Natural Ability v Hard Work

[Oldgit]

I have loved snooker since I first held a cue about 45 years ago. I've been trying to make a century break ever since but so far with no success. I have had coaching from some of the very best coaches in the world and have played and practiced with lots of top pros. I am coming to the conclusion that its almost impossible to play snooker at the very highest standard unless you begin with natural ability. Thanks to my coaching, I now have a good idea of how to play the game but I have friends who hardly ever pick up a cue but when they do they make the game look so easy and can still get regular century breaks.
I recently had coaching from Del Hill. Del is a smashing guy and gave me lots of invaluable tips and practice routines but when I asked Del what his highest ever break was the answer was 92!! Now if someone so knowlegable about how to play snooker has never made a century break then I have to ask the question.............do the people on this forum think its possible to be a century break snooker player without natural talent? Can a player with no natural ability make himself a century break player through sheer hard work?

Oldgit

[cocked hat]

century break

Interesting to read your thoughts there oldgit,I too have been chasing that elusive goal since I started in the fifties.
I think that natural ability comes second to concentration.We have all broken down because we have been distracted,and distractions seem to come much more often as you get older.
Time spent playing/practicing must improve your game but you can't spend time getting younger.
Remember all the great times you have had in those 45 years without scoring
a century.

[trevs1]

Good post, interesting to see what peoples views are on this one.

I'd say that the single most important thing, in virtually all individual sport is talent, however you might choose to define it.

I'd say that most players who have made 100, have done so without any coaching to speak of and have just learnt through natural progression.
When you consider that, it might be arguable that talent is the deciding factor, though the playing environment is also something to take into account. It could be argued that this environment does act like some form of coaching, whereby a player is able to see and learn by the example right in front of them day after day. However, there is still the issue of having the capability to put into practise what they see, so again, that could bring us back to talent/ability, or whatever you'd like to call it.

I do believe that there are many players who are more than capable of making 100's, that never actually get there, but, this can be for numerous reasons in my opinion. Having the ability to pot fairly striaghtforward balls is one thing, and, being able to control the white to a reasonably consistent level is another. But, maintaining the requisite concentration, or, being able to choose the right shots time after time is also equally important as any of the other points mentioned above.

I've known many many players who have made a 100 after years of playing to a 'fair' level, thinking they'd never do it. These players might make breaks between 60 and 90 every now and again but the wheels come off somewhere or another along the way and the 100 has'nt been reached. But realistically, to be able to make 70 - 80 - 90 breaks is not really any different to making 100, as there's so little in it.

Where I think there might be a limit on a player is when they perhaps make breaks of 30 - 40 every now and again, with maybe a one off top break of 70 - 80 or so. I think this type of player is possibly just not up to the standard of those players who are at that slightly higher level of play. Having said that, there's still no reason why 100 can't be made, so I'd say keep going if it is your goal.

Ultimately, it's the enjoyment which is most important surely. Having the ability to make 100, and, even actually doing it, doesn't necessarily ensure you'll be enjoying next weeks session of snooker any more than you did lst week when you made 100, so it can be easy to lose track of why you play in the first place.

Keep enjoying it Mike..

[Semih_Sayginer]

Can a player with no natural ability make himself a century break player through sheer hard work?

certainly (IMHO)

[dantuck_7]

You have to have a decent level of natural ability to start with - but I would say puting in the hours practising and also playing matches with better players has got to help.

There was a similar thread about 'high breaks' and the one tricky thing that was mentionned was developing balls when they are tied up. Watching most of the professionals play to get a century they are going to have to develop the pack from black or blue and this is probably the part of break building where people, such as myself, find very difficult.

Also, if you're getting towards your hb and need to pull off this shot to maintain positon its going to be a bit nervy. I find that I play in patches - one frame you can miss a couple of easy balls and its plays on your mind and the confidence just isn't there. Later on it all just seems to fall into place - definition of a rythym player I guess.

[Nugget]

Good thread!
I remember Willie Thorne saying that you can teach anyone to make a 60 break, but to make 100 takes a little talent.

Jimmy White in his 'Snooker Masterclass' book mentions that he believes most club players have a century in them, if they went about it the right way. It's a difficult question to answer really!

I did recall a thread with a relevant post for this one from member Schalke 04:

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/snook...315-page2.html

"Good enough for pro

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I was 14 I was rated as a 80+ handicap player. I played Alan McManus getting an 80 start and he hammered me, I could not score over 20 consistently. I don't think I had ever made a break over 40.

18 months later I was playing my first professional match in Blackpool.

It was all about hard work and determination, I dogged school, I saved my lunch money to play in tournaments and I was in the club everyday. I just kept getting better and better but at 14 I showed no potential at all. I was rubbish but it shows that practicing hard and playing all the time makes you improve."


For me, it's hard to say. I've played against friends who have played pool for years on their home table, went to snooker every week and can't make 20. For these people it would always be a question of perseverance, and playing on through the frustration of gradual improvement.

I believe that some people can try their best and never make a century, therefore some talent is needed, but not a vast amount if it's supplemented with the right level of effort.

[samasnookerfan]

It would be boring if everyone could become a proffesional, but of course not everyone can. To get into the top 16, even 64 you have to have a certain amount of natural ability.
There are probably thousands of people who practice regularly but can't knock in centuries.

[ADR147]

i think there is also the element of luck. i can make a hundred if i have a bit of luck moving the balls about and splits that go my way, but i don't have and never will have the talent to create big breaks when they are not on, thats the difference between the good and the great. think how many times you have seen stephen hendry come to the table with 2 balls on and clear it up! there are an awful lot of players out there who can make the odd hundred but not many who can do it every single day of the week!

[Oldgit]

I also wonder if people are born to be snooker players, a good example of this would be Hendry, O'Sullivan, Davis etc.

What if Roger Federer had never started playing tennis but had taken to golf instead and Tiger Woods had started playing Tennis? Would either of them have been as successful in different sports? Ronnie O'Sullivan obviously has wonderful hand/eye co-ordination, would he have automatically achieved greatness in a sport where you need these assets, such as golf?

I always thought that some of the top snooker players (such as Dennis Taylor) worked so hard at the game that they achieved success through sheer hard work only but that players such as Hendry and Davis, although they also worked hard at the game, were born with so much natural ability that they had a head start over most of us 'normal' human beings

Oldgit

[Semih_Sayginer]

a lot of folk practise the same "mistakes" and so dont get much better than say after a couple of years or so IMO

[ADR147]

somebody told me that ronnie o'sullivan could be a golf pro if he so desired.

[dannyd0g]

somebody told me that ronnie o'sullivan could be a golf pro if he so desired.

Apparently he's also decent at football and driving (coming in the top 3 fastest "celebs" on Top Gear)

[Semih_Sayginer]

somebody told me that Stephen Hendry could be a golf pro if he so desired.

[ADR147]

somebody told me that Stephen Hendry could be a golf pro if he so desired.

i think hendry is pretty good plays off 5 or 6? as does stuart bingham - i guess a lot of the skills are the same.

[Semih_Sayginer]

Hendo is around 5. not exactly sure.

Dunno about Stu....

although not 100% to do with the initial post....having good eye hand coordination is a big plus in lots of sports, especially relating to golf and snooker as mentioned

then again, a surgeon may have good eye hand coordination, but id bet not all of them are great at snooker or golf, even with practise, but sure lots of them would be. just not all. natural ability is in itself an absolute stinking description IMHO (not a dig at thread starter. i know its the norm used term)