Last night between 3 and 5 a.m. while trying to persuade my daughter to go back to sleep I started thinking about the selection process for the lanes for the cup in Odense. I began to divide all lanes into different categories and soon realized that I need the list of approved lanes to complete my thoughts. I swiftly moved from felt and eternite to concrete where the lanes are easier to remember. :)
I will post my thoughts in three parts, since very few of you would survive reading everything all at once. In this blog I will take care of my thought on the selection of concrete lanes. I’m not quite sure how they are chosen at the moment, I actually don’t have a clue, so there’s a slight possibility that I end up with the same idea that is in use.
My philosophy for the lane selection for concrete is that the lanes that are in the cup are the 9 best lanes. I define a good lane as one where the shot can be controlled to almost 100% and that the shot should not be to easy. The shot on lane 11, with a dead ball, can mostly be controlled to 100%, but should not be included since it’s too easy.
1 and 2 are lanes that always should be included. There is of course exception, lane 1 in Algés would be a good lane to exclude since the average during the ’06 European Cup probably were close to 1,05.
Lane 3 should most of the time be left out of the cup. The one in Hilzingen would be an exception since you can control that one and you need both good ball temperature and the correct speed on the shot.
Lane 4 almost always excluded except when the ball goes into the green very constant, like in Skoghall.
5 is a really good lane since it requires a good shot.
Lane 6 is a lane which could be a wild card if it’s good. Included when there’s only eight good lanes, but excluded when there’s at least nine other good lanes.
Lane 7 should only be included when there’s a green with a “bath tub” close to the hole, like in Steyr and Skoghall. If everything goes into the hole, what’s the point? And if nothing goes into the hole, the lane takes to long to complete.
Lane 8 is a must to include for me personally, but to be objective there should be a decent chance to ace it, otherwise it’s pointless. Geldrop and Hilzingen are good examples of lane 8’s that should be included.
Lane 9 and 10 could very well be included if they are good.
Lane 11 should almost never be included in the cup format. When a dead ball is not played it’s often not controllable. Skoghall’s is a good fit, though.
Lane 12-14 should be included most of the times.
15 should most of the times not be included since it’s not controllable to a acceptable level.
Lane 16 should never under any circumstances be included.
Include lane 17 most of the times. Should be excluded if it’s like in Norwegian Skjeberg (can only play direct) or Steyr (back board of the green is not even).
Lane 18 should never be used.
There you go. Maybe I should recap a little. The lanes that almost always should be included are 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 17. If lane 7 is good I would add that one also. Then I would check if lane 4 is good, if not then check if lane 3 is controllable. Only one of 3 and 4 should be chosen. Finally I complete the selection, if needed, from the group of 6, 8, 9, 10 and 15. Note that sometimes lanes from the first “must have” group will be left out.
The last 4 international concrete courses I played would look like this in my opinion:
Hilzingen: 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
Algés: 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
Geldrop: 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17.
Steyr: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14.
Some explanations might well be in order. In Hilzingen I have excluded lane 1 from the first group because the green isn’t that constant and since lane 3 and 8 are so good I wanted those. On another course Hilzingen’s lane 1 could very well been included. I have already addressed the reasons to exclude Algés’ lane 1 and Steyr lane 17.