Snooker: World Championships - Ronnie Through, Doherty Out

Ronnie O'Sullivan eased through his first round match against 17 year old Liu Chuang yesterday with a 10-5 win. Ronnie went 3-0 up but then lost his way a little bit and the young Chinese player pulled back to go 4-3 up. Ronnie ended the session 5-4. In the evening session Ronnie played much more solidly and ran out a relatively easy 10-5 winner.

It's the first time I've seen Chuang and I think he was very impressive. His technique is first class and he potted some some first class balls. He looks a big talent and I think we'll be seeing a lot more of him in the future. There were a lot of comments from the coverage on the BBC and some of my snooker colleagues that he looks like a young Stephen Hendry when he plays, and I think I have to agree.

A good snooker friend of mine, Douglas Hogan, bet me 100 Swiss francs that Chuang would not get 5 frames off Ronnie, at one point it looked like Chuang was going to win 5 frames in the first session!! In the end he only just won the 5 frames, ...and it was a real pleasure taking the money off Hogan, ....thanks Douglas!!! :o)

Liang Wenbo beat former World Champion Ken Doherty 10-5. This is a great scalp for Wenbo and said it's the highlight of his career so far. Doherty was very disappointed and said he didn't play anything like he can. This defeat means that Doherty will drop out of the top 16 and now has to qualify for tournaments next season.

In other results, Shaun Murphy beat Dave Harold 10-3 and Joe Perry beat Graeme Dott 10-7

Snooker: Grand Prix - Sould We Have A Group Stage?

There has been some furore throughout the snooker world about the group stages at the Grand Prix in Aberdeen this week. There was furore last year too! I feel it's all a bit unjustified, and I'll explain my reasoning behind this.

First of all, not all the players have been critical of the format. Some have said that it's good for the game, some have said it's bad for the game. Some people have complained that it's too complicated, difficult to follow, that there are too many matches, not enough crowds coming to watch, too many dead games, and most controversially, too many insinuations about the integrity of some of the matches, etc etc (the list probably goes on).

Let's take one of the points that I disagree with the most. Some players, and some of the big names in the sport that commentate on the matches (I will not name names), have suggested that when a player is on the verge of qualification to the knockout rounds and relying on the outcome of another match in the group, that the players playing in that match aren't taking the game seriously enough because the outcome of their match has no bearing on whether they will qualify or not!!! (I hope you got all that.)

I would say that looking at this situation from a negative point of view, you can understand why the players are complaining about the format. BUT, the way I see it, if a player wins all his matches, they would never be put in this position in the first place. If a player doesn't win all his matches, he is putting the destiny of his qualification chances into someone else's hands. Stephen Hendry is a great example of a player who thinks like this. You would never hear Hendry criticise someone else for not trying hard enough as the reason for him not qualifying for the knockout stage of a tournament, be it this one, or the PartyBets.com Premier League. And for me, this is the way it should be, Hendry hasn't qualified, and he is to blame, nobody else, it's a simple as that!

I don't really think the format is too complicated either. The general public will have their favorite players, they may only follow specific groups, they may try to follow all the groups, they might only follow specific matches or specific players. If the general public follow only specific players then the format is great because they get to see 5 matches before the tournament even reaches the last 16. OK, all 5 matches might not be televised but they can follow all 5 matches if they go watch the games live at the venue. I'd say this is a big plus. I certainly don't believe it's too complicated for the players to follow their individual groups. So who is it too complicated for? I've no idea. As for too many matches, most professionals that I've met love to have the opportunity to play under tournament conditions as often as possible, and against top class opposition. The players are getting that in the group stages and they should take full advantage of it.

I'm not too sure about the argument that there are too many "dead games" either. What I mean is, a game where the outcome of a match has no bearing on the final standings of the group. Players put on exhibitions and people come to watch. Players don't receive additional raking points for exhibitions or trophies, but they still play them. I don't see why the public can't enjoy a "dead game" as much as they enjoy any other game. Most professionals are very professional in their approach to the game, and try their hardest in every match. I would have no problem buying a ticket to go watch a "dead game".

Generally, I think different formats of snooker is good for snooker. Be it group matches (Grand Prix and the Premier League), time restricted snooker (Premier League), and straight knockout snooker (most other events). And the winner of the knockout format so far this week has to be Liu Song who's through to the knockout stages with Peter Ebdon, Matthew Stevens, Mark Selby, Dave Harold and Joe Delaney in his group. He's proven himself in a major tournament, over multiple matches, under TV conditions, and against top quality opposition.

So for now I think I've said enough, ...feel free to leave your thoughts, I will reply (constructively). :-)

Snooker: New Season Blasts Off Without Rocket!

The season is under way with the Shanghai Masters. Already there's a little bit of controversy with - guess who - yes, our friend Ronnie O'Sullivan. A statement on Ronnie's official website says that he has injured his back. This looks like a legitimate complaint so nobody's really in a position complain. Although I'm sure the paying public are not too pleased and my natural cynicism is throwing a few doubts my way!!! How many of you have got your doctor to write you a not-entirely-true doctors note and how many times as Ronnie stated publicly that it's pointless travelling all the way to China for a tournament?

The statement reads as follows:

"We regret to inform you that Ronnie has had to withdraw from The Shanghai Masters, this is due to a back injury sustained while training. He has been advised by his doctor not to travel as sitting on a plane for several hours and stretching over a snooker table will significantly delay his recovery and he feels that he wouldn't be able to give the tournament 100%. The injury occurred several days ago and although Ronnie hoped that he would recover in time to appear in Shanghai he informed us this afternoon that this is not the case and he is unable to attend."

Moving on to the snooker, Monday saw 8 wild card matches with 8 Chinese players competing against 8 of Europe's "regular names". There were 3 shocks with Yu De Lu defeating Mike Dunn, Xiao Guadong defeating Michael Judge and Yang Qintainn defeating Scott Mackenzie.

The first round included a few tricky matches with Higgins having to play Jamie Cope, Stephen Lee vs Marco Fu, and Dave Harold vs Ebdon. Unfortunately I'm not getting to see many of the matches due to work commitments. I saw some of the wild card matches on Eurosport yesterday evening but none of them (that I saw) were particularly spectacular.

Feel free to comment on this blog if you see any of the matches, ...I'll add a few more posts as the tournament progresses.

It's great to see the snooker under way again! :-)