Topic locked

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Smart

Sonny wrote:What do you mean averaged just below one minute per shot towards the end of the match? That sounds like a made up stat. Either he was close to one minute for the full length of the match or he wasn't.

The shot clock is bull and there is no arguement for bringing it in. In fact, if it became a rule I would close this site down and go and do something else.

<laugh> :idea: <laugh> :idea:

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Smart

Sonny wrote:
As for this:
As for the slowing an opponent down, Im not too bothered by that but when people start leaving arenas because of how someone is going above and beyond slowing players down thats when I do have a problem because that is harming the sport.


I don't remember seeing that happen although people do leave when a match is considerably boring due to negative snooker. Like King v McLeod at the Crucible recently. Neither would have played much differently under a shot clock. As Marco Fu has shown, if you want to the shot clock can make snooker way more negative than normal if both players are scared to take on shots.


King vs McLeod was a great match, I thoroughly enjoyed cos there was tension in it. :idea:

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Casey

StalinESQ wrote:
case_master wrote:Now Snr is released Ronnie v’s McLeod would have much more tension imo :bang2:

<laugh>

Rory would need protection. :idea:


It would be even more uncomfortable than Hann v Hicks. :bang2: