World Snooker Championship 2021

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nearly turned Virgo's world upside down... :pac: Baffled would be an understatement :P

As ideas/ways of changing the game go - surely not being allowed play on when snookers are required is way 'out there' - Didn't think Hendry was the type to 'imbibe' :pac: Only Heard Virgo's take on it - missed the bit where Hendry brought it up... I wonder what Parrott and Steve thought about it..

The impression I got was that Parrott and Steve were not impressed. Which is predictable enough.

Parrott avoided Hazel's question by saying: Said he had no idea what changes to make. Plus whatever about changes, we need more snooker new players. Brushing off the point that changing the game might attract a new audience.

Davis also avoided the question. Basically saying (in a nice way) that players should keep their mouths shut and leave the game up to the Snooker Admin higher ups.

As another poster said I think there is merit to Hendry's idea if it was toned down a bit. Even Virgo seemed to change his mind after thinking Hendry's idea was on another planet. But when Selby played on....it was maybe Hendry has a point!? Hendry's point was a needless safety bout can add 20 minutes to a frame.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The impression I got was that Parrott and Steve were not impressed. Which is predictable enough.

Parrott avoided Hazel's question by saying: Said he had no idea what changes to make. Plus whatever about changes, we need more snooker new players. Brushing off the point that changing the game might attract a new audience.

Davis also avoided the question. Basically saying (in a nice way) that players should keep their mouths shut and leave the game up to the Snooker Admin higher ups.

As another poster said I think there is merit to Hendry's idea if it was toned down a bit. Even Virgo seemed to change his mind after thinking Hendry's idea was on another planet. But when Selby played on....it was maybe Hendry has a point!? Hendry's point was a needless safety bout can add 20 minutes to a frame.

Perhaps some sort of limit - eg more than 8 foul/snooker points required, and that's that... But; no snookering allowed at all - I wouldn't like that one myself.. There has to be a middle ground somewhere...

DmanDmythDledge

I don't think it would be possible to put a limit on it, each scenario would be different and subjective. Only way to get that suggestion to work, and it still might not be feasible, would be to allow the referee to make the call on it. I think introducing something with subjectivity could lead to problems though.

DmanDmythDledge

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I don't think it would be possible to put a limit on it, each scenario would be different and subjective. Only way to get that suggestion to work, and it still might not be feasible, would be to allow the referee to make the call on it. I think introducing something with subjectivity could lead to problems though.

Subjectivity with referees usually means taking a hard line eg the 'miss rule'.. It's okay to call foul/miss if the player has plenty of reds (if the red is the 'ball on') to hit, but elects to go for one that's harder - yet more beneficial - for him to hit.

But, regardless of how hard an escape is, or how close a player comes to it >99% of the time a miss is called.

Playing on for an extra 25 minutes when one player needs 20 or more foul points is fair offputting mind. Don't bother me too much/often , cos it's mainly only Selby at that craic..

DmanDmythDledge

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Playing on for an extra 25 minutes when one player needs 20 or more foul points is fair offputting mind. Don't bother me too much/often , cos it's mainly only Selby at that craic..

Completely agree. But I think, cutting it at 2 snookers required for example, would create more issues than it solves

B2021M

Imagine a game called snooker where you are not allowed to play on if you need a......snooker

B2021M

B2021M wrote: »

Imagine a game called snooker where you are not allowed to play on if you need a......snooker

On a more serious note it would be interesting to know what proportion of long frames involve a player needing snookers. Ive seen many a long safety battle in frames where the score is close.

Pogue eile

Deleted User wrote: »

Playing on for an extra 25 minutes when one player needs 20 or more foul points is fair offputting mind. Don't bother me too much/often , cos it's mainly only Selby at that craic..

It's interesting that this subject has only raised its head now, I would think Stephen Hendry would have much preferred if it had been in place before Selby beat him in 2011 and won the clinching frame from 4 snookers needed, seems like Hendry is still pissed!!

Joe_ Public

When this subject arises i always think of poor unfortunate jimmy. Once playing John Spencer, jimmy lost a frame in which his opponent required 6 snookers and went on to lose the match. I think that might be a pro record, maybe ebdon did it once too. Even worse, jimmy led cliff thorburn 7-0 in a ranking final, thorburn needed and got 4 snookers in the next and went on to win 12-10. Indelible part of the game. I saw murphy play on needing 5 snookers at 0-5 in a Bo11 match a couple of seasons ago. Why, I'd no idea but his choice to do it.

B2021M

Joe_ Public wrote: »

When this subject arises i always think of poor unfortunate jimmy. Once playing John Spencer, jimmy lost a frame in which his opponent required 6 snookers and went on to lose the match. I think that might be a pro record, maybe ebdon did it once too. Even worse, jimmy led cliff thorburn 7-0 in a ranking final, thorburn needed and got 4 snookers in the next and went on to win 12-10. Indelible part of the game. I saw murphy play on needing 5 snookers at 0-5 in a Bo11 match a couple of seasons ago. Why, I'd no idea but his choice to do it.

Yes...you dont change rules in a sport to attract new viewers. Fans either like a sport or they dont.

Arthur Daley

Let's not forget Ronnie playing on earlier in the season.

All a bit of a talking point. We'll get back to the actual game once the tension rises back up again tonight.

buzzing147

Joe_ Public wrote: »

When this subject arises i always think of poor unfortunate jimmy. Once playing John Spencer, jimmy lost a frame in which his opponent required 6 snookers and went on to lose the match. I think that might be a pro record, maybe ebdon did it once too. Even worse, jimmy led cliff thorburn 7-0 in a ranking final, thorburn needed and got 4 snookers in the next and went on to win 12-10. Indelible part of the game. I saw murphy play on needing 5 snookers at 0-5 in a Bo11 match a couple of seasons ago. Why, I'd no idea but his choice to do it.

Jim lost a frame in qual match too v hendry needing 2 snookers on pink, changed the whole match:(

Joe_ Public

buzzing147 wrote: »

Jim lost a frame in qual match too v hendry needing 2 snookers on pink, changed the whole match:(

Completely forgot that. Another match i remember from world qualifiers is ken v reanne a few years ago. Late on, reanne leading, she leaves Ken needing a snooker and did a big fist pump. Ken got the snooker, won frame and then the match. That really fired him up and incorporated two of the talking points of recent days: snookers and celebrations, premature or otherwise.

gormdubhgorm

Just on the Selby post match after the Bingham game the last day

https://www.eurosport.co.uk/snooker/world-championship/2020-2021/world-snooker-championship-he-can-t-call-me-out-mark-selby-hits-back-at-stuart-bingham-gripes_sto8301171/story.shtml

It was the end bit that made me laugh. Selby was asked to describe his memories of Shaun Murphy 13/14. He said he was suited and booted even then, with a jacket and spoke like the 'President of the world'

DelBoy Trotter

When it’s the two table set up, do the top half usually play on table one or table two?

Joe_ Public

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

When it’s the two table set up, do the top half usually play on table one or table two?

Always table one.

Addle

Selby wins for best walk on music anyways.

sligeach

How do some people in the audience not turn off their mobiles?

And another one in the 2nd frame this evening.

dobman88

sligeach wrote: »

How do some people not turn off their mobiles in the audience?

And signs up all over the place and an announcement before hand telling people to turn them off. Mind boggling. Any time I've gone to the snooker, I've turned it off before entering the auditorium, just in case I'd forget once inside. Some people just clearly idiots

Mysterypunter

sligeach wrote: »

How do some people in the audience not turn off their mobiles?

Should be ****ed out if they don't. It's gone ridiculous considering they must know.

BQQ

Quality clearance from Selby to start the session

Augme

They should just install mobile jammers in the theatre. Ridiculous to happen again.

BQQ

Good reply from Murphy after a bad safety shot from Selby

Match warming up nicely

Augme

Augme wrote: »

They should just install mobile jammers in the theatre. Ridiculous to happen again.

They had Ladas back in the day - don't think they were inside the theatre, and they weren't very mobile - spinning around a bit on the turntable the height of it

py2006

Why does the commentary sound like they are ringing in from home on and old dial up phone?

Murphy back to the table needing three snookers. It's a disgrace, Joe (Davis)! :pac:

lawrencesummers

I presume this is murphy poking fun at some of the things Shelby does, while also slowing momentum and getting Some table time

BQQ

This is weird
Murphy’s attempts at snookers are bad and Selby’s attempts at pots are worse

Pogue eile

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I presume this is murphy poking fun at some of the things Shelby does, while also slowing momentum and getting Some table time

Or maybe, and I know this might seem a bit far fetched, its simply a player trying to win a frame of snooker!!

Augme

Don't know if that was a good idea from Shaun. He has been hitting well and I don't know if getting bogged down in that kind of thing is good for his flow.

Murphy just confusing himself.

Arthur Daley

Patsy Fagan coming in to challenge Hendry. Fair play. Tough match for Patsy to come back in for.

gormdubhgorm

MeepMeep2021 wrote: »

Murphy just confusing himself.

The balls were not even set nice for snookers. Did not get that Murphy continued on there.

It has certainly not affected his long potting in this next one!

Seems really at ease with himself, and then he reverts to old Murphy and misses an easy enough one. :eek:

lawrencesummers

Pogue eile wrote: »

Or maybe, and I know this might seem a bit far fetched, its simply a player trying to win a frame of snooker!!

Yea, that’s a slim possibility alright

BQQ

Some pretty aggressive shots from Selby in that frame
Took him a few bites of the cherry to get it done though

Murphy missing pots and doesn’t really have a plan B

Andrew00

Shon Mofee

gormdubhgorm

The 'youngster' commentators Lisowski and Trump and trying to 'Jimmy White' the ball around. I was just watching to see it they would tear the cloth!

walshb

What has Murphy living in Dublin?

BorneTobyWilde

6 -6

Have they all been long drawn out frames?

DelBoy Trotter

walshb wrote: »

What has Murphy living in Dublin?

He has Irish roots (think both sets of grandparents were from Ireland), and his wife is also Irish

Interesting pre-final interview w/ Murphy on the BBC... "I don't need to get embroiled in the kind of game Mark plays" and "I can't go down that road w/ him [Selby] or I'll lose." A few wobbles in that plan tonight.

DmanDmythDledge

MeepMeep2021 wrote: »

Interesting pre-final interview w/ Murphy on the BBC... "I don't need to get embroiled in the kind of game Mark plays" and "I can't go down that road w/ him [Selby] or I'll lose." A few wobbles in that plan tonight.

Easier said than done sometimes, gotta play the table

sligeach

I think Selby is trying to put others off their game, like how Ronnie got in his head last year when he should have won. Roles were reversed last night(as opposed to last year's semi-final) and Bingham was criticizing Mark in his post match interview.

gormdubhgorm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

6 -6

Have they all been long drawn out frames?

They have and they haven't not really constantly free flowing. But there has been breaks over 60 in five of the frames in the second session

http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=21

85-49 (85), 0-98 (98), 72-34 (67), 107-0 (86), 34-97 (64)

First session was a bit cagier.

49-57, 46-67, 68-65 (65 SM), 89-7 (89), 0-75 (75),
66-1, 8-71 (64), 54-80 (52 SM)

sligeach

Murphy's break-off remains rotten. Lucky Selby missed the red.

Augme

Poor safety from murphy to leave the red on. Selby looks like he will take the lead.

gormdubhgorm

I get that impression that Ken had said that (about having to be tight tactically) to Murphy in practice!

sligeach

Nice that Murphy had some luck there for a change, but he needs to improve his safety play.

DmanDmythDledge

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

Easier said than done sometimes, gotta play the table

True. But I was thinking more that Murphy was freaking out a bit when he went back to the table looking for a load of snookers.. directly going against his plan beforehand. I think he has been a little bit bamboozed/less certain ever since.

Arthur Daley

Murphy needs to nick one of these 2 frames to not end up in hole tommorow. Hasn't had a lot of luck amoung the reds and just overhitting some crucial positional shots this evening.