtful recklessness?"
What if you fire this off angled shot in and run out behind it? Stuff like this can extend beyond being a game winner.... shots like this can turn into set winners by way of making your opponent shrivel.
You miss by 2 diamonds and leave the guy 4 hangers. Ok, this isn't so great of course, but I really think there is some things to discuss with this option. How do you think a guy feels when you are playing him and you just kinda shoot the most obvious shot percentage wise every time you get to the table, and you bunt every time you can. Guys get comfortable. It doesn't matter how good you are playing, you may be making him play his best pool as well via your shot selection. Shoot a very strong shot like this and it can make a guy think, no doubt.
I have seen some of the best players that ever lived kinda fly off the cuff and play like this quite often. I know people go bonkers over Ronnie's shot selection, but from what I saw he definitely was not always playing the percentages. I think he worked into his shot selection a certain, calculated percentage of "intimidaters" I'll call them. I would love to hear others comment on this because the only RA one pocket I have seen is the Golden 8 ball match with diliberto, so not much at all.
Another, and perhaps the prime, example.... and many here know I am a big big fan of the style and attitude he played with, Mark Tadd. I was lucky enough to see mark tadd play quite a bit. I swear to you, in the average match I would see him in with a very very good players, things would go back and forth... Mark would shoot a few fliers and miss them by 3 diamonds, then he would make one and run 3 racks off of it, and the other guy would get up there and crap all over the place and it was just a joke after that. And I know I used the number 40% above, but this guy would shoot at shots in important matches that were just so messed up, and he'd hit them a million miles an hour too. That reminds me, the added benefit also of the warp shots are you can get safe, luck in a ball, or any number of things.... the lucking in a ball factor does not come into play in one pocket very often of course. Sigel, imo, seemed to have the most sophisticated thinking when it came to when blast away shots were actual percentage shots.
Well, that is as wordy as I will be. Anybody think I have a point in there somewhere.... is the actual "wrong shot" the right shot sometimes? Do we think about things in terms of percentages too much? Is there not enough said about intimidating our opponents, and the fact that "normal" runouts and shots, even if executed again and again, are not really intimidating. Are there any percentages in "thoughtful recklessness?"
Last edited: