Dafabet Masters Q Finals: Kyren Wilson v Stuart Bingham

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

SnookerFan wrote:

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

By Snooker Island standards, he's tied for 10th best player ever.

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

By Snooker Island standards, he's tied for 10th best player ever.

What are the Snooker Island standards?

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

We had a Masters like this back in 2011 as well. There have been others. Of course you'll get editions of tournaments that aren't great, that's true even of the World Championship. But editions like this make a total farce of the idea that this is ultra-elite. It's a nonsense.

Making this tournament the top 8 and a longer format would only have made it lower quality and more interminable.

Look at how rubbish most of the top 8 have played. Now think about watching that rubbish for double the number of frames.

Hard pass from me.

This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

I,ve just seen the score.

I did,nt see any of this match,but i thought Kyren would win it and wanted him to win it.

Ck147 wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:5-5

BAN!

Numpty

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

You could say that for any tournament. Generally only fine players win any tournament more than once.

Wildey wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

Whats wrong with it this year?

It’s been rubbish.

Iranu wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

The Jester from Leicester wrote:Its official, this is the worst Masters that I've watched. How is this supposed to be the best snooker has to offer?

It's like this, Jester: it isn't.

I think you might have been right about this tournament. I'd rather have fewer players and a longer format if it means avoiding another debacle like this one.

We had a Masters like this back in 2011 as well. There have been others. Of course you'll get editions of tournaments that aren't great, that's true even of the World Championship. But editions like this make a total farce of the idea that this is ultra-elite. It's a nonsense.

Making this tournament the top 8 and a longer format would only have made it lower quality and more interminable.

Look at how rubbish most of the top 8 have played. Now think about watching that rubbish for double the number of frames.

Hard pass from me.

Or maybe players like Selby, Robertson, Ding, Trump are capable of turning it on for a second session.

Pink Ball wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

You could say that for any tournament. Generally only fine players win any tournament more than once.

Yes but even the ones who only won it once: Judd, Mark Allen, Murphy, Robbo, Ding, McManus, Reardon,.. Not exactly numpties.

Wildey wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

Whats wrong with it this year?

Matches where the standard is very poor. Players struggling and missing balls that even I would pot 9 times out of 10...

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

Whats wrong with it this year?

Matches where the standard is very poor. Players struggling and missing balls that even I would pot 9 times out of 10...

Not just that but most of them haven’t been close.

Pink Ball wrote:

Iranu wrote:Making this tournament the top 8 and a longer format would only have made it lower quality and more interminable.

Look at how rubbish most of the top 8 have played. Now think about watching that rubbish for double the number of frames.

Hard pass from me.

Or maybe players like Selby, Robertson, Ding, Trump are capable of turning it on for a second session.

Of course they are. That doesn’t mean they would have.

They weren’t just not great this week, they were abject.

Top players get beaten in the Worlds too (was it 8 knocked out in the first round in 2012?) so two sessions doesn’t guarantee anything.

I’d actually quite like multi session matches here. But no way in hell is this week the advertisement for that.

Wildey wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:This year the Masters sucks, but normally I think it's brilliant. A lot of my all time favourite snooker matches have been at The Masters. Some great finals as well.

And to say it's not an elite tournament is bull. Just look at the list of people who have won it more than once: Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins, Hunter, Selby, MJW... All elite players.

Whats wrong with it this year?

It's been crap. People say that 2011 was bad, but this tournament has made that year look top quality.

Standard of play is not everything, but the matches aren't close either. So we have boring one sided matches played at a low standard. That's not good snooker for me.

SnookerFan wrote:

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

By Snooker Island standards, he's tied for 10th best player ever.

What are the Snooker Island standards?

The standard is "Number of World Snooker Championships won". Bingham is tied for 10th on the list, and is therefore tied for the 10th best player ever.

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

By Snooker Island standards, he's tied for 10th best player ever.

What are the Snooker Island standards?

The standard is "Number of World Snooker Championships won". Bingham is tied for 10th on the list, and is therefore tied for the 10th best player ever.

If you say so.

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

D4P wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Vallomas wrote:Can you imagine Bingham as a multiple major tournament winner?

Totally deserved the win tonight, of course, he was brilliant after 1-4.

He's not as rubbish as people try to pretend he is.

By Snooker Island standards, he's tied for 10th best player ever.

What are the Snooker Island standards?

The standard is "Number of World Snooker Championships won". Bingham is tied for 10th on the list, and is therefore tied for the 10th best player ever.

think that's just one poster who says that. most of the rest of us a sensible enough to realise that bingham was not better than jimmy white (say).

Wildey wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Standard of play is not everything, but the matches aren't close either. So we have boring one sided matches played at a low standard. That's not good snooker for me.

Now that i agree with.

I think this is what most people have been complaining about more than anything. Last night wasn’t a great standard either but it became a better match as it went on because of the comeback.