Ck147 wrote:D4P wrote:Let he who has never taken 6 minutes to play a shot cast the first stone.
Lol. Different ends of the spectrum these two. If you take 6 minutes for a shot to grind your opponent into the ground, don't complain when someone takes the opposite approach and quickly smashes the balls and beats you.
There is no comparison in the two things, you are using false equivalency, what Ronnie did, as in the brilliant long reds to get in and the breaks in amazingly quick time was in fact something that rather than a very select few I would say could/would anyway else have taken that approach, and here is the key, actually be able to pull it off when looking down at out, nobody can turn it on like a light switch the way Ronnie did last night.
Where as Selby for example last night at one point Ronnie fouled and selby came and stood in front of the table trying to give the impression that he had a difficult decision to make as to whether he should put him in again or not, he knew from a second after the shot that that is what he was going to do, everyone knew that is what he was going to do but he stood there on purpose for well over a minute as he was trying one of his gamesmanship tactics that has worked many times in the past but not this time, so I disagree that "only a few select can grind the way Selby does" in the sense that if you're talking about gamesmanship, wasting time, trying to slow the game down to effect your opponent, then I don't agree as I could stand at the table and wait over a minute to make a decision that I know and everyone knows that I could have made in literally 3 seconds.
Well, for once the hunter got hunted didn't he! and it really rattled him! so at least we know the approach Ronnie will take in their next meeting when snookered, I'd rather see Ronnie potting those sublime long reds to get in and then make big breaks in 4 or 5 minutes then spend 10 minutes trying to get out of a snooker.