The Final!

[Mark187187]

He's good to watch when he's flowing. But more than not he's a frame spoiler

I've never thought of him like that, but he is quite comfortable battling out those frames when things go awkward whereas other players might try to open things up quicker. On balance, he wins considerably more frames in a more conventional way than those ones.

Either way, he has been very successful playing his own game and knows how to play the percentages to maximise his potential. Game would be boring if we didn't have different styles of player.

[vmax]

He hammered Gilbert because he has no fear of him, for those he fears the gamesmanship shenanigans come out and there are tip tap frames & re-racks, roll up snookers, leaving the arena after every frame, taking an age to get the right extension etc etc. Barry Hearn said gamesmanship is tantamount to cheating and there was going to be a stop put to it this season but all that's happening is keeping and eye on average shot times which doesn't tell the whole story.

It's down to the referee, and I would have told Selby to get a move on or lose the frame about three times during that final, there's no need to walk around the table nearly every shot to take a look at the lay of the balls and point your cue at things, especially when you've done the same thing the shot before and the balls haven't moved. It's entirely deliberate and done to spoil the focus of the man in form, and Lisowski was in top form as he showed the first two frames, and then it started and the result was a foregone conclusion unless the referee stepped in and put a stop to it.

But it's also down to the opposing player to have a word with the referee and let him know in no uncertain terms what he believes is going on and unless he/she does something he will ask for a second opinion or for another ref to take over.

That final descended into nothing come the end with Lisoswki throwing his cue at things not giving a damn if he won or lost, just wanting it to end; I know how he feels. If this is what the punters want then let him carry on but I won't be watching him anymore no matter who he is playing, I'd rather eat my own flesh :disgust:

[Odrl]

Yeah, horribly unsporting from Selby to make breaks of 78 and 75 when he was 2-0 down, you could just see it in his face that he decided to kill the pace of the game and grind frames out with one-visit snooker. :wink:

Lisowski had absolutely no cause to complain to the referee about anything Selby was doing, and if I was the referee and Lisowski addressed me in the kind of tone you suggest, I would have struggled to remain professional and not laugh in his face. The truth is, Selby played pretty much a textbook, "John Higgins" type of snooker in this final, and Lisowski lost it because he missed more balls than he could get away with with the type of snooker he plays. Anything else you saw was just in your head, as usual. :wink:

[vmax]

Yeah, horribly unsporting from Selby to make breaks of 78 and 75 when he was 2-0 down, you could just see it in his face that he decided to kill the pace of the game and grind frames out with one-visit snooker. :wink:

Lisowski had absolutely no cause to complain to the referee about anything Selby was doing, and if I was the referee and Lisowski addressed me in the kind of tone you suggest, I would have struggled to remain professional and not laugh in his face. The truth is, Selby played pretty much a textbook, "John Higgins" type of snooker in this final, and Lisowski lost it because he missed more balls than he could get away with with the type of snooker he plays. Anything else you saw was just in your head, as usual. :wink:

It's not every frame OK, otherwise his average shot times would increase and it would be up for discussion. If you took your nose out of Selby's arse for a while you might see it, are you a player yourself by chance ?

[Cue crafty]

I personally dont enjoy watching Mark Selby when he ties frames up, its frustrating to watch and must be even worse to play against. However the other day when he played Mark Joyce he let his arm go a bit as he was struggling for form and he knocked in some excellent pots that lead to frame winning chances. That was good to watch, and I believe if he were to attack more often he is very capable of winning a tournament in that style which would be refreshing to see.

One thing I did pick out in the final against Lisowski that I didnt really like, was when Jack took a thrash at a long red after a long drawn out safety battle, a rattled looking Selby who wasnt too pleased with how the the run of the ball had been going said something in jest like "Is anyone hurt"? due to the power Jack threw into the shot.

Would it have been ok if Jack had made a comment say like "Is anyone bored"? after Selby had played several negative safety pushes.....

[Odrl]

It's not every frame OK, otherwise his average shot times would increase and it would be up for discussion. If you took your nose out of Selby's arse for a while you might see it, are you a player yourself by chance ?

No, I'm afraid I have absolutely no talent for cue sports. The last time I played a game of pool I literally miscued on about half of my shots. :smile:

[Cue crafty]

I do think it's imperative to have an understanding of how difficult snooker is to fully appreciate Jack Lisowski's talent. It's very pure, and it's not just the balls he knocks in, it's the way he does it, with deft drag, measured screw, and dexterous side that make his shot making sublime.

Ive come to realise not all snooker fans can see these truly amazing gifts, but trust me they are huge.....

[vmax]

No, I'm afraid I have absolutely no talent for cue sports. The last time I played a game of pool I literally miscued on about half of my shots. :smile:

With the greatest respect, if you don't play and haven't been on the receiving end of such tactics then you really don't know what's going on and what you believe you're seeing is huge granite like concentration and sheer will to win, but it's not really, it's all designed to destroy the other blokes concentration, which is the border between the subconscious flow state, where you don't think you simply 'see', and the conscious mind with all its meanderings and doubts. I don't think Selby plays flow state snooker, it's like watching a JCB play snooker, mechanical and measured, but it works and works well, and he knows who the flow state players are and plays them accordingly. You might say 'why not' the answer is we, the viewing public, are being denied something that could be great.

Barry Hearn must realise that snooker will not become mainstream in the US, despite the large online numbers he's seeing if this sort of game becomes the norm like it was a few years ago when Selby was no:1 and world champion.
He stated that gamesmanship was tantamount to cheating and it needed to be stamped out, but average shot times isn't the answer for Selby has seen a way around it, banning the roll up snooker, getting rid of the miss rule and a shot clock of 20 seconds would cure it overnight.

[tomwalker147]

With the greatest respect, if you don't play and haven't been on the receiving end of such tactics then you really don't know what's going on and what you believe you're seeing is huge granite like concentration and sheer will to win, but it's not really, it's all designed to destroy the other blokes concentration, which is the border between the subconscious flow state, where you don't think you simply 'see', and the conscious mind with all its meanderings and doubts. I don't think Selby plays flow state snooker, it's like watching a JCB play snooker, mechanical and measured, but it works and works well, and he knows who the flow state players are and plays them accordingly. You might say 'why not' the answer is we, the viewing public, are being denied something that could be great.

Barry Hearn must realise that snooker will not become mainstream in the US, despite the large online numbers he's seeing if this sort of game becomes the norm like it was a few years ago when Selby was no:1 and world champion.
He stated that gamesmanship was tantamount to cheating and it needed to be stamped out, but average shot times isn't the answer for Selby has seen a way around it, banning the roll up snooker, getting rid of the miss rule and a shot clock of 20 seconds would cure it overnight.

VMax, where has this hatred for Selby come from? His average shot time is 24 seconds, 75th on the rankings out of 128 players. Only a second slower than Shaun Murphy who people describe as exciting.
I'm not sure why a player who has an excellent safety game is immediately scrutinised. He also has the second most centuries of any player this year, hardly boring people to death is he?
Have you been hard done by by players who have found a chink in your armour? Maybe played safe when they could've gone for a pot or purposely slowed down a touch to try and break your rhythm?
People effecting players flow happens in almost every sport, in athletics athletes speed up/slow down to break the rhythm of others, in football they time waste, in Rugby they slow down the speed at which the ball is returned to play. It's all part and parcel of sport, finding every inch to gain success at all costs by bending the rules but not breaking them, and in this case I can't see how Selby has ever acted in an ungentlemanly conduct.

[balkend]

I do think it's imperative to have an understanding of how difficult snooker is to fully appreciate Jack Lisowski's talent. It's very pure, and it's not just the balls he knocks in, it's the way he does it, with deft drag, measured screw, and dexterous side that make his shot making sublime.

Ive come to realise not all snooker fans can see these truly amazing gifts, but trust me they are huge.....

Agree 100% , you have very accurately described Jack's unique gift , when he is in the zone its pure genius at work and so wonderful to watch . A huge talent

[JimMalone]

All that said, I still had to cringe when Selby described him as "probably the second most talented player I've ever seen, behind Ronnie". Come on, that's just idiotic.

I actually have less problems with that quote. He's just talking about talent. The problem with this is only: What is talent? I've never found a definition of it I'm satisfied. If you look at how Lisowski plays instinctly (and talent for me is much about instincts) he surely has loads of talent. Though this would also include that he has knowledge of how the ball runs and automatically a good cue ball control, which he hasn't.
Still, he sure has loads of talent. This should not be confused with success or overall quality. There are huge discrepancys between those two sides.

Also an indicator is how good he still is at this point despite having so much troubles with his illness and having much lesser conditions and could train much less. His whole story is actually one more reason I'm so happy for his success now.

[Odrl]

I actually have less problems with that quote. He's just talking about talent. The problem with this is only: What is talent? I've never found a definition of it I'm satisfied. If you look at how Lisowski plays instinctly (and talent for me is much about instincts) he surely has loads of talent. Though this would also include that he has knowledge of how the ball runs and automatically a good cue ball control, which he hasn't.
Still, he sure has loads of talent. This should not be confused with success or overall quality. There are huge discrepancys between those two sides.

Also an indicator is how good he still is at this point despite having so much troubles with his illness and having much lesser conditions and could train much less. His whole story is actually one more reason I'm so happy for his success now.

Interesting question. The word "talent" is the same in the Slovenian language, or at least I think it's supposed to mean the exact same thing, but for some reason it's understood a little differently on this and other English-speaking forums I read. For instance, people will describe a 40-year-old sportsman as talented in the present tense, which would never happen in Slovenia and other countries of this region. The word is almost exclusively used to describe youngsters who still have plenty of room to improve. Once a player gets to his mid 20s or so (although that age tends to be higher in snooker these days), you would instead say that he was talented, in the past tense.

Also, in snooker people tend to equate talent almost exclusively with long-potting and pace of play, while completely ignoring other elements such as safety play and tactical awareness, and also positional play to a lesser extent. Not all players are equally talented when it comes to those things. For instance, John Higgins was pretty much considered to be a complete player from the moment he came onto the scene, but his name never gets a mention when the most talented players of all time are discussed. On the other hand, players like Tony Drago are mentioned frequently, which just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

As for Lisowski, sure, he pots a lot of great balls and has always done so, making him a very talented potter. He also has the kind of technique that allows him to play quickly, which I suppose could be considered as talent as well, although speed is not a relevant factor in snooker. As for everything else, he is below average. He struggles to control the cue ball and he clearly has a below-average understanding of the tactical side of the game. Put a 19-year-old Lisowski up against a 19-year-old John Higgins or Ding Junhui, and we all know who would win almost every time. And that's why I think Selby's opinion is way off. :wink:

[Cue crafty]

Interesting question. The word "talent" is the same in the Slovenian language, or at least I think it's supposed to mean the exact same thing, but for some reason it's understood a little differently on this and other English-speaking forums I read. For instance, people will describe a 40-year-old sportsman as talented in the present tense, which would never happen in Slovenia and other countries of this region. The word is almost exclusively used to describe youngsters who still have plenty of room to improve. Once a player gets to his mid 20s or so (although that age tends to be higher in snooker these days), you would instead say that he was talented, in the past tense.

Also, in snooker people tend to equate talent almost exclusively with long-potting and pace of play, while completely ignoring other elements such as safety play and tactical awareness, and also positional play to a lesser extent. Not all players are equally talented when it comes to those things. For instance, John Higgins was pretty much considered to be a complete player from the moment he came onto the scene, but his name never gets a mention when the most talented players of all time are discussed. On the other hand, players like Tony Drago are mentioned frequently, which just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

As for Lisowski, sure, he pots a lot of great balls and has always done so, making him a very talented potter. He also has the kind of technique that allows him to play quickly, which I suppose could be considered as talent as well, although speed is not a relevant factor in snooker. As for everything else, he is below average. He struggles to control the cue ball and he clearly has a below-average understanding of the tactical side of the game. Put a 19-year-old Lisowski up against a 19-year-old John Higgins or Ding Junhui, and we all know who would win almost every time. And that's why I think Selby's opinion is way off. :wink:

Maybe a better word although not normally associated with snooker would be Virtuoso. There are dozens of best shot compilations by Ronnie however if you cannot tell the difference in real quality of strike you cannot really appreciate the "actual" best shots. Many are achievable by most of the top players but this one ive selected at 2 mins 18 seconds in, i believe very few could take on in this way in a match and execute with this result. Jack Lisowski however would be one of them....

Although this is again a pot, the deft touch here has been applied in many great safety shots, i will look for some examples of this too. Only looking to enhance your appreciation of a game i know you love.

[Odrl]

Many are achievable by most of the top players but this one ive selected at 2 mins 18 seconds in, i believe very few could take on in this way in a match and execute with this result. Jack Lisowski however would be one of them....

I get what you mean and I don't disagree. I enjoy watching these great shot makers as much as anyone. I just don't think this ability alone suggests one player is more talented than another. It's just one piece of the puzzle. For me, saying that someone is the most talented in a group of players means that I would project him to reach a higher level of snooker ability than others in that group. Assuming all other non-snooker related attributes were similar of course, and by that I mean stuff like ambition, work rate, composure under pressure, etc.

Going back to Ding Junhui again, if you looked at Ding and Lisowski side by side as teenagers and tried to predict who would go on to become a better player, I am reasonably sure almost everyone would say Ding. And that's basically the definition of talent for me. :smile:

[Cue crafty]

You got it . Any continuation on this subject becomes one of realised potential, another conversation entirely