Topic locked

Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ? (9/13 so far)

Postby Bourne

Okay we're only 4 matches into a 15 match tournament but each time the underdog and lower seed has come through to win. Why so ? Is the gap between the big players and the other lower-ranked guys in the top 16 closing ?

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby GJ

Bourne wrote:Okay we're only 4 matches into a 15 match tournament but each time the underdog and lower seed has come through to win. Why so ? Is the gap between the big players and the other lower-ranked guys in the top 16 closing ?



there will be 1 more chock sam querreys long lost cousin beating murphy

the other 3 favs will win :)

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Witz78

King beating Selby - SHOCK
Ebdon beating Carter - NOT REALLY A SHOCK IMO
Ding beating Williams - DEF NOT A SHOCK
Dott beating Higgins - SHOCK, BUT NOT TOTALLY UNEXPECTED TO ME

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Bourne

Shock isn't the word i'd use, I don't think there can be shocks in a top-16 field, but definite eyebrow raisers :chin:

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Tubberlad

With the exception of the Selby loss, the other three weren't entirely obvious outcomes to begin with.

Nothing terribly unusual...

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby SnookerFan

Well, I guess the thing is, The Masters by definition, has the top players in the world. So it can be very hard to predict. Especially with the rolling rankings, which means the top 16 are the top form players, as well as 16 of the top players. So I don't think there can be such a thing as a shock upset in this format.

On saying that, these past four matches has proved that it is hard to predict. I predicted that if there was anybody who could prevent Ronnie from winning his tournament, it'd come from the following three; Selby, Williams or Higgins. <doh> So there can be surprises. And I think we've all been taken unawares by some results so far. Copying Witz's idea, here's how I'd summarise.

King beating Selby - Big surprise, as Selby excels at Wembley. So far as that King called this his back yard, despite Selby being from Leicester.

Ebdon beating Carter - I had this down as a 50/50 match, so it couldn't have a shock victor, whoever had won. Though this match had zero interest to me. I didn't even know until reading Witz's thread that Carter was higher in the rankings. <laugh> So it may be more I didn't care who won.

Ding beating Williams - Certainly a surprise based on who has been on form. If this had been last season, I'd have had Ding as favourite as he was more consistent. This season Ding has done bugger all, and Williams has reached the latter stages of the World Open and the UK final. So I was expecting a Williams win. And told a Ding fan I know that Ding would lose. But was under no illusions that Ding is class. And the number 4 rank beating the number 3 rank is hardly what you'd call a shock upset. My prediction was made on this season's form only.

Dott beating Higgins - Again, I expected Higgins to win. They both have lousy records here, but Higgins has won the tournament twice at Wembley. Dott has simply won twice at Wembley. On reflection though, they are both mates, both practice a lot together, both admit to not really liking the venue. If Dott was a surprise win, it perhaps shouldn't be. He is a former World Champion, and two time World Runner up. Was this a shock, or did I just not give Dott enough credit?

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby SnookerFan

Tubberlad wrote:With the exception of the Selby loss, the other three weren't entirely obvious outcomes to begin with.

Nothing terribly unusual...


Why did you say the Selby loss was obvious? He's won the event two years out of three, and needed to play an in-form Ronnie in the final to deny him three out of three. Also he was playing Mark King, who can be quite hit and miss.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Alex0paul

I am pretty sure Ding was the higher seed. Remember the seeds are based on the first revision so he must have been ahead of Williams.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby SnookerFan

Alex0paul WC wrote:I am pretty sure Ding was the higher seed. Remember the seeds are based on the first revision so he must have been ahead of Williams.


They did say Williams was third, and Ding was 4th. But they probably did mean in the provisional rankings on thinking about it. I think Williams became third after the UK championship.

Which proves my point that as a 'shock victory' it was based more on form over the past few months, then any real perceived class difference between the two at present.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Witz78

SnookerFan wrote:
Alex0paul WC wrote:I am pretty sure Ding was the higher seed. Remember the seeds are based on the first revision so he must have been ahead of Williams.


They did say Williams was third, and Ding was 4th. But they probably did mean in the provisional rankings on thinking about it. I think Williams became third after the UK championship.

Which proves my point that as a 'shock victory' it was based more on form over the past few months, then any real perceived class difference between the two at present.


Ding did make the quarters of the World Open, last 16 of the Shanghai and UK so hes not been in great form but hes still been winning matches. Plus he won a PTC event <ok>

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Bourne

Last 16 of Shanghai and UK ain't much when you consider it's 2 matches won :huh2: Williams was 4/6 so clear favo.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby jojo

in my opinion the only real upset was king v selby though i didnt see most of that match from what i gathered king played well

im not sure how much of an upset the other three matches have been this is the masters the best 16 players in the field on merit

ebdon beat carter in the decider who lets be fair not really been playing well himself lately

mark williams not been producing a great standard and his match with ding was 50 50 with no favourite

as for the dott higgins match they always have close matches if higgins doesnt win the masters he almost always loses his first match and dont forget criminal luck denied dott a 9-7 win over higgins just over a month ago

so only one real surprise the other matches pretty much 50 50

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Roland

King beating Selby was a surprise but not beyond the relms of possibility. Ebdon beating Carter I should've seen based on recent form plus Ebdon is always a dangerous opponent in a major for any player. Ding beating Williams - I thought Mark after the China final and recent form but the fact Ding won isn't a surprise because he's a quality player. And Dott is a great player.

So you've got a former World and UK champion, a double UK champion and a World Champion and twice runner-up being the victors in "surprise" results. And Mark King :redneck:

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:Shock isn't the word i'd use, I don't think there can be shocks in a top-16 field, but definite eyebrow raisers :chin:

Well if these are shocks and they are the top players what would you call Mark Joyce reaching QF of the UK......

i think all matches were pretty even .....even King beating selby wasent a major shock hes done it before on the big stage

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Bourne

Sorry but all these people trying to make out King beating Selby wasn't a surprise result is making me laugh <laugh>

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Noel

To quote a classic line from the movie "Withnail&I" ...
Snooker is "slipping into the realm of the unwell".

=o(

Noel

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:Sorry but all these people trying to make out King beating Selby wasn't a surprise result is making me laugh <laugh>

of course it was a slight surprise but not a shock he is a top 16 player.

thats the goal for every player in a 2 horse race beat the other.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby SnookerFan

It depends how people define shocks is all. Somebody from the top-16 beating another one may be a surprise if they are at opposite ends, but is it really a shock? For me Tian Pengfei beating Ronnie O'Sullivan could be considered a shock upset. Mark King beating Mark Selby is more quite surprising.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby wheelsofsteel

SnookerFan wrote:It depends how people define shocks is all. Somebody from the top-16 beating another one may be a surprise if they are at opposite ends, but is it really a shock? For me Tian Pengfei beating Ronnie O'Sullivan could be considered a shock upset. Mark King beating Mark Selby is more quite surprising.


The defending champion losing in the first round of any event in any sport is a shock

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby randam05

Nothings a shock really, therye all proffessionals and can all beat eachother if they on a good day or bad in selbys case. Its only a shock if say king knocked in every pot and selby didnt get a look in..but selby was playing bad and king being a fellow proffessional made the most of it.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Wildey

randam05 wrote:Nothings a shock really, therye all proffessionals and can all beat eachother if they on a good day or bad in selbys case. Its only a shock if say king knocked in every pot and selby didnt get a look in..but selby was playing bad and king being a fellow proffessional made the most of it.

absalutly spot on <ok> .

Selby wasn't blitz was he.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Monique

Sezlby looked sharp enough during the first 2 frames. He only started to look shaky after King responded with that great 139. It was pressure IMO that got at him. Being the defending champion, having boasted about his form as he did and then feeling under the cosh.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:Sezlby looked sharp enough during the first 2 frames. He only started to look shaky after King responded with that great 139. It was pressure IMO that got at him. Being the defending champion, having boasted about his form as he did and then feeling under the cosh.

that could be a real weakness in selby feeling the pressure of being the fave then he started well looking good but when the underdog shows his teeth as King did in frame 3 he unraveled a bit.

there must be a reason why he falls short of the success he should get with the brilliant play over the last 3 years.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Bourne

True, but he's got about as much chance at being at Wembley now as Jimmy does with the wildcard round gone.

Re: Masters 2011: Why all the upsets ?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:
Monique wrote:Selby looked sharp enough during the first 2 frames. He only started to look shaky after King responded with that great 139. It was pressure IMO that got at him. Being the defending champion, having boasted about his form as he did and then feeling under the cosh.

that could be a real weakness in selby feeling the pressure of being the fave then he started well looking good but when the underdog shows his teeth as King did in frame 3 he unraveled a bit.

there must be a reason why he falls short of the success he should get with the brilliant play over the last 3 years.


Wild, I'd like to come a bit to Mark's defence here. Players like Mark (or Mark Williams, or Ronnie) who play a game mainly based on creativity, imagination and touch are usually less consistent that the players who have a more "mechanical" game. This type of "touch" game can't be turned on like a tap and when it's not there, it's really not there. That makes them more vunerable overall, but in my eyes, also more interesting to watch. People are not machines, Mark started to feel pressure - they all do at times - and, in this occurence, couldn't handle it. If he had a more "mechanical" game his performance would probably have deteriorated less and it could have been enough. But then he wouldn't be Mark Selby.