king v mcleod

[The Boss]

Royal Box

Probably a bit unfair for King to be pegged in the same category as McLeod who has played not only slowly, but played on when he had no chance and also played negatively. At least King has gone for it and he deservedly leads.

Thanks Mal. It seems King hasn't got the credit he deserves judging by the comments in this thread. He fought back with something like 310 unanswered points and a century along the way, with some difficult shots made to look easy. Thorne was also impressed. King is my favourite player along with O'Sullivan because he offers something different from the rest of the field. In a King match you get: sublime shots, poor misses, running out of position, a high break, tactical frames, the same positive expression after a good or bad shot, banter and battling qualities. You get a mixture of everything and he never looks bored or frustrated whatever the circumstances. The most underrated player ever in the history of the game

[Mal]

Just put a few quid on King to boss it out in the next frame and win 10-5...

[cueman]

A player is fully and rightly entitled to play for as many snookers as he needs, while there remain balls on the table to do so.

If the other player, who is ahead, wishes to finish the frame and get on with the next, then all he needs to do is pot the remaining balls up to the pink. Nothing but his own limitations and the skill of his opponent is preventing him from doing so. Until he has been able to do that, his opponent is entitled to compete and aim to win.

We don’t stop football matches after 70 minutes because one team is 3 or 4 goals ahead.

Yes I am fully aware of the rules but its about the game moving forward with the times. They mentioned on commentary at one point that if someone was introduced to snooker by watching this match the sport would die, or words to that effect. A football game is time limited, therefore it is a pointless argument towards snooker where a frame can take 5 minutes or potentially 5 hours!

My point is when do players playing on for snookers go beyond the point of realistically being able to get them and win a frame? If there was a ruling in place that said once a player needs x amount of snookers the frame is over I think the game would stop all these bore fests like we had in this match. I wonder how many players would actually agree to it if a ruling was brought in. I bet the vast majority would.

[davis_greatest]

If there was a ruling in place that said once a player needs x amount of snookers the frame is over...

The ruling that a player can claim the frame when only the black remains (if >7 ahead) effectively achieves the same thing to restrict the length of a frame, only not so quickly. If you put, say, x=35 in your ruling, you would very rarely (if ever) find a player is able to play on when needing 35 snookers under the current rules (since the pink would have gone).

I think that some of the most exciting conclusions to frames I have seen are when a player needed 3 or even 4 snookers, especially when that player goes on to win the frame.

If the player behind is not allowed to continue, why should the player who is ahead? Presumably no one wants to say that when a player is on a break of, say, 80 or 90, he should have to stop and let the next frame begin...

[crucible77]

lol its less of a snooker match now and more of a question who will die of old age first.

sums it up nicely

[Zoe]

The ruling that a player can claim the frame when only the black remains (if >7 ahead) effectively achieves the same thing to restrict the length of a frame, only not so quickly. If you put, say, x=35 in your ruling, you would very rarely (if ever) find a player is able to play on when needing 35 snookers under the current rules (since the pink would have gone).

Is there any reason why the first foul on the black ends the frame? The only reason for it I can think is to stop someone from refusing to concede and repeatedly playing the black safe in the hope that the opponent fouls.