Betfred.Com World Championship Day 5 Discussion !!

He says Ronnie O'Sullivan is the greatest genius, Hendry is the greatest winner, yet John Higgins is the greatest despite being neither of the aforementioned. That's why Steve Davis' opinion is not as important as a six time World Champion's should be. He talks rubbish, basically.

to be fair to Steve Davis, he is asked the same questions year in year out and you are allowed to change your mind. But conversely, in recent times he does talk a lot of rubbish whereas a few years ago he was as on the button as Clive Everton.

Sonny wrote:to be fair to Steve Davis, he is asked the same questions year in year out and you are allowed to change your mind. But conversely, in recent times he does talk a lot of rubbish whereas a few years ago he was as on the button as Clive Everton.

Spot on, himself and Everton were the top two, but he has really dropped down the radar now. It's do to with his promotion of the game, he's Hearn's bunny more than ever right now, and he's got to promote the here and now. Would Steve Davis have praised the World Open if it were a Rodney Walker initiative? No chance I reckon.

that clip was made in 2007 i think or 2008 and even before then i heard him say on tv any times greatest snooker genuises he rated jimmy third higgins second and ronnie first

id rather listen to willie thorne than steve davis to be honest thorne is more consistent in what he says

i dont mind people changing their minds if circumstances change thats normal but davis has come out with consistent bull even when circumstances have been consistent

i understand as a pundit point of view and now more than ever what with being hearns lapdog he has to promote the game and spice things up but only fickle idiots wont be able to see through him

I rate Willie Thorne very highly as a commentator but he is a witterer and doesn't know when to shut up. The fact he blanked me comical style at the Crucible yesterday makes me like him more for some reason. It was consistent with his character.

When you put yourself out there for public scrutiny, it's not always a bed of roses, you have to take the rough with the smooth and you have to accept that sometimes people know you more than you realise. But he is a lovable character and can hold a room of hundreds as an after dinner speaker and as I've said before many times, he is the equivalent of a chess grand master in knowledge of break building.

The thing with Davis that really got on my nerves was after the World Open when he suggested that maybe all snooker tournaments could be shortened and it would be exciting. He COMPLETELY contradicted himself from years past yet seemed to think we are all mugs and would soak up his bull.

I'm no fan of any of the BBC crew with the exception of Neal Foulds and Clive Everton, annoyingly both men are probably sidelined more because they talk sense rather than 'appeal to the masses'. I can stand Thorne, but the rest are a pain in the bottom.

Hazel's fawning over Ronnie & Higgins gets me a little annoyed, but she's okay. Rishi tries hard, but he hasn't got the personality to front the snooker, and I don't like him at the horses either, not knowledgable enough. I can't stand Virgo or Taylor, while Parrott & Davis talk a lot of rubbish. I'd like to see more of Hendry, and by the looks we probably will.

Tubberlad wrote:I'm no fan of any of the BBC crew with the exception of Neal Foulds and Clive Everton, annoyingly both men are probably sidelined more because they talk sense rather than 'appeal to the masses'. I can stand Thorne, but the rest are a pain in the bum.

Hazel's fawning over Ronnie & Higgins gets me a little annoyed, but she's okay. Rishi tries hard, but he hasn't got the personality to front the snooker, and I don't like him at the horses either, not knowledgable enough. I can't stand Virgo or Taylor, while Parrott & Davis talk a lot of rubbish. I'd like to see more of Hendry, and by the looks we probably will.

Ice La Fox Hatah!!!

The BBC are all about presentation rather than substance, that applies to all their sport. Their coverage of the Grand National left me bemused, it was a big step down from the job Channel 4 do.

Tubberlad wrote:The BBC are all about presentation rather than substance, that applies to all their sport. Their coverage of the Grand National left me bemused, it was a big step down from the job Channel 4 do.

Absolutely right. They try and brainwash the public what to think. They are useless. Griffiths is too good for the lot of them.

TG


You're still an ICE LA FOX Hatah though!

TG advocated a shot clock earlier though frame. Has he gone down in your estimations? Worlds 2nd slowest player after Eddie Charlton talking about a shot clock!

vodkadiet wrote:

Tubberlad wrote:The BBC are all about presentation rather than substance, that applies to all their sport. Their coverage of the Grand National left me bemused, it was a big step down from the job Channel 4 do.

Absolutely right. They try and brainwash the public what to think. They are useless. Griffiths is too good for the lot of them.

TG


You're still an ICE LA FOX Hatah though!

Isn't Ice La Fox is a porn star?

Terry Griffiths is very soothing as a commentator, I don't mind him, makes a nice change from John 'WHERE'S THE bucking CUE BALL GOING OH MY GOD I'M HAVING AN ORGASM RONNIE IS SO GOOD' Virgo. Taylor seems to think it's Nicklaus and Palmer at the table.

Their horse racing coverage is uber rubbish though.

Dennis "Golf, Strictly Come Dancing, Snooker Legends" Taylor

Sonny wrote:TG advocated a shot clock earlier though frame. Has he gone down in your estimations? Worlds 2nd slowest player after Eddie Charlton talking about a shot clock!

Terry Griffith's advocated a shot clock? That's rich, is it not?

i like the indian though he much better than hazel irvine as a presenter your job should be to present the facts from an objective point of view not be a summariser or pundit with expert analyses that kind of thing should be left to the likes of doherty parrot davis etc

hazel irvine she goes on trying to pretend shes actually knows what she talking about when it obvious she hasnt got a clue she starts trying to analyse the game speaking in a condascending manner like she presenting blue peter to a bunch of kids she should just take a leaf out the indians book and say the minimum possible say objective things presenting to the public that should be your job as a presenter and let the experts analyse

the sooner they get rid of that hussy the likes of myself pay for her to be on the bbc the better

funnily enough the only bbc commentator i cant stand is dennis taylor all the others i like i agree willie thorne is the best of the bunch

You really have a gift for giving someone a blunt nickname and sticking to it. Yesterday's match between Hawkins and Maguire is a prime example, you referred to Hawkins as 'she' and 'her' all the way through as if it was second nature.

I too like Rishi, or 'the indian'. As you say, he's neutral, but perhaps a little too safe. He's very professional, but he's not someone who's going to spark a really interesting debate. Irvine is fine, but she really bigs O'Sullivan and Higgins up far more than anyone else.

jojo wrote:i like the indian though he much better than hazel irvine as a presenter your job should be to present the facts from an objective point of view not be a summariser or pundit with expert analyses that kind of thing should be left to the likes of doherty parrot davis etc

hazel irvine she goes on trying to pretend shes actually knows what she talking about when it obvious she hasnt got a clue she starts trying to analyse the game speaking in a condascending manner like she presenting blue peter to a bunch of kids she should just take a leaf out the indians book and say the minimum possible say objective things presenting to the public that should be your job as a presenter and let the experts analyse

the sooner they get rid of that hussy the likes of myself pay for her to be on the bbc the better

Islamic extremist Hatah!!!!

Tubberlad wrote:You really have a gift for giving someone a blunt nickname and sticking to it. Yesterday's match between Hawkins and Maguire is a prime example, you referred to Hawkins as 'she' and 'her' all the way through as if it was second nature.

I too like Rishi, or 'the indian'. As you say, he's neutral, but perhaps a little too safe. He's very professional, but he's not someone who's going to spark a really interesting debate. Irvine is fine, but she really bigs O'Sullivan and Higgins up far more than anyone else.

Sikh Hatah!!!

The worst thing on the BBC is Dennis Taylor. He still talks about O'Sullivan playing left handed like it has only been discovered! Worse than that is his constant references to golf , golf players, and his rounds with Willie on the course. In addition his cliches are annoying, ie "As a player you think in terms of mini sessions, andyou try and win each one 3-1; " He looks like he could be in a boy band"



Alex Higgins should have had him shot when he said he would!!

personally i dont think it should be up to the presenter to spark a debate that should come from the analyses the tea server should serve the tea not make an after dinner speech similarly the presenter should present not start trying to be analytical and spark up debate especially when they not got a clue what they talking about ie hazel irvine

if you watch football watch the way gary lineker does it on match of the day even though he was a top player he knows his job is to present and this what he does he doesnt really analyse he lets the analysers ie hansen lawrensen dixon shearer do this and they spark up debate from their analyses

similarly garth crooks is really good aswell he got a brilliant mannerism about him they should try and get him or lineker to replace hazel

I disagree jojo. At the end of the day, you want entertainment, and not to be switching over when the panelists come on. This entertainment should be in the form of genuine debate amongst knowledgable pundits, sparked by the presenter.

On this side of the water, Bill O'Herlihy clearly knows buck all about football, but draws the best out of the panelists: John Giles, Liam Brady & Eamon Dunphy. Now, they're passed their sell by date to be honest, but up until a few years ago they were the dream panel and the debate was downright terrific. I don't particularly like football, but by Christ I never missed the analysis

Sonny wrote:
3 from each half of the draw. I think Murphy v O'Sullivan will be good but Ronnie will be too determined not to lose to Shaun. Saying that, Shaun will not shy away as he proved in taking the shitclock crown from Ronnie last season so that is the round 2 match I'm personally looking forward to most. Really honestly don't care who wins that one.

That'll be a cracker alright. And I bet your rare in not caring. I bet everybody will have differing opinions on that. Remember when we were all on breakdown, and Higgins played Ronnie in the UK. (How could you forget? ) The forum was divided by Higgins fans and Ronnie fans, all determined in their knowledge the man they wanted to win, would lose. I remember the whole board being tense, but refusing to leave the telly/forum because the match was so epic.

I think Murphy vs Ronnie will be like that. For once, I want to see Smurphy win.

One thing I have noticed about the commentators this year is that, Clive aside, none of them seem to have watched any none-BBC snooker. Virgo was particularly surprised at how Trump was displaying, whereby nobody who had watched the China Open would be. And I forget which one, but Clive had to correct his co-commentator on which ranking event Mark Williams had won.

I expect this amateurism from Eurosport, who to be fair, aint got a lot of money to splash out. You can forgvie them for not being able to get commentators with the knowledge of Clive. But at the BBC they have the resources to get people who know what they're talking about, and the resources to furnish those that don't with instant stats.

I like Hazel. Rishi is a bit boring.

I would say that I don't see the point in getting a football presenter in, to do the snooker. But I did like Ray Stubbs, actually.

At home all day today, and what a feast of snooker. Firstly see the end of Fu/Gould which at 6-3 could still be close. Then Higgins/Lee. And finally Selby/Robertson, but I hope the BBC keep Allen/Stevens on the Red Button as that one looks a lot interesting. And...


COME ON RORY!

simplysnooker wrote:At home all day today, and what a feast of snooker. Firstly see the end of Fu/Gould which at 6-3 could still be close. Then Higgins/Lee. And finally Selby/Robertson, but I hope the BBC keep Allen/Stevens on the Red Button as that one looks a lot interesting. And...


COME ON RORY!

Yeah, Rory. Get a frame completed in less then an hour.

The thing with Virgo is, he has got the correct personality for things such as Big Break, and Snooker Legends. When I've seen him at exhibitions matches and things, he's quite funny. Especially when he sends himself up, giving it "Where's the cue ball going?" when it's arriving in the centre of the table.


Thing is, when you put him in a commentary position and he feels he has to be serious, he gets annoying. Having him have a stroke every time the cue ball goes near the pocket is funny, when he's taking the snake hiss out of himself and uses it selectively. When he does it every shot from the break off, and then starts showing which shot he'd do with his pen, and he gets quite annoying. He's quite an affable sort. I wouldn't mind having a pint with him and discussing snooker. But to call live action, he just comes across that he's having an orgasm in every frame. And it's every shot when Ronnie's playing.