If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No disrespect to Fraser Patrick but I'm surprised he's as low as 4/9 with William Hill's to beat Tony Drago tomorrow,I guess they don't really rate the Maltese Falcon!!
Some big names out. Maguire, Selby, Carter, Doherty,
Stevens, Bingham and Ebdon.
Tomorrow may well add several more big names out.
Hopefully some good snooker is shown.
No disrespect to Fraser Patrick but I'm surprised he's as low as 4/9 with William Hill's to beat Tony Drago tomorrow,I guess they don't really rate the Maltese Falcon!!
he has been losing it a bit recently (and for some time) where Fraser is on the UP
with Drago currently 92, and Frazz 75, the higher ranker gets the benefit of the odds maybe (not that I understand bets anyway)
All I do know is that betting firms are not sentimental and "the house always wins"
Some big names out. Maguire, Selby, Carter, Doherty,
Stevens, Bingham and Ebdon.
Tomorrow may well add several more big names out.
Hopefully some good snooker is shown.
The curse of the best of 7. I agree it gives new players the best chance of beating the established names, which is good for the sport, and in a field of this size I don't really see how else it can be done, but I still don't like it. Okay for PTCs I guess, but it is starting to creep into other, more important, tournaments. Slippery slope in the chase for money and exposure from Hearn?
The curse of the best of 7. I agree it gives new players the best chance of beating the established names, which is good for the sport, and in a field of this size I don't really see how else it can be done, but I still don't like it. Okay for PTCs I guess, but it is starting to creep into other, more important, tournaments. Slippery slope in the chase for money and exposure from Hearn?
I see it more the other way around,a frame is quite a long time in snooker,all good players are good enough to swing a frame around if they're not sat in their chair.
I remember watching snooker on tv in the 80's and 90's,trust me watching PTC's or any match over 7 frames is every bit as good and in most cases better than then.
I see it more the other way around,a frame is quite a long time in snooker,all good players are good enough to swing a frame around if they're not sat in their chair.
I remember watching snooker on tv in the 80's and 90's,trust me watching PTC's or any match over 7 frames is every bit as good and in most cases better than then.
I respectfully, yet forcefully have to disagree with that statement. I agree with Ghost121. Imo a best-of-7 (of 9 or 11) will never have the same up&down flowing possibilities of the longer-frame matches. Call me old-school but I just very much prefer the longer-frame matches So much more possibilities with more frames in a match, where as with a best-of-7 you really need to get out of the blocks...pronto!
I see it more the other way around,a frame is quite a long time in snooker,all good players are good enough to swing a frame around if they're not sat in their chair.
I remember watching snooker on tv in the 80's and 90's,trust me watching PTC's or any match over 7 frames is every bit as good and in most cases better than then.
Have to disagree with you as well trains. The longer the match, the less influence lady luck has in determining the outcome, so generally, you end up with a more honest result. But it seems we have to make allowances these days if the sport is to survive, so best of sevens it is. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. Personally, I'd love to go back to the 80s, and not just for the snooker! But we are where we are. Hay ho.
-
The fast and the furious,
The slow and labourious,
All of us, glorious parts of the whole!
I respectfully, yet forcefully have to disagree with that statement. I agree with Ghost121. Imo a best-of-7 (of 9 or 11) will never have the same up&down flowing possibilities of the longer-frame matches. Call me old-school but I just very much prefer the longer-frame matches So much more possibilities with more frames in a match, where as with a best-of-7 you really need to get out of the blocks...pronto!
These new titles - PTC's,European Open's and Best of 7's seem to make people appropriate them with lower ranked players making single visit frame winning breaks a lot from the first red,I don't think it happens all that much,most frames are still cat and mouse. :-)
Have to disagree with you as well trains. The longer the match, the less influence lady luck has in determining the outcome, so generally, you end up with a more honest result. But it seems we have to make allowances these days if the sport is to survive, so best of sevens it is. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. Personally, I'd love to go back to the 80s, and not just for the snooker! But we are where we are. Hay ho.
-
Well I was thinking of Silvino and Peter Francisco and players like Warren King,no disrespect but it wasn't that great.
These new titles - PTC's,European Open's and Best of 7's seem to make people appropriate them with lower ranked players making single visit frame winning breaks a lot from the first red,I don't think it happens all that much,most frames are still cat and mouse. :-)
No, I agree with you there...it's definately not as cut and dried as that. Indeed there is still much of the old cat&mouse game which is good Guess it all boils down to personal preference in the end...
seen Filipiak a few times and I do think he needs to get over to England and play at one of the academies and the other players to get "match" practise as some of his shot-choices and shot-delivery is "club-level" looking.
Lines should have this one, as you say scrappy but entertaining
Comment