Post a reply

Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby LDS

Watched a 1971 match between Ray Reardon and John Spencer yesterday.

Reardon won the match 4-0 and the coverage included a near total clearance of 127 by Reardon and also him getting a 60+ break.

His 14 red total clearance took him 9 minutes and 36 seconds, averaging 16.94 seconds Average Shot Time.

His 60+ break took him 05:33 mins, with an AST of 17.52s

All of the breaks included a lot of very difficult shots, long shots and rest requirements and etc and included a mostly distracting and vocal crowd.

And then you consider the fact that Alex Higgins came onto the scene around this time and revolutionised the game by quickly gaining the reputation of being a quick player. So presumably regularly quicker then 15.00s AST.

Is it time to re-evaluate and investigate the truth about the myth of historical ASTs?

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby Dragonfly

I wonder if frame times were longer back then not due to player's shot time being slower, but because the game wasn't as attacking. Say like today player's get the pack open early and make 80 break. Back then it was more of make 40, play safe and make 40 again.

So I don't know if players were taking ages over their shots, although there were a few slow coaches. Just that the style of play wasn't as aggressive as it is now.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby Andre147

When making a break, I dont think players were slower, but the difference was frames went for longer because players often came to the table when needing countless snookers to win.

Conceding a frame wasn't very popular, and the first one to do it wwhen few snookers were required was actually Alex Higgins.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby lhpirnie

If a player is on a break, 10-15s per shot is not especially fast. The AST figures aren't as meaningful as are sometimes made out. The matches used to take much longer in the past because they weren't getting breaks. Really, the standard now is so much better. Part of that is due to different conditions, but it's also because the game has moved on.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby LDS

Dragonfly wrote:I wonder if frame times were longer back then not due to player's shot time being slower, but because the game wasn't as attacking. Say like today player's get the pack open early and make 80 break. Back then it was more of make 40, play safe and make 40 again.

So I don't know if players were taking ages over their shots, although there were a few slow coaches. Just that the style of play wasn't as aggressive as it is now.


While it's true constant big breaks were rarer, what I saw from both players appeared to be full-on attacking snooker. Long reds from the white in balk every frame (and them often going in), tough angled shots, mid range blues to the balk pockets, taking the tougher shot for better positioning, etc.

Andre147 wrote:When making a break, I dont think players were slower, but the difference was frames went for longer because players often came to the table when needing countless snookers to win.

Conceding a frame wasn't very popular, and the first one to do it wwhen few snookers were required was actually Alex Higgins.


Yes, Spencer did come back to the table and fight on for many snookers when he was about 23 behind and no-one seemed to mind and even seemed to expect it.

However, I did notice that even during safety exchanges, snookering and getting out of snookers, there didn't seem to be much in the way of dallying with each shot, they seemed to instantly know what they wanted to do and got down and tried it. So it still didn't feel slow or dragging.

lhpirnie wrote:If a player is on a break, 10-15s per shot is not especially fast. The AST figures aren't as meaningful as are sometimes made out. The matches used to take much longer in the past because they weren't getting breaks. Really, the standard now is so much better. Part of that is due to different conditions, but it's also because the game has moved on.


Oh indeed, the game is so different now in so many respects there's little point comparing standards, you wouldn't compare old leather ball football before the off-side rule to modern Premiership games.

When you say matches used to take longer, what specific examples are you imagining? That's kind of the point here, let's have a look at some examples of some long matches and asses whether they really were longer.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby chengdufan

Whether a player is classed as too slow (or even too quick) largely depends on the viewer and that person's individual viewing preferences. I would put snooker watchers broadly into one of three categories:

The Quick Fix
- Gets most pleasure from seeing the balls go in the pockets, particularly if the pot appears to be/is a difficult or unusual one.
- Doesn't think about the shot themselves from the perspective of the player
- Finds safety play boring
- Flicks through the channels when a slower/safety exchange ensues
- Watches matches in patches rather than in full
- Prefers short formats
- Is more likely to continue watching if the players/referee are good looking

For this type of viewer, the length of time taken for the white ball to be struck directly determines whether they enjoy watching a player or not. Anyone under 22 seconds on the AST list is likely good to watch, with the best potters in that group classed as their favourites.

The Table Analyser
- Gets most pleasure from analysing the table, thinking about the possible shots and seeing what the player opts for.
- Plays snooker themselves
- Is happy when the player plays the shot they thought of, and happier when they play a different shot which turns out to be better than the one they thought of
- Gets frustrated when the player plays the wrong shot
- Doesn't like it when the shot is played before the table has been analysed or if there is a long gap after the table has been analysed and before the shot has been played.

This type of viewer typically enjoys watching those in the 19-27 second AST range who are good at the whole game of snooker, not just potting.

The all-round viewer
- Gets pleasure from all aspects of the show, not only what is happening on the table, but also what is going through the minds of the people in the arena (both players, the referee, and the audience)
- Most enjoys matches where there is a clash of styles and one player's style ends up getting to and affecting their opponent
- Doesn't mind bad shots, quick shots or slow shots if they add to the entertainment
- Finds matchups with little or no edge to be boring. For example, Top player v Weak player 5-1 win, or Thep v Jack 2 nice lads playing free flowing stuff and are happy for each other if they win or lose.

This viewer doesn't really worry too much about the AST, but will generally prefer the slower players as the match is more likely to produce some controversy. They most enjoy watching the personalities of the game, regardless of their AST.


In terms of the topic of the thread, I think there have always been players playing at a variety of speeds across the whole spectrum. What defines it in our minds is how quick the players at the top of the game were at a particular point in history, and therefore who was shown on TV. You could make the case that any point in history was snooker slow or snooker fast based on who was the number one at the time.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby chengdufan

HappyCamper wrote:didn't the ast come down quite a bit overall after wst started publishing the official data whole tour in 2017-ish.

I think it did have a positive effect, yes. Those in the 28+ second bracket have largely seemed to try to speed up a bit.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby lhpirnie

chengdufan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:didn't the ast come down quite a bit overall after wst started publishing the official data whole tour in 2017-ish.

I think it did have a positive effect, yes. Those in the 28+ second bracket have largely seemed to try to speed up a bit.

Plus, a few players like O'Sullivan, Williams, Milkins and Fu went totally nuts and started playing ridiculously quickly, perhaps to take pressure off themselves with a 'laissez faire' attitude.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:didn't the ast come down quite a bit overall after wst started publishing the official data whole tour in 2017-ish.

I think it did have a positive effect, yes. Those in the 28+ second bracket have largely seemed to try to speed up a bit.

Plus, a few players like O'Sullivan, Williams, Milkins and Fu went totally nuts and started playing ridiculously quickly, perhaps to take pressure off themselves with a 'laissez faire' attitude.

Didn’t Fu start playing quickly because his eye issues mean he starts having problems if he plays for too long?

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:didn't the ast come down quite a bit overall after wst started publishing the official data whole tour in 2017-ish.

I think it did have a positive effect, yes. Those in the 28+ second bracket have largely seemed to try to speed up a bit.

Plus, a few players like O'Sullivan, Williams, Milkins and Fu went totally nuts and started playing ridiculously quickly, perhaps to take pressure off themselves with a 'laissez faire' attitude.

Didn’t Fu start playing quickly because his eye issues mean he starts having problems if he plays for too long?

Yes. I saw him in Austria, and it was quite ridiculous. So in Fu's case, it probably wasn't just an attitude.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby Muller

I posted the match on the videos section and thought that the speed of both players was reasonably brisk.

As someone else has said I did notice the consistency of the long potting and thought the safety was good.

I did mention the balls which sound so heavy - every shot sounded like a kick to me!

Cyril, I recall the first time I saw that Joe Davis 100, I think in 1982 and being struck by his speed.

Re: Was snooker slower in the old days? (an AST thread)

Postby Empire State Human

The 1971 Park Drive 600 final footage is edited highlights. They needed to compress as much as possible into 45 minutes (or whatever it was), so probably has more breakbuilding than safety play. I don't want to be that guy who complains about pocket sizes, but it was filmed in a club, and I guess they used a club table. I'd expect Reardon and Spencer to look good on it.

By comparison using the same players ... the 1975 B&H Masters final between Reardon and Spencer took just over 10 hours for 17 frames. An average of 35 minutes per frame.