long game

[itsnoteasy]

I think it was Vmax that said , it shouldn't be hard to get your cue going straight back and forward, and I agree with him, I think most of the trouble is cueing across the line, because you have not got the cue bang online, the tip may seem to be but if the butt is a few mill out you will cue across the white , I think all the change of feet positioning is doing is getting all of the cue bang online. It's good to see that you find your heal on the line as this is what I was taught . I think the idea about not worrying too much about where the bent leg goes, as long as it's pointing down the line, is to get you to concentrate on getting the body online and the feet will follow, where as others say get the feet right and the body will follow, as long as whatever one you chose gets your cue online, I wouldn't worry about it.

[ace man]

I think at some point every player must eventually accept his cueing imperfections and adapt to get around them. Fewer faults the better of course, but somewhere down the line tinkering must surely stop, right?
If you tinker with technique frequently, you are essentially not letting your muscle memory to settle, ever...

[tedisbill]

I think at some point every player must eventually accept his cueing imperfections and adapt to get around them. Fewer faults the better of course, but somewhere down the line tinkering must surely stop, right?
If you tinker with technique frequently, you are essentially not letting your muscle memory to settle, ever...

Fully agree with this.

People are getting way too concerned with all this nonsense, when they've got far more fundamental issues that are holding them back.

[thelongbomber]

Good to hear your are seeking answers and experimenting. I have found that is one of the sure ways to improving: accepting nothing as written in stone.

On a cautionary side: I know of more than one player that tries to work on cue alignment by changing his natural foot positions. This can, in theory, improve your cueing, but I don't believe it's the right course of action. Too many of these manual fixes, can destroy your game. Swerving your cue into line during the shot happens because your eyes and hand work in unison during feathering. That gives you feedback that causes your brain to change the cue angle during delivery. But the question is, why was your back hand not online to begin with? I believe it's how you sight when standing. If you look at early Hendry videos, he would cock his head to the right because he understood that his right hand was supposed to be online, not his eyes. So he would place his head over the right side of his body before walking in. It clearly worked for him, but I wouldn't call it an optimal method. Most players will stand centre behind the shot, and then walk in parallel to that line, thus often placing the cue to the right of aim. The best solution I have found is to visualize your cue hand over the line of aim as you walk in. Work consciously on placing your cue into the line of aim as you walk in, not your head. Let your cue guide your body, and let it be the laser that shoots through the cue ball into the direction you want it to go.

What you found by looking at the cue ball while walking in is that you are unknowingly placing your cue into the cue ball line of aim. That's a good result.

[Byrom]

I think at some point every player must eventually accept his cueing imperfections and adapt to get around them. Fewer faults the better of course, but somewhere down the line tinkering must surely stop, right?
If you tinker with technique frequently, you are essentially not letting your muscle memory to settle, ever...

Fully agree with this.

People are getting way too concerned with all this nonsense, when they've got far more fundamental issues that are holding them back.

I'm in agreement with these guys too.
If you never stop messing you never get consistent - there comes a time you go with what you know - or your head with forever be full of nonsense.
Constantly tinkering and seeking perfection in your game is itself an imperfection.

Here I will prove it - all those who tinker just for an experiment - because you like or perhaps are addicted to doing this I thought it might be interesting to see if you could actually do this -lol -

TRY to play ten games against someone without over thinking it - in fact just play and enjoy it - good or bad - don't look at the scores and don't think about wining or loosing or you needing this or that to win or worrying that you are playing bad and loosing - this experiment is not about wining or loosing its about trying to see if you can play natural - with a clear mind.

Just focus on the shot and position you need to clear up - or the safety you need to get you in to clear up - and just play - you must not think - DO NOT THINK AFTER YOUR SHOT/MISS that you did this or that wrong - just focus - put it out your head - move on - don't be afraid of missing - accept it - this is part of the Byrom experiment - just play - if you miss just move on to the next and stay focused in the here and now and stay in your pre shot routine - if you actually have a consistent natural one - if not don't worry just play - if you play bad just accept and move on and focus on the task- shot in hand - if the other guy is scoring accept it as a two way street - don't study his game or your own just count.

In short just try to play. I wonder how many can actually do it? I wonder what you play like?

[vmax4steve]

I think at some point every player must eventually accept his cueing imperfections and adapt to get around them. Fewer faults the better of course, but somewhere down the line tinkering must surely stop, right?
If you tinker with technique frequently, you are essentially not letting your muscle memory to settle, ever...

What I'm doing aceman is trying to find what I do when I'm at my best so I can replicate it through deliberation and be more consistant.
I have gone through thirty years of being able to play blinding snooker one minute and crap snooker the next, and though it's true that I did tinker with my technique for a few years, I quit snooker for three years and came back into it from a blank perspective and played naturally as before.

I'm not tinkering with my technique anymore, simply trying to find what I do when at my best. I have a dead straight cue action that I can test through a matchbox, my long cue fits my physique perfectly and means my shoulder doesn't drop at all on the strike, I have a very relaxed grip, in fact practically everything about my game is as textbook as it needs to be, yet something is missing half the time.

If I am not looking where I should be looking for half the time when taking my stance, and my cue is not on the line of aim as a result, then I see no harm at all in working to remedy this. As I posted before it surely can't be that difficult to cultivate a straight cue action for eight to ten inches of movement from the elbow, and the fact that I can pot great balls and make big breaks intermittantly says that my cue is on line and coming through straight when I'm doing this, yet when I'm concentrating hard and keeping my head still and eyes on the object ball and playing crap what's missing ?

There are times when I don't see the shot properly once I'm down in my stance. No matter how hard I try I can't 'see' the shot, everything seems to be out of line, out of kilter, object ball ever so slightly out of focus. This too could be the result of not getting the cue on the line of aim and the natural focus of my eyesight is looking down the wrong line.
I'm left eye dominant and my left eye is right over the cue just like Neil Robertsons right eye is over his, so I can imagine that if I'm not standing in the right place I'm not looking right down the line of aim and what I see is unclear.
With the deliberation of my eye movements when taking my stance that I discovered on sunday this didn't happen at all, not once, and I saw every shot as clear as day, right down the line to the contact point on the object ball.

Isn't this what aiming is all about ?

[vmax4steve]

If you look at early Hendry videos, he would cock his head to the right because he understood that his right hand was supposed to be online, not his eyes. So he would place his head over the right side of his body before walking in.

What you found by looking at the cue ball while walking in is that you are unknowingly placing your cue into the cue ball line of aim. That's a good result.

What's most important is what you're actually looking at during the aiming process and getting that cue on the line of aim.

Those almost unnoticable glances to which ball and exactly when are what guides the feet, body, grip hand, bridge hand, cue onto the line of aim.
Hendry sighted with the cue close to his right eye so a head cock to the left would have been more appropriate. Are you certain about this LB ?

[ace man]

What I'm doing aceman is trying to find what I do when I'm at my best so I can replicate it through deliberation and be more consistant.
I have gone through thirty years of being able to play blinding snooker one minute and crap snooker the next, and though it's true that I did tinker with my technique for a few years, I quit snooker for three years and came back into it from a blank perspective and played naturally as before.

I'm not tinkering with my technique anymore, simply trying to find what I do when at my best. I have a dead straight cue action that I can test through a matchbox, my long cue fits my physique perfectly and means my shoulder doesn't drop at all on the strike, I have a very relaxed grip, in fact practically everything about my game is as textbook as it needs to be, yet something is missing half the time.

If I am not looking where I should be looking for half the time when taking my stance, and my cue is not on the line of aim as a result, then I see no harm at all in working to remedy this. As I posted before it surely can't be that difficult to cultivate a straight cue action for eight to ten inches of movement from the elbow, and the fact that I can pot great balls and make big breaks intermittantly says that my cue is on line and coming through straight when I'm doing this, yet when I'm concentrating hard and keeping my head still and eyes on the object ball and playing crap what's missing ?

There are times when I don't see the shot properly once I'm down in my stance. No matter how hard I try I can't 'see' the shot, everything seems to be out of line, out of kilter, object ball ever so slightly out of focus. This too could be the result of not getting the cue on the line of aim and the natural focus of my eyesight is looking down the wrong line.
I'm left eye dominant and my left eye is right over the cue just like Neil Robertsons right eye is over his, so I can imagine that if I'm not standing in the right place I'm not looking right down the line of aim and what I see is unclear.
With the deliberation of my eye movements when taking my stance that I discovered on sunday this didn't happen at all, not once, and I saw every shot as clear as day, right down the line to the contact point on the object ball.

Isn't this what aiming is all about ?

vmax, I think you are being way too hard on yourself. Just like me. Expectations are too high sometimes and that is perfectly normal. But ask yourself this...out of those 30 years, how many were dead serious practise years where you devoted your almost entire waking time to snooker? Those high level players who we think of as very consistent have lived in a snooker hall for a significant portion of their (early) lives. The rest of us can only hope for an occasional blinding game. That is true even if you are much better than average club guys. There is no way to turn your best game into your average all of the sudden. I was naive enough to think that I could do it...

As for not 'seeing' the ball right...just fire the shot without thinking. It will go in. You are a naturally fast player, right? That's the advantage. In 2hr practise you'll be able to fire more shots than some highly methodical guys. This deliberate eye movements worries me though. From your description, it looks as though it may have worked for you...however...could you play very long sessions like that? Because I think conscious deliberate focus is very very very tiring. Could slow down your natural pace around the table as well.

Don't get me wrong. I have tried also this conscious maximum deliberate focus on back of the object ball...etc. Very tiring and didn't really do wonders for me. I mean it did seem like holy grail for a few minutes, but it was just a placebo.
It took me a while to understand that I'm not some minor tweak or two away from high level amateur snooker (frequent single visit frame wins, deadly safeties...etc). I am still a million balls away from reaching the level I think (or hope, dream?) that I'm capable of reaching.
I urge everyone to go to pro-am tournaments a few times. This will really open your eyes and tell you exactly where you are.

[thelongbomber]

What's most important is what you're actually looking at during the aiming process and getting that cue on the line of aim.

Those almost unnoticable glances to which ball and exactly when are what guides the feet, body, grip hand, bridge hand, cue onto the line of aim.
Hendry sighted with the cue close to his right eye so a head cock to the left would have been more appropriate. Are you certain about this LB ?

Pretty certain yes, or wait maybe not. Hendry is right handed, so by deduction, his head would be left of the right arm. So he seemed to cock his head to the right before he got down into position. Or maybe left. Not sure now after your comment. Its less so in his later years as I think he discovered this imperfection and removed it - probably through experimentation trying to bring his game back. I just looked at a few Youtube videos. Can't find it now, but it's definitely there somewhere. I know because I tried using it during experimentation some years back.

Anyways, point being: there IS something specific you can and should be looking at on the approach into the shot. In my case, it's the visualized line the cue ball is taking. I see it there. I don't look at the object ball OR the cue ball as I walk in. Instead I see the line the cue ball is going to go down and use that to walk in. I picked this for the simple reason that if I'm not using English, then my cue should fall right onto this line and I find that easy to see. Instead if I'm just using a ball (cue or object), there is every chance my cue can seem to be correct, but isn't because it's pivoted fractionally off by the stance and walk in and eyes saying something else. But you need to decide on what works best for you. Whatever you choose, it can have a profound affect on your stance, final alignment so forth. Perhaps, if you don't have a preference, then it's just "feel" and something you can't describe. In my case, I don't like NOT knowing, so investigated and found out the truth for myself. I worked hard on trying to duplicate my once deadly potting in my youth but with more purpose and science and specificity. I think I have my potting from the young days back now PLUS the knowledge and understanding behind why it worked before. I can pot my old way, my new way, and at least two other ways and I understand them all and can make them work. I can duplicate how some pros move their cue (Ron, Mark, Shaun), and how my m8s cue all the same because I investigated the unknown. I made the assumption a long time ago that this game isn't all just raw natural talent that only some people have, but is a skill that can be fertilized and nurtured and discovered if one is willing. After all, I'm pretty sure cue action isn't a primal natural instinct in our DNA.

[itsnoteasy]

This is what I try and do as well LB, see the line, and get all of my cue bang on the centre of it as I get down. I also try to get my head dropping straight down on it.

[thelongbomber]

This is what I try and do as well LB, see the line, and get all of my cue bang on the centre of it as I get down. I also try to get my head dropping straight down on it.

Interesting about the head. I think having the head come down over this line is pretty important and something I will have a go at next time I'm in the club.

By the way, I'm so adamant about the ghost ball partly because of this technique. When I'm not playing well, I become very specific about standing dead center behind this line. It's the last foot shuffle I do before I walk in.

[itsnoteasy]

Yep, I also stand directly behind the shot, then walk in.
The cue and the head, have to be on the same line, otherwise I think you will get conflict in your cueing, because if the cue follows your eyes ,but they are on different lines, it can't be good.
I should say these are things I have been taught, and read, so I'm just repeating other peoples knowledge.

[vmax4steve]

As for not 'seeing' the ball right...just fire the shot without thinking. It will go in. You are a naturally fast player, right? That's the advantage. In 2hr practise you'll be able to fire more shots than some highly methodical guys. This deliberate eye movements worries me though. From your description, it looks as though it may have worked for you...however...could you play very long sessions like that? Because I think conscious deliberate focus is very very very tiring. Could slow down your natural pace around the table as well.

That's what I do when at my best but it doesn't last very long.

You're spot on about deliberation becoming very tiring, it was for me last night. Started off very well but descended into my normal way of playing after an hour. Hit a few low thirties, had a 50+ at my mercy but fluffed it on a sitter of a red over the corner that I set up for check side when stood up, but played it plain ball when down, and of course hit it too thick.

At the end of the session though I was playing my usual fast pace and only taking a quick glance at the cue ball as my right foot moved into place and this worked very well and seemed natural, which is what I'm looking for, what I naturally do when at my best.

My other problem is either taking my eye off the object ball on the strike or not looking at it in the first place. Now if and when I get these two things right then I can look forward to having a more consistant game.

Great post btw ace man, you're absolutely correct of course, but seeing as I only play local league one frame matches I don't have time to relax and get my focus naturally. I need to find something that gives me a good B game as at the moment its all or nothing, and I mean nothing.
The difference between my best and my worst is vast and to be honest quite embarrassing.

[vmax4steve]

I made the assumption a long time ago that this game isn't all just raw natural talent that only some people have, but is a skill that can be fertilized and nurtured and discovered if one is willing. After all, I'm pretty sure cue action isn't a primal natural instinct in our DNA.

I am of the other persuasion LB. I think the cue action comes from the hand and eye co-ordination that evolved in human males after the invention of throwing tools for hunting.

Thinking about those indigenous tribes that still live as hunter gatherers, do all of the males on the hunt move in for the kill or the ones with the best hand eye skills who are good at it.

And would the ones who are good at it bother with trying to teach what they do to the 'Alan Carr' of the tribe ?
No, they'd leave him picking berries and gossiping with the women.

[thelongbomber]

I am of the other persuasion LB. I think the cue action comes from the hand and eye co-ordination that evolved in human males after the invention of throwing tools for hunting.

Thinking about those indigenous tribes that still live as hunter gatherers, do all of the males on the hunt move in for the kill or the ones with the best hand eye skills who are good at it.

And would the ones who are good at it bother with trying to teach what they do to the 'Alan Carr' of the tribe ?
No, they'd leave him picking berries and gossiping with the women.

The best hunters become better because they are chosen based on past performance. That doesn't necessarily mean the lesser hunter has sub-par hand/eye coordination. It just means he never got a chance to develop it early. The weaker hunter might have come with a new approach which would have required a new hunting practice to develop where he suddenly becomes the expert hunter, and all the others are sub-par.

OK, to some extent good visual clarity and fine hand/arm motor control is beneficial, so for the one narrow aspect of this game - hand/eye coordination - I will agree with you. I would not doubt that some people may have inherited brain chemistry and muscular fibers and tendons that predispose them to having better hand/eye coordination. My dad, for example, was a well known badminton player in school and had a natural talent for it. I also had a lot of success in school on the baseball, badminton and tennis teams before I knew of his skill. Does that mean, my kids would have even better hand/eye coordination if I married a dancer or yoga instructor or surgeon? Perhaps.

However, success in snooker is much more than hand/eye coordination. It's a melting pot of factors including genetic, environment, coaching, mental aptitude, and much more. All of these together can make a great player. Furthermore, hand/eye coordination can be developed in an individual that doesn't seem to have it naturally anyways. Video games, for example, were found to help surgeons be more dexterous in surgery. So for me, the brain's neural pathways CAN be developed at any age if one works hard enough for them.

If you take someone with fine motor skill and hand/eye coordination developed very young, but yet have poor behavioral control, they will do much worse than a hard grafter that has discipline, a winning attitude, and a good environment to learn and grow. Perhaps Ronnie is the natural and Hendry was the hard worker? Too hard to compare in this discussion but something to think about.

Ronnie OSullivan is a great example of someone that has it all: great hand/eye coordination (his dad was a prize boxer) AND had the discipline and drive to succeed (his dad taught him at a young age to be up early, exercise, etc). You can bet that there at least 100 kids in China being grown artificially to become snooker machines. Ding is an early output, but we haven't seen China's best come out yet.

For me, it's just easier to accept that all aspects of this game can be learned and nurtured. Even if hand/eye coordination is somewhat genetically correlated, I still believe it can be developed to a high skill regardless.