[Hebridean]

Impossible for me to take sides in a StewartyMac v Skyline Drifter debate, but a couple of observations...

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.

The pockets are tighter now than they used to be. The cloth, however, is much faster and this aids break-building as clustered reds split more easily.

Joe Johnson - I really don't think he was as bad as he's being presented here. Yes, he was an outsider when he won the World Championship, but he'd been a finalist in the Amateur World Championship before he turned pro so he hadn't exactly come from nowhere. And he was no more an outsider than Shaun Murphy was when he won the world championship a few years ago. Anyway, an outsider winning doesn't mean the standard is or was weak, it just means an outsider has won.

Anyone trying to argue that the standard now isn't far higher than it was 20 years ago is on a hiding to nothing.



... and is there really less snooker on the tv now than there was 20 years ago? I'm not at all convinced.

This post has been edited by Hebridean: 19 December 2008 - 11:36

[StewartyMac]

Hebridean, on Dec 19 2008, 11:31, said:

Joe Johnson - I really don't think he was as bad as he's being presented here. Yes, he was an outsider when he won the World Championship, but he'd been a finalist in the Amateur World Championship before he turned pro so he hadn't exactly come from nowhere. And he was no more an outsider than Shaun Murphy was when he won the world championship a few years ago. Anyway, an outsider winning doesn't mean the standard is or was weak, it just means an outsider has won.

Yes, but Shaun Murphy's win was no fluke, as he's proved himself subsequently to be a solid top 10 player, and probably will be for many years, despite his poor start to this season. Johnson only had two seasons in the top 10, aided by his World Championship win.

Hebridean, on Dec 19 2008, 11:31, said:

Anyone trying to argue that the standard now isn't far higher than it was 20 years ago is on a hiding to nothing.

A genuinely new experience. Agreeing with you

Hebridean, on Dec 19 2008, 11:31, said:

... and is there really less snooker on the tv now than there was 20 years ago? I'm not at all convinced.

It's debatable. There's less tournaments these days, however there's live coverage throughout them all now. The smaller ones are covered by Eurosport, whilst the 'gala' tournaments are still covered by the Beeb. (Actually, Eurosport also gets pretty much them all now) The difference now is when the Beeb's programming stops, you can hit the red button and continue watchng live coverage. I'd probably say overall, there's more snooker on telly now. The difference is, there's now so many sports channels, it gets a bit lost, which gives the impression of there not being as much on.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 19 2008, 09:54, said:

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.

Allen and Perry would have easily been in the top 8 twenty years ago. King is more a journeyman pro, similar, although better, than the likes of Neal Foulds and Tony Knowles. Although both these players reached Number 2 in the rankings, a position Mark King will never see.

[Skyline Drifter]

StewartyMac, on Dec 19 2008, 11:57, said:

It's debatable. There's less tournaments these days, however there's live coverage throughout them all now. The smaller ones are covered by Eurosport, whilst the 'gala' tournaments are still covered by the Beeb. (Actually, Eurosport also gets pretty much them all now) The difference now is when the Beeb's programming stops, you can hit the red button and continue watchng live coverage. I'd probably say overall, there's more snooker on telly now. The difference is, there's now so many sports channels, it gets a bit lost, which gives the impression of there not being as much on.

A fair point. And probably the biggest reason behind my not really noticing it now. And the lesser coverage on the BBC might be why it features less on things like Sports Personality of the Year to an extent. But that doesn't explain why the papers give it far less coverage and why attendances at events are sparse to say the least.

StewartyMac, on Dec 19 2008, 12:00, said:

Allen and Perry would have easily been in the top 8 twenty years ago. King is more a journeyman pro, similar, although better, than the likes of Neal Foulds and Tony Knowles. Although both these players reached Number 2 in the rankings, a position Mark King will never see.

A matter of opinion. I genuinely don't think the likes of Perry and Allen are any better than the likes of Griffiths, Parrott, etc. It's easy to pick a couple of players who came from nowhere (relatively) and spiralled back there again having peaked very high up.

[StewartyMac]

Skyline Drifter, on Dec 19 2008, 14:15, said:

A matter of opinion. I genuinely don't think the likes of Perry and Allen are any better than the likes of Griffiths, Parrott, etc.

Terry Griffiths and John Parrott were both world champions though, it's not a particularly fair comparison.

I would say, for example, that Shaun Murphy and Peter Ebdon are better players than what Griffiths or Parrott were at their peak.

John Parrott was a fine player, but he was lucky in a way that his peak coincided with that wee lull where Davis's dominance was ending and Hendry's was starting.

As for Griffiths, he was the epitome of average. Won a world title, and hardly anything else of note. In fact, his world title win was his only ranking event victory in his career. (His UK title was in the days where it was invitation only and didn't have anywhere near the same kudos as it does now)

Actually, I reckon Joe Perry probably is a better player than what Griffiths ever was, and Allen most certainly will be over the next few years. One of the most exciting prospects in the sport.

However, the main point I'm making is that the quality of player outwith the top four or five is miles better now than what it was. (But I would still debate the case FOR the current top players) There's so much more depth to the men's game now. Don't justy take my word for it, nearly every major tournament you'll hear the old pros who are commentating make exactly the same point, and they'll know better than both of us.

Quote

But that doesn't explain why the papers give it far less coverage and why attendances at events are sparse to say the least.

We live in an age where everything has to be 'fast', celebrities are more prominent than actual sportsmen/women, and sports fans want everything now. You could say your average younger sports fan won't have the patience for snooker, whereas your older fan now has far more choices of sports to watch on TV, therefore doesn't need to turn up at live events.

To the casual sports fan now, snooker is an incredibly dull sport and there's no novelty value like there was in the 80's. I don't know what they can do. The 25-second clock in the Premier League works well, and that event is well advertised and publicised, so draws in the crowds. Even then people could just be being seduced by the name 'Premier League'.

It may need Barry Hearn or the like revamping it like he did with Darts, but as mentioned before, there's only so much you can do, as it is a gentleman's game.

[The Phoenix]

To prove Stewarty's point once and for all, Ladies and Gentlemen of P&B, I give you.................


 resample_large.jpg (59.99K)
Number of downloads: 4


Reached number 10 in the World Rankings and stayed there for 2 years.

Not counting the English Professional Tournament () , apart from the British Open the only tournaments he won were as Steve Davis' Doubles Partner.

[StewartyMac]

Funnily enough, I used to copy Tony Meo's style when I was younger, in that I'd do the wee finger jig on my bridge hand

Probably why I was never any good

[Hebridean]

StewartyMac, on Dec 19 2008, 14:52, said:

Terry Griffiths and John Parrott were both world champions though, it's not a particularly fair comparison.

I would say, for example, that Shaun Murphy and Peter Ebdon are better players than what Griffiths or Parrott were at their peak.

John Parrott was a fine player, but he was lucky in a way that his peak coincided with that wee lull where Davis's dominance was ending and Hendry's was starting.

As for Griffiths, he was the epitome of average. Won a world title, and hardly anything else of note. In fact, his world title win was his only ranking event victory in his career. (His UK title was in the days where it was invitation only and didn't have anywhere near the same kudos as it does now)

Actually, I reckon Joe Perry probably is a better player than what Griffiths ever was, and Allen most certainly will be over the next few years. One of the most exciting prospects in the sport.

However, the main point I'm making is that the quality of player outwith the top four or five is miles better now than what it was. (But I would still debate the case FOR the current top players) There's so much more depth to the men's game now. Don't justy take my word for it, nearly every major tournament you'll hear the old pros who are commentating make exactly the same point, and they'll know better than both of us.



We live in an age where everything has to be 'fast', celebrities are more prominent than actual sportsmen/women, and sports fans want everything now. You could say your average younger sports fan won't have the patience for snooker, whereas your older fan now has far more choices of sports to watch on TV, therefore doesn't need to turn up at live events.

To the casual sports fan now, snooker is an incredibly dull sport and there's no novelty value like there was in the 80's. I don't know what they can do. The 25-second clock in the Premier League works well, and that event is well advertised and publicised, so draws in the crowds. Even then people could just be being seduced by the name 'Premier League'.

It may need Barry Hearn or the like revamping it like he did with Darts, but as mentioned before, there's only so much you can do, as it is a gentleman's game.

Och, stop being so serious.

[Reina]

Come on Fu!

[robosaintee]

It's gone to a deciding frame, how exciting!

C'mon Fu!

[tigerton]

I dont know why, but i cant stand shaun murphy!! Cmon Fu!

[Reina]

Fu missed a fair chance there. Think it's Shaun 'boring b*****d' Murphy's game.

[Reina]

tigerton, on Dec 21 2008, 23:54, said:

I dont know why

I reckon it's his clothes.

[tigerton]

Reina, on Dec 21 2008, 23:55, said:

I reckon it's his clothes.

I think i just dont like the fact that hes a world champion that nobody had heard of, that annoys me for some reason.

Fu still has a chance now!

[Reina]

Great pot! C'mon Fu!

Edit - fuxaches

This post has been edited by Reina: 22 December 2008 - 00:04

[StewartyMac]

Is Hazel Irvine up the duff?

[Gall09]

There was one point in the final when Shaun Murphy was snookered on a red, missed it and hit the blue. Fu then got up, had a look and let Murphy play again, but the blue ball wasn't re-spotted to were it had been.

I hadn't seen this before. I assumed you had to play the exact same shot.

[Skyline Drifter]

Gall09, on Dec 22 2008, 15:29, said:

There was one point in the final when Shaun Murphy was snookered on a red, missed it and hit the blue. Fu then got up, had a look and let Murphy play again, but the blue ball wasn't re-spotted to were it had been.

I hadn't seen this before. I assumed you had to play the exact same shot.

You do.

If that happened (I wasn't watching) then it was an error.

[King Kong Bundy]

For a ludicrous bump...

It peaked at around the early 00s when you had Williams, Hendry, O'Sullivan, Doherty, Higgins and Stevens all playing exceptionally well. Interest and prize money peaked then too.

The game is in decline now, the 'rising stars' haven't delivered and the same cloggers are present. Look at top 32, many of these guys aren't any better than the men who have been mocked earlier in the thread (Meo, Johnson, etc) Few are capable of winning the Worlds now.

A good workmanlike player can hang in there for a good while now - not the sign of a flourishing game.

This post has been edited by King Kong Bundy: 02 January 2009 - 22:12

[StewartyMac]

O'Sullivan attention seeking again this week. Says he snapped his cue before his 1st Round Masters win over Joe Perry because he didn't want to play and he thought breaking the cue would keep him away from the tournament.

He makes a good point about the game needing a shot in the arm, however. It's a tough one though, you can't go the same way as darts has, as snooker relies on the audience being quiet, and introducing a darts style crowd to the game isnae going to work.

How do you market snooker for the 21st century? The players are there, the venues are there, the tournaments are there, so what can you do with it to make it a marketable sport? RedWeb mentions the re-introduction of 'characters' to the game. I think a lot of the iconic snooker players of the 80's only have that status because everything was new then, television audiences had never saw that before, and these people became legendary. It's more difficult to have characters in snooker now. In Darts, it's easy to be wild as that fits in with the buzz from the crowd, but you won't get that in snooker.

Shame, because it's a great sport, and despite protestations on this thread, the current crop of players are among the best there's ever been, so the talent is there.

What can you do though?

[RedWeb]

StewartyMac, on Jan 14 2009, 00:55, said:

What can you do though?

Nothing...let it die in peace. Snooker will soon be back in the clubs and pubs where it belongs. Darts is the new snooker...accept it.

[Skyline Drifter]

King Kong Bundy, on Jan 2 2009, 22:12, said:

For a ludicrous bump...

It peaked at around the early 00s when you had Williams, Hendry, O'Sullivan, Doherty, Higgins and Stevens all playing exceptionally well. Interest and prize money peaked then too.

The game is in decline now, the 'rising stars' haven't delivered and the same cloggers are present. Look at top 32, many of these guys aren't any better than the men who have been mocked earlier in the thread (Meo, Johnson, etc) Few are capable of winning the Worlds now.

A good workmanlike player can hang in there for a good while now - not the sign of a flourishing game.

I'd generally agree other than that I think in terms of public interest it peaked much earlier than that. Mid-80's more likely and certainly the early 90's at latest.

The standard of play on the other hand we'll go round in circles about but personally I think it peaked 4 or 5 years earlier than you have it.

[FC_1919]

Just turned of the Steven Hendry game, pretty rubbish if I am honest.

[Cowden til i die]

Hendry is well past it. Robertson could be away to make a 147 though...

Edit: or not

This post has been edited by Cowden til i die: 14 January 2009 - 16:11

[RedWeb]

Cowden til i die, on Jan 14 2009, 16:08, said:

Hendry is well past it.

Is it time Hendo packed the cue away and found a new day job ? Yes, he's probably still playing at a level which would see him hang around the top16 for a few more years but is that enough for a 7 times world champion ? I know Davis has hung around but I for one would like to see Stephen call it a day. However, I don't think he will but how long can he keep losing to blokes not fit to lace his boots. Worse still how long can he keep on missing the kind of pot he used to get with his eyes shut.