Dafabet Masters Q Finals: Kyren Wilson v Stuart Bingham

No top 8 player in the semis

I agree with Pinkball's format change, but wouldn't be harsh on the players over the tournament quality. Snooker can be a stressful sport and it can be hard to always have the bottle to pull off 50+ breaks consistently.

Cloud Strife wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

Anyone who says snooker doesn't need Ronnie O'Sullivan should take a long, hard look at this tournament. This is what the future holds for snooker post-Ronnie.

I'm reluctant to agree with this, but I think you may well be right. I think it's also worth mentioning that the other two members of the class of 92 were basically not present in this either.

If this is the future of snooker, then it will be very sad times indeed.

Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

Iranu wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:rubbish but exciting. Bingham deserved it. Wilson has fuckall positional sense.

I don’t understand how he’s still so bad positionally.

He’s been saying for about 3 years that he’s working hard to improve it but from what I can tell it hasn’t improved at all.

Wilson has done nothing for a long time now. He's supposed to be at his peak at his age, but if anything hes gone backwards from a couple of seasons ago.

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

Anyone who says snooker doesn't need Ronnie O'Sullivan should take a long, hard look at this tournament. This is what the future holds for snooker post-Ronnie.

I'm reluctant to agree with this, but I think you may well be right. I think it's also worth mentioning that the other two members of the class of 92 were basically not present in this either.

If this is the future of snooker, then it will be very sad times indeed.

Don't agree, and I happen to think snooker is of course much better off with Ronnie O'Sullivan involved.

It's just one of those weeks that we've had very few close matches. Tonight was rubbish quality but was entertaining. I think 2012/13 was a far better indication of what snooker will be like without Ronnie O'Sullivan: missing out, obviously, but still a compelling product.

Players these days seem to reach their peak at 40

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

We had a Masters like this back in 2011 as well. There have been others. Of course you'll get editions of tournaments that aren't great, that's true even of the World Championship. But editions like this make a total farce of the idea that this is ultra-elite. It's a nonsense.

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

We had a Masters like this back in 2011 as well. There have been others. Of course you'll get editions of tournaments that aren't great, that's true even of the World Championship. But editions like this make a total farce of the idea that this is ultra-elite. It's a nonsense.

2011 was a lot better than this one. Ding, Allen and Fu in the semis was a pretty decent line up, and the final was great. This one is a big load of plop. Nothing about this tournament has screamed elite.

Cloud Strife wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

Anyone who says snooker doesn't need Ronnie O'Sullivan should take a long, hard look at this tournament. This is what the future holds for snooker post-Ronnie.

I'm not a huge Ronnie fan, but probably a bit of truth to what you say, quite a few people I spoke to at the Masters were disappointed he didn't take part. I'd be lieing if I said I didn't want to see him playing while I was at Ally Pally.

With O'Sullivan out, this tournament should have been contested by:
Judd Trump, Mark Williams, Mark Selby, Neil Robertson, John Higgins, Mark Allen, and two wildcards:probably Ding Junhui and Shaun Murphy.

Nobody else, with the possible exception of David Gilbert (very much in form) and Kyren Wilson (world number eight) should have a sniff of playing in a tournament for the game's elite. It's bucking nonsense. Yes, I appreciate some of those players I'm saying don't belong did win matches this week, but with respect, best-of-11s are a relative lottery at this level. Would Stephen Maguire have beaten Neil Robertson in a best-of-19? Possibly, but it's a lot less likely than a best of 11.

This tournament is and always has been a wasted opportunity.

Pink Ball wrote:With O'Sullivan out, this tournament should have been contested by:
Judd Trump, Mark Williams, Mark Selby, Neil Robertson, John Higgins, Mark Allen, and two wildcards:probably Ding Junhui and Shaun Murphy.

Nobody else, with the possible exception of David Gilbert (very much in form) and Kyren Wilson (world number eight) should have a sniff of playing in a tournament for the game's elite. It's bucking nonsense. Yes, I appreciate some of those players I'm saying don't belong did win matches this week, but with respect, best-of-11s are a relative lottery at this level. Would Stephen Maguire have beaten Neil Robertson in a best-of-19? Possibly, but it's a lot less likely than a best of 11.

This tournament is and always has been a wasted opportunity.

Good post.

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

Anyone who says snooker doesn't need Ronnie O'Sullivan should take a long, hard look at this tournament. This is what the future holds for snooker post-Ronnie.

I'm reluctant to agree with this, but I think you may well be right. I think it's also worth mentioning that the other two members of the class of 92 were basically not present in this either.

If this is the future of snooker, then it will be very sad times indeed.

Don't agree, and I happen to think snooker is of course much better off with Ronnie O'Sullivan involved.

It's just one of those weeks that we've had very few close matches. Tonight was rubbish quality but was entertaining. I think 2012/13 was a far better indication of what snooker will be like without Ronnie O'Sullivan: missing out, obviously, but still a compelling product.

Yes a few tournaments without Ronnie is not the full picture.

Like you say, the 2012/2013 season showed us exactly what it will be like once he's gone for good, and I for one enjoyed that season, the ending in particular couldnt have been better.

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:rubbish but exciting. Bingham deserved it. Wilson has fuckall positional sense.

I don’t understand how he’s still so bad positionally.

He’s been saying for about 3 years that he’s working hard to improve it but from what I can tell it hasn’t improved at all.

Wilson has done nothing for a long time now. He's supposed to be at his peak at his age, but if anything hes gone backwards from a couple of seasons ago.

He won the German masters less than a year ago.

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

The TC fits your requirements, my favourite tournament last year.

The BBC having afternoon sessions on BBC2 and evening sessions "hidden" on the Red Button/Online means they would rather do best of 11's where the match is over in one session.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The BBC having afternoon sessions on BBC2 and evening sessions "hidden" on the Red Button/Online means they would rather do best of 11's where the match is over in one session.

And for as long as that’s the case, they’re selling you a pup that this is the game’s most elite tournament.

It'll be worse than the Barry choke if Gilbert makes the final.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The BBC having afternoon sessions on BBC2 and evening sessions "hidden" on the Red Button/Online means they would rather do best of 11's where the match is over in one session.

They big up the triple crown events but then don't give them the air time they deserve, why bother? Give them to a FTA channel that will show the whole lot.

Ck147 wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The BBC having afternoon sessions on BBC2 and evening sessions "hidden" on the Red Button/Online means they would rather do best of 11's where the match is over in one session.

They big up the triple crown events but then don't give them the air time they deserve, why bother? Give them to a FTA channel that will show the whole lot.

Give them to Television X.

2015 world final reloaded wouldn’t be half bad

carayip wrote:2015 world final reloaded wouldn’t be half bad

What I'm hoping for. Both had a lot of experience in finals and isn't too big a difference in ability, so less chance of it being one sided. Murphy could maybe go on a roll but I don't see it being an easy match for him.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Ck147 wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The BBC having afternoon sessions on BBC2 and evening sessions "hidden" on the Red Button/Online means they would rather do best of 11's where the match is over in one session.

They big up the triple crown events but then don't give them the air time they deserve, why bother? Give them to a FTA channel that will show the whole lot.

Give them to Television X.

Do you think they would enforce naked referees?

eraserhead wrote:

carayip wrote:2015 world final reloaded wouldn’t be half bad

What I'm hoping for. Both had a lot of experience in finals and isn't too big a difference in ability, so less chance of it being one sided. Murphy could maybe go on a roll but I don't see it being an easy match for him.

Problem is Gilbert usually doesn’t choke these days until the final and he’s in much better form and scores too heavily for Bingham to handle

carayip wrote:

eraserhead wrote:

carayip wrote:2015 world final reloaded wouldn’t be half bad

What I'm hoping for. Both had a lot of experience in finals and isn't too big a difference in ability, so less chance of it being one sided. Murphy could maybe go on a roll but I don't see it being an easy match for him.

Problem is Gilbert usually doesn’t choke these days until the final and he’s in much better form and scores too heavily for Bingham to handle

Agree. I think Gilbo has been the best player so far in this tournament, want him to win, but worried he will choke in the final, hope he doesn't.

Gilbert's another Hawkins put him in a proper final against top opposition and it won't be pretty. Fair enough if he goes and proves me wrong but I think Smurph - Bing will be the best final.

Ck147 wrote:

carayip wrote:

eraserhead wrote:

carayip wrote:2015 world final reloaded wouldn’t be half bad

What I'm hoping for. Both had a lot of experience in finals and isn't too big a difference in ability, so less chance of it being one sided. Murphy could maybe go on a roll but I don't see it being an easy match for him.

Problem is Gilbert usually doesn’t choke these days until the final and he’s in much better form and scores too heavily for Bingham to handle

Agree. I think Gilbo has been the best player so far in this tournament, want him to win, but worried he will choke in the final, hope he doesn't.

I imagine Gilbert would have a better chance v Carter than v Murphy. And either player would be the weakest out of all his previous final opponents. But yeah, Gilbert is not to be trusted in a final until he proves otherwise