Post a reply

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby jojo

alec chamberlain is a top class idiot he got a history of being up his own bottom thinking look at me im more important than anyone else

i remember when he warned fergal o brien for slow play now whether fergal deserved to be warned or not that is a different matter im not debating that but more the way chamberlain warned him the manner in which he did it and his choice of words were a disgrace according to ken doherty

another time cant remember who was playing but one of the frames was heading for a stalemate so the player it might have been selby offered re reack to his opponent and then the idiot intervened saying i dont think weve quite reached that stage yet mark

what an blue frog who the flying buck does he think he is ? even the commentator who was willie thorne at the time said well i dont think its chamberlains decision if the players have decided on a re reack its up to them chamberlains not at the table playing

the mans a idiot

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Smart

jojo wrote:alec chamberlain is a top class idiot he got a history of being up his own bottom thinking look at me im more important than anyone else

i remember when he warned fergal o brien for slow play now whether fergal deserved to be warned or not that is a different matter im not debating that but more the way chamberlain warned him the manner in which he did it and his choice of words were a disgrace according to ken doherty

another time cant remember who was playing but one of the frames was heading for a stalemate so the player it might have been selby offered re reack to his opponent and then the idiot intervened saying i dont think weve quite reached that stage yet mark

what an blue frog who the flying buck does he think he is ? even the commentator who was willie thorne at the time said well i dont think its chamberlains decision if the players have decided on a re reack its up to them chamberlains not at the table playing

the mans a idiot


I'd like to echo those sentiments. ALAN - C u Next Tuesday :win: :wave:

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby GJ

SnookerFan wrote:Graeme Dott. Do you like balloon animals?


:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? <laugh> <laugh> <laugh> <laugh> <laugh> <laugh>

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Wildey

RC:
We all remember your semi-final against Ronnie in 2006, and obviously the cameras and television people were focussed on his mental breakdown and all the nonsense about tips. I loved reading your take on the match and how you and Del Hill devised a plan to beat Ronnie. All questions I would have about this match are answered in the book but looking back on it now, how much satisfaction do you take from it? It must be one to tell the grandchildren?

GD:
Yes I take massive satisfaction from it, it’s one of my best ever wins. Where I take the most satisfaction from it and where a lot of people don’t look at it the way I look at it, is that it was the way I played, that made Ronnie give up. People always look at it the other way round, like that was the year that Ronnie didn’t really care, when that’s not the case. That’s why I get annoyed when people like Clive (Everton in reference to a comment in Frame of Mind in which Graeme saw a documentary featuring Clive commenting on the match) said something like I didn’t win, Ronnie threw the match away. And that hurts, because that wasn’t the case.


i totally agree with that yes Ronnie self destructed but credit got to be given to the player i can guarantee if dott made things easy for him ronnie would have won quite easily with the talent he has and breaks gal lore.

and the criticism the 2006 final has had from sections of the media and fans has been ridiculous i thoroughly enjoyed it of course if every match was played like that it wouldn't pay but ffs it was a World Final.

RC: Well I thought it was a good final but the scheduling didn’t help, the fact you were starting at 3pm and didn’t play the allotted frames and then it went very late on the first day. But by the time we were midway through the second day I was very much into it and couldn’t take my eyes off it and I think it’s a shame a lot of people couldn’t see it the same way.

It seems to bother you when some people label you as a “grinder” when this is only one facet of your game which is better described as “gritty”. It’s obvious you can play fast attacking snooker but in trying to prove that you can play this way do you feel the unfair criticism we just talked about forced you into going for more shots and changed your natural game?

GD: No. I explained that in the book, why I started attacking more. But it does annoy me that snooker players get pigeonholed into what type of player they are and no matter how much they then change their game it always goes back to that same pigeonhole.

It does annoy me that snooker players get pigeonholed into what type of player they are and no matter how much they then change their game it always goes back to that same pigeonhole

Fergal O’Brien will always be a slow player. If he changed his game and started going for everything he would still be tagged as a slow player. And with me no matter what I’ve done, I will always be tagged as a grinder. And if a game took a long time, oh that’ll be Graeme going tactical, when it wasn’t anything to do with it!

There are players playing right now who I think are incredibly negative, and the commentators and press think they’re attacking players.


ok it annoys him that commentators pigeonholed players as one sort of player and yet he is guilty of doing exactly the same thing to other players.

EXIBIT A

RC: So you see Mark Selby as a negative player?

GD: (laughs) I think without any shadow of a doubt! I think THE most!

RC: You’re talking to a Mark Selby fan here! (laughs)

GD: I think Mark Selby is a phenomenal player. But he’s definitely the most negative player in the top 16. I am actually a Mark Selby fan myself and I’m not having a go at him, he is my main tip outside John Higgins to win the World. He’s got all the game needed to win it, his game suits the Crucible. But I just think if you look down to the amount of re-racks Mark Selby has, I’ll bet you he’s had ten times more than any other player! After his matches he’ll always say that the balls went a bit scrappy there, but it’s Mark that makes the balls go scrappy by his shot selection. I’ve played him often enough and he’s definitely got a negative streak which he finds hard to stop but I don’t know why he needs to do it because he’s a phenomenal player and if he opens up I think he’ll win a lot more tournaments.


every player plays negative shots but to pigeonhole him as a negative player is not looking at the full picture of how a clever attacking player he is.

RC: You mentioned that you’ve got nothing against a shot clock in snooker. Do you say this because you want to prove you’re not a slow player or do you actually prefer the scenario of being forced to think on your feet?

GD: I just think that slow players kind of kill the game to be honest. I don’t think there’s any reason to play slow. I played in the Premier League with a shot clock and there were lots of games where players only took one time out. If I’m playing well I don’t think having a shot clock would make any difference whatsoever. I can easily play with a shot clock. I think it would stop the players that deliberately take such a long time to play a shot.


no greame slow players shows out how talented fast players are and its very much part of the game the contrast of speed and styles brings to the party.

RC: I think the reason for the way it is, is because of television and the fact you get more people at home at the weekend so that’s when more people want to watch the snooker, so it would be a difficult one to not have any action on the Saturday. As a snooker fan I’d be against any reduction in format too because the yardstick is the World Championships and the format remaining consistent means every final is first to 18 and historically the final scores are like 18-16, 18-15 or whatever so to reduce it would take something away from it.

GD: Yes I would never want it reduced but the way the standard is nowadays it was ok in the time during the 80’s with Dennis Taylor and Steve Davis and players like that because they were slaughtering people in the first round, second round, quarter-finals. I mean if you look at the match between Dennis Taylor and Steve Davis in 1985, I think both of them won their semi-finals with a session to spare. So they were slaughtering people and it didn’t take as much out of you.

But even last year I’ve had to beat Ebdon, Maguire, Mark Allen and Mark Selby and then had to go and play in the final. It’s not like it was years ago.


players still win today with sessions to spare you just have to be good enough to achieve it.

in 2009 Shaun Murphy beat Marco Fu 13-3 in 2 sessions while John Higgins had 2 13-12s and yet Higgins blew Murphy away in the final.

this tiredness Argument is a poor excuse to Excuse rubbish play <ok>

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Roland

The last one he is spot on and you are wrong.

Higgins blew Murphy away because he was the best player by a mile. I knew before the final he was going to trounce him, Murphy never had a hope.

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby jojo

if the players are relatively evenly matched then tiredness can come into it however higgins was always going to beat murphy in a best of thirty five frame final murphy never had the weapons to threaten higgins

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:The last one he is spot on and you are wrong.

Higgins blew Murphy away because he was the best player by a mile. I knew before the final he was going to trounce him, Murphy never had a hope.

Hes Wrong on that total bullocks get better only bucking losers using tiredness as a excuse

thats one thing i got no patience with

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Roland

The quality of opponent is a lot stronger. Look at Dott last year beating Ebdon, Maguire, Allen and Selby. When did players in the 80's or 90's ever have to beat that calibre of opponent along the way?

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Wildey

jojo wrote:if the players are relatively evenly matched then tiredness can come into it however higgins was always going to beat murphy in a best of thirty five frame final murphy never had the weapons to threaten higgins

we at the time are talking about Murphy the World no 3 player where the hell is the strength in depth if the WN 3 has sod all hope over 35 frames :?

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Roland

Someone doesn't remember the 2009 World Championships.

The only player who came close to Higgins was Selby. Cope did too but the win against Cope is what gave Higgins the confidence. Once he got past Selby no one left in the tournament was going to come close to him. The fact you're using this particular example to back up your point proves you don't have a point. There is no getting away from it, the sole reason for tiredness in the final being a more common factor than it used to be is quality of opponent from round 1.

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:The quality of opponent is a lot stronger. Look at Dott last year beating Ebdon, Maguire, Allen and Selby. When did players in the 80's or 90's ever have to beat that calibre of opponent along the way?

i thought you meant the tierdness issue ...

sorry.

yes i do concede that however you can still even today get a lucky draw like Ding had last year with pettman winning 10-1.

but then Dott had a surprising easy match against Mags in round 2 after another quite comfy match with Ebdon

then Robbo had a easy quarter against Davis.

those matches did not take as much out of them as the named players they were should have.

you can name players left right and center but if you beat players comfortable doesn't matter if they pettman or maguire.

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby SnookerFan

Smart wrote:
I'd like to echo those sentiments. ALAN - C u Next Tuesday :win: :wave:


Me too. Alan = :bird:

Is that true about Chamberlain saying it wasn't time for a rerack? What a pin end. How is it his decision?

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Alex0paul

RC: I don’t know if you’ve heard of him but there’s a member called Alex0paul on the forum?

GD: Oh yes I have heard of him.

rofl

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Roland

stalker :redneck:

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby randam05

Has he really heard of him? hahah

And murphy joins snooker forums does he? Is he on here by any chance? <laugh>

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Bourne

OK you've caught me out :blush:

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby randam05

Bourne wrote:OK you've caught me out :blush:


rofl I would so love that! Hey murphy, hows it going, looking forward to ronnie match?

(lets pretend you are murphy)

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby snooky147

Well done with the Interview Sonny. It seems you had Graeme opening up quite a bit. Nothing needed to be edited out so that's a credit to you mate and your organisation of the questions and puting them across to Graeme, who I know was more than happy to answer them. He did not feel awkward at any time. I look forward to more.

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby randam05

Ive never been a big fan of dott at all. But after reading his interviews and going to read his book, also the performance he put in tonight, im starting to like him a little more.

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Roland

snooky147 wrote:Well done with the Interview Sonny. It seems you had Graeme opening up quite a bit. Nothing needed to be edited out so that's a credit to you mate and your organisation of the questions and puting them across to Graeme, who I know was more than happy to answer them. He did not feel awkward at any time. I look forward to more.


:blush:

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby SnookerFan

randam05 wrote:Has he really heard of him? hahah

And murphy joins snooker forums does he? Is he on here by any chance? <laugh>


You got me...

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby SnookerFan

GD: Yes I can understand a lot of people liking it but there’s a couple of things I don’t like. I don’t like the fact there’s more points at stake in that tournament. I think it’s totally wrong that there’s a lot more points than say in the Welsh Open. At the end of the day anybody can win a best of 5. It didn’t affect me but there were lots of people that maybe lost the first match and ended up outside the top 16 because of it.

Graeme. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Re: Graeme Dott

Postby Wildey

i just got round to reading part 3 it was up during the WC so it passed me by.

great read and a man after my own thoughts regarding best of 5s.

they really aren't the same as 10-10 in a best of 25... in snooker pressure builds its not there the same at 0-0 in a best of 9 or best of 5s.