Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

2021 World Snooker Championship

stavros

Well-Known Member
The tournament proper starts tomorrow, and as discussed on the regular snooker thread here's the thread for the next seventeen days.

A couple of ties stand out for me in the first round draw, with in form Robertson taking on Masters winner Yan, and ex-champ Bingham against almost certain never to be champ Ding.

Trump, O'Sullivan and Robertson are well ahead with the bookies, with Higgins surprisingly next, ahead of Selby. They're both the masters of match play, so I wouldn't discount either, even at Higgins' age.

He's only got past the quarters once since he won it eleven years ago, but I'm going to tip Robertson for the tournament. At his best few can live with his all round game, and he looked very assured against O'Sullivan in that recent final they played. 10-3 I think it finished.
 
Ding v Bingham definitely the pick.

It's Liang v Roberston, not Yan. Yan's seeded. ;)

Yan will win it one day. Maybe not this year, but I won't be surprised if he goes on a bit of a run.

Boringly I make Trump favourite. If he turns up with his A game, and manages to squeak the odd game with his B game. He is prone to the odd bad day.
 
but is it on bbc or itv? :eek:


 
What do they mean by "he times the ball so well"? None of the balls are moving, you're playing in a straight line you either hit it or you don't. Not like they're doing an overhead trick shot where you're swinging the cue from left to right.
 
What do they mean by "he times the ball so well"? None of the balls are moving, you're playing in a straight line you either hit it or you don't. Not like they're doing an overhead trick shot where you're swinging the cue from left to right.

I think it's to do with maintaining the speed of the strike all the way through. They often talk about decelerating on the shot, Hendry especially, when they hit it badly, so I guess it's the opposite of that.

Robertson looked imperious to start with, but seemed to lose his momentum after missing that red that wasn't on anyway. It'll be interesting to see how he comes out this evening.

It's Liang v Roberston, not Yan. Yan's seeded. ;)

I realised this not long after signing off on Friday. My error entirely.

I like them having a small number in the crowd, as their reactions are more tempered than the full house, and somewhat more realistic than the taped applause.

Higgins-Tian was a bit of a tough watch this afternoon. I bailed at the mid-sesson interval, when the first three frames had taken 90 minutes, and not in a good way.
 
What do they mean by "he times the ball so well"? None of the balls are moving, you're playing in a straight line you either hit it or you don't. Not like they're doing an overhead trick shot where you're swinging the cue from left to right.
Yeah, wot Stavros said. Getting a smooth acceleration such that the cue is at peak acceleration when you strike the ball. That's how you get maximum reaction from the cue ball with minimum effort.

So it's more about timing your body movements to be in synch with each other than strictly timing 'the ball'. There's an analogy with cricket, where fast bowlers talk about rhythm and how they sometimes feel like it's no effort at all when they reach their top speeds.
 
I'm also confused when they say the ball bounced strongly off the cushion, as if it had more energy when it came off it than when it hit. Was thinking it could be involved with spin though.

That's physically impossible. The cue ball cannot continue to accelerate after leaving the cue.

Not quite what he said I don't think.
 
That's physically impossible. The cue ball cannot continue to accelerate after leaving the cue.
Cue at maximum acceleration. The cue is in contact with the ball for a particular duration of time. If it's accelerating, it is in contact for longer. Once that contact ends, then yes, the cue ball is off on its own.
 
Cue at maximum acceleration. The cue is in contact with the ball for a particular duration of time. If it's accelerating, it is in contact for longer. Once that contact ends, then yes, the cue ball is off on its own.

Surely you are transferring energy from the cue to the ball, so the ball will accelerate off the cue tip? It must, otherwise it would just sit there. After the transfer, the ball will accelerate to maximum, then begin to slow. (I think, it is some decades since I did physics.)
 
Surely you are transferring energy from the cue to the ball, so the ball will accelerate off the cue tip? It must, otherwise it would just sit there. After the transfer, the ball will accelerate to maximum, then begin to slow. (I think, it is some decades since I did physics.)
Newton comes in here. Take away the force from the cue and the ball won't accelerate without that force. But if you want to impart spin on the ball, you need the tip to grip on the ball (hence using chalk) and to remain in contact for a period with that grip. A decelerating cue will remain in contact for a much shorter period than an accelerating one, even if they both send the ball off at the same speed.
 
presumably the ball is at maximum acceleration when edited: just after the cue hits it, and maximum speed when it leaves the cue tip. (ignoring spin)
 
Newton comes in here. Take away the force from the cue and the ball won't accelerate without that force. But if you want to impart spin on the ball, you need the tip to grip on the ball (hence using chalk) and to remain in contact for a period with that grip. A decelerating cue will remain in contact for a much shorter period than an accelerating one, even if they both send the ball off at the same speed.

That makes sense. You are talking about milliseconds of contact really.
 
presumably the ball is at maximum acceleration when edited: just after the cue hits it, and maximum speed when it leaves the cue tip. (ignoring spin)
Yes. But to be clear, what I was talking about was imparting spin, for which a duration of contact is needed. That's where the acceleration of the cue comes in.

You can try it when you play. It's possible to hit the ball really hard really near the bottom and get very little back spin. In fact, doing that is quite easy. You can hit it a bit less hard at the same place but with acceleration in just the right place and impart lots of spin. Much harder to do. That's where 'timing' comes in :)
 
One thing that surprises me (moving on somewhat) is that when they plot the trajectory of the ball using the white line, it's always a straight line so doesn't allow for spin. It shouldn't be too complicated to calculate it in you'd think.

I'd actually like to see them show the path of both cue and object ball they predict for a shot. They should presumably initially come off at right angles but then the cue ball will curve round as it bites the cloth. I'd find that really helpful to work out where the cue ball is going to go which is the third problem I have in snooker, with the second being getting the cue ball to hit the object ball in the right place and the first is when I get down for the shot, the feeling of helplessness as I see the table stretch off into the distance. :(
 
Re 'big bounces' off cushions, you do see players complaining that the ball bounces more than average on occasion, so it's losing less speed off the cushion than they expected. I do wonder sometimes if that's not just due to some unwanted spin they put on the cue ball. The reaction is always that they've been massively wronged.
 
Back
Top Bottom