by Andy Spark » 06 Nov 2013 Read
I don't quite understand some of these arguments, the Premier League was far superior to this event simply because for the most part it was a league system and properly conducted leagues tend to give a fairer result simply because the players tend to contest the event over more frames, this is the whole point of the World Championship being long format. Maybe you didn't like the Premier League because of the shot clock, which would be a fair point, but significantly more frames in important events should always give an event greater status with or without a shot clock.
Sometimes I think you lot would prefer a best of seven frame format World Championship to a World Championship of current format but with an added shot clock; is that what you would prefer?
-
Andy Spark
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: 29 May 2011
- Location: Bournemouth
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie Luca and Thais
- Highest Break: 78
- Walk-On: Alkan: piano etude op.35 no.12
by Wildey » 06 Nov 2013 Read
Andy Spark wrote:I don't quite understand some of these arguments, the Premier League was far superior to this event simply because for the most part it was a league system and properly conducted leagues tend to give a fairer result simply because the players tend to contest the event over more frames, this is the whole point of the World Championship being long format. Maybe you didn't like the Premier League because of the shot clock, which would be a fair point, but significantly more frames in important events should always give an event greater status with or without a shot clock.
Sometimes I think you lot would prefer a best of seven frame format World Championship to a World Championship of current format but with an added shot clock; is that what you would prefer?
the league was reduced in importance once the shot clock was added. any event that has that load of crap means rubbish.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by SnookerFan » 06 Nov 2013 Read
Andy Spark wrote:I don't quite understand some of these arguments, the Premier League was far superior to this event simply because for the most part it was a league system and properly conducted leagues tend to give a fairer result simply because the players tend to contest the event over more frames, this is the whole point of the World Championship being long format. Maybe you didn't like the Premier League because of the shot clock, which would be a fair point, but significantly more frames in important events should always give an event greater status with or without a shot clock.
Sometimes I think you lot would prefer a best of seven frame format World Championship to a World Championship of current format but with an added shot clock; is that what you would prefer?
Both are bad ideas, and neither is going to happen.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by simplysnooker » 06 Nov 2013 Read
Can someone explain to me what's so bad about the Shot Clock please?
-
simplysnooker
- Posts: 1572
- Joined: 29 October 2010
- Snooker Idol: Ding Junhui
- Highest Break: 13
by Wildey » 06 Nov 2013 Read
simplysnooker wrote:Can someone explain to me what's so bad about the Shot Clock please?
it contrives the thought process of players to rush shots instead of play the right shot and in term makes matches longer because of simple shots being missed or players play the most basic of safety which is the negative option.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by SnookerFan » 07 Nov 2013 Read
Agreed.
Shot clocks are generally a device used to make sure snooker matches fit into an alloted time for television. Notice how most shot clock tournaments are on Sky.
The problem is, a shot clock doesn't necessarily encourage attacking play, just rushed shots. I've seen some scrappy shot clock frames. Also players often bungle shots they'd get normally, due to having to make the shot in a predetermined time limit. Under normal conditions, everybody is free to play their own style. Whether that's fast or slow, attacking or tactical. A shot clock may in theory encourage attacking play, but it doesn't always mean the frame is higher quality.
Shot clocks are okay for exhibition events that don't really matter, like the Seniors or the Premier League. But to put the into the World Championships is a silly idea.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Andy Spark » 08 Nov 2013 Read
simplysnooker wrote:Can someone explain to me what's so bad about the Shot Clock please?
The arguments put forward against the clock on this thread tend to be against a stringent shot clock time rather than the shot clock itself. For example competitive chess uses a clock and yet the thought processes required in chess are more complex than snooker. We could discuss removing the clock for chess and just leaving it up to the discretion of the ref to "have a quiet word in the slow players ear" if he dawdles; that would be an interesting debate to have here considering the opposition to a clock in snooker. Why is a clock right in chess but not snooker?
-
Andy Spark
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: 29 May 2011
- Location: Bournemouth
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie Luca and Thais
- Highest Break: 78
- Walk-On: Alkan: piano etude op.35 no.12
by Sickpotter » 08 Nov 2013 Read
Andy Spark wrote:simplysnooker wrote:Can someone explain to me what's so bad about the Shot Clock please?
The arguments put forward against the clock on this thread tend to be against a stringent shot clock time rather than the shot clock itself. For example competitive chess uses a clock and yet the thought processes required in chess are more complex than snooker. We could discuss removing the clock for chess and just leaving it up to the discretion of the ref to "have a quiet word in the slow players ear" if he dawdles; that would be an interesting debate to have here considering the opposition to a clock in snooker. Why is a clock right in chess but not snooker?
Chess has virtually endless options every turn presenting the opportunity for virtually endless thought about one's next move. Snooker rarely presents anywhere near as many options for the player, there's only so many moves they can consider so rarely are there issues with pace of play. Chess games lasted days, one move might take as long as an entire snooker match so a clock was/is a no brainer.
Slow play is really not a big problem, why mess with something like a player's natural pace of play with a clock?
-
Sickpotter
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: 05 October 2009
- Location: Toronto
- Snooker Idol: White-Hendry-ROS
- Highest Break: 147
by SnookerFan » 08 Nov 2013 Read
Sickpotter wrote:
Chess has virtually endless options every turn presenting the opportunity for virtually endless thought about one's next move. Snooker rarely presents anywhere near as many options for the player, there's only so many moves they can consider so rarely are there issues with pace of play. Chess games lasted days, one move might take as long as an entire snooker match so a clock was/is a no brainer.
Slow play is really not a big problem, why mess with something like a player's natural pace of play with a clock?
That's the real point, for me. Despite the fact that a couple of fans might want it, there's no real need to do it.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Andy Spark » 09 Nov 2013 Read
We are drifting off topic here but suffice to say I am not really convinced by these no shot clock arguments. I won't explain why because it's a bit off topic to the general group stage of Champion of Champions event and we can probably agree to disagree on the issue, but we can still all agree that snooker generally is a brilliant game and possibly the best game in the world!
BTW I don't really like the name "
Champion of Champions" as a couple of these guys got in due to their ranking rather than any particular Champion of XYZ status. A better title would be "
Champion of a short format non-ranking event featuring champions of important recent events plus a couple of extra players high up on the official rankings who we invited to make up the numbers" This would explain the nature of it better!
-
Andy Spark
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: 29 May 2011
- Location: Bournemouth
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie Luca and Thais
- Highest Break: 78
- Walk-On: Alkan: piano etude op.35 no.12
by Wildey » 10 Nov 2013 Read
Andy Spark wrote:We are drifting off topic here but suffice to say I am not really convinced by these no shot clock arguments. I won't explain why because it's a bit off topic to the general group stage of Champion of Champions event and we can probably agree to disagree on the issue, but we can still all agree that snooker generally is a brilliant game and possibly the best game in the world!
you wont explain why because you havent got a clue why its a good idea.
Just for you so that we can see your reason why Shot clock is a good idea ill move some posts.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by roy142857 » 10 Nov 2013 Read
The chess clock works best when there's a total amount of time that can be used, not an amount of time per move. So players use their 'thinking time' when they really need to, but are quick to get on with it when there's an obvious play. Not sure how that would translate to snooker though ...
-
roy142857
- Posts: 3006
- Joined: 28 May 2011
by Wildey » 10 Nov 2013 Read
you know what gets me with snooker.
People want to morph it in to Darts, Golf, Pool, Chess etc etc etc
Snooker is Snooker it Works lets stop all this bullocks
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by SteveJJ » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Andy Spark wrote:We are drifting off topic here but suffice to say I am not really convinced by these no shot clock arguments. I won't explain why because it's a bit off topic to the general group stage of Champion of Champions event and we can probably agree to disagree on the issue, but we can still all agree that snooker generally is a brilliant game and possibly the best game in the world!
BTW I don't really like the name "
Champion of Champions" as a couple of these guys got in due to their ranking rather than any particular Champion of XYZ status. A better title would be "
Champion of a short format non-ranking event featuring champions of important recent events plus a couple of extra players high up on the official rankings who we invited to make up the numbers" This would explain the nature of it better!
how can explaining your view on shot clocks be off topic on a thread about arguments for and against shot clocks?
my view is that if a shot clock is favoured due to the need to eradicate slow play then its trying to solve a problem that doesn't need solving, a) because there isn't much deliberate slow play about anyway and b) even when there is, referees have the power to do something about it in the rules. The question should be, should referees exercise this right more than they do?
I don't think shot clocks make the game any more exciting or bring any new fans to the sport so on this basis, I'm not sure what if anything it brings
-
SteveJJ
- Posts: 3035
- Joined: 05 June 2012
- Highest Break: 50
by Wildey » 11 Nov 2013 Read
SteveJJ
in defense of Andy the topic that this was first mentioned in was the Champion of Champions thats why he said it was off topic.
i moved the posts that was talking about Shot clocks and made a New topic for that debate.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by Roland » 11 Nov 2013 Read
-
Roland
- Site Admin
- Posts: 18267
- Joined: 29 September 2009
- Location: Cannonbridge, Snooker Island
- Snooker Idol: Selby Ding Kyren Luca
- Highest Break: 102
- Walk-On: Bal Sagoth
-
by SnookerFan » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Wildey wrote:you know what gets me with snooker.
People want to morph it in to Darts, Golf, Pool, Chess etc etc etc
Snooker is Snooker it Works lets stop all this bullocks
Yeah, I've always thought that. Especially about the darts bit.
I don't mind darts, but rarely watch it on television. Throw a few and make holes in my wall when I've had a few beers.
Never really seen people's obsession with comparing it to other sports. People often compare it to tennis as well. If you prefer darts or tennis or whatever to snooker, watch those sports instead.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Wildey » 11 Nov 2013 Read
you never get people trying to incorporate Rugby Rules in to Football or vice versa so why this obsession with snooker?
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by SnookerFan » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Wildey wrote:you never get people trying to incorporate Rugby Rules in to Football or vice versa so why this obsession with snooker?
I don't mind the odd comparison between sports, if it illustrates a point.
Just when people start assuming what works in one, will automatically work in another completely different sport.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Lucky » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Its not really about comparing different sports just different formats. Its ok when it suits some people, other times its bullocks and a taboo subject. A bit of consistency is whats required and maybe understanding that some people have different opinions and are entitled to them. What they dont deserve is swearing at and talking down to.
-
Lucky
- Posts: 2454
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: Under my bed!!
- Snooker Idol: Jamie Cope
by SnookerFan » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Lucky wrote:Its not really about comparing different sports just different formats. Its ok when it suits some people, other times its bullocks and a taboo subject. A bit of consistency is whats required and maybe understanding that some people have different opinions and are entitled to them. What they dont deserve is swearing at and talking down to.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU, NOW GO AWAY!
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Wildey » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Trying to incorporate Rules from other sport has nothing to do with Formats.
Formats is best of so many frames, league formats etc etc not shot clocks or banning a certain type of shots because its not aloud in pool etc etc.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by snooky147 » 11 Nov 2013 Read
I for one do not want a shot clock BUT I do want the issue of excessive slow play dealt with by the referees. We all know that players play at different speeds and there can be situations on the table that require thought and time but this is not the case all the time. I still maintain (and this is where Graeme disagrees with me) that there are tour players out there who play at beyond snails pace simply to disrupt their opponent.
It does not matter how slow you are as a player, there are VERY FEW situations in frames that require those I am talking about to take that long all the time.
I am not indulging in a witch hunt. I just want the referees to have some commonsense and realise that there is no need for it.
-
snooky147
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: 27 March 2011
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Highest Break: 76
- Walk-On: Comfortably Numb
by Wildey » 11 Nov 2013 Read
i think there are players that play deliberately slow to put their opponent off and i enjoy that sort of Match and love to see the faster player still come out on top it shows bottle and temperament to spit back in the face of slowness.
im not saying Cliff Thorburn was deliberately Slow but my god he took a long time over a basic pot and it could put players off but it was compelling viewing to see how Alex Higgins and Jimmy White would Cope with that.
according to cue Tracker Ron
Alex Higgins lead the head to head 17-6 and Jimmy White lead the head to head 16-9
the success of snooker was built on contrast of Style and speed.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by Roland » 11 Nov 2013 Read
I'd like to see all the arguments FOR a shot clock because I don't see any which can't be picked apart.
I agree that if a player is taking an excessive amount of time then the referee should step in, but that's not a shot clock.
-
Roland
- Site Admin
- Posts: 18267
- Joined: 29 September 2009
- Location: Cannonbridge, Snooker Island
- Snooker Idol: Selby Ding Kyren Luca
- Highest Break: 102
- Walk-On: Bal Sagoth
-
by SnookerFan » 11 Nov 2013 Read
Sonny wrote:I'd like to see all the arguments FOR a shot clock because I don't see any which can't be picked apart.
I agree that if a player is taking an excessive amount of time then the referee should step in, but that's not a shot clock.
I don't see how some players taking an undue amount of time on some shots justifies the need for a shot clock. People who do want shot clocks in rankers seem to exaggerate the slow play problem.
I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist. Some players do take too long on relatively simple shots. But some people make it sound like the majority of players are taking 15 minutes even to break off.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 158573
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by PLtheRef » 11 Nov 2013 Read
The problem with the Shotclock is that it is seen as a gimmick, which in truth is a fair comment, anything which dare it be said artificializes the true nature of the sport could be seen as a gimmick, namely having ball in hand, playing a frame with just six reds rather than fifteen, and other requirements made for an event such as needing one ball to hit a cushion
Obviously, those that I've just mentioned above all come in events which are indeed seen as gimicks, such as a time limit for a match, or requires a shot to be played within a short time frame.
However, there can be an argument that the game is artificialized in some of the rules the game uses to great effect, such as the disqualification of a player for three fouls and misses in certain scenarios in a frame of snooker, whereas other scenarios do not result in disqualification for three misses.
The opposing argument there is that these are covered by the rules and apply in "normal snooker"
The shotclock in eight ball pool works because it is arguably very generous. Considerably more so than a shotclock which is included in what is otherwise a "straight snooker format". A successful shotclock needs to be one where players aren't under consistent pressure but that players are aware of its presence. Of course in the shootout, where slow play tactics can play a considerable role in influencing the outcome such generoisity isn't an option.
I do think there's room for a timed format for snooker. Timed formats have been successful in billiards, where players may have 30 minutes total time to play at the table. It would be interesting to see how a billiards format, i.e. a match played over a set time, or players having a certain amount of time to play at the table would work.
However, like any gimmick, it should be an occasional rule format to aid variety, and not the rule which has a bearing on careers and rankings
-
PLtheRef
- Posts: 5104
- Joined: 20 December 2009
- Location: Sheffield
- Highest Break: 28
- Walk-On: Vangelis 1492 Conquest of Paradise
by Roland » 12 Nov 2013 Read
If you had a timed format snooker match you get a lead, then knock balls safe and use up the clock producing the sort of snooker no one in their right mind would enjoy watching. It wouldn't work. It works in billiards but that's because there are only 3 balls on the table and it's a risk playing safe.
-
Roland
- Site Admin
- Posts: 18267
- Joined: 29 September 2009
- Location: Cannonbridge, Snooker Island
- Snooker Idol: Selby Ding Kyren Luca
- Highest Break: 102
- Walk-On: Bal Sagoth
-
by Andy Spark » 15 Nov 2013 Read
Sonny wrote:
I agree that if a player is taking an excessive amount of time then the referee should step in, but that's not a shot clock.
An "excessive amount of time" being up to the refs judgement sounds like a reasonable rule but fails in practice. How often have you seen a ref step in and warn a player? The system is not robust enough to work because there is so much subjectivity that the ref normally chooses not to step in, and due to that fact when a ref does take it upon himself to step in the player is likely to feel awful and thus it upsets him and disrupts his game; consequently the entire good nature of the sporting contest is ruined.
-
Andy Spark
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: 29 May 2011
- Location: Bournemouth
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie Luca and Thais
- Highest Break: 78
- Walk-On: Alkan: piano etude op.35 no.12
by Wildey » 15 Nov 2013 Read
Shot Clock turns a Good Nature of a Sporting Contest and turns it in to a end of the pier circus.
-
Wildey
- Posts: 65370
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only