Post a reply

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Wildey

that's your opinion and your entitled to it.

but there are far more negative players than selby

why is it every time he wins they start again and again and again.

very few mentioned the negative play of carter to get to a World Final if that was Selby they would have crucified him.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby JIMO96

Very restrained reply for you, Wild.

I agree, there are more negative than Selby: McLeod, Hamilton, Ebdon, McCulloch (thankfully relegated). But in Selbys case, he's a proven regular winner and doesn't need to resort to dirtying up frames.

As for Carter, he was negative against Trump because he sees him as a threat and a scalp, and guys like Carter relish the chance to bring him down a peg or 2. Many more will try thisagainst Trump, Brecel etc. Carter was also negative against O'Sulivan, as he saw that as his only chance of keeping the score respectable. Plus there was always a chance, the longer it went on, that O'Sullivan would let his frustration boil over. He was not so negative against Maguire, Jones or Davis, was he?

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Skullman

Lots of people slated Carter, Wild. although I'm guessing certain people didn't mind because they knew Carter couldn't give Ronnie a game :john:

Edit: Also Jim I'm not sure that Ebdon can be called negative. He's definitely slow but he mostly plays positive safeties and goes for quite a lot of attacking shots and build breaks, especially in Beijing and Bendigo.

As for Selby, I think he usually resorts to negative tactics when he's not feeling at his best. You can't expect him to go for every pot if he feels he's going to miss. Scrapping through with your 'B' game is essential as a top player.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby JIMO96

Ebdon positive? In the mid 1990's maybe, and when things are going his way he's fearless and positive. But he gets results these days with negative tactics, spoiling frames and his opponents rhythm.

I don't think all of Selbys negativity comes from "not feeling his best". Some maybe, but I'd say most of it comes from wanting to stop his opponent from performing. Therefore it manifests itself when he's behind in a match. Snooker's one of those sports where such tactics are rewarded (unfortunately).

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Wildey

Thats the Point Skullman

Selby is a Atacking safety Player any fool can play up and down safeties but Selby looks for the best position for maximum effect and can be seen as negative for people who don't understand what hes doing.

But then every Roll up in to a Pack is being Scrutinized as if it was a Autopsy of his Game.

Take Dott when he was World Champion he played similar to selby he got Criticized and Now he plays nothing Safeties as fast as he Can through Paranoia that he will be Criticized for it.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:I don't think there's any question that those commenting bad things about Selby every time he wins a tournament are staunch O'Sullivan fans. I would go as far as to say 100% of them are.


And I think you're wrong on that - the 100% I mean. Snookerbacker doesn't come across to me as a ROS fan, far from it, and he doesn't like Selby's style of play. Dott is a player, someone you like BTW, and he isn't close neither to ROS nor to Selby, but go back to the interview he gave you: he branded Selby "the most negative of them all". Why can't you accept that Selby is not everyone's cup of tea and that he IS negative at times, especially in important matches. Even him admitted to it on his blog: he tends to play not to lose rather than to play to win when put under pressure and he knows he has to change that if he wants to built a record to match his talent.


OK JIMO has since proven the correct figure is nearer the 95% mark. :redneck:

Dotty said that in the interview, I know because I typed it up so don't need reminding because I haven't forgotten! Dotty is in the O'Sullivan mould of letting his frustrations boil over, but his frustration comes down to the fact Selby makes it hard for his opponents to play their game which is what I call an attribute. If you want to beat him you're going to have to bring your A game and be prepared to fight for the win, which Graeme did in the 2010 world semi in what I called at the time the best match I've ever seen him play, and which he backed up himself by saying the same thing in the interview 11 months later. If Selby wasn't the player he is, Dotty may never have shown that form. :shrug:

And to address the "negative" comments once and for all, although the chance would be a fine thing, he is a scoreboard player. That means that he plays the right shot in the context of the frame nearly all of the time. If he runs out of position when in the balls, he plays safe. But when he plays safe he studies the table and puts the white in the most awkward position as he sees it for his opponent. To do this he needs to think and when he thinks he takes a bit longer on the shot than a lot of people would, and this is often when he can take around or in excess of a minute, and this is what people call "boring". They call him boring because he thinks properly about the shot he's faced with, and he usually delivers a shot no one else would have come up with in those circumstances. This is why he comes under the heading "a shotmaker". And this is the part of his game the people who call themselves his fans absolutely adore and is what sets him apart. It's also a trait of the pool player, and everyone knows he has roots in pool and it shows in the snooker he plays. There hasn't been a player with that type of game probably since your Kirk Stevens and Cliff Thorburns were around, and it's actually very creative and artistic in its own right.

Now there was a spell when he first turned World Number 1 and like everyone else he probably didn't feel he deserved to be there as he's never won the World Title. If he ever reads internet forums or twitter or facebook, he will have been aware of the things people were saying about him, and he has probably never felt pressure like it. During this phase he did actually start to turn down a few shots and show the opponent too much respect, and then people like you Monique were out in force: "he's too negative, he's too negative la di dah", and he lost a few finals and suddenly "He's only won one ranking event, he's a one hit wonder and he's WN1" (even though the 2 Masters titles are far bigger than the ranking event in question). But then the incident in Shanghai where Mark Williams thought a hit and hope shot was a foul (it wasn't) seemed to be the turning point and since then his game has come back and he is starting to play like he believes he is the WN1 for a reason. But I have to say during that early phase he did look very shakey and appeared to be buckling under the pressure quite badly.

The other thing worth mentioning is that because he's not a "natural" in terms of being able to put a cue down for 2 months and pick it up and make a century in the first frame back and get the speed of the table immediately, he does has off days and if you're not in the mood, it's not pretty and can get scrappy. It's actually called having a decent B game as he wins the vast majority of them which again is a good attribute to have, but with Selby it usually shows in him running out of position early in a break and having to play safe which if you do 3 or 4 times in a frame (if you think a safety battle can last a few shots) will generally end up being very messy. So basically if his timing isn't there for whatever reason then it's not great to watch, but that's true of most players, and what's also true is the timing could appear suddenly at any moment and you'll see a nice century or two.

I think that's all I can be fussed to say at this moment in time. :zzz:

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

JIMO96 wrote:I don't think all of Selbys negativity comes from "not feeling his best". Some maybe, but I'd say most of it comes from wanting to stop his opponent from performing. Therefore it manifests itself when he's behind in a match. Snooker's one of those sports where such tactics are rewarded (unfortunately).


That's very well put but then you ruined with the last bit which comes across as ignorance of matchplay in my opinion.

When one man is closing in on the line and the other man has the ability to make that man think about the situation and start to get nervous and feel the pressure and start to fear the opponent coming back, then that man is usually a winner. Isn't that what Hendry was like? Or more to the point given Hendry went for absolutely everything, Davis?

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Skullman

Agree with that, except Selby was WN1 after Shaghai and his game came back in Newport. Never got why negative was such an insult, sometimes it's better to turn down pots. Higgins does it and is called a master tactician (although some think he's boring as well :roll: ).

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

You're right Skullman, it was after Sam Baird let him back into the Welsh that suddenly he found his old game. I was thinking the Williams disputed shot as significant because it lifted the pressure of that second ranking title everyone was harping on about. The couple of finals before that one and that one right up to the point of the contentious hit and hope that wasn't a foul, he was playing awful and missing sitters all over the place.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Monique

Negative is not an insult indeed. It's a style of play and a mindset. So why do some Selby fans go mad when their man is branded negative? He is. Not always but often enough. He's not the only one and he's not the most negative of the lot neither IMO. Higgins indeed is negative at times, Robertson also and quite often actually.
I don't like it and I believe it's counterproductive more often than not. But that's about my tastes and opinion not a judgement on the player as a person.
I think that people - including other players - should be entitled their opinion and should not be forced to pretend they like some styles of play when they don't, provided it doesn't become personal.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:Agree with that, except Selby was WN1 after Shaghai and his game came back in Newport. Never got why negative was such an insult, sometimes it's better to turn down pots. Higgins does it and is called a master tactician (although some think he's boring as well :roll: ).

People Call for Davis to Get a Knighthood playing the same Game as Selby does and always has played that Game.

The Fact Davis won all those Titles and Selby hasn't Matched him is neither Here or There and Irrelevant to the style of player both men are.

Remember the Davis Negative Break off. two Cushings to rest in the Pack he was trying to come up with a way to win matches and not entertain.

jesus had selby done that he wouldn't get a knighthood he would get the Guillotine.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Why do you think? Because negative is a negative word and it's bull all at the same time! It's called matchplay.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Yes I remember the Davis Negative Break off. two Cushings to rest in the Pack well.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

I've just realised a topic about Ronnie has turned into a Selbyfest.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:I've just realised a topic about Ronnie has turned into a Selbyfest.

yea i was thinking that earlier i thought of Splitting it but not got the Ability in this section.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

I'll do it when I can be fussed.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Wild WC wrote:Thats the Point Skullman

Selby is a Atacking safety Player any fool can play up and down safeties but Selby looks for the best position for maximum effect and can be seen as negative for people who don't understand what hes doing.

But then every Roll up in to a Pack is being Scrutinized as if it was a Autopsy of his Game.

Take Dott when he was World Champion he played similar to selby he got Criticized and Now he plays nothing Safeties as fast as he Can through Paranoia that he will be Criticized for it.


I missed that earlier. The last sentence made me laugh. I'd be interested to know what Snooky thinks of that take.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Skullman wrote:Agree with that, except Selby was WN1 after Shaghai and his game came back in Newport. Never got why negative was such an insult, sometimes it's better to turn down pots. Higgins does it and is called a master tactician (although some think he's boring as well :roll: ).

People Call for Davis to Get a Knighthood playing the same Game as Selby does and always has played that Game.

The Fact Davis won all those Titles and Selby hasn't Matched him is neither Here or There and Irrelevant to the style of player both men are.

Remember the Davis Negative Break off. two Cushings to rest in the Pack he was trying to come up with a way to win matches and not entertain.

jesus had selby done that he wouldn't get a knighthood he would get the Guillotine.


since when were you all about entertaining snooker over winning snooker? :wave:

Peter was one of the Cushings, who was the 2nd :dizzy:

and this is just another lame attempt to knock Davis as usual, how the hell does 6 world titles versus Selbys 0, not matter one bit :fart:

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
Skullman wrote:Agree with that, except Selby was WN1 after Shaghai and his game came back in Newport. Never got why negative was such an insult, sometimes it's better to turn down pots. Higgins does it and is called a master tactician (although some think he's boring as well :roll: ).

People Call for Davis to Get a Knighthood playing the same Game as Selby does and always has played that Game.

The Fact Davis won all those Titles and Selby hasn't Matched him is neither Here or There and Irrelevant to the style of player both men are.

Remember the Davis Negative Break off. two Cushings to rest in the Pack he was trying to come up with a way to win matches and not entertain.

jesus had selby done that he wouldn't get a knighthood he would get the Guillotine.


since when were you all about entertaining snooker over winning snooker? :wave:

Peter was one of the Cushings, who was the 2nd :dizzy:

and this is just another lame attempt to knock Davis as usual, how the hell does 6 world titles versus Selbys 0, not matter one bit :fart:

i wasn't talking about Davis i was trying to make some idiots understand if they going to start criticizing Selby for playing a certain way why not Criticize the players who gone before that played exactly the same way Like Steve Davis.

Dragos Style of Play is exciting and hes won nothing does winning nothing change the fact hes Entertaining ?

Selby hasn't won anything to compare to Davis but that doesn't change the Fact they Play the same game.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Monique

Ok guys, here it is http://www.markselby.info/blog.html?startidx12959=7

and this is an excerpt
It’s a quick turnaround, but speed may be of the essence for me at the moment. I have a reputation has a dogged fighter with a never-say-die attitude, and I’ve certainly had my fair share of dramatic comebacks.
I almost pulled off another fightback against Mark Williams in Berlin. I was 7-4 down in the final but got it back to 7-7. I had a chance but I didn’t take it, and he went on to win the next two frames and the title. Who knows what could have been?
Other than the final, and against Graeme Dott in the semis, I had a good, quick start in all my matches and led from the front. But more often than not I am a slow starter, and sometimes that can cost me. I can be over-cautious, trying to be too careful and not make any errors. Sometimes I play not to lose, rather than play to win, and that stops me from performing to the best of my ability. You can’t lose a match in the first two or three frames, so I need to start off more relaxed and get myself into a commanding position, rather than playing catch-up.



The bold has been added by me.
So that's Mark Selby himself speaking. The problem he describes is what I call "playing negative". It's not matchplay. Matchplay is about playing patiently and waiting for your good chances and trying to create them, but real matchplay is about playing to win, not about containing your opponent at all costs.

The first year Mark Selby played in the PL he was outstanding, finished top of the table, unbeaten if I remember well, and he made it to the final. He doesn't need more time than others to think about the shots, quite the opposite, and this showed it beyond doubts. Every player needs time to think in really difficult situations - even Ronnie takes a lot of time over some safeties when he's in that mood - and Mark does come with creative solutions which makes him interesting to watch. But there is no way he needs about a minute over every shot as I have seen him do in a certain session in the WC 2007 QF. That was pure mind games, spoiling tactics and wasting time in breach of section 4 of the rules (if only the refs had the guts and the backing from the authorities to apply those rules).
To be fair to Mark it's the worse I have seen him act at the table (not the worse I have seen him play, he was playing well actually) and as far as I know he's never done it again to that extend. When there is pressure on, I know that some players need more time to settle on the shots and there is a fine line between "wasting time" and "taking necessary time". In that particular match though, and in a couple of other circumstances as well, I have no doubts which side of the line Mark was playing …

I know I might create another "fork" in this thread (before sonny splits it) but it will be interesting to see how Ebdon will fare in the PL.
I'm not a betting person but I'm reasonably confident that he will have no problem whatsoever because he isn't a slow player by any means unless he wants to be. Which he often does because nobody more than Ebdon plays the opponent rather than the table, which is OK as long as it is within the rules… as they are written - not as they are (not) applied.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

"The bold has been added by me", well buck me I didn't realise that given you've quoted that exact thing about a million times to back up your opinion which you seem convinced is totally right even though you admit yourself you don't understand or appreciate matchplay.

To get it in context, that quote was written at the time he was struggling, the time I mentioned earlier when I got my timelines slightly mixed up; the time when he had people like you all over him on in the internet calling him boring and negative. He was talking about a phase of his career, not his overall game. That's the difference, there is nothing wrong with his game, he's a big match player like ranking semis and finals, that's when he brings his A game and that's the game that is a joy to watch.

The whole "playing not to lose instead of playing to win" was specifically around the time he'd just turned WN1 and is not a general rule and he's stopped doing it.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby JIMO96

Sonny wrote:
JIMO96 wrote:I don't think all of Selbys negativity comes from "not feeling his best". Some maybe, but I'd say most of it comes from wanting to stop his opponent from performing. Therefore it manifests itself when he's behind in a match. Snooker's one of those sports where such tactics are rewarded (unfortunately).


That's very well put but then you ruined with the last bit which comes across as ignorance of matchplay in my opinion.

When one man is closing in on the line and the other man has the ability to make that man think about the situation and start to get nervous and feel the pressure and start to fear the opponent coming back, then that man is usually a winner. Isn't that what Hendry was like? Or more to the point given Hendry went for absolutely everything, Davis?


Yeah but there's coming from behind to win triumphantly, in cavalier fashion, and then there's the Selby way. Applying pressure to your opponent by adopting crushingly depressing shot selections, may win Selby some titles (has already, in fact), but he'll never be fondly remembered for it.....there's no glory in consistently going beyond what is acceptable for a shot time. Compare this to the Paul Hunter approach when facing a deficit. Do you think there'll be a "Mark Selby Classic" in the future?

I agree that Selby has some uniquely positive shot selections, and will always remember his 10ft+ pot on a red by hitting cushion first (Masters final, few years ago?), and that it's almost an American pool-esque approach he's capable of , as that shot demonstrates. Which makes it more of a shame that he chooses to go to the other extreme far too often.

I'm not convinced he's a positive safety player, as someone stated earlier (Wild, maybe?). For me, Higgins, O'Sullivan and Williams were the best "positive safety" players, but that's my opinion. And for having that opinion, and for personally not liking Selby, does not mean certain people can come online and accuse me and others like me of "being an idiot" or have "no appreciation of matchplay".

Personally I like Higgins, Dott, Trump, Robertson, the overseas contingent, the first year pros.......but dislike O'Sullivan, Selby, the players who are ALWAYS last to finish their match (Harold, Pinches, Hamilton etc etc) and never really developed more than an appreciation of Davis & Hendry, rather than a liking, because of their dominance.

I also can't stand the whole "Ronnie is the only player that matters" brigade or the "great to see Davis/White get to a venue" gang, but would never come online and express that these people know nothing about the sport, and I certainly wouldn't post my uneducated, expletive-laden diatribe on every available online snooker site as a result.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

:-)

Ok fair enough, I was merely responding to the comment you wrote about snooker being one of these sports where such tactics are unfortunately rewarded. I don't get that at all.

"Applying pressure to your opponent by adopting crushingly depressing shot selections" - surely that's just opinion and not fact? If your opponent is ahead and close to winning, and you play an "open" safety shot which leaves a sniff of a long pot which is then knocked in and you lose the frame, you either say "I couldn't do much about that" or you say "I shouldn't have left that difficult chance, next time I won't leave any chance." So no, I may be blind but I don't see and nor have I ever seen anything even remotely wrong about Selby's shot selections when coming from behind in a match!

"there's no glory in consistently going beyond what is acceptable for a shot time." again this is opinion over what is acceptable. There is nothing wrong in thinking properly about the next shot, nothing wrong at all!

"Do you think there'll be a "Mark Selby Classic" in the future? " well that depends if he dies before his time doesn't it?

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

And this: "For me, Higgins, O'Sullivan and Williams were the best "positive safety" players." - what is a positive safety player? Whenever these 3 get into a safety tussle with Selby it can go on for ages with neither party making a mistake and yet every time if it then subsequently goes scrappy because the safety was so long the balls end up messy, it's always 100% of the time blamed on Selby and not the other player! I've seen it happen many many many times, and it is always the same man who gets the blame for it just because he has a safety game which can compete with the very best. It's stupid!

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Odrl

Sonny wrote:So no, I may be blind but I don't see and nor have I ever seen anything even remotely wrong about Selby's shot selections when coming from behind in a match!


I agree, his shot selection is usually rock solid, coming from behind or not. I also don't agree with Selby's own assessment of his game. I honestly can't think of any memorable shots where he refused to go for a reasonable pot and subsequently lost the match or the title. Can anyone?

The opposite examples are much easier to recall. He played a pretty low-percentage plant at 12-11 up on Higgins in the 2009 World Championship and never really got another chance. Then there was the decider in his match against Ryan Day at the 2008 Gran Prix, where he just needed one more red but played a very attacking shot to develop the remaining reds, missed it and allowed Day to clear the table for victory. O'Sullivan's maximum against him in the 2007 UK Championship is well remembered, does anyone remember how that initial red ended up over the pocket? ;-)

And then there were a couple of shots that ultimately won him big matches as well. I remember a shot he played on the way to his first Masters title. I think it was in the decider of his match against Hendry. He was on a scoring visit but lost position, so he took on a long green from the black end of the table, and got it. Or how about that double he got against O'Sullivan in the 2010 Masters final? I'm sure you could find examples in almost any of his most memorable wins. As for his memorable defeats, people love to mention his defensiveness as if it was the defining feature of his game, but it's always a generalization, never anything specific.

"Trying not to lose rather than trying to win"... How nice that phrase sounds, but it's fundamentally a pretty stupid one. There are (usually) no draws in snooker. You can either play to win or play to lose. Playing not to lose is exactly the same as playing to win. It's silly to suggest that someone playing a low-percentage pot at an important stage of a match is somehow making a better attempt to win than someone who waits for a better chance. Negative safety is another oxymoron... A safety is a negative shot by definition, but it's always the shot that is most likely to win you the frame in the long run. Yes, Selby doesn't look to resolve a stalemate if it means giving away the safety advantage. He also finds himself in a lot of situations where the safety is played from the black end of the table, and the reds slowly move towards the baulk end. It's a situation he is generally strong in, so why should he play shots to avoid it, or even better, why shouldn't he play shots that make it happen? And when people criticize his decision-making, it's usually not accompanied by disappointment about him wasting his chances, but rather annoyance at him coming out on top more often than not. ;-)

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Spot on Odrl. I think the shot you're talking about was a long green against Doherty in the Masters at 5-5 from tight under the black cushion wasn't it? I remember it well because Doherty was having all kinds of "luck of the Irish" to draw level at 5-5 but that brave attacking shot sealed the match.

I would like to ask the same question - when did he lose a match by turning down a pot and if anyone can come up with an example, then how hard was that pot under the match circumstances?

Anyone watching Ali Carter at this years worlds will see the true definition of negative play, turning down anything under 10 out of 10 certainty, and it was a million miles away from the way Selby plays. To the uneducated though, it probably amounts to the same thing.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby JIMO96

I would label "positive safety", or more accurately "aggressive safety", as one where a situation is developed, or opened up at one end of the table, whilst simultaneously putting the incoming player in a world of trouble at the other end.

Higgins, O'Sullivan & Williams were good at that, whereas Selby might achieve the latter part of my definition a lot more often than the former.

Selby is more likely to play an 8ft trickle to the pack of reds than an aggressive safety. After taking 3 and a half minutes to decide.

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Roland

Ah now JIMO it's easy to see why you think that but I really can't agree with that at all. If there is an attacking option in the safety Selby will take it on every time. It's totally unfair to claim otherwise. Again, if he's got a big lead in the frame and doesn't need to open balls out, then he won't and if he's behind and needs the balls then he will. I know this is true because I study the man when he plays!

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby Odrl

Sonny wrote:Spot on Odrl. I think the shot you're talking about was a long green against Doherty in the Masters at 5-5 from tight under the black cushion wasn't it? I remember it well because Doherty was having all kinds of "luck of the Irish" to draw level at 5-5 but that brave attacking shot sealed the match.


Yes, thank you, I wasn't sure which of his deciders it was. I was thinking "end of break", because players don't usually consider playing a baulk colour from distance like that, but he went for it on that occasion. :-)

Re: Ronnie's at it again

Postby JIMO96

Sonny wrote:Ah now JIMO it's easy to see why you think that but I really can't agree with that at all. If there is an attacking option in the safety Selby will take it on every time. It's totally unfair to claim otherwise. Again, if he's got a big lead in the frame and doesn't need to open balls out, then he won't and if he's behind and needs the balls then he will. I know this is true because I study the man when he plays!


Lol, maybe I'm clouded by the fact that I switch off when he's on TV these days. I can understand him having many loyal fans, and I totally agree with his position in the rankings. I'll even be the first to come on here and praise him if he ever charges over the finishing line of a major final with a volley of big breaks in a way that he'll be remembered fondly for for years.

If I can stomach him for more than half an hour in the next televised event, I'll study him too and maybe my opinion will change.


   

cron