12Bet.com UK Championship Qualifying !!!!!!!!

It does feel bucking great, let's be honest. You have to rip me off the table. I've had spells where I've got 50 breaks in 3 or 4 consecutive frames and I get a high percentage of those "post snookers required" shots you wouldn't take on if it mattered. I'm a potter, my positional game is what has always let me down. If only my positional play was as good as my potting....

its Great to see New pros like Anthony McGill not having to enter only his 3rd Major Tournament at the first qualifying Round thanks to the Rolling Rankings.

I've heard good things about McGill, would be terrific to see him make the main draw in Telford though Holt in the next round would be a solid test after his achievement in Prague

McGill wont be scared of Holty.

i think he is good value to beat holt as we know michael is never far away from a meltdown during a match

GJtheaussiestud wrote:i think he is good value to beat holt as we know michael is never far away from a meltdown during a match

Well he obviously hasnt against Higgins, has he? He was 2-0 up, got pegged back and found himself behind at 2-3 and still won it in a decider. This might well prove to be a turning point for Michael.

Monique wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:i think he is good value to beat holt as we know michael is never far away from a meltdown during a match

Well he obviously hasnt against Higgins, has he? He was 2-0 up, got pegged back and found himself behind at 2-3 and still won it in a decider. This might well prove to be a turning point for Michael.

BEST OF 7 IS NOTHING WE WILL SEE HOW HE GETS ON IN BEST OF 17

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Monique wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:i think he is good value to beat holt as we know michael is never far away from a meltdown during a match

Well he obviously hasnt against Higgins, has he? He was 2-0 up, got pegged back and found himself behind at 2-3 and still won it in a decider. This might well prove to be a turning point for Michael.

BEST OF 7 IS NOTHING WE WILL SEE HOW HE GETS ON IN BEST OF 17

When you come close to the end of a match, the pressure is there, whatever the lenght of the format. If a player can't cope with pressure he will crack at that stage, be it after 2 frames or 32 frames.

Monique wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Monique wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:i think he is good value to beat holt as we know michael is never far away from a meltdown during a match

Well he obviously hasnt against Higgins, has he? He was 2-0 up, got pegged back and found himself behind at 2-3 and still won it in a decider. This might well prove to be a turning point for Michael.

BEST OF 7 IS NOTHING WE WILL SEE HOW HE GETS ON IN BEST OF 17

When you come close to the end of a match, the pressure is there, whatever the lenght of the format. If a player can't cope with pressure he will crack at that stage, be it after 2 frames or 32 frames.

monique

when you fought hard over 14 frames to end up at 7-7 the pressure is far greater than starting at 0-0 in a best of 3 or 2-2 in a best of 7 because you look back at mis opertunities that would have meant you would have won 9-5 instead of fighting to win at 7-7.

Wild, the World Open has proven that with very short format the pressure is high on from the start. It was not by chance that the line-up of the semis featured 4 World Champions, despite the random draw.
It's pure myth that longer formats add more pressure. Longer formats will eliminate the possible influence of the run of the balls, ok. But longer formats will also yield only too often tired snooker and one sided matches that drag without any tension or drama because one player is so far ahead there is nothing at stake anymore. And it's not the exceptional comeback that will change my opinion, because, precisely, it is only the exception.

I WILL TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID IF EPTC 6 WAS LIVE ON TV

WHAT CHANNEL though

EPTC6 was played in front of an audience, not in a cubicle.

fair enough

i would like holty to do well he is a good character IMO

Monique wrote:Wild, the World Open has proven that with very short format the pressure is high on from the start. It was not by chance that the line-up of the semis featured 4 World Champions, despite the random draw.
It's pure myth that longer formats add more pressure. Longer formats will eliminate the possible influence of the run of the balls, ok. But longer formats will also yield only too often tired snooker and one sided matches that drag without any tension or drama because one player is so far ahead there is nothing at stake anymore. And it's not the exceptional comeback that will change my opinion, because, precisely, it is only the exception.

the World Open has proven absalutly zilch regarding pressure play thats just a myth because we happened to get no shocks.

i cant believe people have fallen for that.

World open got less viewings than grand prix.. fail in my eyes. The general public must prefer long matches or snooker is still on a downslope in terms of viewings.

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:

Monique wrote:Wild, the World Open has proven that with very short format the pressure is high on from the start. It was not by chance that the line-up of the semis featured 4 World Champions, despite the random draw.
It's pure myth that longer formats add more pressure. Longer formats will eliminate the possible influence of the run of the balls, ok. But longer formats will also yield only too often tired snooker and one sided matches that drag without any tension or drama because one player is so far ahead there is nothing at stake anymore. And it's not the exceptional comeback that will change my opinion, because, precisely, it is only the exception.

the World Open has proven absalutly zilch regarding pressure play thats just a myth because we happened to get no shocks.

i cant believe people have fallen for that.

Do you think it was by chance we had no shocks? We had no shocks precisely because the best players did win their matches. Make no mistake, all those guys can play. If you have the opportunity to go to qualifs, or to a PTC, go and you will see by yourself. Ultimately, more often than not, it's how they handle pressure that makes the difference between top 16 and top 32 or 48. The World Open has proven a lot of fans and pundits, who predicted shocks because of the short format, wrong. There were next to no shocks because pressure is an key element and pressure was there from the first ball on. It's not by chance that until the latter stages all players who had won the first frame did win the match. And it's not by chance that it took guys like Mark Williams and Neil Roberson to overcome their deficit when it mattered.

Monique wrote:

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:

Monique wrote:Wild, the World Open has proven that with very short format the pressure is high on from the start. It was not by chance that the line-up of the semis featured 4 World Champions, despite the random draw.
It's pure myth that longer formats add more pressure. Longer formats will eliminate the possible influence of the run of the balls, ok. But longer formats will also yield only too often tired snooker and one sided matches that drag without any tension or drama because one player is so far ahead there is nothing at stake anymore. And it's not the exceptional comeback that will change my opinion, because, precisely, it is only the exception.

the World Open has proven absalutly zilch regarding pressure play thats just a myth because we happened to get no shocks.

i cant believe people have fallen for that.

Do you think it was by chance we had no shocks? We had no shocks precisely because the best players did win their matches. Make no mistake, all those guys can play. If you have the opportunity to go to qualifs, or to a PTC, go and you will see by yourself. Ultimately, more often than not, it's how they handle pressure that makes the difference between top 16 and top 32 or 48. The World Open has proven a lot of fans and pundits, who predicted shocks because of the short format, wrong. There were next to no shocks because pressure is an key element and pressure was there from the first ball on. It's not by chance that until the latter stages all players who had won the first frame did win the match. And it's not by chance that it took guys like Mark Williams and Neil Roberson to overcome their deficit when it mattered.

I AGREE THE WORLD CAHMPIN WINNING IT SHOWS IT WAS PRESSURE SNOOKER ALL THE WAY

it wasn't a failure it worked better than i thought it would. however the reason we had no shocks was top players was so relaxed in the matches they thought if i win i win great if i lose its only best of 5s nobody will judge me on it so we had a top quality semi line up.

nothing what so ever with handling pressures.

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:it wasn't a failure it worked better than i thought it would. however the reason we had no shocks was top players was so relaxed in the matches they thought if i win i win great if i lose its only best of 5s nobody will judge me on it so we had a top quality semi line up.

nothing what so ever with handling pressures.

I'm sorry Wild but that's an idiotic post. They were not relaxed at all. There was a lot of points at stake and no room for slow starts or error. Not to mention that even top 16 had to start at last 64 wich meant a lot of points less in case they lost their first match in the tournament.

Monique wrote:

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:it wasn't a failure it worked better than i thought it would. however the reason we had no shocks was top players was so relaxed in the matches they thought if i win i win great if i lose its only best of 5s nobody will judge me on it so we had a top quality semi line up.

nothing what so ever with handling pressures.

I'm sorry Wild but that's an idiotic post. They were not relaxed at all. There was a lot of points at stake and no room for slow starts or error. Not to mention that even top 16 had to start at last 64 wich meant a lot of points less in case they lost their first match in the tournament.

but players feels more pressures over best of 17,19 etc etc

it means more winning over that distance sorry monique but your idiotic actually thinking best of bloody 5s comes a fraction close to that.

Its strange watching live scoring and seeing 3-0 meaning its no where near the end or over..great to be seeing long matches at last.

randam05 wrote:Its strange watching live scoring and seeing 3-0 meaning its no where near the end or over..great to be seeing long matches at last.

absalutly i wouldn't be surprise if a player when he reaches 5 frames will need the paramedics on with gaz and air

SO ITS CLEAR WILD IS JUST HAVING A DIG AT SHORTER FORMATS

how predictable

GJtheaussiestud wrote:SO ITS CLEAR WILD IS JUST HAVING A DIG AT SHORTER FORMATS

how predictable

no im not but its ludicrous to even suggest best of 5s at 0-0 can compare in pressure to a best of 17 at 6-6

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:
but players feels more pressures over best of 17,19 etc etc

No they don't, not until the latter stages, when it comes to best of 5 or best of 3 in that match. Because they know they can still come back unless they are really too far behind. And then most of the time they don't feel any pressure anymore because they have accepted defeat.

Wild I'm NOT pleading to all tournaments to be shortened. But it's stupidly stubborn to deny that pressure and determining who is the best is not a justification for long formats. The World Open has proven beyond doubts that ultra short formats work just as well. However variety of formats yield for different approaches of the game and satisfy a wider cross section of fans taste. I'm all for variety.

I love the exchanges made between wild and monique..they crop up everywhere.

ITS BECAUSE wild loves confrontation

could witz be right about is ego becoming to big

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:SO ITS CLEAR WILD IS JUST HAVING A DIG AT SHORTER FORMATS

how predictable

no im not but its ludicrous to even suggest best of 5s at 0-0 can compare in pressure to a best of 17 at 6-6

i agree with wild. 0-0 is different ball game to 6-6 because at 0-0 no one has played and you wont have a feel of how your opponant is playing but at 6-6 you will

GJtheaussiestud wrote:ITS BECAUSE wild loves confrontation

could witz be right about is ego becoming to big

Witz 1 wild 0

Ultimate_snooker wrote:

wildJONESYBOYO wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:SO ITS CLEAR WILD IS JUST HAVING A DIG AT SHORTER FORMATS

how predictable

no im not but its ludicrous to even suggest best of 5s at 0-0 can compare in pressure to a best of 17 at 6-6

i agree with wild. 0-0 is different ball game to 6-6 because at 0-0 no one has played and you wont have a feel of how your opponant is playing but at 6-6 you will

nice avatar