The televised stages kick off today.Not sure if there are any snooker fans out there,but I know Tennis Mad Andy is,so it could be just the two of us posting in here.

Murphy is out,as is Robertson.I'm looking forward to seeing Williams,Higgins,and O'sullivan to battle it out for the title if the form book is anything to go by.

Theres a few of us on here . Im an O'Sullivan and Williams fan.
Im not so keen on Higgins or Ebdon though.

I'm a snooker fan too. :)

I am a fan too. And I happen to have the same inclination as Big Al regarding the players.

Hi guys,brilliant some fans,didn't think there were any others.I've been watching Snooker for as long as I have Tennis.
I go back to the glory days of Steve Davis.What about you lot?

Anyway Hendry scraped through last night 9-7,and I think the days of century magic are getting much thinner.How he ended up World No1 for this season,I'll never know.Without winning a tournament as well,Hendry even said he didn't deserve it.The calendar is so depleted at the moment,trouble with sponsors since the tobacco ban.

I think it's only 8 events this year,and the number of touring pro's is set to be cut almost in half as there is no money to sustain them at the lower levels in the rankings.

Well Ehndry, Higgins, Dott and Ebdon are our 4 semi finalists - Hendry vs. Dott, Higgins vs. Ebdon.

Please to god don't let there be a final between Ebdon and Dott, everyone died of boredom last time.

Dott is a nasty little weasel :angry:

I can't help to think that the game is doomed. Unless Ding and his compatriots start to increase the interest in their big country, I can't see the sponsors keeping throwing their money in the game. Ronnies attitude was pretty irresponsible in that respect as he may have deprived us of a nice comeback in that yesterday match or at least some more good snooker. Davis v Dott was a bore.

Something I find pretty hypocrite as well is the governements forbidding tobacco sponsors but allowing gambling ones. It is really replacing a vice with another and both can destroy a whole family (gambling more likely than cigarettes in by view!).

Ding is one hell of a talent - he will move the game on I feel.

The o'sullivan enigma is strange - If he quit the sport tomorrow I actually eel it might move on and become more popular, as it wouldn't be defined by him.

Yes Ding is talented. I feel we need popular players more than talented ones if we want the game to survive. The fact that more than 1 billion chinese might get an interest in the game could be the salvation of the sport in terms of finding sponsors.

The thing is, China is a country where 9-ball pool is also very popular and takes up quite a few very gifted players from china and chinese taipei. If Snooker can get in there then it can take filipinos etc. too!

Just wondered how you came to this conclusion?! :blink:

I just don't like the man - he scrawny, he looks very conceited, his games is damn awful to watch and relies on a fair bit of spoiling, I just don't like him. roflmao

lol, so basically you don't like his appearance.

If by "spoiling" you mean tactical play, then its a major part of the game.

Yorkshire, you are not going to tell me truthfully that Dott sets your pulse racing when he steps into the arena? roflmao

And yes, appearanes can tell you a lot about a person, and what I see on the snooker tab;le from him doesn't change my opinion. He is quite possibly the worst world champion in history!

Ebdon isn't great to watch either, but there is something about him that is likeable, whereas with Dott there isn't anything really.

Anyway i'm rooting for a Higgins-Hendry final, two excellent players to watch

That 's funny. Ebdon is in my view by far the one I dislike most. He actually bored Ding to death the other day. At least Dott is a bit faster.

Higgins v Hendry in the final is the best we can expect i agree. Yet not mouth watering either, is it?

The 4 semi finalists are the work horses of the game and are in my view the reason why the game is losing some popularity.

No he isn't one of my favourite players, but if his strengths are the tactical side of the game, then why not play to his strengths? Ok, so he has a duty to entertain the paying public, but surely his bigger duty is to support his family. If by playing more defensively he can do this better, then good luck to him I say. It's up to his opponents to come up with an answer to his game.

At the end of the day, it's whoever wins the most frames wins the match, not who plays the more "entertaining" snooker. I personally enjoy safety exchanges just as much as break building, its a battle of wills, see who cracks first.

I guess it's the same in most sports. You get defensive, attacking and players who are a bit of a mixture.

Ding was very tired mind, otherwise i think he would have won.

Ebdon's been a good pro over the years, he's the Ivan Ljubicic of snooker i reckon ;)

i think it's a bit outrageous to call Hendry a workhorse - In the 90's the man was unstoppable and I doubt anyone in history could have beaten him on top form!

Well I doubt Dott will be up there for very long myself ;)

He doesn't have a heck of a lot of natural ability roflmao

I'm sorry Tenez,but I wouldn't call Higgins or Hendry workhorses.They are break-builders.They have around 20-22 sec shot averages,and that's quick,only Ronnie and Tony Drago are insanely quick,around 16-18 secs.

It's rarely done drago any good has it? :D

Higgins is a vastly underrated player - Arguably you could say he's been the best player for the last few years

Agree,a one point I thought he would be the next dominant player,as he has all the gifts required,but it hasn't happened.

Maybe it is my English not being very polished but what I meant by "workhorse" meant hard workers, tenacious and dedicated as opposed to White, A. Higgins and O'Sullivan lazy (in the appearance at least) games, but I personally don't see in them the genius of a Robertson, Ding or a O'Sullivan.

My take is that if the game was much more popular those 4 semi finalists would certainly not have the record they have. They are all big fishes in small ponds (and that applies to O@Sullivan to some extend, though at times, his talent is really striking).

Not wanting to get into another "era" debate :P .. but...

You can always argue that there were several "grinders", as they used to call them, around in the 80s when snooker was really popular. I'm thinking of players like Cliff Thorburn.

Higgins and Hendry are not workhorses roflmao

Hendry is probably the most aggressive player in history - very seldom does he refuse a pot, which nowadays can get him into trouble as he doesn't seem to pot as well as in his heyday!

I feel Ding, Hendry, Higgins and O'Sullivan would be a perfect SF lineup actually - a bit of everything

My mum used to really fancy Cliff Thorburn roflmao

Most players of that era were grinders really you could say - but they also had much more open characters and there were some amazing tussles!

‘What I meant by "workhorse" meant hard workers, tenacious and dedicated as opposed to White, A. Higgins and O'Sullivan lazy (in the appearance at least) games, but I personally don't see in them the genius of a Robertson, Ding or a O'Sullivan.
My take is that if the game was much more popular those 4 semi finalists would certainly not have the record they have. They are all big fishes in small ponds (and that applies to O@Sullivan to some extend, though at times, his talent is really striking).’

I’m sorry Tenez, but you’re just plain wrong here. Stephen Hendry was/is the greatest player that game has ever known, combining excellent tactical play with supreme potting.

You’ve got to remember that he’s past his peak now, but in his heyday he set all sorts of potting and break-building records as well.

Most of Hendry’s records – and indeed his most successful period – date to the most competitive era in the history of snooker in the 1980s and 1990s when there was a far greater variety of styles around. In successive rounds he might have had to find a way to beat the likes of a potter such as White or Alex Higgins and then a safety specialist such as Steve Davis. He really was the Federer of snooker. If you think Robertson or Ding have more genius than Hendry, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry.

By the way, do you have access to the semi online through the BBC website? The BBC web site does not allow me to access the live links. They probably think I am doddgy foreigner. :P (I understand that the Live feeds are usually available to the UK residents only...but I am based in London, so there is a glitch in their system - unless of course they can detect my accent from where they are but I have paid my TV license anyway ;) )

To me all that matters in snooker is ball control.If you don't control the white,then you can't play.Add in an ability to hit any shot and you have a great snooker player.

I fail to see how Hendry or Higgins fall inot the catergory of being workhorses,boring,or unpopular.Yes some have a slight more flair like Ronnie,or Hunter when he was at the top,before his unfortunate and sad death.

I love to watch Hendry just pot every ball on the table,and like Higgins every shot looks easy and straightforward because they are so highly skilled in cue ball control.

Sorry Tenez,but I don't understand your take on two very entertaining players,Ebdon&Dott,well don't get me started.

Totally agree :ok:

Hendry has made over 700 centuries in his career - I believe that is something like double the 2nd placed man

I have been watching snooker for a while now Sportrep (16 /17 years) and I don't think Hendry is the most talented player who picked up a cue. And I am not the only one that thinks that Sullivan is more talented, am I, though I agree probably less of a champion. The debate is open at best but certainly not closed in Hendry's favour.

I think it is pretty clear that Ding is more talented than Hendry at the same age as well. professional snooker is really at the stage of tennis in the 1900s when a Renshaw could win 7 wimbledons in a row and it is unlikely that despite better players coming nowadays, we will see another record like Davis and Hendry. Well it is possible but the guy will have to be much better than what davis and hendry were.

If my numbers are correct

Hendry-695 centuries

O'sullivan-460 centuries

Higgins-343 centuries

Clive Everton mentioned these figures in the last two days of commentary.
That's the top 3.

I think that comment is very one eyed. I don't believe O'Sullivan is the most talented player, because in snooker you also need mental talent, which he clearly does not possess.

Hendry, undoubtedly, is the GOAT. His break-building at his peak changed the game

Certainly a huge margin. :D

I understand Tenez your comment on Ronnie,he does play snooker like pool,and he is the most naturally talented player,but as Matchstick says,snooker is more mental than just about any sport,and Hendry has this in spades,allied to his own talent for the game.
There's a cigarette paper between Ronnie and Hendry in ability,and it's only IMO the speed around the table that makes Ronnie more attractive to watch in full flight.

and, although simplistic, Steve Davis was probably the most mentally gifted player in history, allied to a rock solid game, which allowed him to be so dominant in the 80's

(that was in replay to the centuries argument btw) Yes but to that we can reply that Sullivan has the first 5 fastest maximums. So in terms of pure talent that decides it for me. Now the diligence one applies to the game and the flair talent is different. And we can argue at will whether the number of centuries is more important than the easiness at which one can produce 147s.

Personally I like a painter or an artist cause he can produce things other can't and not because he/she produces a lot. I read once on the BBC forum that almost anybody who was raised with a snooker table at home is a century break builder. Not sure many can say they made a 147 in 5 mins.

Brakkus, I used, workhorse but not boring, quite different in my view.

Finally - Has any of you read my post about accessing the semi on-line live? Cheers.

If you are going on 147's, then Willie Thorne is the most gifted of all time roflmao

roflmao That was funny. I must say like the guy too. I think I love his commenting. Knowledgeable and funny and I like the way he thinks he was better than he actually was..though apparently he was quite good...but of him playing I have little memory

I'm sorry Tenez,I'm not questioning Ronnie's talent at all,and I didn't mean to translate your already excellent English BTW by using the word boring,my apologies,but I just can't agree that Hendry is not an artist.

You have your opinion,and I love watching Ronnie too,but I would pay money for any match that involved Stephen Hendry in top form.

He was known as the 147 king - he compiled hundeds of them in practice and in matches.
However as a match player he wasn't that great - he's a leicester man mind and he has his own snooker centre here, from which promising young players such Mark Selby, joe Jogia, Tom Ford have emerged. Watch out for those names :)