Post a reply

Snooker Players Priority

Entertaining
1
17%
Job Satisfaction
5
83%
 
Total votes : 6

Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Wildey

...Entertainment or Providing Money for his Family

What should be the Priority for a Snooker Player ?

i know Snooker is a Form of entertainment However its also their Job so when the chips are down and they over a Shot with Pressure Mounting should they go for the Do or Die pot to entertain the Crowd or Play what THEY Think is the right shot for them.

in recent years players being cautious has come in for a lot of stick from lets face it pretty clueless people. the players have the decision to make depending on their state of mind/confidence plus form of the opposition and that decition has nothing to do with people watching.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Witz78

It depends what way they naturally play and always have played to be honest.

The more natural ability you have, the more likely you are to be prone to playing with flair and with a view to entertaining, even if deep down you know its not the right thing to do.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby jojo

purely depend on natural talent

ronnie has natural talent to burn so he always looking to entertain much like jimmy before him who put bums on seats and higgins before that them three were natural born thrillers

the likes of john higgins davis etc are a different breed they discipline to go with their talent and they more concerned about getting the job done whichever way possible and with their records nobody can argue

jimmy has often admitted if he played a more conservative game he would have had more titles but then he wouldnt have been half as popular and there wouldnt have been anything special about him he was more a showman than a winner

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Wildey

both of you are absolutely spot on.

Point is that decision should be a private one for the player in question and not having some so called snooker fans trying to dictate how players Should play because they like a certain style of player.

if a player wants to entertain and lose for popularity then that's his decision to make the same way if someone else decides to grind hard then that's his decision to make.

whats entertaining for some is different to others.....some like to watch a opera others a rock concert neither is wrong just different

its irritating to me as a snooker fan that some people liken slow play to cheating and that mind games is wrong its not wrong just a different way of approaching their profession.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Wildey

Jewell wrote:Did Hendry choose to entertain or was winning the most important thing for him? Especially in the latter part of his career?

Hendry wanted to win more than entertain thats why he retired it gone on far too long losing to any tom sausage and harry.

Hendry won his matches Attacking he just found it difficult adjusting to not potting the long Balls any more

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:both of you are absolutely spot on.

Point is that decision should be a private one for the player in question and not having some so called snooker fans trying to dictate how players Should play because they like a certain style of player.

if a player wants to entertain and lose for popularity then that's his decision to make the same way if someone else decides to grind hard then that's his decision to make.

whats entertaining for some is different to others.....some like to watch a opera others a rock concert neither is wrong just different

its irritating to me as a snooker fan that some people liken slow play to cheating and that mind games is wrong its not wrong just a different way of approaching their profession.



never really thought of it this way before, but some could even argue that playing in a flashy attacking style to win over the fans and get them on your side is unfair as it puts the opponent under the cosh.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Witz78

Jewell wrote:Did Hendry choose to entertain or was winning the most important thing for him? Especially in the latter part of his career?


In the latter part of his career he chose to not win AND entertain :evilgrin:

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Sickpotter

Witz78 wrote:
Jewell wrote:Did Hendry choose to entertain or was winning the most important thing for him? Especially in the latter part of his career?


In the latter part of his career he chose to not win AND entertain :evilgrin:


Yeah, nothing entertaining about 147's, especially in the WC :roll:

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Sickpotter

Jewell wrote:Did Hendry choose to entertain or was winning the most important thing for him? Especially in the latter part of his career?


Winning was always everything to Hendry, but he did like to win in style.

Of course the opinion of what's "style" varies.

Many didn't find it entertaining when he ruthlessly dispatched his opponents with break after break because of the frequency he did it. Made for a lot of one-sided matches which does in some respects lowered the entertainment factor.

edit to add....IMO this is why Hendry never changed his attacking style even though it might have allowed for better results. He did have style and some mind towards entertainment with an overriding desire to win.

Back to the subject at hand......

I've been saying it for years, fans have no right to dictate the style of play. :no:

This is the way players make their living and who is a spectator to judge what shot they should or shouldn't play? :irk:

Doesn't cost a spectator jack if the ball's missed but for a pro it might be their mortgage at stake. Spectators need to respect that, no one's forcing them to watch.

You don't tell an accountant how to use a calculator, why tell a snooker pro how to use a cue? ;-)

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Sickpotter

Jewell wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Jewell wrote:Did Hendry choose to entertain or was winning the most important thing for him? Especially in the latter part of his career?


In the latter part of his career he chose to not win AND entertain :evilgrin:


Yeah, nothing entertaining about 147's, especially in the WC :roll:


Unfortunately, this flash of brilliance was overshadowed by his record breaking loss to Maguire.


You think so? Pretty sure when people talk of the year Hendry retired the max will be the part remembered, not his loss.

Do people remember Alex Higgins as a decrepit old man or the amazing talent he was?

When one searches for memories the fond/positive ones tend to be recalled first. You're a happier person if you can hold to that :-)

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Witz78

on that token then when Gary Glitters obituary is wrote, the main memories will be of his domination of the charts in the 70s and his larger than life character which made him a national treasure for 30 years ?

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Sickpotter

What else would they write about?

Unlikely to dwell on the negative aspect of someone's life in an obit, that'd be crude. Acknowledge there were some yes but that's about it.

Still some class in the world for the most part when it comes to speaking ill of the dead ;-)

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Witz78

Jewell wrote:
Witz78 wrote:on that token then when Gary Glitters obituary is wrote, the main memories will be of his domination of the charts in the 70s and his larger than life character which made him a national treasure for 30 years ?


Gary Glitter was never a national treasure, mate. Maybe to you he was but that's another matter altogether.

By the way Witz, are you still a fan of his?


love it or hate it, the fact is he was a loveable rougue and a Great British institution thru the 70s, 80s and 90s and a staple on the chatshows like Wogan, Aspel, Des O'Connor and Harty. Sure his almost cartoon character and larger than life personality made him a bit of a joke figure but he was guaranteed entertainment. He was basically a singing equivalent of Freddie Starr.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Monique

I'm not sure I understand the quiz. It's important to get satisfaction out of your job, whatever you do because otherwise you'll feel utterly miserable considering how much time in your life you have to devote to it.
Some players will get that satisfaction mainly through winning, others will get it mainly by giving the audience pleasure and entertainment. Both aspects are important in any sport.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:I'm not sure I understand the quiz. It's important to get satisfaction out of your job, whatever you do because otherwise you'll feel utterly miserable considering how much time in your life you have to devote to it.
Some players will get that satisfaction mainly through winning, others will get it mainly by giving the audience pleasure and entertainment. Both aspects are important in any sport.

point is each to their own and whatever the player decides us the priority for them should be respected and not criticised.

if a ebdon or a selby decides to play a certain way that's the decision they have the right to make the same as if players decide to take a risk or 2.

Re: Priority for a Snooker Player ...

Postby Odrl

If I was a snooker player, I don't think I would ever consider playing a shot that would reduce my chances of winning the match, no matter how entertaining it seemed. It wouldn't necessarily be about money or providing for my family, it would be about wining and losing, about the game itself and about the challenge... But of course that doesn't mean I would necessarily play a cautious game. I would play to my strengths...

I know some players have played to the crowd in the past, but I think it's often overstated... I remember how attacking Neil Robertson was when he first broke through. Some people appreciate him more now that his game has matured in terms of pace and shot selection, others are disappointed that he has sacrificed his natural game for the sake of winning at all costs. I can see some similarities in the way Mark Allen's game is developing, still playing exhibition shots when frames are won, but thinking more about his options on crucial shots. Liang Wenbo used to be a popular target for snooker fans to criticize, everyone seemed to have an opinion on how he should change his game. And now Judd Trump is the king of this. But thinking about all these players... I never thought they went for their shots in the name of entertainment. They just played (and still do) the kind of snooker they feel most comfortable with, they play the shots they think will win them frames and matches. When I see Jamie Cope declining a good safety in favour of an ill-advised long pot, I never think entertaining the crowd is his guide to shot selection, I think it's more a reluctance to rely on an element of his game that he considers weak.

And of course, if that element gets stronger, you use it more and more, just like in the case of Robertson. Some players develop beyond their natural (often one-dimensional) game, others seem stuck with it for most of their career. Sometimes it's also about what kind of person you are... Some people relish a strategic battle where they have to pick their moves, others prefer not to overthink and just go with the least complicated option, and in the case of snooker, that's usually the pot. I was on a playground a couple of years ago, and two little kids were playing football. They were "in character" so to speak, each choosing a famous player they wanted to be, and one of them was yelling "I'm gonna be Ronaldinho" as he was retreating into a defensive position and going for the tackle. It's understandable, everyone dreams of scoring the decisive goal or producing some sort of magic with the ball. No one wants to be "Nesta" and make a key tackle or commit a smart tactical foul. :-) I guess it's the same with snooker, everyone dreams of winning with a magical clearance or an outrageous pot, not with good discipline and clever tactics. And when you're up against it, you either resort to instinct and play like you did when you first started, or you call on your experience.

Different people find different styles entertaining. Some criticize John Higgins for playing boring textbook snooker, others call it a masterclass. Some find outrageous pot attempts exciting, others call it poor shot selection. Personally, I've always been most entertained by players who do their best to win, by players who look to use their strengths and hide their weaknesses. And I've always been fascinated by tactics and strategy, not just in snooker, but in all sports and life in general. Any time someone realizes they are at a disadvantage and use their head to do something about it, they earn nothing but respect from me. I know I am in the minority here, as most people probably don't watch snooker with that sort of mindset. But I guess if I was a player, just knowing that minority existed would give me some satisfaction, even if everyone else hated me. ;-)


   

cron