Ssb - slow news day

[Looki]

slow play isn't a problem? then why are articles like this pasted over the headlines after ebdon's win?:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/t...145234803.html

So they write a story based on a twitter comment and slow play is suddenly a major problem? Give me a break.

[Looki]

this is not about 'mold' at all - it is to ensure a level and fair playing field for the players. most of the players range from between 17 to 24 secs per shot on average - do you consider this a 'mold'?

So most of the players play quite fast. What is the problem then? There's no need to limit the shot time because Ebdon wasn't fast enough in couple of matches.

[arbitrage]

well, ronnie thinks it's a big problem. and so does judd. the two biggest drawcards in (the history of) snooker. as do numerous other players except for the ones using these 'tactics' of course.

numerous incidents over the years since ebdon's notorious slow play in wsc 2005 against ronnie, which incidentally the times and guardian labeled as 'cheating' - and which ebdon sued for libel and lost. ricky walden vs rory mcleod is a recent one. even john higgins talks about how it is 'difficult' to find form when he is up against 'slow torture play' - (post match interviews wsc 2010 and 2011 vs mark selby and rory mcleod).

[arbitrage]

that's like saying well since most tennis players serve w/in 30 secs, there is no need to limit the time in which players serve. then someone comes along and waits 3 hours to serve, while recuperating. rules are there to ensure a level and fair playing field for all players.

[wildJONESEYE]

well, ronnie thinks it's a big problem. and so does judd. the two biggest drawcards in (the history of) snooker. as do numerous other players except for the ones using these 'tactics' of course.

numerous incidents over the years since ebdon's notorious slow play in wsc 2005 against ronnie, which incidentally the times and guardian labeled as 'cheating' - and which ebdon sued for libel and lost. ricky walden vs rory mcleod is a recent one. even john higgins talks about how it is 'difficult' to find form when he is up against 'slow torture play' - (post match interviews wsc 2010 and 2011 vs mark selby and rory mcleod).

Ronnie and Judd wants players to play to their strengths so pardon me for saying i don't give a toss what either said.

[magicman]

I hate slow players like Ebbo, Rory or Dave Harold and even turn over sometimes when they are on. If this is the reaction of a die-hard fan then world snooker might need to think of how to overcome really slow play.

I also hate the shot clock as well. If proper ranking events started using them I'd be horrified.

When there was no or little snooker available then I'd watch the premier league but for me Timeouts, 5,4,3,2,1, and '15 second shot clock in operation' coming out of a tannoy smacks of american pool or something even more naff, and just seems tacky and tasteless to me. Over the years I have seen quite a lot of the PLS because of the lack of other tournaments to see, and I've seen many terrible shots played purely due to the shot-clock which belittles snooker and professional players imo, and doesn't do credit to the great game that it is.

[Looki]

Ronnie and Judd wants players to play to their strengths so pardon me for saying i don't give a toss what either said.

Indeed.

that's like saying well since most tennis players serve w/in 30 secs, there is no need to limit the time in which players serve. then someone comes along and waits 3 hours to serve, while recuperating. rules are there to ensure a level and fair playing field for all players.

There are rules for intentional slow play and its for referee to decide. Could be used in tennis as well. I doubt that any ref would accept 3 hours to serve... But tennis is tennis and snooker is snooker, no need to mix their rules.

[PatBlock]

Snooker is NOT a speed trial, it's snooker, with some very slow players, some very quick players, and a lot of variation in-between. This diverse range is actually one of the game's great strengths, and one of the reasons I (and I suspect a few others) have always found it so fascinating.

If, as a player, you do not have the mental fortitude to cope with this beautiful natural diversity of opponent, then you are not the complete snooker player. IMO, the game should not pander to these cry-babies, just shut up and play FGS!

-

[arbitrage]

there are set time limit rules in tennis already.

30 sec limit to serve. 2 min injury time, but has to be verified by on-court physician.

actually, almost all (major professional) sports have strict time limit rules to ensure a fair playing field. possibly the only exception is golf which has a discretionary time limit rule like snooker.

if the authorities decide that snooker remains a "gentleman's game" w/o a revamp of the rules and introduction of new technologies to help regulate the game then it will won't advance to become a major professional sport. rightly so that many players complain (or desist in joining) a sport in which the playing field is not even and the rules ambiguous.

it's definitely not helpful that the biggest drawcard in the history of the game thinks the above and is outspoken to the point where he wants to start his own tour. of course that is unlikely to happen but take the case of F-1 - the authorities were forced to revamp the rules when many of the teams felt the playing field was uneven - and threatened to break off from the main tour.

[Capelito]

I just can't see the problem. If Ebdon, Lawler, O'Sullivan or any other player thinks that slowing down the game and play safety is the best way to beat their opponent, then they should do it. If the opponent cannot cope with it, then it is proved to be the best tactic for that match.
Some might think it is boring to watch, but others prefer to watch that instead of fast breakbuilding.
If the problem is that matches takes to long time, or it is "unfair" to make opponents sit and watch then it should also be forbidden to continue a break when the frame is won..

[bricktip]

In my opinion, it doesn't have anything to do with speed. A slow player can be interesting, whereas another slow player can be painful to watch. A fast player can also be interesting, and can also be very boring to watch.

It's a matter of personalities, and how they click with the personalities of the viewers.

It's all a question of taste. Some you like, some you don't, and it's not speed related.

[arbitrage]

I just can't see the problem. If Ebdon, Lawler, O'Sullivan or any other player thinks that slowing down the game and play safety is the best way to beat their opponent, then they should do it. If the opponent cannot cope with it, then it is proved to be the best tactic for that match.
Some might think it is boring to watch, but others prefer to watch that instead of fast breakbuilding.
If the problem is that matches takes to long time, or it is "unfair" to make opponents sit and watch then it should also be forbidden to continue a break when the frame is won..

so, you think it's ok for someone to take 30 mins to serve in tennis and that if the opponent can't cope, it's his problem?

[Capelito]

no. but if the rule says 30 s in tennis. then I think it is ok to take 30s every time. And if the opponent cant cope it is his problem

[Odrl]

so, you think it's ok for someone to take 30 mins to serve in tennis and that if the opponent can't cope, it's his problem?

That would be a bit much. :wink: I suppose that would be the equivalent of taking 30min to play a single shot in snooker. I'm sure every referee would use their discretion and indeed warn the player in such a scenario.

I think there is also an important distinction between tennis and snooker. There is no real excuse for tennis players to waste time before serving, because they don't really have a big choice of shots to play. They start from the exact same position ahead of every serve, so it should be pretty routine. Therefore, the only real reason to wait before a serve is to get a few seconds of respite, or to play mind games with their opponent.

On the other hand, no two shots are ever the same in snooker. Or to put it better, no two positions are ever the same. The player almost always has to make a choice. Some positions are pretty routine, others can be very complex, that's why a set time limit isn't really the best solution. I think the current system is a pretty good one in theory, relying on a common sense decision from a referee whether someone is taking an abnormal amount of time over their shots. Whether some players abuse it, or whether some referees apply this rule too leniently, that's a different discussion... :wink:

[arbitrage]

That would be a bit much. :wink: I suppose that would be the equivalent of taking 30min to play a single shot in snooker. I'm sure every referee would use their discretion and indeed warn the player in such a scenario.

I think there is also an important distinction between tennis and snooker. There is no real excuse for tennis players to waste time before serving, because they don't really have a big choice of shots to play. They start from the exact same position ahead of every serve, so it should be pretty routine. Therefore, the only real reason to wait before a serve is to get a few seconds of respite, or to play mind games with their opponent.

On the other hand, no two shots are ever the same in snooker. Or to put it better, no two positions are ever the same. The player almost always has to make a choice. Some positions are pretty routine, others can be very complex, that's why a set time limit isn't really the best solution. I think the current system is a pretty good one in theory, relying on a common sense decision from a referee whether someone is taking an abnormal amount of time over their shots. Whether some players abuse it, or whether some referees apply this rule too leniently, that's a different discussion... :wink:

i thought we've through this line of logic? most normal shots can be thought out and executed w/in 25 secs, there is no excuse for a professional to take any longer than that. and, assuming the major components of speed are knowledge and execution, then the player who can do it better than the other player w/in a prescribed time limit, should be the worthy winner. if there are difficult shots or escapes, then they can call a limited number of time-outs to deal with them.

even chess has strict time limit rules.

almost all major professional sports have strict time limit rules - and snooker should be no exception - from a fair play or commercial perspective. now, the authorities can choose to continue to use the antiquated, ambiguous rules in place now - it just means snooker will remain a quasi-professional 'gentleman's game' and therefore not attract the audience or sponsorship it needs to grow into a major professional sport. look at the ptcs - they are never full - even in the finals between maguire and lisowski - the room was roughly half full. do you ever see big audiences at lawn bowl tournaments? the snooker authorities have by and large wasted 30 years and ran the franchise into the ground - now is the time for change.

this rule is almost never applied by referees and even when they do apply it (which you can count on the fingers of one hand in the history of snooker), there are no penalties attached so where is the deterrent? unfortunately, this sort of incident happens in almost every match involving peter ebdon, mark selby, rory mcleod to name a few of the perpetual offenders.

as a side note, i have played with a 15 sec shot clock and it doesn't affect my play at all - i regularly make 50+ breaks under this time limit w/ no time-out options.