Average Shot Time

[Vanwinkle]

OK, I admit to being a non-playing fan of the sport, and a relatively uninformed Yank to boot. My questions involves Average Shot Time. I know conceptually what it is, but WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
What purpose does it serve? I can understand a concept like a baseball hitter's batting average, or a goalie's save percentage, or a team's win percentage...all of these indicate, in some way, a measure of proficiency. But average shot time? A player with a fast time does not inherently better than a player who is slower. So what exactly is the reason for tracking and displaying it?

It almost seems, to me anyway, that WS is trying to put up some statistic just to "look" more like a professional sport. (I am not saying it's not.) But are there no other stats that would make more sense. Average break (for the current match, current tournament, current season, or life-time), frames won percent, ANYTHING?

It just seems to me that SHOT TIME is a relatively meaningless thing to be updating, shot by shot, and flashing on the screen. I fail to understand why it's important, or for that matter, why viewers should care.

Am I missing something? Please, forum gurus, enlighten me!

[Odrl]

The shot times are displayed specifically with the intention of shaming the slower players into playing faster. They serve no other purpose.

[vmax]

To be perfectly honest it's meaningless according to the lay of the balls on the table and the different shots a player is faced with. When he gets a good run of the balls there's less thinking time, when he's out of position or snookered a lot there's more thinking time and both make a difference to the AST.
What it should be good for is to guage whether a player is playing deliberately slowly in order to drag his opponents concentration out of him (gamesmanship), but a statistic is the wrong way to go about that, it should be down to the referee to see that a player is giving more thinking time than is neccessary when there's an obvious shot on, Selby is guilty of that but nothing is ever done about it.

I guess that for those who don't witness the matches the AST stat for both players will give them some idea of what kind of match it was.

[mikee]

Yeah when Selby takes over 6 minutes to play one shot and Ronnie can makes a 147 in just over five minutes then the shot times do matter .As Odri says it’s good to know the fast players times and shame the slow players ,if everyone played as slow as say Lee Walker it wouldn’t be worth watching snooker ,it’s an entertainment tv sport after all ..

[Cue crafty]

I think there is some benefit for the players themselves, Neil Robertson is definitely aware that he plays better when his AST is pacier, and seems to monitor it.

[Nifty50]

Barry Hearn waxed lyrical when AST was being introduced. He explained that pro snooker players were in the entertainment business. The majority of the paying public like to see fast exciting snooker and hence when Ronnie plays the sessions are sold out but when a couple of slow players are playing it’s a struggle to sell tickets. I remember Barry saying that anyone who needed 45 seconds to play a shot should come off the Tour and go back to playing their snooker in their club.
It sounds harsh but you have to recognise that the AST is an AVERAGE so this recognises that some shots will require more time to think through and execute.

[DeanH]

I think there is some benefit for the players themselves, Neil Robertson is definitely aware that he plays better when his AST is pacier, and seems to monitor it.

I think nearly every player knows the pace when they play better, I certainly do and I am no where near "pro" level! (I wish! and don' need an AST to know that :

We often see some ignore this feeling and continue to play slow to the detriment of their game!

Also I have never considered snooker players are being in the "entertainment business" - some players may think so - but first and fore-most they are sports men and women.
I don't say "just popping down the "entertainment business" club luv!"

[Nifty50]

Dean, sport is defined as “something which requires physical exersion and skill. Without doubt snooker requires a huge amount of skill but the physical exersion is debatable. I think that’s why Jason Ferguson has so far failed in his quest to get snooker included in the Olympics.
Speaking as someone who is absolutely knackered after 6 hours of snooker I wouldn’t argue against it being physically demanding lol. Also John Higgins is now saying that being a lot fitter has helped his game.

[Mark187187]

Dean, sport is defined as “something which requires physical exersion and skill. Without doubt snooker requires a huge amount of skill but the physical exersion is debatable. I think that’s why Jason Ferguson has so far failed in his quest to get snooker included in the Olympics.
Speaking as someone who is absolutely knackered after 6 hours of snooker I wouldn’t argue against it being physically demanding lol. Also John Higgins is now saying that being a lot fitter has helped his game.

They have shooting at the Olympics, which requires even less moving. Archery isn't much more physical either.

[Odrl]

I really don't get this obsession with trying to get into the Olympics. It's not as if it's a really exclusive list of sports. A lot of them are fairly obscure, and some are pretty much a joke. The vast majority of top players come from one country, which would presumably have a limit of three players in their team, so it would be something like Selby, Trump, O'Sullivan, Robertson, Zhao, Brecel, Yan, Zhou, Maflin, Saengkham, Ursenbacher, Vafaei, Un-Nooh, Akani, Lichtenberg and Kleckers to make a field of 16 players, just going by the rankings. And they would probably be playing something like best-of-7 matches for the Olympics title, or maybe up to best-of-11 for the final, which would be very far away from showcasing the best snooker has to offer. It would be highly uninteresting and snooker should stay away from it, in my opinion.

[Nifty50]

They have shooting at the Olympics, which requires even less moving. Archery isn't much more physical either.

Yep so no surprise that Jason Ferguson is not happy.

[trains]

I really don't get this obsession with trying to get into the Olympics. It's not as if it's a really exclusive list of sports. A lot of them are fairly obscure, and some are pretty much a joke. The vast majority of top players come from one country, which would presumably have a limit of three players in their team, so it would be something like Selby, Trump, O'Sullivan, Robertson, Zhao, Brecel, Yan, Zhou, Maflin, Saengkham, Ursenbacher, Vafaei, Un-Nooh, Akani, Lichtenberg and Kleckers to make a field of 16 players, just going by the rankings. And they would probably be playing something like best-of-7 matches for the Olympics title, or maybe up to best-of-11 for the final, which would be very far away from showcasing the best snooker has to offer. It would be highly uninteresting and snooker should stay away from it, in my opinion.

i never took the slightest bit of notice of the shot clock since it was introduced and i understand you on the olympics but the only benefit of getting into the olympics is i presume it would increase the chances of snooker getting some kind of lottery funding ( british speaking only ) , the game really is crying out for something like that , i've just googled that national lottery funding has invested 5.7 billion sterling into sport in the uk since the lottery started in 1994 , snooker could really do with some of that as it doesn't look like the wpbsa or wst are interested in future investment of new players at all , they only seem interested in the same product expanding into new markets like turkey.

[DeanH]

I say it is a sport, by any definition and other sports called a sport (archery already given ) what about bowls, etc.

And what about Snooker already having been in the Olympics back in 1960 (Rome), albeit the equivalent Paralympics as then

[Danger Steve]

Yeah when Selby takes over 6 minutes to play one shot and Ronnie can makes a 147 in just over five minutes then the shot times do matter .As Odri says it’s good to know the fast players times and shame the slow players ,if everyone played as slow as say Lee Walker it wouldn’t be worth watching snooker ,it’s an entertainment tv sport after all ..

I seen Lee play ‘live’ down at the club in Pro-Am’s..zzzz

[mikee]

I think he’s down as the slowest player at present ,thank God he’s not higher up the rankings