Post a reply

What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Tubberlad

Okay, this is a topic that has taken my interest quite a bit of late. I've noticed on 606 players like Graeme Dott, Peter Ebdon & Mark Selby being put into the same basket as players that I genuinely find boring, such as Dave Harold & Stuart Bingham.

In truth, there are certain players that I do find boring. The most boring of these was Paul Davison. I watched him play Jimmy White at the World Open and found myself on the verge of tears with boredom. There was nothing for me to recommend in his game: we were talking really one dimensional stuff, no part of his game standing out, uninteresting shot selection, just your run of the mill trade mark game at a very slow pace.

Too often I feel players' box office appeal is judged rather simplistically on how fast or slow they are. Which I find ridiculous. I've seen super quick players that may have been really positive, but without an interesting shot selection or standout facets to their game. See Tony Drago & Robert Milkins. I don't dislike either player, I think Drago seems a very sound bloke and I don't mind seeing him win matches, but his relentless attacking play does not excite me.

Strangely though, I quite like watching Liang Wenbo. I wouldn't cancel a night out to see him play or anything, but his shot selection at times is so bizarre that I simply have to sit up and watch.

Peter Ebdon & Mark Selby on the other don't play at a particularly fast pace at all, sometimes snail paced, but I really enjoy watching both play. I find Ebdon to have a really exciting shot selection, and unlike boring players such as Bingham & Harold, he really has a go when the time is right. I like his game, to put it simply, and I believe his approach is why he has achieved success, while Bingham & Harold have not done much of note.

Selby I believe has the best shotmaking ability in the game, and that's why I enjoy watching him play. He's sometimes criticised for taking over a minute on shots, but it's only when it's backs to the wall. I ask you: have you ever seen Selby play anything less than an incredible shot after such a studious approach?

Graeme Dott does not possess that incredible shotmaking you see from Selby, but I do like this way he fights for his wins, and I also enjoy his safety game a lot. It's so negative that it just makes him stand out from other players. He also proved last April that he can be bloody attacking when he wants to be.

Of all the players I've watched, I suppose Ronnie O'Sullivan is my favourite. It's not because he's fast: it's how he executes his shots. O'Sullivan can flick the cue ball around to his heart's content when in amongst the reds, in a way that's almost hypotising to watch. You ask yourself what's the right shot to play, and then he just does it. Perfectly. In style. Not only that, but he also has a really beautiful safety game to watch. Judd Trump's ability may not be as high as O'Sullivan's, but his game is probably the closest in style, and though I don't particularly rate him as being an awesome prospect, I do love watching him play.

Hendry is the better player of the two, yet I watch clips of him, and though he's really positive and attacking, there's little to recommend box office wise. He was so good it was almost like watching a robot in action, and that for me is not entertaining. It's great snooker, I'd watch it in awe if someone was playing that way now, but it would be a respectful awe as I can appreciate good snooker when I see it.

I'm not a fan of John Higgins' game from a viewers' point of view. He's undoubtedly brilliant in what he does, but I can rarely sense flair when watching. Again, like Hendry, I watch in respect, though there have been a few examples where you can't take your eyes off him because he's playing so well.

I can't say I feel a thrill when watching Neil Robertson play. Neil's a great guy & a great player, I was delighted when he won a deserved World Title, he's a natural winner who really goes for the jugular when there's a title on the line. I enjoy his long potting, but there isn't a while lot else to excite, as much as I like and respect how good he is. In short, I'd much prefer to watch, say, Ding, who's game has that little bit more variety.

Contrast this with a man many compare Robbo to: Mark Williams. Williams' stance is a little quirky, his single ball potting is awesome, and he's got a really clever safety game that seems to go over many heads.

In a slightly sadistic way, watching the likes of Stevens, Day & Cope can be a really entertaining and sometimes nerve jangling experience, because you know that no matter how far ahead they go that they can still find a way of blowing it. In contrast, Hunter & Doherty could thrill with their ability to mount a comeback from the death.

So, have I summed things up, or does anybody here have a totally different criteria? I expect Wild to explain why Hendry is not boring, Frame to slam Ronnie & Witz to rubbish my thoughts on Drago, but I look forward to all that... we all see the game differently.

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Tubberlad

GJ wrote:day exciting :roll: :zzz:

In a different context. I'm not saying his game is particularly exciting (it isn't), but you know a Ryan Day match is never over until the winning pots are put away. Unless he's way behind himself ;)

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

Okay, this is a topic that has taken my interest quite a bit of late. I've noticed on 606 players like Graeme Dott, Peter Ebdon & Mark Selby being put into the same basket as players that I genuinely find boring, such as Dave Harold & Stuart Bingham.

In truth, there are certain players that I do find boring. The most boring of these was Paul Davison. I watched him play Jimmy White at the World Open and found myself on the verge of tears with boredom. There was nothing for me to recommend in his game: we were talking really one dimensional stuff, no part of his game standing out, uninteresting shot selection, just your run of the mill trade mark game at a very slow pace.

I WAS AT THAT GAME AND WOULD PROBABLY LUMP DAVISON IN WITH PETTMAN AS THE WORST PRO IVE EVER SEEN PLAY

Too often I feel players' box office appeal is judged rather simplistically on how fast or slow they are. Which I find ridiculous. I've seen super quick players that may have been really positive, but without an interesting shot selection or standout facets to their game. See Tony Drago & Robert Milkins. I don't dislike either player, I think Drago seems a very sound bloke and I don't mind seeing him win matches, but his relentless attacking play does not excite me.

HIS RELENTLESS ATTACKING IS UNIQUE ALMOST AND GREAT TO WATCH AND MOST FANS WHETHER THEY LIKE HIM OR NOT WILL AGREE THAT HES EXCITING TO WATCH DUE TO HIS SUSPECT TEMPERAMENT AND ONE DIMENSIONAL GAME THAT COULD CAPITULATE AT ANY MOMENT

Strangely though, I quite like watching Liang Wenbo. I wouldn't cancel a night out to see him play or anything, but his shot selection at times is so bizarre that I simply have to sit up and watch.

I ALSO LIKE WENBOS STYLE OF PLAY

Peter Ebdon & Mark Selby on the other don't play at a particularly fast pace at all, sometimes snail paced, but I really enjoy watching both play. I find Ebdon to have a really exciting shot selection, and unlike boring players such as Bingham & Harold, he really has a go when the time is right. I like his game, to put it simply, and I believe his approach is why he has achieved success, while Bingham & Harold have not done much of note.

EBDON AND SELBY ARE MY 2 FAVOURITE "BORING" PLAYERS TO WATCH, HOW THEY GET CLASSED AS BORING IS BEYOND ME. PLUS THEY ARE CHARACTERS TOO <ok> I AGREE BINGHAM AND HAROLD ARE DULL AS DITCHWATER :zzz:

Selby I believe has the best shotmaking ability in the game, and that's why I enjoy watching him play. He's sometimes criticised for taking over a minute on shots, but it's only when it's backs to the wall. I ask you: have you ever seen Selby play anything less than an incredible shot after such a studious approach?

Graeme Dott does not possess that incredible shotmaking you see from Selby, but I do like this way he fights for his wins, and I also enjoy his safety game a lot. It's so negative that it just makes him stand out from other players. He also proved last April that he can be bloody attacking when he wants to be.

IM NOT A FAN OF DOTT BUT I APPRECIATE HIS GAME AND BATTLING QUALITIES MORE NOW THAN I USED TO

Of all the players I've watched, I suppose Ronnie O'Sullivan is my favourite. It's not because he's fast: it's how he executes his shots. O'Sullivan can flick the cue ball around to his heart's content when in amongst the reds, in a way that's almost hypotising to watch. You ask yourself what's the right shot to play, and then he just does it. Perfectly. In style. Not only that, but he also has a really beautiful safety game to watch. Judd Trump's ability may not be as high as O'Sullivan's, but his game is probably the closest in style, and though I don't particularly rate him as being an awesome prospect, I do love watching him play.

TOTALLY AGREE ON RONNIE BUT DISAGREE WITH JUDD, HE WILL COME GOOD IN THE END MUCH TO HIS MANY HATERS <doh> ANNOYANCE

Hendry is the better player of the two, yet I watch clips of him, and though he's really positive and attacking, there's little to recommend box office wise. He was so good it was almost like watching a robot in action, and that for me is not entertaining. It's great snooker, I'd watch it in awe if someone was playing that way now, but it would be a respectful awe as I can appreciate good snooker when I see it.

100% AGREE, I ALWAYS FOUND PEAK HENDRY BORING AS HE WAS DEVOID OF ANY PERSONALITY OR EMOTION AND JUST HOOVERED UP THE BALLS AT THE TABLE WITH FAR TOO MUCH EASE

I'm not a fan of John Higgins' game from a viewers' point of view. He's undoubtedly brilliant in what he does, but I can rarely sense flair when watching. Again, like Hendry, I watch in respect, though there have been a few examples where you can't take your eyes off him because he's playing so well.

IVE RARELY SEEN HIGGINS WIN A MATCH EASY, LIKE SELBY HE SEEMS TO ALWAYS EDGE NARROW MATCHES BY PULLING INTO HIS RESERVES LATE ON

I can't say I feel a thrill when watching Neil Robertson play. Neil's a great guy & a great player, a natural winner who really goes for the jugular when there's a title on the line. I enjoy his long potting, but there isn't a while lot else to excite, as much as I like and respect how good he is. In short, I'd much prefer to watch, say, Ding, who's game has that little bit more variety.

YEH I FIND ROBBO OVER RATED AND BORING TO WATCH, IM STARTING TO BECOME A BIG DING FAN NOW THOUGH I THINK AS HES STARTING TO SHOW SOME PERSONALITY AND AS FOR HIS GAME, ITS GREAT TO WATCH AT TIMES

Contrast this with a man many compare Robbo to: Mark Williams. Williams' stance is a little quirky, his single ball potting is awesome, and he's got a really clever safety game that seems to go over many heads.

I DONT MIND WILLIAMS BUT IVE NEVER FOUND HIM A "MUST WATCH" PLAYER

In a slightly sadistic way, watching the likes of Stevens, Day & Cope can be a really entertaining and sometimes nerve jangling experience, because you know that no matter how far ahead they go that they can still find a way of blowing it. In contrast, Hunter & Doherty could thrill with their ability to mount a comeback from the death.

NOT THE MOST APT USE OF WORDS FOR HUNTER :john: I FOUND DOHERTY TO BE RATHER PREDICTABLE AND NOT THAT EXCITING. DAY IS BORING AS HELL I THINK AND STEVENS IS THE GREAT UNDERACHIEVER, WAS OK 10 YEARS AGO BUT STILL NEVER HAD THAT WOW FACTOR. COPES AN ENIGMA AND WHILST HE CAN LOOK BRILLIANT AT TIMES HES TOO INCONSISTENT TO STICK WITH AND FOLLOW HIM PROPERLY

So, have I summed things up, or does anybody here have a totally different criteria? I expect Wild to explain why Hendry is not boring, Frame to slam Ronnie & Witz to rubbish my thoughts on Drago, but I look forward to all that... we all see the game differently.

I RUBBISHED YOUR DRAGO NONSENSE :bs: BUT ON THE WHOLE IM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REST <ok>

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Wildey

i dont find any player "Boring" in the Right Match at the Right time.

Sometime you get a Match that throws 2 players together that contributes to a not very exciting match to watch but against someone else those 2 players aren't Boring.

Snooker is a game of contrast of styles and thats when snooker is at it best.

in the 80s the Match i loved more than any other Alex Higgins vs Cliff Thorburn because they were different in every way possible from each other and it made it a exciting Match to watch.

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:i dont find any player "Boring" in the Right Match at the Right time.

Sometime you get a Match that throws 2 players together that contributes to a not very exciting match to watch but against someone else those 2 players aren't Boring.

Snooker is a game of contrast of styles and thats when snooker is at it best.

in the 80s the Match i loved more than any other Alex Higgins vs Cliff Thorburn because they were different in every way possible from each other and it made it a exciting Match to watch.


So what your basically trying to say is that theres no such thing as a boring snooker player...... :john:

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:i dont find any player "Boring" in the Right Match at the Right time.

Sometime you get a Match that throws 2 players together that contributes to a not very exciting match to watch but against someone else those 2 players aren't Boring.

Snooker is a game of contrast of styles and thats when snooker is at it best.

in the 80s the Match i loved more than any other Alex Higgins vs Cliff Thorburn because they were different in every way possible from each other and it made it a exciting Match to watch.


So what your basically trying to say is that theres no such thing as a boring snooker player...... :john:



the 2 players who stab at the ball are boring to watch

:wave: <ok>

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

Tubberlad wrote:Cheers for the feedback Witz, and as you can see I would agree with most. Though I don't agree that Robertson is overated



understandable he was shouting for gould throughout the worlds match and obviously is a sore loser unlike martin who is gracious

:)

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Tubberlad

GJ wrote:
Tubberlad wrote:Cheers for the feedback Witz, and as you can see I would agree with most. Though I don't agree that Robertson is overated



understandable he was shouting for gould throughout the worlds match and obviously is a sore loser unlike martin who is gracious

:)

Oh, Gould, I like watching him play too.

GJ, I don't hugely enjoy watching Robbo, but I think he's a brilliant player and, importantly, a winner. I don't want to be confused with Robbo haters, as I was delighted when he won his title last year :santa:

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

Tubberlad wrote:
GJ wrote:
Tubberlad wrote:Cheers for the feedback Witz, and as you can see I would agree with most. Though I don't agree that Robertson is overated



understandable he was shouting for gould throughout the worlds match and obviously is a sore loser unlike martin who is gracious

:)

Oh, Gould, I like watching him play too.

GJ, I don't hugely enjoy watching Robbo, but I think he's a brilliant player and, importantly, a winner. I don't want to be confused with Robbo haters, as I was delighted when he won his title last year :santa:



<ok> <cool>

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

GJ wrote:
Tubberlad wrote:Cheers for the feedback Witz, and as you can see I would agree with most. Though I don't agree that Robertson is overated



understandable he was shouting for gould throughout the worlds match and obviously is a sore loser unlike martin who is gracious

:)


was i shouting for Gould ??? If i was i musta been logging in here snake hissed whilst i was at it rofl

i would have been cheering on Gould as it offered Davis a virtual bye to the semi finals plus im a Robbo hater, no point in hiding the truth rofl

and i actually had a bet on Robbo when it got back to about 7-11 as could see Gould collapsing. nice 200 back off 25 quid i think it was :D

but as you say, martin is gracious <ok>

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

GJ wrote:and im allowed to respond like peple do on my jimmy white comments


whats your Jimmy comments then?

dont try and honestly kid on that you find Jimmy boring to watch <doh>

you and Wild must be the only men to hate Jimmy, Drago and Davis. <doh> <doh> <doh> Think yous are just kidding yourselves on to wind up the rest of us :wild2:

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:i dont find any player "Boring" in the Right Match at the Right time.

Sometime you get a Match that throws 2 players together that contributes to a not very exciting match to watch but against someone else those 2 players aren't Boring.

Snooker is a game of contrast of styles and thats when snooker is at it best.

in the 80s the Match i loved more than any other Alex Higgins vs Cliff Thorburn because they were different in every way possible from each other and it made it a exciting Match to watch.


So what your basically trying to say is that theres no such thing as a boring snooker player...... :john:

no i said i dont find them boring.

i can understand why some gets that label though.

but i find something to like in every player in the right cercanstance

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

Witz78 wrote:
GJ wrote:and im allowed to respond like peple do on my jimmy white comments


whats your Jimmy comments then?

dont try and honestly kid on that you find Jimmy boring to watch <doh>

you and Wild must be the only men to hate Jimmy, Drago and Davis. <doh> <doh> <doh> Think yous are just kidding yourselves on to wind up the rest of us :wild2:



wITZ stop taking so much personal offense, im allowed MY feckin' opinion ...

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
GJ wrote:and im allowed to respond like peple do on my jimmy white comments


whats your Jimmy comments then?

dont try and honestly kid on that you find Jimmy boring to watch <doh>

you and Wild must be the only men to hate Jimmy, Drago and Davis. <doh> <doh> <doh> Think yous are just kidding yourselves on to wind up the rest of us :wild2:

theres nobody on this forum with more hatred towards players than you...

so you got to expect some you like others dont. but dont EVER say i hate any of them because i DONT <ok>

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

ok apart from the world champion other players i think that are exciting players to watch

1. Gould
2. Ebdon
3. Antonio
4. Mafia boss
5. Stevens

i find the stoke stabber and london stabber boring :zzz:

wild

:ahh:

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

ive just cut and pasted the ranking list from WS site and heres the players i dont enjoy watching / find boring.

1. John Higgins 56620
3. Neil Robertson 53640
7. Allister Carter 47240
10. Graeme Dott 40650
13. Stephen Hendry 35260
15. Marco Fu 33500
17. Mark King 31305
18. Stuart Bingham 30925
20. Mark Davis 30555
22. Andrew Higginson 30150
24. Ryan Day 29725
27. Barry Hawkins 27915
29. Gerard Greene 26430
30. Joe Perry 25390
31. Tom Ford 25080
33. Marcus Campbell 24355
34. Anthony Hamilton 23450
35. Robert Milkins 23200
36. Nigel Bond 23190
37. Mike Dunn 23060
38. Fergal O'Brien 22735
41. Jamie Burnett 22290
45. Peter Lines 20435
46. Barry Pinches 20395
47. Mark Joyce 20200
48. Alan McManus 19600
49. Matthew Selt 19515
50. Dave Harold 19405
51. Adrian Gunnell 18760
52. Andy Hicks 18690
56. Stuart Pettman 17570
57. Rod Lawler 17545
62. Jimmy Robertson 16809
64. Matt Couch 16050
65. Patrick Wallace 15925
68. Liu Song 15720
76. Andrew Pagett 14214
78. David Gilbert 13985
79. Simon Bedford 13790
81. Joe Delaney 13290
82. Paul S Davison 13169
83. James McBain 13139
84. Michael Judge 12960
86. Adam Wicheard 12109
87. Paul Davies 11945
90. Dermot McGlinchey 10859
91. Kuldesh Johal 10699
94. Jamie O'Neill 10269

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Tubberlad

I think most of Witz' views have been relatively fine and unoffensive unless your looking to be offended. I'd leave it out Wild, this thread is relatively fine.

Stoke Stabber <laugh> does he socialise regularly with the Caravan Pervert?

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby GJ

Tubberlad wrote:I think most of Witz' views have been relatively fine and unoffensive unless your looking to be offended. I'd leave it out Wild, this thread is relatively fine.

Stoke Stabber <laugh> does he socialise regularly with the Caravan Pervert?



yes :wave:

and the london stabber is best known for choking a black aganst the GOAT :redneck: <laugh> ;)

Re: What exactly contributes to being an 'exciting' player?

Postby Witz78

GJ wrote:ok apart from the world champion other players i think that are exciting players to watch

1. Gould
2. Ebdon
3. Antonio
4. Mafia boss
5. Stevens

i find the stoke stabber and london stabber boring :zzz:

wild

:ahh:


Ebdon, Ronnie, Drago <ok>

Cope i can understand <ok>

in what way do you find Jimmy boring though :huh2: :huh: :chin: :john: <doh> :no: :eek: