PDA

View Full Version : Win by two at the Open-- thoughts?



Soflasnapper
10-25-2010, 05:40 PM
I'm not sure what I think about Barry's new rule, that all the matches played on the final day require winning by two games.

It came up immediately in the Corey/Kiamco match, although it might not have, since Corey had 10-9 and the break, but scratched (if I'm remembering that right).

It definitely takes away the do or die aspect of the hill-hill game, which might be a negative. It gives you a potential for SEVERAL do or die games (whenever either player has the add-in situation), which might be a plus.

What do you think? In particular, how it worked out in this case, and more generally?

dg-in-centralpa
10-26-2010, 06:57 AM
I wasn't overly fond of it. If it's a race to 13, as the finals were, then it should be 13. Appleton got to 13 first and should have won right then. Barry's thoughts about being on the hill and having the guy break and run to win the tournament not being fair to the person sitting. Corey ran the last 3 racks against Mika to win, this could have happened against Darren as well with the score 13-12.

Duane

Brian in VA
10-26-2010, 07:19 AM
I can argue either side equally well!

Having to win by two could mean a real nail-biter as we saw in the finals. That added a level of excitement to it that wasn't there before!

On the downside, if I know I've got to get to a certain number and then get there and still lose, I'm not too keen about that kind of a system.

It could mean a ridiculously long session with 2 evenly matched players. Would Barry really want to have a match like they had at Wimbledon this year that took 2 days to complete?

I wonder what the players think about it?

Brian in VA

Rich R.
10-26-2010, 07:23 AM
At first, I didn't think I would like it but after thinking about it for a while, I think it is a good thing. It takes the luck factor out of winning the finals. At hill-hill, a lucky break or an early combination won't win the match.
On the other hand, a "race" to 13, or whatever, should be a race and the first one there should win.

The only real down side I can see is that it is possible to have a real marathon before a player gets two ahead in a very close match.

10-26-2010, 09:15 AM
Like others have said, I think there can be pros and cons to both sides of the coin.

The good part is that whoever loses, got beat by 2 straight games (if it goes hill/hill). A 9 on the break, at hill/hill, isn't so devastating.

The down side is that it could turn into a long, drawn out match. Win by 2 can potentially add an extra hour or so to the match (I don't think 1-2 hours longer is that much of a stretch).


Eric >on the fence

Soflasnapper
10-26-2010, 11:19 AM
My main concern isn't fairness to the players. Probably the win by two is as fair, or more fair, since it takes out the random scratch or 9 on the break on the hill-hill as the deciding factor in a very close match. Yes, it's possible to get to 13 first and still not win, but that's sorta the case when the finals was extended from 11 to 13-- a player could get to 11 first, and that used to be the win, and then still be 2 games from winning.

I'm more concerned about a) the unlimited time that's possible, and b) how that impacts the starting time of the finals, and a possible lack of re-prep or recovery down time for the winner of the losers' side.

And that's what happened in Corey's case. Since his match went to 14-12 before ending, there was barely an hour before the beginning of the finals, and that seems a bit unfair compared to how it would have been prior to this rule change.

Still, although it didn't necessarily have to come up at all, it did come up twice, both in Corey's loser side match and in the final match, with exciting results. For this tourney, I'd say the results were fine, but I worry about even more extended 'overtime' matches.

And did it come up when Corey took that 3-9 or whatever combo it was to end his match with Kiamco? I thought it was not the right shot, but that maybe some impatience came into play there.

Fran Crimi
10-26-2010, 01:10 PM
I'm against it. If the race is 13, then the first one to reach 13 should be declared the winner, and the loser needs to get a grip and accept the loss with good sportsmanship. I'd bet the odds that this win by 2 game concept (like some tennis matches) was probably instigated by one or more players who got some unlucky rolls at the wrong time and managed to influence Barry.

Rich R.
10-26-2010, 04:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm against it. If the race is 13, then the first one to reach 13 should be declared the winner, and the loser needs to get a grip and accept the loss with good sportsmanship. I'd bet the odds that this win by 2 game concept (like some tennis matches) was probably instigated by one or more players who got some unlucky rolls at the wrong time and managed to influence Barry. </div></div>
Barry implied that the "win by two" suggestion came from Jay Helfert.

Fran Crimi
10-26-2010, 05:32 PM
Jay and who else? Guaranteed it's not just Jay.

Soflasnapper
10-26-2010, 05:35 PM
Was it publicly announced prior to the event, or only after things got going? I heard of it fairly late myself (like Thursday or Friday) but I'm not hooked in like some are.