2021 Masters 10/01/21 -17/01/21

eric hoone

Higgins will be warm favourite for the title now if he can hold his nerve. Long time since he won a big one

Joe_ Public

Ronnie probably one of the biggest tinkerers of the lot, new cues, new tips, new joe davis stance techniques, different break off shots, playing on end of frames etc etc. Whatever you're having today. Not to mention long being a fully paid up member of the sightright gang.

The Golden Miller

What does everyone else make of Maguire? BBC used to rave about him 10 years ago. Absolutely useless imo, always bottles it and simply doesn't have the talent.

Speaking of which, the talent is on the floor this past 15 years. The fact O'Sullivan, William's and Higgins can still compete is a sad indictment of the game. If Higgins or O'Sullivan rocked into the late 90s/early 00s playing at the standard they do now they'd be walloped. Beaten out the gate. For me the game started to deteriorate when the likes of Dott and Carter started making world finals in the late 00s. Also rans a few years before. The fact Higgins could only manage one world title in that previous era, but 4 after, says it all.

O'Sullivan is very natural so has longevity, which is fortunate for him, as the standard is dire. Can pick off world titles at ease these days, couldn't before. Flatters his record really, same with Higgins tbh, as good as they were/are!

The fact that Williams will be seen as a distance behind both O'Sullivan and Higgins when we talk about the past greats, is misleading for example. Stopped taking the game serious in the mid-00s. Yet the reality is, was the most successful player in the toughest era, circa 98-05. You could argue O'Sullivan and Higgins chipped away with alot of cheap world titles after that point, when the competition was poor!

gormdubhgorm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

What does everyone else make of Maguire? BBC used to rave about him 10 years ago. Absolutely useless imo, always bottles it and simply doesn't have the talent.

Speaking of which, the talent is on the floor this past 15 years. The fact O'Sullivan, William's and Higgins can still compete is a sad indictment of the game. If Higgins or O'Sullivan rocked into the late 90s/early 00s playing at the standard they do now they'd be walloped. Beaten out the gate. For me the game started to deteriorate when the likes of Dott and Carter started making world finals in the late 00s. Also rans a few years before. The fact Higgins could only manage one world title in that previous era, but 4 after, says it all.

O'Sullivan is very natural so has longevity, which is fortunate for him, as the standard is dire. Can pick off world titles at ease these days, couldn't before. Flatters his record really, same with Higgins tbh, as good as they were/are!

The fact that Williams will be seen as a distance behind both O'Sullivan and Higgins when we talk about the past greats, is misleading for example. Stopped taking the game serious in the mid-00s. Yet the reality is, was the most successful player in the toughest era, circa 98-05. You could argue O'Sullivan and Higgins chipped away with alot of cheap world titles after that point, when the competition was poor!

I disagree completely sounds like rose tinted glasses. The fact is back in 98 to 05 there was not much depth in the game of snooker at all anyone outside the top bracket in the top 16 dominated. Now there are loads of quality players that can beat anyone on any given day.

John Higgins, Mark Williams and Ronnie O'Sullivan are just snooker freaks of nature to varying degrees. Steve Davis Hung on in the top 16 for ages when he was past his best. But Higgins seems capable of still being able to play top notch stuff. Ronnie has got better with age which defies previous logic. Most were gone by about 40 ish - even Hendry. Basically maturity had a lot to do with why Ronnie copped himself on a bit. He did it in reserve a freak of nature.

To say the standard is poor now is just pure nostalgia for days gone by. If Bingham (for example) was around in the years you mentioned he probably would have been winning a few more world titles.

Plus in 1997 Steve Davis who was on the slide for sure aged 40 - managed to win the Masters against Ronnie O'Sullivan who was only 22.

Joe_ Public

The Golden Miller wrote: »

What does everyone else make of Maguire? BBC used to rave about him 10 years ago. Absolutely useless imo, always bottles it and simply doesn't have the talent.

Speaking of which, the talent is on the floor this past 15 years. The fact O'Sullivan, William's and Higgins can still compete is a sad indictment of the game. If Higgins or O'Sullivan rocked into the late 90s/early 00s playing at the standard they do now they'd be walloped. Beaten out the gate. For me the game started to deteriorate when the likes of Dott and Carter started making world finals in the late 00s. Also rans a few years before. The fact Higgins could only manage one world title in that previous era, but 4 after, says it all.

O'Sullivan is very natural so has longevity, which is fortunate for him, as the standard is dire. Can pick off world titles at ease these days, couldn't before. Flatters his record really, same with Higgins tbh, as good as they were/are!

The fact that Williams will be seen as a distance behind both O'Sullivan and Higgins when we talk about the past greats, is misleading for example. Stopped taking the game serious in the mid-00s. Yet the reality is, was the most successful player in the toughest era, circa 98-05. You could argue O'Sullivan and Higgins chipped away with alot of cheap world titles after that point, when the competition was poor!

Could agree up to a point with some of the points you are making. I do believe that era from around 96/97 to 05 was something of a golden era for the sport alright. Dont like to compare too much to right now because they've made the table conditions so much easier and it's skewered comparisons a bit much for me. Not enough young players coming through, thats the big issue with now i would agree.

And maguire definitely had the talent. Recall ronnie hyping him up as the next big thing when he made the breakthrough and he was far from alone. We all know why it never happened of course, and why it likely never will.

TheW1zard

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Could agree up to a point with some of the points you are making. I do believe that era from around 96/97 to 05 was something of a golden era for the sport alright. Dont like to compare too much to right now because they've made the table conditions so much easier and it's skewered comparisons a bit much for me. Not enough young players coming through, thats the big issue with now i would agree.

And maguire definitely had the talent. Recall ronnie hyping him up as the next big thing when he made the breakthrough and he was far from alone. We all know why it never happened of course, and why it likely never will.

What happened!?

Dante7

TheW1zard wrote: »

What happened!?

TheW1zard

Dante7 wrote: »

Ha i get that reference but what happened to Maguire!?

Dante7

TheW1zard wrote: »

Ha i get that reference but what happened to Maguire!?

I think it's just that he's always on the lash.

zuutroy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If Bingham (for example) was around in the years you mentioned he probably would have been winning a few more world titles.

He was around!

Joe_ Public

TheW1zard wrote: »

Ha i get that reference but what happened to Maguire!?

Wasnt meaning to infer anything actually happened, it's what didnt happen is more the thing. I've always liked maguire but it's fairly clear he never had the discipline or temperament to be up there with the best.

Mon Yan!!

Frame1 - the best, and most chances to Bingham; but he had two (red, and blue) to middle pockets, where he tried to force them in - both hit knuckles, and ultimately left Yan in when there wasn't many reds left. Yan gets as far as green and misses leaving Ballrun in needing all the colours.

And Bingham clears up to take the opener... Yan missed an opportunity there unfortunately for him and his fans. Early days though. If Yan had won that, I think it might have got to Stuart..

DelBoy Trotter

Nice break by Yan to take the second frame

Arthur Daley

Bingtao looks like a man on a mission in this tournament. The clearance at 5-5 yesterday impressed.

DelBoy Trotter

Bingham is dire so far in this match

Inviere

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

Bingham is dire so far in this match

Yeah not really a fan myself. Nothing against him at all, he comes across fairly well....I just don't seem to enjoy watching him playing. Can't quite put my finger on it, & I always feel bad for saying that about a player when there's no real reason to...but yeah, hoping for Yan to wake up here.

Joe_ Public

For some reason that claw bridge hand of ballruns really bothers me, just looks wrong for some reason. But nothing against him personally, seems an alright chap.

waynescales1

I agree with the fact that a lot of players don’t pay enough attention to the mental side of the game. But then you have the example of Mark Williams. Sightright / technical adjustments saved his career. He would never ever have won a third WC without those changes.

Perhaps the moral of the story is, if a player is tinkering with their technique and still not seeing consistent results, it’s time to look at other factors.

Totally agree with player’s physique/health. The likes of Allen, Murphy and Higgins need to get their act together.

newmember2

waynescales1 wrote: »

...Totally agree with player’s physique/health. The likes of Allen, Murphy and Higgins need to get their act together.

apt username

weemcd

Mark Allen looks so unhealthy, he's two years older than me but it would look more like ten, and a bad ten at that. Ronnie is twelve years older than him and looks much younger.

Murphy is probably the heaviest of them all, but he doesn't look quite as unhealthy as Allen.

gormdubhgorm

zuutroy wrote: »

He was around!

Bad phrasing what I meant to say was that if he was around in his 40s back then 98-05 and had developed like he has now in his later years, would he have won more. Late bloomer.

Joe_ Public

Theres a lot of late bloomers around in recent years, guys like Anthony Hamilton, Mark Davis, Michael Holt and others all winning titles in their 40s. Question is why is this so? Why is average age of top 16 closer to 40 than 30 and has been rising steadily for years. Ask why didnt these players win more during their peak years. Are they all that so much better now and winning in a supposedly more competitive era or is it more to do with a lack of competition from the younger generation? Davis and hendry both had to cope with a glut of young talent coming at them from all sides, its no wonder hendry "declined" given what the 90s generation threw up. The past 10-15 years have been remarkably barren in terms of emerging talent, judd, kyren and after that lisowski and the chinese guys. Its not much. We're lucky that judd finally did come through when he did, because i don't see a huge number coming up behind him.

waynescales1

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Theres a lot of late bloomers around in recent years, guys like Anthony Hamilton, Mark Davis, Michael Holt and others all winning titles in their 40s. Question is why is this so? Why is average age of top 16 closer to 40 than 30 and has been rising steadily for years. Ask why didnt these players win more during their peak years. Are they all that so much better now and winning in a supposedly more competitive era or is it more to do with a lack of competition from the younger generation? Davis and hendry both had to cope with a glut of young talent coming at them from all sides, its no wonder hendry "declined" given what the 90s generation threw up. The past 10-15 years have been remarkably barren in terms of emerging talent, judd, kyren and after that lisowski and the chinese guys. Its not much. We're lucky that judd finally did come through when he did, because i don't see a huge number coming up behind him.

All the younger players want to do is pot balls and score. No interest in matchplay, or the tactical side of the game. Probably more to it than that but seems a huge factor to me.

Studd made an interesting point in commentary about how a lot of the current top players began as heavy scorers and learned the tactical side of the game later, only then going on to win lots of titles, Judd Trump being the obvious example. But Bingtao seems to be going about things backwards, very tactically aware and only 20. Doesn’t score heavily, before this week his highest ever break was only 136 I think.

Dante7

I've gone right off Bingham as a person recently, especially over his comments about his big beef with Shaun Murphy. I know Murph can be a bit marmite, but apparently Bingham's whole problem with him is that Murph made an excuse after the 2015 World's about having back pain. That's it. That's just childish petulence.


https://twitter.com/Stuart__Bingham/status/1349996869817167875?s=20

gormdubhgorm

weemcd wrote: »

Mark Allen looks so unhealthy, he's two years older than me but it would look more like ten, and a bad ten at that. Ronnie is twelve years older than him and looks much younger.

Murphy is probably the heaviest of them all, but he doesn't look quite as unhealthy as Allen.

I would say most snooker players have fairly sedentary lifestyle. It is an interesting point about getting in better shape. I am surprised more have not followed Ronnie's example. Am not saying that they have to be as intense. But if you are fitter and healthier - surely it means you feel fatigued less even mentally? Plus sharper as a result.

The Nal

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Theres a lot of late bloomers around in recent years, guys like Anthony Hamilton, Mark Davis, Michael Holt and others all winning titles in their 40s. Question is why is this so? Why is average age of top 16 closer to 40 than 30 and has been rising steadily for years.

After it dropped dramatically in the 80s. Before that players were winning and competing for titles into their later years. Ray Reardon, Terry Griffiths, John Spencer, Doug Mountjoy, John Pulman, the Davis brothers all winning and competitive well into their 40s and even 50s. Sone of them peaking in their 30s and 40s.

I think school is one huge reason. Players cant spend all day in the snooker halls anymore and sacrifice their education so they're still relatively undeveloped when they turn pro.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I would say most snooker players have fairly sedentary lifestyle. It is an interesting point about getting in better shape. I am surprised more have not followed Ronnie's example. Am not saying that they have to be as intense. But if you are fitter and healthier - surely it means you feel fatigued less even mentally? Plus sharper as a result.

It effects the physics of playing the game too. Reaching over balls, stretching for shots etc. Not as easy if theyre carrying a bit of timber. Jimmy Whites career nosedived when he started putting on a bit in the 90s. Fluency of his game was gone. I remember Virgo commenting on it when Jimmy was struggling to get up on the table and bridge over a shot.

Stephen Lees game got worse with every pound he put on.

Joe_ Public

waynescales1 wrote: »

All the younger players want to do is pot balls and score. No interest in matchplay, or the tactical side of the game. Probably more to it than that but seems a huge factor to me.

Studd made an interesting point in commentary about how a lot of the current top players began as heavy scorers and learned the tactical side of the game later, only then going on to win lots of titles, Judd Trump being the obvious example. But Bingtao seems to be going about things backwards, very tactically aware and only 20. Doesn’t score heavily, before this week his highest ever break was only 136 I think.

Good post, agree every word. Ken is very good on that subject, the difference in how he and his generation learned the craft of the game and young players now. I watch a lot of junior snooker and invariably the best potter wins, 2-3 chances per frame the most common. Took judd guts of 10 years to finally find the correct balance in his approach, a very long and testing apprenticeship! Yan is interesting, not figured him out entirely yet but still young so lots of time for him.

Joe_ Public

Dante7 wrote: »

I've gone right off Bingham as a person recently, especially over his comments about his big beef with Shaun Murphy. I know Murph can be a bit marmite, but apparently Bingham's whole problem with him is that Murph made an excuse after the 2015 World's about having back pain. That's it. That's just childish petulence.


https://twitter.com/Stuart__Bingham/status/1349996869817167875?s=20

Think there's a bit more to it than that tbh.

Joe_ Public

The Nal wrote: »

After it dropped dramatically in the 80s. Before that players were winning and competing for titles into their later years. Ray Reardon, Terry Griffiths, John Spencer, Doug Mountjoy, John Pulman, the Davis brothers all winning and competitive well into their 40s and even 50s. Sone of them peaking in their 30s and 40s.

I think school is one huge reason. Players cant spend all day in the snooker halls anymore and sacrifice their education so they're still relatively undeveloped when they turn pro

This is the nub of it i think. The average age began to drop dramatically because the games popularity was soaring and kids were taking up the game in droves. This led to the explosion in the mumber of pros in the 90s, i think at least 30-40 irish guys tried their luck on tour in early 90s alone. Then the decline set in, numbers went into freefall and thus you have correspondingly low numbers of talent coming through. The global spread has somewhat mitigated that trend.