Topic locked

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:Mistake from Judd. Higgins has to take this rare chance.

in the end took it he did

John Higgins 2-6 Judd Trump

one frame to go 5 behind or 3 behind thats the question ?

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby hendry_fan

John Higgins 2-7 Judd Trump (MSI)





Even a player as great as John,i personaly think it,s even too much even for him to comeback and win this tourney now.
Of course we,ve seen some crackin comebacks over the years but even if Judd goes off the boil a bit,i don,t think he,ll go off it that much,he,ll grab those 3 needed frames and will be the Shanghai Masters champ 2o12!.





It won,t be much of a consolation to a player of Johns league,but at least he got another *147*,his 6th in pro professional competition so far!!

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Odrl

The thing is, it's first to 10, so a 3-1 for Higgins in the evening session puts him 8-5 behind, with Trump still being two away from victory.

It obviously won't happen with Higgins wasting chances though, he needs to be at his clinical best.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Wildey

hendry_fan wrote:John Higgins 2-7 Judd Trump (MSI)





Even a player as great as John,i personaly think it,s even too much even for him to comeback and win this tourney now.
Of course we,ve seen some crackin comebacks over the years but even if Judd goes off the boil a bit,i don,t think he,ll go off it that much,he,ll grab those 3 needed frames and will be the Shanghai Masters champ 2o12!.





It won,t be much of a consolation to a player of Johns league,but at least he got another *147*,his 6th in pro professional competition so far!!


He Got the first 5 147 in a 5 year Period 2000-2004 hes had to wait 8 years for his Next.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:Wow. I didn't see any of the first session, but that's some scoreline.

I didn't see that scoreline coming over John, at all. I expected one of the players to have a 5-4 lead, and no more than that.

that sort of scoreline always Possible when Class players are involved.

only one man aloud at the table at a time if that man pots the Balls 7-2 or worst can easily Happen.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby PLtheRef

Wild WC wrote:
hendry_fan wrote:John Higgins 2-7 Judd Trump (MSI)





Even a player as great as John,i personaly think it,s even too much even for him to comeback and win this tourney now.
Of course we,ve seen some crackin comebacks over the years but even if Judd goes off the boil a bit,i don,t think he,ll go off it that much,he,ll grab those 3 needed frames and will be the Shanghai Masters champ 2o12!.





It won,t be much of a consolation to a player of Johns league,but at least he got another *147*,his 6th in pro professional competition so far!!


He Got the first 5 147 in a 5 year Period 2000-2004 hes had to wait 8 years for his Next.



Is Higgins the only player now to have made a 147 in more than one ranking final?

From 7-2 you wouldn't expect Trump to lose it but John was 7-2 down against MJW

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Skullman

I think Higgins will try to make a comeback but it'll be too little too late and it'll end 10-8 Trump.

Btw has anyone noticed that Judd becomes slightly less clinical as matches progress these days? He wasn't killing off frames in one visit after the MSI. It worked out okay for now, but if he keeps doing that Higgins could take advantage.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:I think Higgins will make a comeback but it'll be too little too late and it'll end 10-8 Trump.

Btw has anyone noticed that Judd becomes slightly less clinical as matches progress these days? He wasn't killing off frames in one visit after the MSI. It worked out okay for now, but if he keeps doing that Higgins could take advantage.

I Agree thats something he needs to put right

a best of 19 match isnt won after 4 Frames

he just has this Laid Back attitude that needs Kicking out of him......when you in the lead you Press down even harder on the Neck.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby hendry_fan

Wild WC wrote:
hendry_fan wrote:John Higgins 2-7 Judd Trump (MSI)





Even a player as great as John,i personaly think it,s even too much even for him to comeback and win this tourney now.
Of course we,ve seen some crackin comebacks over the years but even if Judd goes off the boil a bit,i don,t think he,ll go off it that much,he,ll grab those 3 needed frames and will be the Shanghai Masters champ 2o12!.





It won,t be much of a consolation to a player of Johns league,but at least he got another *147*,his 6th in pro professional competition so far!!


He Got the first 5 147 in a 5 year Period 2000-2004 hes had to wait 8 years for his Next.









Thanks for the info Wild WC. <ok>



Funnily enough just a couple of weeks ago when i was thinkin bout this and that i did actualy think,it seems ages since John made a *147* but i did,nt think it was that long ago since he made his last,funny how a couple of weeks later after i had that thought,low and behold he goes and knocks one in again !. <laugh>

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby PLtheRef

Wild WC wrote:
Skullman wrote:I think Higgins will make a comeback but it'll be too little too late and it'll end 10-8 Trump.

Btw has anyone noticed that Judd becomes slightly less clinical as matches progress these days? He wasn't killing off frames in one visit after the MSI. It worked out okay for now, but if he keeps doing that Higgins could take advantage.

I Agree thats something he needs to put right

a best of 19 match isnt won after 4 Frames

he just has this Laid Back attitude that needs Kicking out of him......when you in the lead you Press down even harder on the Neck.


It sounds like once he was 5-0 up he was content to have the lead going into the final session which seems to be some sort of growing pattern with a fewer of the new brigade. Can't understand it really, of course he shared the final four frames which means he has a huge lead but if you had the chance to push on and go 8-1 up, wouldn't you try and take it?

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby Wildey

hendry_fan wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
hendry_fan wrote:John Higgins 2-7 Judd Trump (MSI)





Even a player as great as John,i personaly think it,s even too much even for him to comeback and win this tourney now.
Of course we,ve seen some crackin comebacks over the years but even if Judd goes off the boil a bit,i don,t think he,ll go off it that much,he,ll grab those 3 needed frames and will be the Shanghai Masters champ 2o12!.





It won,t be much of a consolation to a player of Johns league,but at least he got another *147*,his 6th in pro professional competition so far!!


He Got the first 5 147 in a 5 year Period 2000-2004 hes had to wait 8 years for his Next.









Thanks for the info Wild WC. <ok>



Funnily enough just a couple of weeks ago when i was thinkin bout this and that i did actualy think,it seems ages since John made a *147* but i did,nt think it was that long ago since he made his last,funny how a couple of weeks later after i had that thought,low and behold he goes and knocks one in again !. <laugh>

apparently when he made his first competative max in 2000 vs Dennis Taylor that was his first ever 147 in practice even.

Re: Bank of Communications Shanghai Masters Final Discussion

Postby SnookerFan

What's to say about this final that isn't already blindingly obvious?

It's an obvious statement to say Judd is strong favourite. With the score being what it is, you could argue that this is an understatement.

There aren't many players that you'd feel as comfortable at pulling back this kind of score than John though. Though, again, pointing out it's a big ask is another pretty obvious statement.

It's one of those times where any kind of analysis seems unneccessary.