2017 World Snooker Championship

danganabu

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No.



https://youtu.be/AGMXh9otUBU

In work so can't access the link unfortunately. I know there is no ''deliberate'' foul rule in Snooker per say but there is a rule that permits the referee to award a frame to your opponent in cases of ''unsporting behaviour''

wonderfullife

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As you say the difference between first and second was a hefty £215K (375, 160)
Do you know if the players ever agree to 'smooth' the payouts in this situation?
It happens in other sports.

Like in poker, at certain levels of the game there'd be a "chop" when it gets to the final e.g. in this case the 2 lads agreeing in the hotel "right we'll split it privately 285k, 250k?".

At the top level it doesn't really happen because of the risk of getting caught. 90 grand would be a lot of money for the winner to transfer the loser and that usually leaves a trail.

I've definitely heard of it happening at slightly lower levels of the game, it certainly used to happen in domestic ranking events in Carlow and pro-am's but these days it's not worth the hassle to do it at the top end of the game.

It's not allowed because it gives the impression of collusion.

Spudman_20000

Lavinia wrote: »

I don't care how much money JH got to lose this final just not to look at him on the 'throne' he does not deserve to be even close to..

Well done Selby

Can you provide proof that John Higgins actually threw a frame or frames for money? I mean actual proof, other than an entrapment video from a dodgy rag newspaper with questionable motives?

If you can't provide proof, then you and others that continually bring this up, should kindly stop regurgitating this.

Didn't Ronnie admit he was approached to throw frames. He never brought it to the attention of the governing body either. There's no video of that, so who's to say if Ronnie agreed to it, but never had a notion of doing it?

wonderfullife

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

If you can't provide proof, then you and others that continually bring this up, should kindly stop regurgitating this.

The weirdest thing about that insinuation that poster made is the implication that John is so much better than Selby that he's in a position to "throw the match" by an exact scoreline of 18-15. He had a very weird way of going about it taking a 10-4 lead and a 16-12 deficit :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the prize money differential was massive (£215,000) between winning and losing. Someone would have had to offer him far in excess of that.

Bookies report "suspicious betting patterns" for the bones of 10 grand in liabilities on a match, let alone someone out there standing to make hundreds of thousands off an 18-15 scoreline.

Even more to the point, when you include the non-ranking events, John's prize-money for this season is £794,750. Streets ahead of Ronnie in 3rd place, who only made £482,000. He doesn't need money.

It's very easy to throw dirt at someone with snide comments but the reality is he's never once been involved in any match that had suspicious betting patterns and it'd never be possible to make financial sense to throw any Final, let alone a World Final.

Snake Plisken

wonderfullife wrote: »

Like in poker, at certain levels of the game there'd be a "chop" when it gets to the final e.g. in this case the 2 lads agreeing in the hotel "right we'll split it privately 285k, 250k?".

At the top level it doesn't really happen because of the risk of getting caught. 90 grand would be a lot of money for the winner to transfer the loser and that usually leaves a trail.

I've definitely heard of it happening at slightly lower levels of the game, it certainly used to happen in domestic ranking events in Carlow and pro-am's but these days it's not worth the hassle to do it at the top end of the game.

It's not allowed because it gives the impression of collusion.

I remember Ken Doherty in a radio interview saying that there was no love lost between himself and Mark Williams because at some tournament Williams wanted to split the pot and Ken wouldn't and went onto win the final. So this kind of practice did seem to go on between some players.

wonderfullife

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I remember Ken Doherty in a radio interview saying that there was no love lost between himself and Mark Williams because at some tournament Williams wanted to split the pot and Ken wouldn't and went onto win the final. So this kind of practice did seem to go on between some players.

Funny you mention those 2 - I actually played Mark in a frame when Ken & him did that National Exhibition Tour to commemorate their 2003 World final. I think they ended up playing 6 or 7 venues, UCD campus being one. Mark was moaning backstage because Ken got the sponsors to give him a new Blackberry phone that night.

"What do I want a Blackberry for I've already got one, stingy c**t".

But yeah it used to be very common and IMO the practice of "splitting the money" is a great thing for the fans. Splitting the money takes the pressure off the players and frees up their cueing arms and tends to result in heavier scoring.

Whereas in practice they were playing for the title and an awful lot of money over the weekend. Higgins has been pro since 1992 and his career earnings are 7 million before tax, what's that about 300 grand a year average before tax?

I'd bite someones arm off for 300k a year obviously but for a top class sportsman they're not swimming in it and they were playing for a 1st prize of over an average-years earnings. That adds to the pressure IMO and leads to more mistakes.

If they could privately split the money I'd have no objections. They're both still trying to win the World Title.

mdwexford

Disagree with that personally.

I want to see them under as much pressure as possible

wonderfullife

mdwexford wrote: »

Disagree with that personally.

I want to see them under as much pressure as possible

Yep, I suppose in top level sports it's also good to see what they are made of under the most pressure possible.

But World Snooker would be advised to address the gap between 1st and 2nd Prize in all tournaments. Some tournaments have a big drop off from 100k for winner to 30k for runner-up. Lot of players not exactly happy with it including Williams with this sarcastic tweet:

https://twitter.com/markwil147/status/859168197655879680

Gaoth Laidir

Well here's what the Chinese production line is churning out. 15-yearl old Liang Xiao Long gets a 147 in just over 8 minutes. What a perfect cue action this guy has...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM0Z5t3vAU

qwabercd

Did they get rid of using Hawkeye in the commentary?

Arthur Daley

On the prize money front. I can just see Barry Hearn pushing for the gap between 1st and 2nd.

'This game is for winners'. 2nd place is nowhere. That kind of thing. The same way he refuses to pay prize money if you turn up and lose in round one. Mark Williams isn't a fan. And the bottom 64 are cheesed off spending money travelling to tournaments not even guaranteed £500. Once you get past top 50 it's a real struggle to survive for most.

You take the rough with the smooth. Like it of loathe it. There is no doubt that snooker is in a much better place financially and in terms of it's status and self respect since he took over. A Chinese winner of the Worlds when it comes will be bigger still.

Arthur Daley

qwabercd wrote: »

Did they get rid of using Hawkeye in the commentary?

They've used hawkeye in commentary for 10 years plus and it was used this year. Gives you the players view of the table.
Just not used in refereeing decisions. Like ig is in other sports

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wonderfullife

Arthur Daley wrote: »

And the bottom 64 are cheesed off spending money travelling to tournaments not even guaranteed £500. Once you get past top 50 it's a real struggle to survive for most.

100% correct. Things have improved but it was very bad for a while, especially sort of 2008-2013.

It was especially sad from an Irish perspective.

The 2 best talents Ireland has produced in the last decade both turned pro at similar times and both of them are now effectively retired from snooker. Neither of them are even 30 yet!

Vinny Muldoon turned pro in 2008. Gets to the Main Tour at 18 and does really well that first season. Notably when he was 4-2 up on Judd in the Bahrain Championship and then Judd knocked in 3x 70's to win 5-4. His last match of the season he needed to win it to stay on the Tour and he was 7-3 up on Jimmy White in the Qualifiers for the World's, then Jimmy found some old form and surged to a 10-8 win.

The other was Davy Morris, I won't go through all his matches but he had some great wins and hit some purple patches.

Where are they both now? Well Vinny (26) is living in New York, retired from snooker. Davy (28) is off trekking around the Far East. Vinny was more naturally talented but I firmly believe both had the talent to be top 32 regulars. The only losses Vinny suffered in major European and World Amateur tournaments were to Michael White, Anthony McGill, Daniel Wells, Mark Allen all of whom are decent pros now.

To your point, the 2 lads were actually losing over 10 grand a year on their first seasons on the tour. If you're not qualifying for tournaments or stringing wins together, you're not making any money to cover your flights, hotels, tournament entry fees. Eventually it gets too stressful.

I'm all for incentivising winning, don't get me wrong. Barry Hearn wants to reward winners and that's fine. But when it has the result of bleeding the talent out of the game domestically and in the UK where players simply can't afford to play on the tour, it's a bit galling.

A lot of the Chinese boys are financed and backed by State-run-sponsorships. It's not a level playing field because a young Irish or English pro trying to get a sponsor for 20 grand a year to cover his expenses and focus on playing snooker is like getting blood from a stone. Whereas all the Chinese boys have to worry about is practicing.

Our 2 best recent talents are both gone from the game. Fergal & Ken are coming to the end. Our next best hope is young Josh Boileau, who has potential but he'll end up going the same way as the lads if something doesn't change.

It'll be a very sad day indeed for the Republic of Ireland to not have a professional snooker player. We've a great history going from Eugene Hughes, Patsy Fagan, Stephen Murphy, Stephen O' Connor, Ken Doherty, Mick Judge, Fergal O' Brien, Davy Morris but the future is looking bleak.

_feedback_

Mods, you have your work done in the snooker forum for another year :D