Drago v PArrott

[hegeland]

I have not read all the posts, but did anyone bring up Drago should be considered a fine or penalty for his behaviour. First, he conceded a frame, 58 behind with 59 on the table. Second, he slammed the table. Bringing the game into disrespect in my book!

JP deserved to win.

Isn't that beeing a bit too harsh? Parrott had a pretty easy red. And how can slamming the table "bring the game into disrespect"?? It's like saying not smiling happily after losing the match would be disrespectful to your opponent.

[atthebookies]

Ah, well. I give you credit for that one. Though conceding without needing snookers is not doing your best to win a match. It is also what the commentator mentioned.

[hegeland]

I agree, it certanly won't help you win the match. But in the end we should allow the players a little freedom to play the way they want to, makes better matches and more interesting to cut down on pointless "strictness" (dunno if that's a proper word).

[atthebookies]

Fair point made. Maybe I should have added, I made the comment in light of the discussions about Ding. Conceding or not conceding and whether he should have been fined (IMO not!). Ding came back to play and therefore fulfilled his duty where Drago obvious conceded a frame where he could have won. Just theoretical. Dont want him to be punished either. I am not a bureaucrat!

[chrisfinch]

I watched the first and last frames either side of playing Cricket, and I have to say it looked poor. Drago just smashed everything, and its no surprise hes dropped so far down in the rankings.

And crikey he has put on some weight.

[atthebookies]

I have to agree, it was a hit and hope effort. Just slashing it about. A bit farcical. I am having the opinion JP kept his cool and hat off to him.

[rivercard]

I watched the first and last frames either side of playing Cricket, and I have to say it looked poor. Drago just smashed everything, and its no surprise hes dropped so far down in the rankings.

Both players played like that before the interval. After it, both of them played better, but Tony was still far from his best.
BTW I don't think its's fair to judge a player after only seeing 2 frames, both of which he lost, in a match that went to a decider.
I agree that Parrott played better, and deserved to win in the end, but if he played so good, and Drago just "slashed it about" how did it went to a decider?

[dannyd0g]

It was amazing how many blacks off the spot JP missed. Neither of them were half the players they once were.

[Maija]

Conceding or not conceding and whether he should have been fined (IMO not!). Ding came back to play and therefore fulfilled his duty where Drago obvious conceded a frame where he could have won. Just theoretical.

Snooker players aren't machines (though maybe we should set Mulder & Scully on an investigation there), and sometimes conceding a frame that still theoretically could've been won is the way to go, in order to stay in a certain frame of mind and not get that psychological down that can come from a scrappy and hard finish of a frame. Only the player can decide. They then have to consider if it's worth taking a warning for that and that is the penalty they receive for conceding.