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

145 what a break from Higgins some reply

Crazy snooker. One ball of consequence missed.

Higgins is playing very well, I hope he doesn't fall apart like Ding did.

Dante7 wrote: »

I can't recall Higgins ever falling apart. The only way he loses this is if Ronnie does close to five one visit frames.

Agreed, it is not in Higgins nature to collapse. Mental fatigue is the only thing that get him. I was thinking that his game has barely changed from when he was a young lad. I suppose you could say his long potting is not as good as once was consistently.

We got us a potential classic it seems

Ridiculous game!

Hard to believe that they make it look so easy compared to last night's dross

That poor break-off by Ronnie is exactly what Ding did against him in the final frame of the last round and never got a look in just like Higgins is doing. The difference here is Ding was in free fall.

Something has to give, all these centuries are getting boring now lol

No century in this frame. We assume.

That was a bad decision by Higgins not put Ronnie back in. Only the yellow and green were pottable.

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

It'll take something monumental for Ronnie to win now, not likely at standard Higgins is playing at.

If anyone can rattle off a couple of quick frames Ronnie can.

How did Ronnie miss that short distance red? Threw away a way back I feel.

Feel sorry for Ronnie the way it finished up there missing that easy red. Those things stick in your mind.

But good to see Higgins can still turn it on and deserved winner.

Two of the best of all time, John probably feels rightly aggrieved that he's not looked at by most (apart from the players themselves) as being on that level.

Whatever it was he was well fired up tonight!

I think all this talk of new practising regimen, new chalk and all that is a red herring.

It is the metal side of the game top snooker players seem to have no interest in. Just like Murphy playing confidently the other night and falling apart at the first signs of things going wrong.

They seem to think that it's their technique that is at fault, and go to SightRight to fix something, when the problem isn't their technique at all. You can change your technique which makes you concentrate on your technique for a while but sooner or later the effect will wear off and you'll be back where you were.

Didn't Hendry say he had the 'Yips'. That's a psychological thing, not a technique thing. He doesn't need to change his technique. It worked for him for years. Many styles of technique work, so what's the point in changing to a slightly different one.

All I see these days, is pro players seeming to think if they adjust their technique they will get back to their winning ways. I'm saying that is fundamentally flawed, so Higgins may very well have a brief return to form but it will I predict be short lived.

If there is anything you can do practically, Higgins etc should try being more healthy. It's getting embarrassing now how may of them are so grossly overweight. I think they don't understand the positive physiological effect it would have on their game as a consequence. I think one of the reasons for Ronnie's longevity is the fact he keeps himself fit, and I hope he won't be swayed by all this SightRight thing.

In top level snooker it's all about psychology for me. Which makes it so fascinating other than the skill level itself. They already know how to play, they have the gift, what they need to work on is their mental attitude inc how to deal with themselves when things are aren't going their way. That's what they need to work on, not their cueing technique.

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 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 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 wrote: »

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

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!