snooker world championship final

hendry, it's on the bbc snooker page.
was ok as far as potting every ball in the right order to get the max break and look cool with the added bonus of a bonus in the shape of a check in your name with lots of money above it.

I went on the BBC site to watch this and spotted the video was only 4:28 long and thought "Quicker than Ronnie? WTF!" then pressed play and he was already on 89.

now we just need someone to beat the score by a free ball + 147 break combo.

cmon selbs

oh fuck off higgins

go away

go the fuck away

louis seems to hate scottish snooker players

nah just the dull uncharismatic ones

oh wait

I thought you preferred quality over charisma Mr J

I prefer talent and inspiration to efficiency, at least on the snooker table...it's a game that ought to reward the sublime rather than the functional

...and besides, I prefer players with individual styles, with facets to their game which separate them from the cluster. Otherwise what is there to follow?

It's not a game that "ought" to reward the sublime. I agree that Scottish snooker players tend to be on the nice-but-dull side though.

I mean, if you're lucky it is, but that applies to any sport really.

I think i understand why The Lex gets mad when people say they stopped watching tennis if Agassi* was knocked out.

*insert any peoples fave in there

I prefer talent and inspiration to efficiency, at least on the snooker table...it's a game that ought to reward the sublime rather than the functional

if you're truly sublime then surely you'd beat the merely functional?

Tennis is different; tennis openly and flagrantly rewards inspirational, dominant play because it places the two opponents in direct confrontation. Snooker places each opponent alone, and so they always have a choice as to what level of shot to play. I love the game, but I love it more when it's played by people who constantly reveal their personality, their talents, and their changing approach to the game depending on circumstances, i.e. Ronnie O'Sullivan or Neil Robertson or Mark Selby. Or players who play flat-out insane, occasionally self-destructive snooker in search of perfection, i.e. Ding Junhui. Or headcases, i.e. Peter Ebdon

Ken this is true but many players capable of the sublime are also capable of error, and also you can never fully legislate for the run of the balls

Grinders and those who are very good safety players have traditionally dominated though: Davis, Reardon, Hendry etc. have won far more titles than the very best sublimely gifted players (O'Sullivan, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White etc.)

Let me dream!

Am trying to work out where Shaun Murphy fits on the scale, and whether his extravagant and often inspiring talents are sufficient to resist the demerits of his occasionally somewhat offputting personality...I certainly dislike him less than I did circa 2005

As much as I love Ronnie's sublime skills I'm getting really tired of these "I don't know if I can go on" bullshit interviews every time someone has the temerity to beat him.

I know what you mean about the attraction of the unexpected LJ but with Higgins I think it's simply that he always knows the "correct" shot to play and sees no reason to play what he sees in his head as the wrong shot. That doesn't mean he won't go for his shots, but it does mean he'll be less likely to scatter balls all over the table in a ridiculous attempt at an impossible red that he's convinced himself is a shot to nothing. Boring as that is (particularly if he's not scoring heavily) I still admire his resilience under pressure - he's won a fair few very tense close matches.

I've warmed to Ebdon over the years as his madness has grown, I can still picture the mad grin on his face as Hendry won something like 7 frames out of 8 against him in a world final - somewhere between "Ach I'll just try to enjoy myself" and "I'm gonna eat your children!"

Grinders and those who are very good safety players have traditionally dominated though: Davis, Reardon, Hendry etc. have won far more titles than the very best sublimely gifted players (O'Sullivan, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White etc.)

Hendry doesn't belong in that list. Boring as he might be off the table be basically took the "go for everything" attitude of Higgins and White but did it properly (i.e. by not missing the balls). His safety game isn't great, he doesn't even like playing safety shots. I remember when he first came to prominence everyone was amazed at the shots he was taking on, particularly into middle pockets.

before Ronnie, Hendry was regarded as the most natural potter anyone had seen.
He did have to develop a safety game though(not as good as steve davis safety game was), and it made him and even better player.
ffs the guy won a world championship with a fractured arm. You gotta admit that takes something special.

peter ebdon is about 10x more boring to watch than john higgins

and as boring as those guys may be, they aren't in cliff thorburns league!

funnily enough, Terry Griffiths was a boring slow player, but I did like him.

also, i don't see how potting stupidly ridiculous shots take more inspiration than a brilliant safety shot

Ken OTM

peter ebdon is about 10x more boring to watch than john higgins

yes but he is on the edge of complete nervous breakdown every time he misses a pot do you not see

and there's something to be said for his almost hypnotically self-denying style, especially in the context of the barely-suppressed wailing hair-tearing beast within...he is a man on the edge

WHOA

I got no problem with brilliant safety shots, amazing snookers etc...this is all part of the "inspiration" I referred to. I love 'em. What I was complaining about were functional potters who resort to good, often very good, "classic safety", when others might go for something inspirational or at least original.

If only you could take Ken Doherty's personality and Stephen Hendry's game and fuse them into one...I do like Hendry, because he's great and plays the game in a superb manner, but he makes peak-era Davis look like Quinton Hann

and miss and lose
xpost

But the game is cruel upon the mentally mercurial. Take Matthew Stevens. Now a wreck, now on the scrapheap. Once within touching distance of greatness. Bright talent, burnt out. At least he list to Mark Williams, who is/was a truly brilliant player and a fine personality.

*lost

Not always, Kerr! Not always!

i never rated mark williams. he can pot long balls and that seems to be the extent of his game

in other news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/7661707.stm

this is my favourite live feed so far. you just get to listen to 'drag racer' in a continuous loop

omg Graeme Dott's voice

stop hating on scottishes

what is there to hate about his bonny lilt? even though it can probably only be heard properly by dogs

btw

fuck off john higgins

resilience

resilience can fuck itself

When Higgins wins a match 13-7, 13-5, by completely outplaying his opponent, rather than hanging in with his utterly, unspeakably efficient, charismaless game, maybe then I might root for him, but this is sheer unrelenting cuntery of the highest order and bad for the game

(n.b. I am drunk but still, argh)

maybe he should mouth "never in doubt" at the camera after every final frame clincher.

andrei_higgins.jpg

why bother watching any game if you just want to watch predictable 13-5 drubbings?

I don't! I just don't want a game to be inevitably and heartbreakingly gritted out by a player I dislike...this sort of result was equally predictable, and more infuriating

I mean, if he's gonna go 2 down with 3 to play or 1 down with 2 to play, I wanna see some opponents NOT bending over and taking his "resilience" right where it hurts, and getting over the line themselves...if he gets to the winning line first then fair enough

but clearly this isn't the case because he hasn't won every single tournament there is to win..

Hey you guys, am I the only one who remembers this?

I have no recollection of that whatsoever.

In today's news, Higgins races into an excitingly racy early charismatic lead thanks to playing mostly shite and resiliently asking for new balls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/8027621.stm

Mark Allen played *so badly* in that opening session. All Higgins had to do was wait for an opportunity; there was one in every frame. Even when Allen seemed in the balls, you knew he'd find a way to screw up. The two frames he won, he only did so because Higgins returned the compliment.

If there's any justice in the world, Neil Robertson will murk his way to the title

Instead, we'll have a Murphy-Higgins final, and I'll be sorely tempted to not watch it.