Reardon v Morgan 1970/71 WC

[jon]

There has long been confusion over the round robin match between Ray Reardon and Paddy Morgan in the World Championships held in Australia in late 1970.

The first edition of World Snooker magazine (the precursor of Snooker Scene) does not mention the game at all, but gives scores for all the other round robin games.

This has led to a theory that the match was never played as Reardon had already qualified and Morgan been knocked out before the game was due to be played. Statman seems to follow this school of thought in the stats on this site.

The big Cuesport book published a few years ago gave a score of 25-12 to Reardon, but this does not seem to have been given much credence by most snooker experts.

It is now possible to browse a number of newspapers online and I have found proof that the game was indeed played and won by Reardon. Unfortunately, the report in the link below only goes up to the end of the fifth session of six, with Reardon holding a winning lead at 20-10.

I cannot find confirmation of the final score, but the 25-12 quoted in the Cuesports book looks as likely as anything. It would be nice to get it confirmed though as I don't know if we have sufficient evidence to add the score of 25-12 to the record books.

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?...n+morgan&hl=en

[cantpotforshíte]

Wel I hope someone can clear it up for you, and I don't want to take this off-topic for that reason.
But, if you click the link in the original post and pan left across the page from the picture of Reardon, you will see a picture of Liam Gallagher in a 1970 newspaper Just how uncanny is the likeness?

[The Statman]

Thanks. That's very, very interesting. I note the bottom of the article asys "scores in detail, page 16". Is it possible to have a look there and see what is given?

[jon]

Thanks. That's very, very interesting. I note the bottom of the article asys "scores in detail, page 16". Is it possible to have a look there and see what is given?

You should be able to tab across on that link and see.

It has session scores only for Reardon v Morgan (only up to 20-10) and for Simpson v Mans, but frame scores for Charlton v Owen and Pulman v Squire.

[JIMO96]

I take it this wasn't a "true" round robin, in which everyone played each other? I only have 4 results for each player, suggesting that was the amount that everybody played? Still, it's good to read about the venues they were played at, something I never knew before! Thanks for the find Jon.

[The Statman]

You should be able to tab across on that link and see.

It has session scores only for Reardon v Morgan (only up to 20-10) and for Simpson v Mans, but frame scores for Charlton v Owen and Pulman v Squire.

Hi Jon, yes I later noticed that; I'd assumed it was a subscription thing but wasn't readaing properly!

[The Statman]

Another thing I notice is that it was clearly a best-of-37 so needing 19 to win. So Reardon got there somewhere during that sixth session, at either 19-7, 19-8, 19-9 or 19-10.

[JIMO96]

I just read on Global Snooker Centres "archive" section that the Reardon-Morgan match was declared null and void because Morgan failed to show for the final session. If this is true then, 20-10 does appear to be the final score in this match.

[PaddyLowson]

I take it this wasn't a "true" round robin, in which everyone played each other? I only have 4 results for each player, suggesting that was the amount that everybody played? Still, it's good to read about the venues they were played at, something I never knew before! Thanks for the find Jon.

Each of the nine players played four of the other eight players in the group. In a round robin of nine, the earliest stage in which everyone had played the same number of games is 2, so I assume they seeded the 9 players and then after that reseeded them so no player played the same player more than once.

The top four from the Round robin qualifying for the semi-finals.

Interesting too that because Morgan didnt show up the game was declared null - especially when they were 6 sessions in. - Id certainly feel annoyed especially if I'd already won the game.

[jon]

I just read on Global Snooker Centres "archive" section that the Reardon-Morgan match was declared null and void because Morgan failed to show for the final session. If this is true then, 20-10 does appear to be the final score in this match.

Great spot Jim!

http://www.global-snooker.com/profes...nship-1971.asp

I hadn't looked in there, because I didn't think it would add anything new!

Now do I detect some monkey business going on over the decision to declare the game null and void when common sense tells us that Reardon clearly won the game? The void match drastically altered the shape of the qualifying table and so distorted the semi-final draw - to the benefit of one player in particular.

The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker (1985) shows the final qualifying table with four players all on three wins, separated on frame difference:
1.Charlton
2.Spencer
3.Reardon
4.Simpson

As you would expect, the semi-finals pitted 1v4 and 2v3 which just happened to leave Eddie Charlton with the "easy" semi - even though he ended up losing it.

You would expect the score of the Reardon-Morgan game to have been left at 20-10 or the final session frames to be awarded to Reardon to make it 27-10.

Either decision would have left Reardon topping the group with four straight wins. I assume Reardon would then have faced fourth-placed Warren Simson in the semis, leaving second-placed Eddie Charlton to face third-placed John Spencer.

I seem to remember that Charlton was a little "lucky" with the draw on the other occasion that the World Championships were held in Australia.

[PaddyLowson]

Great spot Jim!

http://www.global-snooker.com/profes...nship-1971.asp

I hadn't looked in there, because I didn't think it would add anything new!

Now do I detect some monkey business going on over the decision to declare the game null and void when common sense tells us that Reardon clearly won the game? The void match drastically altered the shape of the qualifying table and so distorted the semi-final draw - to the benefit of one player in particular.

The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker (1985) shows the final qualifying table with four players all on three wins, separated on frame difference:
1.Charlton
2.Spencer
3.Reardon
4.Simpson

As you would expect, the semi-finals pitted 1v4 and 2v3 which just happened to leave Eddie Charlton with the "easy" semi - even though he ended up losing it.

You would expect the score of the Reardon-Morgan game to have been left at 20-10 or the final session frames to be awarded to Reardon to make it 27-10.

Either decision would have left Reardon topping the group with four straight wins. I assume Reardon would then have faced fourth-placed Warren Simson in the semis, leaving second-placed Eddie Charlton to face third-placed John Spencer.

I seem to remember that Charlton was a little "lucky" with the draw on the other occasion that the World Championships were held in Australia.

Nothing to do with the fact that 'Eddie Charlton Promotions' staged the tournament - I'm sure someone told me that Jim (Eddie's brother) was TD for both tournaments as well

[jb134]

There have long been veiled comments about Charltons draws in Australia.

[The Statman]

Maybe it is time to officially suspend Morgan on suspicion of match-fixing. I wonder how much he took for declining to show up for the final session?

(Please treat this as the joke it is intended to be!)

[jb134]

Maybe it is time to officially suspend Morgan on suspicion of match-fixing. I wonder how much he took for declining to show up for the final session?

(Please treat this as the joke it is intended to be!)

He's not a former world champion so he'll never lift a cue again. Please take this as a statement of fact.

[snookerpoolman]

Perhaps he didn't turn up for the last session as he was with his manager in Kiev? LOL...