Post a reply

Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby mozb

Usually I'm a big fan of Hendry's commentatary, being a top player he usually brings a fresh technical insight into the game - but time and time again this WC championship he keeps talking about cue deceleration causing shots to be missed thin - what is he talking about?? It's driving me a little crazy.

If you are 'attempting' to play without side, surely a decel you will either cause the cueball to go consistently either left or right (depending on the exact cue action of the player) and not 'thin' as obviously the thin side is different for each shot?

Surely he is talking rubbish, also he seems to blaming it on about half of the shots missed thin in the whole bloody championship.

The only explaination for this I can think of is that every one of these drag shots that are being deceled on are being played with a bit of running side which would cause to miss thin with a decel - but I doubt all these drag shots are being played with running side, it would surely make a drag shot a lot more difficult and would be avoided by a pro unless completely necessary.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby Prop

I know what you’re getting at. But I think there’s something in it other than players naturally playing with a touch of helping side. Here’s my theory. It is only that.

I believe it’s all to do with friction. The harder the shot is struck, the more friction is created on impact, and the more the object ball‘s trajectory is straightened. It’s the same as when a double is played at pace and the object ball straightens up as it trebles or quadruples back and forth across the table. Play the same shot at half that pace and the white won’t straighten up anywhere near as much. And also for example escaping from a snooker, playing the white off a side cushion at an angle - the harder it’s struck, the less the white ‘slides’, and the inverse applies - the softer it is struck, the more the white ‘slides’.

The same happens between two balls, to a lesser but still quantifiable extent. So, as energy of impact correlates to friction, the softer the impact the less friction. The less friction, the less the shot straightens up. Or, in context of your question, the less power, the wider the potting angle that is created, and balls are ‘missed thin’.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby mozb

Prop wrote:I know what you’re getting at. But I think there’s something in it other than players naturally playing with a touch of helping side. Here’s my theory. It is only that.

I believe it’s all to do with friction. The harder the shot is struck, the more friction is created on impact, and the more the object ball‘s trajectory is straightened. It’s the same as when a double is played at pace and the object ball straightens up as it trebles or quadruples back and forth across the table. Play the same shot at half that pace and the white won’t straighten up anywhere near as much. And also for example escaping from a snooker, playing the white off a side cushion at an angle - the harder it’s struck, the less the white ‘slides’, and the inverse applies - the softer it is struck, the more the white ‘slides’.

The same happens between two balls, to a lesser but still quantifiable extent. So, as energy of impact correlates to friction, the softer the impact the less friction. The less friction, the less the shot straightens up. Or, in context of your question, the less power, the wider the potting angle that is created, and balls are ‘missed thin’.


But balls don't straighten up from speed, the effect with doubles you are talking about occurs from the hall to cushion contact not ball to ball. I don't think your explanation checks out unfortunately.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby TheSaviour

"What is he talking about"?

Glad that you raise a question.

I am mainly interested how some of the top players responds while the REAL opponent takes the REAL lead. How they respond, that´s something I am mainly interested about. I am sure Stephen is same. Sure, he can have all these kind of a details what can be done while everything goes really well.

Now, glad that heritage of the "great game" has been cleared now. It is oka to me, given the goal and the target was so innocent. I just couldn´t get going while they were going for just somethings. And the goes on, goes on and goes on.

Just where that one man discovered all the nonsense from the books, who told him all that? I suppose he, amongs all, have started to believe all that what´s on. But that just a game, and he knows it all. Sadly, the stake are just pretty high. BUT, if Stephen can do all those things, then no need to even have any doubts what RUBBISH can be on!

The word sadly is once again on. No need to to try to find a mirror, as they can´t!

Luckily to me.

Maltin Gould, Barry Hawkins, David Gilbelt, Anthony McGill, Ding Junhui, Maflin, Stualt Bingham. You name it. Even, sadly, Ronnie O´Sullivan(!)

The word is bottling. The word is choking under the heavy pressure, making a no contest. Even when at least some of those lads are like, like, like a, yes, Gods. Play like a Gods.

Yet.

Kyren Wilson. There´s your man. Perhaps. Judd. There´s our man. Perhaps. BUT, the match is;

Neil Robertson-Mark Selby. Just a brilliant, brilliant showcase! One FALLS far behind, the show´s not over, no no no. Not at all.

Or.

Anyway, I am glad the deal is now done! Tried to help, to get adult. Thanks. Just a bit out of this world, the respond, but I have my contacts, you know…

No hibster beards anymore. A great effort yes, but just that they bottled it. Bring it on! The Rocket!!!! Flying. A bigger ball. You know what I mean. Tonight, yes…..

I always a very, vey much appreciate a great efforts. Even when no results at all. That´s the other thing I am mainly interested about, besides how the top dogs can and perhaps responds while trailing against an opponent. I am sure that´s common between us! Just lose lose lose. but do some analyses and if that´s the spot on, then that´s always a great, great effort and can be just happy. I would had it all, you now, just wasn´t bothering at that given time. It was me, when I saw the numbers. It was 100% me, make no mistakes. So the ideas are great. Great game, Jimmy. No matter what the results. If the ideas are just so good.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby Iranu

TheSaviour wrote:"What is he talking about"?

Glad that you raise a question.

Never a truer word.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby Prop

mozb wrote:
Prop wrote:I know what you’re getting at. But I think there’s something in it other than players naturally playing with a touch of helping side. Here’s my theory. It is only that.

I believe it’s all to do with friction. The harder the shot is struck, the more friction is created on impact, and the more the object ball‘s trajectory is straightened. It’s the same as when a double is played at pace and the object ball straightens up as it trebles or quadruples back and forth across the table. Play the same shot at half that pace and the white won’t straighten up anywhere near as much. And also for example escaping from a snooker, playing the white off a side cushion at an angle - the harder it’s struck, the less the white ‘slides’, and the inverse applies - the softer it is struck, the more the white ‘slides’.

The same happens between two balls, to a lesser but still quantifiable extent. So, as energy of impact correlates to friction, the softer the impact the less friction. The less friction, the less the shot straightens up. Or, in context of your question, the less power, the wider the potting angle that is created, and balls are ‘missed thin’.


But balls don't straighten up from speed, the effect with doubles you are talking about occurs from the hall to cushion contact not ball to ball. I don't think your explanation checks out unfortunately.


There’s much less friction involved ball to ball compared to ball to cushion, of course. The friction coefficient of a cushion is higher, but that’s not to say the friction coefficient of a ball is zero.

I also tend to miss balls thick if I hit them too hard.

Do you play the game? If so, do you notice it yourself?

Also, remember when they trialled that special ball polish a couple of seasons ago to try and eliminate kicks? Quite a few players said they had to adjust their potting angle because of it.

On the flipside, it’s no coincidence that a kick (anomalous high friction contact) does the opposite.

There’s much more to it than the potting angle alone determining the trajectory of an object ball. Energy transfer is as much a part of the equation as the friction coefficient of the balls themselves.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby Dan-cat

I think you maybe over complicating this.

To play snooker real good you need to follow through and accelerate through the white.

So when the commentators talk about a decel, it's just that the player hasn't accelerated through the white, and this can affect some shots worse than others.

I know when I'm playing badly I tend to look at three things: am I following through with acceleration, am I pausing on the backswing long enough, am I looking at the object ball when I shoot

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby Wildey

Decel is when you're cuing a ball and instead of playing a positive shot with intent you almost hold back at the last minute so what you want to happen ie to screw back if you decal on a screw back shot it turns in to a drag shot and your out of position.

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby SnookerEd25

Prop wrote:Well I think Savior and Wild have pretty much wrapped up this thread between them.


They are definitely the Monkman & Seagull of this forum

Re: Stephen Hendry's 'decel' nonsense?

Postby SnookerFan

Prop wrote:Well I think Savior and Wild have pretty much wrapped up this thread between them.


This is my favourite ever University Challenge contestant.

Image