Betfred.com World Snooker Championship Final Discussion

[The Maestro]

Roykay, when i refer to judd being a great single ball potter i mean like a number of other players he will take on high risk balls, screw back to safety, create chances through attacking shots even when he's in the smelly stuff! Would you prefer if instead of calling him a great single ball potter i and the commentary team refer to this as "he's a fine player of low percentage balls of which he gets a high percentage thus creating opportunities for ones self that are not really on as opposed to playing tippy tappy crappy containing safteys!" Pedantic!!!!! If you understand the game or can play it you can work it out!

Two other points, im Scottish and i think its an utter disgrace Higgins wasnt given atleast a ten year ban regardless of what mince he concockted to get away with it, the more sceptical people like myself may come to the conclusion that mr rooney was given a brown envelope to take the hit for it all, after higgins is the cash cow not the muppet manager, that would only be speculation though!

Finally i see some braindead idiots on here find hazel irvine a good host, i cant believe they wheeled her out to do the questions at the end of the final, she's an utter disgrace. Pershads no better! Its about time hearn was sorting it out. Atleast lineker can play the game and can ask relevant questions unlike that little troll! And why Clive Evertons been sidelined so much is a nonsense to, meanwhile willie thorns trying to kid on he knows how modern day snookers played, you only have to listen for a while to realise he hasnt got a clue, nowt changed since when he was playing!

Finally does anyone agree with me what an anti climax the bbc make of it all, you sit there for 17 days watching it, the last balls potted, the melted wellie asks a few irrelevant questions and thats it. There should be a good 30 mins of interviews, reviews of the final frames and analysis! I think its an utter disgrace, Hearn wants to get it sorted!

[gem]

Roykay, when i refer to judd being a great single ball potter i mean like a number of other players he will take on high risk balls, screw back to safety, create chances through attacking shots even when he's in the smelly stuff! Would you prefer if instead of calling him a great single ball potter i and the commentary team refer to this as "he's a fine player of low percentage balls of which he gets a high percentage thus creating opportunities for ones self that are not really on as opposed to playing tippy tappy crappy containing safteys!" Pedantic!!!!! If you understand the game or can play it you can work it out!

Two other points, im Scottish and i think its an utter disgrace Higgins wasnt given atleast a ten year ban regardless of what mince he concockted to get away with it, the more sceptical people like myself may come to the conclusion that mr rooney was given a brown envelope to take the hit for it all, after higgins is the cash cow not the muppet manager, that would only be speculation though!

Finally i see some braindead idiots on here find hazel irvine a good host, i cant believe they wheeled her out to do the questions at the end of the final, she's an utter disgrace. Pershads no better! Its about time hearn was sorting it out. Atleast lineker can play the game and can ask relevant questions unlike that little troll! And why Clive Evertons been sidelined so much is a nonsense to, meanwhile willie thorns trying to kid on he knows how modern day snookers played, you only have to listen for a while to realise he hasnt got a clue, nowt changed since when he was playing!

Finally does anyone agree with me what an anti climax the bbc make of it all, you sit there for 17 days watching it, the last balls potted, the melted wellie asks a few irrelevant questions and thats it. There should be a good 30 mins of interviews, reviews of the final frames and analysis! I think its an utter disgrace, Hearn wants to get it sorted!

I have also always wondered why after 17 days there is hardly even 5 minutes at the end to discuss the happenings. Even have a highlights programme the following day with some good interviews and opinions.

As far a Hazel Irvine goes I think she is a fantastic presenter who seems interested and very well informed. Not sure about her doing the post final interviews mind you.
I also love golf and find her fantastic at this as well. She is easily the best host on the terrestrial channels.
She certainly knows her stuff because of her research and knowledge of the subject and you would think she has had a lifetime being involved in them.

Anyone that witnessed Linaker trying to host golf events will realise what a true professional Hazel is.
Even during the World Cup the BBC team hardly knew some players from the lesser teams when I am sure they were well paid to know this.

[ADR147]

Those defending John Higgins, It's quite funny as I look to the top right of the post and see a Scottish flag.

Nothing more to say.

ummm - had you spoken to me you might think differently, i am not exactly very scottish.

my defence of john higgins is simple - and i will say this for the last time, 2 yes 2 totally independent sporting tribunals found him not guilty. if you are the kind of person who believes what the news of the world tells you rather than people who job it is to determine the truth then to be honest you are too stupid to bother with.

[ADR147]

I have also always wondered why after 17 days there is hardly even 5 minutes at the end to discuss the happenings. Even have a highlights programme the following day with some good interviews and opinions.

As far a Hazel Irvine goes I think she is a fantastic presenter who seems interseted and is very well informed. Not sure about her doing the final interviews mind you.
I also love golf and find her fantastic at this as well. She is easily the best host on the terrestrial channels.
You really can't tell if she has had involvement in the events she covers because of her research and knowledge of the subject.

Anyone that witnessed Linaker trying to host golf events will realise what a true professional Hazel is.
Even during the World Cup the BBC team hardly knew some players from the lesser teams when I am sure they were well paid to know this.

yes there should be a 2 hour highlights special tonight!

[whirlwind78]

Finally i see some braindead idiots on here find hazel irvine a good host, i cant believe they wheeled her out to do the questions at the end of the final, she's an utter disgrace. Pershads no better! Its about time hearn was sorting it out. Atleast lineker can play the game and can ask relevant questions unlike that little troll!

Finally does anyone agree with me what an anti climax the bbc make of it all, you sit there for 17 days watching it, the last balls potted, the melted wellie asks a few irrelevant questions and thats it. There should be a good 30 mins of interviews, reviews of the final frames and analysis! I think its an utter disgrace, Hearn wants to get it sorted!

As much as I like Lineker, Hansen and Shearer are an absolute joke as 'pundits', and they were pretty damn good at the game, so the two things evidently do not go hand in hand. Lee Dixon is a good modern pundit, he actually analyses stuff, Hansen just reels out lists that any 10 years old could muster eg "hes got pace, strength, speed, aggression, marvellous", whereas Shearer is a glorified cheer-leader who describes but doesn't explain or analyse anything.

Hazel does a great job compared to those two. And she's plenty better than the rest of the presenters on tv.

It does end a bit sudden, but what do you want? 5 mins of interviews are fine; I don't want to hear interviews with players wives etc and I don't want snooker to get all fan-boy on me, and I think the build up to the final session and the analysis in between frames is good. Commentary too also good, ( apart from JV), and a lot better than screamy Jonathan Pierce.

[whirlwind78]

fair enough. a highlights special would be good, or a '[story of the tournament' 1 week later and edited withy music and walk-ons and shots of the championship and stuff....but not lots more bloody interviews after the event

[Nugget]

ummm - had you spoken to me you might think differently, i am not exactly very scottish.

my defence of john higgins is simple - and i will say this for the last time, 2 yes 2 totally independent sporting tribunals found him not guilty. if you are the kind of person who believes what the news of the world tells you rather than people who job it is to determine the truth then to be honest you are too stupid to bother with.

So you're.....slightly Scottish?

I agree with your reasons 100%.

@ zero: Where I was born is not a factor in this, I'm not patriotic or nationalistic in the slightest. I actually think the whole idea is ridiculous and don't appreciate being accused of it. Look at the top left of this post and see my all-time favourite player. Last time I checked he was English. Maybe you're small-minded enough that this is how you make your decisions, but don't think everyone else is too.

[cazmac1]

I been watching trump very closely and waiting to see any signs of him cracking, I think we saw it in that last frame when he missed the yellow. The nearer he gets to the crown he will start to miss. This could be the story of the tortoise and the hare, as long as john don't fall to far behind he will catch Trump at the finish line.

Hate to blow my own trumpet, but I told you so. You can't bring luck into it, trump had the chances to win hands down but failed to kill john off.

[fateric]

trump had the chances to win hands down but failed to kill john off.

Trump could easily have won 18-9 but he blew it big time IMHO, the number of frames he threw away!!!. The blue down the cushion, had it gone in, would've killed Higgins off.

[ADR147]

Trump could easily have won 18-9 but he blew it big time IMHO, the number of frames he threw away!!!. The blue down the cushion, had it gone in, would've killed Higgins off.

not sure about that, but as with mark williams he failed to kill the game off when john was playing badly and you can't miss that chance.

[Zoe]

To be fair though, I doubt any other players would have expected their opponent to get what at the time were two snookers and also double the pink and pot the black the way John did. Hendry or Williams may even have conceded that frame. Had it gone to 17 - 16 it would have been anyone's game.

[fateric]

not sure about that, but as with mark williams he failed to kill the game off when john was playing badly and you can't miss that chance.

The reason I say that is Higgins was playing poorly, Trump was flying and getting better by the frame. The blue gave Higgins an ever so simple frame win and sparked his confidence where before he had zero. After that Trump fell apart and handed Higgins the next 4 frames. I don't believe Higgins would've had much of a sniff, Trumps momentum would have steamrollered him (****-poor metaphors aside!!).

Stephen Hendry in his prime would have annihilated Higgins yesterday.

[tomah]

I've read some of the things on here.

I have to say, the hypocrisy of the general public never ceases to amaze me.

None of us really know the full extent of the details concerning Higgins. There's no doubt he made a mistake, but the weight of that mistake when all the details are known is largely a mystery to us.

However, it seems okay to lace him and make rash judgements like "10 year ban", etc. There seems to be a desire to make him suffer.

I can't help wondering how many of his critics have cheated on their wives/husbands (just for one example)? I'd be far more annoyed at him if he cheated on his wife, than the fact that he might have 'brought the game into disrepute'.

It's a sport, and while I would not condone any form of deception, many of his critics have likely been guilty of much greater crimes that have ruined the lives of their children, spouses, and closest friends, such as alcohol abuse, not providing appropriately for their children, having affairs, etc, etc.

Catch a grip, and just make sure your own doorstep in clean.

[The Rook]

Trump could easily have won 18-9 but he blew it big time IMHO, the number of frames he threw away!!!. The blue down the cushion, had it gone in, would've killed Higgins off.

Equally, Higgins could have won much more convincingly if he played anywhere near the top of his game. This is all ifs and buts though.

[cazmac1]

Trump bottled it on that escape from the pink. One cush escape should have been no problem. But you have to hand it to john the way he doubled the pink and to get postion on the black the way he did took a lot of guts. I was thinking how is he gonna get this safe and then bang he doubled the pink I could not believe it.