World Snooker Awards

The Cueist wrote:I can see what you mean , Did Ronnie particularly want that award.

What can he do if he wins one , Refuse it.

It wiill be interesting to see how Ron will play next season.

I don't think (hope he proves me wrong) he will have quite a sucessful next season as he had in this one.

I would absolutely love if he won another UK Title, this has been the only one of the Triple Crown he hasnt won for donkey doo years (2007) and really he deserves to be on 5 titles just like he is at the Masters and Worlds.

I do think that match at the UK Champs 2009 v Higgins when Ronnie was 8-2 down, somehow leveled at 8 all only to lose in the decider hurt Ronnie's performances at the UK Champs quite a bit. Since then he hasn't looked the same player at the UK.

I also think in recent years Ronnie when he comes to the UK Champs his hunger for that title isn't there, it seems as if he's more thinking on Christmas than anything else because until the UK Champs he usually plays (by his standards that is) quite a bit of snooker with many PTCs and tourneys like the CoC, IC, etc. I think his hunger for that UK Title needs to be there again.

In short, if Ronnie doesn't win the World Title next season nothing would please me more than seeing him lift that UK trophy once again, even more so than a Masters title, but if he could add both all the better.

Sonny wrote:Ever heard of pro-Ronnie bias? That's you

The fact that World Snooker and the fans agree with me on this award, means you are only siding with your own kind. Your kind, with the other writers and bloggers constitute the tiny minority who may hold a lot of power on the internet and within their own tiny areas, but in the real world they hold very little sway...good job too.

My kind as in the kind who followed snooker throughout the season and know that what Ding did in 2013/14 eclipsed anything done by any other player.

At the time the award was announced my twitter timeline was rammed with players laughing at the decision not to give it to Ding. Find me a tour player who doesn't think Ding should have won it.

The decision wasn't World Snooker's anyway, there was a panel of "experts" which included journalists and representatives from various tv channels. Mike Hallett was on the panel for example. Enough said.

didnt Ding lose in the first round in the two biggest tournaments?

Don't think he lost in round 1 in York did he? Anyway he won the other one, the International. He won 5 full ranking tournaments flat 128 meaning 7 wins to the title and reached the final of another and apart from that, he played absolutely superb throughout the season.

kolompar wrote:didnt Ding lose in the first round in the two biggest tournaments?

Its player of the year award not player of 2 tournament award.

Wildey wrote:

kolompar wrote:didnt Ding lose in the first round in the two biggest tournaments?

Its player of the year award not player of 2 tournament award.

those are the two most important ones, and I dont think anyone who loses first round at the WC deserve the player of the year award

and Sonny Shanghai wasnt flat 128

I Personally hate the importance people puts on the World Championship during a packed season yes its the biggest event but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of how great a year a player has had.

When Judging a year you take 12 months in to consideration

kolompar wrote:didnt Ding lose in the first round in the two biggest tournaments?

Yes, he did.

Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Skullman wrote:Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Look, the IC is NOT a major! The three majors are the UK's (which has had it's status definitely cemented at third with the frame slashing), the Masters and the World Championship. There is a whole world of difference between these majors and the sprint format IC. When they created the UK's, they signaled it was a major by giving it a long format. Now the UK's don't have the long format, but they have a history still. The IC neither has history or a long format.

Andy Spark wrote:

Skullman wrote:Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Look, the IC is NOT a major! The three majors are the UK's (which has had it's status definitely cemented at third with the frame slashing), the Masters and the World Championship.

No Majors is every tournament thats classed a Ranking Event all this bullocks about the 3 majors is what it is load of crap before i came on line i had never heard this Majors bullocks and as far as im concerned it means rubbish its about racking up Ranking Events and Other tournaments.

Wildey wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:

Skullman wrote:Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Look, the IC is NOT a major! The three majors are the UK's (which has had it's status definitely cemented at third with the frame slashing), the Masters and the World Championship.

No Majors is every tournament thats classed a Ranking Event all this bullocks about the 3 majors is what it is load of crap before i came on line i had never heard this Majors bullocks and as far as im concerned it means rubbish its about racking up Ranking Events and Other tournaments.

Argue with Clive Everton then. Clive recently wrote that the only proper way to see who is the best was the number of MAJORS they had won, and by majors he meant Masters, UK's and World Championship.

I can see why Daniel said his head was done in by talking to you lot round here. Daniel said that after a while they'll completely do your head in, he was right.

Sorry, maybe I got too angry with that last post.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:

Skullman wrote:Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Look, the IC is NOT a major! The three majors are the UK's (which has had it's status definitely cemented at third with the frame slashing), the Masters and the World Championship.

No Majors is every tournament thats classed a Ranking Event all this bullocks about the 3 majors is what it is load of crap before i came on line i had never heard this Majors bullocks and as far as im concerned it means rubbish its about racking up Ranking Events and Other tournaments.

Still, the World Championship, Masters and UK are the three titles on top of the list for most, if not all, snooker players. Every snooker player wants to win those three titles. And it's not something new. Hendry always said the World Championship was his top priority, after that the Masters and after that the UK.

Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that the IC cannot ever become a major, but it lacks both match length, (which the UK's originally had ) and history. Besides, it really isn't the best thing to constantly move the goal posts.

Andre , Good points you make rwgarding ronnie and his patterns in the way he plays, particularly when itnis close to christmas.Laugh

I want to see him get another world title, Not easy I know.

Just to say I read a postbin junkyard calling ronnie ,
A very low witted comment indeed.

So I hope ron can do it to shut this low wit up.

I dont mind a wind up andre , But some people do push it a bit far.

I am stunned by the hatred tbh.
Selby dont like ronnie much and vice versa.

Chalk and cheese .

Selby won a safety battle with constant long ball potting to get his 30 odd or forty odd accumulations in a lot of frames.

It was not a full on classic.

Perspective is the word here , in that keeping things in.

The International isn't a sprint event, it's best of 11 up to the semis which is then best of 17 with a best of 19 final and Ding won it playing absolutely superb snooker. Ding has not only played the best snooker this season, but he's also won the most tournaments. A freak performance from Michael Wasley who then got pumped in round 2 at the Crucible does nothing to detract from Ding's superb season. Barring Mark Selby winning the worlds I doubt there is anyone who would take any other players season over Ding's.

Ding should have won the award, there is no doubt whatsoever about it. And if you're talking the "majors" i.e. Worlds, UK and Masters, then Selby should have won it as he won the big one and finished runner up in the other two.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:

Skullman wrote:Define biggest. He reached the last 16 of UK.

TBH I think the majors are overweighted in some fans' minds. The UK is now best of 11 right uptil the final, which basically means it's not that different from your bog standard ranker. The Masters's prestige comes more from the opposition than the format and the opposition is typically no different than what you face in the latter stages of a bog standard ranker.

Plus Ding won the IC, which is on par with the UK these days.

Look, the IC is NOT a major! The three majors are the UK's (which has had it's status definitely cemented at third with the frame slashing), the Masters and the World Championship.

No Majors is every tournament thats classed a Ranking Event all this bullocks about the 3 majors is what it is load of crap before i came on line i had never heard this Majors bullocks and as far as im concerned it means rubbish its about racking up Ranking Events and Other tournaments.

Still, the World Championship, Masters and UK are the three titles on top of the list for most, if not all, snooker players. Every snooker player wants to win those three titles. And it's not something new. Hendry always said the World Championship was his top priority, after that the Masters and after that the UK.

im not arguing that the WC is the most important tournament but theres too much emphasis put on it in the grand scheme of things ...

Id rather my fave won 5 Rankers than 1 World Championship in a season ive always felt like that of course Winning the Worlds as part of that 5 would be better.

However as a Selby fan im pleased that people acknowledge with 5 "Majors" to his name he has already surpassed Jimmy White as a player with only 2 "Majors" to his name

Selby isn't on the same level as Jimmy White.

Majors are obviously the most important thing in Snooker but you still need to win these average rankers to be regarded as an All-Time Great or legend. Ronnie has won 14 majors but if he hadn't won those average ranking titles like the China or Welsh Open it wouldn't be the same. Something would be lacking.

Selby-Williams is the best example. Even if Selby was winning two more majors and got to 7 (including another World) I still would never put him above Williams. First of all because of the standard Williams played at his peak and secondly because of the ranking titles overall.18 ranking titles speaks for itself.

Cloud Strife wrote:Selby isn't on the same level as Jimmy White.

ive been told on this thread that Selby has surpassed White...... i didnt say it so dont shoot the messanger.

Sonny wrote:The International isn't a sprint event, it's best of 11 up to the semis which is then best of 17 with a best of 19 final and Ding won it playing absolutely superb snooker. Ding has not only played the best snooker this season, but he's also won the most tournaments. A freak performance from Michael Wasley who then got pumped in round 2 at the Crucible does nothing to detract from Ding's superb season. Barring Mark Selby winning the worlds I doubt there is anyone who would take any other players season over Ding's.

Ding should have won the award, there is no doubt whatsoever about it. And if you're talking the "majors" i.e. Worlds, UK and Masters, then Selby should have won it as he won the big one and finished runner up in the other two.

The idea that best of 11 is not a sprint format would be laughed at by contemporaries of the Joe Davis era. Also the idea that a player who failed at the three major events of the season could be lauded as still the best performer of the season would be laughed at.


Let me turn an idea on its head. People like Dave Hendon claim to be the guardians of the traditions of snooker. This is ridiculous, the game as it is played today bears very little resemblance to the game played in the the early years (1920's/30's etc). Do you really think the the people that designed and first played snooker to a high level wanted a player to make one mistake and then sit down for the rest of the frame while his opponent spent 10 minutes clearing up the balls; do you really think that? Why do you think that they made the match lengths so long? People like Dan and me are actually the Traditionalists! The likes of Hendon are the modernists.

Dan and you want bucking shot clocks good luck with selling Joe Davis that idea.

Wildey wrote:Dan and you want bucking shot clocks good luck with selling Joe Davis that idea.

Being a traditionalist, I think Joe and Fred would be on my side.


So much has changed in how snooker is played from that era that I think the Davis brothers would regard shot clocks (in a minority of tournaments) as a far less significant change compared with all this other stuff that's happened. I actually think Joe and Fred would welcome the introduction of the shot clock in a minority of tournaments as a concession to the modern T.V. age. Put it this way, they would be far more annoyed by all this frame slashing in important events.

Joe, Fred and me could put together a better tour than Hearn.

Andy Spark wrote:

Wildey wrote:Dan and you want bucking shot clocks good luck with selling Joe Davis that idea.

Being a traditionalist, I think Joe and Fred would be on my side.


So much has changed in how snooker is played from that era that I think the Davis brothers would regard shot clocks (in a minority of tournaments) as a far less significant change compared with all this other stuff that's happened. I actually think Joe and Fred would welcome the introduction of the shot clock in a minority of tournaments as a concession to the modern T.V. age. Put it this way, they would be far more annoyed by all this frame slashing in important events.

Joe, Fred and me could put together a better tour than Hearn.

dream on

and a Joe Davis tour would ban Ronnie because he was to good.

Fred Davis played in the 1982 World Championship at the Crucible when the current format was introduced for the first time.

Joe Davis was still alive when the UK Championship started with Best of 9s up to the Quarter Finals then best of 17s and best of 23 frame final

And when the Masters started in 1975 it had best of 9s up to and including the semis and best of 17 frame final BUT in 1976 it had best of 7s in the 1st 2 rounds, Best of 9 frame semi and a best of 13 frame final same format for 1977 and 1978.

So you see they did not object to those changes because they realized for the TV Age best of 175 frames was not realistic but there is no need to have shot clocks because the game of Snooker has never been faster than it is today

They did object but had limited power by then. Fred even refused to play in an event at least once because he objected to the frame slashing so much.

The Masters was a special event, non ranking and only the top 16 or so; that was the only reason it was designed as best of nine. The UK was only played with single session matches for the first year, when they were just testing the market.

Andy Spark wrote:They did object but had limited power by then. Fred even refused to play in an event at least once because he objected to the frame slashing so much.

The Masters was a special event, non ranking and only the top 16 or so; that was the only reason it was designed as best of nine. The UK was only played with single session matches for the first year, when they were just testing the market.

well that should tell you what they would have thought of shot clocks then

just a load of useless marmite.