Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Parts of these matches are hard to watch. No wonder the ratings are suffering. FWIW, here are my suggestions on how to make these matches more entertaining:
1) Get rid of the mid-session interval. Guys in clubs will play 20 games in a row without a break, why the constant stopping and starting in the tournaments?
Yeah, but who the hell watches club players? The mid session intervals are there as much for the crowd as they are for the participants. OK, Mark Williams rattled off four frames in no time, but it's just as possible to take two hours or more, and the paying public would want refreshments, toilets etc without missing any of the action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
2) For that matter why these long breaks between 'sessions'? Why not just play each match through? Tennis players seem to have no problem going five sets in their matches, yet snooker players have to go have tea or something for two hours? Brutal. Let's just get on with the damn match!
Firstly, similar reasons to above. Also, splitting the sessions up is better for both ticket sales and TV, without which there would be a whole lot less money, and thus a whole lot less snooker in the first place. Remember who's paying the piper....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
3) The 'roll up' behind a color should be banned. They should make the rule that you have to hit a rail on all shots at colors. It's a total wimp shot and you gain way more of an advantage than you deserve.
IMO, go watch some pool if you haven't got the attention span to cope with periods of high class safety play in snooker. Anyway, try to define a "roll up", because obviously stipulating the hitting of a
cushion is just dumb. The area of the playing surface on a snooker table in relation to its perimeter is much larger than, say, pool; the added complexity and awkwardness would be disproportionate. Snooker is not meant to be simply a high octane, break-building potting contest - the ebb and flow of the game is part of the attraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
4) On a similar vein the free ball rule has just got to go. It's totally a situation where random chance can give someone a massive advantage they didn't earn, and it usually turns matches totally around based on nothing more than variance.
If it's just variance then over the long term nobody gets an advantage.....
If the free ball rule was abolished then professional players would immediately start to abuse its absence by deliberately playing an "accidental" foul for the purpose of gaining a much bigger and genuinely undeserved unfair advantage. The onerous responsibilty to tell the difference would then fall upon the referees, and adjudging a foul to be deliberate would be tantamount to an accusation of cheating. The ramifications are decidedly unpalatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
5) Most dramatic of all, I think frames should just be over when someone needs a snooker. 90% of the time the player behind can't get the snookers anyways, so it's just a massive time waster while they struggle to get them and it's kind of a wimpy part of the game anyways. You couldn't get it done when the game was live, so why should you get another chance after your opponent has effectively made his 'game ball'? Not only is it undeserved but it really ruins the flow of the game most of the time.
Confirmed - you're watching the wrong game. No thanks to this idea. If you even need an explanation as to why then you haven't thought this through and you're probably beyond help, but whatever, there's a clue in the spoiler.
) just because he was so damn good but now I have a soft soft for him because I kinda feel sorry for him. 
