World Championship Snooker

Anyone watching it this year? Steve Davis has only bloody just gone and beaten the current world champion, John Higgins!

Awesome stuff.

Legend.


Although, I was always a John Virgo fan.

John Virgo was before my time, only really got into snooker in the early 90s.

At 52 Davis is the oldest player to reach the QF since Eddie Charlton (who was 53) in 1983. The oldest finalist in the World Championship is Ray Reardon who was 49 when he was defeated by Alex Higgins in 1982 (the only game I have watched from start to finish). Reardon is also the oldest winner when he beat Perrie Mans in 1978 at the age of 45.

Different game back in the 80s though, him getting to the quarters in 2010 and beating the current world champion on the way is a bigger result than Charlton or Reardon's feats.

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Allan D wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Yes, actually. The standard is also a lot higher today and there are far more professional players around.

He's right, Allan D.

Also, the amount of pints that players consume per game is distinctively less than in the 80s.

That seems to say more about the players in the 80s. Harder to pot balls when you're seeing double.

Shades of Bill Werbeniuk!

Allan D wrote:That seems to say more about the players in the 80s. Harder to pot balls when you're seeing double.

Shades of Bill Werbeniuk!

Precisely, which brings me back to my point that Davis' achievement today eclipses the achievements of other older players in the 1980s.

He'll get absolutely battered by Robertson in the next round though.

Who the fark is Robertson?

Aussie qunt. Plays at my old club in Cambridge, used to see him practicing.

Stupid blonde hair, but an awesome player on his day, he could very well win the whole thing, and although it was great to see Davis win today I'll be surprised if he wins more than 6 frames in his match with Robertson.

Hard to believe Davis hasn't won a title since 1997! Not followed snooker much recently but I was one of the biggest Tv audience ever in 1985 - watched Dennis Taylors comeback from 8-0 down to beat Davis on the black live. Hated the qunt back then, but I guess everyone loves an underdog!!

I think Robertson splatted him 10-2 last year.

vilkrang wrote:

Allan D wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Yes, actually. The standard is also a lot higher today and there are far more professional players around.

I guess you're a Bradman denier as well, vilks . . .

tac wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Allan D wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Yes, actually. The standard is also a lot higher today and there are far more professional players around.

I guess you're a Bradman denier as well, vilks . . .

Not at all.

vilkrang wrote:

tac wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Allan D wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Yes, actually. The standard is also a lot higher today and there are far more professional players around.

I guess you're a Bradman denier as well, vilks . . .

Not at all.

The same argment is used again Bradman, but . . . players are fitter, more professional, genetically superior blah blah blah . . .

I see what you did there.


Fark, imagine if I asked that. Imagine the response - "stupid, f*cking, tosser, don't you know anything?".

Tac: Well, no you clearly don't.

[Gabba Dan]Of course the modern players are better. It's all due to evolution.[/Gabba Dan}

Was Gabba Dan an atheist?

DJ_Smerk wrote:I see what you did there.


Fark, imagine if I asked that. Imagine the response - "stupid, f*cking, tosser, don't you know anything?".

Tac: Well, no you clearly don't.

WTF are you blithering on about now, sheep-boy?

Something or other.

or perhaps nothing . . .

We need some cricket - stat!

tac wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

tac wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Allan D wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Different game back in the 80s though

Isn't this a bit of a sporting cliche? In what way? Do the balls travel any faster over the baize? Still involves pushing balls with a wooden stick into holes covered with netting. A test of hand-eye co-ordination in any era, I would have thought.

Yes, actually. The standard is also a lot higher today and there are far more professional players around.

I guess you're a Bradman denier as well, vilks . . .

Not at all.

The same argment is used again Bradman, but . . . players are fitter, more professional, genetically superior blah blah blah . . .

Mmm, it's a bit different though. Once someone gets "in" during a frame of snooker then it's totally up to their skill as to how many points they can score, the opponent can't do shit. With cricket there is always the issue of having to respond to your opponent.

Players in snooker are now scoring far more heavily than player in the 1980s did, so much so that I believe I'm right in saying that not a single player from that era holds any scoring records, for either speed or quantity.

But anyway, "Bradman deniers" are fools, if he had an average of 70 odd then they may have some sort of argument but to finish a career with a first class average of 95+ is simply too astonishing and too far ahead of anyone else (both then and now) for any reasonable person to deny his "best batsman ever" tag.

in scoring more heavily, you mean average break or something like it?