SnookerFan wrote:I've said before it's not my favourite magazine. But I think offence was taken when I criticised it before, which wasn't the intent, so I won't say too much on it. For me, I find it a bit dry and uninteresting.
On saying that, I think it's good that there is a popular snooker magazine out there. It'd be good to see a couple of others, offering variety.
what i dont get what do you expect from a magazine snooker scene has Results,Political Wranglings,Reports.
theres nothing more that can be done to be a veriaty .......Do you want to know the bedroom antics of players what they eat for breakfast ?
Humour me because ive never understood what you want from a magazine on snooker
Maybe I shouldn't say, because as Sonny said, offence seemed to be taken when I discussed a similar issue before. But seeing as you ask, I'll try and explain. I want it known though, all of what I state about the magazine is my opinion on having read, say, three editions of it my entire life and isn't meant as derogatory about anybody who contributes towards the magazine.
But what I found is that there was too much statement of fact, rather then analysis. There was a several pages of article on results. Which is fine, this is what I want. But it seemed, at least in one of the ones I read, to have match reports that ran something like this;
"Ronnie O'Sullivan beat Steve Davis 5-1. In the first frame Ronnie got a break of 101. In the second frame Ronnie got a break of 54 before missing a blue. Davis then made a break of 5 before missing a red. Ronnie cleared up with a break of 30 to win the frame. In the third frame Davis got a break of 98 to win the frame. In the fourth frame...." Personally, I'd rather have more analysis. Also in one I read, there was several pages on Clive Everton discussing a lawsuit he'd won against somebody who'd sued him for comments in his magazine. The problem was that was several pages of legal language that wouldn't be understood by the majority, and I couldn't see who it would be of interest to particularly. I'd prefer these pages to be dedicated to snooker, no grievance airing. I'm glad Clive won, make no mistake, but I didn't need to hear the specific details.
It wasn't all bad. There was an interesting article I once read about Steve Davis and his 10 career highlights. (I believe it was when he turned 50.) And it said it wasn't going to put in his six world title wins, and four others. It instead put in some alternative highlights, like his 1997 Masters win and his 2005 run to the UK Final, both of which weren't particularly expected. Plus the 1985 final defeat which everybody remembers etc. I'd like to see more like that. More analytical pieces, rather then fact stating. Are there interviews, I vaguely remember there was interviews, but they weren't particularly in depth. Clive Everton must have contacts. If Sonny can get decent, in-depth interviews for this site, Clive must be able to... Maybe these are already in there, and I've not read it enough. If these are in here, and I mean proper in depth interviews, then I'd certainly think about reading more issues.
And I guess the other thing, which is a positive, is the magazine spoke about other cue sports. Which is a good thing, of course, but isn't something I care about. Other then the odd 3-cushion-billiard game, I watch snooker and no other ones.
It really just is a case of not being able to please everybody. And the issues of it I've read, I haven't been particularly taken with. I'm not saying it's all bad, there is some interesting stuff in there. Just not something I've thought about subscribing too every month.