Re: China Open Qualifying Discussion !!!!
JIMO96 wrote:The "young bottlers" may still lose to the "journeymen deadwoods" in a flat 128 system, but the whole point of the un-tiering is to give everyone the same pressures and the same route to qualifying....the current system is manifestly unfair......and it definitely contributes to the glut of "journeymen deadwoods" beating young bottlers" , but it's not the biggest factor.
For me, the McCullochs, Harolds, Dunns, McLeods....etc etc (there are so many of them) tend to win these matches because they know how "not to lose". A grinding mentality, if you like. Hamilton bored Brecel to submission yesterday at 0-3, then once he'd broken him, turned on the positive play with some heavy scoring.
Until snooker acts to encourage positive shot selection from its players, this frustrating trend will continue evermore. And people like me, Witz etc will get more and more frustrated by it. Whats more, the Brecels, Bairds, Craigies etc will in 20 years time be just as negative, and constantly outwit the newcomers in a similar manner.
It's no wonder the sponsors and broadcasters demand that the top 16 be present at their events....it's cos they think that from 17 downwards it's all deadwood and bottlers, cos their knowledge begins and ends with the top 16, plus Davis White & Hendry. The young talent in this game is being stifled by the fact that negativity is rewarded (unique for snooker, as someone pointed out).
The game needs a rule change. Something to end the slow play, the negative shots, the tedious repositioning of balls after a miss. Shot clock snooker isn't the answer, and I'm not sure I know what is. The fact is that snooker is unique for something else.....young talent is rarely seen, nor is it given a fair chance. It gets strangled because the game is bursting at the seams with DEADWOOD JOURNEYMEN.
WELL SAID MATE
wonder if Wild will come ranting and raving at you
no teenagers in the top 64 is a joke
- Witz78
- Posts: 15036
- Joined: 02 February 2010