A
19 year-old snooker record was broken, albeit slowly, at the Australian Open
qualifiers in Gloucester last night.
There
are few certainties in life but old sweats of the circuit were adamant that the
record for the longest ever best of nine frame match would never be beaten.
It
was set at the qualifiers for the 1994 British Open by Ian
Williamson and Robby Foldvari, two of the most methodical players ever to wield a cue.
Their
match was played on three different tables due to over-running into various
other sessions and ended after 434 minutes, 12 seconds, or just over seven
hours in old money.
Remarkably,
this was surpassed in the early hours of this morning by Simon Bedford and
Barry Pinches.
Bedford
led 4-0. This in itself took three hours but proved, as Churchill might have
put it, not to be the end, or the beginning of the end but merely the end of the
beginning.
Pinches
recovered to force a decider, which Bedford eventually won at just gone 3am.
The
match lasted seven hours, 29 minutes and 46 seconds. So basically 450 minutes,
beating the old record by just under 16 minutes.
The
longest frame was 80 minutes in duration. The average frame time was 50
minutes.
Special
mention should go to the referee, Greg Coniglio, who, rumour has it, is now
receiving counselling.
31 comments:
Pinches and Bedford should hang their heads in shame. Absolutely scandalous that given today's playing conditions, they should be taking such a time. Call it what you will, sport is an entertainment but I would never pay to see either of these two. Well done to the ref too.
Long, slow, tense matches full of safety have their place in the game......slow, negative players do not.
I'm sure one player was more at fault than the other in this case (no names!), and BH should target this fella and quite a few others and sort out their act!
If players don't sort themselves out, then the rules need updating, whether that be by banning certain negative shots, introducing shot clocks in circumstances such as this match, or limiting match times.....I'm not sure of the best option, but something needs to happen. This kind of record breaking does the sport no favours, and yes, it generates a talking point, but 99% of those comments will be negative.
The other 1% will be on here shortly, if he hasn't beaten me to it already. You know who you are....
in 1983 Cliff Thorburn v Terry Griffiths 7 hours plus final session in the world championship did the sport absolutely no harm what so ever its only negative from some quarters and paranoid fans who think its going to create negative press.
Snooker generates negative press all over the place because the press wants to think of snooker as negative. A match lasting an hour would generate negativity because it was one sided.
If all matches was like that there's a problem but its not so sit back feet up and enjoy the different aspect of snooker.
Voila!
And congratulations to the SWSA staff who managed to stay awake just long enough to switch the lights off and lock the building!
One change to the rules which could be imported from pool is that a ball must hit a cushion AFTER the object ball is struck. It cuts out that trickle into the pack and the roll up behind a baulk colour.
You would be exempt from hitting a cushion if you are snookered or if a ball is potted.
Not only will it speed up the game a bit but it would make it more skillful.
jesus christ trying to change the sport based on unusual match as i said just go with it and enjoy the variety
One change to the rules which could be imported from pool is that a ball must hit a cushion AFTER the object ball is struck.
If you want to watch pool, then why not just watch pool?
My wife couldn't sleep last night. I think perhaps if she had been watching this match sleep would not have been a problem. Congratulations to Simon Bedford.
Sounds like a grotesque manifestation of our beloved game played by oblivious snails to the benefit of nobody.
Vile.
In my opinion the reason for these matches being slow has more to do with the players conservative shot selection than their actual shot time ! The only player IMO who plays slow on purpose is Peter Ebdon.
There is no need to change the rules. Section 4 of the rules gives the referee the discretion to warn, and if needed punish, a player for "unnecessary" slow play. Operative word being "unnecessary". Slow play per se is OK, wasting time is gamesmanship - basically that's what the rules state. There might be many reasons for a match to last longer than average: the natural pace of the players, the circumstances, the situation on the table… to name only a few.
Referees rarely enforce the section 4 rules nowadays. They are difficult to implement at the best of times and (some) referees are afraid that they wouldn't get the backing of the authorities if they do. That's IMO the only thing that needs to be addressed: WSA should send a clear message to the refs that they will be backed if they apply those rules and they should be encouraged to apply them if they feel that a player is crossing the line.. The snookers referees integrity and professionalism is exemplary, they will be fair, I have no doubts about that.
About this particular match though, I would be very cautious before throwing the book at the guys. I haven't watched it, so it's hard to form an opinion but, both of them are naturally slow and methodical and both are struggling to stay on the tour this season so the pressure on them is high.
I can think of a few matches where IMO a player should have been warned, but none of these matches involved either Pinches or Bedford.
Why do some people get bent out of shape every time someone suggests a rule change.
The "if it aint broke dont fix it" brigade obviously have very little foresight. Things can always be improved upon. They would have kicked up when the "play again" rule or the respotted black was introduced.
slowness of matches happen for all sort of different reason Good safety play, Poor Form, Negativity, Bad Luck, Balls running awkward, pressure etc etc
as i said if every match was like that there's a problem but equally if every match had 9 centuries in a best of 9 id not particularly like that either.
Probably because most ideas are utterly stupid. Snooker can withstand one low key qualifying marathon per 20 years without needing idiotic rule changes like balls having to touch cushions.
Anon 12:09.....but it's not every 20 years, is it? It's virtually every time Pinches, McLeod, Ebdon, Harold, and the undisputed flag bearer of no-lose, hide and seek negativity that is Mark Selby, take to a snooker table. Or more precisely, when any of these players are under threat of defeat, and that makes it gamesmanship.
Why can't a player go toe-to-toe with his opponent and launch the kind of comeback Paul Hunter or Stephen Hendry would have put together? Instead of attempting to get into an opponents head and boring the (paying) public? This kind of tactic isn't even possible in most sports, and snooker should tighten it up as well.
It'll only take a tiny rule change FFS, don't all get your knickers in a twist!
How will making a ball bounce off the cushion guarantee speeding up the game? You'll just end up with the cueball endlessly going up to the balk area. Morons.
I agree with Jim about Selby being the flag barer of negative play.
Not about changing the rules.
My solution is simple: I just stopped watching matches involving mister 'couldn't complete triple crown or 147 due to burning myself out'.
I agree with 3.19pm. If you don't like watching Ebdon, McLeod or Pinches, then don't watch Ebdon, McLeod or Pinches. Unnecessary rule changes will not speed the game up.
Im not a fan of Selby or his brand of snooker but he is by no means the worst.
When hes confident and playing well hes as good and as fluent as anyone.
Some players are good to watch when in tactical mode. Davis and Doherty for example. They play every shot as if their lives depend on it.
I agree that if every match was about centuries and flair, that would get boring too but the rules should incentivise attacking rather than defence. Players are getting too many points near the end of a frame by rolling up rather than taking on a colour.
Jim
not every player has the ability of hendry or hunter you have to play to your strengths whatever that is to get a win as eddie charlton said fuck the crowd im here to win.
Selby plays to his strengths , which are good safety and scoring heavily. To call a player negative because he plays to his strengths is harsh to say the least .
2 minute shot clock sounds fair.
I was thinking about Paul hunter and what a great player he was and I was thinking about what joe Johnson said in commentary in an o'sullivan match and I remember him saying he was in the same mould as ronnie. How may world titles do you think he could of won by now if Paul was still alive guys ? I really miss him, great guy he was aswell.
Why is there pro snooker in June anyway.
Get outside and enjoy the sunshine.
WS said there would be a resolution to the Stephen Lee case after the World Championship. Did they mean this year or next?!!!!!
It takes absurdity to new heights.
Hasn't he been cleared? According to wikipedia he returned to snooker a couple of weeks ago.
Why is there pro snooker in June anyway.
Get outside and enjoy the sunshine.
----------------------------------
Because Sponsors want to put on Snooker in June lets not forget Australia is in the middle of winter at the moment.
Listening to a recent debate regarding the poor monetary rewards for the lower echelons of tennis i.e the satellite tour, where players can't even afford a coach, it occurred to me that the same problem applies to snooker.
The average age of the top 32 tennis players is apparently the oldest ever and it's stopping young talent from breaking through.
It would make sense, particularly in this financial climate, if a proportion of the money at the top of snooker was re-distributed to the lower end of the game. This would help young talent and prevent them from chucking it in due to financial restraint before they had a chance to realise their full potential.
According to wikipedia! Haha. I had to look and it does outline the case but the last sentence "Lee returned to competition in May 2013, where he triumphed by winning the RKGKhar Gymkhana Snooker Masters.[30]" is misleading and probably won't last long.
8:28 - yeah - strangely Lee has been allowed to compete in pro-ams (won €10k in one in Dublin last month as well). You might expect the governing body to be making an effort to stop this sort of thing, but it seems World Snooker are happy as long as he isn't playing in tour events.
Post a Comment