Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?
Taken from the Eurosport Snooker Review of the Year:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23122009/ ... -2009.html
Let's say for arguements sake they (Hearn and World Snooker) invent a new ranking tournament under shot clock conditions. Which format would be better, 25 or 40 seconds?
For me it has to be 25 seconds. As soon as you start moving to 40 seconds that's when you're in danger of some bright spark declaring it a success and changing the rules for good. 25 seconds is a "feature", 40 seconds is an attempt to change the game.
As for the last sentence in the above quote (It's Dave Hendon in case anyone didn't realise), I completely disagree. There is every excuse for taking longer than 40 seconds when the lay of the balls and state of the match is at stake. Take Mark Selby - some of the best shots he's played, the most inventive shots have come after 1 to 2 minutes consideration. Eliminating these sorts of shots robs the game of integrity and sends out the wrong message. Snooker is in essence a thinking mans game. Giving the hurry up in the name of "entertainment" may bring in some new fans of short attention span, but it will alienate those who genuinely love the game and all aspects of it.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23122009/ ... -2009.html
Rule change for 2010
I think the one thing that's fine with snooker is the rules. However, it will be interesting to see if they bring a shot clock into one of the ranking tournaments. They have it in the Premier League, and it would sort some people out, because there are certain players - mostly from lower down the rankings - who definitely try to slow things down and drag matches out, which is never good to watch. I can't say I'm a big fan of the shot clock but it would be interesting to see, and the big question would be how long would the clock be for? In the Premier League it is 25 seconds but maybe they could make it for 40 seconds in a ranking event because there really is no excuse for most shots to take longer than that.
Let's say for arguements sake they (Hearn and World Snooker) invent a new ranking tournament under shot clock conditions. Which format would be better, 25 or 40 seconds?
For me it has to be 25 seconds. As soon as you start moving to 40 seconds that's when you're in danger of some bright spark declaring it a success and changing the rules for good. 25 seconds is a "feature", 40 seconds is an attempt to change the game.
As for the last sentence in the above quote (It's Dave Hendon in case anyone didn't realise), I completely disagree. There is every excuse for taking longer than 40 seconds when the lay of the balls and state of the match is at stake. Take Mark Selby - some of the best shots he's played, the most inventive shots have come after 1 to 2 minutes consideration. Eliminating these sorts of shots robs the game of integrity and sends out the wrong message. Snooker is in essence a thinking mans game. Giving the hurry up in the name of "entertainment" may bring in some new fans of short attention span, but it will alienate those who genuinely love the game and all aspects of it.
-
Roland - Site Admin
- Posts: 18267
- Joined: 29 September 2009
- Location: Cannonbridge, Snooker Island
- Snooker Idol: Selby Ding Kyren Luca
- Highest Break: 102
- Walk-On: Bal Sagoth