How Important is a Snooker Crowd to a Players Performance

129.jpg

As we all watch the ongoing 2020 World Championship, one of the notable changes to this year’s format is the distinct absence of spectators. Now, the idea of a reduced crowd was experimented with on the opening day of the WSC however, due to government announcements that very day meant that a spectator presence was no longer possible. But how much impact does an audience have on the performance of a player?

Typically in sports, crowds are separated into the sides in which they support. I’d like to think that snooker is a little less akin to this considering its individuality and the overarching respect for the game itself. Similar to tennis, snooker crowds are encouraged to be more revering towards the players and avoid making any distracting sounds, particularly on a backswing. Although, much like any other sport which includes a crowd presence, snooker fans actively participate in the experience and drama that unfolds in any given match – multiplied in the Crucible.

Sports are very psychological and mental, just as much as they are physical. This is particularly applicable to snooker where matches can last hours upon end and competitors need to keep themselves in the game mentally so that they can perform on the table physically. Having a crowd presence that can appreciate a good shot or century break will have a positive influence on a player’s confidence, which will encourage them to continue playing well.

Much like a boxer who will ride the wave of a crowd when in the middle of a positive exchange against his/her opponent, a Crucible crowd will have a similar effect. A player will be able to sense the crowds excitement while concentrating on the game at hand therefore, will also aim to perform in a manner that will meet the expectations of those spectating. And any snooker player will tell you the difference between being able to feel the presence of a live crowd, as opposed to playing in an empty arena for those watching at home.

Clearly, a live audience has a tremendous impact of the mental side of a player. So if we take that audience away, surely that takes away the mental pressure from those competing, right? Kind of. It depends on the player. Some players will thrive under a crowd presence while others may not do so well. Which is what makes this year’s WSC so interesting to watch. We’ve already seen how some players are coping with the silence of the room, comparable to if they were just playing in practice; but nothing gets rid of the nerves of playing for the World Championship.

So while perhaps some nerves are settled from the lack of an audience, this will be offset by competing in the most coveted tournament of the season. And while it may be more relaxing for a player to make a big break, an exemplary shot or century won’t feel the same to a player without a crowd reacting to the spectacle. The best way to think of it would be to imagine one of your favourite 147 breaks…now imagine that same 147 break without a crowd, or even watching it on mute. It just isn’t the same, is it?

Broadcasters have tried to simulate audience participation with a soundboard of crowd applause similar to a laughing track in a sitcom. In effect, it’s a person with their finger on the ‘applause’ button for use at the end of a frame. This has received a mixed reception from viewers, but a poll by WST showed that 55% did welcome the addition, while acknowledging that it is far from perfect.

But others shouldn’t be too upset with this. This isn’t something that anyone has had to go through before, so there are going to be ‘beta testing’ phases for different features. Fans are having to adapt just like the players and staff involved in bringing us this WSC. We should just enjoy the fact that there is a World Championship this year and how we’ve already had some incredible Round 1 matches. And with that being said, onto Round 2!


126.jpg

Like this Short? Click here to read: The Science Behind Snooker Chalk

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

What If John Higgins Had Won Those World Finals?

128.jpg

John Higgins is a four-time World Champion and a veteran at the Crucible. He is tied alongside Steve Davis when it comes to number of Crucible final appearances with eight; only topped by Stephen Hendry with nine final appearances. Given this 50% success rate, Higgins is already regarded as one of the game’s greatest all-rounders. But what would his stature be if he had won all of those finals?

As one of the longest standing professionals with a near thirty year long career, Higgins has made appearances and won a World Championship in every decade. From 1998 up to 2019, Higgins has reached the final on eight occasions, winning four out of his first five finals. Higgins’s triumphs occurred in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011; while his losses came in 2001 and more recently from 2017-19. But if Higgins had won in these years, would that change the landscape of the ‘greatest of all time’ discussions?

It isn’t an impossibility to imagine. Two of these losses are players he had beaten in WSC finals years earlier (albeit at younger stages of their respective careers), and the other two are his fellow Class of ’92 compatriots whom he has beaten in other Triple Crown finals. So it’s very possible that a world could have existed where Higgins was an eight-time World Champion.

But if this had happened, would Higgins be considered the best snooker player of all time? Quite possibly. Most consider Hendry the greatest due to his Triple Crown and ranking title accolades, but it mainly resorts to his WSC success. When the case is made against O’Sullivan, this is the barometer that is regarded as pertinent among Hendry idealists. Hence why a considerable number of people would consider Higgins as the greatest if he had won all eight.

Another factor that would lead to Higgins being regarded as the ‘GOAT’ in this hypothetical discussion is down to his all-round skillset and match-play fortitude. His style could be viewed as a contemporary hybrid of Davis’s and Hendry’s former playstyles, but one which evolved to suit the modern game. In this scenario, it would seem that Higgins would have no weakness and once again, potentially be known as the best.

However, there would still be some discussion as to the greatest even if Higgins had won all these world finals. Some may still find Hendry’s victories far more impressive. But that’s a matter of perspective – whether you rank a decade of dominance over a player’s longevity and ability to win throughout all points of their career. O’Sullivan would still also be thrown into the mix even though he would only be a four-time champion, due to his sheer ability and artistry on the table, not to mention other accomplishments.

Something further to consider is the Triple Crown tally. If Higgins had won all eight WSC finals, this would take his majors success from nine to thirteen. This number is considerably lower than the likes of the Trinity (Davis, Hendry, and O’Sullivan). Since we’re only looking at the World Championship finals, Davis’s and Hendry’s Triple Crown totals would remain the same at 15 and 18, respectively. Meanwhile, O’Sullivan’s tally would only be reduced by one, leaving him tied with Hendry. If the number of majors were to determine who the greatest was, much like Grand Slams in tennis, then Higgins still wouldn’t be the best due to his rivals’ success at the UK and Masters.

Although, the WSC is the most important tournament and the greatest test for a snooker player. So the argument would still be there if Higgins had won all those finals as more weight would be assigned to the Worlds. All we can say for certain is that in this hypothetical, Selby would have a slight dent in his meteoric rise and Trump would still be searching to complete the Triple Crown.


96.jpg

Like this Short? Click here to read: Does John Higgins Get Enough Credit?

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

Stephen Hendry's Five Ranking Titles 1990/91 - Throwback

127.jpg

Hendry was the first to reach this unbelievable milestone. It then took over twenty years for someone to reach this mantle once again. Since then, only three others have etched their names in ranking title history. During a season where there were only eight ranking events, Stephen Hendry had a near 2/3 success rate as he claimed five of these for his own.

This five title performance was produced following the first of Hendry’s dominant seasons where in 1989/90 he initiated his decade-long era of brilliance. Equally as impressive, Hendry won four ranking titles and the Masters as he completed the Triple Crown in the same season – something that only been done by Davis a couple seasons before him.

But as we all very well know…Hendry didn’t stop there. Before the 1990/91 season commenced, he was already a 2-time Masters Champion, as well as World and UK Champion. Brimming with confidence and a temperament that just won’t quit, it was clear that Hendry’s intentions were far beyond what he had just achieved. And that was evident as he won the first four ranking events of the 1990/91 season.

October and November 1990 all belonged to Hendry. Travelling from Reading, to China, then to Dubai, he was able to sweep the Grand Prix, Asian Open and Dubai Classic with confident victories over seasoned professionals, Bond, Taylor and Davis. It wasn’t until mid-November at the UK Championship where Hendry would face a real test against finalist, Davis.

This was the performance that Davis regarded as the passing of the guard; where he realised that perhaps there wasn’t much he could do against a player of Hendry’s kind. Hendry stormed into a 5-0 and 7-2 lead but Davis, the competitive force that he is, kept the match alive and kicking as he ran it close and managed to overturn it to 15-14 with one frame from victory.

Although, a 21 year old Hendry, as on many occasions, managed to win the last two frames of the match to claim his fourth ranking title of the season. The penultimate frame which included one of Hendry’s best counter clearances, after missing a handful of long and middle distance pots, only to lead to one of the best blues you could hope to see. Unless you were Davis.

Following Hendry winning the Masters that season in addition to his four ranking titles, in February he ran his fifth victory to a decider against former professional and rank No. 5, Gary Wilkinson. This win cemented Hendry’s name further in the snooker record books as he became the first player to win five ranking events in a single season.

Formerly, the record for most ranking titles in a season was held by Davis in the 1987/88. Unfortunately, Hendry wasn’t able to finish the season at the World Championship as strongly as he started, but we can blame that one on the Crucible Curse. The most astonishing part of this achievement is that even though he turned professional in 1985, in the couple of years he really started flowing (1989 onwards), Hendry had accumulated 11 ranking titles already!

Not only did Hendry win five out of eight ranking events that season, but he also won a further four non-ranking events, including his third consecutive Masters title. And this was still in the infancy of his career. Even more impressive was the continuation of the string of titles that followed. When compared with the other players that have accomplished the five ranking titles feat, their forms have dipped in the following seasons (although that is yet to be determined with Trump).

Hendry hit the ranking title record early and continued his wave as he reached 36 total ranking titles and 18 Triple Crowns. No one was able to replicate his achievement in the 1990/91 season in the decades before or the decade afterwards. Considering how well Hendry did during the 1990s, it’s hard to pick his best season – especially when two of them consisted of a clean sweep of the Triple Crowns (another record held) – but this season has to be right up there, particularly when you look at how young he was in age and career.


125.jpg

Like this Short? Click here to read: Ding Junhui's Incredible 2013/14 Season – Throwback

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

The Science Behind Snooker Chalk

126.jpg

Alongside the cue and its tip, snooker chalk is another crucial piece of equipment that is vital to playing a successful shot. It can seem fairly insignificant due to how frequently it is used and how infrequently it is mentioned (except in the occurrences of poor contacts) however, I wanted to look a little further into the properties of snooker chalk and the effect that it has on the overall match.

In a nutshell, the effect that chalk has on a shot is simple. You have the tip of a snooker cue and the cue ball; but they’re not the components that are in contact with each other. The application of chalk creates a barrier between them that increases the friction upon contact of the two surfaces. It’s primarily used when playing a shot off the centre of mass i.e. sidespin. Most top level professionals rarely play centre-ball/plain ball shots hence, the need to continuously apply chalk.

When striking the cue ball off-centre, you are aiming for a smaller portion of the total area. Therefore, it’s necessary to increase the grip of the cue tip to ensure that when the ball is struck, the energy that is created from the increased friction is transferred to the spin on the ball. By creating a coarser surface with increased grip, you are reducing the chances of miscues.

Top tip: there is a correct way to apply chalk. If you see a chalk that has an enormous hole in it, then it has been used incorrectly. Drilling a circle into the chalk as a method for application actually creates a smoother surface on the tip, which is the opposite of what you’re going for. Just stick with the even brushes of chalk as shown by the pros and you’ll be fine.

In the early 19th century, traditional chalk was used in billiards for the perceived benefits that we know of it today: improved grip and greater shot selection. The chalk used was similar to that of blackboard chalk. Although, the problem with this, similar to when blackboard dusters are clapped together is that it results in a substantial dispersal of chalk dust. This is when developments were made to the chalk we are familiar with, which don’t actually consist of chalk but numerous compounds/abrasives that result in less residual dust. You’ll see how important this can be soon.

You’ve probably heard of kicks (or poor contacts) occurring in snooker. The overwhelming factor that is commented as to the reasoning for these is down to the chalk. This can be from residual chalk that is left upon striking the cue ball. Or the build-up of chalk on the table from continuous play. Either way, when the snooker balls roll over these ‘chalked’ surfaces, they can create the forces that upon impact, causes the cue/object ball to bounce in the air slightly, while deflecting the balls off their intended course.

This is where manufacturers like Taom have made revolutions in the chalk game. As opposed to player constantly having to get balls cleaned by the referee, Taom created a chalk with properties that reduce chalk transferring from the tip to the cue ball. This in theory, and later in practice, proved to be effective in that professionals that have taken up this newer, expensive piece of equipment have noted the significant reduction in kicks and chalk residue.

So why don’t all player use this? Taom chalk doesn’t come without its risks, the primary being the increased chances of miscues. Dominic Dale stated that in comparison to Triangle, Taom chalk is more ‘cakey and powdery’, which can result in a lesser grip and thus, more miscues which have been witnessed on occasion in competition. However, Taom have developed a softer version of their chalk to help with these circumstances.

The progress in the chalk market is determined by a manufacturer’s ability to create a compound which has the perfect balance between softness and abrasiveness. This is why chalk was the perfect choice and there had been few changes in the chalks that players would use for years.

What do you think? What is your chalk of choice?


56.jpg

Like this Short? Click here to read: The Impact of Snooker Tips

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!