Judd Trump's record in the 'majors'.

So, this whole thing about Judd not winning a 'major' in a while, how much do we read into that?

The term seems to only really have been invented so the BBC can make the tournaments they televise seem more important than the rest anyway. So, how much do we care that Judd hasn't won a BBC event in a while?

I get that he'll probably want to win more World Titles. They are major. And I'm not suggesting that any pro would be happy when they get knocked out of any tournament. They should want to win everything they enter.

But really, there's only been four 'majors' since he won the World Title in May 2019. And he's winning plenty of other things, setting a record for the amount of ranking events won in one season last year.

Then again, in his career, he has only won one UK, one Masters and one World Championship. That is surprising for somebody of his talent.

So, what do we think? Is this a big deal? A mild concern? An interesting stat, but not that important?

If you were Judd, how worried about it would you be?

I think most players do value the 'majors' and 'triple crown' titles more than anything else. I'm pretty sure if you could let all the top players choose which titles they will win, the Worlds, UK and Masters will always be on the top of the list. Ronnie recently said on Eurosport that the Triple Crown titles are what makes a player great, in his opinion. You could see what this UK win meant for Robbo on his face when he sat down after he won.

I think 1 Worlds, 1 UK, and 1 Masters is a bit disappointing for a player like Trump. These tournaments are the most difficult to win because they are top priority for all the top players. He has won a lot of other titles, obviously, so he's no bum. I'm sure he'll win more Triple Crowns as well.

Stephen Hendry has also said that the Worlds, UK and Masters were always top priority for him. The BBC might have invented the term, but if a player like Hendry says those tournaments were always at the top of the list for him, there must be something to it.

Look at the Twitter pages of the top players. Look at how they sum up their careers:

Judd Trump: "World snooker champion"

Neil Robertson: "World Champion, Triple crown winner"

Mark Selby: "3x World Snooker Champion, 3x Masters Champion and 2x UK Champion"

Stuart Bingham: "2020 Masters Champion! 2015 World Snooker Champion!"

Peter Ebdon: "World Snooker Champion 2002, UK Champion 2006."

I don't see many top players mentioning anything else than Triple Crown titles.

Maybe BBC did invent the term. But that doesn't change the fact that the World, UK, and Masters are ultimately what a players career is judged on. If you were to ask someone like Hendry what he won in his career I have no doubt he knows exactly how many of those titles he won. He would probably have to go checking the records to remember anything else.

They are also the events that get the public's attention. Lots of people remember those finals, and are able to recall and say such a player won a great UK or Masters title. I've never heard anyone say do you remember the German Masters Masters final.

So the players and the public regard the triple crown events as more important. So they obviously are. A return of 1 win in each event is not good for a player of Trump's ability. There is no doubt he will win more. But he does need to add a few more or he gets left behind Selby, Williams and so on.

If you look at how Judd bottled it on that pink, it really shows you how much a UK title means to him. He even said himself he was just too nervous and bottled it. You won't see Judd choke like that much in a final that's not a World, UK, or Masters.

he shouldn't be worried. he is the best player in the world at the moment and likely to win more big events. his poor record to date shows he underperformed relative to his talent in his twenties. but the issues that led to that have clearly been rectified and he will be justified favourite for the masters and other big events going forward. he'll probably win more.

the triple crown or majors stuff is a bit of marketing flim flam based as much as on nostalgia as anything else. but that doesn't mean they're not still big events. the uk became the second most important because it was long running and had long matches. the changes to the second part are sad and diminish the status of the event somewhat, but there is nothing trump can do about that.

I personally have trouble holding the UK and Masters up as majors somehow. Not that I don't enjoy them, and I know there is the history there. But somehow, I don't find them in the same league as The Crucible. For me, that's THE major.

Saying that, I take The Masters off work every year. But that's more to do with the fact that it is commutable from where I live, so I can go to matches live. (And have done every year since 2006.) I won't be going this year, for obvious reasons, but still got the week booked off months ago just in case.

The UK televised stages I take off some years, if I have the Leave available. The last couple of years I've not taken it, and used leave to go to the last-128 pre-televised round instead. Like I've said in a different posts, that doesn't feel like a major for me. Not just for reasons of match shortening either, but more because there's so many matches that go untelevised. A real major you'd be able to watch any matches you choose, even if some of it was only online. (Though, having the last-128 on TV was a step in the right direction this year.) If something is a major, why are there two rounds where only 2 out of every 8 matches are getting televised?

For the UK, I guess having existed for more than 40 years adds a prestige to it. As does it being on the BBC. Yes, their coverage leaves a lot to be desired, and other tournaments are on Freeview. But being on a major UK channel as oppose to ITV4 or Quest at least puts it more in the public consciousness more. So that'll make it feel a bit bigger. More casual fans talk to me about snooker when it's on the BBC than on ITV4. Barely anybody at all who doesn't follow the sport even realises when it's on Eurosport/Quest.

Not making any point here. Just that I enjoy the Masters, but it feels like a fun invitational to me as much as anything else. The UK just feels like another ranker, even if it is a step above the tournaments with short-arse best of sevens.

I'm not a fan of the term Triple crown series because it implies that the World,UK,Masters are equally important which obviously isnt true. In fact its nowhere close. The World Championship is miles ahead.

But the UK and the Masters have a lot of history and are still considered the 2nd and 3rd most important tournaments by media,pundits and players so you definitely want to win them and it feels like a big hole in your CV if you only won 1 title.

Triple Crowns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else

they define your career, no one parades around how many China Opens or Home Nations you have

only losers think Triple Crowns are nothing like the opening poster. You'd never see Judd/Robertson battling through this extent in any other tournament and feeling the pressure like they were doing/trying too hard as well in any other tournament.

unfortunately Robertson did Judd in yesterday, Robertson doesn't give a fukk he lost an English Open final LMAO he just won the UK in a career defining way, Judd will remember that missed pink for a while compared to any other misses in his career, it's his worst loss ever in a final

Either way in terms of the UK Judd's record is poor, this was a winnable match and the match was even throughout compared to 2014 where it was Ronnie's to lose instead since he was 9-4 up so Judd didn't have that match in his hands but Judd should've had a 2nd UK title by now, last came a decade ago, that's a long time

He'll win a second Masters and UK at some stage. Would be ridiculous if he doesnt. He is in his prime now and he will have the whole decade to do so.

Acé wrote:Triple Crowns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else

they define your career, no one parades around how many China Opens or Home Nations you have

only losers think Triple Crowns are nothing like the opening poster. You'd never see Judd/Robertson battling through this extent in any other tournament and feeling the pressure like they were doing/trying too hard as well in any other tournament.

unfortunately Robertson did Judd in yesterday, Robertson doesn't give a fukk he lost an English Open final LMAO he just won the UK in a career defining way, Judd will remember that missed pink for a while compared to any other misses in his career, it's his worst loss ever in a final

How did I say they were nothing?

I was asking if there was more to Judd's record than just his TC tally. If anything, I'm saying Judd is better than his record in BBC events suggests.

I'm surprised that somebody who acts like they're about to have a nervous breakdown if somebody goes a few seconds without mentiong Judd's career success, thinks that only three of his tournament wins matter.

The players consider them the most important. So that makes them so.

That pink will haunt Judd...

...until about 7pm tomorrow.

TheRocket wrote:I'm not a fan of the term Triple crown series because it implies that the World,UK,Masters are equally important which obviously isnt true. In fact its nowhere close. The World Championship is miles ahead.

But the UK and the Masters have a lot of history and are still considered the 2nd and 3rd most important tournaments by media,pundits and players so you definitely want to win them and it feels like a big hole in your CV if you only won 1 title.

That's kind of where I stand.

For me, The Crucible is far, far ahead of the UK or The Masters in terms of prestige. (And I love The Masters.)

When I look at somebody like Robertson's record, 3 UK, 1 Masters. That's cool, that's a good record. But, the 1 Crucible title sticks out more. I do believe Robertson to be one of the greats of the game, but that'll come as a big disappointment if he finishes his career with only one Crucible win. He needs at least one more. Even if he wins say another UK and another Masters crown, Id still say his one Crucible win was a disappointment. In fact, the more of the other tournaments he wins, the bigger a disappointment his comparative lack of success in Sheffield becomes. He hasn't even made the one-table stage that much outside of the time that he won. For somebody of his pedigree, that's poor.

Winning the majors is the true is the true measure of who’s been the best of all time, just look at the list. Trump has been brilliant these last 2 years, but has a mental block in the big 3, he’s the tinpot terminator in the other events and looks unbeatable

LC wrote:he’s the tinpot terminator

LC wrote:Winning the majors is the true is the true measure of who’s been the best of all time, just look at the list. Trump has been brilliant these last 2 years, but has a mental block in the big 3, he’s the tinpot terminator in the other events and looks unbeatable

BUNGKE!

The way I see it, the 3 "biggest" ranking events are the WSC, UK, and TC, and the 3 "biggest" invitationals are the Masters, CoC, and Shanghai Masters.

Judd played all 6 of those events last season and won 0 of them. For the sake of comparison, Ronnie played just 4 of those events but still managed to win 2. So despite winning a record 6 ranking events in the season, Judd still fell short compared to Ronnie, Ding, Maguire, Bingham, and Robertson in terms of winning the "big events".

D4P wrote:The way I see it, the 3 "biggest" ranking events are the WSC, UK, and TC, and the 3 "biggest" invitationals are the Masters, CoC, and Shanghai Masters.

Judd played all 6 of those events last season and won 0 of them. For the sake of comparison, Ronnie played just 4 of those events but still managed to win 2. So despite winning a record 6 ranking events in the season, Judd still fell short compared to Ronnie, Ding, Maguire, Bingham, and Robertson in terms of winning the "big events".

Interesting way of looking at it. And it does sound worse when you put it like that.

D4P wrote:The way I see it, the 3 "biggest" ranking events are the WSC, UK, and TC, and the 3 "biggest" invitationals are the Masters, CoC, and Shanghai Masters.

Judd played all 6 of those events last season and won 0 of them. For the sake of comparison, Ronnie played just 4 of those events but still managed to win 2. So despite winning a record 6 ranking events in the season, Judd still fell short compared to Ronnie, Ding, Maguire, Bingham, and Robertson in terms of winning the "big events".

Great post.

Tinpot Terminator!

D4P wrote:The way I see it, the 3 "biggest" ranking events are the WSC, UK, and TC, and the 3 "biggest" invitationals are the Masters, CoC, and Shanghai Masters.

Judd played all 6 of those events last season and won 0 of them. For the sake of comparison, Ronnie played just 4 of those events but still managed to win 2. So despite winning a record 6 ranking events in the season, Judd still fell short compared to Ronnie, Ding, Maguire, Bingham, and Robertson in terms of winning the "big events".

to add to this, perhaps interestingly, of the two other predominantly best of 11 events, so of comparable length matches to the uk/masters, that were played (international and players) trump both. china open was cancelled.

idk how that smilie got there i ain't deleting it now.

is trump adverse to recording songs in minor keys or modes!?

Alex0paul wrote:Does Trump play golf now?

That's all he ever does. Besides tweeting.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

D4P wrote:The way I see it, the 3 "biggest" ranking events are the WSC, UK, and TC, and the 3 "biggest" invitationals are the Masters, CoC, and Shanghai Masters.

Judd played all 6 of those events last season and won 0 of them. For the sake of comparison, Ronnie played just 4 of those events but still managed to win 2. So despite winning a record 6 ranking events in the season, Judd still fell short compared to Ronnie, Ding, Maguire, Bingham, and Robertson in terms of winning the "big events".

Great post.

+1