Ssb - higgins completes fairytale comeback

[gem]

Hear hear to that. I'd go as far as to say that even normal life in general is beyond their capabilities if every incident in life is seen as conspiracy. Just what planet are some people on?

I think they must all be Celtic supporters.

[KashifK]

Anyone know who the Referee was for the UK final. Never seen him before.

[The Statman]

Anyone know who the Referee was for the UK final. Never seen him before.

Brendan Moore. Been about a few years now; made Crucible début a couple of years ago and did his first ranking final maybe 8 months ago or so? (Might have been the 2009 Welsh but don't recall off hand.) This was his second.

[The Rook]

I do wonder if the negative posters on this thread can actually play this game and if so to what level. Can they tell us all to what level they have played at?

The idea that Mark Williams was instructed to lose the match is absolutely implausible.

These posts are not uploaded by players of any knowledge of the craft of snooker.

And clearly your post is written by someone who fails to appreciate just how far cheating has advanced in highest levels of snooker.

Obviously John was able to cheat his way to victory through mixing old footage with clever camera work, when in reality he was safely at home using his personal Ladbrokes account to enquire about the odds of beating Williams from 5-9 down. Williams probably felt compelled to cooperate due to fears his opponent might be a Satan worshipping Centaur.

Conspiracy I tell you!

[montoya10]

All these match-fixing conspiracy theories are getting me more and more annoyed.
I don't know whatever John Higgins did. I don't know what was his purpose. I don't know if he was innocent or guilty.
All I know is he is not found guilty of match fixing and continues his career.
To be honest, I don't like the manner in calling a player, who is officially cleared, as a cheater..

It's not a fairytale story, in my opinion, though. There are a handful of players capable of coming back such strongly after falling behind that off, and John Higgins is one of those, for sure.
Well played both, as I mentioned earlier in the final discussion thread, I would love to see a rematch in the Masters

[The Rook]

It's not a fairytale story, in my opinion, though. There are a handful of players capable of coming back such strongly after falling behind that off, and John Higgins is one of those, for sure.

It makes you wonder what goes on in the minds of the doubters. Do they really think Higgins somehow "cheated" the balls into the pockets when he was behind? It's not like Williams even played badly in the last 5 frames. The match was a true classic.

[Odrl]

Well played both, as I mentioned earlier in the final discussion thread, I would love to see a rematch in the Masters

Yes, they could, or perhaps even should meet in the 2nd round. But there is an interesting pattern in the Masters...

The Masters has been the event that follows the UK Championship for the past five editions. In this period, seven out of ten UK Championship finalists went out in the first round (or wildcard round) of the Masters.

The other three? Ding wasn't even invited in 2006. In 2008 the two UK finalists, O'Sullivan and Maguire, played each other in the 1st round, Maguire won and got knocked out in the next round. And the only player to have some success was Stephen Hendry, who reached the semi-finals in 2007.

So... I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ding knocks out Williams and Dott knocks out Higgins this year.

[Looki]

It makes you wonder what goes on in the minds of the doubters. Do they really think Higgins somehow "cheated" the balls into the pockets when he was behind? It's not like Williams even played badly in the last 5 frames. The match was a true classic.

I wouldn't bother to think about it too much. If they couldn't enjoy the match it's their loss, I don't know why they even watched it. I'm a big Williams fan and it was a big blow to see Mark losing it but I still appreciate it as one of the best matches I've ever seen. My opinion is that those theories of match fixing or cheating are made by people wearing tin foil hats...

[miscuehamburg]

It is very equivocal to comment on JH's victory. I don't want to bash him or doubt the sport's independent corruption watcher's decision. Nevertheless, I don't like to watch him anymore. When he is among the balls I hear voices like 'missing the pot is very easy', or 'how can I swallow 300k'. As great as his acchievement on Sunday was, I hope he will retire soon. That would be a favour for the game he once was an ambassador for.

[Woolf147]

It is very equivocal to comment on JH's victory. I don't want to bash him or doubt the sport's independent corruption watcher's decision. Nevertheless, I don't like to watch him anymore. When he is among the balls I hear voices like 'missing the pot is very easy', or 'how can I swallow 300k'. As great as his acchievement on Sunday was, I hope he will retire soon. That would be a favour for the game he once was an ambassador for.

John Higgins is a crook and should not win the uk title.No one respect him anymore.

[The Statman]

It is very equivocal to comment on JH's victory. I don't want to bash him or doubt the sport's independent corruption watcher's decision. Nevertheless, I don't like to watch him anymore. When he is among the balls I hear voices like 'missing the pot is very easy', or 'how can I swallow 300k'. As great as his acchievement on Sunday was, I hope he will retire soon. That would be a favour for the game he once was an ambassador for.

But would it?

In a funny sort of way, the activities on this forum in the last few days have proved that it's still very much a talking point - obviously because a major final involved Higgins - and there are both those who are pleased for John and wish him a successful future career, those (such as the post below yours) who have very much the opposite opinion. And then those who are somewhere in the middle. His continued presence on the circuit may keep people talking about snooker and in a perverse sort of way that's surely good for the game?

Anyway, while you think his departure would be good/better for the game, there are others who think differently. So I'm not so sure that there is a right answer to which is best for the public. We have no idea really of gauging what percentage of the public are on what side.

[circle]

hmmm

I have followed snooker at all levels for a long time, but i haven't taken the results at the top end of the pro game too seriously for a good few years now.

[ADR147]

And clearly your post is written by someone who fails to appreciate just how far cheating has advanced in highest levels of snooker.

Obviously John was able to cheat his way to victory through mixing old footage with clever camera work, when in reality he was safely at home using his personal Ladbrokes account to enquire about the odds of beating Williams from 5-9 down. Williams probably felt compelled to cooperate due to fears his opponent might be a Satan worshipping Centaur.

Conspiracy I tell you!

it was 80/1 on betfair

i think we need a 'should we publicly lynch john higgins' thread.

[ADR147]

John Higgins is a crook and should not win the uk title.No one respect him anymore.

kettle pot fedia.

[miscuehamburg]

But would it?

In a funny sort of way, the activities on this forum in the last few days have proved that it's still very much a talking point - obviously because a major final involved Higgins - and there are both those who are pleased for John and wish him a successful future career, those (such as the post below yours) who have very much the opposite opinion. And then those who are somewhere in the middle. His continued presence on the circuit may keep people talking about snooker and in a perverse sort of way that's surely good for the game?

Anyway, while you think his departure would be good/better for the game, there are others who think differently. So I'm not so sure that there is a right answer to which is best for the public. We have no idea really of gauging what percentage of the public are on what side.

Yes, it is a very strange situation. Therefore that Shakesperian word 'equivocal' came to my mind. The matter has caused much heated discussion. And in the end the decision-making was not very transparent (ie which evidence freed him from an attempted match-fixing?) . As a law-historian I consider JH's defences very far-fetched; that -of course- influence my fan views on him. But he is back with a major title under his belt so I guess I have to arrange with that somehow. Let's hope this 'perverse' accident helps the game somehow