World Snooker Championship 2021

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

He's like the maincommentator.... I like him though.... He's not annoyed me yet

And Jackpot gets on the board.. A shaky Robbo - could be there for tekkin, eh Ant'nee

Very nasal for me, sounds the same as someone with a cold

B2021M

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Strange to say but jacks safety been the best thing about this match so far, fabulous snooker behind the yellow there. Robertson not quite on it yet, long pots not getting very close.

Does anyone think Jack played the wrong side of the red near the black in the last frame? It was an incredibly risky shot to take on from where he landed.

Joe_ Public

B2021M wrote: »

Does anyone think Jack played the wrong side of the red near the black in the last frame? It was an incredibly risky shot to take on from where he landed.

Didnt occur to me anyway tbh, i mean it would be a miss by quite a distance if he was intending to hit the other side of it. Who knows, but seemed like a pretty great shot to me.

weemcd

Robertson definitely hasn't stated well. He's levels above Lisowski but hasn't shown it yet. This could be an interesting session.

Joe_ Public

Jack already won more frames in this match than in the entire match last time he was in the second round. That was some mess up by robbo on the black.

He's not on form, but Robbo's hungry... 'e were gettin' up out of his seat before the white even dropped from Lisowski's 'Watford' :P

Rothko

Great attempt by Lisowski. Unlucky to knock in the pink.

Strumms

What was lisowski at ? Loosing patience ?

Rothko

Very good break by Lisowski.

Joe_ Public

Jack should really be having a lead this session but not even guaranteed to be level as it stands. Can take encouragement from the fact his safety has been generally very good, possibly as good as I've ever seen from him in fact, but just not capitalising on it. So hard to put it all together when you need it!

fran38

blackcard wrote: »

Very nasal for me, sounds the same as someone with a cold

Reminds me of John Spencer.

Joe_ Public

Robbo hits the front with an 83% pot success so far. Be pretty happy with that.

Edit: happy about the lead i mean, not the potting stat!

Arthur Daley

A question, just occurred to me after all these years:rolleyes:
When they work out the pot success and long pot success, is someone there ticking each shot at every tournament as a pot attempt, a long pot or a safety. And then they have to decide what a fluke is, or with the odd shot where it's not clear what the player intended they decide based on their knowledge if it was a pot attempt or a safety. Is this the scorers who decide this or the other ref you see in the seats in front of the commentary boxes? I suppose it must be, never really considered how they gather these stats before

Joe_ Public

Arthur Daley wrote: »

A question
When they work out the pot success, is someone there ticking each shot at every tournament as a pot attempt or a safety. And then they have to decide what a fluke is, or with the odd shot where it's not clear what the player intended they decide based on their knowledge if it was a pot attempt or a safety. Is this the scorers who decide this or the other ref you see in the seats in front of the commentary boxes? I suppose it must be, never really considered how they gather these stats before

All i know is world snooker has a couple of stats people working for them who compile all this stuff at each tournament. I think the only one thats a bit subjective is the safety stats, you've got to guess a bit on that at times but you're still getting a reasonable picture.

Arthur Daley

Could be a grand job to have, but I'm sure it's tough going at times

Strumms

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Jack should really be having a lead this session but not even guaranteed to be level as it stands. Can take encouragement from the fact his safety has been generally very good, possibly as good as I've ever seen from him in fact, but just not capitalising on it. So hard to put it all together when you need it!

Lisowski will be wondering how he isn’t at least level going to bed tonight...

Looked a little tired, frustrated or distracted the last couple of frames. Some decent safety by Robertson too forcing errors though so credit where it’s due.

Joe_ Public

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Could be a grand job to have, but I'm sure it's tough going at times

Not sure if they have some sort of computer program to help them, like with average shot times which would be a right pain to have to calculate by hand. Dont see an issue with pots but a player could play a great safety shot and the next guy could still make a great pot so how do you record that? A few grey areas probably alright. Ultimately i think they just give you a reasonable indication. Like in golf, if a lad hooks way off right, hits a tree and rebounds to fairway, it'll be recorded as a perfect drive!

Joe_ Public

Strumms wrote: »

Lesowski will be wondering how he isn’t at least level going to bed tonight...

Looked a little tired, frustrated or distracted the last couple of frames. Some decent safety by Robertson too forcing errors though so credit where it’s due.

Agree with that. Some good safety from both but bottom line for jack, he needed to make hay there while robbo was struggling to find his rhythm and didn't. Was looking a bit deflated and hard to blame him.

StupidLikeAFox

Joe_ Public wrote: »

All i know is world snooker has a couple of stats people working for them who compile all this stuff at each tournament. I think the only one thats a bit subjective is the safety stats, you've got to guess a bit on that at times but you're still getting a reasonable picture.

Sorry for hijacking but do you know how they calculate the "XX ahead, XX remaining" figures - for example, surely the number remaining can change depending on whether they go red+yellow or red+black or somewhere in between

Joe_ Public

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Sorry for hijacking but do you know how they calculate the "XX ahead, XX remaining" figures - for example, surely the number remaining can change depending on whether they go red+yellow or red+black or somewhere in between

Not certain tbh but i'm guessing somebody in the bbc graphics department looks after that and amends it as appropriate. I've never got used to the new style one they introduced a few years back, prefer the simple traditional xx ahead/yy remaining as you refer to above.

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Sorry for hijacking but do you know how they calculate the "XX ahead, XX remaining" figures - for example, surely the number remaining can change depending on whether they go red+yellow or red+black or somewhere in between

Ahead is obvious...

What remains; when they say 'what's remaining' they mean the maximum amount possible; which is black to follow each red + 27 for the colours..

Just the way it is.. No matter how awkward the higher value colours are positioned... 2reds left = 43 points remaining , 4 reds left = 59 remaining etc,,

To give folks at home an idea on how many shots needed before the other guy needs snookers, or how many points the player on the table has 'to spare' in order to win/catch up/not needing snookers etc...

Or, if you're looking at a scoreboard on a snooker site; the amount remaining is good to know also :P

Arthur Daley

A computer programme will easily work out what's remaining based on the score being racked up. Start with 147 and take away 8 points for every red added to the score.

ArmaniJeanss

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Sorry for hijacking but do you know how they calculate the "XX ahead, XX remaining" figures - for example, surely the number remaining can change depending on whether they go red+yellow or red+black or somewhere in between

Its really just something you quickly learn off by rote when you play the game (even at a low level). 35, 43, 51, 59, 67 are the max for 1 to 5 reds remaining. Those figures don't change.

Only really gets mathematically challenging when there's a couple of reds stuck at the wrong end of the table and you have to work out whether you can take low value colours or will have to travel back up table for pinks/blacks with some or all of them. Or if the black is tied up and you have to work out if blues/pinks are enough. That's when you sometimes see the concentrated look of confusion/panic on a players face as they stare from scoreboard to table like a demented hamster.

I think historically it used to be harder for the players as some scoreboards didn't update until the break was over, or something quirky like that.

gormdubhgorm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

A question, just occurred to me after all these years:rolleyes:
When they work out the pot success and long pot success, is someone there ticking each shot at every tournament as a pot attempt, a long pot or a safety. And then they have to decide what a fluke is, or with the odd shot where it's not clear what the player intended they decide based on their knowledge if it was a pot attempt or a safety. Is this the scorers who decide this or the other ref you see in the seats in front of the commentary boxes? I suppose it must be, never really considered how they gather these stats before

I think I vaguely remember Virgo/Taylor or one of those lads explaining what constitutes a 'long' pot. But for the life of me I can't remember it, so that is not much use. I wonder is 'Angles McManus' on twitter? He could be the one to ask.

I know Ken is on twitter but it would not strike me as something he would know 'in anyway' Could be worth a try though?

Hendry is on twitter as well and seems fairly active on it. So you might get a reply off him if the question grabs his attention.

StupidLikeAFox

Arthur Daley wrote: »

A computer programme will easily work out what's remaining based on the score being racked up. Start with 147 and take away 8 points for every red added to the score.

Understood, was just curious as 3 remaining reds could score 9 if potted with yellows, 24 if potted with blacks or somewhere in between. I guess the TV just shows the maximum but its up to the player work out what he can get away with

BonnieSituation

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think I vaguely remember Virgo/Taylor or one of those lads explaining what constitutes a 'long' pot. But for the life of me I can't remember it, so that is not much use. I wonder is 'Angles McManus' on twitter? He could be the one to ask.

"Long pot success" is something of a stat that has been bugging me a while, but never remember to ask around tournament time.

What is the cut-off that they're counting as a "long pot" to calculate this stat?

gormdubhgorm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

"Long pot success" is something of a stat that has been bugging me a while, but never remember to ask around tournament time.

What is the cut-off that they're counting as a "long pot" to calculate this stat?

http://www.billiardsforum.com/billiard-terms-definition/long-pot

'In snooker, a long pot is any pot into any of the corner pockets on a snooker table where the cue ball began in the opposite, lengthwise half of the snooker table. To rephrase for simplicity's sake, a long pot is any pot in which the cue ball or object ball crosses an imaginary line joining the middle pockets.'


--

This translated is at least half the length of a snooker table - ie 6 foot.

BonnieSituation

What I always assumed from the visual.

I had just thought there was a more accurate distance measure these days that I didn't know of since it's become a more prominent stat.

Joe_ Public

Was browsing earlier and stumbled across this from neil robertson. Says a long pot is anything over 5 feet, but i think he's probably just mistaking that and should be 6. But interesting he suggests a successful safety shot is anytime the cue ball passes the baulk line. I'd assumed, like others, it was if no ball was subsequently potted by your opponent. Thinking about it, robbo is probably correct. Very inexact science, though.

https://twitter.com/nr147/status/1332034273596026880?s=20

zuutroy

I think for the stats a long pot is when there is at least 6ft between cue ball and object ball, or between object ball and pocket.

Couldn't concentrate on Ronnie's match while in work yesterday afternoon so doing the sensible thing today and taking the morning off.

Joe_ Public

Wilson v Hawkins flying under the radar a bit but could be a very good match, if it's evenhalf as good as their 2019 encounter here, it'll be pretty decent. Both similar types in the sense they are very good, efficient players but with question marks when it comes to the business end of major tournaments. Think I'd just about favour Hawkins, but cant envisage either stealing a march in it.

sligeach

The BBC's obsession with Ronnie is pathetic.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Was browsing earlier and stumbled across this from neil robertson. Says a long pot is anything over 5 feet, but i think he's probably just mistaking that and should be 6. But interesting he suggests a successful safety shot is anytime the cue ball passes the baulk line. I'd assumed, like others, it was if no ball was subsequently potted by your opponent. Thinking about it, robbo is probably correct. Very inexact science, though.

https://twitter.com/nr147/status/1332034273596026880?s=20

Always interested in hearing what the top boys have to say, wasn’t there a company that were employed by world snooker to provide the stats ? Think they were called Elonex or something like that ?

Anyway just settling down to watch this mornings matches, lots of table hopping today I fear !

And Ron starts off with the Williams break :-)


Enjoy the snooker boys

Arthur Daley

Ronnie with the Willo break off but still leaves a red out.

Joe_ Public

Early days still of course but if you're mcgill you might be tentatively thinking, am i getting into his head here?

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Early days still of course but if you're mcgill you might be tentatively thinking, am i getting into his head here?

Absolutely, McGill just needs to mind his own game and forget about who he’s playing.

Although O’Sullivan may give off the signals that he’s not interested and then reel of 4/5 frames on the spin.

sligeach

Surprised Ronnie didn't come back to the table with just the black left. :rolleyes: There's always some theatrics with him. Stupid break-off, yawning, rubbing his eyes, playing on when the frame was long over, my hands are cold. Boo hoo! All in the first frame of the session.

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

Absolutely, McGill just needs to mind his own game and forget about who he’s playing.

Although O’Sullivan may give off the signals that he’s not interested and then reel of 4/5 frames on the spin.

Oh totally. Complaining about the heat too, did that the other day and then launched into overdrive. Can never be 100% certain with him.

A Ramtoozelah!!

Mon Ron!

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

Always interested in hearing what the top boys have to say, wasn’t there a company that were employed by world snooker to provide the stats ? Think they were called Elonex or something like that ?

Anyway just settling down to watch this mornings matches, lots of table hopping today I fear !

And Ron starts off with the Williams break :-)


Enjoy the snooker boys

The crowd that do their stats and data is called Sportradar. I dont know do they do the ones you see on the tv screens though, maybe the broadcasters have their own providers. Not sure on that.

Joe_ Public

McGill driving on while his opponent remains off the boil, just what a good matchplayer player does. Contrast with lisowski last night who could take no advantage of his opponents indifferent start.

sligeach

That was a terrible positional shot by McGill. But great recovery. Very little support for Anthony in the audience.

Glenman

Ronnie's in trouble, 7-4 behind

Rothko

So far, so good from McGill.

testtech05

Ronnie seems well off the boil, fair play to McGill he is making the most of his chances tis morning.
Seems odd that Ronnie didn't bother to get some practice in before the game this am and it has showed so far. He could easily reel off a few frames in no time but at the minute doesn't look interested.

Joe_ Public

How positive he's playing too. Guess when you're bubbling with confidence as he must be right now.

sligeach

8-4 to McGill. 7 in a row on the bounce for Anthony.

Rothko

Sounds like McGill only has one supporter in the audience.

Joe_ Public

As well as he's playing, i doubt I'd be giving McGills cue ball control any more than 7/10 this morning, potting his way around it but cant always do that.

weemcd

sligeach wrote: »

8-4 to McGill. 7 in a row on the bounce for Anthony.

There's not many players in the game of snooker who can say they've reeled off 7 frames in a row v Ronnie.

Quick look at the stats would suggest Ronnie's long potting has gone.