by webcat86 » 11 May 2014 Read
You can't take away how well he played tactically in that match, but I must admit I'm also surprised no one has mentioned how incredibly lucky Selby got in that match.
This has nothing to do with his opponent being Ronnie i.e. it wasn't "He was lucky because Ronnie wasn't on fire" - Ronnie played a very good game himself. But there was one frame in particular, in the Monday morning session I believe, where Selby missed 6 consecutive shots by some distance, and each of them put Ronnie in unintended snookers or with no option but to play safe. If memory serves, Ronnie had enough points and the balls were nicely placed for only one chance to be needed.
Someone on Twitter summed it up - "they need a luck stat for Selby" in that match. I'm fully aware, as we all are, that a nice run of the balls is part of the game, but for me it was just ridiculous. And simultaneously, Ronnie was getting the opposite - the opening frames of the final sessions he came out all guns blazing, well on the way to a one-visit win and the pack didn't split well, and the second time the cue ball nestled just behind a red, blocking his shot. Again, this happens, it's part of the game, but I do get frustrated when in any match - with any players - one gets all the good luck and the other gets all the bad luck.
I honestly think that match would have had a different outcome. It's a psychology as much as anything else - even the commentators acknowledged that a) Selby wasn't playing very well, and b) he was getting repeated good fortune that allowed him to win frames. On any other day, if the cue ball had stopped where it would have 99.9% of the time, I have no doubt at all he would have lost that match. But clawing back a deficit by playing far from your best and getting extraordinary luck puts your opponent on the back foot - not least when they get the opposite fortune when it's their turn.
Of course, I'm not claiming that it was all out of Ronnie's hands - that missed pink I think was far more vital than he let on in the post-match interview; after all, it would have then been Ronnie and not Selby entering the final session with a lead, and I'm sure that would have had some impact on it.
tl;dr: fair play to Selby, he eventually played well and there's no doubt his safety was top notch and he played how he had to play in order to win. But, he also had more good luck than I think I've ever seen (including Mr Lucky himself, Trump), and without it, I am confident he would have lost. His playing throughout, especially long pots, was not brilliant - he was missing pots by a country mile. The good fortune eventually seemed to pick up his confidence enough to actually play properly, and go on to win.