Post a reply

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Good for Selby.

In honesty, he shouldn't listen to people who say he doesn't deserve the World Number 1 spot. He may only have two ranking titles to his name, but consistently getting to semis and finals has put him there. It's not like anybody else is consistently winning titles. People say that it's because he enters more tournaments than other players, but so what? If other players aren't consistently getting to latter stages of tournaments they shouldn't be rewarded for it. Whether that be due to them not playing well, or them not bothering to play.

If other players want the number one spot, it's up to them to turn up to the tournaments and take it off him.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:Good for Selby.

In honesty, he shouldn't listen to people who say he doesn't deserve the World Number 1 spot. He may only have two ranking titles to his name, but consistently getting to semis and finals has put him there. It's not like anybody else is consistently winning titles. People say that it's because he enters more tournaments than other players, but so what? If other players aren't consistently getting to latter stages of tournaments they shouldn't be rewarded for it. Whether that be due to them not playing well, or them not bothering to play.

If other players want the number one spot, it's up to them to turn up to the tournaments and take it off him.

Spot on

Rankings has never been about Winning Titles its been about Consistency and if Players Consistently Turn up and Win Events it doesn't matter how many Semis or Quarters Selby plays in he will not be No 1.

if players arent up to that then Selby 100% Deserves to be No 1.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

It's as if some people think playing in a lot of tournaments guarantees you a high ranking. Duh, you've got to win matches to do that! Last season he won 52 out of 71 matches in professional events. Compare that with others and there’s only 2 with a claim to be higher ranked: Ronnie and Robbo and Robbo played 1 more match than Selby last season, and also Robbo and Ronnie have had spells over the last 2 seasons where they’ve either not played or not performed and it’s a 2 year ranking list.


(Taken from the 2011/12 season from Cuetracker.net)

Ronnie 50/62 = 80.6%
Robbo 55/72 = 76.4%
Selby 52/71 = 73.2%
Judd 51/70 = 72.9%
Lee 51/74 = 68.9%
Maguire 47/69 = 68.1%
Allen 34/52 = 65.4%
Higgins 40/62 = 64.5%
Murphy 39/62 = 62.9%
Ding 26/44 = 59.1%
Bingham 28/49 = 57.1%
Carter 23/43 = 53.5%
Williams 23/44 = 52.3%

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Wildey

yup its not a play well in the Majors rolling rankings.

its over a 2 year period of big and small events anyone can turn up for a few tournaments and get lucky with a good run just look at Ali Carter in Sheffield.

Apart from that he was pants and rankings should reflect that.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

You call it fighting talk, I like to see that he's got the confidence to believe he's there on merit, which he is. After all we're talking about rankings here and since when have rankings been about anything other than consistency?

And did he say he was in the same class as Higgins and Ronnie? I don't think any player on tour would say such a thing because those two are a class apart. He is in the same class as Dott, Robbo and Murphy however, and they all have a world title to their name. Also his game is solid and mature so he's not the sort of player who wins the world title at 21 and fades away. He can peak in his 30s because of his style of play.

As Gary OnCue mentioned earlier though, he has dropped his guard a bit because I don't believe for one second he doesn't feel the pressure of winning the world title. He wants it though, and he has bottle so he has a very real chance of lifting the big one over the next 5 years.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby snooky147

Well Said Sonny, I believe anyone with his consistency and dedication can keep going well into their 40's. I don't know what it is though about the WC with him though. When Graeme beat him in that great semi I though he was a cert to pick one up and the way he demolished Hendry the following year (I think) seemed to confirm that but then he seemed to pull back as if he was playing not to lose instead of going on to win. Bottom line if he keeps the kind of form that he slaughtered Hendry in that match then yes, he can win it but if he goes into his shell as he admits himself that he does well I fear he might not win one.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

Yes that's true. He has already been involved in some Crucible Classics and there will be plenty more to come. I felt that had that plant gone in at 12-11 to Higgins in 2009 then he would have gone on to win it. I said after the match that no one would come as close to beating Higgins that year and they didn't. He also beat Ronnie in a classic before going down to Dotty in the match you refer to snooky which was another all time classic match played to an incredibly high standard.

On the flipside you had the loss to Mark King in 2008 which was very edgy, and then the bizarre one against Ding in 2011 where he was clearly crumbling under the pressure he put himself under. So as with a few players capable of winning the big one, it's not the ability so much as the self belief.

My advice to him would be to play the player and not the occasion, because he knows he can beat anyone on tour in a big match so maybe focussing more on that and knowing the opponent is equally under the cosh will help him get over those nerves in the big match. The performance against Hendry showed what he can do, but the expectation of becoming favourite after that match did him in. His bottle lies in playing the opponent and not the occasion.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby jojo

i agree with the majority of what jewell been saying selby world number one almost by default largely because of higgins ban and ronnie sexing thin air instead of entering ranking events

i dont think selby will peak later he deinitely wont be like higgins selbys game requires lots of concentration and his cue action style is liable to let him down as he get older because of the way he cues

players like higgins rely on their past wins and inflicting battle scars on opponents to help them win more titles which they shouldnt do selby instead is not able to inflict damaging defeats on anyone

selby is good enough to pick up another three or four ranking events before he retires and i think one of those will be the uk or world championship

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

Jewell wrote:Good on Selby for having the confidence to come out and say what he has but he has to prove it on the table.

He is undoubtedly number one on merit, nobody can take that away from him. But being a WORTHY world number one is something completely different. You cannot call someone a worthy number one, worthy world champion or worthy whatever if they have got there through the faults of someone else. This is the point I was making in my initial post.


I think the reason it's unfair that he's being criticised in some quarters is because what other players do is out of his hands. No one has a pop at Ricky Walden for being in the top 16. What I'm saying is that if Selby was WN2 instead of 1, no one would be complaining. It's only because the rankings have him as 1 that people criticise him, and it's not his fault. All he's doing is playing good snooker and getting better results than most other players.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby jojo

it doesnt help selby that he up against two of the best ever who are still winning people unfairly automatically compare him to them two

the point i made about higgins and this apply to ronnie too is these two can rely on past results against opponents to get them through to still win trophies today higgins does it almost all the time and ronnie virtually own all but four of the top players

selby in his thirties wont have this luxury that not his fault

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

Yep but that's the way it goes isn't it? Who knows if they weren't called off early in 2007 then maybe Selby could've got back on level terms and won it then, in which case he'd have probably picked up a couple more just like if Dott hadn't won it in 2006 he'd have been under more pressure in the 2010 semi. But that's a big if because Higgins being who he is would've still probably won anyway!

At the end of the day though, even if he didn't play another match he's done enough to be proud of his achievements so far but a world title would be the icing on the cake, and he'd take just the one now I'm sure.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

Thinking about it on another level, maybe if Higgins had lost that final in 2007 then he wouldn't have gone on to such great things since and he'd still be clear 3rd behind ROS and MJW just as he was up until that point!

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby jojo

there are always defining moments in sport it all ifs and buts but that what fascinating when looking back in retrospect

i dont know how many times boris becker was match point down in wimbledon 1985 when he was seventeen but that win gave him greatness and more belief

likewise who knows how many world titles jimmy would have won if higgins never nade that sixtynine break because a lot of people think jimmy would have beaten reardon in the final and that famous monkey would have been off his back when he was 19 20 barely a baby in snooker terms

or reardon would have seven world titles same as hendry who would have gone for eight ?

in my opinion sporting greatness is achieved more through accumulating belief from results

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

It's what makes sport so watchable and fascinating to follow isn't it?

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Jewell wrote:Fighting talk from Selby. Let's see if he can back it up with some titles.

In that blog there, Selby says he has no reason to be worried about turning 30 because Higgins and O'Sullivan have been winning world titles well into their thirties. Well, I've got news for you Mark - You're not in the same class as Higgins and O'Sullivan! To compare himself to those two shows how ill-informed and arrogant he is, when they've won four each whilst he hasn't even looked like winning one.

Is Selby a worthy world number one? In opinion, the answer is no. He has got to that spot by default. If Higgins wasn't suspended for 6 months in 2010 he would be ahead of Selby. If Ronnie hadn't missed so many tournaments in the last two years he too would be ahead Selby in the rankings.

Yes, Selby has accumulated the necessary points to be at number one, and credit to him for that, but the fact remains he is where he is due to what other players have or have not done, as opposed to his own good play. Therefore Selby cannot be regarded as a worthy world number one.


So what? Ronnie deliberately missed those tournaments. If you miss tournaments, your ranking suffers. If Ronnie isn't hungry enough for ranking position he can't be fussed turn up, it's says more about him than it does about the person who is top. Ronnie not entering was completely his decision. He didn't want to enter and couldn't. He chose not to. Can't blame Selby for that.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:
Jewell wrote:Fighting talk from Selby. Let's see if he can back it up with some titles.

In that blog there, Selby says he has no reason to be worried about turning 30 because Higgins and O'Sullivan have been winning world titles well into their thirties. Well, I've got news for you Mark - You're not in the same class as Higgins and O'Sullivan! To compare himself to those two shows how ill-informed and arrogant he is, when they've won four each whilst he hasn't even looked like winning one.

Is Selby a worthy world number one? In opinion, the answer is no. He has got to that spot by default. If Higgins wasn't suspended for 6 months in 2010 he would be ahead of Selby. If Ronnie hadn't missed so many tournaments in the last two years he too would be ahead Selby in the rankings.

Yes, Selby has accumulated the necessary points to be at number one, and credit to him for that, but the fact remains he is where he is due to what other players have or have not done, as opposed to his own good play. Therefore Selby cannot be regarded as a worthy world number one.


So what? Ronnie deliberately missed those tournaments. If you miss tournaments, your ranking suffers. If Ronnie isn't hungry enough for ranking position he can't be fussed turn up, it's says more about him than it does about the person who is top. Ronnie not entering was completely his decision. He didn't want to enter and couldn't. He chose not to. Can't blame Selby for that.

and also Selby did not pay for John Higgins flight to kiev.

obvious point that some with all due respect cant see and furthermore wants a ranking system that rewards players for staying at home.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

Yep, being WN1 under a money list format will be completely meaningless. Selby will be one of the last proper WN1's ever.

You can see from win %ages above that the likes of Carter would still be behind because as a stay at homer he's still not winning a high enough %age to be as high up the ranks as the provisional money list suggests.

I hate the money list idea! With a passion!

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:Yep, being WN1 under a money list format will be completely meaningless. Selby will be one of the last proper WN1's ever.

You can see from win %ages above that the likes of Carter would still be behind because as a stay at homer he's still not winning a high enough %age to be as high up the ranks as the provisional money list suggests.

I hate the money list idea! With a passion!


I must say I'm not keen either.

I'm sure it'll appease the people who think prize money in the tournament is directly proportionate to it's prestige though.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Wild WC wrote:and also Selby did not pay for John Higgins flight to kiev.

obvious point that some with all due respect cant see and furthermore wants a ranking system that rewards players for staying at home.


That's a bit more subjective, based on how much you believe John was stitched up by Pat Mooney and by the newspaper. Ronnie's decision to play was based entirely on Ronnie's not wanting to play, no two ways about it.

Higgins, of course, has a responsibility for his actions. But I figured if I highlighted him, it'd lead to another tired; "Do you believe he was guilty or innocent" debate?

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Yep, being WN1 under a money list format will be completely meaningless. Selby will be one of the last proper WN1's ever.

You can see from win %ages above that the likes of Carter would still be behind because as a stay at homer he's still not winning a high enough %age to be as high up the ranks as the provisional money list suggests.

I hate the money list idea! With a passion!

Selby has been World no 1 now for a full year

Neil Robertson managed it for only 2 Months despite having a World Title and a World Open Title in the Rolling Ranking Total points because he was inconsistent in other Tournaments.

Had there been Money Rankings then Robbo would with the aid of £250,000 for a WC and £100,000 for a World Open would have been World No 1 for well over a year despite having a real dip in Form hence why he was only World No 1 for 2 Months.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Monique

Well, I think that sports is about winning, winning trophies, not winning individual matches. When people go about Hendry's greatness, or Federer, or Schumacher, it's about how much titles they won. So I'm PRO the money list because it will reward winning titles over "doing well consistently" and that's what sports is about.
And I'm afraid, sonny, that your hate for the money list is mainly motivated by the fact that it will put Selby lower down the rankings until he starts winning tournaments more regularly. Which he's certainly capable of.
Another reason why I'm PRO it is that it will mean that tournaments that don't reward the players financially will be doomed, as it should be, because selling the game cheap is devaluating it, and devaluating the players skills. So the choice for promoters will be simple: you want the big boys, you pay the right price. That's how any market works.

BUT the money list only can be fair at two conditions: the structure of every ranking tournament is flat, and involve all players AND every win is rewarded.

As for Selby answering his critics, he has no critics to answer. In the current ranking system - that rewards consistency and dedication more than winning titles - he's the n°1 and deserves it because he's been the most consistent and dedicated and hence has accumulated more points than anyone else. However the very fact that he brings up the subject, and not for the first time, does actually show that it does bother him. He knows that ultimately, when is career is over, in 15-20 years from now maybe, what people will look at is not how long he has been n°1 , but how much he has won.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

"And I'm afraid, sonny, that your hate for the money list is mainly motivated by the fact that it will put Selby lower down the rankings"

deep breaths, try not to swear....

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Roland

can't help it. bucking bull. I couldn't give a rubbish if he was ranked 30.

Edit: Yeah you got me there Monique, well done :-)

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Living Snooker

I don't believe that, just because Selby openly talks about not winning the world yet, he is bothered by it at all. In fact, I know he's not bothered by it, because he believes his time will come. He is giving his viewpoint to a topic that is already being discussed in many circles, rather than "bringing it up" - and he should be applauded for doing so. It's refreshing to hear a player come out and talk candidly about something, other than your run-of-the-mill, answer-by-number press conferences. Just because he gives his take on a popular discussion shows that he's got the gumption to talk about it - it is in now way proof that he is bothered by it.
Last edited by Living Snooker on 26 Sep 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Define bothered by it. You almost make it sound like Selby doesn't care whether he wins the World Title or not. If he's not bothered by winning it, he shouldn't be in the sport.

Saying that, there is being too bothered by it. Trying to win the World Title shouldn't become a burden/obsession. You could argue that if the desire to win that one tournament consumes you too much, you are putting too much pressure on yourself and making it harder to win. Giving yourself an extra hurdle towards something that is already super-difficult.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Monique

OK, "bothered" is maybe not the exact word to use - I'm not an english native speaker. But I'm certain, because I have heard it from Mark himself, that he would love to back his n°1 status with more big tournaments wins and it's only normal: he's a sportsman, he's competitive and his aim is to win, not just to "do well". No champion would be happy with just "doing well".
BTW, my post was in now way a criticism against Mark, or him blogging about any topic. It's great that players do that and speak their minds.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby Living Snooker

SnookerFan - if your last post was in response to mine, I was quoting earlier posts that claimed Selby is "bothered" by it. The bottom line is that he wants to win the world title, and he believes he will. Speculation as to whether he's a worthy world No.1 does not "bother" him.

Re: Selby answers his critics

Postby SnookerFan

Living Snooker wrote:SnookerFan - if your last post was in response to mine, I was quoting earlier posts that claimed Selby is "bothered" by it. The bottom line is that he wants to win the world title, and he believes he will. Speculation as to whether he's a worthy world No.1 does not "bother" him.


Yeah, sorry. I hadn't bothered to read Monique's rambling post. rofl


   

cron