Topic locked

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Noel

Sonny.
I don't understand your distain for the PL.
If it were best of, say 9, with no shotclock it
would be ok?
You think the quality of player and play is substandard?
Please comment.

Cheers.

=o)

Noel

PS whoever thinks Carter is a better player more deserving of a PL place
than Robertson is, frankly, stupid.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

No one said "than Robertson". I certainly didn't anyway. Can't argue with any of the picks this time around. World Champion, UK champion, Masters champion and Marco Fu. Fu won his place there obviously :)

My disdain is primarily for the shot clock which stops it being snooker in my opinion. Speed snooker is not how the game is meant to be played, it's a variant and as you've seen with Sky, it's lead to their next event being a 15 second shot clock with no miss rule and ball in hand from a foul. That shows the respect Sky has for snooker.

But I digress. I enjoy watching the Premier League, especially when there are two players I want to see play e.g. Selby v Robertson, O'Sullivan v Murphy. Where I draw the line is in the ridiculous notion some people seem to have that it is snooker's "5th major" as pointed out earlier. That's bull. It's an invitational event, a marketing tool and a cash cow. I only managed to see it when I first got Skysports a few years ago which is a rip off, and Jimmy White, Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis were the first names announced every year. Add to that John Higgins and Ronnie O'Sullivan and you have a club of great players, but an inpenetrable club for a lot of other players maybe worthy of inclusion.

Yes if you are a player it's one of the events you really want to play in. One night a week, television and a grand a frame and a further grand a century - who wouldn't want to play in it?

There is a trend towards ROS fans being the biggest supporters of shot clocks, look at your man's record in the Premier League - he owns it. It suits him way more than any other player in the game, it's an unfair advantage and as such everyone should take it with a pinch of salt when a ROS fan backs the shot clock for a ranking event.

I personally have found that the shot clock has ruined several matches this year. OK there may be some excitement when both players are out of time outs and it goes close at the end, but for the most part players under time pressure rush shots and the quality of snooker drops.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby SnookerFan

Not that I am Sonny, and I don't disdain the PL, but I don't find the PL as interesting. And most of the time this season I went to bed before it finished. Last season I didn't have Sky Sports, and didn't miss it at all.

The shot clocks don't help, I find that lessens excitement, not adds to it. Snooker isn't exciting in a "Oh My God! He's about to do a shot!" kind of a way, it's the tense excitement that makes it. It builds up, and people face problems they have to overcome. That disappears when there's a shot clock they have to adhere to. It's just endless shots and no psychology. It's okay for a few games, but after a couple of weeks your interest wanes.

I also don't like the fact it can end in a draw. Real snooker shouldn't end in a draw. Or if it goes up to 4-0, you know who has won, but you have to watch two more frames. How boring is that?

And it doesn't help that they seem hellbent on getting people in to talk as much rubbish as possible. Andy Goldstein seems to make a good living by talking about snooker, without knowing anything much about it. They bring in Clive Everton and Willie Thorne to discuss such logic as the Premier League being slightly behind The Crucible in terms of presitge, and how all tournaments should have a shot clock.

Sky essentially, want to get it as close to being able to fit in a 4-hour time slot as possible. A real snooker tournament doesn't adhere conveniently to one time frame. Sky doesn't seem to like that, so tries to make it as close as it possibly can be to being convenient. So, you have to take it like it is.

Personally, I've watched more PL this season then I have any previous season. Next year, after the move, I might take to watching it occasionally in the pub, but that's about it. And yes, I would enjoy watching the league format with a best of 9, no shot clock format, but I guess that wouldn't have the same popularity with the casual fan, or adhere to the Barry Hearn 'quick snooker = better snooker' philosophy.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:SnookerFan <ok>


Sonny. <cool>

I also don't like this talk of it being another major. It's not. A cash cow for the players, and something a bit different for the casual fan. But not a major. The only people who think it's a major are the fans who want Ronnie to win everything.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

noal

what im saying if the PL wants credability then Carter as World no 2 and shanghai masters champion should be in it....

you can not have a "MAJOR" where the Entrants is at the discretion of the promoters.

it has to be driven by achievement and not by Popularity.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby SnookerFan

aussiewild wrote:noal

what im saying if the PL wants credability then Carter as World no 2 and shanghai masters champion should be in it....

you can not have a "MAJOR" where the Entrants is at the discretion of the promoters.

it has to be driven by achievement and not by Popularity.


Therein lies the flaw in the argument that goes; "There's a shot clock in the Premier League, the Premier League gets bigger crowds, thus the shot clock needs to be implemented into ranking events."

It doesn't take into account the fact that they ten to deliberately pick players with some form of popularity. (And Murphy.) And also that it is in each town for one day a week. And at a time wherein is convenient for most.

A few years ago I went to see Mark Allen vs Judd Trump at The Masters wildcard round. It was both men's first appearance at The Masters. Mark Allen was only just in the top-16, and think it was before he'd beaten Ronnie at The Crucible and announced himself. Judd Trump was probably the better known of the two at the time, strangely. Anyway, this was Monday morning at 11am. I was only able to go due to having the day off work, and had only got tickets to that match because the wildcard rounds come free when you buy a round one match.

Point is, there was barely anybody there. Lesser known stars, an inconvenient time, the Masters being there all week so people can go when they feel like as oppose to a one-night only deal all point to 'shot clock brings fans' argument being far too simplistic.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby onlyevertonjon

Does Ronnie's domination of the PL show why you cant implement a shot clock into rankers?

Its not so much him winning the PL constantly, its the scorelines he racks up. He has battered virtually every player he has played in it since the shot clock. Whitewashing Hendry, Selby, White. Losing only 1 frame to Robertson twice and Murphy this season.

If he was doing this in rankers fair enough. I know there is an argument Ronnie doesnt do well when he has to stay in a place for a while and the PL suits him because he can walk in, play and walk out job done but the shotclock clearly suits him.

My favourite player is Ronnie but I dont think this would be right to put something into rankers that clearly suits him. I just think refs need to get tougher with time wasting antics, which is in the ref's remit.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

I remember going to watch the Premier League in Leeds a few years ago where it was Mark Williams v Jimmy White, I think it must've been when Williams was World Champ in 2000. Anyway, it was pretty packed there and then with Mark JA doing the presenters job. There was no shot clock and it had a similar sort of crowd. I guess there's no harm in a shot clock if you want to entertain and put players out of their comfort zone but it is 100% gimmick for entertainment purposes only.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:I remember going to watch the Premier League in Leeds a few years ago where it was Mark Williams v Jimmy White, I think it must've been when Williams was World Champ in 2000. Anyway, it was pretty packed there and then with Mark JA doing the presenters job. There was no shot clock and it had a similar sort of crowd. I guess there's no harm in a shot clock if you want to entertain and put players out of their comfort zone but it is 100% gimmick for entertainment purposes only.


i went to a PL Match before Shot Clock and in Llandudno other night the Feel of the Event was the same and crowds similar.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Monique

Every format put some players at a disadvantage. Short formats aren't confortable for players who need a few frames to settle. Long formats aren't confortable for players who tend to lack stamina OR aren't of the "steady mechanical type" (that's BTW why Selby hasn't won more of them Sonny ;) ). Shot clock favours a certain set of skilss and, yes it does suit Ronnie, but I can't see why we couldn't have one or two out of some 30 tournaments under that format, whatever the other circumstances. Variety would only bring more fairness.

Now... the rules explicitely state that taking unduly long time over a shot is gamemanship and should be punished. That's crystal clear innit? It IS gamemanship, not a legit tactic to put off your opponent when your snooker isn't up the marks. Now the problem with the rules is that there are no guidelines for the refs and in practical real situation it's very, very rarely applied. The refs don't feel at ease to do so for various reasons: they are afraid to misjudge the difficulty of a shot or the importance of the occasion, they have no idea of the player natural pace or they are afraid to upset the authorities or a top player ... Unless someone comes with a practical, applicable answer to the problem I think that a shot-clock as Phil Yates proposed it would be fine.
Phil proposed a 35 seconds shot clock. That's really plenty of times. And he also proposed a ample provision of timeouts. I don't think that would put anyone at a disadvantage, not even Rory McLeod or Fergal O'Brien (who BTW is slow but certainly not negative). What it would do though is stop the cheats. By cheats I mean the players who deliberately play on the fact that the refs won't be punishing them when they should by the rules.
Let's name some names...
Peter Ebdon in the recent World Open against Ronnie had, at some point, well in the match, an average shot time of 47 seconds. Now will anyone explain to me how this is justifiable? The slowest players on the tour have average shot times around 25 seconds, pushing the boat 30 in a difficult match ...
Mark Selby, who is by no means a slow player - he topped the PL table the very first year he played in it and went to the final - was taking just below one minute per shot - metronomically - against Ali Carter in the WC 2007 Quarters towards the end of the match. Even for absolutely straightforward shots. He was playing on Ali's fatigue, that's all.
Now this is clearly not acceptable by the rules of snooker.

The day such conducts will be punished I will not ask for shot-clock anymore in ranking events, except for the odd one and for the sake of variety. Until then, I am.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

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.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

you see im in the camp that any tactic is acceptable to win a match some of the best,entertaining and brilliant matches ive seen has been one player trying to slow the other player down.

i saw it in the 80s with Ray Reardon and im seeing it today and i love it.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

There is nothing wrong with it wild, it's part of snooker. I don't wish to offend Monique but once again, the only people who complain about it seem to be ROS fans. Well how about ROS having a shot average time of about 10 seconds more than Selby in the 2010 Masters final? Who was trying to slow who down then? Who was trying to get frames in a re-rack situation to play with their opponents head then?

Just as long as the player in question is not blatantly taking the snake hiss over easy shots, then there is no problem with taking your time. And Selby shows maturity for giving certain shots respect in my opinion, he doesn't play games. The only reason him and Ronnie get involved in so many scrappy frames is because they are both so good at safety.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby onlyevertonjon

Yeah I suppose different formats do suit different styles. However the better players generally tend to get to the business end of tournaments no matter the format. The shot clock is seeing O'Sullivan hammering people. World Champions and Former Champs alike. I know he can do this in majors and rankers but nowhere near as much he does in the PL and it seems if this was brought in it would give him a massive advantage over EVERY other player.

I would love to see the PL extended to maybe a champions league system with groups. There's a place for the PL but it should have more players involved. I enjoy it and dont think for a second its rubbish. The players seem to like it to. Funnily enough in 2004 Ronnie said he didn't like the shot clock after beating Paul Hunter.

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.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:There is nothing wrong with it wild, it's part of snooker. I don't wish to offend Monique but once again, the only people who complain about it seem to be ROS fans. Well how about ROS having a shot average time of about 10 seconds more than Selby in the 2010 Masters final? Who was trying to slow who down then? Who was trying to get frames in a re-rack situation to play with their opponents head then?

Just as long as the player in question is not blatantly taking the pass water over easy shots, then there is no problem with taking your time. And Selby shows maturity for giving certain shots respect in my opinion, he doesn't play games. The only reason him and Ronnie get involved in so many scrappy frames is because they are both so good at safety.


Ronnie was clearly administering Mark some of his own medecine on the occasion Sonny ;) He should have been warned also... they were in a way actually. The ref had a quiet word with both of them.
And no, I don't make it up about the Carter match. It was quite striking. Mark at the time was still playing pool regularly at the highest level and pool is played under a one minute shot clock in many competitions. It is a tactic to let your time nearly run out before playing. Mark on that particular occasion - I have never seen him doing it before or again BTW - was really taking that tactic back in his snooker match and he should have been warned going by the rules of snooker.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

Putting Towels on his head and Playing with a spoon is game play everyone does it at one time or another in every sport.

You see Tennis Players slowing down at change of ends if he sees his opponent eager to get on with it same with serving. Goalkeepers keeping Penalty takers waiting etc etc.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

Or maybe he was playing the most important match of his whole life with the chance to get to the one table situation at the Crucible for the first time and didn't want to blow the chance by making any silly mistakes. Selby doesn't shy away from pressure, he acknowledges it and respects it and part of that is to clear your mind and play the right shot when all around you seems like chaos.

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.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby onlyevertonjon

Sonny wrote:Or maybe he was playing the most important match of his whole life with the chance to get to the one table situation at the Crucible for the first time and didn't want to blow the chance by making any silly mistakes. Selby doesn't shy away from pressure, he acknowledges it and respects it and part of that is to clear your mind and play the right shot when all around you seems like chaos.

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.



People did walk out of the O'Sullivan vs Ebdon match. I saw it on tv but my friend was there and he said he saw it happening and he went out for one frame and came back. He is, if anything, a Hendry fan so its no bias towards O'Sullivan

As for shot clock keep it to the PL, but I think Power snooker, (which wasnt for me) shot clock or any other invention that gets people to actually watch snooker is all good by me. Just a little uncertain that if you're not already a fan of snooker then you'll be pulled in by the gimmicks anyway.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

onlyevertonjon wrote:Just a little uncertain that if you're not already a fan of snooker then you'll be pulled in by the gimmicks anyway.

Totally agree.

theres are many other cuesports out there if they want something different the apeal of snooker is what it is and poolising it will achieve zilch regarding getting people interested.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

aussiewild wrote:
onlyevertonjon wrote:Just a little uncertain that if you're not already a fan of snooker then you'll be pulled in by the gimmicks anyway.

Totally agree.

theres are many other cuesports out there if they want something different the apeal of snooker is what it is and poolising it will achieve zilch regarding getting people interested.


Strongly disagree. If you take Power Snooker across the globe and get pool people interested in playing it, then you will get a movement to the game proper in droves. It just takes time.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby wheelsofsteel

The Premier League is a rewards-driven exercise year on year for;
1) Barry Hearn
2) Players
3) Sky TV
4) then snooker

It allows people who think that English League soccer was invented by Sky the chance to see a sport they would not normally find between helpings of soccer, WWF, cricket, boxing and golf.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:
aussiewild wrote:
onlyevertonjon wrote:Just a little uncertain that if you're not already a fan of snooker then you'll be pulled in by the gimmicks anyway.

Totally agree.

theres are many other cuesports out there if they want something different the apeal of snooker is what it is and poolising it will achieve zilch regarding getting people interested.


Strongly disagree. If you take Power Snooker across the globe and get pool people interested in playing it, then you will get a movement to the game proper in droves. It just takes time.

NEVER in a million trillion zillion years will Power Snooker attract people to snooker the only similarity to snooker was its played on a 12 x 6 Table.

Cuesports attracts people its only a matter of whats your preference.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

The only similarity to snooker is the 12x6 ft table. Oh, and the colours of the balls and where they sit on the table and how many points they are worth and which order they are potted in. You muppet.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:The only similarity to snooker is the 12x6 ft table. Oh, and the colours of the balls and where they sit on the table and how many points they are worth and which order they are potted in. You muppet.

but will that atract people to the Real Game ?

its so far removed

Double points,Quadriple points, Diamond Rack etc

you either like snooker or you dont.

they could do something similar with Rugby....Would i watch it ? Would i hell.

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Roland

aussiewild wrote:
Sonny wrote:The only similarity to snooker is the 12x6 ft table. Oh, and the colours of the balls and where they sit on the table and how many points they are worth and which order they are potted in. You muppet.

but will that atract people to the Real Game ?

its so far removed

Double points,Quadriple points, Diamond Rack etc

you either like snooker or you dont.

they could do something similar with Rugby....Would i watch it ? Would i hell.



If you've never seen snooker before and suddenly you come across Power Snooker, then you will move across to proper snooker.

Your problem is that you are so isolated, you think everyone in the world knows what snooker is and lives in Wales. I will never forget the time you said more people will know who an obscure middle ranked snooker player was than Rebecca Addlington who had just won a load of Olympic Golds and was all over the bloody media, just because you only tune into snooker media.

....


rofl

Re: Premier League 2010: Finals Weekend

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:
aussiewild wrote:
Sonny wrote:The only similarity to snooker is the 12x6 ft table. Oh, and the colours of the balls and where they sit on the table and how many points they are worth and which order they are potted in. You muppet.

but will that atract people to the Real Game ?

its so far removed

Double points,Quadriple points, Diamond Rack etc

you either like snooker or you dont.

they could do something similar with Rugby....Would i watch it ? Would i hell.



If you've never seen snooker before and suddenly you come across Power Snooker, then you will move across to proper snooker.

Your problem is that you are so isolated, you think everyone in the world knows what snooker is and lives in Wales. I will never forget the time you said more people will know who an obscure middle ranked snooker player was than Rebecca Addlington who had just won a load of Olympic Golds and was all over the bloody media, just because you only tune into snooker media.

....


rofl


so in 100 years people not come across snooker then in 5 minutes they come across power snooker ?

how does that work