World Snooker Championship 2021

The Golden Miller

When did it get really popular in China? 10 years ago or so? Bit more maybe?

I always got the impression that they said China would dominate, not quite yet though. As in 10 or more years ago it was popular so people were only starting to play. Meaning it would take 10 or more years at least for these kids to come through

Joe_ Public

ultrapercy wrote: »

No but one runners up spot doesn't justify the hype.Chineese dominance is a danger to all sport by weight of numbers but it"s the monster under the bed it only exists in the imagination.

I haven't really heard that much hype myself personally. Yan did win the masters earlier but i wouldn't be betting huge sums on a chinese world title within the next 10 years anyway. Its more a long term trend. All i know is, at current rate of change, china and the far east would be close to making up 50% of the tour within 10 years. It's around 25% now. What kind of quality that would unleash is another matter.

Joe_ Public

The Golden Miller wrote: »

When did it get really popular in China? 10 years ago or so? Bit more maybe?

I always got the impression that they said China would dominate, not quite yet though. As in 10 or more years ago it was popular so people were only starting to play. Meaning it would take 10 or more years at least for these kids to come through

Yeah, thats probably fair. I dont know can you put time scale on it. For one thing, it's a big disadvantage they have to quit home as teenagers and move to the north of england and learn a new language and culture. It helps there's a large enough community of them doing it, but it's still a tough thing to do. Also, i dont think there's a great coaching set up in china yet so a lot of them arrive in england very raw and not ready for the sheer brutality of tour life. In fairness, you could say the same about a lot of the uk kids too. I think it takes time to develop all that.

Brian?

Well it’s over. I feel a large emotional void, can’t even go for a few frames.

Over all it was a brilliant tournament.

The absolute highlight for me was McGill v Bingham. Unbelievable standard. Won by great safety and great break building, not by waiting on mistakes.

Low was Selby winning. I can’t warm to him and probably never will at this stage.

Cool Hand Lucy

Hadn't watched snooker in years but enjoyed that final. Murphy gracious in defeat.

zuutroy

Seeing a lot of people saying it was brilliant but I think that's almost an automatic reaction. First 2 rounds were very dull. Overall the top half had a few decent decent matches but once the semis were sealed there was likely only one winner.

gormdubhgorm

zuutroy wrote: »

Seeing a lot of people saying it was brilliant but I think that's almost an automatic reaction. First 2 rounds were very dull. Overall the top half had a few decent decent matches but once the semis were sealed there was likely only one winner.

From the QF on the tournament sparked. You are right about round 1 and round 2 very one sided and dull. Semi-Finals were great. The final was a nice clash of styles and there was great snooker in it safety, break building, matchplay.

Even though Selby won the Final I think in years to come it will be known as 'Murphy's tournament' the hero in defeat.
A three frame swing the other way and he would have been the winner. He was just not as clinical as Selby.

Holy Diver

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Murphy was always going for that red, never any question about it. If he'd a caddy to talk him out of it, like van de velde in the burn at carnoustie...but this is snooker, not golf. I thought he'd pot it tbh, get those down anywhere near the pocket and they usually drop, but he bumped that off the cushion almost as soon as he hit it so no chance. Selby would definitely have played safe in that situation, have little doubt about that.

Exactly. If his mentally was such that he wasn’t going to take that pot on, he wouldn’t have taken on half the pots he already did and wouldn’t have been in the situation in the first place.

I think overall Shaun will rue his poor positional play when amongst the balls and lack of heavy scoring when it mattered. You can only get yourself out of trouble so many times with outrageous potting.

Overall Shaun left a lot of frames behind him so could have won this. I don’t buy the narrative that Selby was unbeatable. Not this time anyway.

gormdubhgorm

Girly Gal wrote: »

Probably the most disappointing player this year was Robertson, he's touted most years, yet rarely gets past the quarter finals. He doesn't seem to have the stamina or mentality for the longer form matches.

As well as that, Robertson does not even like the size of the crucible because he likes to 'walk into the shot' in his pre-shot routine. The two table set up does not give him that space.

gormdubhgorm

Also as well as Murphy's great fight backs, Selby's percentage and tactical play.

I will always think of this tournament as the one where Kyren Wilson's sleep was 'disturbed'

Infernal Racket

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No notion of that happening not 20% of the player he was.

I know. But wouldn't it be a fairytale all the same

flasher0030

For people complaining about Selbys slow play, I presume they are too young to remember going through Steve Davis's meandering around the table 20 times before deciding on a shot.
And the Welsh guy Terry Griffiths. Jesus, couldn't sit through a full match with him. The man was in slow motion all of the time. And Cliff Thorburn - the grinder was an appropriate nickname for him.

Selby is class. I saw a post couple of days ago on this thread. On about his negative play, and he lacks proper quality. Such rubbish. Some of the shots he pulled off in the final were phenomenal. From what I saw, he has almost the perfect blend of potting, safety and temperament. Doesn't panic, and almost always chooses the right shot.

All sports need a little pushing of the boundaries - aggressive tackles in soccer, GAA, rugby etc. shouting and fistpumps in Tennis to get at the opponent, psychology element in Boxing to out-psyche the opponent. It's very unfair to single out a snooker player as not being allow to act like a human in the sport.

Pogue eile

flasher0030 wrote: »

Selby is class. I saw a post couple of days ago on this thread. On about his negative play, and he lacks proper quality. Such rubbish. Some of the shots he pulled off in the final were phenomenal. From what I saw, he has almost the perfect blend of potting, safety and temperament. Doesn't panic, and almost always chooses the right shot.

Absolutely, the part that really annoys me is that it completely detracts from what a seriously good potter he is - you don't win 4 world titles by simply being 'gritty' and having a good safety game - he is a complete player. The frame he won last night to move I think it was 17-14 ahead was as close to perfection as you will see.

He is also a former World 8-Ball pool Champion as well lets not forget!

ultrapercy

zuutroy wrote: »

Seeing a lot of people saying it was brilliant but I think that's almost an automatic reaction. First 2 rounds were very dull. Overall the top half had a few decent decent matches but once the semis were sealed there was likely only one winner.

agree I think it was the Champiinships with the fewest really tight matches. Last years tournment was much more exciting. No questioning the quality though.

FR01

FR01 wrote: »

Which brings me to the final, can’t see anything but a Selby win, granted Murphy playing superb snooker but he won’t be left the openings Wilson was leaving him.

Expect a good start from Murphy before Selby as Hendry said “does what he does”

Enjoy folks !

If there was any confirmation needed about how great a match player Mark Selby is than it was proven not just over the last two days but over the last seventeen. He is flawless in every department and IMO is one of and near enough possibly the greatest match players of all time.

Murphy to his credit threw everything at him yet couldn’t find a way to get back level the same way Bingham had attempted too. Interesting that all his world title wins where 18-14 or 18-15 which just proves again he’s got the mental stamina to go the distance.

Great tournament, great snooker and above all fantastic see the spectators back in a venue.

A little more snooker this week with the world seniors before Q School before begins at the end of the month.

Have a great summer !

Addle

I don’t follow snooker like most posters here, but I just can’t dislike Mark Selby because of the losses he experienced so young. I think they explain his temperament (and his older wife!).

gormdubhgorm

Pogue eile wrote: »

Absolutely, the part that really annoys me is that it completely detracts from what a seriously good potter he is - you don't win 4 world titles by simply being 'gritty' and having a good safety game - he is a complete player. The frame he won last night to move I think it was 17-14 ahead was as close to perfection as you will see.

He is also a former World 8-Ball pool Champion as well lets not forget!

A lot of the anti-Selby stuff is definitely a narrative created by die-hard O'Sullivan fans. That is my theory on it. And Ronnie does nothing to dampen it. If anything he encourages it. Giving Selby backhanded compliments like the 'torturer' etc.

But there is never much spinning it the other way that it is torture for Ronnie because his mind and concentration is so fragile. He can't stand bouts of safety play if at all possible. Even though he would be well able to play it if he had the correct mindset.

It will be interesting to see what it will be like if Selby and ROS have another showdown in the crucible. ROS ambushed Selby the last time going for everything, smashing up the balls. Selby labelled it as 'disrespectful' and treating the game with disrespect - it definitely rattled Selby and was good tactic by Ronnie to win.

But it will be no surprise to Selby the next time they meet in the crucible.

ultrapercy

Girly Gal wrote: »

After every world championship it's nearly always hard to see how the winner will be beaten next year, but, it's not often retained. When Trump won in 2019, it looked like he was set to dominate, after last year a lot felt O'Sullivan would go on and retain title this year to draw level with Hendry, yet neither were able to retain it. It's the same with Selby this year, hard to see who'll beat him next year, but, it's probably more likely than not that he won't retain the title. While he's game is near perfect for the crucible, he only needs to drop a little bit for it not to work. His greatest asset is his temperament, it's unrivalled in the current game, probably only Davis, Hendry and Higgins in their prime had a comparable temperament.

Probably the most disappointing player this year was Robertson, he's touted most years, yet rarely gets past the quarter finals. He doesn't seem to have the stamina or mentality for the longer form matches.

Robertson is the Irish Rugby team of World Snooker.

volono

I can agree Selby is a fantastic player, has been for many years , always showed great bottle but how anyone can justify him spending 2 minutes over the simplest of safety shots, constantly by the way. Playing on when needing 4/5 snookers. Dragging frames out for an hour.
It's a cynical way of playing the game and by now is his modus operandi when playing......how can I play as negatively as possible so as to disrupt my opponent the most . Finally the other top pros are calling him out on it, hope it makes them all the more determined to beat him next season.

ultrapercy

volono wrote: »

I can agree Selby is a fantastic player, has been for many years , always showed great bottle but how anyone can justify him spending 2 minutes over the simplest of safety shots, constantly by the way. Playing on when needing 4/5 snookers. Dragging frames out for an hour.
It's a cynical way of playing the game and by now is his modus operandi when playing......how can I play as negatively as possible so as to disrupt my opponent the most . Finally the other top pros are calling him out on it, hope it makes them all the more determined to beat him next season.

once he plays within the rules it's up to the other plsyers to find a way to match/beat it. Whinging about it is counter productive it actually reenforces selbys aura. There needs to be a rule chang regarding playing on at Snookers required though. If You're more than 10/12 behind it should be an automatic loss.

Brian?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

A lot of the anti-Selby stuff is definitely a narrative created by die-hard O'Sullivan fans. That is my theory on it. And Ronnie does nothing to dampen it. If anything he encourages it. Giving Selby backhanded compliments like the 'torturer' etc.

But there is never much spinning it the other way that it is torture for Ronnie because his mind and concentration is so fragile. He can't stand bouts of safety play if at all possible. Even though he would be well able to play it if he had the correct mindset.

It will be interesting to see what it will be like if Selby and ROS have another showdown in the crucible. ROS ambushed Selby the last time going for everything, smashing up the balls. Selby labelled it as 'disrespectful' and treating the game with disrespect - it definitely rattled Selby and was good tactic by Ronnie to win.

But it will be no surprise to Selby the next time they meet in the crucible.

I am no Ronnie fan. His attitude is awful.

In the late 90s and early 00s he spent most of his time moaning about how boring snooker is. While he was earning millions at it and I was paying to play 15-20 hours a week down the club. It really boiled my piss.

Selby is a great player. I can say that and still not enjoy his style of play.

flasher0030

volono wrote: »

I can agree Selby is a fantastic player, has been for many years , always showed great bottle but how anyone can justify him spending 2 minutes over the simplest of safety shots, constantly by the way. Playing on when needing 4/5 snookers. Dragging frames out for an hour.
It's a cynical way of playing the game and by now is his modus operandi when playing......how can I play as negatively as possible so as to disrupt my opponent the most . Finally the other top pros are calling him out on it, hope it makes them all the more determined to beat him next season.

That's called sour grapes.

volono

Oh I agree, it just pains me watching it dragged down to that level. If I was a top pro , just for a tournament I'd go full Selby if drawn against him. I'd purposely have my mindset ready to try and make it the longest match in snooker history. 2/3 minutes a shot, every shot. Safety's galore and refuse absolutely everything unless hanging over a pocket. Go ten times worse than him, see how I got on. He knows exactly what he's doing when he's out there, there's no question, it's outside the spirit of the game imo.

Joe_ Public

ultrapercy wrote: »

once he plays within the rules it's up to the other plsyers to find a way to match/beat it. Whinging about it is counter productive it actually reenforces selbys aura. There needs to be a rule chang regarding playing on at Snookers required though. If You're more than 10/12 behind it should be an automatic loss.

You can very feasibly earn 12 points off a single snooker so that's never going to work as a cut off point anyway.

volono

flasher0030 wrote: »

That's called sour grapes.

No it's not imo. It's calling him out on the gamesmanship he uses to drag the other players down

flasher0030

volono wrote: »

Oh I agree, it just pains me watching it dragged down to that level. If I was a top pro , just for a tournament I'd go full Selby if drawn against him. I'd purposely have my mindset ready to try and make it the longest match in snooker history. 2/3 minutes a shot, every shot. Safety's galore and refuse absolutely everything unless hanging over a pocket. Go ten times worse than him, see how I got on. He knows exactly what he's doing when he's out there, there's no question, it's outside the spirit of the game imo.

You're getting too emotional about it with those comments: -
"dragged down to that level", "outside the spirit of the game".
Sounds like you are a fan of quick-fire frames, high breaks etc. I take whatever each game gives. I like the potting, but I love the tactical psychological warfare.
Remember the name of t he game is snooker. So whenever the game was contrived, it seems like it was initially based on some snookering idea. I know nothing about the history, so just presuming. Being cagey is not outside the spirit of the game. If anything, it is the spirit of the game. Makes it much more interesting. There is nothing wrong with trying to put your opponent off their game for a £500,000 prize for the winner. We are all holier than thou until we are put in to the driving seat ourselves.
How can you say "dragged down to that level". What level? 4 times world champion, former world number 1. Can you genuinely say after watching that final that Mark Selbys play has "dragged" snooker down? Maybe others agree with you, but what I saw was a masterclass of someone at the very peak of their sport.

gormdubhgorm

Brian? wrote: »

Selby is a great player. I can say that and still not enjoy his style of play.

I love the two extremes of snooker play potting and tactical play. Selby has both. As a young fella I would have been a big Jimmy White fan the flashy shots etc.

But as I got older I found myself appreciating the tactical nous of John Higgins, Ken, Fergal etc more.

That is snooker as well it is not all about potting. Sure didn't Steve Davis say Snooker was chess with balls?

snailsong

ultrapercy wrote: »

Robertson is the Irish Rugby team of World Snooker.

In fairness, he won something once. Albeit a long time ago. More accurate to say he's the Mayo of world snooker.

FR01

flasher0030 wrote: »

You're getting too emotional about it with those comments:
Remember the name of t he game is snooker. So whenever the game was contrived, it seems like it was initially based on some snookering idea. I know nothing about the history, so just presuming. Being cagey is not outside the spirit of the game.

When the game was invented in India in the late 1800’s by Sir Neville Chamberlain he called it Snooker after a slang name for young soldiers (snookers). I read that somewhere before, open of course to correction to the anoraks on here.

FR01

snailsong wrote: »

In fairness, he won something once. Albeit a long time ago. More accurate to say he's the Mayo of world snooker.

He won the UK and Tour Championships this season. Not a bad haul !

snailsong

FR01 wrote: »

He won the UK and Tour Championships this season. Not a bad haul !

OT but Mayo won Connaught last year and the National league the year before. Its just at the World Championship we struggle!

Joe_ Public

Counter intuitively for a long part of its history actually putting a player deliberately in a snooker was considered a quite ungentlemanly thing to do. There's a story about John Spencer applying a deep screw shot sometime back in the 60s and people looking on in horror who werent sure this belonged in the spirit of the game at all. Fascinating to see the history of the game and how it developed.

volono

I use to be able to play at quite a decent standard, I know all about playing safety's etc. It's not that I don't enjoy the tactical battles, it's just the way Selby gos about it.
Play the god damn shot without staring at the balls for 2 minutes , purposely putting your opponent off, then rolling the white 10 mm into the pack. Win on merit or not at all. Couldn't care if your playing for 10 million or a coffe and a Mars bar tbf.

flasher0030

volono wrote: »

I use to be able to play at quite a decent standard, I know all about playing safety's etc. It's not that I don't enjoy the tactical battles, it's just the way Selby gos about it.
Play the god damn shot without staring at the balls for 2 minutes , purposely putting your opponent off, then rolling the white 10 mm into the pack. Win on merit or not at all. Couldn't care if your playing for 10 million or a coffe and a Mars bar tbf.

Again you're going back to your cliches - "win on merit or not at all". Mark Selby won the title because he was the best player in the championship. his all round game of snooker was better than his competitors for the 17 days or so. Surely, you don't disagree on that. So he won on merit. It doesn't have to be the flashiest player that gets to win.
Were you around to watch Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths, Ray Reardon, Cliff Thorburn etc. Many games were played at a snails pace back then. And most of these are highly regarded in the all time greats of the game. Poor auld Jimmy White tried to spice the game up a little speed-wise, but the seasoned nuggets of the game just wore him down every time.

The Steve Davis and Denis Taylor match finished at 12.30 in the morning.
Maybe you are younger and watched the game when the more modern generation came on board - O'Sullivan etc.

gormdubhgorm

I see O'Sullivan had a go at Selby implying he was trying to gain an advantage in one of the frames in the final..

https://twitter.com/Eurosport_UK/status/1389520738005274627

The balls were not replaced correctly by the ref.

ROS had the neck to say if he was Shaun he would want to see a 'freeze frame'.

Yet Ronnie was the same fella who I remember point blank refused to help the ref, in a recent tournament. Where he said 'it is not up to me mate' and down in his chair smirking.

Genghis

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see O'Sullivan had a go at Selby implying he was trying to gain an advantage in one of the frames in the final..

https://twitter.com/Eurosport_UK/status/1389520738005274627

The balls were not replaced correctly by the ref.

ROS had the neck to say if he was Shaun he would want to see a 'freeze frame'.

Yet Ronnie was the same fella who I remember point blank refused to help the ref, in a recent tournament. Where he said 'it is not up to me mate' and down in his chair smirking.

You make a fair point about O'Sullivan, but O'Sullivans point is correct. (I would also add that I have never seen O'Sullivan show any interest in ever disputing or confirming a ball replacement, he always leaves that to the opponent / ref).

On the point ROS made : there really is no way Selby could claim the ball had been replaced to the original position when he was able to play it with rest and extension. Especially having miscued.

I personally think the onus was not so much on Shaun, but on Mark to tell the referee the balls may not be where they were.

volono

Your going on about clichés but won't address my points of him taking 2/3 minutes a shot, playing on when needing 4/5 snookers etc., Which is done purposefully and with thought to aggravate his opponents, there's no other reason. I appreciate Selby's play, he's a great player so why the need for all the crap.
It's apples and oranges mentioning those players tbf, the playing conditions where completely different to begin with , most of them smoked away during the frames as well , if not drinking and in fairness all things considered they played at a lower standard than nowadays in general.
I still have the Davis and Taylor somewhere on VHS actually haha.
Whites problem was he had ZERO safety game, have you watched the 1984 final recently.....what a shambles by white and he still only lost 18-16? I think.
I don't mind his fantastic tactical brain/shots. I love his bottle when given an opportunity but I put it in the context of him Purposefully using , albeit allowed tactics to throw the opponent's off, which is something I wholeheartedly disagree with.
You see it differently, that's fine.
Hopefully like Jimmy said about Hendry " he's beginning to annoy me" the other top pros are sick of it now and go in against him with a different mindset.
Like I said earlier I would love to see one of them trying to make a game against him the longest in snooker history......I'm talking every frame at least an hour, finish on a sitter, no put it safe again and tie him up. I'd love to see it happening

flasher0030

Genghis wrote: »

You make a fair point about O'Sullivan, but O'Sullivans point is correct. (I would also add that I have never seen O'Sullivan show any interest in ever disputing or confirming a ball replacement, he always leaves that to the opponent / ref).

On the point ROS made : there really is no way Selby could claim the ball had been replaced to the original position when he was able to play it with rest and extension. Especially having miscued.

I personally think the onus was not so much on Shaun, but on Mark to tell the referee the balls may not be where they were.

You have to be joking. Surely, the onus is on the referee and video guys to make sure that the balls are where they should be. Lets not have the tail wagging the dog here. Referee and organisers are there to make sure the rules are implemented. How could there be an onus on the players to get the referee to implement the rules. People are getting blurred with this sportsmanship issue, because of the goody goody image of snooker. That the players should all be upstanding individuals.

In other sports, how many times have you ever seen a participant overrule the ref in an act of honesty. E.g in soccer, we'll be a while waiting for the likes of Neymar to demonstrate to the ref that he actually dived, and there was no contact. Why is there this expectation that snooker players need to be perfect. Some people here even frown upon them snookering their opponents!!!


I like watching Ronnie O'Sullivan - mainly because of the expectation that something controversial may be just around the corner. But I think it's a common view now that we can take what he says with a pinch of salt. He's a moaner who likes the attention of having a bad-boy image. And that's fine. Each to their own.

The Nal

Genghis wrote: »

I personally think the onus was not so much on Shaun, but on Mark to tell the referee the balls may not be where they were.

100%. Its cheating.

flasher0030

volono wrote: »

Your going on about clichés but won't address my points of him taking 2/3 minutes a shot, playing on when needing 4/5 snookers etc., Which is done purposefully and with thought to aggravate his opponents, there's no other reason. I appreciate Selby's play, he's a great player so why the need for all the crap.
It's apples and oranges mentioning those players tbf, the playing conditions where completely different to begin with , most of them smoked away during the frames as well , if not drinking and in fairness all things considered they played at a lower standard than nowadays in general.
I still have the Davis and Taylor somewhere on VHS actually haha.
Whites problem was he had ZERO safety game, have you watched the 1984 final recently.....what a shambles by white and he still only lost 18-16? I think.
I don't mind his fantastic tactical brain/shots. I love his bottle when given an opportunity but I put it in the context of him Purposefully using , albeit allowed tactics to throw the opponent's off, which is something I wholeheartedly disagree with.
You see it differently, that's fine.
Hopefully like Jimmy said about Hendry " he's beginning to annoy me" the other top pros are sick of it now and go in against him with a different mindset.
Like I said earlier I would love to see one of them trying to make a game against him the longest in snooker history......I'm talking every frame at least an hour, finish on a sitter, no put it safe again and tie him up. I'd love to see it happening

It's very easy to address those points. If he wants to take 5 minutes per shot, it's up to him if it's within the rules. If the organisers don't like that, and wish to take into account that some viewers of the sport are aggrevated by that, then they can change that. But until then, it's not an issue. It might be something that you don't like, so you can write to the snooker heirarchy, express your view, and see if they can change the rules. for the record, I'm sure you are aware of this already, but Selbys shot time was the same as Binghams in the semi-final. I don't know what the stats are for the final. Because he got that warning on one shot over 3 minutes, this so-called "time wasting" has been blown into an issue, when there really is nothing to see here.

And same point on the snookers. All within the rules. Until they change this, it's a non-issue. Selby knows he is probably more mentally resilient in general than his opponent. If he knows that a frame is practically out of his grasp, but if he can draw a little more life away from his opponent by getting him into a 10 minute snookering back and forth, why wouldn't he do it. Are you saying that with £500k at stake and the world title, that you wouldn't play to your strengths???? I hope for your own sake that you are a little more ruthless in the real world than in your holier-than-thou preachings.

zuutroy

Colin Murray's last event for Eurosport. That's a pity, he was good. I dislike the way BBC have to hype the life out of everything they show....'extraordinary match, unbelievable standard, best championship ever' etc.

Snake Plisken

zuutroy wrote: »

Colin Murray's last event for Eurosport. That's a pity, he was good. I dislike the way BBC have to hype the life out of everything they show....'extraordinary match, unbelievable standard, best championship ever' etc.

That's a pity is he leaving Eurosport all together? I wonder where he is going to next.

haypennydenver

Snake Plisken wrote: »

That's a pity is he leaving Eurosport all together? I wonder where he is going to next.

Focal ar an sraid TG4

volono

flasher0030 wrote: »

It's very easy to address those points. If he wants to take 5 minutes per shot, it's up to him if it's within the rules. If the organisers don't like that, and wish to take into account that some viewers of the sport are aggrevated by that, then they can change that. But until then, it's not an issue. It might be something that you don't like, so you can write to the snooker heirarchy, express your view, and see if they can change the rules. for the record, I'm sure you are aware of this already, but Selbys shot time was the same as Binghams in the semi-final. I don't know what the stats are for the final. Because he got that warning on one shot over 3 minutes, this so-called "time wasting" has been blown into an issue, when there really is nothing to see here.

And same point on the snookers. All within the rules. Until they change this, it's a non-issue. Selby knows he is probably more mentally resilient in general than his opponent. If he knows that a frame is practically out of his grasp, but if he can draw a little more life away from his opponent by getting him into a 10 minute snookering back and forth, why wouldn't he do it. Are you saying that with £500k at stake and the world title, that you wouldn't play to your strengths???? I hope for your own sake that you are a little more ruthless in the real world than in your holier-than-thou preachings.

Not addressed at all, waffling on about writing to them about it. Although I can definitely see the rule being changed in the not too distant future re: snookers required. At a big big push 3 imo, unless it's the last frame of the match. Waiting for the a.s.t to be brought up, haha. Lies, damn lies and statistics....... You find Selby's play all above board, I don't,I think it's a deliberate ploy to aggravate his opponents. It's not about that one warning, I'm not sure what match you where watching, but I lost count the amount of times he took well over a minute to play the most basic of safety's. I've played countless money matches over the years and although nowhere near pros levels, it's all relative and no I would never resort to his level of tactics and won more than my fair share.
Can only hope you live your life a bit less ruthlessly as you say, karma's a bitch

loyatemu

they're not going to introduce a time limit or a snookers limit. If they didn't do it after the Ebdon-Dott final, they'll never do it.

BQQ

Genghis wrote: »

You make a fair point about O'Sullivan, but O'Sullivans point is correct. (I would also add that I have never seen O'Sullivan show any interest in ever disputing or confirming a ball replacement, he always leaves that to the opponent / ref).

On the point ROS made : there really is no way Selby could claim the ball had been replaced to the original position when he was able to play it with rest and extension. Especially having miscued.

I personally think the onus was not so much on Shaun, but on Mark to tell the referee the balls may not be where they were.

He didn't want to play that shot as he would get too much side on the cueball, so he initially tried to use the spider. After miscuing, he switched to play the shot he didn't want and got the expected result.
The ball only moved a fraction and he still couldn't hit it without putting too much side on it.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.


A bit rich coming from O'Sullivan though.
This one springs to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIplwsgW6pc

Girly Gal

Selby's a great player and is entitled under the rules to play the game the way he does, people depending Selby always mention that it's O'Sullivan and his fans complaining about Selby, but, even after winning last night, Selby still had to have a sly dig at O'Sullivan by mentioning the fact he beat O'Sullivan in the final previously. There really wasn't any need to bring that up.
Selby knows well that the way he plays frustrates players and knocks them out of rhythm and you can see him smiling to himself when he knows he's got his opponent tyed up in knots, but, when the shoe was on the other foot last year he was crying how O'Sullivan had disrespected him and the game, yet he does it himself all the time.
I actually admire Selby, his temperament, tenacity and will to win is second to none and he's a fantastic snooker player as well, but, I don't like the negative tactics he uses purely to annoy his opponent, not, so much the safety play, but, dragging out frames when he's in a hopeless position just to drain his opponent, but, it's all within the rules, he just shouldn't cry about it when someone does it to him like O'Sullivan last year.

volono

Can't disagree with that tbf. In fairness Ronnie did get lucky a couple of times bashing the white last year, but Selby was loving it when he was clearing up those frames until it didn't work out, then moaned and moaned about it
Is it not reasonable to call him out on his tactics or as I see it gamesmanship?.
Least we forget if he had of landing on the yellow in the last frame he would of done the counter clearance and won the game.
Also he, then Ronnie played 2 of the best safety shots ones ever likely to see towards the end of the last frame.
If anyone watched the excellent podcasts Hendry did last year during the first lockdown O'Sullivan was asked his biggest regret, one game he could play again.
He mentioned the Selby world final. He said that he wouldn't get sucked into Selby's negative game again.
In fairness he actually did and was blessed to hang onto Selby's coattails the first couple of sessions.
He went balls out towards the end and it worked, I was only surprised he hadn't done it much earlier in the match.
Those podcasts are well worth a watch if anyone hasn't seen them.

Sandor Clegane

It wasn't long ago Ronnie and Murphy were having spats, Ronnie only backing him now due to him and Selby being frosty at the moment, Ronnie used to be full of praise for Selby at one time.

volono

More of a grudging respect re: Selby I'd say, but your right about Murphy. Must say I was never his biggest fan, going on like a 60 year old talking about the 80's greats and he was 25 at the time, still at it tbf. Like someone else mentioned, we have to take everything Ronnie says with a pinch of salt.
From someone talking about retirement since the mid 90's we've got to be thankful he's still playing. Although not as inspirational, which is a pity, only the top top guys beat him this season really. Can honestly see him doing what Williams said about playing until he eventually falls off tour. Think it's more of a mindset now with the class of '92, if they find "something" in a particular week....they win ala the unplayable Higgins 6/8 weeks ago...must be hard in and of itself to deal with, especially for Ronnie who has the mindset through Steve peters of just enjoying the process of playing etc