The Masters in the 2010s - The decade the tense Finals went?

Judd Trump's emphatic 10-4 win over Ronnie O'Sullivan in the Final of the 2019 Masters brought the curtain down on the 2010s at snookers most prestigious non-ranking event after 152 matches and a new (and what seems to be at the moment) lasting venue in the Alexandra Palace.

Although Trump's 10-4 victory and 7-1 first session advantage was a shock to the huge majority of those who saw the Final, the margin seems to have rubber stamped a decade which has seen more than a the usual number of hidings in Finals - a 10-1, a 10-2 and three 10-4s augmented by a couple of 10-6s and 10-7s with the tournament on its longest drought between deciding frame finales (the last being 2010) - given the track record of producing a large number of tense and close run finishes (just under a quarter of all Masters Finals have gone to the deciding frame)

In theory, the Masters should be the event which produces the close finish. The top 16 players in the rankings being the only players who receive entry to the event - something strengthened in more recent years with the seedings cut-offs throughout the season. - Indeed the players who have reached the Final are all have strong pedigrees, with just two making their first appearances in a Triple Crown Final in their appearances (and in the event both were only beaten 10-7)

Does the format work? It seems to have done for the best part of 45 years. I’ve always said that the one thing I would change to the Masters is to extend it to nine days and have a Best of 17 Frame Semi-Final - and in light of other changes, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to have Best of 19 Semis to go with a 21 Frame Final. Would that make things closer? Single session matches have led to some great Masters Finals though so it mightn’t make a difference.

Perhaps there might be too much being looked into here - the 2000-2009 Masters tournament, even though it featured four deciding frame Finals and two 10-8 scorelines, also saw three 10-3 drubbings as well as a 10-4 score.

What do people reckon? Is there any reasoning as to why the Masters doesn’t seem to produce the grandstand Finales that they used to? Or is it just a longer run of surprisingly non distance going Finals?

For record: The Crucible went eight years between 2006 and 2014 with only one Final being won by a margin closer than five.

I'm not sure I agree that thr Masters final should finish closest (it's easier to bluff your way through three bo11s than four multi session matches at the Crucible for example) but it's an interesting question.

I don't think you can do anything to guarantee an exciting final. It will always boil down to how just two people are on the day.

A longer final will naturally offer a greater opportunity for a come back, but even the Crucible has had some lop-sided finals over the years.

Multi session semi finals would be great I agree. They had those at the Shanghai masters this season. And that had a good close final too. But I'm not sure I'd make a huge difference in general unless earlier rounds are similarly lengthened.

A great post - and welcome back PL.

I cannot think of a logical reason for the Masters producing large wins. I think it is just chance unless anybody can shed further light.

Unlike some, I like the format. The last week produced some great matches and none of the players looked out of their depth so I would keep the format as it is.

Between 1997-2006 there were eight finals out of ten that were 10-9 or 10-8. I can't think of any reason for the change. With World finals it can be cyclical, the late 90's had a run of dull finals but then from 2000-05 they were generally close before becoming more one-sided again and then in recent years becoming closer again.

HappyCamper wrote:I don't think you can do anything to guarantee an exciting final. It will always boil down to how just two people are on the day.

A longer final will naturally offer a greater opportunity for a come back, but even the Crucible has had some lop-sided finals over the years.

Multi session semi finals would be great I agree. They had those at the Shanghai masters this season. And that had a good close final too. But I'm not sure I'd make a huge difference in general unless earlier rounds are similarly lengthened.

+1

I don't think it makes much of a difference, but I will point out that an event like the Masters that gives the #1 seed to the defending champion while seeding the remaining players based on recent performance gives rise to the possibility that the remaining seeds might have been playing better in recent times than the #1 seed, given that the #1 was given the seed based on having won last year's event rather than based on having performed well in ranking events over the past year.

(In the 2019 Masters, the defending champion was also atop the #1 ranking list, but in other years, it's possible that the #1 seed hadn't been playing well over the previous year...)

D4P wrote:I don't think it makes much of a difference, but I will point out that an event like the Masters that gives the #1 seed to the defending champion while seeding the remaining players based on recent performance gives rise to the possibility that the remaining seeds might have been playing better in recent times than the #1 seed, given that the #1 was given the seed based on having won last year's event rather than based on having performed well in ranking events over the past year.

(In the 2019 Masters, the defending champion was also atop the #1 ranking list, but in other years, it's possible that the #1 seed hadn't been playing well over the previous year...)

Interesting to see that Allen is top of the 1 year money list. You have a fair point there, that given the defending champion is number 1 seed for an event, and the World Champion is automatically seeded 2 (if not the defending champion) then you could quite easily get a situation where little is expected of the high ranked seeds because they come into the event very short on form - not that Allen did in this case.

In Darts for example, the World Number 1 is the top seed for the events which are seeded on the basis of the Order of Merit (the Players Championships and European Championships are seeded on separate lists). This has led to in some situations, the defending champion not being a high seed or even being unseeded completely - though qualifying for the tournament in some cases. (That said qualifying for Darts events is done on a totally different format to snooker)


Would such a seeding system work for snooker? No reason why it shouldn't - but no doubt would be better with a guaranteed entry to the events which don't utilise the 128 format. The chances of it happening though are remote - at the moment, someone with no ranking money would go to world number 7 should they emerge triumphant at the Crucible.

I really enjoyed your write up PL, thank you

Yes brilliant summary there.

A shame since that 2010 final there havent been any deciders but thats the way it is.

At The Crucible its been 17 years since the last decider, although in theory its more likely to have a decider in a Best of 19 than Best of 35.

Some matches are close and others aren’t

Quite often players choking leads to a tight finish.

Maybe players at the Masters are less likely to choke as they are generally proven winners??

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Quite often players choking leads to a tight finish.

Maybe players at the Masters are less likely to choke as they are generally proven winners??

I think you might be correct, with Mike Hallett being the perfect example to prove your point.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Quite often players choking leads to a tight finish.

Maybe players at the Masters are less likely to choke as they are generally proven winners??

I think you might be correct, with Mike Hallett being the perfect example to prove your point.

Good post Cloud. Using Mike Hallett in a discussion about recent Masters finals is very apt.

I don´t know if it ever is a good when finals go tense. The idea trying to play just a one ball (going for 147s) is an intelligent playing plan as the safety is what actually does the telling and playing basically only one loose red during the safety exchanges which is the best strategy by far. Obviously it requires some flexibility as it is not possible to play like that all the time but that flexibility is a one quality which is required when handling a cue. But never open the pack during the safeties if not having a prospects of a lifetime to actually getting the cue ball really safe. Which hardly never is the case, even with the professionals. A few years ago I was highly surprised that the players bothered to split the pack against Mark Selby as Mark so easily always cleared up after only a slight lifeline. But obviously that could be said against almost any given professional player; they all clear up when it is all wide open. And that´s why I can´t be too much bothered considering all those line up - clearences. Even when I do admit many of those looks really smashing. But that´s still really ordinary. The youngsters makes those as they fancy to receive an invitations to play down to the some of the famous clubs against the famous players.

And an another interesting question is that what is the value of domination ? When one player dominating the game, like Ronnie has now managed to put on something close to that. Only 3 matches he has lost during this season. IF there would be the possible way to play the game (?) Then these days we would have a group of Chinese players as well playing almost as good as that best possible way would be. So then it wouldn´t be possible to one player dominating the sport, like Ronnie now almost has managed to do. Obviously everyone knows there isn´t such a top, top, the best possible game plan. As it would make any dominations impossible. And each time we would have a really tense finals.

Or is it that the great and perhaps more mature brains behind the curtains have managed to gather that perfect game plan ? Could be so. Just like the doctors do say that they have a perfect plan and diagnoses. But one person still to dominate the scene makes it looks slightly ridiculous. But that´s how it is. Even the safety doesn´t do all the telling but some yes. Yes, there are perfect analyses. But there are also persons trying to make those look ridiculous. But those are only efforts.

There are only three players who have really impressed me when considering absolutely everything:

Stephen Hendry. Played only one loose red during the safeties, went for the 147 efforts quite often. He played the way I personally sees it should be played. Hardly opened up the pack without a really good reason.

Anthony McGill. Plays also really well the one ball strategy. Just bash that one red around the table and trying to hide everything.

Ronnie O´Sullivan. Can´t quite remember the correct reasoning. But what, what a bloke he at least used to be. Now a really brave effort trying to dominate the game once again.

Never hesitate was the only wisdom me and my mate used to have when we really started to hit it. And it has worked really well over all these years. Never hesitate.

And what I also do like is the fact that anyone behind the curtains can make some great inputs and be snooker greats. Even when not playing much. So one of my main questions is that is it really domination when someone like Ronnie winning almost any match he plays..? It can be that but some 80 year old behind the curtains may have much more influence than Ronnie O´Sullivan. An influence is something everyone are searching to have. Not an easy job sporting a brave face with a tittle. But an influence is easy to handle. So the "truth", meaning the best possible game plan is not something which would be easy to deny. Even if your name happens to be Ronnie O´Sullivan. But there we some great, other reasoningS why he´s my top-3 all time player already, so I did give him some credit regarding that modern "dominations" of his.... An efforts are always something which should be taking account of. Never hesitate and do put on some efforts.