Anyone Been Watching The Snooker ?

[BIG H]

I would still put Higgins behind Hendry and Davis on greatest ever players list - greatest players in the sense that they were tournament winners

Three of the dullest I ever watched mind

I mean greatest as in who was 'best' Who would beat the other.

[BIG H]

Fenster, I agree on the Steve Davis thing, but in the NOW it was pretty clear that Higgins was agreeing to lose frames for money. He actually discusses how payment (and how much) will be made. He asks how he is going to 'swallow' £300,000. He asks if they can pay a mortgage on his Spanish property. He's going a bit deeper than that is just 'possible' to throw frames. He didn't actually do it, because he never got the chance. If somebody plots to bomb the Pentagon, just because they got caught before they did it, doesn't make them not guilty of anything.

Anyway....

Steve Davis said last night that John Higgns is the best player ever, I have to agree. To win 3 times in the last 5 years, with the standard of opposition in that period is incredible. Would Hendry have sone the same? Maybe? But the competition was nothing near what it is now.

My opinion has always been that the 4 best players ever are Hendry, Williams O'Sullivan and Higgins, I think Higgins has just gone to the top of that list.

PS Trump lost that match, more than Higgis winning it imo. Trump was far to happy to have lost!

It was a blatant fix ().

You're probably right about Higgins, but he was discussing missing balls in an exhibition match that didn't even exist. For sure he was wrong, he disgraced himself and will always have people thinking he's a cheating cunt, but he didn't actually cheat, that's all.

Anyway - Fucker cost me bigtime all tournament. Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!!!

He talked about losing 4 seperate frames at the world series, which was an actual event/series of events.

[Mark TKO]

I would still put Higgins behind Hendry and Davis on greatest ever players list - greatest players in the sense that they were tournament winners

Three of the dullest I ever watched mind

I mean greatest as in who was 'best' Who would beat the other.

nothing between then in head to head matches really - flip a coin. Looked at it from achievements perspective. Playing at their peak I reckon there would never be more than 1-2 frames in it in at best between matches between these three guys.

And strangely I reckon O'Sullivan , White and Alex would hammer each of them them in a match if playing at their peak. Weird that isn't it.

Unfortunately these latter three lack(ed) the consistency of Davis, Hendry and Higgins which is why they never dominated like they did. The perils of being a crowd pleaser.

You could split them into great 'winners' and great 'players' I guess. Alex Higgins was never as great a winner as Davis was and Davis wasn't as great a player as Higgins was - did Davis or Hendry ever attenmpt anything more daring than screwing the cue ball back 8 inches in all their careers

Hope that makes sense - did to me

[Fenster]

Fenster, I agree on the Steve Davis thing, but in the NOW it was pretty clear that Higgins was agreeing to lose frames for money. He actually discusses how payment (and how much) will be made. He asks how he is going to 'swallow' £300,000. He asks if they can pay a mortgage on his Spanish property. He's going a bit deeper than that is just 'possible' to throw frames. He didn't actually do it, because he never got the chance. If somebody plots to bomb the Pentagon, just because they got caught before they did it, doesn't make them not guilty of anything.

Anyway....

Steve Davis said last night that John Higgns is the best player ever, I have to agree. To win 3 times in the last 5 years, with the standard of opposition in that period is incredible. Would Hendry have sone the same? Maybe? But the competition was nothing near what it is now.

My opinion has always been that the 4 best players ever are Hendry, Williams O'Sullivan and Higgins, I think Higgins has just gone to the top of that list.

PS Trump lost that match, more than Higgis winning it imo. Trump was far to happy to have lost!

It was a blatant fix ().

You're probably right about Higgins, but he was discussing missing balls in an exhibition match that didn't even exist. For sure he was wrong, he disgraced himself and will always have people thinking he's a cheating cunt, but he didn't actually cheat, that's all.

Anyway - Fucker cost me bigtime all tournament. Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!!!

He talked about losing 4 seperate frames at the world series, which was an actual event/series of events.

Yeah but the series had ended. I believe Higgins and his Manager, who set the thing up, had lost money on it. It was basically an exhibition event, nothing to do with Worldsnooker, no ranking points or anything, just a few invited top players and few local ams.

However, to throw a game for money would have still been an absolute disgrace. If he actually did throw a game he should have been banned for life IMO.

[BIG H]

I would still put Higgins behind Hendry and Davis on greatest ever players list - greatest players in the sense that they were tournament winners

Three of the dullest I ever watched mind

I mean greatest as in who was 'best' Who would beat the other.

nothing between then in head to head matches really - flip a coin. Looked at it from achievements perspective. Playing at their peak I reckon there would never be more than 1-2 frames in it in at best between matches between these three guys.

And strangely I reckon O'Sullivan , White and Alex would hammer each of them them in a match if playing at their peak. Weird that isn't it.

Unfortunately these latter three lack(ed) the consistency of Davis, Hendry and Higgins which is why they never dominated like they did. The perils of being a crowd pleaser.

You could split them into great 'winners' and great 'players' I guess. Alex Higgins was never as great a winner as Davis was and Davis wasn't as great a player as Higgins was - did Davis or Hendry ever attenmpt anything more daring than screwing the cue ball back 8 inches in all their careers

Hope that makes sense - did to me

Yeh it makes sense mate and I agree in a way. Basically if they all met on their bestnight (I love that scenario ) I don't think any of them could touch O'Sullivan!! At his best I have never seen better. The problem is Higgins is 'in his head' and always has been.

[Shamrock]

True Story...

One of my mates has arrannged snooker exhibitions with MArk Williams and got invited down to the Crucible as his guest last week. He was having a practice with Mark and Higgins comes up and asks Mark if he can check that he has his new number on his mobile. So Higgins rings Marks mobile stood over his shoulder. The name that flashes up on Mark's mobile is 'John Cheat Higgins' Higgins just says Aye thanks for that Mark and walks away shaking his head.

Quality !!!

Jud Trump is the future of Snooker. He's such and agressive player it's gonna change the way other players decide on their shot selection. I hope he can deal with the pressure at 21 and that he keeps his feet on the floor. I'd hate to see him lose the pot... erm I mean plot

[ICB]

Trump was 40/1 after winning in CHina. I had a small bet on him at 35/1. I had a better bet on him to beat Robertson and win his quarter. However, I had much bigger bets on Ding (especially Ding) and Williams in all sorts of combos. Fucking gutted yesterday. Gutted. Gutted.

As for Higgins - Maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think you guys are being a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intentionally throwing a game and SAYING it's possible to throw a game.

ok but he never answered two questions (at least I never saw them answered)

i) why was he there

ii) why didn't he report it

had he not been the world number one I am certain the consequences would have been much harsher. And his manager will have just agreed to take the fall

1. To meet rich business men about promoting exhibition tournaments in East Europe.

2. That's why he got a six month ban and fined £75,000.

Had there been any evidence that he ever threw a WPBSA sanctioned match, as opposed to saying it's possible to miss a ball in an exhibiton match, i'm sure the consequences would have been much harsher too.

Quentin Hann got an eight year ban for supposedly agreeing to throw a match in the China Open. He didn't even try to defend himself, he didn't go to the hearing. Also Neil Roberston informed the WPBSA that Hann approached him about fixing a match for £30,000.

Big difference.

I thought the video footage was pretty clear, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus that match he played against Steve Davis, was an obvious fix i've never seen him play that bad. Yes players have off days but that was ridiculous he was missing balls all over the place.

Oh by the way what a knob Quinten Hann was, i always hated him.

That is utterly pathetic. Bookmakers are the first to expose suspicious betting patterns. They have the right to NOT payout on anything they deem suspicious/corrupt. There's not one single shred of evidence anyone greatly profited from Higgins losing to Davis. The bookies never mentioned a single suspicious bet. So please explain how Higgins gained from intentionally blowing his chance to win £250,000, plus the virtual £1million guarantee that comes with being World Champion, when there was ZERO amounts of money won that wasn't out of the norm? Do you not realise how pathetic that is? You are saying Higgins PURPOSELY lost for NOTHING!!! Come on now, that is beyond silly..

Having your hand caught in the "cookie jar" means there's clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is ZERO evidence Higgins has ever purposely missed a pot in his life let alone thrown a game/match. The NOTW footage showed Higgins talking about how you can miss balls it didn't show him actually missing balls.

And If you think it's corrupt that a six-times world champion, one of the greatest players that's ever lived, a man who was still ranked in the top 20, can win a match, then you must think every upset that happens in boxing is fixed, right?

Upsets happen in every sport.

Steve Davis is nowhere near as good as he was, when's the last time he won a ranking event ? and how is it pathetic ? did you see the match ?

John Higgins said himself he can miss balls my fraction's, or purporsely mess up on positional play. Sorry but i do think he threw the match, and you say why would he do it, wasn't he getting offered 300k ? to throw frames ?

Even if you don't think he done it against Steve Davis, which is fair enough think what you want. It makes no difference he got a pass because of who he is, which is not fair in all honesty.

He was so bad against Steve Davis probably the worst he's ever played in a ranking tournament, i think for certain there was something fishy.

Lastly it would be no different than a boxer willing to take a dive for money, even if he didn't get a chance to do it. The fact he was willing to do it, like John Higgins was he should still get the same punishment.

[ICB]

Fenster, I agree on the Steve Davis thing, but in the NOW it was pretty clear that Higgins was agreeing to lose frames for money. He actually discusses how payment (and how much) will be made. He asks how he is going to 'swallow' £300,000. He asks if they can pay a mortgage on his Spanish property. He's going a bit deeper than that is just 'possible' to throw frames. He didn't actually do it, because he never got the chance. If somebody plots to bomb the Pentagon, just because they got caught before they did it, doesn't make them not guilty of anything.

Anyway....

Steve Davis said last night that John Higgns is the best player ever, I have to agree. To win 3 times in the last 5 years, with the standard of opposition in that period is incredible. Would Hendry have sone the same? Maybe? But the competition was nothing near what it is now.

My opinion has always been that the 4 best players ever are Hendry, Williams O'Sullivan and Higgins, I think Higgins has just gone to the top of that list.

PS Trump lost that match, more than Higgis winning it imo. Trump was far to happy to have lost!

Stephen Hendry had great competition in his prime, and has beaten John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams, in major ranking finals.

Im sorry but no one is a good as a prime Stephen Hendry, 10 maxium breaks in tournaments. Over 700 century breaks in tournaments, the best player ever under pressure, and the best break builder ever.

[Fenster]

Trump was 40/1 after winning in CHina. I had a small bet on him at 35/1. I had a better bet on him to beat Robertson and win his quarter. However, I had much bigger bets on Ding (especially Ding) and Williams in all sorts of combos. Fucking gutted yesterday. Gutted. Gutted.

As for Higgins - Maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think you guys are being a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intentionally throwing a game and SAYING it's possible to throw a game.

ok but he never answered two questions (at least I never saw them answered)

i) why was he there

ii) why didn't he report it

had he not been the world number one I am certain the consequences would have been much harsher. And his manager will have just agreed to take the fall

1. To meet rich business men about promoting exhibition tournaments in East Europe.

2. That's why he got a six month ban and fined £75,000.

Had there been any evidence that he ever threw a WPBSA sanctioned match, as opposed to saying it's possible to miss a ball in an exhibiton match, i'm sure the consequences would have been much harsher too.

Quentin Hann got an eight year ban for supposedly agreeing to throw a match in the China Open. He didn't even try to defend himself, he didn't go to the hearing. Also Neil Roberston informed the WPBSA that Hann approached him about fixing a match for £30,000.

Big difference.

I thought the video footage was pretty clear, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus that match he played against Steve Davis, was an obvious fix i've never seen him play that bad. Yes players have off days but that was ridiculous he was missing balls all over the place.

Oh by the way what a knob Quinten Hann was, i always hated him.

That is utterly pathetic. Bookmakers are the first to expose suspicious betting patterns. They have the right to NOT payout on anything they deem suspicious/corrupt. There's not one single shred of evidence anyone greatly profited from Higgins losing to Davis. The bookies never mentioned a single suspicious bet. So please explain how Higgins gained from intentionally blowing his chance to win £250,000, plus the virtual £1million guarantee that comes with being World Champion, when there was ZERO amounts of money won that wasn't out of the norm? Do you not realise how pathetic that is? You are saying Higgins PURPOSELY lost for NOTHING!!! Come on now, that is beyond silly..

Having your hand caught in the "cookie jar" means there's clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is ZERO evidence Higgins has ever purposely missed a pot in his life let alone thrown a game/match. The NOTW footage showed Higgins talking about how you can miss balls it didn't show him actually missing balls.

And If you think it's corrupt that a six-times world champion, one of the greatest players that's ever lived, a man who was still ranked in the top 20, can win a match, then you must think every upset that happens in boxing is fixed, right?

Upsets happen in every sport.

Steve Davis is nowhere near as good as he was, when's the last time he won a ranking event ? and how is it pathetic ? did you see the match ?

John Higgins said himself he can miss balls my fraction's, or purporsely mess up on positional play. Sorry but i do think he threw the match, and you say why would he do it, wasn't he getting offered 300k ? to throw frames ?

Even if you don't think he done it against Steve Davis, which is fair enough think what you want. It makes no difference he got a pass because of who he is, which is not fair in all honesty.

He was so bad against Steve Davis probably the worst he's ever played in a ranking tournament, i think for certain there was something fishy.

Lastly it would be no different than a boxer willing to take a dive for money, even if he didn't get a chance to do it. The fact he was willing to do it, like John Higgins was he should still get the same punishment.

Why i'm even bothering fucks knows..

For someone to win HUGE amounts of money someone has to LOSE. Higgins and his cohorts were planning to con bookmakers. There is NO evidence any bookmaker LOST money on the Higgins-Davis match. That means no bets were made outside the ordinary. That means Higgins had NOTHING to gain from purposely losing.

There's not a single sportsman in history that hasn't performed way below their best at times throughout their career. You're basically saying everyone in history that has underperformed is doing so on purpose.

[ICB]

Trump was 40/1 after winning in CHina. I had a small bet on him at 35/1. I had a better bet on him to beat Robertson and win his quarter. However, I had much bigger bets on Ding (especially Ding) and Williams in all sorts of combos. Fucking gutted yesterday. Gutted. Gutted.

As for Higgins - Maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think you guys are being a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intentionally throwing a game and SAYING it's possible to throw a game.

ok but he never answered two questions (at least I never saw them answered)

i) why was he there

ii) why didn't he report it

had he not been the world number one I am certain the consequences would have been much harsher. And his manager will have just agreed to take the fall

1. To meet rich business men about promoting exhibition tournaments in East Europe.

2. That's why he got a six month ban and fined £75,000.

Had there been any evidence that he ever threw a WPBSA sanctioned match, as opposed to saying it's possible to miss a ball in an exhibiton match, i'm sure the consequences would have been much harsher too.

Quentin Hann got an eight year ban for supposedly agreeing to throw a match in the China Open. He didn't even try to defend himself, he didn't go to the hearing. Also Neil Roberston informed the WPBSA that Hann approached him about fixing a match for £30,000.

Big difference.

I thought the video footage was pretty clear, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus that match he played against Steve Davis, was an obvious fix i've never seen him play that bad. Yes players have off days but that was ridiculous he was missing balls all over the place.

Oh by the way what a knob Quinten Hann was, i always hated him.

That is utterly pathetic. Bookmakers are the first to expose suspicious betting patterns. They have the right to NOT payout on anything they deem suspicious/corrupt. There's not one single shred of evidence anyone greatly profited from Higgins losing to Davis. The bookies never mentioned a single suspicious bet. So please explain how Higgins gained from intentionally blowing his chance to win £250,000, plus the virtual £1million guarantee that comes with being World Champion, when there was ZERO amounts of money won that wasn't out of the norm? Do you not realise how pathetic that is? You are saying Higgins PURPOSELY lost for NOTHING!!! Come on now, that is beyond silly..

Having your hand caught in the "cookie jar" means there's clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is ZERO evidence Higgins has ever purposely missed a pot in his life let alone thrown a game/match. The NOTW footage showed Higgins talking about how you can miss balls it didn't show him actually missing balls.

And If you think it's corrupt that a six-times world champion, one of the greatest players that's ever lived, a man who was still ranked in the top 20, can win a match, then you must think every upset that happens in boxing is fixed, right?

Upsets happen in every sport.

Steve Davis is nowhere near as good as he was, when's the last time he won a ranking event ? and how is it pathetic ? did you see the match ?

John Higgins said himself he can miss balls my fraction's, or purporsely mess up on positional play. Sorry but i do think he threw the match, and you say why would he do it, wasn't he getting offered 300k ? to throw frames ?

Even if you don't think he done it against Steve Davis, which is fair enough think what you want. It makes no difference he got a pass because of who he is, which is not fair in all honesty.

He was so bad against Steve Davis probably the worst he's ever played in a ranking tournament, i think for certain there was something fishy.

Lastly it would be no different than a boxer willing to take a dive for money, even if he didn't get a chance to do it. The fact he was willing to do it, like John Higgins was he should still get the same punishment.

Why i'm even bothering fucks knows..

For someone to win HUGE amounts of money someone has to LOSE. Higgins and his cohorts were planning to con bookmakers. There is NO evidence any bookmaker LOST money on the Higgins-Davis match. That means no bets were made outside the ordinary. That means Higgins had NOTHING to gain from purposely losing.

There's not a single sportsman in history that hasn't performed way below their best at times throughout their career. You're basically saying everyone in history that has underperformed is doing so on purpose.

Im entitled to an opinion different from yours. I never stated its a fact im stating thats just my opinion end of, no need to get so uptight over it were just having a conversation.

I think it was blatant John Higgins was throwing frames, yes people do have off days obviously. But he played so bad when he's supposed to be at his peak, and even when he has had off days never that bad.

Did you watch that match ? because honestly i was in shock. I've never ever seen him play anywhere near that bad.

When someone is willing to cheat, people will question certain matches. I mean how does anyone know he hasn't done it in the past ?

Thats the point he's tarnished his name, and you and i can't say for sure what he has or hasn't done.

What we are sure of though, is that he was willing to take that extra step. And im pretty sure had he not been who he is, he would of got punished alot more than what he did.

[Mark TKO]

I have it on good authority that Davis threw 3 frames in his 1989 final against John Parrott.

Can't say any more than that really

[Fenster]

Trump was 40/1 after winning in CHina. I had a small bet on him at 35/1. I had a better bet on him to beat Robertson and win his quarter. However, I had much bigger bets on Ding (especially Ding) and Williams in all sorts of combos. Fucking gutted yesterday. Gutted. Gutted.

As for Higgins - Maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think you guys are being a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intentionally throwing a game and SAYING it's possible to throw a game.

ok but he never answered two questions (at least I never saw them answered)

i) why was he there

ii) why didn't he report it

had he not been the world number one I am certain the consequences would have been much harsher. And his manager will have just agreed to take the fall

1. To meet rich business men about promoting exhibition tournaments in East Europe.

2. That's why he got a six month ban and fined £75,000.

Had there been any evidence that he ever threw a WPBSA sanctioned match, as opposed to saying it's possible to miss a ball in an exhibiton match, i'm sure the consequences would have been much harsher too.

Quentin Hann got an eight year ban for supposedly agreeing to throw a match in the China Open. He didn't even try to defend himself, he didn't go to the hearing. Also Neil Roberston informed the WPBSA that Hann approached him about fixing a match for £30,000.

Big difference.

I thought the video footage was pretty clear, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus that match he played against Steve Davis, was an obvious fix i've never seen him play that bad. Yes players have off days but that was ridiculous he was missing balls all over the place.

Oh by the way what a knob Quinten Hann was, i always hated him.

That is utterly pathetic. Bookmakers are the first to expose suspicious betting patterns. They have the right to NOT payout on anything they deem suspicious/corrupt. There's not one single shred of evidence anyone greatly profited from Higgins losing to Davis. The bookies never mentioned a single suspicious bet. So please explain how Higgins gained from intentionally blowing his chance to win £250,000, plus the virtual £1million guarantee that comes with being World Champion, when there was ZERO amounts of money won that wasn't out of the norm? Do you not realise how pathetic that is? You are saying Higgins PURPOSELY lost for NOTHING!!! Come on now, that is beyond silly..

Having your hand caught in the "cookie jar" means there's clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is ZERO evidence Higgins has ever purposely missed a pot in his life let alone thrown a game/match. The NOTW footage showed Higgins talking about how you can miss balls it didn't show him actually missing balls.

And If you think it's corrupt that a six-times world champion, one of the greatest players that's ever lived, a man who was still ranked in the top 20, can win a match, then you must think every upset that happens in boxing is fixed, right?

Upsets happen in every sport.

Steve Davis is nowhere near as good as he was, when's the last time he won a ranking event ? and how is it pathetic ? did you see the match ?

John Higgins said himself he can miss balls my fraction's, or purporsely mess up on positional play. Sorry but i do think he threw the match, and you say why would he do it, wasn't he getting offered 300k ? to throw frames ?

Even if you don't think he done it against Steve Davis, which is fair enough think what you want. It makes no difference he got a pass because of who he is, which is not fair in all honesty.

He was so bad against Steve Davis probably the worst he's ever played in a ranking tournament, i think for certain there was something fishy.

Lastly it would be no different than a boxer willing to take a dive for money, even if he didn't get a chance to do it. The fact he was willing to do it, like John Higgins was he should still get the same punishment.

Why i'm even bothering fucks knows..

For someone to win HUGE amounts of money someone has to LOSE. Higgins and his cohorts were planning to con bookmakers. There is NO evidence any bookmaker LOST money on the Higgins-Davis match. That means no bets were made outside the ordinary. That means Higgins had NOTHING to gain from purposely losing.

There's not a single sportsman in history that hasn't performed way below their best at times throughout their career. You're basically saying everyone in history that has underperformed is doing so on purpose.

Im entitled to an opinion different from yours. I never stated its a fact im stating thats just my opinion end of, no need to get so uptight over it were just having a conversation.

I think it was blatant John Higgins was throwing frames, yes people do have off days obviously. But he played so bad when he's supposed to be at his peak, and even when he has had off days never that bad.

Did you watch that match ? because honestly i was in shock. I've never ever seen him play anywhere near that bad.

When someone is willing to cheat, people will question certain matches. I mean how does anyone know he hasn't done it in the past ?

Thats the point he's tarnished his name, and you and i can't say for sure what he has or hasn't done.

What we are sure of though, is that he was willing to take that extra step. And im pretty sure had he not been who he is, he would of got punished alot more than what he did.

Yes we can because there is ZERO evidence of any dodgy betting on his games. This is what you don't understand.

To pull off any HUGE gamble takes expert planning. Without bookmakers highlighting suspicious betting paterns you would never know in a million years whether someone is being dodgy or not.

I'm not uptight over anything, i'm educating you on something you still clearly don't understand.

Higgins didn't make a break over 64 for the first 15-20 frames of the final. Was he throwing it? How is it possible someone that good can score so poor?

[BIG H]

I have it on good authority that Davis threw 3 frames in his 1989 final against John Parrott.

Can't say any more than that really

Hahaha

[ICB]

I have it on good authority that Davis threw 3 frames in his 1989 final against John Parrott.

Can't say any more than that really

With a session to spare jesus either Steve Davis played godlike, or John Parrot done what John Higgins did against Steve Davis throw the frames

[skel1983]

I have it on good authority that Davis threw 3 frames in his 1989 final against John Parrott.

Can't say any more than that really

With a session to spare jesus either Steve Davis played godlike, or John Parrot done what John Higgins did against Steve Davis throw the frames