Worst standard final ever?

[Son of Cliff]

Lets call it a day on this one, whether you think snooker is better or worse now than then who cares? you cannot really say its the same old story when you try to compare say Best with Ronaldo, or Pele and Maradona :snooker:
And you certainly cannot do it with a graph.
The common one used in snooker is who was the best Joe or Steve Davis unless they invent a time machine then it will be just a talking point.
Its not worth falling out with each other about :snooker: or is it

[Ekphantos]

Picking 2 random years is completely pointless, like Monique wrote. If you want to do statistics, you have to do it properly.

EDIT: I have to admit, your interpretation of the century-graph made me laugh

[Semih_Sayginer]

Lets call it a day on this one, whether you think snooker is better or worse now than then who cares? you cannot really say its the same old story when you try to compare say Best with Ronaldo, or Pele and Maradona :snooker:
And you certainly cannot do it with a graph.
The common one used in snooker is who was the best Joe or Steve Davis unless they invent a time machine then it will be just a talking point.
Its not worth falling out with each other about :snooker: or is it

im falling out with nobody. LBS has their opinion. mine differs. i posted regarding facts which i thought werent relevant and so were useless and in return i got called an idiot. hmmm

[Monique]

I'm not implying there were more misses any of the years. Actually the difference in average is so small I'd say at first glance the standard is pretty much the same It's about 0,3 % of difference! less than 1/3 of point in a century!

What I mean is that if you play tactical, with snookers laid properly and small breaks at a time chances are strong that points accumulated by both players will be higher than the one visit winning thing .... in this WC final the highest scoring frame is the first :86-51 while the lowest scoring was 74-0 just to illustrate my point. I wouldn't say one is better than the other: you have good and bad tactical frames and good and less good breaks ...

So a difference in average could be the sign of a different style more than a indicator of quality.

[Mullwarp]

I may be a fool but I enjoyed this final!

In the first session Ronnie made great damage and never gave the exhausted Carter an inch. Very few misses from Ronnie and some safety shots that were replays from the Hendry semi. Carter couldn't lift his game (and I sure could understand that) but IF he had, I am pretty sure Ronnie had both a fourth and a fifth gear.

[Semih_Sayginer]

I may be a fool but I enjoyed this final!

In the first session Ronnie made great damage and never gave the exhausted Carter an inch. Very few misses from Ronnie and some safety shots that were replays from the Hendry semi. Carter couldn't lift his game (and I sure could understand that) but IF he had, I am pretty sure Ronnie had both a fourth and a fifth gear.

i agree ROS had more gears if he was put under more pressure

and i dont think you a fool for enjoying. everyones different.

[Mullwarp]

Why this statistical nonsense? Does anyone believe you can say that "this or that match" were better cause it were more total clearances and few misses? Or vice versa? Or is it evidence of tactical play or kicks?

BTW: Ronnie started the Sunday first session with some 97+ per cent pot success.

[frameandfortunereturns]

i agree ROS had more gears if he was put under more pressure

and i dont think you a fool for enjoying. everyones different.

Yes, but the thing is O'Sullivan is bad under pressure. He hasn't won many matches at The Crucible when falling 3 frames behind. Very few.

[Semih_Sayginer]

Yes, but the thing is O'Sullivan is bad under pressure. He hasn't won many matches at The Crucible when falling 3 frames behind. Very few.

thats your opinion

i wouldnt say hes bad under pressure. just not as good as he is when front running, which is the same for most players IMO, though some are great when coming from behind, though this is usually when the pressures off

ROS has 3 WC...think he has only been to 3 finals?. i may not like him, but hes a great player, both leading and behind, but better at frontrunning

[Monique]

Yes, but the thing is O'Sullivan is bad under pressure. He hasn't won many matches at The Crucible when falling 3 frames behind. Very few.

Wasn't he 3-0 and 4-1 behind in this years WC semi?

[The Boss]

Wasn't he 3-0 and 4-1 behind in this years WC semi?

Two more recent examples: 7-10 down against Ryan Day in 2006 and won. 6-9 down against Stephen Maguire in 2005 and won

[frameandfortunereturns]

[QUOTE=The Boss;309265]Two more recent examples: 7-10 down against Ryan Day in 2006 and won. 6-9 down against Stephen Maguire in 2005 and won [/QUOTE

It was 7-9 against Maguire, not 6-9. :snooker:

He only won that anyway because Maguire choked as usual.

[frameandfortunereturns]

It wasn't 7-10 against Day either, 7-9 actually.

[bobbond]

Ronnie rarely gets put under pressure. I remember he once said pressure is something yu put on yourself and if you can control your emotions then you won't feel it.

[Le Ball Sack]

You go girl, but you are right, Ronnie aint that good from coming from behind. If he gets more than 4 frames behind he just quits.

It wasn't 7-10 against Day either, 7-9 actually.