Originally posted by trev33
would be much better with a 20 second shot clock. or a chess cloak format where each player has 12 minutes or so to complete the frame. they need something different, look at the success of t20 cricket.
A straight, fixed 20 second shot clock just would not work in snooker. Every now and then you get into a situation where you just have to look at all the angles.
A fixed length for the entire frame is no good, either. One reason is that forces a single style of play - agressive - which may be the favourite among the more loud-mouthed of the snooker fans, but which really does not suit all players - or, for that matter, all spectators all the time. One Ronnie is all very well, but only
Ronnies? Nah, thanks. You might say, well, it's the future, move over or roll over, but even if you could sell that, there's still the other reason, which can't be blustered away that easily: sometimes the balls just don't run that way. Even O'Sullivan and Hendry, this afternoon, took six whole minutes to pot their first ball. And you can't exactly accuse them
of dawdling - the balls just went awkward. It happens sometimes.
I've also heard suggestions of a balanced clock: both players can take as long as they like, but when either of them has taken, say, five minutes more than the other, he loses the frame. This has problems similar to the previous solution: players are penalised for not having a flashy style, rather than for dawdling; and when you get into a properly hard snooker, you might as well give up the frame there and then, regardless of your style.
Perhaps the best solution would be something similar to what we have here on RHP: 20 seconds per shot, plus a 5 minute reserve. Even then something would have to be devised for the hard snooker situation.
As for T20 cricket... it's been a runaway commercial success, true, but not everybody agrees that it's been good for the quality of play. And that's certainly what I look for in snooker: quality, not speed.