What was snooker like in the Joe Davis era?

Snooker in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. But let’s be honest, it’s more easily known as the Joe Davis era. There’s probably less than a handful of people that can actually recall what snooker was like during this period. So I thought I would try to give a few ideas on what the sport we all know and love was like during this era. Because let’s be real, it wasn’t the same as we watch it today.

Firstly, there was no WPBSA at that time. Instead, snooker was regulated by the BACC, otherwise known as the Billiards Association and Control Council. It wasn’t until 1968 that the WPBSA was formed.

When it came to the World Championships, tournaments were often held at various locations around the UK. However, particularly during the earlier WSC’s in the late 1920s, each match in a given tournament would be held at different venues. So a QF match would be held in a different venue than a SF – and then the final would be held somewhere completely different. A lot of these venues were back room snooker clubs as opposed to the theatre-like venues that we view today.

Another (obvious) difference was that there were far fewer players and tournaments during the Joe Davis era. We can only really comment on the WSC because there isn’t much documented relating to other tournaments besides the Gold Cup. But despite rising popularity, there were still few entrants in World Championships in various years. In 1931, there were only two entrants in the WSC – Joe Davis and Tom Dennis.

The lack of entrants was most likely contributed by the difficulty of the game. We’re all likely aware of how difficult snooker is however, playing conditions were quite different back in this era. Snooker balls were made of a different, denser material which made it difficult to break-build and compile centuries. Centuries during the Joe Davis era were significantly fewer than what we see today.

If you watch archived footage of Joe Davis playing, you can see that break-off shots were very different as well. Due to the material of the snooker balls, they couldn’t travel around the table and the cue ball would often stop at the side of the table. A future short relating to the differing materials of snooker balls will follow.

Lastly, snooker matches were contested over a much longer period. Because of the minimal prize money available during this era, players mainly competed for a share of the gate fees. So what they would do is play ‘dead frames’. This meant that they would compete until there was a winner, then play a further number of frames (which wouldn’t change the result) to extend play over a few more days so they can generate more revenue to split amongst the players.

For example, in 1927 Joe Davis had won the final against Tom Dennis 16-7 but an additional 8 dead frames were played so that the final could be extended for another day even though the outcome had been decided. If you look at the archives of WSC finals, there were often 60-70+ frames of snooker played. In the post Joe Davis era this raised to 145 frames being played over a period of weeks. So, in today’s context if a best-of-35 final was played, all 35 frames would be played even if the result was 34-1.

Besides that, it’s pretty much the same game! Let me know if anything was missed!

Five Players who should have won the World Championship

The idea for this was conceived quite some time ago but because this has been written only recently, Judd Trump is no longer on this list. So, which 5 players do we think should have won the WSC?

Ding Junhui

A finalist in 2016 and semi-finalist the year after; former Masters and UK Champion Ding Junhui has everything it takes to be a World Champion. China are still searching for their first Asian World Champion and many think that Ding will be the one to be at the top of that pedestal. He always seems to come up against the eventual winners of the WSC but if Ding can take his game up another level to withstand the longer matches in the later rounds and maintain his consistency, a WSC should be in his near future.

Alan McManus

The 1994 Masters champion; McManus’ best WSC run was in 2016 where he made the semi-finals. This included a victory over Higgins but an eventual loss to the aforementioned gentleman above. Although his positive quirk and snooker know-how is well suited in the commentary box, McManus’ knowledge around the table is vast enough to win him a world title and many, including myself would love to see him lift the trophy.

Marco Fu

Much like McManus, Fu’s most recent and best run in the WSC was in 2016 where he had one of the best matches of the tournament against the eventual winner, Mark Selby. Fu is probably the player I want most to win the WSC. He has every element of the game covered; he’s beaten all of the top players; and produces some of the best matches in the WSC. Just watch his match against Selby or his matches the following year against Brecel and Robertson. Fu is my ultimate dark horse. One day.

Barry Hawkins

2013 WSC finalist and multiple time semi-finalist since then, no one has a bad thing to say about Barry Hawkins. Despite his unfortunate second round exit this past year, Hawkins is someone you can always rely on performing well at the Worlds. He’s a player that doesn’t seem to lose his ability with age and a strong contender to eventually lift the trophy. And seeing that his birthday always falls in the WSC tournament, what a great present that would be.

Jimmy White

Multiple time runner up, we couldn’t not include the Whirlwind on this list. We like to keep hope alive and considering White is still playing on the tour, the possibility is always there. And if you’re a believer in multi-verse theory, then it already has. But that’s beside the point. He hasn’t qualified for the WSC since 2006 and his last considerable run was to the quarter-finals in 2000 but as long as White still holds a cue, he will be going for it every year and he will have the support behind him.

This is only Part 1 of this Short. There are others who we think deserved to win the WSC which will be covered at some point in the future. Many more to come.

Would a professional play well on any table?

This short post derives from one previously written on why snooker tables are heated. Click here if you haven’t check that one out yet. Effectively, that led to the question as to whether professional players would be able to play well on any snooker table; whether at the club, bar or in a tournament venue.

At initial thought, the answer would be yes - and this is true to a reasonable degree. The best way to think of a professional playing on any snooker table is whether a football player would be able to play on any pitch; or if a tennis player would be able to play on any court.

A football player will likely struggle if a pitch is wet/damp as opposed to regular, dry conditions. Similarly, in tennis you have players that perform better at Wimbledon when playing on grass and players that are better at competing on clay. The same applies to snooker tables in that players will need to adjust to the conditions they are given.

Typically, club tables are slower running because they are cheaper than professional match tables and don’t have under-table heaters or finer cloths. Most who play on these tables will often find themselves struggling to find good position and will need to ‘punch’ the cue ball a little more – and if the cushions aren’t reactive, can make for a difficult session of snooker.

Obviously, professional players are better equipped than anyone else to deal with conditions like these considering the amount of practice and experience they have, but it wouldn’t be ideal for them. Even when playing in high profile tournaments involving a one or two-table setup, you will sometimes hear commentators and players mentioning tables not playing well. Pros very quickly have to adapt to the conditions of the table they are playing on in order to compete.

Ultimately, professionals technically can play on any kind of table but a poorer table means that scoring and break building will suffer, especially if the players can’t adapt to the conditions. Slow cloths and less than ideal rails can make for a difficult game of snooker where players will need to pot themselves out of trouble.

For those who play snooker leisurely, have you tried playing on a match table before and noticed any difference?

What is the situation with Women's Snooker?

When Reanne Evans won her 12th world title, I observed an interesting fact that the total prize fund for the entire World Championship was only £15,000. And that is total – not even the winners share. For context, just competing in the first round of the WSC gets each contender £20,000. This made me wonder about other differences in the World of Women’s Snooker.

That was a convenient segue - women’s snooker is run by the WWS (World Women’s Snooker). They are responsible for organising and running all the snooker events for female competitors and are provided support by the WPBSA. Much like the main tour we are all used to, events are held globally and throughout the year. Although, as I imagine most aren’t too aware of the women’s tour, there are some differences.

There are considerably less tournaments than on the main tour. In the 2018/19 season, there were only 8 events held in the WWS calendar, which is a fraction in comparison to the main. Certain players like O’Sullivan would probably welcome a spread out calendar like that but for most, they would probably prefer a few more options. These 8 events don’t include the main tour events that women can take part in such as Q School, Shoot Out or the World Championship.

Furthermore, the length of the matches are much shorter. In order to win the World Championship, the winner only needs to take 6 frames in the final as opposed to the 18 frames required at the Crucible.

Then there’s the prize money. The WWS claimed that the prize fund for 2018/19 was at least £50,000. Although I couldn’t confirm this, it seems realistic given the number of tournaments. The aim of the WWS is to keep this figure rising as the years roll on. I won’t go into a rant about this as I want to keep this more informative but this number should be multiplied significantly. Bear in mind, this is for the entire season.

Obviously, women’s snooker doesn’t bring in the viewership or revenue of their main tour counterparts, but you would expect the WPBSA to be able to set aside a more reasonable budget to provide an incentive and make things more worthwhile for female players.

There also needs to be a focus on encouraging women to participate in this male-dominated sport in order to try and root out the next big talent. I think it does come to participation numbers and by giving the female players a larger canvas of tournaments to be able to compete in will raise the standard in the women’s game and hopefully, allow more females to qualify for the big events on the main tour.