63 centuries and counting... (sponsors triggering WSA to widen pockets?)

[RocketRoy1983]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltnuqK4gHnQ

Here's a shot from this year's Masters, O'Sullivan's red along the cushion at 1:00. I've always thought that red had no business going in, but Murphy's pink was on another level.

The fact it his the cushion a considerable way up I cant believe that went in either AMAZING.

[dantuck_7]

I've just had a look at that as well it's a bit of an optical illusion. What matters is how far the red starts of the cushion. The camera angle makes it probably appear further of the top cushion than reality....my explanation anyway.

I've actually played a strange shot myself a couple of times where there is a cut along the top cushion and then one balls width away from the cushion and about two feet from the pocket there is another colour. I have had it twice where my shot has kissed the colour minutely and then gone in.

[KeithinFrance]

Like Monique earlier, I'm no expert, but I would conjecture this:

I have no doubt that, dimensionally, the pockets measure identically to previous years. However, there are many factors besides the actual measurements that affect a pocket's generosity.

Firstly, the amount of undercut (i.e. the amount by which a ball can get 'under' the cushion face, in effect widening the pocket opening). However, I believe undercut is templated as well as actual pocket size.

The speed and thickness of the cloth will have a great effect, too.

It is an obvious fact that a ball aimed slightly towards a jaw, travelling slowly, is far more likely to be potted than a ball hit harder in exactly the same direction.

Since the tables are so fast, it is conceivable that, since players do not have to hit the balls so hard, they are more likely to still achieve the pot.

Hendry's 147 final black, for instance, would probably have still gone in on a table of 5 years ago. Except that, 5 years ago, Hendry may not have been so comfortable hitting it that softly – so would not have played the shot the same and it may well therefore not have dropped.

All this is, as I say, purely conjecture on my part and I have no expertise in this area. However, it seems logical to me and, at the end of the day, the tournament is about comparing players during the same fortnight and not different matches in different years so, as long as the conditions are the same for all players, there isn't a great deal to be upset about. Each player has the same margin for error, albeit an arguably bigger one than in previous years, so no real problem.

I would say that the Statman is on to something here. If a ball is rolling when it hits the knuckle, even the outside of the knuckle, it has much more chance of falling than if it is skidding along the surface. Likewise, hitting the ball softly is much more conducive to rolling. So the super-fine cloths which allow more distance for less effort are probably largely to thank for a lot of these balls dropping.

[moglet]

Firstly, the amount of undercut (i.e. the amount by which a ball can get 'under' the cushion face, in effect widening the pocket opening). However, I believe undercut is templated as well as actual pocket size.

In previous years this decade there has been no undercut of the jaw, as far as I remember the templates did not have a provision to measure this. Close-ups of the pockets this year did not appear to be undercut either, has something changed?.

[moglet]

I would say that the Statman is on to something here. If a ball is rolling when it hits the knuckle, even the outside of the knuckle, it has much more chance of falling than if it is skidding along the surface. Likewise, hitting the ball softly is much more conducive to rolling. So the super-fine cloths which allow more distance for less effort are probably largely to thank for a lot of these balls dropping.

Yes, this is borne out by experiment, what isn't so clear is the effect of the cloth on so-called skidding. Whatever the cloth, a ball played at a reaching weight will always be rolling if it is played from sufficient distance from the pocket, what is not so clear if you have not checked on the skidding/rolling thing is the distance the object ball travels after impact before it acquires normal forward roll, whatever the cloth it is a lot further than you would imagine if the stroke is played at any weight. Trouble is, many of the medium weight shots and the harder ones too were finding the pocket.

[Mike P]

I do not want to be a stick in the mud pertaining to slow ball speed and wider pockets but... I have found that on certain shots the pockets are more forgiving if you shoot harder. At speed the jaw of the pocket compresses and causes the ball to rebound at a shallower angle. By doing this the ball will rattle and drop instead of being spit out. I am not saying this same effect of rattling and dropping can not be achieved with a slower shot, but to do this you have to hit the jaw closer to the drop of the pocket. Whenever you are banking (contacting a rail) a ball, it is well known that the harder you shoot the more the ball compresses the rail and causes a shallower rebound angle. When I was much younger I can remember(vaguely) that if you suspected a pocket was accepting balls more freely, the first thing you did was to check to make sure the cushions(jaws) had not come loose. In most cases that was the apparent cause of the problem. I am not up to date on the different thicknesses of the cloth being able to produce the same effect, but whatever the cause was, the pockets were definitely playing wider. The combination that I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, should never have dropped, no matter what speed it was played at.

Mike