The absence of Ronnie

[Looki]

there are many peter ebdon worshipers here who admire his shot-clockless play. well, stage peter ebdon, mark selby and rory mcleod in a 3-man event and see how many tickets are sold.

Strawman-guy strikes again. You've built a bit of an obsession, haven't you...

[SnookerFan]

there are many peter ebdon worshipers here who admire his shot-clockless play. well, stage peter ebdon, mark selby and rory mcleod in a 3-man event and see how many tickets are sold.

That's not the same thing as meaning a Ronnie-less competition won't sell tickets. There was no Ronnie in Skegness the other day, but it didn't seem to have altered ticket sales in any bad way.

[arbitrage]

That's not the same thing as meaning a Ronnie-less competition won't sell tickets. There was no Ronnie in Skegness the other day, but it didn't seem to have altered ticket sales in any bad way.

which proves my point exactly. shot clock rules tournaments like the PLS sell out like hotcakes. go to a PTC and see how many people go and watch. or the brazil masters. or the australian goldfields. umm, like a few people and a dog....

yet, there are "traditionalists" who think snooker is better off w/o any rule changes even in the face of these facts. like a dinosaur looking at a meteor and wondering whether it's his next meal or an expiring man clutching at straws...

[nrage]

which proves my point exactly. shot clock rules tournaments like the PLS sell out like hotcakes. go to a PTC and see how many people go and watch. or the brazil masters. or the australian goldfields. umm, like a few people and a dog....

Can you truly not see how those 2 tournaments are terrible examples to prove the point you're trying to make?

How about the WSC, the world open, the UK champs.. the vast majority of snooker tournaments have no shot clock and suffer no ill effects in terms of attendance or viewership - outside what appears to be happening to snooker in general in the UK, and given the opposite effect is seen in asia you can't draw any such conclusion there.

yet, there are "traditionalists" who think snooker is better off w/o any rule changes even in the face of these facts. like a dinosaur looking at a meteor and wondering whether it's his next meal or an expiring man clutching at straws...

The only one using straw here is you, fashioning little men out of straw and hyperbole.

[Looki]

which proves my point exactly. shot clock rules tournaments like the PLS sell out like hotcakes. go to a PTC and see how many people go and watch. or the brazil masters. or the australian goldfields. umm, like a few people and a dog...

PL and ranking tournaments can't be compared with the shot-clock aspect only. PL is played once a week, two matches per night, every time in a different place and the match format is very short. It is more likely to have a full house than in a ranking tournaments where they play several matches per day from 10am to midnight for 7 days in a same place. You see the difference?

[wildJONESEYE]

try playing prem league without shot clocks the place will still be full.

it has nothing at all to do with shot clock.

the only reason rules was change was because Barry and Sky Wanted to Get 2 matches in one Night. before The League was Played on sat and Sunday over 8 frame matches and recorded.

ive Been to both Formats and the Atmosphere and Attendance was No Different

Shot clock rules does not make the Sport More exciting whoever thinks that is in La La Land.

[SnookerFan]

PL and ranking tournaments can't be compared with the shot-clock aspect only. PL is played once a week, two matches per night, every time in a different place and the match format is very short. It is more likely to have a full house than in a ranking tournaments where they play several matches per day from 10am to midnight for 7 days in a same place. You see the difference?

This is a good point.

Bear in mind ranking event snooker takes at least seven days, and is in the same venue for the whole time. A lot of the matches therefore are played during the day whilst people are at work.

In the Premier League they play at the venue once time per tournament, and sometimes don't return to the same venue next season. I went to see a Premier League event live in Croydon seven years or so ago. I'm still waiting for them to return to the same venue. They tend to hand-pick the biggest / most popular names in the sport. (Though granted the last couple of seasons they've put in tournament winners rather than throwing in the likes of Jimmy White just based on popularity.) They are on in the evenings, meaning more people are available to go.

I'm sure there are some plebs out there who go just because it's a shot clock, but to act like the shot clock itself is the only thing that draws fans is misguided.

I went to the wildcard round at The Masters a few seasons ago. 11am this was on a Monday morning, for a wildcard round match. (Ie. not the most attractive looking match in a tournament which is predominantely top-16 players.) Guess what? There can't have been more than a couple of dozen people there. Fast forward to the final, the place was full. Not an empty seat in the house.

People who say that the "Premier League proves that fans only come for shot clock snooker" are failing to take into account the several other factors.

[arbitrage]

This is a good point.

Bear in mind ranking event snooker takes at least seven days, and is in the same venue for the whole time. A lot of the matches therefore are played during the day whilst people are at work.

In the Premier League they play at the venue once time per tournament, and sometimes don't return to the same venue next season. I went to see a Premier League event live in Croydon seven years or so ago. I'm still waiting for them to return to the same venue. They tend to hand-pick the biggest / most popular names in the sport. (Though granted the last couple of seasons they've put in tournament winners rather than throwing in the likes of Jimmy White just based on popularity.) They are on in the evenings, meaning more people are available to go.

I'm sure there are some plebs out there who go just because it's a shot clock, but to act like the shot clock itself is the only thing that draws fans is misguided.

I went to the wildcard round at The Masters a few seasons ago. 11am this was on a Monday morning, for a wildcard round match. (Ie. not the most attractive looking match in a tournament which is predominantely top-16 players.) Guess what? There can't have been more than a couple of dozen people there. Fast forward to the final, the place was full. Not an empty seat in the house.

People who say that the "Premier League proves that fans only come for shot clock snooker" are failing to take into account the several other factors.

really? so you would pay to watch peter ebdon vs rory mcleod vs mark selby in wsc or uk champs? whether you answer yes or no, haha - get real. most people in this world are not dinosaurs waiting for extinction. they know the difference between exciting and FAIR formats and tournaments and exciting players vs not. why do you think ronnie and judd are the biggest drawcards in snooker? ummm, maybe because they don't (cheat and) take 6 mins for a 12 break?

there are always dinosaurs and thatcherites in this world who will try and impede progress. fortunately for the human race, they usually only succeed in stalling and not stopping progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEG_xbSawuk

p.s. this is only 1 example in a sea of evidence - just for the flat earther members

[Looki]

really? so you would pay to watch peter ebdon vs rory mcleod vs mark selby in wsc or uk champs? whether you answer yes or no, haha - get real. most people in this world are not dinosaurs waiting for extinction. they know the difference between exciting and FAIR formats and tournaments and exciting players vs not. why do you think ronnie and judd are the biggest drawcards in snooker? ummm, maybe because they don't (cheat and) take 6 mins for a 12 break?

there are always dinosaurs and thatcherites in this world who will try and impede progress. fortunately for the human race, they usually only succeed in stalling and not stopping progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEG_xbSawuk

p.s. this is only 1 example in a sea of evidence - just for the flat earther members

I don't know which one is worse: to be a dinosaur or someone who delusionally tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

Let's pretend that slow play is a real problem in snooker. Try to answer HOW the shot-clock would help a ranking tournament be more popular? And please don't compare it to PL because the difference is so way too massive as I mentioned earlier. And please, save me from your pathetic juxtapositionings and focus on the subject.

[SnookerFan]

I watched Mark Williams vs Rory McLeod at The Masters a couple of years back, and Neil Robertson vs Rory McLeod first round in Telford. I watched Peter Ebdon vs Nigel Bond at The Crucible one year. I paid for all of those matches with my own money.

Granted these two are grinders, and I'm not sure I'd rush to see them again. But I'm certainly not against buying tickets for that sort of match.

And what's your point about seeing Mark Selby? I've paid tickets to watch him play on at least a dozen occasions, and will buy tickets to him again. And would do so again. He's not really in the same league of grindness as the others mentions.

Anyway, I don't like the way McLeod and Ebdon are constantly brought into the argument if you say you're not a Ronnie fan. Ebdon, McLeod and Ronnie are not the only three players. Ding plays fast, Judd Trump plays fast. In fact everybody plays faster than Ebdon and McLeod, pretty much. Ronnie fans, if you say you're not a fan of him always start chatting on about; "So you want everybody to play slow?" No, I don't. I just don't like the way Ronnie acts sometimes. Is that a crime?

[nrage]

really? so you would pay to watch peter ebdon vs rory mcleod vs mark selby in wsc or uk champs?

I don't much care for Ebdon or McLeod but Mark Selby is one of my favourite players and has been since I saw him in the WSC final vs John Higgins.

whether you answer yes or no, haha - get real. most people in this world are not dinosaurs waiting for extinction. they know the difference between exciting and FAIR formats and tournaments and exciting players vs not. why do you think ronnie and judd are the biggest drawcards in snooker? ummm, maybe because they don't (cheat and) take 6 mins for a 12 break?

1. Taking 6 mins for a 12 break is not "cheating" by any definition of the current rules - and you have yet to make a valid argument for why it should be.
2. Judd is popular because he is new and unpredictable plus he takes bigger chances than your average player
3. Ronnie is popular because he can be absolutely sublime, and he is also unpredictable and takes more chances than your average player.

On the flip side Selby is unpopular because he can play "negative" snooker, which is essentially taking the safest option of a given set of options. Ebdon and McLeod are similar in this respect.

there are always dinosaurs ...

>Pointless diatribe removed<

Back on topic pls.. do you have any comment/suggestion/evidence that "slow" play is a problem, other than players whining to the media?

[throtts]

I don't much care for Ebdon or McLeod but Mark Selby is one of my favourite players and has been since I saw him in the WSC final vs John Higgins.



1. Taking 6 mins for a 12 break is not "cheating" by any definition of the current rules - and you have yet to make a valid argument for why it should be.
2. Judd is popular because he is new and unpredictable plus he takes bigger chances than your average player
3. Ronnie is popular because he can be absolutely sublime, and he is also unpredictable and takes more chances than your average player.

On the flip side Selby is unpopular because he can play "negative" snooker, which is essentially taking the safest option of a given set of options. Ebdon and McLeod are similar in this respect.



>Pointless diatribe removed<

Back on topic pls.. do you have any comment/suggestion/evidence that "slow" play is a problem, other than players whining to the media?

I agree,

I will watch any player and Ebdon's long 12 mini break was not a problem either. I find all the different playing characteristics fascinating. And as for Ebdon v Ronnie matches, those now will always draw the crowds, it works both ways..

[Odrl]

On the flip side Selby is unpopular because he can play "negative" snooker, which is essentially taking the safest option of a given set of options. Ebdon and McLeod are similar in this respect.

I wouldn't say Ebdon plays negative snooker at all, I think he is one of the more attacking players, especially among players of that "older" generation. In his case, I think it is the slow play that people dislike. The problem is, some people routinely accuse him of cheating and time wasting no matter how he plays, especially since May 2005.

As for Selby, I don't think he even is particularly unpopular. Sure, he has his haters, but he has a lot of supporters as well. While I think some people genuinely don't like the way he plays, others just pretend they dislike him because of his supposed slow or negative play, but I suspect the real reason is his good record against Ronnie O'Sullivan. :wink:

[SnookerFan]

It didn't help that slow play at The Crucible had the Ronnie fanboys on analysis up in arms. JP in the studio acted like Ebdon was a rapist and murderer just because he took a long time to make a 12-break against his favourite player.

[arbitrage]

It didn't help that slow play at The Crucible had the Ronnie fanboys on analysis up in arms. JP in the studio acted like Ebdon was a rapist and murderer just because he took a long time to make a 12-break against his favourite player.

he is both of those, he raped the audience with his time-wasting and murdered the game of snooker. and he is a cheater to boot - in an article written by the times after the match. peter ebdon sued the times re. the article and lost.

you develop rules in sport to promote fair play. wasting time and deliberately making your opponent sit in his chair to slow him down or throw his form / concentration / flow off is not fair play - in fact it is outright cheating. that is why every major sport has time rules of some sort to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen. when they originally developed the rules for snooker, it was for a friendly gentleman's game not for a professional sport. so were the rules for tennis. during the course of the game's evolution into a professional sport, new rules were introduced to ensure fair play. there was no 20-25 seconds to serve rule until the 80s - it was introduced to make sure players wouldn't try to delay play to recuperate etc.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-03-09/9039.php

this is exactly the same for snooker. there is absolutely no reason why there should be no time limits on a shot. if as a professional, you cannot cope with a time limit, then you have inferior skills and you should lose. fcs, even chess is time-based ok.

for the record, i enjoy watching ding, robbo, murphy, maguire, mjw, s.lee etc. - they are not fast players, they are normal players who don't time waste for the purpose of cheating - unlike ebdon, mcleod and selby. this is why the attendance rate for the ebdon vs selby world #1 match at the brazil masters was ~20%. what a joke.

but dinosaurs will be dinosaurs - they don't understand progress nor rejection, they exist only for their own selfish stubbornness. doesn't matter though - snooker will have to change to shot clock formats sooner or later to survive - and that will be the day snooker becomes a prominent sport in the world again. otherwise continue to enjoy the empty seats and patchy media coverage.