SIGN UP

Masters Snooker 2021

Avatar Image
degreen2014 | 00:12 Mon 18th Jan 2021 | Sport
20 Answers
Who came third.
Was it Stuart Bingham or Gilbert.

Thanks

Answers

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by degreen2014. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There wasn't a play-off to decide third place. They both received £60k as losing semi-finalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Masters_(snooker)
Question Author
Thanks Buenchico
Well done to Yan Bintaoo,good to see some different winners.
Snooker is somewhat spoilt for me by the spotfixing and matchfixing allegations of the past. Every time I see a player miss a shot I think they ought to pot, given their skill level, I can't help thinking whether they meant to miss it. Here is one example of many:

https://www.eurosport.co.uk/snooker/the-masters/2020-2021/masters-snooker-2021-watch-john-higgins-give-frame-away-with-incredible-miss-against-yan-bingtao_vid1406419/video.shtml
He has got form for that kind of thing,Ellipsis,it is on Wiki.
The fixing you refer too was the result of a sting by the News of the World
in 2010.Although he was banned for six months for bringing the game into disrepute.Although not a fan of John Higgins I think it’s ridiculous to suggest he would “throw” a frame in prestige tournament like the Masters.
It was a bad miss by Higgins standard, I watched it, he was cleared about 10 years ago of match fixing, but I think he got fined for failing to report an approach made to him, I think thats well documented, but I have to say I understand your point.
I know our snooker players are incredibly skillful but anyone can miss even the easiest of pots. I honestly do not believe John missed that pot on purpose - he had to put screw on the ball to avoid going in off the bottom pocket. If you truly believe he did, then you would have to assume he did not really want to win the final. Subsequent frames prove otherwise. As does the fact he has performed day in, day out to get to the final.
I couldn't wait up until the conclusion, this morning I looked at the BBC website & considering they were hosting the event on BBC2 expected it to have some prominent coverage, but non at all on their main page, I had to go to 'sport' - nothing, then, 'all sport' then 'snooker' & there it was, it is almost as if the BBC editors are ashamed of snooker, & yet it was being watched the world over, I imagine most of China was tuned in to this event.
Totally agree Ken.I know Stephen Lee,a top 16 player was caught a while back and suspended but. I would have thought that any fixing would more likely occur in lower grade matches.
> If you truly believe he did, then you would have to assume he did not really want to win the final.

Sounds like the plot of "The Color Of Money" ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_of_Money#Plot
Nobody has actually said he did miss it on purpose, but he was fined previously for not reporting an approach made to him, this is the problem once you get involved with that side of it you can never erase what happened in the past.
Agreed, I'm not saying that. I wouldn't say such a thing without evidence, and if I had evidence I wouldn't be posting it on here as my first port of call!

All I'm saying is that now, when I see a bad miss, the game is spoilt a bit for me.
If there was any suspicious betting on Higgins losing that particular frame, then we would have heard of it long before Ellipsis's post. The bookies would have been squealing loud and clear.
Bookies Squealing? Theres been nearly 30 players investigated down the years thats a fact? In Johns case the matches didnt go ahead, like I say once you get even remotely involved with that side of it you cant stop peoples suspicions its maybe not nice but surely understandable, and I love watching snooker.
Joe, i can only find 23 cases on Wicki, but perhaps some took place before the Silvino Francisco case back in '86. Joe Davies was the first person to come under the microscope as he was accused of 'carrying' his opponents in order to maximise gate revenue - i believe the finals went on for a few days back then. Many of these cases have been brought about due to the bookies reporting irregular betting patterns. As i have yet to hear anything about irregular betting patterns from last night's match, i'll take it that there wasn't any. I do understand what Ellipsis and yourself saying about the game being tarnished but i continue to watch, and bet on the outcome of such games, hoping that if a match is 'fixed', it is fixed in my favour :-) Unfortunately i got last night's result correct (10-8) but my fiver was on the wrong player to achieve the win :-(
Welcome back ,John 'WITCBG' , Virgo
Ken, the WPSBA (independently) brought a lot of cases individually without any irregular betting patterns, Willie Thorne (god bless him) openly stated that match fixing goes on and will continue to do so, Im sure he admitted some of his own matches were bent, probably well after he had retired or he would have been charged as well, its unfortunate but its easier to manipulate a result in a one person competitive sport than a team game thats just the way it is, Im not suggesting that everybody's like that or its rife everywhere because it certainly isnt, all Im saying is you cant take away whats happened or what is fact or indeed a persons own doubt in his/her mind. Cheers.
Wherever there's money there's fiddle. imo.
Unsureme.
Unfortunately I believe your right, its unfortunate but its as you say.

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Masters Snooker 2021

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.