Snooker Shoot Out

FR01

Always a bit of fun this tournament starts on Thursday. I’m not too sure about it now being an actual ranking event but either way the 50 grand on offer can’t be sniffed at. All live on Eurosport from Thursday until Sunday.

There’s a couple of decent matches in the first round

Jimmy White v Matt Stevens
Robbie McGuigan v Aaron Hill
Mark Williams v Luca Brecel
Alan McManus v Ronnie O’Sullivan


Here’s the link to the draw


http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Sessions/Tournament/14124/betvictor-shoot-out-2020

The Nal

Ronnie vs McManus should be a bit of craic.

zuutroy

I hate this but end up watching it every year anyway.

Joe_ Public

Can just about digest it. Has to be on mute, though. Dont know this year, but always pains me to hear the great Clive Everton being reduced to commentating on this.

Still a last chance for a player to qualify for players championship, maybe even knock ronnie out in the process.

McGuigan v Hill an interesting all irish clash.

The Nal

Its a bit darts alright but a bit of less intensive fun for the players too.

Joe_ Public

Dont know do those guys still shout "yellowww" after every red is potted but i cant be listening to that. Otherwise, no objection to the format, just should not be a ranking event.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Can just about digest it. Has to be on mute, though. Dont know this year, but always pains me to hear the great Clive Everton being reduced to commentating on this.

Still a last chance for a player to qualify for players championship, maybe even knock ronnie out in the process.

McGuigan v Hill an interesting all irish clash.

Lovely player young McGuigan , looking forward to watching him play again.

Joe_ Public

McGuigans had a pretty decent season on the challenge circuit, still an outside chance of getting his main tour card for next year. Still only 15 so just looks a matter of time, all good experience.

AllForIt

I can't watch stuff like this. On principle. I don't see other sports changing their format for what I think is to reach to a wider audience - as if there was a push to find a format for snooker that's a bit more 'populist'.

Golf does totally fine the way it is. They do have variations like the Ryder cup but that's not done to change the game. Snooker should stay the way it is, and having said that I'm not even happy with the way matches have been shortened, especially in the UK Championships. I'd like to see this reversed. 'Come backs' are not something you see much of anymore and that's because there's no scope for it, although they still do happen. But it's more fun in long drawn out matches.

If snooker stays exactly the way it is, i.e. largely UK based, then I'm happy with that. If it should go global I think it should do so on it's own merit's and not be changed to force it to do so. GAA isn't global and why should it. Is it any less worthy because it isn't. Why does everything have to be global anyway. If snooker becomes more popular worldwide - fine, if it doesn't, fine too. I don't ever see Snooker loosing it's popularity here or in the UK. I don't think Snooker is under serious threat for lack of global recognition. There are no pool events on TV here and I think a lot of western European pool players enjoy watching snooker and learn a lot from it. It's just the same thing basically. I think sometimes we forget what we have and try to fix things that aren't broken.

zuutroy

Unfortunately snooker is losing popularity in these parts. The number of clubs has gone way down, there's barely a UK/Ireland pro under 30 even making a living from snooker. It needs to be 'global' to survive, both in terms of talent and audiences/sponsorship. If gambling sponsorship was banned in the morning, professional snooker would do well to survive. The only way to cushion that is to increase and diversify the audience to the point where you might some day have the HSBC World Snooker Championship etc.. Look at what happened before Barry Hearn came in...they were expecting the same formula that worked in the 80s to keep on working and it nearly died (6 ranking events a year). Love him or hate him, he's kept the professional game alive.

Joe_ Public

I'm not a hearn fan so try not to let that spill into unfair criticism or undue bias on my part. Some of the things that have been done are good - the coral series for one, good idea, well executed. Globalisation is fine too, though hearn didnt create that. Snooker has been growing globally for decades, hearn just tapped into it and sped it along as it made business sense to do so and, first and foremost, hearn is a businessman.

I would slightly disgree with the oft repeated assertion that snooker would be dead only for barry hearn. He wasnt the only guy bidding for it when it came up for tender a decade ago, lot of support for the rival bid, only players being the conservative bunch they are, opted for the devil they knew. Probably no regrets on that front to be fair, but snooker would have continued on regardless.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'm not a hearn fan so try not to let that spill into unfair criticism or undue bias on my part. Some of the things that have been done are good - the coral series for one, good idea, well executed. Globalisation is fine too, though hearn didnt create that. Snooker has been growing globally for decades, hearn just tapped into it and sped it along as it made business sense to do so and, first and foremost, hearn is a businessman.

I would slightly disgree with the oft repeated assertion that snooker would be dead only for barry hearn. He wasnt the only guy bidding for it when it came up for tender a decade ago, lot of support for the rival bid, only players being the conservative bunch they are, opted for the devil they knew. Probably no regrets on that front to be fair, but snooker would have continued on regardless.

Have to question that statement, snooker wasn’t growing globally at the time Hearn took over. In fact it was in huge trouble with massive financial losses each season. Pros were part time with at best six events per season all under the guidance of one Sir Rodney Walker suffice to stay snookers day were truly numbered when the tobacco sponsorship ban came along too. Prize money in some events was duly then made up of entry fees hence the low prize funds. Hard to really see how it would have continued.

The other rival bid never materialised as one of the bidders Brandon Parker simply didn’t have the backing. Parker is now however involved with World Snooker as a director.

Hearn won the players vote and now runs World Snooker the promotional side of the sport. The WPBSA run the playing side albeit this has changed now to the WST.

Hearn was true to his word and now players are earning massive amounts , nothing like tennis or golf stars for example but they are becoming millionaires.

Prize money has increased to almost £15 million per season and keeps increasing. Every event has a sponsor alongside minor sponsors. World Snooker have an office in Beijing further expanding its growth in the Far East.

The coaching set up which was flawed is now one of the most professionally run courses with fully qualified coaches now set up across the globe.

And it continues to grow with the recent announcement of the new event in Saudi Arabia, a ten year contract with £500K on offer for the winner.

Alongside the extended Eurosport & BBC contracts its a completely different game now to when Barry Hearn took over the promotional end of the game in 2010

Joe_ Public

No, i wasnt referring to tour structures, but actual numbers playing the game. Don't think there's any question the game has been declining in terms of numbers here but growing exponentially across europe and Asia since the 80s or 90s. That was there to tap into. Just made sense.

There were 2 rival bids on the table, hearns and the one fronted by John Davidson. The players voted 35-29 to go with hearn. Impossible to say how it would have gone if they didnt, but the assertion made by many - including hearn himself - that he singlehandedly saved pro snooker from extinction just isnt valid.

A lot of people love him and what he's done which is fair enough. I guess I'm just old school, so find it hard to forgive what he did to the uk championships. That was a wilful act of vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No, i wasnt referring to tour structures, but actual numbers playing the game. Don't think there's any question the game has been declining in terms of numbers here but growing exponentially across europe and Asia since the 80s or 90s. That was there to tap into. Just made sense.

There were 2 rival bids on the table, hearns and the one fronted by John Davidson. The players voted 35-29 to go with hearn. Impossible to say how it would have gone if they didnt, but the assertion made by many - including hearn himself - that he singlehandedly saved pro snooker from extinction just isnt valid.

A lot of people love him and what he's done which is fair enough. I guess I'm just old school, so find it hard to forgive what he did to the uk championships. That was a wilful act of vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

Absolutely, and you won’t meet anyone more old school than me ! But you’re correct the UK has been damaged by shortening the matches I suppose though it could have been worse and the matches could have been best of 9 but you’d never get through the matches with the old format of best of 17 especially with 128 players involved. Davidson was part of the Parker consortium but they did t have the backing and to be honest I’m happy they didn’t win the vote.

I recall Mark Allen mouthing off that it was a disgrace that Hearn was allowed take over the promotional side of the game but I always wonder what does Allen’s accountant think these days considering the money Allen has won !

Hearn likes to talk and I do enjoy listening to him as he doesn’t suffer fools gladly but in my opinion and it’s just my opinion Snooker wouldn’t be we’re it is now if he hadn’t won that vote.

As for this Shoot Out, it’s only a bit of fun, no one is forced to play in it but it’s a handy few Bob for a few frames of snooker.

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

Absolutely, and you won’t meet anyone more old school than me ! But you’re correct the UK has been damaged by shortening the matches I suppose though it could have been worse and the matches could have been best of 9 but you’d never get through the matches with the old format of best of 17 especially with 128 players involved. Davidson was part of the Parker consortium but they did t have the backing and to be honest I’m happy they didn’t win the vote.

I recall Mark Allen mouthing off that it was a disgrace that Hearn was allowed take over the promotional side of the game but I always wonder what does Allen’s accountant think these days considering the money Allen has won !

Hearn likes to talk and I do enjoy listening to him as he doesn’t suffer fools gladly but in my opinion and it’s just my opinion Snooker wouldn’t be we’re it is now if he hadn’t won that vote.

As for this Shoot Out, it’s only a bit of fun, no one is forced to play in it but it’s a handy few Bob for a few frames of snooker.

They never voted on the davison proposal, just the hearn one. So in theory if hearn had been knocked back, davison was there as a fall back. Just that hearn wasnt the only option there and pro game wasnt necessarily dead without him, thats as much as I'd say about it. The real tragedy was they'd humiliated davison when he'd first made an offer in early 00s. Game might never have needed any saving at all if players hadnt commited that gross act of stupidity.

I think allens point might have been hearn getting it too cheaply, or that there should have been a time limit on it. But those are all old battles now. I wouldnt deny a lot of progress has been made, that would be ridiculous, but there's too much about the system - uk champs, best of 7s, 128 draw, easy pockets and more - that dont sit right with me. You have a season built largely around short format and then you get to marathon of sheffield and I'm not sure players are conditioned properly for it. Not having a proper old school uk champs only exacerbates that imo.

Watched a bit of shootout earlier, great break by one of the chinese lads, probably one of the breaks of the season. Bored with it after a few matches though. Bring back Pot Black ;-)

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They never voted on the davison proposal, just the hearn one. So in theory if hearn had been knocked back, davison was there as a fall back. Just that hearn wasnt the only option there and pro game wasnt necessarily dead without him, thats as much as I'd say about it. The real tragedy was they'd humiliated davison when he'd first made an offer in early 00s. Game might never have needed any saving at all if players hadnt commited that gross act of stupidity.

I think allens point might have been hearn getting it too cheaply, or that there should have been a time limit on it. But those are all old battles now. I wouldnt deny a lot of progress has been made, that would be ridiculous, but there's too much about the system - uk champs, best of 7s, 128 draw, easy pockets and more - that dont sit right with me. You have a season built largely around short format and then you get to marathon of sheffield and I'm not sure players are conditioned properly for it. Not having a proper old school uk champs only exacerbates that imo.

Watched a bit of shootout earlier, great break by one of the chinese lads, probably one of the breaks of the season. Bored with it after a few matches though. Bring back Pot Black ;-)

And there’s one of the biggest misconceptions about pro snooker - easy pockets. Absolute nonsense, as I say to everyone try playing on one of those tables and you’ll see how ‘big’ the pockets are !

And yes bring back Pot Black !

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

And there’s one of the biggest misconceptions about pro snooker - easy pockets. Absolute nonsense, as I say to everyone try playing on one of those tables and you’ll see how ‘big’ the pockets are !

And yes bring back Pot Black !

I wouldnt say its about comparing club tables to pro star tables. Its comparing the tables now to the ones maybe 10 or 15 years ago. When you hear the likes of hendry and others exclaim "how on earth did that drop?" over and over again during commentary i think its clear something is going on. Likely due to the slide off the thin cloths rather than pocket openings themselves.

Just my opinion but i dont see why they need these lightning quick cloths anyway. What was wrong that they needed to do this? Is it just so to make it easier to get tons and then proclaim how brilliant all these players are. Like i said, I'm old school, i grew up in a time when snooker was meant to be, like, really really hard!

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wouldnt say its about comparing club tables to pro star tables. Its comparing the tables now to the ones maybe 10 or 15 years ago. When you hear the likes of hendry and others exclaim "how on earth did that drop?" over and over again during commentary i think its clear something is going on. Likely due to the slide off the thin cloths rather than pocket openings themselves.

Just my opinion but i dont see why they need these lightning quick cloths anyway. What was wrong that they needed to do this? Is it just so to make it easier to get tons and then proclaim how brilliant all these players are. Like i said, I'm old school, i grew up in a time when snooker was meant to be, like, really really hard!

The lighter cloths ended a lot of pro careers even before they took off ! Heavier cloths you won’t get anyway near as fast when they hold the events overseas due to humidity etc.

And with the new match cloths they finally have consistency with the speed on the bed and cushions.

Snooker still is hard, very hard, the standard is just so high now

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

The lighter cloths ended a lot of pro careers even before they took off ! Heavier cloths you won’t get anyway near as fast when they hold the events overseas due to humidity etc.

And with the new match cloths they finally have consistency with the speed on the bed and cushions.

Snooker still is hard, very hard, the standard is just so high now

Perhaps. When i see a ball strike a cushion 4-5 inches before the pocket and still drop, a small bit of my snooker heart dies inside. If the standard is so incredibly high nowadays, i dont know why they need to have it like this.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Perhaps. When i see a ball strike a cushion 4-5 inches before the pocket and still drop, a small bit of my snooker heart dies inside. If the standard is so incredibly high nowadays, i dont know why they need to have it like this.

Believe it or not the pockets are very tight ! All templated to the exact size, a lot smaller that your average club table ! I know only too well !

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

Believe it or not the pockets are very tight ! All templated to the exact size, a lot smaller that your average club table ! I know only too well !

Its not the pocket size though. Its the thinness of the cloths - causes the balls to slide into pockets more easily. This shouldn't be in dispute. The bbc did a piece with a crucible table fitter a couple of years back who explained how they had to lessen the bump on the pockets because the cloth was ripping too easily, hence balls were more liable to rattle and drop than stay out.

I'm not suggesting people have to be up in arms about this, just should be more aware. If i have an issue with it, its just probably because i really am more old school than others!

zuutroy

There was a time when a ball on the black cushion was a glimmer of hope if your opponent was in. Nowadays they're able to power them in with screw. Something has changed over the years for sure. The main conspiracy theory is that the fall has been rounded off.

Joe_ Public

Its not just pockets either. The balls are lighter and there's less static so its not like yesteryear when trying to split a pack you'd have to push the cue through with an almighty heave. You dont have to hit the ball that hard anymore, guys like mark allen or marco fu might have struggled in the old days with their lack of cue power. Its still an advantage to have it, but you can get by fairly ok without it on these tables.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its not just pockets either. The balls are lighter and there's less static so its not like yesteryear when trying to split a pack you'd have to push the cue through with an almighty heave. You dont have to hit the ball that hard anymore, guys like mark allen or marco fu might have struggled in the old days with their lack of cue power. Its still an advantage to have it, but you can get by fairly ok without it on these tables.

Don’t forget the heaters under the table also

Mervyn Skidmore

The moronic whooping and hollering from the crowd ruins this. What's the story with it?

Joe_ Public

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

The moronic whooping and hollering from the crowd ruins this. What's the story with it?

Its part of the allure of the fun and novelty of the event. Supposedly. That kid shouting ole after every shot was getting on my wick a bit today. Not sure williams should have been encouraging him!

Few of the irish guys on tomorrow afternoon. Will tune in for them for half an hour.

The Nal

Poor old Jimmy White. He missed a medium length rest shot last night by a foot.

Joe_ Public

Nice outing for Aaron Hill there. Foulds very complimentary. Poor mcguigan bit like a deer caught in the headlights, can put it down to experience.

FR01

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Nice outing for Aaron Hill there. Foulds very complimentary. Poor mcguigan bit like a deer caught in the headlights, can put it down to experience.

Absolutely, I felt sorry for him there !! Would love to see Hill get a good run in this

Joe_ Public

FR01 wrote: »

Absolutely, I felt sorry for him there !! Would love to see Hill get a good run in this

Hill looked very composed for a guy who wouldn't have experienced that kind of atmosphere before. So did Bulman after him. Good to see it.

Mervyn Skidmore

Tried watching it for a while but had to switch off. Where do they find the crowd? Local Spoons?

FR01

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Tried watching it for a while but had to switch off. Where do they find the crowd? Local Spoons?

Yep they sound like a right mob, especially when the sing the Pink Panther tune !

Mervyn Skidmore

I really don't get this format though. Usually when they try to radically change a sport they focus on the things that are good about the sport. So in snooker, the best parts in my mind are break building and thoughtful tactical play. This format supports neither. Instead it supports rushed shots and misses. It's turned a great game into a nonsense with good players looking ridiculous.

Peter File

It is good fun to watch and gives a lot of the lower ranked players the opportunity to play in front of a big albeit rowdy crowd and the tv cameras.

Joe_ Public

Jesus fergal was robbed there. Bit of a setback as needs every £ he can get to save the tour card.

Chalk McHugh

Only a bit of fun i guess but the crowd is off putting. Some mouthy kid roaring 'ole' after every pot yesterday forced me to turn it off. It's for the short attention span darts crowd. I hate darts and the constant loud noise so snooker is like the antidote to that debauchery and now this Shoot Out has lost it's snooker morals and become like a weekend in Temple Bar. I'll dip in and out and watch the finale on Sunday evening when the money, alcohol consumption and nerves ratchet up a notch or two.

Joe_ Public

Just watched the ronnie match to see how bad things got, it was raucous but not wildly so. Ref got herself in a panic, ordering ronnie to stop while down on a shot. Ronnie just ignored her and played on, all good in the end.

Chalk McHugh

Poor Fergal was looking good for a much needed win but the Chinese lad potted a few outrageous long shots to pip the Lucan man at the death. I counted 3 very low percentage shots the Chinese lad potted. Poor Fergal just can't catch a break.

Joe_ Public

Nice again from hill. Got his chance and took it, did nothing rash. All you can ask for in this format.

Crumbs

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Just watched the ronnie match to see how bad things got, it was raucous but not wildly so. Ref got herself in a panic, ordering ronnie to stop while down on a shot. Ronnie just ignored her and played on, all good in the end.

Looked to me that O'Sullivan might have fouled on his previous shot but didn't call it on himself and the ref missed it. Then maybe the marker or someone brought it to the ref's attention but she couldn't stop Ronnie before he took his next shot.

Of course, the Eurosport lads never brought it up afterwards.

FR01

Crumbs wrote: »

Looked to me that O'Sullivan might have fouled on his previous shot but didn't call it on himself and the ref missed it. Then maybe the marker or someone brought it to the ref's attention but she couldn't stop Ronnie before he took his next shot.

Of course, the Eurosport lads never brought it up afterwards.

Yes the shot he played after the yellow was a foul and he should have been pulled up on it. I wonder if it was any other player would the foul have been called. And your correct about Eurosport, Andy Goldstein couldn’t bring it up because he’s tongue is too far up Ronnie’s ****.

Also great to see young Hill win today

Mervyn Skidmore

Those noises you are hearing from the crowd are just spontaneous sounds. Brain dead patients often display this and it shouldn't be confused with an improvement in their condition.

Joe_ Public

Crumbs wrote: »

Looked to me that O'Sullivan might have fouled on his previous shot but didn't call it on himself and the ref missed it. Then maybe the marker or someone brought it to the ref's attention but she couldn't stop Ronnie before he took his next shot.

Of course, the Eurosport lads never brought it up afterwards.

Yeah, thats obviously what happened. It seems they can use the new technology but once player has got his next shot off, foul doesnt count. Way ronnie plays, that could be an issue with him in any tournament with or without shotclock. Maybe she could have called the foul, had balls replaced, though dont think you can stop the clock here. Just think they could have greater clarity on it one way or the other.

Chalk McHugh

Didn't see that Ronnie foul? Do you guys think he knew he fouled it? I remember he made a veryblatant foul last year by hitting a ball with the restand he never called himself on it and acted all surprised in the Eurosport studio post match when asked about it. To me he cheated as anyone knows anything about snooker there was zero chance of not noticing that foul.

Joe_ Public

Watched it a few times, its not blatant like the one with the rest last year but marker clearly spots it. You could tell ref was flustered because she forgets to respot green couple of shots later.

FR01

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

Didn't see that Ronnie foul? Do you guys think he knew he fouled it? I remember he made a veryblatant foul last year by hitting a ball with the restand he never called himself on it and acted all surprised in the Eurosport studio post match when asked about it. To me he cheated as anyone knows anything about snooker there was zero chance of not noticing that foul.

To be fair to him when that shot was replayed to him after the match he was genuinely embarrassed and even offered to play the game again. Across the game 99 % of the players will call a foul, look at Barry Pinches yesterday , he calls a foul and loses the frame over it. Without naming names there are however two players who have previous and are well know for it.

Regarding the yellow last night, I’d ask anyone out there who plays or has played the game , has it ever happened to you ? I’ve seen it happen quite a few times, not for one minute saying she’s not a top ref but it’s happened the top guys too.

Chalk McHugh

FR01 wrote: »

To be fair to him when that shot was replayed to him after the match he was genuinely embarrassed and even offered to play the game again. Across the game 99 % of the players will call a foul, look at Barry Pinches yesterday , he calls a foul and loses the frame over it. Without naming names there are however two players who have previous and are well know for it.

Regarding the yellow last night, I’d ask anyone out there who plays or has played the game , has it ever happened to you ? I’ve seen it happen quite a few times, not for one minute saying she’s not a top ref but it’s happened the top guys too.

Personally i wouldn't give Ronnie any credit for being embarrased post match or offering a rematch. To me it was just Ronnie being regretfup about not owning up to a blatant foul. He then went out and lost his next match 5-1 or something to a player he'd usually beat in his sleep (cant remember exactly who but wasn't a top player). Looked like he wanted out of the competition. I suppose there's always a 2% chance he didn't notice but he cheated 98% for me. And a very blatant one at that. The Eurosport lads didn't question it for long. And that was the end of that.

Joe_ Public

Its here at 3.46 if anyone wants to judge for themselves. Its a tough situation for ref, not sure what more she can do in the circumstances.

https://youtu.be/Tp90TiNm7so

Chalk McHugh

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its here at 3.46 if anyone wants to judge for themselves. Its a tough situation for ref, not sure what more she can do in the circumstances.

https://youtu.be/Tp90TiNm7so

Thanks for that. Watched it. Again that is quite blatant cheating in my book. Black moved quite a bit. Was very obvious. Referee obviously saw it and quite rightly asked Ronnie to stop but he ignored her and played on. I feel bit sorry for her there. Ronnie had to here her but played on and that is very poor form. Hard to believe that actually. He should have forfeited the frame for ignoring the referee.

FR01

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

Thanks for that. Watched it. Again that is quite blatant cheating in my book. Black moved quite a bit. Was very obvious. Referee obviously saw it and quite rightly asked Ronnie to stop but he ignored her and played on. I feel bit sorry for her there. Ronnie had to here her but played on and that is very poor form. Hard to believe that actually. He should have forfeited the frame for ignoring the referee.

Not sure what the actually ruling is there?

Joe_ Public

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

Thanks for that. Watched it. Again that is quite blatant cheating in my book. Black moved quite a bit. Was very obvious. Referee obviously saw it and quite rightly asked Ronnie to stop but he ignored her and played on. I feel bit sorry for her there. Ronnie had to here her but played on and that is very poor form. Hard to believe that actually. He should have forfeited the frame for ignoring the referee.

No, the ref doesnt see it, but is obviously hearing it from the marker and tries to intercede before ronnie takes the shot. Question is should she still have called the foul anyway? There's no precedent for it so i cant see its her fault. Whether ronnie knew he'd fouled is another thing, with the rest incident i have little doubt, but this one is nowhere near as blatant so i dont know.