- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
24 Sep 10
Is anybody else watching the World Open Snooker? What's your opinion on the new format? Luck doesn't seem to play nearly as much a role as had been feared, and while we've had some matches where the tension was clearly influencing the quality of play, there have been some scorchers, too. And the random draw works, at least for these short matches - look at the draw Ronnie's been given.
All in all, I think I still prefer the longer-format tournaments, but if this means there will be more matches for the pros to play, all the better. As long as the main events stay at best-of-umpteen.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by trev33A 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.
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 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.
Richard
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI still believe in knock-out for knock-out in short games at the beginning; but frame count should really increase once into the last 16 - as it has been. Why change what has always worked? People miss best of 5, cooking dinner or travelling home from work. Where are the days of getting home and sticking BBC2 on, and the game is still in progress. These guys are top earners - and should display it!
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 fan ...[text shortened]... play. And that's certainly what I look for in snooker: quality, not speed.
Richard
I think we should still have best of 13 in a semi, played on Friday... and then anticipate the final, best of 19 on a Sunday. That's a real Championship which doesn't come down to luck - very often. (Whirlwind was the best player never to win the world Champ'ship!). Snooker can be an emotional game to watch, when we see all of the years of experience and practice put into a single stroke of genious which goes on to win a frame. We feel the ups and downs, and the characters of the players we know and love. Seeing 200 new players play for 20 mins, in my book, is not a sign of the quality of true snooker sportsmanship.
-m.
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by trev33What a brilliant idea.We could also start with only 6 reds - as they tried last year.If these games are still too long for the television viewers we have even less reds or why not just the colours.Once a year there could be a one night tournament just using the black ball in each game.
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.
As long as it is only for one tournament each year the best of 5 frames is ,perhaps, a good idea.It is also good to see some of the lower ranked players on television.
I prefer the longer format though.The Ronnie / Jimmy game was a bit short - who knows what we could have seen had it been best of 9.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by Shallow Bluethe thing is snooker is dying, any snooker fan can see that so something needs to be done to bring in a new audience and new breed of players. look at the world’s top 32, how many of those guys came onto the scene in the past 5 years? not many.
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 fan ...[text shortened]... play. And that's certainly what I look for in snooker: quality, not speed.
Richard
so what do we do, sit back and let it die or try to change the game to suit a wider range of potential viewer? they're never going to change the uk champs, masters or world champs and rightly so but everything else needs to be tweaked. next month they're bringing in 'power snooker', 30 mins of snooker and whoever has the most points at the end wins, plus there's a shot clock. only 8 players are taking part but it's great that they're trying new things, i can't see why outside the 3 majors that i mentioned they try new things with all the competitions in the next couple of years, it can't do any harm.
as for t20 cricket, no one can deny the fact that it's the most exciting form of the game, like the best of 5 snooker games it's nice to sit down and be able to watch a match from start to finish, t20 does that unlike any of the other forms. test cricket will stay the same but i wouldn't be shocked to see less one-day matches and more t20 matches in future. you just need to look at the popularity of the ipl and champions league to see the success of t20. snooker needs something similar.
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
i'm going to ignore that comment and assume to mean to say 'excitement seeking snooker fans with low attention spans who don't have 5 hours spare to sit down to watch a constant stream of snooker'.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
26 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomWell, the problem is that for the last couple of years it clearly hasn't worked well enough. Players have been grumbling more and more about there not being enough tournaments. Snooker has changed from a pub game to something to be famous for to a real sporting profession from the 70s to now, but the tournament structure hasn't changed much in the mean time. Something had to be done.
I still believe in knock-out for knock-out in short games at the beginning; but frame count should really increase once into the last 16 - as it has been. Why change what has always worked? People miss best of 5, cooking dinner or travelling home from work. Where are the days of getting home and sticking BBC2 on, and the game is still in progress. These guys are top earners - and should display it!
The greater tournament load was wanted exactly because these people are now top earners, and need a serious tour to go with that, not just six majors per year. Thing is, you cannot have twenty-four full-sized tournaments - there aren't enough weeks in the year... so something had to give. Like most, I am sure that the three most important events will continue to be 13/17/21-frame affairs. But with the extended calendar, they just cannot all be.
I think we should still have best of 13 in a semi, played on Friday... and then anticipate the final, best of 19 on a Sunday. That's a real Championship which doesn't come down to luck - very often.
Luck doesn't seem to have played a very great part in this tournament, either. Not in the end result, really. The last four players are still four good players in good form. Where luck has played a small part is that it has allowed a number of lower-ranked players to finally be paired up in such a manner that they can show what they're worth, and get a bit of pressure experience - and allowed O'Sullivan to play White and Hendry in quick succession! Both of those are, IYAM, only good things.
Seeing 200 new players play for 20 mins, in my book, is not a sign of the quality of true snooker sportsmanship.
We haven't seen 200 new players. What we have seen is a handful of new players getting - and sometimes grabbing! - a chance, and a lot of the old players having to play their best to keep off the young turks. Which is, in my opinion, no bad thing for a change. That, I think, is my main impression - that this new format is good for the game, for a number of tournaments, but that it should not be allowed to take over the entire circuit.
Richard
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI agree entirely. But it's almost like "Do we want to see pool on a snooker table?" :'(
Well, the problem is that for the last couple of years it clearly hasn't worked well enough. Players have been grumbling more and more about there not being enough tournaments. Snooker has changed from a pub game to something to be famous for to a real sporting profession from the 70s to now, but the tournament structure hasn't changed much in th ...[text shortened]... rnaments, but that it should not be allowed to take over the entire circuit.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by mikelomWell, no, not really. Pool itself is a much less intricate game. The frames themselves are a lot shorter. It's pure tactics, no strategy at all. I see no reason to fear snooker descending into that, thank goodness.
I agree entirely. But it's almost like "Do we want to see pool on a snooker table?" :'(
Richard
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by trev33If somebody compares Darts to Snooker here, I will crucify them.
LOL
Darts has no tactics....... get the ruddy thing in the triple or double........ game over.
Screw a white ball deep or shallow to bring it back with or vs the beize, with side or top or both or all, with in line cue striking is not a tactic..... it's a skill.
Snooker isn't dying...... it's being outsourced to Asia..... like the phone skills of 118118........ whad du u ruddy wand, numba? ...... I think independence day in India is something like 15th August. I went for a curry, and asked the waiter for a menu. He said, " gerrit yur ruudy self, and gerrupta sing win karaoke arrive, whit-man." 😀
Snooker is huge in Thailand and China..... and extensively spreading. UK fears are that slinty gits will keep the trophy forever, eventually. Like Liverpool did the EU Championship cup after 5 wins b4 Man U could, Trev 😀😀😀😀