Acuerate Antwerp Open (Betfair ET 3) !!!!

Monique wrote:@wild If you look at Hendry, he was always playing his own game, going for his shots and trying to make things happen rather than trying to prevent them to happen for his opponent. That's what being positive means. And, yes, towards the end of his career it cost him sometimes, but he stayed true to himself to the last ball.
Selby when confident plays that way as well, and he did today. When he does he's awesome to watch because he's got a very creative mind. But in other occasions, when he doubts himself, he's doing just the opposite: he's trying mainly to prevent his opponent to play and that's what I call being negative.
When you look at Selby's ability, you wonder why he's only won two ranking events in his career. He should have won a lot more, but to win, you have to "play to win", not to play to prevent your opponent to win because ultimately you have to pot them balls…

It's called having a snooker brain Monique. Anyone wishing to learn when to attack and when to defend in the context of a match could do a lot worse than study Mark Selby.

And you can keep quoting Dott and Selby himself in those two examples until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. Selby was referring to a spell he suffered about a year ago which he's now out of, and Dott was being the wee frustrated little dynamo we all know he is. See how wound up he got by McCulloch, would you use that knowledge if you knew it would get to him?

if i was showing a young player how to play id never show them videos of Hendry because he was consistent playing that Attacking but if someone tried to copy him which is happening in snooker today unfortunately they come unstuck and Lose against Tough hard Matchplayers.

Sonny wrote:

Monique wrote:@wild If you look at Hendry, he was always playing his own game, going for his shots and trying to make things happen rather than trying to prevent them to happen for his opponent. That's what being positive means. And, yes, towards the end of his career it cost him sometimes, but he stayed true to himself to the last ball.
Selby when confident plays that way as well, and he did today. When he does he's awesome to watch because he's got a very creative mind. But in other occasions, when he doubts himself, he's doing just the opposite: he's trying mainly to prevent his opponent to play and that's what I call being negative.
When you look at Selby's ability, you wonder why he's only won two ranking events in his career. He should have won a lot more, but to win, you have to "play to win", not to play to prevent your opponent to win because ultimately you have to pot them balls…

It's called having a snooker brain Monique. Anyone wishing to learn when to attack and when to defend in the context of a match could do a lot worse than study Mark Selby.

And you can keep quoting Dott and Selby himself in those two examples until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. Selby was referring to a spell he suffered about a year ago which he's now out of, and Dott was being the wee frustrated little dynamo we all know he is. See how wound up he got by McCulloch, would you use that knowledge if you knew it would get to him?

sometimes you have to make things happen though and Selbys on the extreme of erring towards more negative than positive, as opposed to being the fine line of the attack / defence balance you suggest.

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:

Monique wrote:@wild If you look at Hendry, he was always playing his own game, going for his shots and trying to make things happen rather than trying to prevent them to happen for his opponent. That's what being positive means. And, yes, towards the end of his career it cost him sometimes, but he stayed true to himself to the last ball.
Selby when confident plays that way as well, and he did today. When he does he's awesome to watch because he's got a very creative mind. But in other occasions, when he doubts himself, he's doing just the opposite: he's trying mainly to prevent his opponent to play and that's what I call being negative.
When you look at Selby's ability, you wonder why he's only won two ranking events in his career. He should have won a lot more, but to win, you have to "play to win", not to play to prevent your opponent to win because ultimately you have to pot them balls…

It's called having a snooker brain Monique. Anyone wishing to learn when to attack and when to defend in the context of a match could do a lot worse than study Mark Selby.

And you can keep quoting Dott and Selby himself in those two examples until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. Selby was referring to a spell he suffered about a year ago which he's now out of, and Dott was being the wee frustrated little dynamo we all know he is. See how wound up he got by McCulloch, would you use that knowledge if you knew it would get to him?

sometimes you have to make things happen though and Selbys on the extreme of erring towards more negative than positive, as opposed to being the fine line of the attack / defence balance you suggest.

rubbish

Wild WC wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:

Monique wrote:@wild If you look at Hendry, he was always playing his own game, going for his shots and trying to make things happen rather than trying to prevent them to happen for his opponent. That's what being positive means. And, yes, towards the end of his career it cost him sometimes, but he stayed true to himself to the last ball.
Selby when confident plays that way as well, and he did today. When he does he's awesome to watch because he's got a very creative mind. But in other occasions, when he doubts himself, he's doing just the opposite: he's trying mainly to prevent his opponent to play and that's what I call being negative.
When you look at Selby's ability, you wonder why he's only won two ranking events in his career. He should have won a lot more, but to win, you have to "play to win", not to play to prevent your opponent to win because ultimately you have to pot them balls…

It's called having a snooker brain Monique. Anyone wishing to learn when to attack and when to defend in the context of a match could do a lot worse than study Mark Selby.

And you can keep quoting Dott and Selby himself in those two examples until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. Selby was referring to a spell he suffered about a year ago which he's now out of, and Dott was being the wee frustrated little dynamo we all know he is. See how wound up he got by McCulloch, would you use that knowledge if you knew it would get to him?

sometimes you have to make things happen though and Selbys on the extreme of erring towards more negative than positive, as opposed to being the fine line of the attack / defence balance you suggest.

rubbish

rubbish

Selbys more negative than positive, of that there can be no debate so take the blinkers off, or lay your cards on the table as to what THE REAL AGENDA of suggesting otherwise is..............

as i said Rubbish

just people been jumping on the bandwagon ever since Ronnie said it.

Witz is just wumming as usual.

I think the red he took on in the final to middle pocket shows exactly why he's a positive player and why those who say he's negative genuinely don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Sonny wrote:Witz is just wumming as usual.

I think the red he took on in the final to middle pocket shows exactly why he's a positive player and why those who say he's negative genuinely don't have a clue what they're talking about.

That was an immense shot, especially considering how his opponent only needed one frame to win the match.

Id call it a desperation, point of no return, nothing to lose shot tbh
And im not WUM at all, not my style.
Its just convenient for yous to say that as i have a different opinion to the majority, and so yous dont have to address my arguments.
And the old 'dont have a clue about snooker' line is bullocks.
Selbys not a positive player, perhaps at times but bulk of time hes cautious. Daft too as he has all the skills and would have won far more if he was more positive.

Oh you wind up bastard! Haha. Monique will buy you a drink at the Crucible for that.

Sonny wrote:Oh you wind up bastard! Haha. Monique will buy you a drink at the Crucible for that.

He'd probably try to chat her up.

Selby wins only because he resorts to cheating and slow down tactics vs Selby dont win enough because he resorts to slow down tactics and Bogs himself Down

thoes 2 Arguments been banded about this Morning on Different Forums.

Dam if he does and Dam if he dont

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Oh you wind up bastard! Haha. Monique will buy you a drink at the Crucible for that.

He'd probably try to chat her up.

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Witz is just wumming as usual.

I think the red he took on in the final to middle pocket shows exactly why he's a positive player and why those who say he's negative genuinely don't have a clue what they're talking about.

That was an immense shot, especially considering how his opponent only needed one frame to win the match.

Selby fan-boy

Roland, I will admit without restriction that Selby wasn't negative at any moment of this final, quite the opposite given that he wasn't at his best and still went for at least a couple of very hard shots, and I will even admit that he has not been his (former) negative self for about a season, maybe a season and a half. But when Dotty made his comment, when Mark wrote his blog, and when others (hum … ) said he was, he truly was and in my opinion it didn't help his tally.
As for the "hard match players" wild is always waffling about, he tells me when one of this kind last won an event of some importance. I'm not counting in players like Higgins, Selby or Ronnie who are all capable of playing the hard matchplay way when needed, but are also capable and willing to attack when the opportunity is there. Playing defensively isn't the way winners play nowadays, not in any sport. It brings you consistency but rarely wins. For me a prime example of this is Caroline Wozniacki who has been number 1 for quite a while but is yet to win a grand slam.

Monique wrote:Roland, I will admit without restriction that Selby wasn't negative at any moment of this final, quite the opposite given that he wasn't at his best and still went for at least a couple of very hard shots, and I will even admit that he has not been his (former) negative self for about a season, maybe a season and a half. But when Dotty made his comment, when Mark wrote his blog, and when others (hum … ) said he was, he truly was and in my opinion it didn't help his tally.
As for the "hard match players" wild is always waffling about, he tells me when one of this kind last won an event of some importance. I'm not counting in players like Higgins, Selby or Ronnie who are all capable of playing the hard matchplay way when needed, but are also capable and willing to attack when the opportunity is there. Playing defensively isn't the way winners play nowadays, not in any sport. It brings you consistency but rarely wins. For me a prime example of this is Caroline Wozniacki who has been number 1 for quite a while but is yet to win a grand slam.

Bloody hell, not her again. They keep banging on about her on thesnookerforum when discussing Selby. I'd not heard of her last week, and now I'm sick of hearing her name.

yup its as if Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting swear word or something.

she earned her dues working hard won tournaments Grand Slam occupies 8 weeks out of 52 in a year.....suerly being WN 1 is more than just Grand Slam or they might aswll cancel other events and let the players have a Rodney Walker style Holiday.

Caroline Wozniacki is a dane so shes great in my book

Wild WC wrote:yup its as if Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting swear word or something.

she earned her dues working hard won tournaments Grand Slam occupies 8 weeks out of 52 in a year.....suerly being WN 1 is more than just Grand Slam or they might aswll cancel other events and let the players have a Rodney Walker style Holiday.

Caroline Wozniacki is a dane so shes great in my book

out the top 10 now is pushniacki.

Tennis.

SnookerFan wrote:Tennis.

the analogy would be this.

ronnie o sullivan is the serena williams of the snooker world.

although when he does decide to play he's not as dominant these days.

wozniacki is shaun murphy but without the double weirdness factor & the blonde hair.

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:
the analogy would be this.

ronnie o sullivan is the serena williams of the snooker world.

although when he does decide to play he's not as dominant these days.

wozniacki is shaun murphy but without the double weirdness factor & the blonde hair.

You clown.

You just think anybody who isn't Ronnie is 'double weird'. You're the only person I've ever heard use that term.

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:yup its as if Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting swear word or something.

she earned her dues working hard won tournaments Grand Slam occupies 8 weeks out of 52 in a year.....suerly being WN 1 is more than just Grand Slam or they might aswll cancel other events and let the players have a Rodney Walker style Holiday.

Caroline Wozniacki is a dane so shes great in my book

out the top 10 now is pushniacki.

But she wasent and she was a worthy no 1.

in the workplace you dont get promotion without putting the Work in that's the same principle as Rankings.

Wild WC wrote:

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:yup its as if Caroline Wozniacki is a sporting swear word or something.

she earned her dues working hard won tournaments Grand Slam occupies 8 weeks out of 52 in a year.....suerly being WN 1 is more than just Grand Slam or they might aswll cancel other events and let the players have a Rodney Walker style Holiday.

Caroline Wozniacki is a dane so shes great in my book

out the top 10 now is pushniacki.

But she wasent and she was a worthy no 1.

in the workplace you dont get promotion without putting the Work in that's the same principle as Rankings.

worthy to an extent.

serena williams picks & chooses and generally dominates when she does play.

she's not world no1.

a good no1 wins slams as well like the current no1 azarenka.

who's better than pushniacki ever was.

if stephen hendry was in his early 20's now we'd be slagging him rotten if he weren't delivering in the big tournaments.

SnookerFan wrote:

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:
the analogy would be this.

ronnie o sullivan is the serena williams of the snooker world.

although when he does decide to play he's not as dominant these days.

wozniacki is shaun murphy but without the double weirdness factor & the blonde hair.

You clown.

You just think anybody who isn't Ronnie is 'double weird'. You're the only person I've ever heard use that term.

nonsense.

most of the players on the tour i can stomach.

murphy is just a little weed of a man.

Selby is Getting slagged However he is still the rightfull No 1 because he puts in the Hours and Consistent with it.

If I was a big Selby fan I'd be desperate to see off the top of the rankings. His form has dipped in the last year he's been at No.1. All it's done is put more pressure on him by having to live up to the status of World No.1 without the confidence or aura that comes with winning major titles. Before the expansion of the tour Selby was a player who seemed to find his best form at the Majors and his ranking was much lower than he should have been. He's now the opposite. If the rankings were done over a year he wouldn't be at the top. No player has been clearly been the best over the last two years but O'Sullivan was the best player of last season and Higgins for the season before. They would have kept the No.1 spot between them with maybe Trump or Williams having a brief run at the top.

Jewell wrote:This whole 'does Selby deserve to be number 1' debate is almost as tedious as the Ronnie vs Hendry debates.

To be honest, I'd be more interested in the Ronnie vs Hendry debate at this point.

Jewell wrote:This whole 'does Selby deserve to be number 1' debate is almost as tedious as the Ronnie vs Hendry debates.

why do people bucking criticize him then hes a deserving no 1 case and debate close

makes me laugh

people talk absolute utter rubbish about a topic then expects everyone else to agree with them or the topic is a

Jewell wrote:

Wild WC wrote:people talk absolute utter donkey doo about a topic then expects everyone else to agree with them or the topic is a

You've given a very good description of yourself in that post. It's time for you to take a long hard look in the mirror before you embarass yourself any further.

What you on ?

Did i start selby not worthy no 1 ?

Did i DID I DID I DID I

you and your idiotic cronies are the embarrassment not only to the Site or the Sport but to yourself.