Post a reply

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Johnny Bravo

SnookerFan wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/01/neil-robertson-calls-for-change-to-stale-and-dated-world-snooker-championship-15189060/

Image

I agree with what he says. I'd also bring in a shot clock, 20 seconds per shot max.

You have to look at the broader picture here. Snooker is kept alive by fans, just like any other sport. The more fans, the more sponsors. And the vast majority of those fans are casuals, the sport should be more oriented to their needs, than to those of purists, who probably like the sport the way it is now.

The game also needs some rule tweaking:
- remove the "foul and a miss rule"
- change the way one gets a snooker. Make it like in pool. After contact with the object ball, either the cueball or the object ball should touch at least a cushion, no more rolling behind a color.
- ball in hand anywhere on the table after a foul.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby mantorok

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/01/neil-robertson-calls-for-change-to-stale-and-dated-world-snooker-championship-15189060/

Image

I agree with what he says. I'd also bring in a shot clock, 20 seconds per shot max.

You have to look at the broader picture here. Snooker is kept alive by fans, just like any other sport. The more fans, the more sponsors. And the vast majority of those fans are casuals, the sport should be more oriented to their needs, than to those of purists, who probably like the sport the way it is now.

The game also needs some rule tweaking:
- remove the "foul and a miss rule"
- change the way one gets a snooker. Make it like in pool. After contact with the object ball, either the cueball or the object ball should touch at least a cushion, no more rolling behind a color.
- ball in hand anywhere on the table after a foul.


I think they should use 10ft tables too.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/01/neil-robertson-calls-for-change-to-stale-and-dated-world-snooker-championship-15189060/

Image

I agree with what he says. I'd also bring in a shot clock, 20 seconds per shot max.

You have to look at the broader picture here. Snooker is kept alive by fans, just like any other sport. The more fans, the more sponsors. And the vast majority of those fans are casuals, the sport should be more oriented to their needs, than to those of purists, who probably like the sport the way it is now.

The game also needs some rule tweaking:
- remove the "foul and a miss rule"
- change the way one gets a snooker. Make it like in pool. After contact with the object ball, either the cueball or the object ball should touch at least a cushion, no more rolling behind a color.
- ball in hand anywhere on the table after a foul.

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

mantorok wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/01/neil-robertson-calls-for-change-to-stale-and-dated-world-snooker-championship-15189060/

Image

I agree with what he says. I'd also bring in a shot clock, 20 seconds per shot max.

You have to look at the broader picture here. Snooker is kept alive by fans, just like any other sport. The more fans, the more sponsors. And the vast majority of those fans are casuals, the sport should be more oriented to their needs, than to those of purists, who probably like the sport the way it is now.

The game also needs some rule tweaking:
- remove the "foul and a miss rule"
- change the way one gets a snooker. Make it like in pool. After contact with the object ball, either the cueball or the object ball should touch at least a cushion, no more rolling behind a color.
- ball in hand anywhere on the table after a foul.


I think they should use 10ft tables too.


pmsl

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerEd25

SnookerFan wrote:I hope the WST don't listen to this moronic opinion.


I don’t think JB is on their radar.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Running side

surprised Robbo never tried pool circuit,speed of play my suit his game.comments reguarding snooker could play into hands of other players by dragging frames on and frustrating him.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby James Bentley

Running side wrote:comments reguarding snooker could play into hands of other players by dragging frames on and frustrating him.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Selby must have been rubbing his hands with glee when he read that.


His comments don't particularly surprise me. One of the attributes a successful player needs is the ability to maintain a high level of concentration for a long period of time, and Robertson is lacking in this area (as I think he tacitly admits in the article). The onus is on him to improve this aspect of his game; it is not incumbent on the snooker authorities to change the game to better suit the playing style of Neil Robertson.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby mick745

To be frank he has never really looked like he would add to his one world title but he has had a great career.

Unfortunately world titles are the usual measure of greatness in the snooker sphere - he would be placed in the third bracket/tier of all time players for me unless his wc record improves (but i think he'll end his career on one, with Murphy).

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Johnny Bravo

Dan-cat wrote:Ball in hand after any foul? Game over.

You're trolling JB

I'm not trolling at all. This happens in pool too. So what if it's frame over ?!?
I repeat, the way you obtain a snooker will also change, so there won't be any easy snookers anymore
Last edited by Johnny Bravo on 02 Sep 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Ball in hand after any foul? Game over.

You're trolling JB

I'm not trilling at all. This happens in pool too. So what if it's frame over ?!?
I repeat, the way you obtain a snooker will also change, so there won't be any easy snookers anymore

It’s bucking CALLED snooker

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerEd25

At least Murphy has consistently got to the one table set-up since his triumph, even though he has yet to add to his tally.

I suspect most people would regard Neil as a far superior player to Shaun but I think their Crucible records prove otherwise.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Johnny Bravo

SnookerFan wrote:I hope the WST don't listen to this moronic opinion.

This is not moronic at all, you simply have this bad mentality ingrained in your brain. You were born and saw snooker in a particular way and your subconscience believes it's the right way.
If when you were born, snooker had a similar foul rule to pool, and someone came today lobbying for a "foul and a miss" rule, you'd think they were nuts.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Ball in hand after any foul? Game over.

You're trolling JB

I'm not trilling at all. This happens in pool too. So what if it's frame over ?!?
I repeat, the way you obtain a snooker will also change, so there won't be any easy snookers anymore

It’s bucking CALLED snooker

And your point is ?!
The game in itself won't change much, you still have to make breaks by altering potting red balls and colors.
The only thing that changes is the way you obtain a snooker, and the penalty if you don't get out of it.
The way things are now, you can simply roll behind a color and put your opponent in trouble, which is not fair at all. Snookers are way too easy to get

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Ball in hand after any foul? Game over.

You're trolling JB

I'm not trilling at all. This happens in pool too. So what if it's frame over ?!?
I repeat, the way you obtain a snooker will also change, so there won't be any easy snookers anymore

It’s bucking CALLED snooker

And your point is ?!
The game in itself won't change much, you still have to make breaks by altering potting red balls and colors.
The only thing that changes is the way you obtain a snooker, and the penalty if you don't get out of it.
The way things are now, you can simply roll behind a color and put your opponent in trouble, which is not fair at all. Snookers are way too easy to get

The game would change massively and if you don’t see that I really don’t know what to tell you.

If anything there would be more snookers because ball-in-hand would mean it doesn’t need to be a particularly good snooker for you to score loads of points from it.

What would be the point in going for a difficult pot and trying to win the frame yourself if you can win the frame from laying a simple snooker and putting the white wherever you want if your opponent misses it once?

You wouldn’t need to try and get a good snooker, just any snooker, and hope your opponent misses it once.

It’s bucking nonsense.

Snooker’s not pool and it doesn’t need to be more like pool.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I hope the WST don't listen to this moronic opinion.

This is not moronic at all, you simply have this bad mentality ingrained in your brain. You were born and saw snooker in a particular way and your subconscience believes it's the right way.
If when you were born, snooker had a similar foul rule to pool, and someone came today lobbying for a "foul and a miss" rule, you'd think they were nuts.

The miss rule is basically fine, it’s just used badly.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

mick745 wrote:To be frank he has never really looked like he would add to his one world title but he has had a great career.

Unfortunately world titles are the usual measure of greatness in the snooker sphere - he would be placed in the third bracket/tier of all time players for me unless his wc record improves (but i think he'll end his career on one, with Murphy).

As the article says, Robertson can't really play properly at the Crucible. There isn't enough room to play without modifying his technique. A few other players are affected, such as Maguire.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerFan

James Bentley wrote:
Running side wrote:comments reguarding snooker could play into hands of other players by dragging frames on and frustrating him.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Selby must have been rubbing his hands with glee when he read that.


His comments don't particularly surprise me. One of the attributes a successful player needs is the ability to maintain a high level of concentration for a long period of time, and Robertson is lacking in this area (as I think he tacitly admits in the article). The onus is on him to improve this aspect of his game; it is not incumbent on the snooker authorities to change the game to better suit the playing style of Neil Robertson.


+1

Or at the very least, don't ask them to amend the game around your weaknesses under the pretence of giving fans what they want.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerFan

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I hope the WST don't listen to this moronic opinion.

This is not moronic at all, you simply have this bad mentality ingrained in your brain. You were born and saw snooker in a particular way and your subconscience believes it's the right way.
If when you were born, snooker had a similar foul rule to pool, and someone came today lobbying for a "foul and a miss" rule, you'd think they were nuts.


I was talking about Robertson's opinion being moronic, not yours.

Though granted, I can see how you'd assume otherwise.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

SnookerFan wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I hope the WST don't listen to this moronic opinion.

This is not moronic at all, you simply have this bad mentality ingrained in your brain. You were born and saw snooker in a particular way and your subconscience believes it's the right way.
If when you were born, snooker had a similar foul rule to pool, and someone came today lobbying for a "foul and a miss" rule, you'd think they were nuts.


I was talking about Robertson's opinion being moronic, not yours.

Though granted, I can see how you'd assume otherwise.


<laugh>

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote:The game would change massively and if you don’t see that I really don’t know what to tell you.

If anything there would be more snookers because ball-in-hand would mean it doesn’t need to be a particularly good snooker for you to score loads of points from it.

What would be the point in going for a difficult pot and trying to win the frame yourself if you can win the frame from laying a simple snooker and putting the white wherever you want if your opponent misses it once?

You wouldn’t need to try and get a good snooker, just any snooker, and hope your opponent misses it once.

It’s bucking nonsense.

Snooker’s not pool and it doesn’t need to be more like pool.

First of all, getting snookers will be way harder since you wouldn't be allowed to get one just by rolling behind a color. Either the cueball or the color has to hit at least a cushion after contact.

Second of all, in 90% of the cases, your opponent will have no trouble whatsoever hitting a red.

Third of all, there's no guarantee you will win the frame in one visit even with ball in hand.

Forth, in pool this happens all the time. In fact, there it's almost guaranteed you loose the frame after a foul, so I don't see what the fuss is all about. This is way less likely to happen in snooker (losing the frame I mean).

And finally, I see the outcome completely different. Defensive players will have a harder time cause they won't be able to get snookers so easy.