2010 World Championship
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
Right before the tourney started he was 500-1. I thought his previous odds were ludicrous considering how rarely he misses out on the World Championship.
I have bets on Ding, Allen, Robertson and Williams ($10 each, not much of a gambler), so hopefully one of those gentleman will win give me a small pay day. So far so good. The way the draw works out, ideal scenario is that they all play each other in the semi finals and I'm guaranteed something
.
Not sure if Scaramouche has already posted these.
For those (like me) who missed the match live, you can see the double (bank) at the start of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGAGGPQIRlQ&feature=related
An interview with Davis after the match:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1tlvI6frAc&feature=related
Highlights from the first session:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2jnGJT5kNY
Steve "Interesting" Davis indeed.
http://www.justin.tv/freddy49snooker#r=IgZJl4M~
Just watch both O'Sullivan and Carter win their matches.
Just watch both O'Sullivan and Carter win their matches.
Watching Ding vs. Murphy now (a replay from yesterday). Thanks for the link.
Last edited:
Neither of them seem to be playing very well.
Some things I do NOT like about British/International snooker rules
1: the frozen ball rule is nutz
2: a ball should require contact with a rail after cue ball contact - that would do away with the little chicken-crap push shots
3: the referee should not be allowed to pick the cue ball up and clean it so often - between frames is plenty. There is an unnecessary element introduced in that operation.
1: the frozen ball rule is nutz
2: a ball should require contact with a rail after cue ball contact - that would do away with the little chicken-crap push shots
3: the referee should not be allowed to pick the cue ball up and clean it so often - between frames is plenty. There is an unnecessary element introduced in that operation.
1. Do you mean playing away from a touching ball? What's wrong with that?
2. Matter of opinion, I guess. I played snooker before pool so it's the norm to me.
3. Have you seen the amount of kicks there are in snooker? It's only done at the player's request, and it's not like they ask every shot. When the balls kick so often it's only fair that they have the option to clean them. It didn't happen nearly as often before the thinner cloths and lighter balls, so maybe that's part of the problem but one thing is certain - chalk can cause kicks even if it doesn't cause them all. Cleaning the balls can be necessary for this reason.
The player is shooting into thin air when the frozen ball rule is in effect. A solid contact should be required to avoid penalty.
Contacting a rail after OB contact would change pace in a positive way and do away with the little push shots - I agree that it's simply a matter of opinion.
I can't be convinced the referee couldn't have at least as much impact on a game's outcome as the kicks you mention. At least kicks aren't biased - not to suggest the refs are... but they could be. A millimeter can make a huge difference.
Grew up playing American snooker and I think I prefer those rules, naturally. And of course I favor the 5x10 as it doesn't require anywhere near the amount of bridge/extension use.
Contacting a rail after OB contact would change pace in a positive way and do away with the little push shots - I agree that it's simply a matter of opinion.
I can't be convinced the referee couldn't have at least as much impact on a game's outcome as the kicks you mention. At least kicks aren't biased - not to suggest the refs are... but they could be. A millimeter can make a huge difference.
Grew up playing American snooker and I think I prefer those rules, naturally. And of course I favor the 5x10 as it doesn't require anywhere near the amount of bridge/extension use.
The refs do use ball-markers and if they made a mistake somehow the players would speak up, whether the new position was beneficial or not. You see that kind of sportsmanship when the balls are replaced after a miss - if the shot is easier than before the player will point it out.
I'm not too concerned either way about the touching-ball rule, or having to contact a cushion. If the changes you suggested came into effect, I wouldn't really be against it. I will have to strongly disagree about the 5x10s...I hate them!
I'm not too concerned either way about the touching-ball rule, or having to contact a cushion. If the changes you suggested came into effect, I wouldn't really be against it. I will have to strongly disagree about the 5x10s...I hate them!
1. I like this rule actually because it can halt stalemates where players are just tapping the balls (see #2). Besides I personally don't think you should be able to push through the ball anyway.
2. The rails on a 12 foot table can be really far away. Imagine being snookered on the pack of reds and having to kick and leave the cue ball safe whilst contacting a rail. At the end of the day I don't we really gain anything by forcing players to contact a rail, most shots do anyways.
Where I really don't like the contact rail for snooker comes to playing safe on the baulk colours. Doing so can cause you to push a colour safe without it being your intention, leading to more scrappy frames. I personally don't enjoy playing frames making 8-10 points and then playing safe.
3. see DangerousDave
My guess is that had I grown up playing snooker on 6x12s and by international rules - I would feel much as you two do. :smile:
The game of snooker has evolved for many decades. Each rule is there for a reason. I agree with all the comments made in favor of international rules (including the US championship) American rules is (no offense) a dumbed down version of international snooker with a higher focus on offense and very little on defense.
What the previous commentors have forgotten to mention is the shot to nothing. Making a hard red, but not getting the right angle on a baulk color, you can roll up. If that rule didn't exist, the shot-to-nothing would be far less effective. Almost a penalty that you made a good red, now you have to shoot a ball into the rail and mess up the positions of the colours.
Remember this is played on a twelve footer and that's a really big difference, in tactics and ball making.
Anyway, let's get back to talking about the World's....
Go STEVE!!!!!
What the previous commentors have forgotten to mention is the shot to nothing. Making a hard red, but not getting the right angle on a baulk color, you can roll up. If that rule didn't exist, the shot-to-nothing would be far less effective. Almost a penalty that you made a good red, now you have to shoot a ball into the rail and mess up the positions of the colours.
Remember this is played on a twelve footer and that's a really big difference, in tactics and ball making.
Anyway, let's get back to talking about the World's....
Go STEVE!!!!!
I was going to make this exact point but like you said, US rules are supposed to make the game more aggressive so I don't know if Underclocked would see this as a bad thing. Depending on the angle, some players will play one of the baulk colours off the side cushion and into the reds, splitting them open and screwing back to the baulk cusion. Maguire probably does this more than any other player. But if you land right behind a ball you're right, having to hit a rail would be a penalty for a good shot made. Same with Cameron's post about the rails being further away! It really does make a difference, though.
Having to hit a rail with every colour you land on but can't pot could really mess up the table as well. The rule couldn't apply when you're in a snooker either. You couldn't roll into the pack of reds off the side cushion, onto single reds, and even the two-cushion escape with pace back to baulk might not be allowed if nothing hits a rail. Full ball snookers on colours would all have to be played at pace to contact a rail which introduces an element of luck in place of the control and finesse there is now.
I didn't see too much about the timed-match tournament played recently, but I think every foul resulted in ball-in-hand for the opponent like in 9 ball. Really, I think snooker's fine the way it is. If you want to play a game on a smaller table where you can't roll up behind balls and have to hit a rail...play pool?
Anyway, I'm with drsnooker. GO STEVE! (Currently 4-1 down...)
Last edited:
I'm rooting for him as well but it looks as if he may be a bit too close to my age. Definitely a bit off against Robertson - let's hope he finds the touch again.
Contacting a rail should be required.
Contacting a rail should be required.
Contacting a rail should be required.
Contacting a rail after contacting the object ball is an American perversion.:angry::angry::angry:
Not required in real Unamerican games like snooker, English billiards, pyramid billiards, ad infinitum
Ugly American demands the world adopt the worse features of American society: Krispy Kreme, deep fried turkey, squirrel, and billiards devoid of finesse or uniform rules.
Contacting a rail after contacting the object ball is an American perversion.:angry::angry::angry:
Not required in real Unamerican games like snooker, English billiards, pyramid billiards, ad infinitum
Ugly American demands the world adopt the worse features of American society: Krispy Kreme, deep fried turkey, squirrel, and billiards devoid of finesse or uniform rules.
Dude you haven't lived until you have had a Krispy Kreme deep fried Turkey Squirrel.
That's what gave John Wayne and Elvis their powers.
Steve Davis is looking like the "Nugget" of old. If he keeps playing like that, he'll be hard to beat.
I'm down to Neil Robertson in my bets. He has to pull through and win it for me. Couldn't believe Mark Allen lost his match, I thought he was a lock in that one. Where did Graeme Dott come from? He hasn't had any real form in a long time.