Post a reply

whats more important

world number 1
3
23%
World Champion
10
77%
 
Total votes : 13

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey » 06 May 2010 Read

monique

i do not need to re watch it i remember it and how poor both day and ding was in it making life very easy for hendry.

anyway this is not the point of having a go at anyone point is you beat whos infront of you and you can do no more than that same for Hendry in 2008 reaching the semis or Robbo this year winning the tournament as case said players run out of steem.

i lost count how brilliant players played in reaching finals and flopped in the final.

Re: whats more important

Postby Monique » 06 May 2010 Read

case_master wrote:Monique is it not a bit unfair on Neil to say that if Dott had carried his form over he would have won the final?

If neil had carried his form over from the 3rd session against Gould, I could say he would also have won.

Its all speculation, one of the reasons why the world championships is so hard to win is because you need that consistency over long periods. Dott just fell shot unfortunately.

Also another theory would be, if Dott played better Neil might also have raised his game. At no point did he really have to.


That's all fair points Case and we will never know for sure. I was stating an opinion based of what I've seen on the table and in part off the table. Graeme had been extremely consistant up to then, more so than Neil, and he was deeply affected, that's a certainty. Neil showed great sportmanship. The way both embraced at the end of the match was great to watch. The tribute Neil payed to Graeme during the champions party was the mark of a man with a warm heart. I'm sure Neil knows Graeme would have given him a stronger challenge under normal circumstances and of course he might well have raised his game, he's perfectly capable of it.

Re: whats more important

Postby Roland » 06 May 2010 Read

There's no question about it, Dott was favourite going into the final based on performances over the fortnight and had he played like he did in the final he'd have lost every match prior to that. Robbo could have stepped it up, however some of the shots he was missing in the final suggested he was there for the taking against a stronger opponent.

Taking nothing away from Robbo because his win is great for snooker, but as far as I'm concerned that was the worst standard I've ever seen in a World Championship final and I've watched a few!

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey » 06 May 2010 Read

Sonny wrote:There's no question about it, Dott was favourite going into the final based on performances over the fortnight and had he played like he did in the final he'd have lost every match prior to that. Robbo could have stepped it up, however some of the shots he was missing in the final suggested he was there for the taking against a stronger opponent.

Taking nothing away from Robbo because his win is great for snooker, but as far as I'm concerned that was the worst standard I've ever seen in a World Championship final and I've watched a few!


i enjoyed the final it was the best final since the Dott v Ebdon match taking nothing away from Higgins v Selby of 2007 great in the start of the last session but up to then it was a no contest and least said about the routs of the last 2 years the better.

yes standards not that high but who cares i didnt one jot every frame played both men involved in them up to the colours that what i want from a match and final.

Re: whats more important

Postby Templeton Peck » 06 May 2010 Read

To be honest the only final where the standard was poorer in living memory IMO was the 2006 one. You have to go back to 2002 for a top class final. 2003 was exciting, but Dohery was poor on the first day and Williams nearly blew it on the second.

Re: whats more important

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 06 May 2010 Read

This is what we've got to be careful of.

In 6 months time, 2 years, whatever, people will look back at the 2010 final stats & think, cor, that must have been a poor final by going by frame times, high breaks, etc which by then, the Neil Robertson & Graeme Dott final will have lost the context of which the final was played in...

Yet, for me anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the final because it was a rollercoaster of emotions, watching 2 Top class Pro's trying their hardest to get over a finish line they both could only ever dream about getting over. Graeme Dott from pulling himself up from the shadows of darkness & Neil Robertson being somewhere that you can be sure, was only a day dream 2 or 3 years previously. It was for the right to become World Champion for Christ's sake. It was pure tension watching it & oh so unpredictable. If it was still going on now I'd still be glued, genuine.

Snooker comes in lots of different shapes & sizes & in my book, the best Snooker can sometimes be seen by watching the unpredictability of it all unfold in front of you. Yes, for most of us on here experienced enough to have watched plenty of Snooker, you sometimes got the feeling & foreseen a few twist & turns were coming, but how good was that pink from Neil Robertson into the yellow pocket?

Just because the majority of people on 6-06 think the final was poor does not make them right. Half of what gets put up on there is only to get under other peoples skin anyway, nothing to do with Sporting opinion. In my book, they're the type who buy & fund the poxy NOTW/Sun toilet paper.

I do think tho, that the people on here who first mentioned & asked should there be a day of before the final were right tho'. :john:

:)

Re: whats more important

Postby Templeton Peck » 06 May 2010 Read

It's important for the final to be good though since the world final will draw the casual fan. If it reinforces all the criticisms of snooker it will eventually damage the sport. Both the 2001 and 2002 finals did the game proud. I think one of the problems that in recent years it hasn't been contested by 'natural' winners so they've been a bit cagey, and I think that's more a problem than fatigue although Dott did look tired. Maybe a day off between the semis and the final wouldn't be a bad idea. Up against top player Robertson might have raised his game - he's pretty much been the man to beat throughout the season - and either of his Higgins matches at the Grand Prix and UK would have made great finals, as would his match against ronnie at the Masters. In the end though he played as well as had to, but he's played five finals now and that was the worst performance out of them.

Re: whats more important

Postby Roland » 06 May 2010 Read

The only way I'd be in favour of the day off before the final is if the final starts on Saturday and finishes Sunday i.e. not a Bank Holiday and therefore not in April/May. For the sake of this old arguement again I'd rather it be buried and forgotten about because once you start messing with the timings, you're asking for people to start chipping in questioning length of matches and you'll end up with a reduced World Championships and that would be the worst thing that could possibly happen.

The final needs to start earlier, like 1pm and 6:30pm and have 7 frames in the afternoon and 10/11 in the evening on day 1/2. We've had the 2006, 07 and 10 finals finishing late and the only reason is they haven't allowed enough time between the first and second sessions each day so they've built up and ended up with 13 frames to play on the last day and started it about 8:15pm. If you reduce the afternoon to 7 frames and increase the first day evening to 10, it would make it a lot better as a viewing spectacle and also all the alotted frames would be played when they should be played.

Re: whats more important

Postby SnookerFan » 06 May 2010 Read

Sonny wrote:There's no question about it, Dott was favourite going into the final based on performances over the fortnight and had he played like he did in the final he'd have lost every match prior to that. Robbo could have stepped it up, however some of the shots he was missing in the final suggested he was there for the taking against a stronger opponent.

Taking nothing away from Robbo because his win is great for snooker, but as far as I'm concerned that was the worst standard I've ever seen in a World Championship final and I've watched a few!


You really had Dott as the favourite? I saw a few people say that, but can't understand why. Or at least not a strong favourite. Robertson had been playing well, and Gould aside hadn't been challenged. I remember being surprised at the time people had Dott strong favourite on here. He might've come through more gruelling matches then Robertson, but that was exactly the point. Robertson had proved a great front-runner, and would've been more fresh. Didn't the bookmakers have Robertson as favourite?

Re: whats more important

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 06 May 2010 Read

Your probably right templeton with regard to "It's important for the final to be good though since the world final will draw the casual fan." but I'm sure your familair with 'One man's meat is another man's poison' so the definition of good will always be open to peoples different interpretation of good. I understand your point tho.

Sonny, I disagree. I can understand where your coming from with regard to tampering with the WC, but the semi being played over 3 days? There is always room for improvement, its the biggest room in the world according to Arsene Wenger. <ok>

Lets use it. <ok>

Re: whats more important

Postby SnookerFan » 06 May 2010 Read

Sonny wrote:The only way I'd be in favour of the day off before the final is if the final starts on Saturday and finishes Sunday i.e. not a Bank Holiday and therefore not in April/May. For the sake of this old arguement again I'd rather it be buried and forgotten about because once you start messing with the timings, you're asking for people to start chipping in questioning length of matches and you'll end up with a reduced World Championships and that would be the worst thing that could possibly happen.

The final needs to start earlier, like 1pm and 6:30pm and have 7 frames in the afternoon and 10/11 in the evening on day 1/2. We've had the 2006, 07 and 10 finals finishing late and the only reason is they haven't allowed enough time between the first and second sessions each day so they've built up and ended up with 13 frames to play on the last day and started it about 8:15pm. If you reduce the afternoon to 7 frames and increase the first day evening to 10, it would make it a lot better as a viewing spectacle and also all the alotted frames would be played when they should be played.


Agreed about the final starting earlier. What's the point in having a final that starts at 3pm on the final day, when it could easily start at 1pm? The Crucible sells out all fortnight, with matches starting at 1am... What's the problem?
Last edited by SnookerFan on 23 May 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey » 06 May 2010 Read

im all for earlier start times but not off day coblers its a test of mind over talent i persanally dont care about poor standard final neither would the casual fan its the drama that captures the imagination not how many centuries scored...

go back to 1985 standard of play had sod all to do why people got hooked on it well past midnight so why are we so hung up about standards these days ?

Re: whats more important

Postby Witz78 » 06 May 2010 Read

wildJONESEYE wrote:im all for earlier start times but not off day coblers its a test of mind over talent i persanally dont care about poor standard final neither would the casual fan its the drama that captures the imagination not how many centuries scored...

go back to 1985 standard of play had sod all to do why people got hooked on it well past midnight so why are we so hung up about standards these days ?


the final the other night reminded me exactly of a typical 1980s match to be honest

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey » 06 May 2010 Read

exactly

it had drama it had emotion it had everything that made me fall in love with this game 30 years ago.

if the casual fan channel hopping or just a channel hopper and tuning in what do they want to see someone potting all the balls while the other player sitting down or Drama, Emotion taking in turn to feel the heat of the situation they are in.

i fell in love with snooker because of the latter it was mesmerizing seeing the strain on their faces.

Re: whats more important

Postby SnookerFan » 07 May 2010 Read

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:This is what we've got to be careful of.

In 6 months time, 2 years, whatever, people will look back at the 2010 final stats & think, cor, that must have been a poor final by going by frame times, high breaks, etc which by then, the Neil Robertson & Graeme Dott final will have lost the context of which the final was played in...

Yet, for me anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the final because it was a rollercoaster of emotions, watching 2 Top class Pro's trying their hardest to get over a finish line they both could only ever dream about getting over. Graeme Dott from pulling himself up from the shadows of darkness & Neil Robertson being somewhere that you can be sure, was only a day dream 2 or 3 years previously. It was for the right to become World Champion for Christ's sake. It was pure tension watching it & oh so unpredictable. If it was still going on now I'd still be glued, genuine.

Snooker comes in lots of different shapes & sizes & in my book, the best Snooker can sometimes be seen by watching the unpredictability of it all unfold in front of you. Yes, for most of us on here experienced enough to have watched plenty of Snooker, you sometimes got the feeling & foreseen a few twist & turns were coming, but how good was that pink from Neil Robertson into the yellow pocket?

Just because the majority of people on 6-06 think the final was poor does not make them right. Half of what gets put up on there is only to get under other peoples skin anyway, nothing to do with Sporting opinion. In my book, they're the type who buy & fund the poxy NOTW/Sun toilet paper.

I do think tho, that the people on here who first mentioned & asked should there be a day of before the final were right tho'. :john:

:)


Agreed, John. :mosh2:

Re: whats more important

Postby andreiolay212 » 07 May 2010 Read

Being world champion does not mean being the best player in the world while if you are world number you are the most consistent and therefore the best.

Re: whats more important

Postby Rocket_ron » 07 May 2010 Read

andreiolay212 wrote:Being world champion does not mean being the best player in the world while if you are world number you are the most consistent and therefore the best.

well you can get odd players winning the wc but only the best get number1 so i agree with you

Re: whats more important

Postby Tubberlad » 07 May 2010 Read

If I had the choice of being either World Number One or World Champion, there would be no question which one I'd go for. World Champion everytime. Do you think Jimmy White would take the World Number One spot over a World Title? Dream on..

Your dream as a youngster is not to be the world's most consistent pointscorer. It's to pot the winning balls before picking up the trophy under those sparkly Crucible lights.

Re: whats more important

Postby paperbackwriter » 08 May 2010 Read

Looking at it from players' point of view is one thing. Surely if I were a great player I would prefer to confirm it by winning a World Title than by leading in the ranking.
But it's not the best argument in the discussion with people who praise consistency and believe that being World Number One spot says more about the player. At least from what I got they don't discuss prestige, players' preferences or things like that. It's not the reality in which childhood dreams and sentimental moments exist, it's just a question which achievement gives more information about someone's form and skill.

(And I'm not saying that I agree that being World Number 1 is more important, I've just thought that mixing rational spectators' view with what values emotionally to the players is not the best idea.)
Post a reply