I thought wrong.
Firstly, it is doubtful I will be that active here since I stay mostly to my own forum and... to be honest, Snooker doesn't appeal to me the same way it used to. I have also learned to let go of the endless cycle of arguments that once plagued me.
The reason Snooker has lost a lot of its appeal to me in recent years is because nothing is fundamentally changing and hasn't.. ever. The more I think about it, the more I realise that Snooker is an elitist past time. And that's sad to me... sad because it has the potential to be so much greater. Already it should be well established in mainland Europe and China, and probably even the US, if things had been done right from the start. But they haven't.
When Barry Hearn was elected, I naively thought he understood sport.. he doesn't. He understands business and money. Just think about this a second.
We now have 2 "major" tournaments that have rounds less than a first to 9. Can you imagine a Slam in tennis having such a short format to decide the greats?
Away from the majors we have had an explosion of meaningless tin pot PTC events. First to 4 lotto's. There are so many of them that not only are they burning the players out, but they are boring the fans stiff... no one could really care less about them, but Barry has it in his head that quantity (and therefore more money) is better than quality... but more than that, he doesn't seem to give a toss about the sport itself. Who cares if we get lottery events, who cares who wins the event... all that matters to him his quantity and money.
Barry's new idea is to have all players competing from round 1... regardless of rank. While this may work in Tennis Slams, it won't in Snooker because of how it is structured currently. There are far more shocks in Snooker owing due to the differences... Snooker is often a 1 man sport, where the other player can do nothing, and luck can prove decisive on a given day. Tennis is contested over a massive 3 sets, each game and point being a real time response.
The current mindset is keeping the flesh is safe, but the spirit is dying. There are so many things wrong with this sport.
- Super fast cloths (and other changes) have made games a 1 visit pot bonanza where generally 1 visit can be enough from either player to secure a frame. This is not competitive sport. Players are now much better across the board to the 70's-80's and making conditions favouring quick clean up routines is suicide.
- The miss rule is a farce. Please, just go back to how it was.
- Fluke pots are celebrated, rather than seen for what they are.. a player making a balls up of a shot and being rewarded for it.
- There is only 1 type of format. The traditional one. There is no meaningful shot clock event, or decent spin off. Shoot Out is a gimmick, and Power Snooker is a joke. If we have slow players like Selby benefiting from the traditional rules, then we need to balance it with formats aimed at the flair and more talented players - those that don't need to resort to slow down gamesmanship all day long to win.
- The rank system is useless. Barry is changing this soon to prize money listings, but why don't they just look at tennis and model it after a proven system?
- The draw system is ridiculous. A defending champion is seeded 1st for all events, regardless of his actual ranking. How on earth can that be fair or even have any kind of logic? Yes my favourite player would certainly have benefited from that if he had played this season, but so what? It's plainly wrong. You should be seeded according to your ranking. Again, like Tennis.
- But more than all these, the main gripe I have with Snooker now is how negative play yields unparalleled rewards. I don't watch sport to watch the plodder win trophy after trophy. I watch it to see the best players generally win, and Snooker has a set up that is geared towards the last minute catch up, or plodding come back, or negative wrecker. I am tired of watching one player do all the work only to see another player have a practice session. Snooker, in my eyes, is now too easy for the professionals. It has become a bit like pool... 1 dimensional.
Nothing is being done about any of the real issues in Snooker. Barry is more concerned with making first to 1 gimmicks, and PTC lotto events than fixing the underlining issues in the game. That the real competition is gone, and characters in the game gone as well. Since Ronnie quit Snooker for the season, all anyone has been going on about in the press is when is he coming back. That's a problem. All my Snooker friends have said the same thing, that Snooker is just boring these days and nothing to really care about.
We need the sport to have a diverse and proper ranking tour. Not cheap gimmicks, daft out of touch rules and the elitist responses like "If you don't like it, watch another sport" and "It's part of the game".
I Thought Hearn Would Fix It.
posted on 5/2/13
On the flukes - a player still needs to take advantage of the fluke, so it doesn't necessarily win him the frame, just gives him an opportunity to do so. It also wins him one frame, not the match, and players don't get that many flukes that all the frames won are due to the benefit of flukes. And where would you draw the line - how about a fluked snooker? Players accept it is part and parcel of the game, and part of the mental side of the game is how you control your emotions when luck isn't going your way. As for comparing pool and snooker - yes, they are both cue sports, but they have variables which make them completely different sports, and a rule in one doesn't necessarily work well for a rule in another. (It's like comparing rugby union and league)
With the miss rule, if I'm honest, the notion of a player deliberating missing doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't really punish an opposing player for not getting out of a snooker. Perhaps ball in hand after one miss is harsh, and that's why I would settle for it after 2 attempts. One has to remember that snooker is a game of tactics, it's about safety and potting, and 'dirty roll-ups' are all part of the game.
And sorry, but I am not a Selby fan either, but I just don't get where this 'use of negative tactics to get a chance and then benefit from easier break-building comes from'.
If by using negative tactics you mean he ties the balls up, well he's hardly making it easier for himself to clear if he gets a chance. As for negative one dimensional break-building, well as far as I can see, not every frame is won in one clearance, and more often than not, given the attacking capabilities of a lot of players, those who have more tactical nous need to use this to come out on top. Yes, the balls split up more on the thinner cloths, but they still need to be potted, and the players still need to execute break-building with the highest of quality. One has to accept that there are contrasting styles in snooker, with the use of various tactics - if everyone played like a Ronnie / Hendry / Trump etc, that would be dull, if everyone played like Selby / Ebdon etc that would be dull. The reason Selby has success is less influenced by the cloth and conditions, and more by how he is playing and his opponents inability to deal with it (as much as it pains me to say it!!!)
posted on 5/2/13
Again, the idea is to minimise luck because that's the best a sport can do. Any frame that is lost because of a bad shot is 1 too many in my view when the rules can easily change it. American Pool did, and other sports minimise luck. Darts uses thinnest wires it can to reduce bounce outs. No one said "Well bounce outs will still happen", minimising them was the goal.
The point on Selby and players not being able to deal with it is a little unfair. The point is he can grind a frame down to the dirt and the opponent is sat in his seat. A faster player can hardly play faster and hope that will do the trick of irritating Selby and his kind. This is the problem. Snooker favours a gamesmanship type slow player from the outset.
A few shot clocks would balance this out but people say "That's not fair on the slower players" so as far as I can see, it's fair for a grinder to ruin and wreck a faster players mindset and not fair for a shot clock to balance this advantage out for the rest of the tour?
posted on 5/2/13
American pool is such a simple game (I don't mean in terms of playing it, but the set up with fewer balls and the way the rules are) that it is probably easier to eliminate the luck elements, although they will still play a part. I put it again that at what point is somthing considered lucky and where do you draw the line.E.g. a safety shot off the reds, it flicks one colour and snookers behind another etc. And once again I say that all a bit of luck can do is give you the opportunity to win the frame, it does not necessarily win you the frame. Virtually all frames in a snooker match there will be a point where there is a lucky cannon etc, and the very essence of breaking up the reds relies on luck (sometimes we hear of perfect splits, yet left on nothing, and vice-versa) Now of course fluking a pot is the ultimate in luck, but given the length of matches, the fact that snooker is much more tactical that say pool, and not just about potting balls, I think one can over-emphasise the luck element, but no-one really comes out of a match and thinks - yeah, my opponent had so many flukes that I had no chance. People may of course highlight the significance of a fluke in a final frame decider, but then forget about all the other frames lost in the match, where no flukes played a part.
As for the grinder against the faster player, I am afraid it is part and parcel of the game. You have decided that Selby and other such players do this purposely, but quite simply, not everyone plays at the same speed, and this is hard professional sport we are talking about. Gamesmanship happens everywhere, you get slower darts players than others, time-wasting in a number of sports etc, and of course it is up to officials to make sure play is fair, but if a player is not up to coping with such minor tactics, then for me he is not coped to be a professional snooker player. And believe me, if a faster player reels off a number of frames, this will more than irritate any opponent! Perhaps it is more of a problem for viewers who may get turned off by slower players, but if you want to be at the top of the game, you have got to cope with what is thrown at you. (I wonder if your dislike of Selby and appreciation of Ronnie affects your views on this more than anything else)
Just finally on the fluked pot thing, just think, if they weren't allowed, Cliff would never have made his 147!
posted on 5/2/13
Oh, and I quite like the freeball idea rather than the miss rule - I had never considered this until you mentioned it. I think whatever our opinions on an alternative, we all agree that an alternative is required to the miss rule
posted on 5/2/13
Flukes happen in any sport. Look at football, I'm sure a striker doesn't mean for the ball to go in off the post when he shoots, he'll be aiming for the corner. But when it does go in, you take it. Flukes and luck - and misfortune - are part of every sport. You can't deny that.
posted on 5/2/13
I don't deny it. What I do deny is that other sports do nothing about it... they all have done apart from Snooker and English Pool, which allow a player to make a total mess of a shot and be rewarded for it, contrary to the rules of fair play. Minimising luck is very easy in Snooker with nomination rule (only when shot is not obvious). It works fine in American Pool and would in Snooker.
I have tested it myself and it works just fine.
posted on 5/2/13
And you draw the line at Fluke pots because that's the only thing that can be eliminated or minimised with Snooker rules. You can't legislate for Fluke Snookers, that's tough but that's how it is. You can't be 100% sure bounce outs won't happen in darts, no matter how thin the wire...
But you still make the wire as thin as you can. That's progression.
posted on 5/2/13
At least I don't think you can, I will look into that
posted on 5/2/13
Just going off the topic of this a moment:
Does anyone want me to get a thread going for the Welsh Open next week? Or have we to hang on until the World Championship?
posted on 5/2/13
Seifer - I still think that fluked pots don't happen enough in a match to have a significant outcome on that match, given how many frames are played etc, but it is one we can disagree on. I also don't hear many (any?) professional players calling for such a rule either. I am all for fairness, but my gut feeling is that I don't see a need for it.
RKW - I would gladly contribute to a thread next week, although it may just end up the two of us!!!