China Open qualifying!!!

i thought mark boyle had resigned why is the selty match saying selty is on a break of 35 and counting in frame 1

boyle on break of 23 in frame 2 according to world snooker live scoring

GJtheaussiestud wrote:boyle on break of 23 in frame 2 according to world snooker live scoring

yes what is going on......has boyle change his mind has websites got the story wrong and he only withdrew from the welsh not his career.

Latest

Atthasit Mahitthi 0-3 Michael White
Chris Norbury 1-0 Anda Zhang
Ben Woollaston 2-0 Andrew Norman
Matthew Selt 1-1 Mark Boyle
Noppadol Sangnil 0-2 Mei Xiwen
Daniel Wells 1-1 Joe Jogia
Patrick Wallace 2-0 Brendan O`Donoghue
Lee Spick 1-0 Ian Preece

in away im glad selty is playing this match as it gives him match sharpness for tomorrow against lawler

GJtheaussiestud wrote:in away im glad selty is playing this match as it gives him match sharpness for tomorrow against lawler

selt defiantly favorite to win.

is Wenbo's match carried forward to china ?

wildJONESEYE wrote:is Wenbo's match carried forward to china ?

not sure

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:is Wenbo's match carried forward to china ?

not sure

wenbo has a potential against Higginson .....higginson can play and wenbo struggling theres a definite chance wenbo might not qualify.

Bourne wrote:GL Future World Champ Mark Joyce.

Good player him Bourn. Another is Liam Highfield.

3-1 selty

Latest

Atthasit Mahitthi 1-3 Michael White
Chris Norbury 2-1 Anda Zhang
Ben Woollaston 4-0 Andrew Norman
Matthew Selt 3-1 Mark Boyle
Noppadol Sangnil 1-2 Mei Xiwen
Daniel Wells 2-2 Joe Jogia
Patrick Wallace 2-1 Brendan O`Donoghue
Lee Spick 2-1 Ian Preece

whats impresive with selt he doesent win frames he wins them with breakbuilding

Matthew Selt 3-1 Mark Boyle
134(134)-0, 19-102(59,37), 108(96)-0, 59(59)-22

a good run this week he is in the top 48 and if he can cement that at the Worlds it would be a great platform for him to move to the next level.

If GJ's supporting Selt then I'm supporting Woolaston as he practices with Selby. I've got no idea how well he plays and I think he's got ginger hair and I've seen him on a junior tv thing at one point but that may be someone else...

Sonny wrote:If GJ's supporting Selt then I'm supporting Woolaston as he practices with Selby. I've got no idea how well he plays and I think he's got ginger hair and I've seen him on a junior tv thing at one point but that may be someone else...

scrap that i think he played hendo at the wlesh a few years back

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Sonny wrote:If GJ's supporting Selt then I'm supporting Woolaston as he practices with Selby. I've got no idea how well he plays and I think he's got ginger hair and I've seen him on a junior tv thing at one point but that may be someone else...

has wool head been on the tv stages of a ranking event

Qualified for the Grand Prix in 2006

Alex0paul wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Sonny wrote:If GJ's supporting Selt then I'm supporting Woolaston as he practices with Selby. I've got no idea how well he plays and I think he's got ginger hair and I've seen him on a junior tv thing at one point but that may be someone else...

has wool head been on the tv stages of a ranking event

Qualified for the Grand Prix in 2006

did he play hendo at the welsh a few years back ?

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Sonny wrote:If GJ's supporting Selt then I'm supporting Woolaston as he practices with Selby. I've got no idea how well he plays and I think he's got ginger hair and I've seen him on a junior tv thing at one point but that may be someone else...

has wool head been on the tv stages of a ranking event

Qualified for the Grand Prix in 2006

did he play hendo at the welsh a few years back ?

Checking my stats and he has qualified for Grandf Prix in 2006, 2007 and Welsh in 2007 where he lost to Hendry. Therefore he has had more success than the parakeet.

alex

what sort of ban was he given for this so called cheating that he was caught doing ???

GJ we've already been through that, and then you ditched him when you read what he'd done, and then a few weeks later your selective memory kicked in and you started supporting him again!

I didn't realise Woolaston had already been on the circuit. I must be thinking of someone else. I would recognise him if I saw him but I thought he was like 19 or something.

Sonny wrote:GJ we've already been through that, and then you ditched him when you read what he'd done, and then a few weeks later your selective memory kicked in and you started supporting him again!

I didn't realise Woolaston had already been on the circuit. I must be thinking of someone else. I would recognise him if I saw him but I thought he was like 19 or something.

no i didnt you said that he cheated i said if its proven i wouldnt support him

i then found out he wasnt found guilty of anything

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Sonny wrote:GJ we've already been through that, and then you ditched him when you read what he'd done, and then a few weeks later your selective memory kicked in and you started supporting him again!

I didn't realise Woolaston had already been on the circuit. I must be thinking of someone else. I would recognise him if I saw him but I thought he was like 19 or something.

no i didnt you said that he cheated i said if its proven i wouldnt support him

i then found out he wasnt found guilty of anything

You must pretty foolish if you think he is innocent. Why would a player make something like that up? Its the clowns of the previous board who found him not guilty to try and stop bad press.

I remember showing you the full article from snookerscene magazine and you were horrified. It's obvious he was guilty from the evidence but the poor bloke on the other end of it ended up dropping the charges because of the way it was dragging on and he just wanted to forget about it and move on.

I guess you also think O J Simpson didn't murder his ex-wife?

Alex0paul wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Sonny wrote:GJ we've already been through that, and then you ditched him when you read what he'd done, and then a few weeks later your selective memory kicked in and you started supporting him again!

I didn't realise Woolaston had already been on the circuit. I must be thinking of someone else. I would recognise him if I saw him but I thought he was like 19 or something.

no i didnt you said that he cheated i said if its proven i wouldnt support him

i then found out he wasnt found guilty of anything

You must pretty foolish if you think he is innocent. Why would a player make something like that up? Its the clowns of the previous board who found him not guilty to try and stop bad press.

fair enough but if there is prove he would have been found guily like hann was

Sonny wrote:I remember showing you the full article from snookerscene magazine and you were horrified. It's obvious he was guilty from the evidence but the poor bloke on the other end of it ended up dropping the charges because of the way it was dragging on and he just wanted to forget about it and move on.

I guess you also think O J Simpson didn't murder his ex-wife?

no what happened if what i saw the other player didnt bother turning u pto the hearing so he must have truly believed selty was guilty

Sonny wrote:I remember showing you the full article from snookerscene magazine and you were horrified. It's obvious he was guilty from the evidence but the poor bloke on the other end of it ended up dropping the charges because of the way it was dragging on and he just wanted to forget about it and move on.

I guess you also think O J Simpson didn't murder his ex-wife?

OJ -



Can someone provide a link to the Selt case again please?

john

could you give us your views you were a pro whats your take on that case ?

A disciplinary hearing has found "insufficient evidence" to justify allegations that Matt Selt attempted to bribe an opponent to lose a match last year. The world No66 from Romford was accused of having offered an inducement to Rob James in the Pontin's International Open Series event in the Prestatyn, from which eight promotion places were available for the world-ranking circuit.

Selt claimed the initial complaint arose after "Chinese whispers" about his having offered to bribe his opponent. "Everyone who had anything to do with the hearing said they'd heard that I'd said it," said Selt. "It was just Chinese whispers. I absolutely did not offer bribes."

He needed to beat James in the last 32 to secure promotion but was trailing 3-0 in their best-of-seven-frames match, played without a referee, when, according to James' statement, Selt offered him £1,000 to lose and made repeated offers.

James, who could not have qualified for the main tour, said he "wouldn't have been able to look the other players in the face" if he had taken the money and after losing 4-3 left the arena in tears.

Within two hours of the finish a complaint was made by Adam Davies, whose brother, Alex, was on the borderline to qualify and eventually did so in eighth place. That evening James was asked for a statement by the the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association supervisors and duly gave one the next day.

The WPBSA did not contact James again until late November, by which time Selt had taken his place on the main tour. The hearing was not held until April 21 this year - more than 11 months after the match. Selt had spent a complete season on the main tour, doing just well enough to avoid relegation. James declined to attend a hearing in London to give evidence in person. "I'd started full-time work," said James. "I'd had time off. I'd wanted something done at the time."

Selt indicated that James' non-attendance had undermined the case against him. "The fact he didn't attend the hearing and didn't get back in touch with them proves he didn't want anything to do with it," he said. "It's cost me £13,000 and it's very slanderous; £3,000 in legal fees and my sponsorship deal for this year."

The outcome of the hearing was only released this month. Asked why it had taken so long to hold it, the WPBSA's company secretary, Elaine Eyers, said it was "because you are not aware of, and are not entitled to be aware of, the full circumstances surrounding this case".

GJtheaussiestud wrote:john

could you give us your views you were a pro whats your take on that case ?

Tough one GJ. I don't know a lot about the case to be honest other than what has been written.

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:

GJtheaussiestud wrote:john

could you give us your views you were a pro whats your take on that case ?

Tough one GJ. I don't know a lot about the case to be honest other than what has been written.

cheers john

From the point of view of his opponent, from 3-0 up and the offer made in the toilets, he then had this thing buzzing around his head for the rest of the match and he ended up losing because of the mental impact on having something like that to distract you from your game. He said he felt enormous pressure to win so he wouldn't be accused of accepting the bribe, and Selt was saying things like "Think about it Rob" when he was at the table.

When I read the account by Rob James I knew he wouldn't make such a thing up because it was entirely believable because I've come across Selts sort in snooker clubs myself.

He got away with it and now he can focus on his career so I suppose he deserves another chance but he'd better keep his nose clean otherwise this will be dragged up again in future if he's not careful.

the other player said i couldnt have looked the other players in the eye but he couldnt be bothered turning up to give evidence what a muppet