2018 World Championship

[DeanH]

I noticed yesterday that the Stephen Maguire V Allan Taylor the first session of the match was refereed by the female referee (Not sure of her name, does anyone know her name), then the evening session was refereed by Colin Humphires, for what reason was the change of referee during the two sessions of the match or was the female referee moved to another match on another table.

Małgorzata Kanieska (Polish)
I have seen this happen in the past, on the old Roll-on-Roll-off PTCs usually down to scheduling clashes, say a match is taking too long and the referee is scheduled to start a new match and they have a regulated time before starting a new match; so they get replaced so they can meet that requirement.
or something like that

Not sure why in a session-scheduled comp like the WSC Quals

[Mr Snooker]

I noticed yesterday that the Stephen Maguire V Allan Taylor the first session of the match was refereed by the female referee (Not sure of her name, does anyone know her name), then the evening session was refereed by Colin Humphires, for what reason was the change of referee during the two sessions of the match or was the female referee moved to another match on another table.

[Odrl]

here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bmbXKjxqA

Enjoy

Thanks. :smile: I was expecting some sort of 40-minute epic that drags on and on, but Spencer actually got all the snookers he needed in about 8 minutes. Pretty pathetic stuff from White in all honesty, didn't play a single decent shot in that entire exchange. The joke escape and the one he played as hard as he could were the worst, but his "normal" escapes were not much better either. If Spencer's intention really was just to unsettle White, he didn't really have to try very hard at all. :wink:

[blahblah01]

here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bmbXKjxqA

Enjoy

And see why White never won as much as he "should" have.....

Who was Higgins playing when he took out some magazines to read?

[Mr Snooker]

Can we get a link to that frame between Spencer and White? Sounds like it would be worth seeing. :smile:

here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bmbXKjxqA

Enjoy

[sealer]

Jimmy has no chance against Joe :-)

[Odrl]

Can we get a link to that frame between Spencer and White? Sounds like it would be worth seeing. :smile:

[Mr Snooker]

anyone know Chandler (playing Oliver Lines)?
just had a nice 99

Harvey Chandler beat Jordan Brown in the 2018 EBSA European Snooker Championship by 7 frames to 2 and will receive a two year main tour card next season, more information about Harvey here https://cuetracker.net/players/harve...tal-statistics

[Mr Snooker]

Be nice to see Alfie Burden qualify 20 years after his first appearance in 1998 against Tony Drago, in which he lost the match 10-8, but made two centuries on his debut. I remember Tony Drago slamming the table with is fist sevral times that year after he beat Alfie, and Alifie was not impressed with it (not sure if anyone as a link to it, if so please share).

Also Jimmy White leads the head to head meetings with Joe Perry by 4 Wins to Perry's 2 and they have met twice this season with one win each, but was over best of 9 and 7 frames. https://cuetracker.net/head-to-head/...ry/jimmy-white

[Dave Walton]

We're not talking about taking an extra few seconds to compose yourself on a big shot or extra thought for a difficult snooker escape for example, it's even worse in darts with players throwing slow to put quicker players off their rythym and it's well documented. It's the same as Selby when behind will come back to the table needing 4-5 snookers not because he thinks there's a reasonable chance of winning the frame but to draw you into a safety exchange and try and break up your rythym and annoy you. It's a tactic that's been used for years and been commented on by commentators down ghe years many times, there was a frame reshown recently between Jimmy White and John Spencer where Spencer at one point needed 6 snookers but carried on and Ted Lowe commented that it was purely gamesmanship to frustrate Jimmy to drag it on and stop him getting on with the next frame, typically Spencer won the frame but as I said the actual intention was to frustrate and put Jimmy off for the next frame.

I watched that frame. Jimmy crumbled like a burnt oxo cube Spencer knew there was a chance of that and it worked for him. It was a great frame to watch and it's all Jimmy's fault that he lost it. As I said before it's just a lack of mental toughness. It used to affect Ronnie but he got some help with it. Everyone knows snooker is almost purely a mental battle at the top level and if slow players stop you from playing well it's your problem.

Snooker as a spectator sport isn't just about watching someone run round the table potting balls. If you want to watch that look for players practicing on youtube. To me snooker becomes interesting as a battle of wits, close frames, clever safety shots, pressure clearances, respotted blacks. Big breaks are great but it's the drama that keeps people tuning in as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that needs to go is the miss rule and having everything put back.

Anyway this is the WC thread so I'm not commenting on this here anymore.

Nobody is saying it should be about fast potting I love a good safety battle, but don't like gamesmanship, the game is supposed to be played in a sporting manner, your talent vs the opponents, trying to put your opponent off their game is not sporting at all imo which is the problem I have with it.
Jimmy back then had no safety game at all and threw it away but the point is Spencer only carried on to frustrate Jimmy and knock him out of his rythym for the next frame, it was a common tactic, one which is creeping back.

[jonny66]

We're not talking about taking an extra few seconds to compose yourself on a big shot or extra thought for a difficult snooker escape for example, it's even worse in darts with players throwing slow to put quicker players off their rythym and it's well documented. It's the same as Selby when behind will come back to the table needing 4-5 snookers not because he thinks there's a reasonable chance of winning the frame but to draw you into a safety exchange and try and break up your rythym and annoy you. It's a tactic that's been used for years and been commented on by commentators down ghe years many times, there was a frame reshown recently between Jimmy White and John Spencer where Spencer at one point needed 6 snookers but carried on and Ted Lowe commented that it was purely gamesmanship to frustrate Jimmy to drag it on and stop him getting on with the next frame, typically Spencer won the frame but as I said the actual intention was to frustrate and put Jimmy off for the next frame.

I watched that frame. Jimmy crumbled like a burnt oxo cube Spencer knew there was a chance of that and it worked for him. It was a great frame to watch and it's all Jimmy's fault that he lost it. As I said before it's just a lack of mental toughness. It used to affect Ronnie but he got some help with it. Everyone knows snooker is almost purely a mental battle at the top level and if slow players stop you from playing well it's your problem.

Snooker as a spectator sport isn't just about watching someone run round the table potting balls. If you want to watch that look for players practicing on youtube. To me snooker becomes interesting as a battle of wits, close frames, clever safety shots, pressure clearances, respotted blacks. Big breaks are great but it's the drama that keeps people tuning in as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that needs to go is the miss rule and having everything put back.

Anyway this is the WC thread so I'm not commenting on this here anymore.

[Dark]

I am sure there are many reasons to slow down play and without the player stating why we are only guessing, and even then they might not tell the truth. I am certain players slow down play at times to try and effect their opponent but I am also sure sometimes players slow down to try and help their own game or because they are lacking confidence in their decisions or they are tired or the pressure of the situation is getting to them or some other reason. To say a player is doing it for any particular reason while we are watching the match is speculation, maybe informed by previous actions and words, but still speculation to some extent.

[Dave Walton]

Quite simply, in any sport the most powerful mind will win. Controlling that power is obviously very key. When to attack and when not to is so important, that choice makes champions. Knowing and trusting the percentages you are making helps a huge deal, having "real" confidence in those decisions based on current form. Feeling the moment, believing you have worked hard, are at your best and belief in your own talent make all the difference in a collection of truly great players.

How many minutes do or should frame and potentially match winning shots/ decisions take? And would a cap make it fairer and more entertainering....

I think live sport thrives on drama from a spectator perspective

We're not talking about taking an extra few seconds to compose yourself on a big shot or extra thought for a difficult snooker escape for example, it's even worse in darts with players throwing slow to put quicker players off their rythym and it's well documented. It's the same as Selby when behind will come back to the table needing 4-5 snookers not because he thinks there's a reasonable chance of winning the frame but to draw you into a safety exchange and try and break up your rythym and annoy you. It's a tactic that's been used for years and been commented on by commentators down ghe years many times, there was a frame reshown recently between Jimmy White and John Spencer where Spencer at one point needed 6 snookers but carried on and Ted Lowe commented that it was purely gamesmanship to frustrate Jimmy to drag it on and stop him getting on with the next frame, typically Spencer won the frame but as I said the actual intention was to frustrate and put Jimmy off for the next frame.

[Cue crafty]

Quite simply, in any sport the most powerful mind will win. Controlling that power is obviously very key. When to attack and when not to is so important, that choice makes champions. Knowing and trusting the percentages you are making helps a huge deal, having "real" confidence in those decisions based on current form. Feeling the moment, believing you have worked hard, are at your best and belief in your own talent make all the difference in a collection of truly great players.

How many minutes do or should frame and potentially match winning shots/ decisions take? And would a cap make it fairer and more entertainering....

I think live sport thrives on drama from a spectator perspective

[Dave Walton]

Do you believe players don’t slow the game down on purpose then PB?

Just like everyone else, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. But I've played snooker and pool regularly for 40+ years, in that time I've played against as many slower opos as anyone else, and I can't ever remember thinking they were deliberately trying to slow the game down in order to frustrate me, all I see is an opponent who's rhythm is naturally slower than mine, or one who's wracked with indecision, which I take as a good sign, maybe even a compliment, not a problem.

But my main point is, we can never KNOW this of an opponent, only assume it, based on our own personal interpretation of their actions, which may well be clouded by all sorts of mental shenanigans, so when people start accusing other people of gamesmanship based upon these assumptions, they must also accept the possibility that they and their assumptions may well be wrong.

TBH, this POV always seems somewhat paranoid to me. I suspect it can also be a very handy excuse/comfort blanket for some having lost to a “lesser” player, but that's just an assumption on my part.

-

Many players have admitted to deliberately slowing down looking to disrupt their opponent so again NO its not assumption and no mind reading necessary.