Since the last thread was closed, here's another attempt about one of the finest cue sports ever: Snooker. I tried to include every important and interesting kind of information about the game, the players and so on. However, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the universe when it comes to snooker. Information might be wrong or missing. Hopefully it's enough for the veterans and those, who want to learn more.
Current Event: The World Championships, Finals: Murphy vs. Bingham
Snooker is a cue sport and played with 22 different snooker balls. The White, fifteen reds (worth one point each), and the six colours: yellow (two pts), green (three pts), brown (four pts), blue (five pts), pink (six pts) and black (seven pts). The goal is to score more points than the opponent. In order to score a player has to first sink a red, then a colour, then red again until only colours remain. Everytime a colour leaves the table, the colour will be put on the table again, until no reds are left. Once all reds are gone, the colours have to be potted according to their value with yellow being the first ball. Hence, a total of 147 points can be scored in one go.
The Table Set Up
Even though snooker tables look a lot like pool tables, there are differences. To begin with, the ordinary snooker table is about 3,5 meters in length and about 1,8 meters in width. Futhermore, the balls are significantly smaller than their pool pendants and the pockets have round edges, allowing less leeway in terms of precision. You either hit, or the balls punish you heavily.
The interesting part about snooker is not the difficulty to actually pot more than one ball, but the tactial aspect. Fouls do matter a lot. Each foul will mean points for the opponents (ranging from four points for a basic foul to seven points for a foul on the black ball). Most fouls are commited by accidentally potting the white ball, or by not hitting a red (or a colour). In the latter case - not hitting the ball on - a "miss" is called. This means that the white (and any other ball moved) are placed back on their position and the player has to attempt to hit again and again, until he finally succeeds. Obviously, any player can try to force to opponent into a foul, e.g. by hiding the white behind a colour. The opponent now has to hit a red ball, which he can't directly hit. That's where the name is from - it's called a snooker. So, even if one player can not possibly score enough points to win a frame, he can still try to "snooker" his opponent, until he can win the frame again. However, in this special case, when foul points (snooker) are required, no miss is called.
So far, these were the rules in short. There's ton more to it, especially when it comes to snookers, fouls and miss. To just list one last example, if a player misses to hit a ball and snookers the opponent, the opponent will receive a "free ball" - a replacement he can nominate instead of the ball he should target. Like, if he has to hit a red, but was snookered via foul on the red, he could nominate the black as red and pot black instead. Black would return on the table and so on and so forth. Sounds a lot more complicated than it is.
People told me nobody likes text walls, so I better link to the "best" article there is: Wikipedia about Snooker.
There are tons and tons of snooker related tournaments throughout the entire year. Most importantly, there are the "main tour" tournaments, which usually feature a large price pool and require long qualifications. In the last years a new series was introduced, the so-called "Players Tour Championships" (PTC for short). These feature a smaller prize pool and often list amateurs in the first rounds as well. The PTC is split into the Asian Tour (AT) and the European Tour (ET). Both kind of tournaments matter, as the prize money determine the world ranking. The more you win, the higher you are. Players ranked less than #64 might have to qualify to maintain their status as professionals. I haven't fully understood it, so read with care. In addition to the status, the rankings also might determine seeds in other tournaments. To avoid a wall of text, let's rather focus on the "real" stuff.
World Championship
The World Championships are held once each year and mark the end of a season. Usually, the WC take place in Sheffield's Crucible Theatre at the end of April. It doesn't need much explanation as to why a "World Championship" is important I guess. However, for Snooker the WC have something more magical than for most other sports I know. Be it that there really are only the best of the best left without one participant being there solely because of "grid luck", or be it that the atmosphere is drastically different from any other tournament of the season. Or that the distances are a lot longer than for any other tour - you have to win ten frames in the Ro32 and 18 in the finals. Well...
The Masters
The Masters, usually hosted at the end of January (hint: coming up soon) in London is something quite close to the spirit of the World Championship. Only the top 16 players are invited to join (so it's not part of the main tournament) and fight for a really large prize pool (200,000 £). The distances are quite short in comparison to the World Championship, but who cares. It's one of those magical tournaments to not feature a single bad match.
The UK Championship
The UK Championship has the biggest prize pool of all main tour events with exception for the WC. It's some midway point of each season and is usually won by one of the leading players of the current ranking. It takes a lot to claim the title, as anyone would give their very best to just prepare for this event. Nobody wants to be in a slump for this tour, as the UK Championship title means about as much as three or maybe four PTC wins combined.
If a player wins all three of these tournaments, he wins the unofficial title "Tripple Crown". In the past century only nine players achieved that. All of them are considered as the best of the Snooker world.
Mark Selby
Personally, my favourite player of the current basis and also the current World Champion. He's one of the geniuses of the sport and named "the torturer" by Ronnie O'Sullivan. This nick refers to Selby's sheer will to completely force the opponent to adapt to Selby instead of the other way round. Even though Selby is among the best break builders in the game, he's more famous for being able to destroy any game flow by snookering even the best of the game. Especially if Selby is behind by long, he's not to be underestimated. In his very first appearance in a WC finale, he was almost able to start a come back against legend John Higgins in 2007. He beat Sullivan in a spectacular come back at the masters and defeated tons and tons of good players coming from behind. Selby won the masters thrice, the UK Championship once - so he's among the elite nine to hold the tripple crown. He's also a former English 8 Ball Pool champion, who completely focussed on Snooker in 2006.
Besides all that, Selby is also known as "the Jester from Leicester". He does a lot of jokes, shows a smile and emotions, which made him a fan favourite.
Ronnie o'Sullivan
Ronnie o'Sullivan is the wunderkind of the sport. Even though I really do not agree that he is among the best of the sport "ever", he is without a doubt a legend and belongs in the top of the current ranking. There's not ball he can not pot, there's no record he can not break. He is about to break the record for most "century" breaks ever, he scored the most maximum breaks and won the tripple crown more than once. He also plays with both hands. His only weakness it the mental stability he lacked in the past years. He's known to suffer from depression and to stand in his own way once his opponents gained momentum. He either played as if he was from another world, or he just lost it. Most recently, Sullivan seemed to have matured and is probably the favourite for any tour he enters, regardless of who he has to face.
Ding Junhui
Ding Junhui is the most notable player from China. His fanpage in his home country is unbelievably large, so big, that he is even the star of his own comic series. His breakthrough was a few years back, when he won the China Open as 19 year old. Back then he was the underdog, today he is among the elite. He was seen as a youngster who could tear down the established class. And he did work a lot for that reputation, as he won the UK Championship only shortly after. However, he was thrown back around 2008 and missed to win more of the major titles. He also has the Crucible Curse - rarely making it to the late stages of the World Championships. Today he is one of the constant top players, but still not really in the hardcore favourite circle. What makes him extraordinary is a combination of really aggressive, straight forward play, followed by hardcore safety play if required. Only few can switch in between safety- and break building like him.
Neil Robertson
The first World Champion from Australia. Known for agressive long pots and a really sick cue control. Together with Ding, Robertson is one of the few "aliens" on the tournament. Only very, very few players from outside of Europe managed to get a foot into the world of professional Snooker. The same is true for this exceptional player. He struggled at first, although he showed talent in minor tournaments. From his second attempt at playing professionally in 2006 and his first World Champion title only four years passed - a very short period of time.
In the 2013/2014 season Robertson was able to score more than one hundred century breaks. This alone shows what outlandish break builder the player is. In this season Robertson plays either godlike or not good at all. Still, he is among the top three and has the chance to defend his #1 spot in the next tournaments.
Judd Trump
Similar to o'Sullivan, he's been called a wunderkind. He's left handed, but plays with his right as well. He already appeared in the WC finale and won tons of titles, scored more centuries than experienced professionals and... just did not really live up to his name yet. You'd expect a lot more, even though he displays the best play, but not when it matters, at least as of late. However, he has still plenty of time to show the world he's Sullivan 2.0.
His start in the current season was rather impressive and he showed that there is room for more. It wouldn't be a big surprise if he won either the Masters or even the World Championship later this year.
Mark Allen
Compared to the five names above, Allen certainly isn't "that great". Yet, in the ongoing season he reached two consecutive PTC finals and does very, very well. He almost never screws up and is a danger to anyone. Interesting side note, his parents sold their house in his early years to support his career. Seems it paid out after all.
When I first saw Snooker I thought that the past century didn't produce that great players. If you look at Snooker history, most "professionals" were by no means professional in the common sense of the word. Even Korean Brood War professionals earned more money. Hence the thought - they couldn't be that great, as they had to earn their money in shady clubs. A misconception. There were players the newschool rookie like me underestimated. Let's keep the chapter short though.
Alex Higgins
Alex Higgins is something like Ronnie o'Sullivan on crack. Known to have some bad manners every now and then, but also known to provide the audience of the first televized matches with pure magic - one of the greatest entertainers of the sport. He shot faster than anyone else with a cue power unmatched even by most of today's professionals. It's hard to put in words how gifted the player was. I just leave this video, as it features everything you need to know about the man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAO48WSZnRU
Jimmy White
Jimmy White is the only player of this chapter to actually still play - and not bad at all. However, he has the "saddest" career of them all. There's nobody alive to be featured in more WC finales to never one a single one of them. He had the bad luck to have been in his prime when the strongest of the strong had their peak - first players like Reardon, Davis and Higgins (see video above), later Steven Hendry. If his cue power can be compared to anyone, only Higgins comes to mind, nobody else. He's also fast - so fast. Really, a huge personality.
Steve Davis
Steve Davis was one of the greatest opponents Alex Higgins ever had. However, Higgins was the Hurrican, Davis was... slow, thoughtful and strategical. By no means a bad break builder and actually the player to show a perfect 147 for the first time in a televized match. However, he was just better than anyone else in his era, the most constant player ever most likely. He still remained in the Top16 of the world ranking when he turned 50, a magical moment and (aside from his many WC titles) his biggest achievement. Ironically, nobody liked him all too much when he started as pro. He never smiled that much, he was a rock, regardless of what happened. Yet, he is one of the funniest people you can imagine. Only in later years he started to appear as entertainer, most memorable during the trick shot championships. He also is the most mannered person on the tour and a very talented 9-Pool player.
Stephen Hendry
Stephen Hendry overtowered every player on the tour in the 90es and continued to "wreck" the competition for many years. He broke possibly every record there was and dragged Snooker to a whole new level. Seven WC Titles, five of them consecutive, five UK Championship titles and six masters titles - he leads the tripple crown table by a lot. Just to give you a glimpse of who the real emperor of the realm of Snooker was. Today he posts pictures of his food on twitter and eats in China, other than that I really don't know what he does. Oh, he comments for BBC every now and then.
Since this thread can't possibly give you a lot of impressions, let's add some stuff you might want to watch if you're interested in the sport. Or read up. Thanks to Piko for the bw.de version!
Some Trivia news from 2014 - selected randmoly. Actually, for now there's only one thing to leave here:
For all non-snooker players: Ali Carter, one of the best players, suffered from cancer. Actually, this man's medical record is horrifying. He suffers from Morbus Crohn, but still manages to get to the WC final twice. Then he gets diagnosed with cancer and beats it. Then he gets diagnosed for a second time. And now he's back. Not just back, he came back and won the first tournament he entered. If you ever look for inspiration, here's where to start.
If you're interested in more snooker, I recommend browsing these:
Worldsnooker.com - obvious, the latest news of the game and the official organization to go to. Now featuring German coverage.
Snooker.org: best page to get results in a very timely fashion. Great overview, great archive of players and also featuring fun competitions
I love this game. I'm also playing casually and recently made my first break over 40. I felt like a god afterwards, even though I know that breaks of 40 don't mean shit. Usually, I'm struggling with potting more than 3 balls consecutively because my positional play is awful, which makes potting even more difficult than it already is.
Great thread, let's hope there are some cue sports afficionados here.
On January 11 2015 23:39 oneofthem wrote: o'sullivan not even among the best ever?
Granted, poor choice of words. I think he is one of the best players, but not "the" best player (yet). I mostly don't really agree with the fandom he gets while others are talked down entirely by lunatics. Not Sullivan's fault, yet something mildly annoying.
The opening frame of the masters wasn't bad and promised more than the entire match delivered: Selby started into the match with a century of exactly 100 points. Afterwards his form seemed to drop. The reigning world champion had problems to get his positional play on track and fought heavy to keep his form. Both players seemed to misjudge the speed of the table and the cushion contacts at first - also Murphy caught a couple of kicks iirc. However, Murphy got the better scoring and eventually took the lead. Selby managed to come close to win the entire thing, bouncing back from a 1-5 to 5-5. Eventually Murphy's better potting rescued him.
Fu vs. Bingham
The battle of two outsiders should've been one of the "lesser" matches of this tournament. However, especially Fu's performance turned it into the second best match of the round. Playing like a beast unleashed, Bingham couldn't do much but watching his opponent potting anything on the table. The highlight: a 147 in the fourth frame shortly before the interval.
Sullivan vs. Walden
After last year's white wash by Sullivan, Walden probably wanted to show what he was capable off. Too bad that he apparently suffered from an aching shoulder. Sullivan played his "ordinary" snooker, meaning Walden didn't really stand a chance for long. However, Sullivan broke down and Walden could win three frames in a row. Too little, too late, though, eventually Sullivan ended it with 6-4.
Robertson vs. Milkins
Didn't watch, had university. From what I heard it was not that entertaining and Robertson fought heavier than he should be - in theory at least.
Carter vs. Hawkins
I honestly didn't expect much, as Hawkins just stomped his group in the Championship League just a week before, scoring another Maximum. Also, Carter returned to the professional venues after a long break and having survived his second cancer diagnosis. But, it's Carter. After receiving standing ovations he played as if he had never been away. Hawkins on the other hand got a ton of kicks at first and later had a hard time to slow down Carter. Most one sided match, yet one of the more inspiring one, given Carter's history. 6-1 Carter.
Trump vs. Maguire
Haven't actually seen most of the game, as I was preoccupied. From what I saw Trump played nowhere close to what he showed earlier in the season, but well enough to fight Maguire. Maguire however was just better in most aspects and won.
Ding vs. Perry
Ding didn't concentrate - that's about the match summary. Tons of stupid mistakes, which Perry consequently punished. Also, some interesting / well played shots by Perry.
Allen vs. Higgins
Without a doubt one of the best matches I seen in the last decade - the stats speak for themselves. Three centuries in under 30 minutes for a 2-1 lead for Higgins.
Frame Four stats:
Higgins Pot Success: 100% Allen Pot Success: 98%
The mid session interval meant a break of sorts, as both fought heavy to win the fifth. Allen over long took the advantage and lead Higgins by one frame all the time. In frame nine Higgins was on his way to score the second Maximum of the tournament, which he only realised after potting the seventh or eigth black. Too bad he had a bad position on the final yellow, could've easily turned the match around.
Very hard to say who advances. Fu is a slow player, which is something Sullivan often does not know how to counter. Then again, Sullivan displays a lot more patience than in the years before and plays at his best. If Fu can transfer his performance from the previous rounds, he has very good chances to advance. Anyhow, not really a chance to safely find a favourite here.
Robertson vs. Carter
Carter should take this easily if Robertson really doesn't shift in a higher gear. If Robertson does too many mistakes, there's no way that Carter will let that go unpunished. It seems nothing can get to Carter again, he already showed he has nothing to hide or needs more time to practice. In combination with Robertson's up and down in the ongoing season, this should be Carter's match.
Perry vs. Allen
Allen by far. Allen's been playing a really great season so far, whereas Perry just misses the last bit of luck to advance further. Ding made tons of mistakes, Allen will not do the same, judging from how he took down Higgins. But let's not forget that Perry showed how much he can pressure even the best in the last World Championship against Sullivan.
Maguire vs. Murphy
Should be advantage for Maguire - he had the tougher opponent and does rather well as of late. He doesn't seem to care that much anymore, while Murphy just recovered from some sickness. Yet, both are not playing the best they can... so anything's possible I guess. Wouldn't be the first time Murphy played sloppy in the first round, to only do a little better a few days later.
Frame 1 Allen vs Perry was hilarious. pink and balck left, neither could pot the pink but kept accidentally leaving it safe lol. Allen handed his que to the ref at one point after both players kept failing to pot the pink.
On January 16 2015 22:53 marvellosity wrote: really bizarre statements in your preview there Gecko
Yeah Ronnie at his best isn't just the best of all time, he's the best by some distance IMHO. I always preferred Higgins to Ronnie when I was younger, but i think that's because everyone else liked Ronnie and I felt a bit sorry for Higgins as 'the bad guy' in the rivalry.
yeah specifically it was the "O'Sullivan - Fu is hard to call" when O'Sullivan is the overwhelming favourite in that match regardless of circumstances.
And Robertson will always be a favourite against Carter, even if the chance for an upset exists. Although that one was more understandable ^^
If O'Sullivan had been more stable mentally, he would be the GOAT without any doubt. Right now, he's definitely one of the three best players of the modern era. (Hendry, S. Davis being the other two) I agree that Ronnie is unbeatable when he's on fire, but maintaining that high level of play has become ridiculously hard. The other guys are also playing better than ever. I really hope O'Sullivan will win one more WSC title. Him only having won five titles seems wrong. Still, his playstyle is really breathtaking sometimes.
O'Sullivan never was as dominant as Hendry and Davis in their respective primes. But he managed to play on the highest level for more than 20 years now, which makes him truly unique. It's kind of hard to compare the 80s to the modern game, because so many things have changed. (more tournaments, higher average level of play, more money in the game, etc.) This is also why comparing Davis and O'Sullivan is so hard. Davis was uncontested in the 80s because of his professionalism. Back then, there were tons of players who had raw amounts of talent but failed to maintain the required level of focus. (just think of A. Higgins) Hendry took Davis' professionalism to another level, because he combined it with a new approach towards the game. (aggressive break building)
O'Sullivan's biggest strength nowadays is his versatility. His game almost has no weaknesses. Sometimes, he still gets shaky in tough matches, with the final vs. Selby last year being a good example for that. O'Sullivan dominated the first day, but then went on to miss some easy shots and got more and more occupied with himself than the match.
O'Sullivan is also a massive victory for the discipline of sports psychology. He teamed up with a sports psychologist because he was suffering from depression. He came back stronger and better. You never see him frustrated when he plays now, and he seems to conduct himself with a bit more professionalism and perspective than he used to.
Murphy was absolutely masterful in the final yesterday, unplayable and unbeatable. Fantastic.
On January 16 2015 22:53 marvellosity wrote: really bizarre statements in your preview there Gecko
Yeah Ronnie at his best isn't just the best of all time, he's the best by some distance IMHO. I always preferred Higgins to Ronnie when I was younger, but i think that's because everyone else liked Ronnie and I felt a bit sorry for Higgins as 'the bad guy' in the rivalry.
Sullivan will always be the favourite on paper for any given match, regardless of who he plays. However, like virpi stated, Sullivan's biggest weakness are opponents who can slow down the match if need be - with Selby probably being Sullivan's toughest opponent in this regard. Fu can play similar and on top of it takes his time when he has a chance. Compared to guys like Trump, Allen and whatnot, that's the kind of player Sullivan has the biggest chances to lose against, simply because the styles are so different and because it's his "weak" spot. Granted, we know how good Sullivan is, so it's prolly still an outside chance. I seem to overestimate players when I look at their performances a few days ago. It's ridiculous how fast it can go up and down - e.g. Allen vs. Higgins and later vs. Perry. Two entirely different performances there. Same for Fu vs. Hawkins and against Sullivan.
Anthony McGill - Mark Selby (15:00 CET) John Higgins - Peter Ebdon (15:00 CET) Martin Gould - Ashley Carthy (15:00 CET) Judd Trump - Michael Holt (20:00 CET) Mark King - Barry Hawkins (20:00 CET) Xiao Guodong - Liam Highfield (20:00 CET) Neil Robertson - Fergal o'Brien (20:00 CET)
1. Round, Bo9, 5th Feb.
Ding Junhui - Ryan Day (10:00 CET) Michael Georgiou - Alfie Burden (10:00 CET) Matthew Selt - Stuart Bingham (10:00 CET) Mark Allen - Mark Williams (15:00 CET) Michael Wasley - Shaun Murphy (15:00 CET) Joe Perry - Jimmy Robertson (15:00 CET) Mark Davis - Ronnie o'Sullivan (15:00 CET) Li Hang - Liang Wenbo (15:00 CET)
Favourites?
There is not much of a doubt that Ronnie o'Sullivan should start as favourite. So far he performed very strong in the tours he entered and rarely showed any nerves. His defeat in the recent Masters was just one game. This tournament features longer distances and it will be really hard for anyone to beat him.
Other than him, Murphy could be considered to be a worthy contender, especially after he won the Tripple crown for the first time last month. Even though people might pick on me, his "weak" spot in the Masters were imo sloppy positional play at times. If he slumps here after the first round he might meet players who'll punish him hard early on. If he worked on that or compensates with extraordinary pots (like he did in the Masters), he's going to be Sullivan's hardest potential opponent in the upper part of the grid.
Neil Robertson remains a question mark for me. He's very strong, showed temporarily what he's capable of when he stopped Sullivan in the masters, but otherwise played sometimes surprisingly weak in the ongoing season. If he manages to maintain his level, he might make it to the finals.
Since he's in the lower grid and far apart from his most dangerous opponents the same could be said about Trump. In the most recent season he showed a solid performance and why he was considered to be Sullivan 2.0. However, if he just slips a little, who might say if he couldn't be stopped; Selby, Gould, Higgins/Ebdon might just be enough.
Lesser Favourites
Considering them lesser needs context. Selby, Ding, Higgins and most notably Allen are not that much "weaker" than the rest. Especially Allen plays the season of his life, the rest seems to be in a slump compared to the last year or the years before (Higgins).
Even though Ding currently leads the World Rankings, he showed nerves. He's the defending Champion, but will face an improving Ryan Day. It hasn't been that long since the Welsh was among the Top 16, and he already set sails for the upper class again. Ding should come out on top, but no idea what the actual results are going to be. If he can beat him, there's no reason he shouldn't at least get to the Semi Finals.
Allen, playing this well, has the toughest grid by far. There's nobody he couldn't beat, yet, facing - in this order - Williams, Murphy, o'Sullivan within a few days might be just too much. He showed a really, really sick play against Higgins in the first round of the Masters, when both went nuts with 98% pot success (Allen) vs. 100% (Higgins) in the first four frames (featuring a total of three centuries within 30 minutes). If he shows this level - well he might just as well win the entire thing.
Selby might play really good or really bad. Recently he played not like he did during the World Championships. His first round opponent, on paper, is a walk over, especially with a longer distance. Afterwards it'll be Ebdon or Higgins and most likely Trump - and then, with a higher likelihood, Robertson, Hawkins or Maguire. Tough, and I don't see him win, even though I'm a really big fan. Then again, you never know.
Higgins I only added because of the aforementioned performance against Allen. He really did not do many mistakes, if any of his missed pots in that match could have been considered as "missed". The old man seemed to be back. Let's see if he can carry it over or if it'll be not that well.
Dark Horses
It's getting increasingly worse to find fitting words to describe why the following players aren't "that likely" to win it all, given the strong line up. Hawkins, Maguire and Perry are on paper nothing like the favourites and most likely the losers if they'd face the "lesser" favourites. Yet, Hawkins showed strong play in his Championship Group earlier this year, even scoring the first 147 of January. For bw.de's fantasy snooker group I made the mistake to add him to my anti-team. I regret it up to this day. Very solid, though not winning a tournament.
Maguire considered retiring not too long ago, but made a come back. He scored very well these past three months. He'll most likely throw out one or two other elite players, but more? Not sure, could be, could not be.
Last, but not least: Perry. Recently won the AT3 in China, though that did not feature many notable names. However, he did very well in the PTC season. He totally killed it there, at least from what I saw. In the last World Championships he came rather close to defeating Sullivan in good shape, while the rest of the elite circle struggled and only Selby could eventually stop Sullivan's run. He has it in him to win a full ranked event. But if it is this, I'm not sure. It might be, given that the more solid players are in the upper part of the grid.