Rule changing to increase entertainment

Aggregate points matches have been played for donkeys in leagues across the country. A first to 500 points aggregate or something like that increasing round by round - what's the harm?

Mind you such an event would put a halt to those post frame won exhibition shots we all love to watch.

Sonny wrote:Aggregate points matches have been played for donkeys in leagues across the country. A first to 500 points aggregate or something like that increasing round by round - what's the harm?

yeh thered def be scope in that plus would encourage players to take more risks if there was a good potential scoring opportunity on offer to rack up decent points.

I will side with JIM about negative play: yes, this is a plague. It destroys snooker as a spectacle and more often than not bogs the culprit's game down just as much as their opponents.
I know I may sound like a broken record but once again unnecessary slow play is deemed ungentlemanly conduct by the rules and it would be enough to get the refs to actually apply them. See section 4, 1 pg 28 of the rules http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 232,00.pdf . I know that it might be difficult to judge sometimes due to the circumstances of the match and what's at stake, and that some players are naturally slower than others, but we also all know who does it and why (some even boast in the press before the match about their intentions - and, before you go mad Sonny, I can think of 3 different top players at least having done that over the years, and who BTW haven't necessarily carried on with it in the said match) and if it was for me I would send the refs a very strong message to apply zero tolerance about it. I'm sure all the top refs know who are the culprits. Unless that part of the rules is scrapped, this is just as bad as crunching ice or making noise deliberately when your opponent is on the shot or have your fan club (people you know and bring to the venue on purpose) deliberately putting off your opponent. All other conducts BTW that aren't punished often enough. And don't come about "all is fair in war and love" because if it was the case then there would be nothing in the rules about conduct and everything would go. I don't think I want snooker to go down to those lows.

I AM NOT asking for thinking time to be restricted when the situation on the table asks for it. Absolutely not. That would indeed kill one of the most interesting part of the game. Again experienced refs, and "educated" fans almost always immediately know when there is a case for genuine thinking time and when it's just slowing down for the sake of it.

negative play is part and parcel of snooker and thoes of us that was braught up watching 80s snooker apreciate it as a art form.

its not destroying snooker AT ALL.

SOONER PEOPLE GET THAT bucking bullocks FROM THEIR MIND THE BETTER

Monique wrote:I will side with JIM about negative play: yes, this is a plague. It destroys snooker as a spectacle and more often than not bogs the culprit's game down just as much as their opponents.
I know I may sound like a broken record but once again unnecessary slow play is deemed ungentlemanly conduct by the rules and it would be enough to get the refs to actually apply them. See section 4, 1 pg 28 of the rules http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 232,00.pdf . I know that it might be difficult to judge sometimes due to the circumstances of the match and what's at stake, and that some players are naturally slower than others, but we also all know who does it and why (some even boast in the press before the match about their intentions - and, before you go mad Sonny, I can think of 3 different top players at least having done that over the years, and who BTW haven't necessarily carried on with it in the said match) and if it was for me I would send the refs a very strong message to apply zero tolerance about it. I'm sure all the top refs know who are the culprits. Unless that part of the rules is scrapped, this is just as bad as crunching ice or making noise deliberately when your opponent is on the shot or have your fan club (people you know and bring to the venue on purpose) deliberately putting off your opponent. All other conducts BTW that aren't punished often enough. And don't come about "all is fair in war and love" because if it was the case then there would be nothing in the rules about conduct and everything would go. I don't think I want snooker to go down to those lows.

I AM NOT asking for thinking time to be restricted when the situation on the table asks for it. Absolutely not. That would indeed kill one of the most interesting part of the game. Again experienced refs, and "educated" fans almost always immediately know when there is a case for genuine thinking time and when it's just slowing down for the sake of it.

http://www.ronnieosullivan.tv/?p=776#comments


enough said

I think you should go back to the Welsh Semi-final and come back here when you can answer the question: at what point should Mark Selby have been warned?

Sonny wrote:

Monique wrote:I will side with JIM about negative play: yes, this is a plague. It destroys snooker as a spectacle and more often than not bogs the culprit's game down just as much as their opponents.
I know I may sound like a broken record but once again unnecessary slow play is deemed ungentlemanly conduct by the rules and it would be enough to get the refs to actually apply them. See section 4, 1 pg 28 of the rules http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 232,00.pdf . I know that it might be difficult to judge sometimes due to the circumstances of the match and what's at stake, and that some players are naturally slower than others, but we also all know who does it and why (some even boast in the press before the match about their intentions - and, before you go mad Sonny, I can think of 3 different top players at least having done that over the years, and who BTW haven't necessarily carried on with it in the said match) and if it was for me I would send the refs a very strong message to apply zero tolerance about it. I'm sure all the top refs know who are the culprits. Unless that part of the rules is scrapped, this is just as bad as crunching ice or making noise deliberately when your opponent is on the shot or have your fan club (people you know and bring to the venue on purpose) deliberately putting off your opponent. All other conducts BTW that aren't punished often enough. And don't come about "all is fair in war and love" because if it was the case then there would be nothing in the rules about conduct and everything would go. I don't think I want snooker to go down to those lows.

I AM NOT asking for thinking time to be restricted when the situation on the table asks for it. Absolutely not. That would indeed kill one of the most interesting part of the game. Again experienced refs, and "educated" fans almost always immediately know when there is a case for genuine thinking time and when it's just slowing down for the sake of it.

http://www.ronnieosullivan.tv/?p=776#comments


enough said

I think you should go back to the Welsh Semi-final and come back here when you can answer the question: at what point should Mark Selby have been warned?

In that match at no point. That's why I wrote about not carrying on this things and the smilie.
If there is ONE match where should definitely have been warned it was his QF in the WC 2007 against Carter (last session).

I Think point is negative play is so isolated and snooker today is played at such a faster pace that its a culture shock seeing negative play.

if it was widespread then it needs tackling but seriously guys in the context of how many frames played a season its really nothing. so why act against it just enjoy it doesent happen often.

Matchplay is all about playing the player. If a player is flying and potting everything, in order to get into the match sometimes you need to slow it down, put pink and black safe and mess the table up. There's nothing you can do to stop that, nor should there be.

Wild wrote:I Think point is negative play is so isolated and snooker today is played at such a faster pace that its a culture shock seeing negative play.

if it was widespread then it needs tackling but seriously guys in the context of how many frames played a season its really nothing. so why act against it just enjoy it doesent happen often.

Negative play isn't isolated at all. It's quite common in the latter stages of qualifiers and we all know the players who do it on the big stages.
The infuriating thing is that, more often than not, those players play better and win more when they don't resort to such tactics. When you play not to lose instead of playing to win… you don't win much. Whatever Sonny might say about winning the "bulk of the titles". Hendry hasn't won what he has won by being negative, quite the opposite.

Sonny wrote:Matchplay is all about playing the player. If a player is flying and potting everything, in order to get into the match sometimes you need to slow it down, put pink and black safe and mess the table up. There's nothing you can do to stop that, nor should there be.

Alex Higgins one of the most flamboyant articulate atacking player ever used thoes very tactics if had to.

im sorry mon but its getting very frustrating that people don't understand the game.

Snooker by definition is not letting your opponent to see a Ball on.

Sonny wrote:Matchplay is all about playing the player. If a player is flying and potting everything, in order to get into the match sometimes you need to slow it down, put pink and black safe and mess the table up. There's nothing you can do to stop that, nor should there be.

i agree and this is not what I'm about and you know it. Yes you may need to slow down, in order to settle and be composed. But there are limits and the rules are clear about unnecessary slow play. The rules should be applied, that's all.

Wild wrote:im sorry mon but its getting very frustrating that people don't understand the game.

Snooker by definition is not letting your opponent to see a Ball on.

Where did I say they should? Are you telling me Hendry wasn't playing properly and didn't understand the game? Hendry won what he won because he was a positive player. He was - still is - going for the shots, trying to create opening for himself was his first priority. That does not mean that he never defended. Of course he did. It's part of the game. But when you are more focused on defending than trying to win, more often than not you lose. Because at the end of the day the goal of the game is to pot the balls before your opponent does it.

point is Players should be aloud to play their own Game that's variety of course if everyone played like Harold and O'Brien there's a problem.

Regarding Negative play in Quals Players don't want to be a Cubicle Pro they want to get to venues so Yes they will be more Cautious as Hendon says its all about Getting to 5 first nothing else matters.

yes there is some Negative play being played at venues but the definition of Negative play is being lost here. Sometimes that's the Best option and has to be played.

but its so small why worry about it.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:im sorry mon but its getting very frustrating that people don't understand the game.

Snooker by definition is not letting your opponent to see a Ball on.

Where did I say they should? Are you telling me Hendry wasn't playing properly and didn't understand the game? Hendry won what he won because he was a positive player. He was - still is - going for the shots, trying to create opening for himself was his first priority. That does not mean that he never defended. Of course he did. It's part of the game. But when you are more focused on defending than trying to win, more often than not you lose. Because at the end of the day the goal of the game is to pot the balls before your opponent does it.

The sport is all about risks. Positive players risk leaving their opponent in if their shots don't go in. They know that and do it anyway. Negative players probably know that their style of play can bog them down, but are willing to take that risk.

its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

Wild wrote:its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

But it was his attacking mindset that won it the titles. Over the last 20 years+ give me the name of a single negative player who has been massively successful? I'm not speaking about players having a good safety/ all round game and using it when needed. I'm not hailing players for being reckless. But you need a positive frame of mind to be a winner.

Wild wrote:its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

Can someone get this fud an English tutor?

He's sick to f***ing death of people making (positive) suggestions to save the game from stagnation, accuses those who disagree with him to "not understand the game", or to "go watch something else".

Actually they're the only 2 coherent points I could make out amongst the punctuation vacuum and scattering of mis-spellings and swearing (not much vocabulary, pal?)

Wild, I have to admit, I thought more of you....thought you were a real expert in the game, but the way you're coming across just now, you're firmly in the "my knowledge begins and ends with the top 20" camp. Except with unnecessary expletives. And no grammar (what does "thoes" mean exactly?) Are you seriously telling us that negative play is rare? Go and watch a qualifier involving McCulloch, or McLeod or someone and come back and say that.

And please, champion of our beloved sport that you are, PLEASE NEVER put your thoughts directly to Barry Hearn.....I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH. He'll assume that all snooker fans are as illiterate and deluded as you, and that would set the game back further than any rule change would.

reason they so few and far between the atacking players out number them and i count Selby ss a atacking player.

JIMO96 wrote:

Wild wrote:its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

Can someone get this fud an English tutor?

He's sick to f***ing death of people making (positive) suggestions to save the game from stagnation, accuses those who disagree with him to "not understand the game", or to "go watch something else".

Actually they're the only 2 coherent points I could make out amongst the punctuation vacuum and scattering of mis-spellings and swearing (not much vocabulary, pal?)

Wild, I have to admit, I thought more of you....thought you were a real expert in the game, but the way you're coming across just now, you're firmly in the "my knowledge begins and ends with the top 20" camp. Except with unnecessary expletives. And no grammar (what does "thoes" mean exactly?) Are you seriously telling us that negative play is rare? Go and watch a qualifier involving McCulloch, or McLeod or someone and come back and say that.

And please, champion of our beloved sport that you are, PLEASE NEVER put your thoughts directly to Barry Hearn.....I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH. He'll assume that all snooker fans are as illiterate and deluded as you, and that would set the game back further than any rule change would.

jim ive told you before and ill tell you again buck the hell of you piece of twatty rubbish

Wild wrote:reason they so few and far between the atacking players out number them and i count Selby ss a atacking player.

Selby is too often negative and to his own admission also too often plays not to lose instead of playing to win. That's something he admitted on his blog. And that's why - in my opinion - he has won only 2 ranking titles (out of 7 finals) in his career up to now and neither the WC or the UK. He plays better when he plays positively and should have won more. He has the wits and the talent. Playing negatively as he often does is taking a lot of mental energy as well - if only because the matches tend to be longer - and it too often leaves him drained mid tournament.

That's not a go at Selby as a person at all. In fact it's rather a cry of frustration. When he plays positively - and positively does by no means equate to recklessly - he's one of the most interesting to watch because he's very creative. But when he drags himself down, with his opponent, and is boring the public into sleep I just want to grab him by the ears and shake the lot big time.

Wild

JIMO96 wrote:

Wild wrote:its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

Can someone get this fud an English tutor?

He's sick to f***ing death of people making (positive) suggestions to save the game from stagnation, accuses those who disagree with him to "not understand the game", or to "go watch something else".

Actually they're the only 2 coherent points I could make out amongst the punctuation vacuum and scattering of mis-spellings and swearing (not much vocabulary, pal?)

Wild, I have to admit, I thought more of you....thought you were a real expert in the game, but the way you're coming across just now, you're firmly in the "my knowledge begins and ends with the top 20" camp. Except with unnecessary expletives. And no grammar (what does "thoes" mean exactly?) Are you seriously telling us that negative play is rare? Go and watch a qualifier involving McCulloch, or McLeod or someone and come back and say that.

And please, champion of our beloved sport that you are, PLEASE NEVER put your thoughts directly to Barry Hearn.....I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH. He'll assume that all snooker fans are as illiterate and deluded as you, and that would set the game back further than any rule change would.

JIM

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:its also about confidence down on the shot and you play the shot you feel you should play....Hendry was ultra Confident and Still is BUT Now he misses and it costs him badly if you using Hendry as a example Players wont be playing Atackingly.

But it was his attacking mindset that won it the titles. Over the last 20 years+ give me the name of a single negative player who has been massively successful? I'm not speaking about players having a good safety/ all round game and using it when needed. I'm not hailing players for being reckless. But you need a positive frame of mind to be a winner.

Whilst they can play fast and attacking at times, id probably throw Ebdon and Dott on the table as the names of 2 negative players whove had success over the last 20 years. And Higgins recent success playing a B game at best too probably.

As for the point on attacking players winning, when i look at Selby for example. Hes a fluent attacking player when he wants to be and is proficient among the balls, but for some reason he prefers to be drawn into negativity and tactical matches. Weve seen it countless times with him, he blitzes an opponent in round 1 and gets praised and hyped up then he reverts to a slugfest in his next game then by time it gets down to the business end of a tournament hes drained and on his last legs and puts in a lame performance. I suggest hed have far more success if he stuck to his true natural game and was positive thinking.

Dotty is not a negative player by any means.
Ebdon wasn't slow and negative when younger and that's when he won most of his titles. He's become more negative over the years.
Higgins isn't actually negative although he isn't the most positive player around.

Actually I'd say that the most successful "negativish" (sorry for the neologism but I couldn't find a proper word for "displaying negative trends without being utterly negative") player in recent years is Robbo.

Monique wrote:Dotty is not a negative player by any means.
Ebdon wasn't slow and negative when younger and that's when he won most of his titles. He's become more negative over the years.
Higgins isn't actually negative although he isn't the most positive player around.

Actually I'd say that the most successful "negativish" (sorry for the neologism but I couldn't find a proper word for "displaying negative trends without being utterly negative") player in recent years is Robbo.

Regarding Jono hes only turned negative in the last couple of years, certainly since he won the world title. Id actually cite the final v Dott as the game that changed Jono to a negative player.

People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

Wild wrote:People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

That, wild, sums up your idea of debate. When people don't agree with your ideas insult them and lock the thread so that they can't express their opinion. If you have serious arguments to support your points, then express them sensibly and politely and people hopefully will read them and think about them. And you will get a lot more respect than you currently get because of your intolerant and aggressive attitude.

NO MONIQUE THAT SUMMS UP YOUR IDEA OF WHAT SNOOKER IS

as a kid i used to love these Magnet Frames and the skill required to open up a Frame......now its a bloody re rack after a few shots.

what i love about the sport people think they got a right to take it away because of some warped idea what snooker is.

Wild wrote:NO MONIQUE THAT SUMMS UP YOUR IDEA OF WHAT SNOOKER IS

as a kid i used to love these Magnet Frames and the skill required to open up a Frame......now its a bloody re rack after a few shots.

what i love about the sport people think they got a right to take it away because of some warped idea what snooker is.

My idea of what snooker is is simple: players should play to win, and win means ultimately scoring more points than your opponent, hence usually potting more balls, as all sportsmen should do and the rules should be respected and applied as it should be in any sport. If you think that's wrong please explain - politely.
I've not asked for the shot-clock being introduced, on the contrary, I've not said that there shouldn't be different styles neither or that the game should be all speed and big breaks. I'm just asking for the rules to be applied and I can't see how that's wrong.