Shanghai Masters 2011 - Discussion

[arbitrage]

Agreed. In addition, nothing "forced" Mark Williams to choose the shot he then did, he chose it because it was the 'correct' shot to play given the situation, just as Mark's previous shot choice was 'correct' for the reasons you mention.

(the following comments are directed at the group, not Odrl alone)

Just because a frame ends in a re-rack does not mean the players involved actively tried to make that happen. They're all playing what they believe to be the 'correct' shot in each situation, and some frames head toward a re-rack simply because there are no good options to avoid it. Deciding frames are particularly prone to it because many players tend to err on the side of caution, instead of risking a pot or difficult (yet advantageous) safety - as arbitrage has suggested Selby should have done.

Sure, there are players to have fewer re-racks than others, but those same players lose more frames due to shot choices which are arguably 'too' attacking for the situation. But, that's the game they play and when they're playing well the shot comes off more often than not.

That's the beauty of snooker, all styles are equally valid, if not as fun to watch.

how "difficult" is it to play a touching ball to a desired location in baulk?

Sure, there are players to have fewer re-racks than others, but those same players lose more frames due to shot choices which are arguably 'too' attacking for the situation. But, that's the game they play and when they're playing well the shot comes off more often than not.

i seriously doubt you have any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your statement above.

[Looki]

how "difficult" is it to play a touching ball to a desired location in baulk?

If we talk about the re-rack in frame 7 (and not generally) it seems to me that the route for the white to travel to baulk end was quite limited, the white is surrounded by two reds and the pink ball is somewhat limiting his options too. The cueball is travelling straight to left middle pocket and from the angle of the camera it's tough to call but it looks like he didn't have too many choices there. Therefore I understand he didn't want to risk it.

Also MJW accepted the re-rack option quite quickly there, he could've forced a few more shots to see if the situation progresses.

[hotpot]

Can you cite an example of a 'negative' match Selby played? I've never heard an example that wasnt laughable and wont hold my breath,btw what is a 'true snooker fan'?

Selby,s slow negative play borders on the line of bad sportsmanship on times . It,s a tactic he uses well and to his full advantage , that you cant deny . A true snooker fan is someone with snooker in their blood .

[nrage]

how "difficult" is it to play a touching ball to a desired location in baulk?

Very, if there is a ball over a pocket somewhere, and you have to land exactly behind a colour to block it.

Sure, there are players to have fewer re-racks than others, but those same players lose more frames due to shot choices which are arguably 'too' attacking for the situation. But, that's the game they play and when they're playing well the shot comes off more often than not.

i seriously doubt you have any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your statement above.

No, but then it was an 'opinion' not a 'statement' of fact.

[nrage]

Selby,s slow negative play borders on the line of bad sportsmanship on times . It,s a tactic he uses well and to his full advantage , that you cant deny

I don't think you can say for certain that it is a 'tactic' he is using intentionally. I play with a guy on a semi-regular basis who is simply a slow player. He has tried to play faster, but when he does he just misses. In addition, when it's an important shot he gets even slower, taking his time to really consider the shot and then feel comfortable on it.

Is Selby slower than Rory McLeod, how about Peter Ebdon? No, he's faster than both of them. They're just slow players .. they're not using it as a 'tactic', it's just how they play the game.

If a player cannot deal with an opponent playing slowly, that's their problem, not the slow player's. Snooker is about mental discipline and a slow player should have no effect whatsoever on their game, if they do, then they're 'letting' it have that effect and it is due to a lapse in discipline, pure and simple.

[trains]

Selby,s slow negative play borders on the line of bad sportsmanship on times . It,s a tactic he uses well and to his full advantage , that you cant deny . A true snooker fan is someone with snooker in their blood .

What does this have to do with the question I asked? 'Cite an example' means cite an example. If you have 'snooker in your blood' you wouldn't perpetuate something you cant back up about one of the games best players.

[deant1982]

Selby is a methodical player. Fair play for him for not rushing just because his opponent wants to play a bit quicker. When he is in and gets going his isn't a slouch. He takes his time and thinks about all possible outcomes before committing to his shot. You play the game at your own pace, if you do, you'll win more games with your head than your cue!
Regarding his negative play, this is mostly due to the way he learned to play the game. Mark used to play in the Coventry league, and the captain of the team that helped teach Mark was a proper "old school" player, who made him learn at first that you can't outpot everyone, so you learn how to stop them.
He does take this a bit too far at times though, as when he's "in the zone" he is as good as anyone breakbuilding wise, and can run 6 or 7 frames with good breaks no problem. By playing negative, he inadvertantly hinders himself. I don't mind watching him though, I think he is a very good player with a brilliant snooker mind, is consistantly good, and is now starting to embrace the "winning" mentality, which is the only thing he has needed to take the next step.

[nrage]

Selby is a methodical player. Fair play for him for not rushing just because his opponent wants to play a bit quicker. When he is in and gets going his isn't a slouch. He takes his time and thinks about all possible outcomes before committing to his shot. You play the game at your own pace, if you do, you'll win more games with your head than your cue!
Regarding his negative play, this is mostly due to the way he learned to play the game. Mark used to play in the Coventry league, and the captain of the team that helped teach Mark was a proper "old school" player, who made him learn at first that you can't outpot everyone, so you learn how to stop them.
He does take this a bit too far at times though, as when he's "in the zone" he is as good as anyone breakbuilding wise, and can run 6 or 7 frames with good breaks no problem. By playing negative, he inadvertantly hinders himself. I don't mind watching him though, I think he is a very good player with a brilliant snooker mind, is consistantly good, and is now starting to embrace the "winning" mentality, which is the only thing he has needed to take the next step.

Good post, this is exactly how I see Selby as a player. IIRC, last time the BBC showed a load of statistics on 100+ breaks in the season Sebly was well above the 'average' if not right at the top of the list.

[trains]

Regarding his negative play, this is mostly due to the way he learned to play the game. Mark used to play in the Coventry league, and the captain of the team that helped teach Mark was a proper "old school" player, who made him learn at first that you can't outpot everyone, so you learn how to stop them.
He does take this a bit too far at times though, as when he's "in the zone" he is as good as anyone breakbuilding wise, and can run 6 or 7 frames with good breaks no problem. By playing negative, he inadvertantly hinders himself. I don't mind watching him though, I think he is a very good player with a brilliant snooker mind, is consistantly good, and is now starting to embrace the "winning" mentality, which is the only thing he has needed to take the next step.

Trust me Selby's no more 'negative' than Williams or Higgins or virtually everyone else outside Ronnie,its the 'fall out' from giving Ronnie and consequently tv viewing figures trouble over the last few years thats where this has stemmed from,in both Junhui and Dotts cases it was after Selby knocked O'Sullivan out.

[deant1982]

Good post, this is exactly how I see Selby as a player. IIRC, last time the BBC showed a load of statistics on 100+ breaks in the season Sebly was well above the 'average' if not right at the top of the list.

Well..... Its what I do! lol.

No, not really, thanks.

I just think he gets an undeserved bad rep. He plays the same all the time, Cov league game or World final.

[wildJONESEYE]

Well..... Its what I do! lol.

No, not really, thanks.

I just think he gets an undeserved bad rep. He plays the same all the time, Cov league game or World final.

He plays no different to John Higgins but every shot is being Analised x10 after the Press Ronnie gave to his Style of game.

[deant1982]

He plays no different to John Higgins but every shot is being Analised x10 after the Press Ronnie gave to his Style of game.

Not quite. Higgins game plan when playing well to leave a difficult tempter with the intention of clearing the table in one chance whe the opponent breaks down. Selby's is all out shut-out, leaving nothing is generous. Its not as easy as people think, and it attracts a lot of negative reaction and comments because the skill of it not understood.
A lot of armchair fans don't like it as it is "boring" and "not what snooker is about", when in actual fact it is snooker in its purest form. Leave your opponent nothing to go at, and force an error for yourself. They dislike it simply because they have never learned how to do it, and think snooker is simply about potting balls. The fact of how useful this weapon is in a players arsenal, and how at times it is unavoidable to have to do it, even for prolonged periods to remain competitive in a match is wasted on such "snooker fans".
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with doing it for the devilment of it *cough cough Rory Macleod cough cough*, but at times it is able to force a much better opening than an "aggressive safety" if played well.

[hotpot]

What does this have to do with the question I asked? 'Cite an example' means cite an example. If you have 'snooker in your blood' you wouldn't perpetuate something you cant back up about one of the games best players.

Well even if i gave you examples it would just be an opinion , my opinion and others like yourself will argue different . He is an excellent allround player but makes a federal case out of everything , and in my opinion its a tactic he uses and has used as he knows it frustrates players like Ronnie .

[deant1982]

Well even if i gave you examples it would just be an opinion , my opinion and others like yourself will argue different . He is an excellent allround player but makes a federal case out of everything , and in my opinion its a tactic he uses and has used as he knows it frustrates players like Ronnie .

Haha. All I keep hearing in my head is "opinions are like @rseholes, everyone has one, and most are full of crap!"
To be fair though, Selby does tend (I feel) to over analyse things some of the time. He gets a little over-cautious, and this invariably slows the game down. I don't blame him for not rushing though, he's worked far to hard to get where he is to go and mess it up by playing quickly, just because some cry baby moans that you "put him out of his tempo". Does Selby slow down in a tight game? Hell yeah he does. Is it deliberate to put his opponent off or upset them? No. It is simply he studies the shot to make sure he is playing it the correct/best way it can be paid to leave as little as possible. Does Selby slow the game down excessively? No. There are far slower players than him out there (Ebdon for one, who ROS also moaned about, albeit correctly), and also other players that are over cautious in their approach to a game, such as Dott and Macleod.
Ronnie needs to remember the game is called snooker, not pot ball. He just wants to get in, make a century, and repeat so he is world champion year after year, as a fast and attacking game suits him better than anyone else! He doesn't have the intelligence or attention span to compete against good safety players in long course matches unless it is the final where he'll win big money. Then he can focus himself as he counts the pound signs.

[trains]

Not quite. Higgins game plan when playing well to leave a difficult tempter with the intention of clearing the table in one chance whe the opponent breaks down. Selby's is all out shut-out, leaving nothing is generous.

If Selbys safety was 'all shut-out' compared to Higgins Selby would be viewed as the best safety player,Higgins probably has that mantle all time arguably a shade above S Davis.
If 'all out shut out game plans' is the topic and not safety in general I'd currently give that mantle to Graeme Dott but not in a disparaging way.