Post a reply

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Holden Chinaski

SnookerFan wrote:An item, usually made of glass or plastic, in which liquids are stored.

The courage or confidence needed to do something difficult or dangerous.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Holden Chinaski

That long red Ronnie took on at the beginning of the last frame! A long straight red under so much pressure! Beautiful cue action! Incredible bottle!

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

Holden Chinaski wrote:That long red Ronnie took on at the beginning of the last frame! A long straight red under so much pressure! Beautiful cue action! Incredible bottle!


People act like he's frail mentally, but throughout his career he's shown more bottle than the toughest match players, sure, he can't always produce it, but that goes for every other player. Which is something people seem to forget.

I must admit though, I'm struggling to think of an occasion that tops those last 3 frames.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Holden Chinaski

mantorok wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:That long red Ronnie took on at the beginning of the last frame! A long straight red under so much pressure! Beautiful cue action! Incredible bottle!


People act like he's frail mentally, but throughout his career he's shown more bottle than the toughest match players, sure, he can't always produce it, but that goes for every other player. Which is something people seem to forget.

I must admit though, I'm struggling to think of an occasion that tops those last 3 frames.

:goodpost:

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

Maybe making a 147 in the decider against Selby back in, 2007?

The first black he took on in that break was INSANE!

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

mantorok wrote:Maybe making a 147 in the decider against Selby back in, 2007?

The first black he took on in that break was INSANE!


Or was it 2008?

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby CUE CRAFTY

https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Andre147

There's so many Ronnie matches when he had do dig deep to win, it requires tremendous bottle and self-belief on the decisive moments.

Those last 3 frames against Selby proved that once again. I must say when Ronnie missed that red to the green pocket in the last, I feared Selby would make a frame winning clearance, alas John Higgins 2006 Masters Final. Ronnie shouldn't have run out of position but in those tense moments anything can happen, and Selby himself didn't get on the last red.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Holden Chinaski

CUE CRAFTY wrote:https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Hendry is a class act. :hatoff:

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

Holden Chinaski wrote:
CUE CRAFTY wrote:https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Hendry is a class act. :hatoff:


Hendry beleives you should pot balls to win a match, and I agree, you shouldn't lose a match because of a stupid miss-rule.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Andre147

mantorok wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
CUE CRAFTY wrote:https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Hendry is a class act. :hatoff:


Hendry beleives you should pot balls to win a match, and I agree, you shouldn't lose a match because of a stupid miss-rule.


Miss rule isn't stupid, otherwise you would see players like Alex Higgins in the past deliberately trying to miss the object ball just that the cue ball ran safe.

Miss rule avoids cheating like this, but sometimes it's up to the referee to judge if the player made the best of his ability to hit the object ball, because the players often want the toughest route because that garantees safety. This always needs to be called a miss, no matter how difficult the snooker is, unless like I said the player opts for the easiest route and made his best attempt.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

Andre147 wrote:
mantorok wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
CUE CRAFTY wrote:https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Hendry is a class act. :hatoff:


Hendry beleives you should pot balls to win a match, and I agree, you shouldn't lose a match because of a stupid miss-rule.


Miss rule isn't stupid, otherwise you would see players like Alex Higgins in the past deliberately trying to miss the object ball just that the cue ball ran safe.

Miss rule avoids cheating like this, but sometimes it's up to the referee to judge if the player made the best of his ability to hit the object ball, because the players often want the toughest route because that garantees safety. This always needs to be called a miss, no matter how difficult the snooker is, unless like I said the player opts for the easiest route and made his best attempt.


I know why the rule is there, but it's become the default nowadays, what if it's a really tricky snooker and there is only 1 path? What if the player feels there's only 1 path but the ref feels there's an easier route? Genuine question.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Iranu

Andre147 wrote:
mantorok wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
CUE CRAFTY wrote:https://youtu.be/y_8RbPqvsMA

This also takes bottle, because you need to be confident in your own ability to win. Kyren should take note here, its braver but also a far better way to show respect for an opponent (McGill in this case) than crying... Many players conveniently forget this is an option, and I felt it would have been fitting to their epic semi final battle when McGill missed by a tiny margin on his 4th attempt.

Hendry is a class act. :hatoff:


Hendry beleives you should pot balls to win a match, and I agree, you shouldn't lose a match because of a stupid miss-rule.


Miss rule isn't stupid, otherwise you would see players like Alex Higgins in the past deliberately trying to miss the object ball just that the cue ball ran safe.

Miss rule avoids cheating like this, but sometimes it's up to the referee to judge if the player made the best of his ability to hit the object ball, because the players often want the toughest route because that garantees safety. This always needs to be called a miss, no matter how difficult the snooker is, unless like I said the player opts for the easiest route and made his best attempt.

I think the miss rule should exist, but when a player misses the object ball by a few millimetres it seems ridiculous to call a miss, even if it’s not necessarily the easiest route to make contact. How is a player supposed to deliberately miss the ball by such a small margin?

The rule should take into account the fact that the easiest route often won’t get the object ball safe.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Andre147

Player needs to make the best attempt to hit the object ball, period.

Getting object ball safe is not taken into account, otherwise like I said scenes of the past could repeat itself.

When a player is in such a difficult snooker and there's only 1 viable option, it's up to the referee to decide if he made the best attempt possible, according to the player's ability. In this situation, refereeing an amateur match v a professional match is diffeent in the referee's interpretation.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Iranu

Andre147 wrote:Player needs to make the best attempt to hit the object ball, period.

Getting object ball safe is not taken into account, otherwise like I said scenes of the past could repeat itself.

When a player is in such a difficult snooker and there's only 1 viable option, it's up to the referee to decide if he made the best attempt possible, according to the player's ability. In this situation, refereeing an amateur match v a professional match is diffeent in the referee's interpretation.

I’m saying it should be taken into account.

It’s a bit of a shitty rule to say, “We’d rather you leave the whole frame on than make your best effort to hit the ball AND keep the object ball safe.”

I’m not expecting it to be the same as before the miss rule. But there’s a middle ground.

If a player’s playing to get out of a snooker dead weight, what possible advantage is there if it’s 2mm short rather than just about touching the ball?

Surely it shouldn’t be about the easiest escape but the easiest legitimate escape that leaves the balls safe. Otherwise it’s not an escape, is it?

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby CUE CRAFTY

Sorry Holden - I doubt you wanted another "miss rule" debate!

Back to Bottle. ; )

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
CUE CRAFTY wrote:Sorry Holden - I doubt you wanted another "miss rule" debate!

Back to Bottle. ; )

No problem, it's all good. :hatoff:

Good because I’m not sorry rofl

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby chengdufan

Iranu wrote:
Andre147 wrote:Player needs to make the best attempt to hit the object ball, period.

Getting object ball safe is not taken into account, otherwise like I said scenes of the past could repeat itself.

When a player is in such a difficult snooker and there's only 1 viable option, it's up to the referee to decide if he made the best attempt possible, according to the player's ability. In this situation, refereeing an amateur match v a professional match is diffeent in the referee's interpretation.

I’m saying it should be taken into account.

It’s a bit of a shitty rule to say, “We’d rather you leave the whole frame on than make your best effort to hit the ball AND keep the object ball safe.”

I’m not expecting it to be the same as before the miss rule. But there’s a middle ground.

If a player’s playing to get out of a snooker dead weight, what possible advantage is there if it’s 2mm short rather than just about touching the ball?

Surely it shouldn’t be about the easiest escape but the easiest legitimate escape that leaves the balls safe. Otherwise it’s not an escape, is it?

I agree with this 100%. It would take some careful wording of the rule, and expert interpretation from the refs. There would be some controversial decisions and some mistakes, but it would be worth it.

Re: The definition of BOTTLE!

Postby mantorok

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Those are just the best 3 frames I've ever seen anyone play. To play like that under so much pressure, against an opponent like Selby... I still can't believe it.


Watched it so many times already. It's never going to get old.