Hebridean
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Hebridean
-
-
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.
0 -
Impossible for me to take sides in a StewartyMac v Skyline Drifter debate, but a couple of observations...
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
What's the rule that allowed the ref to warn about this?
I thought you could concede a frame at any time you liked?
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".
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.
0 -
in no way should they get touchy about it if you tell them what they dont want to hear.
I rather suspect that someone claiming a midwife warned him his kid would be fat and stupid is more likely to be the one who got touchy about something he didn't want to hear.
0 -
They didn't quite say it word for word like that but that was definitely what they were getting at.
How would you have liked them to have phrased it then? Or would you have preferred to have been left to make the decision based entirely on what suited yourselves and without regard to the various reasons that one choice over another is best for the baby?
The evidence points to higher average intelligence amongst breastfed children (dubious though that one is) and has proven lower rates of obesity in later life. You won't disprove that with a sample of one, nor do you negate the implications of the decision you made by pouring scorn on the manner in which you perceive the advice was given.
The principle that no one should be bullied into this or any other parenting choice is all well and good, but against a backdrop of perpetual bullying from formula manufacturers who break and flaunt the law at every turn, inadequately trained health professionals in this area and a general consensus that bottle feeding is the "norm", pussy-footing isn’t the answer. And if the presentation of facts causes offence, then so be it.
If someone interprets “bottle feeding will increase the risk of obesity” or “breastfeeding will decrease the risk of obesity” as “your kid will get fat”, then it’s a pity. It’s the chance you take. But that’s all I believe has happened.
If they had gone on to say that breastfeeding would reduce the chances of cot death, Diabetes, Mutiple Sclerosis, Chron’s disease, respiratory infections, tooth decay and breast cancer would you have interpreted that as them saying that the baby (and mother) were going to suffer from all of these if you used formula?
You’ve already taken liberties quoting what was said to you. If the phrase used annoyed you that much, tell us what they really said.
0 -
Really?! That's ridiculous! Why would anyone choose bottle over breast unless there was some medical/psychological reason? Breast is free for a start!!!
- Because they are well aware of the attitudes like those of the poster who started this subject off and don't want to be subjected to them.
- Because they themselves are uncomfortable with the prospect of breastfeeding in public no matter how accepting the public might be.
- Because their mothers belong to the generation with the lowest uptake of breastfeeding and have passed on the attitudes of 20-30 years ago.
- Because breastfeeding is more problematic than bottlefeeding - a point proved if they are fortunate enough to find out about breastfeeding support (well, you don't get bottlefeeding support do you?)
- Because they have partners who are repulsed by the idea of "sharing" the breasts with a baby.
- Because they have partners who would not let them feed in public, or even in their own house in company.
- Because formula milk is now "closer than ever" to breast milk.
There's a variety of reasons for starters. Dismissing the validity of a choice to bottlefeed as "ridiculous" is lowering yourself to the level of the people who have imparted their "wisdom" on Rowan.
0 -
-
-
-
-
You'll no get round me that easy...
Am no givin up yet. Name your price.
(must not include gardening)
0 -
Why does she get that while I get abuse over my produce?
You can't pin my thread for me.
0 -
My chilli pepper plant has gone mental and there's about 20 chillis growing on it just now!
They're going to be fiery little b*****ds! Heaps of tomatoes too! 
Well done you!
Are we going to see some photos?
0 -
I hope you realise that if you ate the lot it only counts as 0.0025 of your "five-a-day".
0 -
You couldn't send me some carrots anyway, could you?
She'd be best saving it till there's ten times that amount - to get value for money out of the second class stamp!
0 -
I thought they were deformed golf tees.
Well done - you've found a purpose for home grown produce - environmentaly friendly golf tees!!!
0 -
Actual size...
0 -
Oh well, I guess it's time now to read posts from people trying to make out that it was all worthwhile!
0 -
As you can no doubt tell, I'm really pleased with how my little suntrap is coming along. I'm thinking of adding some kind of water feature. Any suggestions?
Aye. Keep a cow in your garden and you can call it the Derry.
0 -
Do I chap the door again or get someone to do it for me and give him the bill??
I think you should freecycle the Ivy that's growing on your wall. That way someone will come along and take half of it and your neighbour will only have to get rid of the other half.
0 -
Aw feck. Is it HIS birthday too? Oh well, Happy Birthday Nizzy.
0 -
Happy birthday gorgeous
0 -
They're going to be fiery little b*****ds! Heaps of tomatoes too! 
Darts...
in All Other Sports
Posted · Edited by Hebridean
Watching the darts just now and Whitlock has his John Smith's advert sewn on upside down
Not even enough skill to see which way up writing should be!
Edit: it's been removed. Presumably not sewn on then.