Reyes v Pagulayan
- Thread starter Miller
- Start date
Miller
Verified Member
efren cued the shot loaded up with inside and sent the cue ball over 22' to the foot rail - head rail - foot rail, thus getting perfect shape on his game ball, but he just didn't make it.
the two crossed for alex.
(honorable mention good eye to Steve)
the two crossed for alex.
(honorable mention good eye to Steve)
Efrin must had missed his attempt by a lot. for him to come high by a full diamond on his bank tells me it was a poor shot on his part, he obviously hit it way to thin. i guess we will never know exactly what he was trying to do. that said i still like my solution from post #19. merry christmas to all!!! keith
NH Steve
Administrator
Yeah, just like I warned how NOT to hit it that hard... I must have sold out that way myself a few times, lol.efren cued the shot loaded up with inside and sent the cue ball over 22' to the foot rail - head rail - foot rail, thus getting perfect shape on his game ball, but he just didn't make it.
View attachment 11454
the two crossed for alex.
View attachment 11455
(honorable mention good eye to Steve)
straightback
Verified Member
Was Alex able to get the 2 by the other ball and run out?
lll
Verified Member
Last edited:
Tom Wirth
Verified Member
There will always be risk attached to bank shots where both the object ball and the cue ball are left at the same end of the table. That is unless it is possible to hide the cue ball behind another ball or cluster of balls. Considering the difficulty of the shot Efren chose, I think he hit it pretty well. His choice is what was suspect here.
Tom
Tom
vapros
Verified Member
I am trying to follow his thought process. Since he obviously did not bank to make the ball, what was he trying to accomplish by bringing the cue ball back to the short rail? Or was he banking to make the ball, after all?
wincardona
Verified Member
He was banking to win the game. For one of the worlds best ball strikers banking to win in this spot is not bad at all. There were several good things that could have happened for Reyes shooting this shot, and to play results and say he played a poor shot is short sighted. He played a good cue ball like he knew he would, and he had protection with the ball on the rail blocking a lot of return shots, he just didn't get the results he was looking for but they were there.
Dr. Bill
Tom Wirth
Verified Member
Dr. Bill, Though I agree with most of what you have said here ( especially the part about playing results) I must ask since the three (or striped ball) lays so close the Efren's pocket and nearly frozen to the bottom rail wouldn't you agree that a more prudent way to play the bank would have been to use right hand English and spin three rails to the diagonal corner where if he made the bank he still would have a reasonable cut on the second ball? In this way he would have reduced to zero the risk of any return bank.
Tom
straightback
Verified Member
My thoughts are this: the 2-bank looks thin enough to where you might scratch in the side or corner if you try to come the other way. Maybe I see it wrong? Larry's shot in post 3 seems to assume a fully juiced cue ball, which is tough - this is a 10' table! Also, to obtain the angle with all that juice, itooks like in order to get the 2 by the pocket, you'll have to hit the bank too hard to leave the cue ball at the head rail.
I'm not a mind reader, but I'm sure Reyes probably saw this as well.
Last edited:
I don't think Efren should get too amped up about taking a serious flyer at cross banking the spotted ball to his hole. I would rather like to see him cross bank the spotted ball just putting it close to the ball by the rail and sending the cue ball back to the end rail and let Alex figure out what to do next. By selecting this shot, both balls are in play and the nine foot separation between the object balls and cue ball will cause Alex to be most careful and that is when Efren may get an opportunity to pounce on the game. Efren must keep both object balls in play to put maximum stress on Alex.