2013 Masters discussion

[Valiullin]

From what we saw tonight, I guess Selby does indeed divide opinions. On one side there are people who enjoy the snooker and show respect for both players, and on the other the people who only watch so they can have a go at Selby. If you plan to do that again tomorrow, at least skip the sarcastic comments about the Selby police. :wink:

You're desperately trying to make yourself sound like some grandmaster of snooker, a typical mr know-it-all who believes he's found the ultimate way to supreme knowledge of snooker. In other terms : "I'm right. You're wrong. Discussion over."

So you see Selby "haters" (because categorizing people in order to destroy their point of view is much easier than trying to understand it) as people who somehow don't like snooker? How stupid. There are as many ways to enjoy snooker as people who watch it. Yours is one among millions. It is not an established rule, only your personal point of view.

So is it down to respect? Did we haters didn't pick this guy thinking "Oh my God, he's pretty, wealthy, successful and his lady's ****able. Let's hate him and whatever he does!"? NOPE. I don't pay attention to his personality. He may even be a very good guy, I don't know. I pay respect to him and any other player for what he has acghieved as a snooker player. There are some players I like a little more, like Ding Junhui, because they look like nice boys apart from their skills at the table. Well honestly, Selby isn't part of them. Yet it's still not my point.

So any wonder why there are so many Selby haters? Do you really think this wave of hatred is perfectly irrational? I doubt it is. They've got eyes those haters, as many as you've got, and they use them as well as you do. The only difference is that, when you see Selby playing, you like what you see and we don't. Why isn't there an equal repartition of haters, like 10% hate Selby, antoher 10% hate Trump, 10% Higgins, 10% hate Ding, 10% hate Lee, aso? As you mentioned it, from the very beginning, there have always been some people who hate Selby. So what? You can't just say "hating selby is for morons" without calling the haters' power of judgement into question.

And that isn't cool. We are really rational people (probably much more rational than your sentimental mush about the almighty Gods of snooker that we should all pay resppect to is), with tons of rational reasons to despise the way Selby plays. Yes, there are a number of people who hate Selby and dare to say it. Are they the problem? Nope. People react to the problem and the problem is the way Selby has played yesterday and is probably gonna play tonight.


If you really like ALL snooker players and ALL the ways of playing snooker, then it's ok for you (take it easy on prozac anyway). Scrappy frames, perfect clearances, they're all part of the game. I doubt you really do.

[ace man]

All other cue games, 9ball, 8ball etc use a shot clock at professional level in all events, the time has to come for snooker for the good of the game IMO.

No they most certainly don't. Unless you consider Barry Hearn's Mosconi Cup a legitimate 9ball tournament, which it is not. I don't know how much time you have spent at 9ball events, I have plenty. Take my word for it, they have many players slower than Ebdon who take well over two minutes per shot on very simple runouts. You don't want to see that, trust me.

So you think a bit of tactics from Selby is hard pill to swallow? Well, if players can't cope with that, then they don't deserve to win. Why should he go for all out attack if he feeks that he would lose the match that way?
I have mixed feelings about shot clock. Good for TV, yes, but it gives too much of an advantage to players like Trump, Allen, O'Sullivan...etc...it is not a level playing field anymore.

[MasterBreak147]

woow that game last night took a toll on me never mind the players they must be drained mentally, but i agree with JP on the mic dott should have been 5-1 and in command when he had ball in hand why on earth he played up for blue when pink was sat on baulk line i will never know bad shoot choice indeed.
selby really has killed a lot of snooker fans but looking at it from a players view if i was in a massive event like this i wouldn't give a toss what people think or say but trying your up most to get over the line whatever it takes to win.
I hate slow play big time i play fast for the very reason but i respect the fact hes a job to do and will do whatever is needed to win ugly win or not just win wouldn't you
todays match i feel a runaway win for robbo just because i don't think he rattles too much and his scoring so far is superior to marks

This kind of play was around allot years ago and now those players are legends the modern game has changed to a attacking approach doesn't mean every player should adapt to it...selby will be one of those legends someday

Peace!! its a game

[Odrl]

absolutely, I'm thinking long term here and not just for players like Selby either. We have just had a poor UK final, again involving a certain Mr Selby, no surprise there, and the last thing the game needs right now is the potential for many more games to be played out this way. As things stand the way Selby plays, unless players are willing to take the risks on that he won't he simply can't be beaten because many players haven't got the patience or desire to play out scrappy frames in order to win.

But Selby gets beaten all the time, and not just by players who play risky snooker, or the supposed few who have the patience to fight it out. Bingham had an early chance in each of the last four frames against him. A clear chance before any balls found themselves on cushions or colours went safe. He wasted all of them. One decent break, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Dott had his chances as well. Selby can't do anything when the other player is at the table, he can't dictate their pace, he can't mess up tables, and he can't make others miss sitters either.

I'm not sure what kind of change you saw after 4-1, other than the match turning around in Selby's favour, which suddenly made the way he played "disgusting" and "negative", rather than just poor.

Don't see how anyone could argue against it, unless of course you like slow boring snooker.

Many have argued against it, the majority in fact, which gives me hope that it will never happen. Look, no one would intentionally support rules which result in something they personally find boring. And it's not really about the length or pace of matches either. It's about the buildup, the tension, the drama. Trying to quicken snooker up goes against its natural, measured pace. For people who like fast-paced entertainment and find snooker boring, shot-clock snooker is just a slightly faster version of the same boring concept. For people who like snooker as it is, it makes a world of difference. Those moments of drama when a player is faced with a crucial shot, those extra few seconds of anticipation, all gone. The chance for a player to think about a complex safety shot and find the best solution, also gone. Not just for the player, but for the viewers who like to "think along" as well. Yes, you can still play safety shots, but it inevitably leads to a dumbed-down version of the game, where most of the tactical fascination is gone.

Think of any of snooker's greatest matches, any memorable clearances, any tense deciders, and imagine they were played under the shot-clock. Imagine a player rushing around the table to play a rest shot. Imagine them deciding within seconds whether to play a tricky pot or go for a safety on one of the biggest shots of their life. Imagine someone coming to the table in a nasty snooker, and just playing the first shot they can quickly think of. Imagine the hushed, tense atmosphere of the snooker arena broken by the beeping sound as the clock runs out, or by a player calling for a timeout.

I'll put it this way... You probably won't get many midnight finishes, but I won't get them either. :wink:

[daffie]

But why shouldn't snooker move ahead and try new things?...

Because I personally have always liked snooker as it was/is. I like the tactical games, the safety battles and "slow" play. Pure attacking play doesn't do it for me. It's not to say I don't like a good break, but snooker is imo at it's most attractive when there is a real battle going on during frames between the players...as much on the table as off (the psychological aspect of the game). Imo the world is in too big a hurry and some things should just stay like they are

Ps Shortened your quote for cosmetic purposes.

[cueman]

Imo there will never be a good time to discuss or implement a shot clock in snooker. The game needs to be as it has always been...that is letting it progress naturally during the frames of a match. It will eb&flow in most matches and most players are absolutely fine with that. There have been too many changes in snooker already the past years. Some for the better (nr of tournaments and more price money for the players), some for the worse imo (shorter frame matches, walk-on music). No there really is no need to change any more atm.

But why shouldn't snooker move ahead and try new things? The trouble is snooker stood still for a long time whilst other sports made good rule changes which promoted more exciting attacking play. Football made a great change with the backpass rule to stop goalkeepers picking up the ball from defenders in order to slow the game down or run the clock down. Cricket made big changes too by playing limited overs matches and generally speeding up the game, again to stop players running down the game, using slow play tactics in order to gain an advantage.

I just think snooker should change too. we have a number 1 player who's main aim is to knock his opponent out of his rythmn, playing out scrappy frames or playing negative shots in order to bore his opponent. The game shouldn't have tactics that play such a large part of the outcome of a result. As things stand Selby plays the rules to his advantage more than anyone else in the game, sometimes the rules need to change to put everyone on a level playing field. Its only a matter of time for me because Hearn will not accept Selby to carry on using the rules to his advantage for much longer.

[daffie]

Suppose its a good time to debate whether a shot clock should be used for all snooker matches now...

Imo there will never be a good time to discuss or implement a shot clock in snooker. The game needs to be as it has always been...that is letting it progress naturally during the frames of a match. It will eb&flow in most matches and most players are absolutely fine with that. There have been too many changes in snooker already the past years. Some for the better (nr of tournaments and more price money for the players), some for the worse imo (shorter frame matches, walk-on music). No there really is no need to change any more atm.

[paddybhoy30]

I hope robertson wins. Plays exciting snooker.

[cueman]

And the time is now? When the game is enjoying its highest-ever popularity across the world, is covered more extensively than it's ever been, and is arguably played faster than at any point in its history?

And all that so we can filter Selby out. :wink:

absolutely, I'm thinking long term here and not just for players like Selby either. We have just had a poor UK final, again involving a certain Mr Selby, no surprise there, and the last thing the game needs right now is the potential for many more games to be played out this way. As things stand the way Selby plays, unless players are willing to take the risks on that he won't he simply can't be beaten because many players haven't got the patience or desire to play out scrappy frames in order to win.
Simply introducing the shot clock will stop players from doing this because they won't be able to drag the game out in order to win. The reason pool introduced this rule was to stop players from playing purely tactical frames and promoting an attacking and potting game, personally I can't see anything wrong with, the premier league has been a massive success since its inception.

You can still play tactially or play safety shots but it will stop deliberate slow play. Don't see how anyone could argue against it, unless of course you like slow boring snooker.

[Stevie]

I really don't like the way Selby plays the game and get no enjoyment from watching him play.

My thoughts exactly, I will be watching though, would love to see a final where Selby just goes for it and tries to hammer Robbo but I know that won't be happening, I really can't see Robbo coping with Selby's table time in the same way that Judd and Ronnie can't, but its about winning I suppose and it's his style. Winning isn't what i want to see though, I can see someone win in my local club, I want to see dazzling snooker, the kind that makes me wanna run down to my club for a few games....

[jono*]

Is it the first time people have left prematurely during masters semi final?? I surely haven't heard of anything before dotts comments today..,

[Odrl]

Suppose its a good time to debate whether a shot clock should be used for all snooker matches now as I feel the game needs to move with the times. Too many matches are going on for far too long, a best of 11 match taking over 5 hours is not good for the game, not good for the audience and certainly not good for TV or attracting new fans or sponsors.

If Selby continues playing in the manner he is and dragging matches down as his only chance of victory then changes need to be made. It was bad enough living through the 80's with certain players playing like this but that in part was down to the standard of the players and the conditions. There really isn't an excuse anymore to see so many scrappy frames played out like last night unless your plan is to knock your opponent off his game and using slow play and deliberately making frames scrappy.
Selby can use excuses like a lack of sleep or feeling flat all he likes, its funny that his lack of sleep didn't make him play like that from the start, it was when Dott led 4-1 that he reverted to this plan.

All other cue games, 9ball, 8ball etc use a shot clock at professional level in all events, the time has to come for snooker for the good of the game IMO.

And the time is now? When the game is enjoying its highest-ever popularity across the world, is covered more extensively than it's ever been, and is arguably played faster than at any point in its history?

And all that so we can filter Selby out. :wink:

[cueman]

Suppose its a good time to debate whether a shot clock should be used for all snooker matches now as I feel the game needs to move with the times. Too many matches are going on for far too long, a best of 11 match taking over 5 hours is not good for the game, not good for the audience and certainly not good for TV or attracting new fans or sponsors.

If Selby continues playing in the manner he is and dragging matches down as his only chance of victory then changes need to be made. It was bad enough living through the 80's with certain players playing like this but that in part was down to the standard of the players and the conditions. There really isn't an excuse anymore to see so many scrappy frames played out like last night unless your plan is to knock your opponent off his game and using slow play and deliberately making frames scrappy.
Selby can use excuses like a lack of sleep or feeling flat all he likes, its funny that his lack of sleep didn't make him play like that from the start, it was when Dott led 4-1 that he reverted to this plan.

All other cue games, 9ball, 8ball etc use a shot clock at professional level in all events, the time has to come for snooker for the good of the game IMO.

[cyberheater]

I'll not be watching the final. I really don't like the way Selby plays the game and get no enjoyment from watching him play.

[streamer45]

@Odrl

exactly my thoughts.
I'll just ignore them for the time being, they usually don't even know what snooker is all about.