[Hebridean]

H_B, on Dec 17 2008, 11:43, said:

What's the rule that allowed the ref to warn about this?

I thought you could concede a frame at any time you liked?

The Phoenix, on Dec 17 2008, 11:47, said:

It is a rule of the sports governing body not a rule of snooker.

It's to ensure that members of the association provide "value for money" - imagine the scenario of a World Championship Final where there is a sell out crowd and O'Sullivan proceeds to concede frames because he "can't be bothered".

The Phoenix, on Dec 17 2008, 11:59, said:

Sorry - I realise I didn't actually answer your original question properly - the criteria for the referee to "award" a one frame penalty are that, having been warned about conceding a frame which in the referee's opinion could still have been won, if the offending player repeats this act, he can have the penalty applied.

The referee's "opinion" is not purely judged on arithmetic (i.e. less points on the table than the player is behind) - he/she can still technically award the penalty under what you so appropriately call "not trying" if snooker(s) are required.

Disputing that Phoenix. The rules of snooker cover this under the player's conduct section and it IS based on arithmetic. You can only concede a frame if you need snookers to win. Refusal to continue a frame you don't need snookers in falls under "ungentlemanly conduct" and means that if you do it again your opponent will be awarded the match.

[Savage Henry]

Hebridean, on Dec 17 2008, 18:44, said:

Disputing that Phoenix. The rules of snooker cover this under the player's conduct section and it IS based on arithmetic. You can only concede a frame if you need snookers to win. Refusal to continue a frame you don't need snookers in falls under "ungentlemanly conduct" and means that if you do it again your opponent will be awarded the match.

So why was Ronnie O'Sullivan allowed to concede the frame when only 23-0 down?

[Hebridean]

Jim Pansy, on Dec 17 2008, 18:49, said:

So why was Ronnie O'Sullivan allowed to concede the frame when only 23-0 down?

Ok, you can only legally concede a frame if you need snookers. If you concede when you don't need snookers, you've broken the rules.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 17 2008, 16:36, said:

And where are the new players coming through? Davis and then Hendry were dominant superstars of the sport but 20 years on (and I accept it isn't a physical sport but still) they are both still there or thereabouts.Nobody has really taken the mantle on. O'Sullivan is the best of those to have followed but he's a fruitloop. Others like Mark Williams, Ken Doherty, John Higgins, Shaun Murphy etc have flattered to deceive but they've never really grabbed the sport.

The standard of snooker is far higher now than what it was when Hendry, and particularly Davis, were at their peak. Both these players dominated due to fairly weak competition.

You now have a situation where any of the top 16 can win a ranking tournament, or even the World Championships. In fact, I'd argue that any of the current top 16 would have been a strong challenger to Davis in the 80's, if not better. O'Sullivan should win every tournament he enters, as he's head and shoulders above anyone else playing, or in fact anyone else who's ever played, but his temperament isn't what it should be.

It's far more difficult to be as dominant as Davis and Hendry nowadays. That's why the current crop aren't seen to be doing so. During the 80's players like Tony Knowles and Neal Foulds got as high as Number 2 in the world. If they were at their peak today, they'd be lucky to reach the top 32.

As for your main point about where snooker is going, it's not an 'exciting' sport in the same way Darts is. Darts is quicker, and can accommodate the pazzazz which goes with it, therefore the game's characters can flourish more, which is more appealing to advertisers. No matter what way you jazz it up, snooker is a far more sedate sport, and in the ultra fast society we live in now, it's difficult for it to keep up.

[Savage Henry]

StewartyMac, on Dec 17 2008, 19:53, said:

The standard of snooker is far higher now than what it was when Hendry, and particularly Davis, were at their peak. Both these players dominated due to fairly weak competition.

That's a very moot point.

I would suggest the overall standard was much higher ten or fifteen years ago. Hendry or Davis at their peak would be unbeatable right now.

[craigkillie]

Jim Pansy, on Dec 17 2008, 21:52, said:

That's a very moot point.

I would suggest the overall standard was much higher ten or fifteen years ago. Hendry or Davis at their peak would be unbeatable right now.

It's very difficult to compare the two eras objectively.

Even things like the average break scores - which I think will be higher in the modern game - can be affected by the improvements in tables, balls and players' equipment.

I've only been watching snooker for about 10 years, so I don't know what the standard was like in the 1980s, but I think the players nowadays are very skilled, particularly in safety play.

[StewartyMac]

Jim Pansy, on Dec 17 2008, 21:52, said:

I would suggest the overall standard was much higher ten or fifteen years ago.

Rubbish.

In fact, look at the top 16 from fifteen years ago, 1993

1 - Stephen Hendry
2 - John Parrott
3 - Jimmy White
4 - Steve Davis
5 - James Wattana
6 - Alan McManus
7 - Willie Thorne
8 - Terry Griffiths
9 - Nigel Bond
10 - Darren Morgan
11 - Ken Doherty
12 - Martin Clark
13 - Steve James
14 - Neal Foulds
15 - Dennis Taylor
16 - David Roe

How many of these players at their peak would survive against the current top 16? Not many.

As if to further illustrate the point, if you look at the top 20 list of players who have over 100 century breaks, fifteen are current top 32 players. It's taken Shaun Murphy nine years to reach almost as many century breaks as Willie Thorne (the best 'breakbuilder' of the time) did in nineteen years. And this is despite far less ranking tournaments now than what there was years ago.

The standard is definitely far higher now than what it was.

I also don't agree about Davis dominating now at his peak. He was a great player in the 80's, there's no denying that, but he had very little in the way of any real competition. Bear in mind he lost in a world final to Joe Johnson. It's unthinkable a player of Johnson's calibre would get anywhere near a world final now, far less beat a player who was supposed to be 'dominant'. If Davis was at his peak now, he'd be a solid top 4 player, a bit like John Higgins, both of whom's games are very similar.

This post has been edited by StewartyMac: 17 December 2008 - 23:40

[RedWeb]

StewartyMac, on Dec 17 2008, 23:39, said:

Rubbish.

Tell you what isn't rubbish...the fact that there were more characters in the 80's & 90's. Nowadays I'd reckin your average sports watcher would struggle to tell Mark Selby apart from Fergal O'Brien. Every player seems to be young, fresh faced, wears a black shirt and can make centruries for fun. Me, I preferred the likes of Big Bill, Kirk Stevens, Dennis Taylor, Cliff Thorburn, Alex Higgins, Willie Thorne, Joe Johnson and John Virgo. Let them get pissed again while playing. The only "character" we seem to have these days is a petulant nutter who throws the toys out of the pram when the mood takes him. Feeble.

[Skyline Drifter]

StewartyMac, on Dec 17 2008, 23:39, said:

In fact, look at the top 16 from fifteen years ago, 1993

1 - Stephen Hendry
2 - John Parrott
3 - Jimmy White
4 - Steve Davis
5 - James Wattana
6 - Alan McManus
7 - Willie Thorne
8 - Terry Griffiths
9 - Nigel Bond
10 - Darren Morgan
11 - Ken Doherty
12 - Martin Clark
13 - Steve James
14 - Neal Foulds
15 - Dennis Taylor
16 - David Roe

How many of these players at their peak would survive against the current top 16? Not many.

Mmm, not sure about that. I accept you are presumably correct (I haven't looked) about players now buildings bigger breaks etc which is a fairly good indicator although that could be partly attributable to wider pockets (not saying it is, just saying it could be?) or differing styles. I do think the success of Hendry in taking over from the much more cautious Davis encouraged an entire generation of players coming through that attack was the best form of defence. As a result there are more centuries than ever before but probably also more frames lost at a single visit or from single mistakes. I bet the average frame time (possibly excluding games involving Davis!) has dropped from what it was 15 years ago too for that very reason.

I don't see what's so very different between "a player of Joe Johnson's calibre" and say Graeme Dott who enjoyed a couple of stellar runs to finish once runner up and once champion. Or Shaun Murphy for that matter though he might be a wee bit better than that.

What is fairly clear to me is that neither Steve Davis nor Stephen Hendry are playing now anywhere near as good as they once did. Would you accept that's fair? If so, and given that Hendry is STILL No 6 in the world at this moment (and was No 1 last year) and Davis is just outside the top 16, doesn't that illustrate very nicely that the overall standard actually isn't that much better if indeed it's any better at all?


As for the original main point, I think you are right. Snooker does suffer from not being a quick impact sport. But I don't think that fully explains why it has gone from being about the No1 televised sport domestically when we only had four channels (live football being a rarity back then) to even less coverage now than it did then despite the hours and hours of televised sport that are now shown. Where did the people go that watched it before? I still think snooker as a sport has marketed itself very poorly over the last decade or so. It had an audience before, it ought to still have one now, so advertisers, provided they are involved in the right demograph, ought to still be interested.

[The Phoenix]

The empty seats for the later stages of tournaments tells you all you need to know about which direction snooker is going in.















PS Hebridean was right. - that'll teach me to listen to an "expert" I heard on the radio, relating what had and what could have happened.

[StewartyMac]

RedWeb, on Dec 18 2008, 13:34, said:

Tell you what isn't rubbish...the fact that there were more characters in the 80's & 90's. Nowadays I'd reckin your average sports watcher would struggle to tell Mark Selby apart from Fergal O'Brien. Every player seems to be young, fresh faced, wears a black shirt and can make centruries for fun. Me, I preferred the likes of Big Bill, Kirk Stevens, Dennis Taylor, Cliff Thorburn, Alex Higgins, Willie Thorne, Joe Johnson and John Virgo.

Ah, the old rose tinted spectacles about 'characters'. You'd struggle badly to watch a match between Cliff Thorburn and Willie Thorne without falling asleep for example. Even Davis when he was at his peak was dull as ditchwater. The legend of these players has far outshone any sort of watchability, save for maybe Alex Higgins or Jimmy White. Aye, it's good watching Thorburn's 147 from 1980, but that was one frame of an unbelievably voring encounter that seemed to go on forever.

People also wax lyrical about the 1985 final being the best final ever. The majority of that match was pretty yawn inducing, and it's really only entered folklore due to the dramatic finish and the late time it went on to.

I've been a big snooker fan for about 30 years, and the standard now far outshines that of when I started watching the game. It's a pity the interest level has waned so much.

[RedWeb]

StewartyMac, on Dec 18 2008, 15:47, said:

I've been a big snooker fan for about 30 years, and the standard now far outshines that of when I started watching the game.

Aye....but who cares about the standard ? I'd rather watch an error strewn frame of snooker between Kirk Stevens and Big Bill in a smoke bound arena with Bill supping his 20th pint ahead of two faceless robots pumping in 100 breaks. The higher standard makes it more boring. Snooker has gone in off the pink and is nearly dead. More gimicks needed pronto.

[dubs]

Are folk suggesting the players should enter with entrance music a la darts and suchlike?

That would be embarrasing, it's a gentleman's sport and is not meant to be glitzy or flashy by any means. I think you would make a mockery of it if you did that.

[StewartyMac]

RedWeb, on Dec 18 2008, 16:24, said:

Aye....but who cares about the standard ? I'd rather watch an error strewn frame of snooker between Kirk Stevens and Big Bill in a smoke bound arena with Bill supping his 20th pint

That's because you clearly neither like nor respect the sport.

dubs, on Dec 18 2008, 16:41, said:

Are folk suggesting the players should enter with entrance music a la darts and suchlike?

That would be embarrasing, it's a gentleman's sport and is not meant to be glitzy or flashy by any means. I think you would make a mockery of it if you did that.

Correct.

[Skyline Drifter]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 18 2008, 13:47, said:

Mmm, not sure about that. I accept you are presumably correct (I haven't looked) about players now buildings bigger breaks etc which is a fairly good indicator although that could be partly attributable to wider pockets (not saying it is, just saying it could be?) or differing styles. I do think the success of Hendry in taking over from the much more cautious Davis encouraged an entire generation of players coming through that attack was the best form of defence. As a result there are more centuries than ever before but probably also more frames lost at a single visit or from single mistakes. I bet the average frame time (possibly excluding games involving Davis!) has dropped from what it was 15 years ago too for that very reason.

I don't see what's so very different between "a player of Joe Johnson's calibre" and say Graeme Dott who enjoyed a couple of stellar runs to finish once runner up and once champion. Or Shaun Murphy for that matter though he might be a wee bit better than that.

What is fairly clear to me is that neither Steve Davis nor Stephen Hendry are playing now anywhere near as good as they once did. Would you accept that's fair? If so, and given that Hendry is STILL No 6 in the world at this moment (and was No 1 last year) and Davis is just outside the top 16, doesn't that illustrate very nicely that the overall standard actually isn't that much better if indeed it's any better at all?

StewartyMac, on Dec 18 2008, 15:47, said:

I've been a big snooker fan for about 30 years, and the standard now far outshines that of when I started watching the game. It's a pity the interest level has waned so much.

Ah, but you've not addressed my post at all. If the standard now far outshines 20 years ago why are a clearly much poorer Hendry and Davis still competitive with the best players of today?

dubs, on Dec 18 2008, 16:41, said:

Are folk suggesting the players should enter with entrance music a la darts and suchlike?

That would be embarrasing, it's a gentleman's sport and is not meant to be glitzy or flashy by any means. I think you would make a mockery of it if you did that.

No, not suggesting that at all. Just asking why it is snooker has gone in 20 years from being just about the biggest non-team sport in British terms and probably the biggest outside football and maybe cricket to a fringe sport ignored by most and barely meriting a mention on Sports Review of the Year?

[Uncle Psychosis]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 18 2008, 17:43, said:

Ah, but you've not addressed my post at all. If the standard now far outshines 20 years ago why are a clearly much poorer Hendry and Davis still competitive with the best players of today?

Its a very good point, thats probably why he didn't address it

Quote

No, not suggesting that at all. Just asking why it is snooker has gone in 20 years from being just about the biggest non-team sport in British terms and probably the biggest outside football and maybe cricket to a fringe sport ignored by most and barely meriting a mention on Sports Review of the Year?

At a guess, I'd say its because snooker has hardly changed in the last 15 years or so. Football has grown even more popular in the last 10 years thanks to the success of the EPL, the Champions League, big european leagues easily accesible via sky, etc. Sports like darts have almost reinvented themselves and are now much more "spectator friendly". In short, other sports have marketed themselves much better to modern audiences. Snooker, on the other hand, still features two guys hitting balls around whilst two ex-players tell you how many more reds they need to win.

Throw into the mix the distinct lack of "characters" (O'sullivan apart, and as many people hate him as love him) and its no wonder that snooker is struggling.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 18 2008, 17:43, said:

Ah, but you've not addressed my post at all. If the standard now far outshines 20 years ago why are a clearly much poorer Hendry and Davis still competitive with the best players of today?

For a start, I don't believe Hendry is 'much poorer' than what he was. He's clearly not as consistent, down to a number of factors, one of which is the amount of practice time he puts in.

However, he's still one of the top players of the sport. At his peak, he was head and shoulders above everyone else, his consistency was frightening. But you don't just lose talent like that, well not until your eyesight starts to fade when you're a lot older. He's only just recently turned 40, so he's not that old. Still a top class player though, which is why he's still a top 10 regular.

Same to a lesser extent with Davis. He was another player miles clear of the rest when he was younger. It's no real surprise that both of these players are still competitive...no other players from either player's peak years are anywhere close to the top guys now.

[H_B]

StewartyMac, on Dec 18 2008, 18:09, said:

For a start, I don't believe Hendry is 'much poorer' than what he was. He's clearly not as consistent, down to a number of factors, one of which is the amount of practice time he puts in.

I agree with you to be honest.

Jesper Parnevik was asked in golf why he was shite compared to 10 years ago and he says if you look at his game it's actually a lot better, it's just that so many others have got better still.

Tennis players say the same by and large.

[mid-table]

Maguire and Higgins are serving up a mistake fest at the moment. I've seen better snooker in my local club.

[StewartyMac]

mid-table, on Dec 18 2008, 21:13, said:

Maguire and Higgins are serving up a mistake fest at the moment.

RedWeb will be loving it then

[Skyline Drifter]

StewartyMac, on Dec 18 2008, 18:09, said:

For a start, I don't believe Hendry is 'much poorer' than what he was. He's clearly not as consistent, down to a number of factors, one of which is the amount of practice time he puts in.

However, he's still one of the top players of the sport. At his peak, he was head and shoulders above everyone else, his consistency was frightening. But you don't just lose talent like that, well not until your eyesight starts to fade when you're a lot older. He's only just recently turned 40, so he's not that old. Still a top class player though, which is why he's still a top 10 regular.

Same to a lesser extent with Davis. He was another player miles clear of the rest when he was younger. It's no real surprise that both of these players are still competitive...no other players from either player's peak years are anywhere close to the top guys now.

H_B, on Dec 18 2008, 18:22, said:

I agree with you to be honest.

Jesper Parnevik was asked in golf why he was shite compared to 10 years ago and he says if you look at his game it's actually a lot better, it's just that so many others have got better still.

Tennis players say the same by and large.

I don't. And I don't think either tennis (certainly) and golf (probably) are terribly relevant as they ARE physical sports where age is bound to diminish the abilities. Jesper Parnevik can say what he likes but he isn't scoring like he did a decade ago and if he was he'd be winning tournaments.

I accept that the reason Hendry isn't the player he once was is most likely partly lack of practice, probably more lack of appetite. But given that he isn't, the fact he's still right up there certainly doesn't imply there's been massive improvement from all the others.

I take your point and it's undoubtedly relevant but I just don't think it's the only reason. I don't think Graeme Dott is any different from a Joe Johnson. And I don't think, O'Sullivan apart, that the players of tdoay are significantly all that much better than the ones of yesteryear. Those guys have faded away because they got old and lost their own edges and weren't as good as Davis and Hendry to begin with.

[MTJ]

In a game devoid of characters hes always entertaining to watch. That said hes not the type of guy I'd buy a pint.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 18 2008, 22:24, said:

And I don't think, O'Sullivan apart, that the players of tdoay are significantly all that much better than the ones of yesteryear.

Look at the names of some of the players who have to qualify for the World Championships this season. Mark Williams, Matthew Stevens, Ken Doherty.

These three alone would easily be in the top 8 fifteen years ago on current form.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 18 2008, 22:24, said:

I don't think Graeme Dott is any different from a Joe Johnson.

Dott reached four ranking finals, including a runners up spot in the World's before winning the big one. He was also provisionally World Number 1 for a while after winning the China Open the following season. A far, far better player than Joe Johnson ever was.

And he's nowhere close to being the best player at the moment.

If further proof that today's players are of a higher standard, even 10 years ago, the likes of Alain Robidoux and Tony Drago were in the top 16.

[Skyline Drifter]

StewartyMac, on Dec 19 2008, 00:39, said:

Look at the names of some of the players who have to qualify for the World Championships this season. Mark Williams, Matthew Stevens, Ken Doherty.

These three alone would easily be in the top 8 fifteen years ago on current form.

'On current form'? I don't think any of the three of them are playing anywhere near as well as they once did and that's the reason they have to qualify for the World Championships, not that 16 players have all gone past the playing level they were at.

I also don't think, playing as they are now, they'd have been top 8 any more 15 years ago than they are now.

StewartyMac, on Dec 19 2008, 01:10, said:

Dott reached four ranking finals, including a runners up spot in the World's before winning the big one. He was also provisionally World Number 1 for a while after winning the China Open the following season. A far, far better player than Joe Johnson ever was.

And he's nowhere close to being the best player at the moment.

If further proof that today's players are of a higher standard, even 10 years ago, the likes of Alain Robidoux and Tony Drago were in the top 16.

He was provisionally No 1 because there are far less tournaments now and a brief patch of stellar form shoots you up the rankings much quicker than it did 20 years ago. Joe Johnson won the world and was runner up in the worlds. In Crucible terms his record is pretty similar to Dott's.

And I never said Dott was anywhere near the best player. Indeed that was precisely my point. You said that a player like Johnson would never have reached two world finals and won one of them these days. I'd contend that a player not that dissimilar from Johnson HAS, Dott.

If further proof were needed that today's players are of no higher standard than a couple of decades ago, the likes of Mark Allen, Mark King and Joe Perry are currently in the top 16.