We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Snooker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 50 comments are related to the topic:
Is Robbo's Sheffield analysis spot on?
Is Robbo's Sheffield analysis spot on?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 50
|
By:
Fascinating parallel with the Ronaldo/Messi debate in football. Two absolute masters of a sport, two of the greatest ever, and yet so different.
I'm with Hendry on the GOAT debate - his potting under pressure, his mastery of fear, and his implacable ruthlessness more than make up for the sharper edge of Ronnie's virtuosity. Ultimately, individual sports are about winning, and he was the best we have seen at winning snooker matches. |
|
By:
one thing in hendry's favour is that at his peak he was a ruthless long potter,most of the time on break offs these days a long pot is usually left,hendry at his peak would knock most in and usually make frame winning breaks. Ronnie's ong game would have to be on agisnt an inform Hendry,because he wouldn't get many chances otherwise. Saying that i think Ronnie on his A game is the greatest ever.
|
|
By:
Shane Warne had the same effect on Test cricket as Hendry had on snooker - it was one game before they came along, and an entirely different one when they retired.
|
|
By:
Mark Selby is a far better player than Robertson.His cue ability and tactical nous is miles ahead.imho
His guts determination and concentration levels along with his vision to attack at the right time, or leave a tempter, are far superior. Stats dont tell the whole story. If you want to look into the draw, the air miles and a whole bunch of other factors before relying on the statistical analysis. imho. Ronnie is a genius so far ahead of the majority of this current bunch,and most of them are so far behind the previous bunch. He is not a better all rounder than Hendry, not a hope. Steve Davis was as good a tactician as i have ever seen.He took it to another level in that department. It is not all about the baulk line.People are mistaken to think this. A chinesse snooker or the pressure of a must pot tempter is far more difficult. Trump, nothing to say on him, other than he can pot a ball, sometimes. Ding, ive been right thus far. My 5 year old nephew has more appetite and concentration for 4 sessions. Ronnie has a very obvious weakness and can be beaten. Ronnie's game can fall apart(by his standards) in a matter of minutes I know i would feck him off, keep him cold, and get under his skin no end. His current calm demeanor would soon expose the real Ronnie. My lack of ton breaks off course would be my undoing but the Pro player of today are letting him away with murder imho. Respect to him for seeking help and improving his temperament, but the apple does not fall far. Murphy Maguire dont appeal to me. The rankings dont appeal to me. The continous potting and big breaks dont appeal to me.Some changes are not always good. As a Centre half i remember when you could make a tackle. I remember when offside allowed you to hold a line. As a coach i went of football somewhat, thanks in part to sky also. As a snooker fan the same thing has happened. All just opinion, but i would prefer one good 55 minute frame than 4 quick tons on slick cloths in the same time, it aint snooker. I would prefer to see a good tough hard tackling tactical 1-0 battle than a 3-2 bunch of airy fairy diving winging overpaid cheating scum bags.  maybe........ |
|
By:
It's all very well saying the stats don't tell the whole story, but in an individual sport like snooker I'm afraid they tell a large part of it.
|
|
By:
I understand Jed.
So Robertson versus Selby, both fresh and at their best. I say Selby wins more than 50% of the time. Put it that way. |
|
By:
I don't agree with your analysis of M.Selby Pecker. There is no doubt that he is an exceptional competitor with huge powers of concentration. He is also as good as anyone at getting out of sessions when he's played well below par at 4-4 or only 3-5 down, whereas other players would have huge deficits playing that poorly, but I think he doesn't stike the right balance between attack and defence as you suggest. In fact, I think it's a big weakness.
His game is suited to playing open attacking players, but against tactically astute players (often of inferior ability) he is often found wanting. He tends to get drawn into the game they want to play and doesn't/can't impose himself. In the last 6 years at The Crucible he has lost to J.Higgins, G.Dott, M.King and B.Hawkins (twice). The exception was when Ding beat him 13-10 a few years ago. From 10-10 Ding won 3 tactical frames all on the colours. Although M.Selby probably has a better chance of beating R.O'Sullivan at Sheffield than N.Robertson does, I can't agree that he is the better player of the two. Robertson wins tournaments when he gets to the business end of tournaments Selby does not. |
|
By:
great thread. enjoyed reading. best section in the forum tbf.
Looking forward to this years World championship, even though ill be tuning in early in the mornings from Canada. Just a few words on a couple of the contenders. Mark Selby first. I've lost a lot of money on this guy backing him down the years outright in anticipation of him bagging his maiden Crucible title, and in other events. The heart-breaker for me was against Higgins n '09. He led 3-0 in that match and the commentators were calling him 'the hoover', as he was clinical in the balls back then. He would've won that year if he'd won the final frame decider against the eventual winner Higgins, as he was playing some top drawer stuff. But since then he has been very average in Sheffield. I agree with the comments about him having declined and 'feeling sea-sick' watching him cue (especially from distance). I backed him to win in China last week and was appalled by his cue-ing and the fact that he was out-grinded by Mike Dunn. Therefore I have to swerve having a punt on the Jester. (Knowing my luck now he'll probably go and win the thing) I think there are question marks on all players in the field though. And not least on the FAV O'Sullivan. To me you have to be a brave soul to back him outright @ 6/4. Sure he's kind of unbeatable looking again. But we've seen it all before and there are never any certainties, especially ESPECIALLY! in snooker, where aspects of the game itself are analogous of the randomness of the universe!! Ding, is coming off of a strong finish at the China open, although he was a little suspect in the earlier rounds, again demonstrating his poor concentration at times. This twinned with his bad history at the crucible puts me off backing him at around 5/1. His break building and long potting are brilliant at the moment. But he just doesn't have that Graham Dott 'steely-ness' and will to win this. (I'm sure these attributes will come though) The bottom half is a minefield. Although I have a feeling that Robertson is ripe to win this again now. Ill let him off last week, in China, as he was unwell. Though, when i watch him now i feel like he's as confident as ever. And on form; devastating in all areas, a bit of a colossus, especially over a longer format. So I might be backing Robbo this year. I'll be looking at a resurgent Shaun Murphy and Someone like a Mark Allen as an outside bet also. |
|
By:
sorry ding is 8/1. still not sure though
|
|
By:
fancy the top half of the draw to win, no idea what the price will be tho
|
|
By:
Just reread the thread and still found it interesting.
Re Selby, although he has occupied the 1 and 2 slots in the rankings its been more down to never missing a tournament and doing well in them rather than winning them outright. Its only my opinion but his stint in the premier league did him no good whatsoever and although he won a few bob in the long run it probably cost him. I know he changed his game to fit the format (shotclock) but also he was stung by the criticism of slow play. I know that some are not a fan but Hendry cured me of big breaks and I yearn for the more thoughtful game and I know I speak for the older fan when I say that the vast majority prefer it. Its worth mentioning that snookers hey day was when the table was slower and tactics were employed in almost every frame. Viewing figures struggle in this country and have throughout the past twenty years, the closure of working mens clubs and snooker halls this past 25 years means that people actually playing the game have plummeted. I completely see where peckers comment is coming from and wholeheartedly agree. For my money Selby is not far off the top 5 players of the past decade and he made a huge mistake tampering with the game that brought him 3 masters etc. Some of his matches against Ronnie were up there with the very best ever played with drama and skill in equal measure. Re the Robbo debate, I am not convinced and hope he concentrates on what he is good at, in too many tournaments he looks unsure of the next shot or even the position, he seems to outthink himself which is disaster for anyone at any level but even worse for those whose strengths lay in attack and potting. Surprised if Hendry did not mention that. By the way Hendry did not say his breakbuilding was amatuerish, he said he thought his thought process about breakbuilding was amatuerish. |