Shot Clock part 101

I Know this is a Old Chestnut But Acording to Sportstat The People behind Live Scoring 5 players avaraged under 20 second a shot during the UK Championship so when you consider the fact this is a Major as apose to a PTC or PL thats a large % of players out of 32 that was under PL Shot Clock rules.

Shot Clocks arent Needed in todays Game. i bet if they played PL Without shot Clock then Avaraged the Shot time i bet with the players in that most if not all would be around 20 seconds anyway.

Shot Clocks ultimatly rush players that dont need rushing and slower players cant play their natrual game whitch should be their right.....its like asking Ronnie to play slow.

The shot clock is a load of cockerel. Don't see the need for this topic though to be honest Wild.

Sonny wrote:The shot clock is a load of cockerel. Don't see the need for this topic though to be honest Wild.

the shot clock question the shot clock just doesent disapere thats the problem

SportStat_Live SportStat
@
@wildey_1 All 32 players averaged under 30 secs, though one sneaked it at 29.95! Any guesses?

so there was 27 players between 20 and 30 seconds in avarage time do we really need to bring in a clock anyway for about 1 or 2 % of players that ocationaly might be on the slow side.

we are now aproaching a new era where new pros will be of the atacking nature so let everyone play their natrual game whatever it is because there is no problem in snooker with slow play anymore.

Sonny wrote:The shot clock is a load of cockerel. Don't see the need for this topic though to be honest Wild.

As Wild says, Sportstat mentioned it on Twitter, so at least it's topical.

It is a stupid idea though.

incidently i never thought slow play as a problem anyway.

my fave when i started watching was Alex Higgins and second fave Cliff Thorburn polar oposites in everything they did and way they played.

What I mean is, this topic is far too tame. You're almost trying to justify that a shot clock isn't needed based around average shot times at the UK when this is the one topic above all others to slay with passion and fire and swearing from the off.

There is NO argument FOR a shot clock. Period. Even a nicely nicely approach to the "debate" needs to be cut down to size and stamped out. The whole shot clock thing needs to be eradicated from serious snooker events all together. No room for maneuver whatsoever. Live and die by the anti-shot clock stance. I couldn't care less if the players average shot time was 15 seconds or 2 minutes.

Sonny wrote:What I mean is, this topic is far too tame. You're almost trying to justify that a shot clock isn't needed based around average shot times at the UK when this is the one topic above all others to slay with passion and fire and swearing from the off.

There is NO argument FOR a shot clock. Period. Even a nicely nicely approach to the "debate" needs to be cut down to size and stamped out. The whole shot clock thing needs to be eradicated from serious snooker events all together. No room for maneuver whatsoever. Live and die by the anti-shot clock stance. I couldn't care less if the players average shot time was 15 seconds or 2 minutes.

Sonny wrote:What I mean is, this topic is far too tame. You're almost trying to justify that a shot clock isn't needed based around average shot times at the UK when this is the one topic above all others to slay with passion and fire and swearing from the off.

There is NO argument FOR a shot clock. Period. Even a nicely nicely approach to the "debate" needs to be cut down to size and stamped out. The whole shot clock thing needs to be eradicated from serious snooker events all together. No room for maneuver whatsoever. Live and die by the anti-shot clock stance. I couldn't care less if the players average shot time was 15 seconds or 2 minutes.

What im saying is theres no statistical evidance shot clock is even needed.

so no matter which angle you coming from nothing at all justifies the need for them.

Wild wrote:

Sonny wrote:What I mean is, this topic is far too tame. You're almost trying to justify that a shot clock isn't needed based around average shot times at the UK when this is the one topic above all others to slay with passion and fire and swearing from the off.

There is NO argument FOR a shot clock. Period. Even a nicely nicely approach to the "debate" needs to be cut down to size and stamped out. The whole shot clock thing needs to be eradicated from serious snooker events all together. No room for maneuver whatsoever. Live and die by the anti-shot clock stance. I couldn't care less if the players average shot time was 15 seconds or 2 minutes.

What im saying is theres no statistical evidance shot clock is even needed.

so no matter which angle you coming from nothing at all justifies the need for them.

He's telling you to swear and shout, Wild. I know your usual reluctance, but try this time. For Sonny.

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:

Sonny wrote:What I mean is, this topic is far too tame. You're almost trying to justify that a shot clock isn't needed based around average shot times at the UK when this is the one topic above all others to slay with passion and fire and swearing from the off.

There is NO argument FOR a shot clock. Period. Even a nicely nicely approach to the "debate" needs to be cut down to size and stamped out. The whole shot clock thing needs to be eradicated from serious snooker events all together. No room for maneuver whatsoever. Live and die by the anti-shot clock stance. I couldn't care less if the players average shot time was 15 seconds or 2 minutes.

What im saying is theres no statistical evidance shot clock is even needed.

so no matter which angle you coming from nothing at all justifies the need for them.

He's telling you to swear and shout, Wild. I know your usual reluctance, but try this time. For Sonny.

im trying not to lol

Shot clock is bashing a ball before the clock runs down - keep it to the exbo snooker

i still dont see the harm in one shotclock ranker to be honest

given all the ranking points and tournaments its hardly like it would distort things plus it would give an event a unique identity, something like the Welsh Open for example needs a kiss of life and something like this would help IMO

Also be interesting to see how Ronnie would cope playing shotclock when there was actually ranking points on offer, maybe hed finally crumble

Yeh I called for the Shootout to be ranked in my ideal calendar, 1,000 points for the winner in that structure wouldn't harm anyone.

Bourne wrote:Yeh I called for the Shootout to be ranked in my ideal calendar, 1,000 points for the winner in that structure wouldn't harm anyone.

gotta be more than 1,000

thats half a PTC

id cut to the chase and make it 4,000 for the winner

talking of points, im just suddenly thinking that the Worlds is a total joke that its still only 10,000 points compared to the other events

Witz78 wrote:

Bourne wrote:Yeh I called for the Shootout to be ranked in my ideal calendar, 1,000 points for the winner in that structure wouldn't harm anyone.

gotta be more than 1,000

thats half a PTC

id cut to the chase and make it 4,000 for the winner

talking of points, im just suddenly thinking that the Worlds is a total joke that its still only 10,000 points compared to the other events

It's the same as a PTC in my system

Witz78 wrote:i still dont see the harm in one shotclock ranker to be honest

given all the ranking points and tournaments its hardly like it would distort things plus it would give an event a unique identity, something like the Welsh Open for example needs a kiss of life and something like this would help IMO

Also be interesting to see how Ronnie would cope playing shotclock when there was actually ranking points on offer, maybe hed finally crumble

Am I the only one who really liked the Welsh Open before they shortened the first round matches? On my own again.

casey summed up shot clock to a tee.

its just pointless and dont actually quicken up matches just quickens or rushes shots ......you can have a 2 hour frame as long as you play shots in 20 seconds.