Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Fred Agni » Mon, 01 May 2000 04:00:00


Well, the Joss Tour rolled into Chelmsford, MA at the Country Club USA
yesterday.  Karen Corr once again made the trek from Philly with her
traveling partner Julie Kelly to try to conquer the best the Northeast have
to offer.  As many of you recall from Pat Murray's last reporting Karen
finished second in Maine at the last Joss event!  Was it a fluke, or can she
just plain outplay most men on the planet?  I've watched Karen play at six
WPBA events, and know that on wide equipment she can outplay most.  But at
the Country Club, some of the tournament tables are shimmed a little tighter
than what you see on TV.  Even with that in mind, we were all hoping to see
Karen come out with her guns firing.  But instead, she came out flat.  Karen
drew in the first round unheralded Darren Belliveau from my area (Gardner,
MA).  This was Darren's first Joss event.  Darren is a very good 9-ball
player from whom I'd take the 8 , but who wouldn't give it to me. Take that
for whatever it's worth.  Call it 1/2 a ball better.  Anyway, Darren gets
two fortunate rolls in the early stages, mixed in with some fine runouts, a
break and run, very good safety play,  a dogged ball-in-hand by Karen, and a
hung 9 by Karen on the tighter equipment.  Darren steam rolls Karen like she
was a D player.  And she looked it.  A few hours later, Karen is out of the
tournament two-and-out.  Darren is playing the best I've ever seen him and
was still in when I left.  I'll take the 7-out and the breaks, sir.

Was it a fluke?

--
Regards,

Fred Agnir  <---- bought Corr in Calcutta

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by S0ftli » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>Darren is playing the best I've ever seen him and
>was still in when I left.

I think Darren ended up 12th on Sunday..  not sure, so don't quote me.

I was playing on the table next to Karen, and since my match wasn't going the
way I liked I decided to watch some of Corr's match while I sat in the chair.
She really looked weak compared to other events that  I 've seen her in...
Looked really out of sorts and very defensive like the confidence wasn't
there...

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Fred Agni » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>I was playing on the table next to Karen, and since my match wasn't going
the
>way I liked I decided to watch some of Corr's match while I sat in the
chair.
>She really looked weak compared to other events that  I 've seen her in...
>Looked really out of sorts and very defensive like the confidence wasn't
>there...

Yes, Karen was actually not feeling well.  So says Mr. Murray.  Darren's
onslaught didn't help matters.  All accounts say that Darren lost to Ginky
in the one-loss side after a 7 or 8 pack by San Souci.  Pat Murray also says
that Zuglan hit someone with a 9-pack!!!  Who says professional don't run
multi-packs often?

Too bad I didn't know you were in the tournament.  I was playing in the BCA
league tournament downstairs.  We ended up 5th.  Although we win and lose as
a team, unfortunately I blew the game that sealed our fate. :-(

Regards,

Fred Agnir

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by S0ftli » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>Pat Murray also says
>that Zuglan hit someone with a 9-pack!!!  Who says professional don't run
>multi-packs often?

I was watching this match.......  Not to take anything away from Mike Zuglan...
It wasn't a nine pak.....   his opponent got two turns at the table....  of
course he was kicking both times......  for a 9 zip win for Mike...     Mike
Zuglan never misses.....

I did watch a match months ago, between Zuglan and Ray Suta...   Mike came out
with a six pack,    broke the seventh and made nothing on the break.  Billy
Ray,  kicked at the one, left Mike a tough shot,  Mike makes the shot,  and
hooked himself on the two.   He kicks it in and then runs out the set to nine.
Billy Ray got one shot......  Some of the most classic pool you'll ever see....
 The Zuglan Joss NE tour is a tough competitive tour....

Oh,  and I did see you there Fred. I was going to come over and introduce
myself..  but my opponent kept me busy racking.

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Otto » Thu, 04 May 2000 04:00:00

Fred,

I hate when that happens in any team sport. How do you settle that within
yourself? I realize good teammates will always attempt encouragement but
when it's time to look in the mirror there has to be a settlement from
within. I'm curious how you do it.

Otto


Quote:
> Too bad I didn't know you were in the tournament.  I was playing in the
BCA
> league tournament downstairs.  We ended up 5th.  Although we win and lose
as
> a team, unfortunately I blew the game that sealed our fate. :-(

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Fred Agni » Thu, 04 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Fred,

>I hate when that happens in any team sport. How do you settle that within
>yourself? I realize good teammates will always attempt encouragement but
>when it's time to look in the mirror there has to be a settlement from
>within. I'm curious how you do it.

On my teams that require this type of format, I purposefully select the
position that would put the brunt of the pressure on me if it came down to
one game.  That's a role I've accepted, and one that I look for.  Most of
the time, I come through.  Sometimes, I don't.

(Un)fortunately, my being the "scapegoat", real or not, has happened before.
And it will happen again.  As Michael Jordan said, as many times as he was
the last second hero, he also failed to make the last second open-look
buzzer beater twenty or thirty times.  The easiest way I can forget about
past mistakes is to make future mistakes.  Team or single events, it doesn't
matter. Sad, but true.

BTW, my teammates were wonderfully supportive.  Afterall, it was my games
that got us into that round to begin with.  I, on the other hand, still
can't forgive a teammate of mine that blew a playoff game for us 7 years
ago.  I'm shallow.

Regards,

Fred Agnir

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Otto » Thu, 04 May 2000 04:00:00

Interesting.

Being a leader at the front end of a spear can be trying at times.

Thanks for the insight.

Otto


Quote:
> (Un)fortunately, my being the "scapegoat", real or not, has happened
before.
> And it will happen again.  As Michael Jordan said, as many times as he was
> the last second hero, he also failed to make the last second open-look
> buzzer beater twenty or thirty times.  The easiest way I can forget about
> past mistakes is to make future mistakes.  Team or single events, it
doesn't
> matter. Sad, but true.

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Jeff Cavanag » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Fred,

I've "argued" this point with another captain in my league, and was
wondering why you choose to play last?  My debating opponent couldn't
articulate his reasons (other than "everyone does it this way"), and I'm
hoping someone like yourself who has substantial experience can explain the
reasoning better.  On the other hand if you're playing APA rather than BCA,
I may not make any sense at all!

In my view, I want to make sure that my best player plays the most games, so
I put him first in the last round.  And I want the lowest chance of my
weakest player playing in the final round, so I put him last.  I order the
others in between, with my strongest players playing earliest in the final
round.  I don't want to lose with my best players "on the bench".  Another
reason I do this, is that other teams save their best player for the
hill-hill game, so my weakest player shouldn't have to play at all -- my
stronger players beat up on their weaker ones.  I don't worry about the
first four rounds (race to 13 in BCA) because if we don't reach the fifth
round, no amount of re-ordering players would make any difference.  A long
explanation of something that probably could have been simplified!?

My questions are a) what's wrong with my reasoning? -- almost everyone does
it your way
b) if my logic is sound, why wouldn't everyone do it that way (making some
exciting last round matchups!)?

Thanks,
Jeff <-- always thinks he's right until he "learns" better

Quote:

> On my teams that require this type of format, I purposefully select the
> position that would put the brunt of the pressure on me if it came down to
> one game.  That's a role I've accepted, and one that I look for.  Most of
> the time, I come through.  Sometimes, I don't.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Rupert War » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> In my view, I want to make sure that my best player plays the most games, so
> I put him first in the last round.  And I want the lowest chance of my
> weakest player playing in the final round, so I put him last.  I order the
> others in between, with my strongest players playing earliest in the final
> round.  I don't want to lose with my best players "on the bench".  Another
> reason I do this, is that other teams save their best player for the
> hill-hill game, so my weakest player shouldn't have to play at all -- my
> stronger players beat up on their weaker ones.  I don't worry about the
> first four rounds (race to 13 in BCA) because if we don't reach the fifth
> round, no amount of re-ordering players would make any difference.  A long
> explanation of something that probably could have been simplified!?

> My questions are a) what's wrong with my reasoning? -- almost everyone does
> it your way
> b) if my logic is sound, why wouldn't everyone do it that way (making some
> exciting last round matchups!)?

I think you're right, broadly speaking, but you oversimplify a bit.
It's not just a question of how "good" players are. There is another
scale, independent to that, which is how well players cope with
pressure.
One of our better players, for example, has a tendency to buckle under
pressure against people you'd expect him to beat. So I usually try
to make sure he's not playing the first or last frame. I tend to think
more in terms of experience than ability when deciding who to put on
last.
There are also other things to consider regarding who to put on first.
Ideally you want someone who not only has a high chance of winning,
but also a high chance of winning in style. Thery're not necessarily
the same thing. Nothing like starting the match by scaring the
opposition.

Rupe.

--

http://arseweb.com (the original Arsenal website)
http://arseweb.com/rupe/pool/ (UK 8-ball rules)

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Fred Agni » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Fred,

>I've "argued" this point with another captain in my league, and was
>wondering why you choose to play last?

Just to make it clear, in my particular game, I chose to play last in the
*third* round.  In the fourth (final) round, I played first.  When I said
that I felt that I blew the game that lost it for the team, it was that
critical third round defeat.  The way our BCA league goes, the visiting team
(us at the time) changes their order each round, while the home team's order
remains the same.

Quote:
>> On my teams that require this type of format, I purposefully select the
>> position that would put the brunt of the pressure on me if it came down
to
>> one game

In this particular match, the critical game IMO was the final game of round
three.  I put myself in that position.  We needed a win.  Instead, I lost.

So, when we're the visitor, my lineup gels with your reasoning.  Sort of.
I'd play first in the last round. However,  I'm more concerned with my
position in the middle rounds.  I want to be last or near last in those
rounds.

When we're at home, again I want to be last in the middle rounds.  Since the
home team doesn't alternate their order, then I'd be last in every round.  I
choose last when at home because I have the ability above my teamates to
alternate my game depending on the score.  If we need a 10-0, I've got the
best shot at it.  Some people say that it shouldn't matter what position I'm
in.  It does.  The game changes depending on the score.  That's true of any
sport.  It's called "rising to the occassion."

Regards,

Fred Agnir

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Derek R » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>Just to make it clear, in my particular game, I chose to play last in the
>*third* round.  In the fourth (final) round, I played first.  When I said
>that I felt that I blew the game that lost it for the team, it was that
>critical third round defeat.  The way our BCA league goes, the visiting team
>(us at the time) changes their order each round, while the home team's order
>remains the same.

This is the same way our league runs, and also the same way the BCA
Nationals in Vegas run.  Home team gets the advantage of predictable
bathroom breaks and a "normal" order - Away team gets to pull a couple
*** tricks, AND the advantage of the first breaks.

Quote:
>When we're at home, again I want to be last in the middle rounds.  Since the
>home team doesn't alternate their order, then I'd be last in every round.  I
>choose last when at home because I have the ability above my teamates to
>alternate my game depending on the score.  If we need a 10-0, I've got the
>best shot at it.  Some people say that it shouldn't matter what position I'm
>in.  It does.  The game changes depending on the score.  That's true of any
>sport.  It's called "rising to the occassion."

I've ended up playing "anchor" for a lot of teams over the years.
This is exactly why I want to be last (and enjoy it) - more than any
of my team, I can shift my game into "get out from anywhere" mode,
because if we need a 10-0 or 10-1, it's important to know that.

It's also informational to note that in the BCA's 5-man team
structure, the away team's player #4 has a curious schedule:

In five rounds, he plays fourth, third, second, first, and LAST.  He
will be your "anchor" in the 25th game if the match goes hill-hill.
His fourth game is ALSO the 16th game of the match - so he gets to
play 3 games no matter what, and the only way he doesn't get his 4th
game is if you lose 13-2, and one guy ain't gonna save you in that
case.

To me, this is a reason to always select the "away" team.  You get the
advantage of your strongest player playing the most games *and* being
there when you really need him, and more importantly, you get the
first 5 breaks (and therefore the first 5 chances at a "simple"
break-and-run win.)  You also get the last break on the double-hill
match.  =)
-- Derek

Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

 
 
 

Karen Corr, Joss Tour Chelmsford

Post by Jeff Cavanag » Wed, 10 May 2000 04:00:00

Fred,

I take into account the ability to handle pressure too -- to me that's what
makes a player better!  But I certainly see your point....

I also arrange my lineup differently for "regular season" matches.  Since we
only play three rounds (15 games), I try to match up my killers with their
weaker players to score as many 10-0, 10-1 and 10-2 results as I can.  My
weaker shooters are good fighters, and generally get 5 or 6 if they lose.

Jeff


Quote:

> When we're at home, again I want to be last in the middle rounds.  Since
the
> home team doesn't alternate their order, then I'd be last in every round.
I
> choose last when at home because I have the ability above my teamates to
> alternate my game depending on the score.  If we need a 10-0, I've got the
> best shot at it.

> Regards,

> Fred Agnir

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----