[Tapper]

So (hello Brynjar, that's just my way to make sure someone responds ), the WC has been played best of 5 frames and a best of 9 final, and we have had semis with 4 world champions in them which Hazel just said, hasn't happened in 4 years in any major tournament.

For those of you/us who love snooker (whether just as the ultimate hang-over TV sports, or maybe for betting purposes), what is the verdict?

Myself, I've been having tremendous fun seeing people go all out, having to deliver in one session rather than cutting their losses if they feel a bit iffy. And the quality of play is HIGH. Also, it reduced the time I spent viewing Stephen Lee's mountaineously large back clothed in an unflattering shade of pink. Honestly, I was convinced someone had spiked my drink, leading to a bad trip which snooker, drugs and The Sound of Music featured.

On the other hand, I've been thoroughly annoyed by not being able to see at least a session per televised match - and
that's not just because I'm working all 5 midweek days. Simply put, you take a phonecall at 1-1 at O'Sullivan vs Hendry, and the match is over when you come back from the bedroom. Topping that, me missing frames is increased by me being a bloody foreigner and thus having no access to the red button, and thus being forced to skip mid-frame because people need to walk down the coast, or something.
The shorter games also have another effect. Whily campaigners like McManus and Dott, who grind their opponents down in long, long matches, are suddenly losers instead of master psychologists.
I can also see how the FA cup style round draw plays havoc with the gamblers, who used to be able to try and predict an entire tournament from the get-go, and taking in a couple of surprises. Now, it all depends on the draw.

And to top it all off, the Aussie is going to win.

So, good thing, or bad, all in all?

This post has been edited by Tapper: 26 September 2010 - 09:12 PM

[Binder of Demons]

Seems like it could be good fun, as you said, with people being able to get on a quick streak and wrap up a game fast. As long as the huge long world champs remain the same, i see no problem with it. Good for there to be a bit of variety.

Plus any chance to see the amazing Ronnie O'Sullivan in action can only be a good thing. I loved the story about him last week, where he potted an opening red and black (i think) and then asking what the bonus money was for doing a maximum break. And then when he found out there was no special tv bonus, he potted all the way through to the final black and then sat down without taking the shot. It took the ref (and his opponent) asking him to finish it off, to make him actually complete the 147. And he still did it in barely 10 mins. He's a freak.

I haven't been able to follow the snooker down here in NZ, so i'd actually never heard of this guy Robertson. Must be shit hot.

[masan's saddle]

I have caught a few of the matches and I quite like the idea of "power snooker", although they could maybe change the moniker as the the phrase "power snooker" makes me laugh. It's like "Destructo sheep" or "Demolition cabbage", maybe "Speed snooker" would be better.

I agree the 5 frame format is good and appeals to a certain type of player. As you say the "grinders" have to be bold and take on the risky shots a bit more than they would normally.

I can't remember if this event is a result of Barry Hearns' involvement (ie format, music between frames etc). There has been a bit of a schism in the sport recently between the traditionalists and those that want to jazz it up a bit and return the sport to its glory days. I remember being allowed to stay up late to watch the 1987 World Championship final between Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor. It was 18-18, went to the last frame and finished on the black. I think nearly 20 million people watched it which when you think about it is staggering. Nowadays they are lucky if a few million tune in. Also considering the recent furore surrounding John Higgins' match fixing allegations, the sport's image could do with an overhaul.

I must also admit to being swayed by who the referee is. If it's that foxy milf-tastic Michaela Tabb i'll definitely watch

[Tapper]

masan, on 27 September 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

If it's that foxy milf-tastic Michaela Tabb i'll definitely watch

Word.



Insert obligatory joke about balls/queues/pockets.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 27 September 2010 - 12:56 PM

[Aptorian]

Appropos this is an awesome frame

[Weave]

As a MASSIVELY casual snooker watcher it worked perfectly on me.
Before I'd put snooker on and see 4(17)1 and think "**** it can't be arsed watching it", or "I'll tune in and 4 hours and catch final few frames".

This week I tune in and se 3(5)1 and I'm like "ooh, I could see a winner here", "I can witness it"... and would stay tuned, meaning the BBC gets the viewers its after rather than me switching over, betting will go up as it's much pacer and shorter, likeall the most betted upon activity's (barring Golf). And thirdly it'll increase the prominence of Snooker, as people like me tune in more, catch more and follow it more.

It's a great move for the industry, but I'm unable to comment on its affect on Snooker as a sport.

[polishgenius]

I didn't see any of the tournament so I can't really comment on how it works out in general, but O'Sullivan appears to like the format and he's by so far the best thing about the sport of Snooker that that alone makes it a positive move.