Some Snooker and Pool Differences

Whether you’re a die-hard fan of either snooker/pool (American), one can certainly appreciate the respective difficulties that arise in playing both cue sports. While at initial glance they can seem like two custom game modes under one umbrella there are some points which can display how different they actually are. Consider this a bit of a fact source for both sports where everything mentioned is far too specific to warrant their own Short posts.

Pool balls are slightly larger and heavier than those used in snooker. Where snooker balls are around 52.5mm in diameter, pool balls are around 57mm; snooker balls generally weigh around the 140g mark and pool balls are approximately 160-170g. Due to these differences, pool cues tend to be slightly heavier to accommodate these changes. Pool cues are a little heavier on the grip end while snooker cues are weightier towards the tip to support the smaller tip sizes on a snooker cue. Snooker cues are geared towards accuracy when potting, while pool cues are built around power and position.

The cloths used in snooker and pool games can also differ. There are numerous manufacturers for cue sport table cloths but the main characteristic that separates between the two games are that snooker table cloths have a slightly fuzzier texture, in that you can feel the fibres quite distinctly. While it may seem that this can cause a bit of friction, wear and tear can smooth the surface over time. Compared to a pool table cloth, which is flatter, smoother and you can’t feel the fibres like you can on a snooker table; it results in some speedy match play.

Played on a smaller 9ft table, pool requires fewer balls to play and depending what game you’re playing, you must pot balls in a specific order. Other rules it must abide by is the option to play a push out shot and the requirement for a ball to make contact with a cushion (or rail). This doesn’t exist in snooker but failure to do so results in a ball in-hand foul which could effectively mean an immediate lost frame in pool, given the freedom to place the cue ball and the size of the pockets.

A shot commonly used in pool but something you will rarely see in snooker (unless by fluke) is a bank (or kick) shot. This is when you hit cushion first before potting a ball. Something which understandably is done more in pool due to the pocket and ball sizes, but still requires a tremendous knowledge of the angles on their table; see Efren Reyes’ Z-Shot to be amazed.

Due to the length of the table and slim-sized pockets, snooker requires a much stricter technique to play. Precision and accuracy are staples of snooker, more so than their pool counterpart, where lining up a shot and cue action is more forgiven. Developing a stable cue action and technique will help to do well in snooker but those skills can be transferred comfortably to a pool game where attention could be focused towards understanding its rules and concentrating on the respective positional aspect.

Having played both cue sports, you can get great enjoyment out of playing both. This isn’t a post to say that one is better than the other because they both have their merits. It just depends how much time you have and what kind of mood you’re in as to which game you would choose to play.

‘Snooker’s probably like trying to win The Open or Augusta; Pool’s probably like playing crazy golf…One’s a bit of fillet steak and one’s a bit of mashy ham’ – Ronnie O’Sullivan when asked the differences between snooker and pool.

Snooker Referees: The Unsung Heroes

Much like one of the very first Short posts on this website looking at ‘Stephen Hendry as a Commentator’ (click here to read that), this is more of an appreciation post for the deceptively difficult role that snooker referees undertake. While there are referees that we are all familiar with, it’s great to see a lot of newcomer referees introduced into the game.

They are aided by technology and a supporting marker (second referee), but referees still require immense focus and concentration. The act of re-spotting colours, announcing player and break scores, ensuring they’re behind the player each shot and keeping switched on in the case of a foul may not seem like a demanding role, but over the course of a match which could last many hours is an impressive feat. All while maintaining a high level of professionalism. If you’re someone who is impatient or has difficulty in maintaining an extended period of concentration, then you can understand how difficult this can be. But I imagine if you’re a snooker viewer, then your patience is pretty good.

Patience and judgement are key characteristics exhibited by referees in a snooker match. They may find themselves in a match where they have to deal with certain players being a little unconventional; or correctly call a foul and a miss which in itself is a fairly controversial ruling. A recent example involved Leo Scullion and Mark Allen at the Scottish Open where Allen unknowingly feathered the cue ball and Scullion had to intervene afterwards.

Even though snooker is a gentlemanly sport, there can be situations where the referee has to be firm and let the player know this. One time that makes me think of this is at the WSC final between Selby and Higgins; Jan Verhaas had to show a steady hand on whether the cue ball touched the black ball upon nestling behind it, even if players may not agree with the decision.

Given that there are more tournaments to be played in a season, there has been a rising exposure to many different referees that are becoming well integrated into the sport. Referees such as Marcel Eckardt and Terry Camilleri who are becoming quite well established and others such as Desislava Bozhilova and Maike Kesseler who are a little more unseen compared to senior referees, are becoming more confident as they gain more exposure in ranking events.

It’s no easy task being a snooker referee, but it’s definitely something that can go under the radar in the grand scheme of a match. When a player is making a century break, their job can seem quite easy but when that isn’t happening, much like the players, the referees have to uphold their concentration as the match progresses; since they are as involved as the players themselves.

Are Best-Of-7 Matches Too Short?

It’s an age old question which still rings true to this day but is there something to say about the length of these matches? It’s a format which populates a vast majority of the tournaments in a season but is it something that should be altered or does it have a place in the game?

These short format ‘sprints’ came to the scene mainly after Barry Hearn took over the commercial arm of snooker. These shorter format matches are effectively what can allow all of these tournaments to take place and in such a tightly packed schedule.

The main criticism that come with these matches are that it doesn’t give enough time for a player to get into the game. Combined with the flat-128 draw that is associated with a lot of these tournaments can result in some shocking early round results, more often than not.

Also, a first-to-4 may not show the true representation of what could happen in a match, as compared to a first-to-6. Kyren Wilson was on the receiving end of a couple of these; most notably when he was 5-1 up against O’Sullivan in the Shanghai Masters and 4-1 up against Un-Nooh in the World Open, yet he still lost to both these competitors in the best-of-11 format. If it were a best-of-7, it would have resulted in dominant victories for Wilson, but the complexion of the match was significantly changed as it was a best-of-11. The best-of-11 is what seems to be the reasonable compromise for the early rounds of these events.

Another common issue is the playing conditions that come with these shorter style matches. As these matches often occur in qualifying rounds which all players are required to go through, this is something that should be looked at. Considering the money available to snooker is increasing as time progresses, some should trickle back down to improving these conditions for the players.

This shorter format will better suit certain players as opposed to a longer, drawn out tournament. But many say that a player isn’t really tested until they battle it out over a considerable number of frames. I think for certain tournaments it might be suitable, such as quick, non-ranking events like the Paul Hunter Classic, in which the final is contested in a best-of-7. A general guide could be the higher the prize money for an event, the more frames that should be contested.

I think best-of-7’s are okay for qualifying rounds for tournaments but once most of these tournaments commence, a best-of-11 is a better early round format. At the time of writing, the Champion of Champions is taking place which involves 16 of the top winners starting with a best-of-7. When dealing with the higher level players, this should be changed to a best-of-11 because I think it would provide a better match.

How Competitive is Snooker Right Now?

This week’s Masters has seen a significant number of its higher seeds defeated in their first round matches where, despite being highly ranked, they are beaten by those considered underdogs in comparison. Previously, it could be fairly accurately determined as to which player would win in a head-to-head but nowadays given how high the standard has become, it’s not so simple anymore.

When Shaun Murphy triumphed over Judd Trump in their Round 1 match this past week, he says the reason that he and others like Perry and Gilbert succeeded in their respective matches was due to how close the gap between rankings have become. Murphy was stating that the difference in skillset and match-play between ranks 1-16, and even beyond have become far slimmer.

This makes it very difficult to predict a winner in any given contest. Looking at Perry vs Ding; based on their head-to-head, rankings and Ding’s recent success, it would seem like one-way traffic. But nowadays, you can’t write off any competitor because shock results can happen at any time. Gilbert, who was the underdog in his match against Allen performed as if there was a role reversal – in his Masters debut! Perhaps this is something that has happened because it is the Masters where the standard is higher than any other tournament; but it’s not just limited to this event.

That’s why the next few years in snooker will be really interesting. Despite his recent minor dry spell, Trump has done very well to dominate in this season thus far. But with the number of tournaments there are, a number which seems to be increasing, is why we probably won’t see one particular face going forward like a Hendry or Davis. Where a player could probably begin a tournament with a couple of easy rounds to cruise through, there’s a high chance that some top seeds can crash out in a best-of-7 straight from the offset.

O’Sullivan also mentioned in an interview after Murphy’s win about the closeness in rankings where there aren’t necessarily any players anymore that are significantly better than the rest. Any player can beat a top seed on any day. He eluded that Hendry was able to get away with this because he was miles ahead of everyone else in the 90s so he could afford to play at 50% and cruise ahead. However, this isn’t something any player could get away with now because anyone, including those at the very top can be toppled. And things will only get more competitive and the gap will continue to close as time goes on.