Resonance
Full Member
What a frame from Allen to take make it 12-11, he turned it up a notch then.
Yet still managed to lose the frame! Life as a Jack fan...Some break from Lisowski with that table
Give over.Can’t stand that cheat. But for some reason I bring him so much luck. Never see him lose a single frame
Get realGive over.
Yeah that was so depressing. Jack was best on all categories than safety by a smidge. Jack was the better player and would have been a great match up with Ronnie. Oh well!F****** hell! Gutted for Jack.
He was the better player for me - 11 breaks over 50 compared to Bingham's 3. And lost frames where he'd scored 60+ and 70+. Just boiled down (as usual!) to Jack making a few key errors and not winning enough of the tight frames.
Also wanted Mark Allen to win so a completely shit finish to what had been an entertaining nights snooker.
Didn't expect him to miss that red. He commits to it with no thought of the consequences as it should be.That's gotta be one of the best clearances ever from Higgins.Hes been well off it the last couple of years but that was vintage Higgins.
Sadly, that's true.Jack is an ace slinger but he’ll never get to that next level until he cuts out the inexplicable misses and upgrades his safety game by a few levels.
He just seems to lack that killer instinct that's needed to win big games.Jack is an ace slinger but he’ll never get to that next level until he cuts out the inexplicable misses and upgrades his safety game by a few levels.
Pockets are much tighter apparently. I think they’ve got the balance wrong. The idea is to increase the skill element so there is more of a difference between the good players and the great players and to create a bit more drama rather than every other frame having a 70+ break and over.Been a weird tournament so far, a lot of players showing inconsistency. Pockets look tighter than recent years as well.
Yep. I agree. I can't imagine they're using such tight pockets in the women's game, surely? There's already a huge gulf in the amount of high breaks you get there - if they have to deal with these pockets they'll really struggle! But then, if not, it seems wrong to have different levels of difficulty of pockets for each tour?Pockets are much tighter apparently. I think they’ve got the balance wrong. The idea is to increase the skill element so there is more of a difference between the good players and the great players and to create a bit more drama rather than every other frame having a 70+ break and over.
I think if they are too tight, even the better players start missing shots they otherwise wouldn’t and instead of increased competition you get the impression it’s sloppy play and lower standard.
Yep. I agree. I can't imagine they're using such tight pockets in the women's game, surely? There's already a huge gulf in the amount of high breaks you get there - if they have to deal with these pockets they'll really struggle! But then, if not, it seems wrong to have different levels of difficulty of pockets for each tour?
It's seems crazy that there can be that much variance in pockets allowed.I’m amazed there isn’t an established size. Imagine if they did that with darts or something!
Read this first -Can’t stand that cheat. But for some reason I bring him so much luck. Never see him lose a single frame
Similar to his namesake about 30 odd years ago.That's gotta be one of the best clearances ever from Higgins.Hes been well off it the last couple of years but that was vintage Higgins.
He might not be a cheat but he is Scottish which might be worse
Thought I remembered discussing this! Quote from two years ago, and must admit, I'm enjoying the tighter pockets for this year's Worlds. Maybe I'm just a sadist, but I quite like seeing players struggle.I sometimes wonder if the players are just that much better now, or if the pockets are far more accepting. More and more, I see shots being played that don't look like they'll go in, yet they still find the pocket some way or other. Maybe I'm becoming paranoid and the players really have just mastered the art.