2014 World Championship - Discussion

[daffie]

Vmax4steve : regarding ROS...couldn't have put it any better...spot on.

Meanwhile Barry already choking on the fear/pressure it seems. I'm wondering how long this match will continue...will it end with a session to spare? I'm pretty sure it will

[vmax4steve]

Ultimately, snooker or any sport is about playing the right shot at the right time. Ronnie plays the way he does because he believes he can win that way and he has less chance if it's a grind because he puts himself through the blender mentally. Other players might think playing a high risk strategy is not in their interest. You can't force people to change their style to one that doesn't suit them. In tennis, I'm not a fan of Nadal's style of play, but I don't expect him to change it because he's won 8 French Opens in 9 years playing that way. Not everyone likes Selby, but you can't expect him to start taking on difficult pots left-handed and taking 15 seconds per shot because people like Ronnie (including me).

Ronnie no longer thinks about his opponent, that's the big difference in his mental approach. His work with Dr. Peters has finally convinced him that he really is that good and he needs to fear no one. The odd bad shot is now taken to be a temporary blip and not the forewarning of doom like it used to be with him.

Selby and Robertson on the other hand think an awful lot about their opponent and tailor their approach to matches according to who they are playing. They both use gamesmanship to affect the concentration of their opponent, especially those they know have a weakness for losing focus when certain elements are thrown against them.
This shows a lack of belief in their own talent to truly stand toe to toe with anyone, despite evidence to the contrary when playing freely themselves, finding their A game and playing as well as anyone else. Robertson is a great long potter, but he reigns it in when playing someone of equal ability like Trump, and Selby is of the same ilk, both have this underlying fear of the flair players despite having an abundance of flair themselves.
It's this fear that is always their ultimate undoing, Ronnie has lost his fear, that's the difference between him and the rest. Murphy was playing great until he met Ronnie, then it all went pear shaped and he found his excuse to lose when he got a couple of kicks and started to play expecting them. Ronnie gets a kick and just plays on, Ronnie goes in off and just plays on, Ronnie gets a fluke against him and just plays on and then when all these things reverse and go for him rather than against him he is in the right frame of mind to also simply play on.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Go watch some 9-ball pool then. There's plenty on youtube.

Great reply! Genius.

Except the grinders at 9 ball have made it even slower than snooker, which is why it is on youtube in the first place.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'm feeling the opposite. 2 hours of hard match play snooker. Bliss.

Agreed. I really don't understand cueman's sentiments there. Back in the 'good old days' of the 80s, when snooker was at its peak and attracting massive viewing figures, what we've watched tonight was pretty much standard fair.

It was good enough then so why not now?

Because times change. Good luck persauding people to go back to the 80s. There is no entertainment to be had in watching a man watching a table.

[statto]

You see, I would say something completely different. Steve Davis was better than Cliff Thorburn. Hendry was better than Parrott. O' Sullivan is better than Selby. It's not that their more aggressive play paid off, they were able to play that way because they were the best. Actually, Steve Davis has spoken about how he had to play more aggressively in his later years due to the nature of the game changing; he was pretty conservative in his heyday.

Ultimately, snooker or any sport is about playing the right shot at the right time. Ronnie plays the way he does because he believes he can win that way and he has less chance if it's a grind because he puts himself through the blender mentally. Other players might think playing a high risk strategy is not in their interest. You can't force people to change their style to one that doesn't suit them. In tennis, I'm not a fan of Nadal's style of play, but I don't expect him to change it because he's won 8 French Opens in 9 years playing that way. Not everyone likes Selby, but you can't expect him to start taking on difficult pots left-handed and taking 15 seconds per shot because people like Ronnie (including me).

I think your point is true to an extent. If they were just playing that way against Ronnie then that's fair enough, but Robertson was playing like that against Trump and I don't think many people would claim Trump was a better player. When I think back to how Robertson was playing when he won his World Title he was much more positive.

I would also say that while Davis was conservative by todays standards he was actually a fairly aggressive player when compared to his contemporaries (Spencer, Thorburn, Charlton etc). There are always the outliers like Higgins and White, but they were the exceptions.

[wake_up_bomb]

Steve Davis was more aggressive than the Cliff Thornburn's of the world and he was the best player of the 80s. Hendry was more aggressive than the John Parrot's and he was the best player of the 90s. Ronnie is more aggressive than the Mark Selby's and he's the one with five world titles. The lesson is that a good aggressive player will beat a good grinder more often than not.

You see, I would say something completely different. Steve Davis was better than Cliff Thorburn. Hendry was better than Parrott. O' Sullivan is better than Selby. It's not that their more aggressive play paid off, they were able to play that way because they were the best. Actually, Steve Davis has spoken about how he had to play more aggressively in his later years due to the nature of the game changing; he was pretty conservative in his heyday.

Ultimately, snooker or any sport is about playing the right shot at the right time. Ronnie plays the way he does because he believes he can win that way and he has less chance if it's a grind because he puts himself through the blender mentally. Other players might think playing a high risk strategy is not in their interest. You can't force people to change their style to one that doesn't suit them. In tennis, I'm not a fan of Nadal's style of play, but I don't expect him to change it because he's won 8 French Opens in 9 years playing that way. Not everyone likes Selby, but you can't expect him to start taking on difficult pots left-handed and taking 15 seconds per shot because people like Ronnie (including me).

[jrc750]

Yes. I was starting to hear a Terry Griffiths type slip up starting to echo around my brain.

I think he should of played the thin cut
Also a lovely smile at 2:35 after the cue ball gives a nice little brush

[cyberheater]

At 2:42 it's a wonder he could concentrate !!

Yes. I was starting to hear a Terry Griffiths type slip up starting to echo around my brain.

[jrc750]

At 2:42 it's a wonder he could concentrate !!

[RaveDave]

That Kohler guy is good just been watching a few of his vids...

and yeah apparently if you concentrate enough there are trickshots going on after 1:25...

[cox orange pippin]

Totally agree.....fortunate there are still a few players who rely on skill and not on gamesmanship ....too bad world number 1 is not one of them.

Number 1 in name only. He may have the pleasure of meeting the real number 1 in the final.

[funkrider]

The game is more complex than that. In this session you just saw the more defensive player turn his strategy into attack. These things are what make snooker interesting and what bring in new fans. People want rivalries and good quality snooker. The first part is essential to any sport really.

[statto]

There isn't an empty seat when Ronnie is playing, and he commands the highest price for exhibitions. If there were a poll of which player you'd most like to watch we don't even need to guess who'd win it easily.

The people who post here are not indicative of the average snooker viewer.

I can happily watch the Selby/Robertson stuff, but if it was all like that I'd struggle. I happily watch the Ronnie stuff and if it was all like that I'd love it.

Steve Davis was more aggressive than the Cliff Thornburn's of the world and he was the best player of the 80s. Hendry was more aggressive than the John Parrot's and he was the best player of the 90s. Ronnie is more aggressive than the Mark Selby's and he's the one with five world titles. The lesson is that a good aggressive player will beat a good grinder more often than not.

John Higgins is a great defensive player, but he didn't win his titles playing the way Selby and Robertson are in this tournament.

[P.Smith]

Be careful what you wish for cueman, because a snooker WC with shot clocks, shortened formats, limited toilet breaks, and no safety only pots allowed, would be **** for the fans and the people who wouldn't watch snooker anyway wouldn't be enticed in.

I don't think he actually suggested any of that. I have no idea why you've chosen to focus on such an extreme.

[wake_up_bomb]

Talking about kicks...I'm not sure why they're still wondering about this because it was proven with super-slow motion cameras years ago that the balls do all sort of things after contact that the human eye can't perceive and in fact many shots 'kick' without us knowing it. It's just that sometimes we get an outcome that we don't expect or desire. Maybe heat can contribute to this process, but you'll never create perfect conditions because when you hit one ball onto another ball over a short distance, it's going to create turbulence and thus unpredictability. Note that shots over a long distance are far less likely to kick because by the time the cue ball reaches the object ball there is less turbulence. It's a similar principle as to why no-one slices a golf shot when they're hitting over short distances with minimal effort; long drives with the club accelerating through the ball fast create more instability, and are therefore more unpredictable. There is a (fairly) easy to comprehend discussion of this principle here:

http://fractalfoundation.org/resourc...-chaos-theory/

I won't email the BBC and suggest this, though, I'll let them continue with their present theories...