Cricket and Snooker

[goose]

There are interesting parallels between the two sports, in the way the games are played, the evolving nature of the patch of green the sports are played on, and relative standing of the greatest players. Joe Davis, widely accepted as the first snooker great won the first world snooker title in 1927. In fact he won it 15 times which meant he held the title for 20 years given the break for the Second World War. The pockets were tighter back in those days. The next great Steve Davis, ruled the sport in the 1980s. He won the world title six times. After him came Stephen Hendry who went one better and won the title seven times. Amazingly both players still feature today but struggle to make it past the early rounds. Ronnie O'Sullivan has won the title three times and is universally accepted by all including Davis and Hendry as the most naturally talented player in the history of the sport. Others insist that Alex Higgins and Jimmy White, neither of whom had a single world title between them, were the best ever. And there are those that insist Joe Davis was the greatest. No doubt the same sort that can never look past Bradman.

[Serani]

Shame Snooker isnt a sport.

[goose]

Shame you're such a chief

[Serani]

Also where are the parallels in that article? Seems like a list of snookering feats that nobody knows about then a brief mention of the don. Snooker and Cricket are not really comparable, one is a game the other is a sport.

[goose]

Ronnie's five minute 147 ...Tendulkar's double-hundred. The sports are almost identical.

[Online]

Ronnie's five minute 147 ...Tendulkar's double-hundred. The sports are almost identical.

as identical as chalk and cheese

[goose]

http://www.snookergames.co.uk/games3.html

[Rajiv]

Love snooker, played few club tourneys

[goose]

^ there you go.

[thevortex]

I am sorry, but I fail to see the parallel between these two sports. Is there anything else apart from statistics to connect these games? I have always thought tennis shared a few principles with cricket insofar as depending on the external environment to affect the gameplay (wind, light, moisture etc.) and also the changing nature of surfaces and the resultant change in gameplay. I have not come across too many other games which compare with cricket in all its breadth.

[akshayxyz]

the only parallels are - you need to be passionate and hard working to excel in either ( or any sport). And relatively old greats will always have an aura around them. Which is well deserved as - at any point in time, one has access to all the knowledge / science accumulated thus far. I would think better ( more generic) parallel would be.. Aryabhatta - was no significantly worse/better than - Newton - was no significantly worse/better than - Einstein - is not going to be no significantly worse / better than - this decade/century's best scientist.

[Rajiv]

British Game Requires precision, time and strategy ( unlike pool ) You want to score points and attack by snooking Table roll is similar to pitch, some are slow, some are fast

[Serani]

One is played indoors, requires no physical exertion, Is a pub game, not popular amongst the public, players require no fitness, they wear a dickie bow, is an individual game, most players are not professionals, england are good at it. Some of the key differences there. Comparing Cricket to this pub game is insulting to cricket.

[goose]

Dickie bow, yeh ok i give you that.

[akshayxyz]

One is played indoors, requires no physical exertion, Is a pub game, not popular amongst the public, players require no fitness, they wear a dickie bow, is an individual game, most players are not professionals, england are good at it. Some of the key differences there. Comparing Cricket to this pub game is insulting to cricket.

Well, snooker does require fitness ( mental and physical)..you always have to work harder than your competition.. and there is lot of competition in snooker.

[DomainK]

I think Afridi will like Snooker better than Cricket. He will find the balls fit better in his mouth.

[Rajiv]

I think Afridi will like Snooker better than Cricket. He will find the balls fit better in his mouth.

B4 biting the ball, the cue stick might suit him for other purposes

[Sachinism]

B4 biting the ball' date=' the cue stick might suit him for other purposes[/quote'] :hysterical:

[akshayxyz]

And there are those that insist Joe Davis was the greatest. No doubt the same sort that can never look past Bradman.

If you include billiards - then Walter Lindrum was the true 'Bradman' of cue-sports. And he active during same era as Bradman. He was way ahead of his peers, and his brilliance forced to change game rules!!

[Ultimate_Game]

One is played indoors' date=' [b']requires no physical exertion, Is a pub game, not popular amongst the public, players require no fitness, they wear a dickie bow, is an individual game, most players are not professionals, england are good at it. Some of the key differences there. Comparing Cricket to this pub game is insulting to cricket.

Looks like you never saw Ranatunga play :giggle: