Ssb - open all hours

[beechy1212]

Sport, especially Snooker, is at it's best when pressure takes over. It's not as good when players are coming to the table and smacking 90 breaks all the time. The tension makes it much more interesting. All in my opinion, of course.

[magicman]

While you're entitled to your opinion, I beg to differ. England played awful in the World Cup largely because of pressure. I'd have rather seen them play well.

We watch golf and tennis grand slam tournaments to see the best players in the World play sublime, quality stuff - not to see them struggle for form under absurd tension.

We remember Stephen Hendry playing fantastically to knock in 6 centuries in 8 frames. We remember Paul Hunter doing a similar feat. Who wants to watch that? Who wants to see these fabulously talented cueists manoeuvre the cue-ball around the table with pin-point precision when instead we can see journey-men pro's miss all the time, choose the wrong shot, and play poor safety? We remember John Higgins, Mark Williams, and Ronnie O Sullivan playing unbelievably good snooker. We don't remember Graham Dott grinding his way to winning the World Title in the longest ever final and the latest ever finish, whilst failing to have a break over 70 in 35 frames?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the point your trying to make, in that errors under pressure, and unexpected mistakes can add interest and tension, but when that goes beyond a certain level it just becomes a poor quality match.

If I want to watch players missing regularly, and failing to knock in 50's frame after frame I can get that any week of the snooker season in my local league!

[wildJONESEYE]

RIGHT

The Robbo/Dott World final had the worst standard of snooker in any final I can remember. It was so "exciting" quality players all over the country were texting me how boring it was. Robertson took 5 minutes to decide on one shot and eventually just put Dott back in! They both played poorly, and the battle lacked interest - for me and an awful lot of people I know.

the standard in the final session of the 1985 World Final was far worst than it.

[Odrl]

Hm... I suppose the Robertson-Dott final was one of those where there will never be an agreement about how exciting it was. I never thought it was particularly bad in the first three sessions. It was only in the very late hours of the final session where it became clear that the two players had nothing left to offer. If I counted right, there were 21 half-centuries scored between the players, so not exactly one-visit snooker throughout, but not particularly scrappy either. I think the Higgins affair put everyone in a really negative mood for those two days, so we may remember the snooker as being worse than it actually was.

I suppose we've been a bit unlucky with the World finals in recent years. We've had a couple of finals where one player didn't turn up, and a couple where the snooker could have been better. It's a long tournament, so the players that get to those final days will have been there for more than two weeks, and they will have played their share of exhausting and emotionally draining matches. As a result, they have little to offer in the final, which is not the ideal situation. I like the idea of there being a rest day before the final. That would give the two players a bit of rest and the time to get themselves up for the match, and it would build up the tension perfectly ahead of the biggest match of the year.

But for me, the World final isn't necessarily only about snooker... It's also about the story that is being told. It's the most important occasion in any player's career, the one match everyone dreams about. If you win it, it changes your life forever. And for us fans, the way we see a certain player, and the way we see that particular era in the context of snooker's history, all that is about to fundamentally change.

As stories go, the 2010 World final had a pretty good one. On one side, you had the guy people were describing as the "worst ever World champion", one step away from joining an elite group of two-time winners. He had come through an incredible crisis during which he battled with depression, lost his mentor, and then just as he was coming back he broke his wrist and couldn't play to his potential for months. He almost dropped off the scene. And here he was, playing some of his best snooker, and getting past four very strong opponents to reach the final. On the other side, there was a guy who was on the brink of defeat in his 2nd round match, and I'm sure not many people even considered him to still be a part of the tournament at 5-11 down. But he came through it, and I remember his interview for the BBC ahead of the final. He was almost in tears when he talked about how much his family had sacrificed so that he could have this chance. And then his mother flew over to watch him play the biggest match of his life... So yes, I remember that five minute shot as one of the definitive moments of the final as well, but not in a negative way.

Let me just elaborate on another thing... When I talked about the WC being the tournament that is most likely to bring in new audiences, I of course meant the tournament as a whole, rather than just the World final. I remember when I got hooked on snooker, it wasn't about seeing snooker of the highest quality. It couldn't be, because I had no expectations about how well snooker should be played. Everything was on a way different level to what I could ever do on a snooker table anyway. But whatever it is that gets you interested in snooker, those 17 days are likely to offer it.

If it's sheer brilliance, you had the Williams-O'Sullivan match. Everyone expected great snooker to be played, and it was. Especially in the final session, where O'Sullivan played almost perfect snooker and showed why he is still the bookies' favourite.

If it's drama you like, the WC offered six deciders and a bunch of other close finishes. Is there anything better than watching a legend like Stephen Hendry having to find some magic to get past an unknown debutant, or watching the crowd willing on Steve Davis to get a bit of late night glory?

You like comebacks? Surely Robertson's comeback against Gould is one of the greatest of all-time in three-session matches. If you like shocks, it doesn't get any better than an aging legend like Steve Davis beating the defending champion, or Dott's surprising run to the final. And if you like a grudge match, it doesn't get better than O'Sullivan against Selby, with O'Sullivan showing what he's all about by pulling away, and Selby showing what he is all about by coming back at him. As defining moments go, O'Sullivan's "touching ball incident" is another good one, whatever you thought of it.

The WC really does provide some great stories, and if that doesn't get you hooked, I'm sure a tournament like the World Open won't either.

[Acrowot]

The reason that England played badly in the world cup, was not pressure, just that the media had spent years telling them how good they are and that they are world class and they believed it and deluded themselves The fact is, as I said before the world cup started, they are not that good at all and never were.

They are just so so players most of the time.

fact
:snooker: