Snooker draws Huge Numbers

jonnyyyl said:
no man. i was.
Total balls potted by player in match > waht about career?
Total balls potted by player in tournament > ditto
Total points scored in tournament > ditto
Total points scored in match > ditto
Long pot success percentage> ditto
Safety success percentage > ditto
Average number of frames played per century > the bbc snooker profiles, the ones with the cool dance music, only show that season's stats, starting with the PTC events
Average number of points scored per frame > ditto

in fact, if you want to find out who the best century maker is, you would want to get all the centuries divided by the number number of frames of his entire career. i dare say that hendry wouldnt be top, he's been pro since 1986. ronnie MIGHT be up there, because he turned pro in 1992
if anything it might be judd trump, hes got over 100 only 5 seasons. :)
Click to expand...

Ronnie has averaged well over 100 centuries for every 5 years he's played...so Trump will have to maintain that pace for another 15 years to even keep pace with Ronnie.
 
jonnyyyl said:
in fact, if you want to find out who the best century maker is, you would want to get all the centuries divided by the number number of frames of his entire career. i dare say that hendry wouldnt be top, he's been pro since 1986. ronnie MIGHT be up there, because he turned pro in 1992
if anything it might be judd trump, hes got over 100 only 5 seasons. :)
Click to expand...

Trump tried for a 147 against Higgins, broke down, lost the frame.
Had he simply tried to win and succeeded, he would have had one more game, Higgins would have had one less.
Might have made a huge change in the game.
So 147s, while interesting, are only one frame.
Same with centuries

At one time a 147 in the World Championship was worth 147,000 pounds, plus 20,000 pounds for highest break. Making a 147 was worth far more than a second place finish.
That sort of payout has gone the way of the dodo.

When you compare Hendry and O'Sullivan, it is quite simple.
What baseball style statistics might suggest is not relevant.:D

Hendry
Ranking Tournaments - 36
World Championship 1990, 1992-6, 1999
UK Championship 1989, 1990, 1994-6
Grand Prix 1987, 1990-1, 1995
British Open 1988, 1991, 1999, 2003
Asian Open 1989, 1990
Dubai Duty Free Classic 1989, 1990, 1993
Regal Welsh Open 1992, 1997, 2003
International Open 1993, 1997
Regal Scottish Open 1999
European Open 1994, 1995, 2001
Thailand Masters 1998
Malta Cup 2005

Non-ranking - 32
Scottish Professional Championship 1986-8
Winfield Masters 1987
New Zealand Masters 1988
Wembley Masters 1989-93, 1996
Scottish Masters 1989, 1990, 1995
Pontin’s Professional 1990
Hong Kong Challenge 1991
Indian Challenge 1991
555 Challenge 1991
European Challenge 1991
Premier League 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2004
Irish Masters 1992, 1997, 1999
Malta Grand Prix 1998, 2001
Red Bull Super League 1998
Champions Cup 1999

O'Sullivan
Ranking - 22
World Championship 2001, 2004, 2008
UK Championship 1993, 1997, 2001, 2007
Grand Prix 2004
British Open 1994
Regal Welsh Open 2004, 2005
German Open 1996
Regal Scottish Open 1998, 2000
European Open 2003
Northern Ireland Trophy 2008
China Open 1996, 1999, 2000
Irish Masters 2003, 2005
Shanghai Masters 2009

Non-ranking - 22
Wembley Masters 1995, 2005, 2007, 2009
Scottish Masters 1998, 2000, 2002
Champions Cup 2000
Riley Superstar International 1997
Liverpool Victoria Charity Challenge 1996
Benson & Hedges Championship 1993
Premier League 1997, 2001, 2002, 2005 (04/05), 2005 (05/06), 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010
Irish Masters 2001, 2007

On this link
http://www.snookerisland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1146

Hendry earned £345,494.40 per year - Total £8,637,360
O'Sullivan earned £336,445.00 per year - Total £6,056,010
 
I'm lucky, one of the employees of the only room in town gave me an old Duff snooker cue. I was looking on line for one at the time. I removed the big ugly aluminum joint collars/pin and insert, stripped the finish and applied an oil rub. Plays real nice.

We have 6 snooker tables that are used regularly so they won't be going anywhere. I've been watching much more snooker on UTube lately and have a new found interest in the game. A fascinating game it is.
 
Don't know the game well, but have a 10' snooker table in my man cave and find it a great game. And yes, I know real snooker is on a 12' table, but we make do.
 
Underclocked said:
... It's a shame there is such a wasteland in the US so far as snooker tables are concerned. ...
Click to expand...
At least all the tables that are known are listed here: http://findsnooker.com/

As for organization in the US, the USSA has a tour and a national championship which will be in NYC this year at the Prince Club over the July 4th weekend. See snookerusa.com for info.
 
A few points to clarify the game over here...

Snooker is a dying game and viewing figures were pretty dismal given the airtime it gets. They would be much, much worse if it wasn't for the SUPERB coverage by the BBC. I can't describe how good a job they do - it's just class. I've not watched much coverage of 9 ball, but I find it unwatchable - the commentators are either halfwits or have never held a cue, or both, the camera direction looks like it's done by a lazy, disinterested 16 year old school girl, and it's incredibly slow and laboured. There's no fun in pool coverage.


Stats - minimal importance in snooker, and no one really cares. Nothing to see here.

Gambling - again, minimal importance. Nothing to see here either.

The future of snooker - Ding and China. My patriotism thread ruffled a few feathers, but the more enlightened may just have realised there's gold in them thar paddy fields...

As some have said, the differences between snooker and pool are cultural. We all like own cultures, so that one is difficult to address. It does strike me as odd that Americans, so fond of high impact, set-piece, grunt sports, can't make 9 ball work as a spectator sport. It needs to be fast and furious. There needs to be winners and losers, heroes and villains. Tears of joy and tears of sorrow. But there's no drama or even human interest. Snooker, for all it's faults, is pure theatre.
 
Last edited:
Bob, thanks for the info but I know about your organization and have contributed to snooker USA. While I appreciate those things, the point of my posting is still valid. It's hard to have great snooker players without snooker tables and that is the case in a very large part of this country.

I would start a room myself if there was any chance of it producing a livable income - there isn't.
 
TheThaiger said:
The future of snooker - Ding and China.
Click to expand...

I would also add mainland Europe too.
Some countries have excellent amateur players and some also lower tier pros. Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Poland just to name a few...last U21 European amateur champion is a 16 year old kid from Poland. In a decade or two you might see more pro players from mainland Europe. They are making serious progress and are slowly catching up with UK players.

Also don't forget Eurosport television. Their commentators are even better then one's at BBC, also former pro's but they don't talk about themselves as much.

Eurosport also occasionally shows some 3 cushion billiards coverage and very rarely American pool (last I watched was footage from European Pool Championships).

I have to say that following snooker on TV is much easier. Table is much prettier than pool tables, cloth color is just right, color contrast between numberless balls and bright green cloth is just perfect for TV. The rules are complicated on paper but are really easy to follow even for non players...red, color, red, color, plus the score is always showing. Many of my non playing friends do follow snooker.

3 cushion billiards coverage also looks excellent, but that isn't surprising because they do use only 3 balls.

Pool coverage doesn't look nearly as good. Camera work is not up to standards, too few angles, stripped 9 and 10 balls don't look very good at all and the table just doesn't have as nice touch as a snooker table. Rules are stupid and confusing for non players, especially the 3 point rule and the matches are way too short. As I'm a player myself I don't mind these things, it is still watchable for me, but a non player would have a very hard time finding interest in this.
 
Out of interest - have Ring Games ever been given any air-time? Always thought that this format could be more 'viewer friendly'.
 
predator said:
I would also add mainland Europe too.
Some countries have excellent amateur players and some also lower tier pros. Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Poland just to name a few...last U21 European amateur champion is a 16 year old kid from Poland. In a decade or two you might see more pro players from mainland Europe. They are making serious progress and are slowly catching up with UK players.

Also don't forget Eurosport television. Their commentators are even better then one's at BBC, also former pro's but they don't talk about themselves as much.

Eurosport also occasionally shows some 3 cushion billiards coverage and very rarely American pool (last I watched was footage from European Pool Championships).

I have to say that following snooker on TV is much easier. Table is much prettier than pool tables, cloth color is just right, color contrast between numberless balls and bright green cloth is just perfect for TV. The rules are complicated on paper but are really easy to follow even for non players...red, color, red, color, plus the score is always showing. Many of my non playing friends do follow snooker.

3 cushion billiards coverage also looks excellent, but that isn't surprising because they do use only 3 balls.

Pool coverage doesn't look nearly as good. Camera work is not up to standards, too few angles, stripped 9 and 10 balls don't look very good at all and the table just doesn't have as nice touch as a snooker table. Rules are stupid and confusing for non players, especially the 3 point rule and the matches are way too short. As I'm a player myself I don't mind these things, it is still watchable for me, but a non player would have a very hard time finding interest in this.
Click to expand...
Tap tap tap
I have been saying this for years. Pool tables are too small, the color scheme of the balls makes it hard to follow and the rules are confusing and there is no running score from shot to shot.

When pool promoters figure this out pool will move forward.
 
Ok, time for a rant, some of it adapted from a previous post of mine.

The TV Ratings Issue
Comparing pool to snooker on television is silly.

I have been in London on a few occasions during the Embassy World Championships. There are just five networks on British television that don't have cable, and during the Embassy event, snooker is on for several hours every day on the BBC, the most major network there is. This is the equivalent of four hours of pool coverage during the afternoon on CBS in a home not having cable. In that scenario, we'd have millions watching pool in America, too.

The "Snooker is a Better Game" Argument
I will, however, have to accept the argument made by some that snooker is a better game than nine/ten ball. The gap is growing, too, as more and more rules are added to rob nine/ten ball of its most interesting shots and most exciting moments. Speaking as a fan, I think the increasingly popular "option to give the table back" version of nine/ten ball threatens to ruin the game. Unfortunately, I'm stuck watching America litigate much of the imagination out of nine/ten ball by, more and more often, using rules that allow an incoming player to refuse the position left after an opponent’s miss. Under such rules, offense oriented racks are just as electrifying as they would be using Texas Express rules, but there are far fewer racks entailing the kind of tactical design that, to me, used to make rotational pool fascinating, because the two way shot, which represents the highest pinnacle of imaginative play, can no longer be gainfully employed. Worse than this, as the game is made less recognizable to its fan base through the use of obscure rules, it is adding to the already regrettable (and often bemoaned here on AZB) disconnect between the pro and amateur levels. In 2010, at Valley Forge, I sat next to an amateur that was dumbfounded as a pro shot the ten ball four consecutive times, as each miss left an undesirable position, asking me to explain what the bleep was going on.

It’s all part of a long and disturbing trend in the game. The majestic "two-way" shot may be on death row. Today's players can get by with less billiard knowledge than in the past, because even the “D” players can play jump shots now -- another example of how we’ve deemphasized one of the skill elements in the game. Equally disturbing is the disallowing of the soft break. If someone can gain control of the table with a soft break, it is not by luck but by skill that they do so, but the hard break, surely entailing more luck than a soft break, is required nder the rules. Wonder what’s next --- perhaps disallowing soft shots for the entire rack? Another fan-unfriendly change in increasing use is not counting the nine or ten ball on the break. There is almost nothing that is more exciting for fans than the golden break.

Further proof that what the players want is far more important than what the fans want in America is the growing trend of splitting titles. It seems that every week, I read on AZB about an event in which two players opted not to play the final of an event, opting to split the money and the title. I've suffered the pain of attending a tournament and having this happen, denying me a chance to watch the final, but I've, for the most part, stopped attending events of pool tours that permit this.

In Conclusion
As noted, the majesty of cuesports is greatest when players use great imagination to play offense and defense together. For the many one-pocket players on this forum, I’m going to have to say that now that I’ve gone to Derby City the last three years and watched the one-pocket event, I’m starting to appreciate why you all love the game so much, for no pool discipline entails greater imagination with respect to the simultaneous execution of offense and defense. Watching the great creativity displayed in shot design by the top one pocket players is a true delight to behold. Snooker, similary, is a game in which the simultaneous execution of offense and defense is fundamental to gaining control of the table. So often in snooker, you see a player play a difficult red while playing the cue ball behind the yellow, brown, or green spot for defensive reasons. This makes snooker a game of extraordinary imagination, for many of the same reasons as one pocket. Yes, one pocket and snooker remind me why I love cuesports.

More coverage, a better game, and use of the same rules that amateurs are familiar with --- that's what snooker has on nine/ten ball.
 
Last edited:
agreed on the "imagination" aspect, one of the reasons Efren is loved

you watch a pool game and you know exactly the shot a guy will play as 99% of the world would play it the same way

the shot selection at the Snooker World Championships was so varied and often enough even confused the very knowledgable commentators

THAT is drama, the unknown,

Pool has had this here and there for decades, it has lacked consitencey

the IPT was the last best example of this,

match length is also key , how do you even begin to compare a 4-8 hr precision snooker match to a 60 minute nine ball slop fest?

been a pool guy all my life, snooker has always played second fiddle, for the first time in my life I may be ready to concede that Pro Pool is dead and gone forever
 
sjm said:
Ok, time for a rant, some of it adapted from a previous post of mine.

The TV Ratings Issue
Comparing pool to snooker on television is silly.
Click to expand...

I wont quote it all. Although a really interesting opinion I find myself nodding along only sparingly.

Over 90% of UK homes have more than 5 channels so I don't think that argument holds up too well.

Maybe it's because I've been brought up both watching and playing Snooker before getting into American Pool but I find Snooker EXTREMELY predictable to watch. And the long red scenario you mentioned is what makes the game so predictable and, at times, tension-free. There's never any pressure on that shot and it occurs between one and five times every frame - not great tv for me. Interestingly, and as a side-note, Chris Melling, who has been a professional at American Pool, English 8 Ball and Snooker claims that the latter is the easiest to win at of the three...

I appreciate how ruling out the soft break defies the ethics of sport and is indeed a skill in itself but I think this is an example of the governing bodies making a decision with the fans in mind.

I certainly agree with you regarding the joys of one pocket though.
 
the problem with soft break is that it make the game too predictable. With the soft break every time the balls set up in the same way and for pool, a game of creativity, is not very good.
 
Slh said:
the problem with soft break is that it make the game too predictable. With the soft break every time the balls set up in the same way and for pool, a game of creativity, is not very good.
Click to expand...

Agree totally...so to claim it to be 'a fan-unfriendly change' doesn't ring true
 
Laura Norder said:
I wont quote it all. Although a really interesting opinion I find myself nodding along only sparingly.

Over 90% of UK homes have more than 5 channels so I don't think that argument holds up too well.

Maybe it's because I've been brought up both watching and playing Snooker before getting into American Pool but I find Snooker EXTREMELY predictable to watch. And the long red scenario you mentioned is what makes the game so predictable and, at times, tension-free. There's never any pressure on that shot and it occurs between one and five times every frame - not great tv for me. Interestingly, and as a side-note, Chris Melling, who has been a professional at American Pool, English 8 Ball and Snooker claims that the latter is the easiest to win at of the three...

I appreciate how ruling out the soft break defies the ethics of sport and is indeed a skill in itself but I think this is an example of the governing bodies making a decision with the fans in mind.

I certainly agree with you regarding the joys of one pocket though.
Click to expand...

I think SJM's comment about TV ratings in the UK is fair enough, although ratings would plummet if it was poorly done. The coverage is cutting edge and nostalgic, insightful and cheesey, serious and funny, enlightening and cringeworthy. In short, it has something for everyone.

As for Melling, if snooker's so easy to win at, why isn't he a multi-millionaire world champion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top