World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

[Gerontophile]

Started this morning. O'Sullivan to win, as apparently he is fired up for this due to his dad having week long releases. Dad wont be allowed at the tournament this year, but in an interview recently, O'Sullivan said that it was all the inspiration he needed.

When he is in the mood, the rest (even Selby, Maguire and Carter) can all forget it.

[Gerontophile]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

And he has just slapped himself in the head after buggering up a (relatively) simple chance for a 147.

[Sean of the Shed]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

He probably was slapping his head trying to think who most of the other 31 players are in this years tournament, I myself haven't got a fucking clue.
Oh how I miss the chuckles of Ray Reardon, John Virgo's hilarious impressions and Bill Wirbuniek farting as he stretches for a long pot...eeeeeeeh them were the days.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Christ, what a way to start the thread.

Firtst off the hackneyed cliche that only Ronnie O'Sullivan can beat Ronnie O'Sullivan. Which is bollocks, supremeley patronising, and shows a lack of understanding of the game. Snooker isn't just about potting, positioning and safety play. It's a mental game as well. If your head's not in the right place, you won't win tournaments. O'Sullivan's bipolar nature is his biggest asset (in terms of the positive mania and the boost that gives him) and his worst hinderace (in terms of the negative mania that causes his erratic behaviour).

But where other players have good and bad form, O'Sullivan "never" has bad form, only excuses made for him. But the reality is, that a seasoned watcher of the game and O'Sullivan can see when he's suffering mentally, and when he's suffering with bad form, because of his behaviour around it.

And at the moment, he's a little out of form, and has been struggling with long shots recently. That could be down to the fact he's changed coaches againt, as opposed to the other likely explanation, which is that his eyesight could be faltering.

Better examples of how you can mentally losing a game are the 2007 world final between John Higgins and Mark Selby, Ali Carter's perfomance in last year's final, and the recent Welsh Open final between Carter and Dominic Dale.

Secondly, we have the "there's no characters in the game anymore" bollocks. Yes, there are characters in the game, but they're not violent alcoholics (like Alex Higgins) or the political types (such as Ray Reardon) that were behind the closed shop that meant that you either had to be too good to stop entering (ie Amateur champions like Steve Davis) or friends or relations of the establishment (such as ex-WPBSA chairman Geoff Fould's son Neal), or one of the people promoting tournaments (Mike Darrington) to get a chance of getting one of the 128 places on the tour. And the other protectionism of the likes of Reardon, Rex Williams and their cronies meant that it wasn't worth retiring as one of the 128 professionals because you couldn't turn amateur for a year, meaning even fewer places became available. Of course once the Open era began (a hand that was forced by the EU freedom of movment and workers rights that came with it), the old guard very quickly found themselves falling out of contention.

And had Virgo not been such a "character", and concentrated more on his game, he might have fulfilled the potential he was claimed to have. Instead he's known more for his impressions, and being Jim Davidson's straight man, than for his mediocre career.

On a lighter note, has anyone else noticed that O'Sullivan's opponent Stuart Bingham looks like a Sea Devil?

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

As for the tournament itself, I can't see past John Higgins as the winner.

And congratulations to Michaela Tabb. Snooker's first professional female referee becomes the first lady to referee the final. Not much to choose from the top three referees in the world at the moment, but with Jan Verhaas making a big mistake in the deciding frame of the UK Championship (not spotting Marco Fu move the green ball about an inch off it's spot with his sleeve), it was always going to be between Tabb and Alan Chamberlain.

As for the players, O'Sullivan (world number 1) leads practice partner Stuart Bingham (21), with O'Sullivan's long shots proving troublesome. He's down to 40% accuracy rate on them, which is low for most professionals. If anyone outside the top 16 can beat O'Sullivan, it's Bingham, but I see O'Sullivan going all the way to the semi finals where he's scheduled to meet John Higgins. Winner faces Mark Allen or Martin Gould.

Mark King (15) and Rory McLeod (44) are locked at 3-3 as of the end of what sounds a very slow and dull session. King is one of the most inconsistant players and needs a win here to stay in the top 16 (something he's only managed once before in 2002). McLeod is the only black player on the circuit, and is a debuatant at the Crucible in his 12th season as a pro. His TV debut at the UK Championship saw him lose 9-6 to O'Sullivan, after being 5-1 down, but he hasn't needed to settle down as much today. With up to 13 frames left to play their second session could be a long one. I fancy King to edge it 10-8. Winner faces Stephen Maguire or Jamie Burnett.

This afternoon's session saw most people's highlight of the round, with seven times World Champ Stephen Hendry (6) trails two time winner Mark Williams (22) 5-4. The reality is that Hendry hasn't won a tournament since 2005's Malta Cup and hasn't been in a final since 2006. He's also in the worst form in his career, as he's provisionally number 11 in the world. Defeat here could see him as low as provisional world 27. Williams is a player on the up, after a horrendous couple of seasons. Barring a disaster he will regain his top 16 place next season. I take Williams to win 10-7. Winner faces Ding Junhui or Liang Wenbo.

Also in action this afternoon were Graeme Dott (13) and Barry Hawkins (27). Hawkins leads former world champ Dott 5-4. Dott has has a horrendous last two years. Only winning one match last season after being diagnosed with depression. Once his treatment had seen his heath improved, he broke is arm in a football match with other snooker players while waiting for the Shanghai Masters to begin, meaning he missed three more tournaments. Since his arm healed, he has started to show some of his old form, but unless he wins the tournament, he will lose his top 16 placing. A defeat in the first round would see him drop out of the top 32. Hawkins is a former world number 12, and is on the verge of returning to snooker's elite. A win here helps him do that, which I think he'll manage here. Winner faces Mark Selby or Ricky Walden.

Last match beginning today sees Ali Carter (7) face Gerard Greene (33). Carter has been one of the best players on the cirtcuit right now (second in the provisional rankings), and broke his own personal glass celing by winning the Welsh Open last month. Greene is one of snooker's perennial nearly men, who has seemingly spent the last tem years ranked between 26 and 40. Carter at a canter 10-4. Winner faces Neil Robertson or Steve Davis.

More previews tomorrow.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

First off the hackneyed cliche that only Ronnie O'Sullivan can beat Ronnie O'Sullivan. Which is bollocks, supremeley patronising, and shows a lack of understanding of the game. Snooker isn't just about potting, positioning and safety play. It's a mental game as well. If your head's not in the right place, you won't win tournaments. O'Sullivan's bipolar nature is his biggest asset (in terms of the positive mania and the boost that gives him) and his worst hinderace (in terms of the negative mania that causes his erratic behaviour).

I'm confused, and possibly bipolar myself, trying to understand that.

So Ronnie's obvious mental demons aren't the only thing that can beat him, yet those mental demons are the only thing preventing him being "in the right place" and therefore winning?

No wonder he's confused.

He's the greatest "natural" player ever seen in the world game (I say "natural", in that he spent his entire childhood playing snooker in East End clubs, not particularly a "natural" upbringing I'd wish on either of my children). He makes 147 breaks for fun - when he seems to give a toss. He knows he's the best player the game's ever seen, and he'll win in two weeks' time if he wants to; as with each of the last 10 championships, though, the question is will he give enough of a toss to "prove" it.

He's not alone in this respect in world sport; in golf, both Fred Couples and Phil Mickleson have rightly been accused of the same "Tin Cup" mental syndrome.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:

First off the hackneyed cliche that only Ronnie O'Sullivan can beat Ronnie O'Sullivan. Which is bollocks, supremeley patronising, and shows a lack of understanding of the game. Snooker isn't just about potting, positioning and safety play. It's a mental game as well. If your head's not in the right place, you won't win tournaments. O'Sullivan's bipolar nature is his biggest asset (in terms of the positive mania and the boost that gives him) and his worst hinderace (in terms of the negative mania that causes his erratic behaviour).

I'm confused, and possibly bipolar myself, trying to understand that.

So Ronnie's obvious mental demons aren't the only thing that can beat him, yet those mental demons are the only thing preventing him being "in the right place" and therefore winning?

No wonder he's confused.

No. I didn't say that. I didn't say they are the only thing. I said they're the biggest thing. He didn't appear to be troubled today and recently, but off form in one part of his game. By his own admission, he's feeling great at the moment.

He's the greatest "natural" player ever seen in the world game (I say "natural", in that he spent his entire childhood playing snooker in East End clubs, not particularly a "natural" upbringing I'd wish on either of my children). He makes 147 breaks for fun - when he seems to give a toss. He knows he's the best player the game's ever seen, and he'll win in two weeks' time if he wants to; as with each of the last 10 championships, though, the question is will he give enough of a toss to "prove" it.

He's not alone in this respect in world sport; in golf, both Fred Couples and Phil Mickleson have rightly been accused of the same "Tin Cup" mental syndrome.

He's the best break-builder and potter the game has seen. But the best "natural" player with the all round game as far as I'm concerned is Stephen Hendry.

[Mumpo]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Phoebe wrote:

Secondly, we have the "there's no characters in the game anymore" bollocks. Yes, there are characters in the game

[Gerontophile]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

O'Sullivan did look a little off yesterday, even though he made 8 breaks of over 60 in his match, including 3 centuries. But most players, or at least top players, try and aim to peak later in the tournament when they have to maintain form longer, and with shorter breaks between sessions. So, if this is the case, O'Sullivan is likely to get better.

Perhaps my opening post did denigrate (denegrate?) all the other players, but they are definitely no mugs, and I would suggest that they are better players than the crop whom Hendry had to play, when he was at his peak.

But Hendry was a machine, and could do everything, so I agree that Hendry is probably the better player overall.

[Sean of the Shed]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

And Hendry is the only player from his peak to still be competetive now, more gifted players like Jimmy White, who could have done even better with a little more commitment, have not managed to do this.
Since Hendry though very few players, such as O'Sullivan and John Higgins, have managed to maintain a successful career in the game. They peak very quickly and then get replaced by the next up and coming star, and end up being lucky to make up the numbers at the major tournaments. Even top end players like Mark Williams seem to have slipped away.
This is why snooker on terrestrial television is restricted to a couple of tounaments a year. Without players like O'Sullivan the audiences would drop even futher. The remainder of the field just tend to seem a bit formulaic, a production line of similar players who don't inspire the audience to watch, never mind take up the game

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

I think you're a little harsh on Jimmy White. I don't think his committment was in doubt, I just think his safety play wasn't as good as it could have been, and with a better coach (and someone who could have steered him slightly away from playing like his hero Pat Houlihan) and he would have hit his peake earlier than he did. As it was, he ran into Hendry's peak, and the arrival of the Open era, and with it more competition.

"Since Hendry though very few players, such as O'Sullivan and John Higgins, have managed to maintain a successful career in the game."

But that was the way the sport opened up. In 1981, Bernard Bennett was world number 26, and while only the World Championship counted in those days, Bennett hadn't won a match since 1974. Also, the number of top players entering each year improved. In 79, Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths and Kirk Stevens were allowed to turn pro, as the ranks were expanded. In 80, Joe Johnson joined them, in 81, White and Tony Knowles, 83 Neal Foulds and John Parrott, 85 Hendry. Between then and 89, no-one of note (Darren Morgan, Martin Clark, Alain Robidoux and Steve James were the best, and they were also-rans to be fair). Then in 89, James Wattana, 90, Doherty and McManus.

Then in 91, it went open, and within three years, Peter Ebdon, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Stephen Lee, Mark Williams, John Higgins, Joe Perry, Matthew Stevens and Graeme Dott all turned pro, as the field increased from 128 to 561. All tournament winners, and most of them World Champions or finalists. I'd say a third of the current tour debuted in 91 or 92. Because so many players broke through at the same time, no-one could dominate. Had any one of those been 10 years younger (especially Higgins), they would have dominated alongside Davis and Hendry.

And to be fair, these guys have had a peak of fifteen years, and there's almost a changing of the guard (you're new, so you wouldn't have seen my post on this last season), you've got Stephen Maguire, Neil Robertson, Ding Junhui, Liang Wenbo, Ali Carter, Ryan Day, Mark Allen, Jamie Cope, Mark Selby, Judd Trump, Jin Long and Martin Gould all storming up the rankings. All great players, all too good to allow any one of them to dominate, all been pro for a few years, because whereas a top player would take two seasons to get into the top 16, it's a lot, lot tougher these days. Ryan Day's been a pro for about 8 years, and was always seen as a future World Champion, but there is so much quality at the top, that unlike Hendry, Davis and White, they have to mature first before they reach the upper echelons.

And forget personalities, once you've seen Mark Allen, Judd Trump and Jamie Cope actually play, you won't care if they look like Dracula or can do a Cliff Thorburn impression. And while Liang Wenbo is doing his best to look like the Chinese Mr Bean, the boy can play.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Which brings me onto more "previews".

Mark Allen (16) v Martin Gould (63). Gould is an odd one. He wears "fashionable" glasses, square and narrow, very similar to the shape of the ones I wear, and they're a nightmare to play snooker or pool with. Yet he's having a great season. He beat Matthew Stevens to get to the Crucible, and he knocked Stephen Hendry out of the Welsh Open. But he's facing Mark Allen. A player who makes Ronnie O'Sullivan look like Terry Griffiths. A player who played a frame ball in a crucial frame against Stephen Hendry at the Crucible last year, so tough that the commentator (Dennis Taylor) admitted he wouldn't have risked a shot of that nature in an exhibition match. Allen potted the ball, won the frame, but lost the match 10-9. His progress has stalled a little this season, and while I thought Allen would win, Gould should have been a tougher opponent, but at 7-2, it's almost over. Winner plays Ronnie O'Sullivan beginning Friday afternoon. If it's Allen, book the day off sick and get on the red button.

The other game that starts today is 2007 runner-up Mark Selby (4) against Ricky Walden (35). Selby's 2007 is starting to look like a flash in the pan, as, 2008 Welsh Open apart, he's strugged to recapture the form. He's still likely to be in the top 10 for next season, but after that, he may struggle. Walden has been a slow burner (he seemed to have stalled in the mid-30 rankings), and the last of the 2000 Young Players of Distinction to make an impact, but he is in the form of his life, coming in a season where he won the Shanghai Masters, beating Ronnie O'Sullivan in the final. A win over Joe Perry in the China Open, and a close 5-4 defeat by Hendry show he's still in form. A win here should guarantee a first ever top 16 ranking, and after Barry Hawkins, I think he'll be the second player to topple a seed, maybe by as much as 10-7 (even if he's 3-1 down at the interval).

Rory McLeod and Mark King have a long day, having started this morning, they could only reach the end of the fourteenth frame before being hauled off again, so will finish tonight. It could be short, as King leads 9-5.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Actually, as well as Hawkins and Walden, I've tipped Williams to beat his seed. Forgot he'd dropped out of the 16.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

The Observer today was positing that the first-round match between the two Chinese players would be watched by anything up to 100m people in China.

Apparently there are now 100m snooker players and fans in China, and they will all be avidly watching coverage of that match. To put that into context, 18.5m people in the UK watched the Steve Davis - Dennis Taylor final in 1985, when snooker was at its peak over here, which put that among the top 5 sporting TV audiences for any event in the UK (alongside England's various escapades in major football events and the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final).

If that "global" figure is right it would place that one match way, way, above the audience figures for live coverage of sporting events including most football World Cup Finals, Olympics and Superbowls.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

I'd say 100m is quite small for a "global" event, but I don't doubt that figure, as snooker is huge over there. I would say most world cup games get that figure worldwide, and the Superbowl usually gets around 100m in the US.

One way of curring that figure would be to make them sit through King-McLeod. It's abysmal. It really is the worst quality professional match I have ever seen. In the last five minutes McLeod has played two shots that I would have been embarrassed with playing.

[Mumpo]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Mumpo wrote:

Phoebe wrote:

Secondly, we have the "there's no characters in the game anymore" bollocks. Yes, there are characters in the game

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Oh, you wanted me to elaborate? Oh....

Today's games (no spoilers in case people want to watch tonight, and I've also not seen anything myself yet)

Marco Fu (14) v Joe Swail (20). Last season, this would have been a corker, as both players had their best season in a long time, but Swail's controversial defeat in the second round here last season seems to have affected him slightly, as he's not quite hit the heights. Fu on the other hand has gone from strength to strength and is provisionally ranked 7th, which would be his highest ever ranking. The last two seasons have seen his best play, and are partly down to a new coach, and better shot selection. And considering Fu has always shown his best form in the longer frame matches here at the Crucible, this should be a breeze, 10-5. Winner plays Shaun Murphy or Andrew Higginson.

Ding Junhui (11) v Liang Wenbo (40). If further proof of how important the mental side of the game is, Look no further than this match. Ding's treatment by a hostile crowd in the 2007 Masters final against Ronnis O'Sullivan, which left him in tears, has had a substantial effect on his form, seeing him needing to beat his countryman to stay in the top 16. Liang Wenbo, on the other hand made a great imapct at the Crucible last season, with the language barrier causing a few moments, which Liang took well, which in turn got the crowd behind him, and (with a little unintented assistance from the referee Alan Chamberlain in his match with Joe Swail) into the quarter finals, where he put up a great shwowng against Ronnie O'Sullivan. A repeat here would push him to the brink of snooker's elite. Liang to win 10-8. Winner faces Stephen Hendry.

Joe Perry (9) v Jamie Cope (19). Gentleman Joe Perry came within two frames of what would have been a deserved final for Cambridgeshire's finest. As a result, the added confidence has seen Perry become the most consistant man on the circuit, and has boosted him to provisional ranking number 9 (which would be his highest to date). 'Shotgun' Jamie Cope on the other hand, has been a little inconsistant, as (like Mark Allen before him) his fast play, and high risk stragety has probably taken him as far as it can alone. Regardess, this will be great to watch. 10-7, Perry. Winner to play John Higgins or Michael Holt.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

I'd say 100m is quite small for a "global" event, but I don't doubt that figure, as snooker is huge over there. I would say most world cup games get that figure worldwide, and the Superbowl usually gets around 100m in the US.

The TV companies always quote figures like that, but I've always wondered how much of it is mainly to justify the fees they charge to advertising companies. Do 100 million people in America really watch the Superbowl? That's more than half the adult populatino, for heaven's sake. And even if 20 million Germans watch them play a World Cup match, do 80m others, globally? Really? It's rare for any World Cup match (even the final) not involving England to attract an audience of more than 5m in the UK, for example.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:

I'd say 100m is quite small for a "global" event, but I don't doubt that figure, as snooker is huge over there. I would say most world cup games get that figure worldwide, and the Superbowl usually gets around 100m in the US.

The TV companies always quote figures like that, but I've always wondered how much of it is mainly to justify the fees they charge to advertising companies. Do 100 million people in America really watch the Superbowl? That's more than half the adult populatino, for heaven's sake. And even if 20 million Germans watch them play a World Cup match, do 80m others, globally? Really? It's rare for any World Cup match (even the final) not involving England to attract an audience of more than 5m in the UK, for example.

The Nielsen Ratings (US equivalent of BARB - and therefore neutral) said that an average of 90.7m were watching this year's superbowl at any one time (BARB figures always list the highest figure), and at it's peak, reached 99.9m.

As for World Cup games, let's say 5m in the UK watch it. And a similar number watch that game in Germany. And France. And Spain. And Italy. Only four of those countries are just as (if not more) interested in football as the UK is, and more populous, so you could even say 7-8m in each are watching. That's 30-40m watching in just five European countries. Now consider how many people in the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Turkey, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Belarus and Portugal are watching. Fair to say we've already hit 70m, without incluing Scandanavia, the Baltics, the Balkans, Africa, South America, North America, Asia.

I'd say 100m for the average World Cup game is a very conservative estimate.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Today's games (I've not seen much of the action so far)

Peter Ebdon (9) v Nigel Bond (23). Two of the more methodical players, whose better days are behind them. Bond was one of the few players who earned his place on the closed-era tour through the late 80s invention of the "Professional Ticket" competition (where 32 "new" players had the chance to playoff against the players at the bottom of the rankings), rose to number 5 in the world, only to find the game opened up and find himself perpetually outside the top 16. One of those players that took advantage was Ebdon. When he first arrived, he was a fast, Jimmy White-inspired player who shocked the snooker world bu beating Steve Davis 10-4 a the Crucible in his debut match, in his first season. Now, he's Cliff Thorburn reincarnated. Both have had poor seasons by their usual standards, although Ebodn did show signs of his old self in wining the China Open a few weeks back. Either way, this will be slow. Not one for the casual fan. Ebdon 10-7. Winner plays Ryan Day or Stephen Lee

Shaun Murphy (3) v Andrew Higginson (38). Murphy's shock win in 2005 (while World number 48) gave hope to everyone, but it was no fluke. But Rotherham's finest seemed to be showing signs of letting it all go to his head (turning up in a sparkly suit last year a particular low point, and if you are going to do that, you need to do better than lose 13-4 in the second round), which affected his form. Couldn't buy a win this season, until the UK Championship, when his first round win started momentum that saw him win the trophy. Since then, he's reached the quarter finals of both tournaments he's been in, which bodes well here. Higginson is one of snooker's dependable mid-rankers, who qualify for the odd tournament, but never achieve much (and his Welsh Open final appearance in 2007 will probably be his career peak). Murphy should cruise this 10-5. Winner plays Marco Fu.

I've watched the last couple of frames of Murphy-Higginson, and it's poor, and it's slow. Seven frames in three hours. Murphy doesn't appear to be well, and Higginson's playing like a club player, in that he's failing to pot anything half difficult. Despite that, Higginson's just won the 7th, and seems to have settled as he's smiling for the first time. If he keeps it up and wins the last two frames of the session, I'd fancy him to go through.

Neil Robertson (10) v Steve Davis (29). Robertson burst onto the scene, then appeared to lose impetus, but his form has picked up a lot this season (winning the British Open into the bargain) and looks capapble of going far here, or at least he would, if he had a kinder draw. His route to the final sees him potentially face the third most in-form non-seed (Steve Davis), and four of the top seven in the world this year, which considering he is one of them means he'll only avoid two of the top players in the world if he is to win the thing. Davis on the other hand is in the right sort of form to beat a lot of the seeds here, but Robertson isn't one of them. Robertson to win 10-7. Winner faces Ali Carter.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

How do you formulate your "actual score" predictions, Phoebe? I have to say they're normally pretty accurate. But I'm unsure as to why, if you think Steve Davis has taken 7 out of 16 frames out of Neil Robertson at 9-7, you can be so confident that it will then finish 10-7, if you see what I mean. Or that it might not have been 8-8, not 9-7, to begin with. That seems a pretty slim margin.

Is it that when the finishing line in a game of that length gets in sight, only the "form" player usually has the nerve to close the all-important final frames out, a bit like the expectation that unheralded golfers will normally bogey the closing holes when unexpectedly leading big tournaments?

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Good question. I've watched long enough where I can pull a decent guess out of the air, but looking back, I think of a few things:

1) Forget the world rankings - that's how good the players were between 2006 and 2008, and have no bearing on current form. Forget the provisional rankings, they're based on 2007-2009, and while they have some bearing, they're not as good as next years provisional rankings, which has the ranking points earned thos season, and this season alone. That's a good indicator of who will win, but not necessarily. Stephen Hendry is 17 places higher than Mark Williams in the world rankings, but is three places lower based on this season alone. So I'd consider Williams favourite rather than Hendry.

2) Have they played at the crucuble before? That's usually worth a couple of frames if one of them hasn't. It's a lot more claustraphobic than any other venue, and new players often take time to settle. Had Rory McLeod found himself playing pretty much anyone but Mark King, he'd have been hammered as he never settled. Likewise Andrew Higginson settled down after winning a tight seventh frame, but had Murphy not been unwell as he appeared, it would have made the score 6-1, rather than 4-3.

3) Do they play many longer games, and if so, what are they like? The UK Championship apart, every other tournament is a single session, best of nine shootout up to the semi finals. Only the World, the UK, and other ranking finals have multi-session matches. Mentally more demandind, and also more conduisive to the better player coming out on top. Also, some players prefer the longer games. Marco Fu used to pull a good run at the Crucible in order to stay in the top 32 (quarters in 2003, beating O'Sullivan on the way, and in 2006, he beat Maguire and Doherty on the way to losing 17-16 to Peter Ebdon in the semis), and that's always worth an extra couple of frames.

4) Is there a clash in styles? A slower, tactical player will always have a frame or two advantage over a fast potter, because the methodical player can play slower and frustrate, as Peter Ebdon has done with success over the years. He's always been more likely to lose to a Graham Dott as opposed to a Ronnie O'Sullivan.

5) How old are the players? Does either player wear specs? Seems daft, but snooker is tough on the eyes. Hendry and Williams are now two of the oldest players on the circuit, and come the 15th frame, will start making mistakes as a result (especially as they both excel at long pots), and with the other good enough to clear up, a psychological advantage will ensue.

6) Any high profile incidents involving either player recently, or in matchups between the two? Like all sports, the luck of the draw can bring stories. Tomorrow sees the start of Stephen Maguire v Jamie Burnett, just after the police announced that they would investigate the match fixing claims concerning their game at the UK Championship (which finished 9-3). 10-3 and 10-4 seem good ideas, but Burnett has been fired up since, but with the added pressure of the rematch, and Burnett's inability to cope under pressure may also impact on the score.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Today:

Ryan Day (8) v Stephen Lee (26). Ryan Day is the current recipient of the bank-handed compliment that is the "best player in the world not to win a ranking tournament", which shows that he consistantly gets past the first round (17 of the last 21, which is the same as O'Sullivan), but maybe lacks the mentality in the longer games (that two of those he didn't get past were the UK, and that he's lost three finals bears that out). Stephen Lee on the other hand won a ranking tournament early in his career, but like Day, always had better form in the smaller frame matches. Lee hasn't won here since 2006, and hasn't got past since the second round since 2003, and with both players unlikely to move far in the provisional rankings, I don't see that run improving, as this match follows the formbook. 10-6.

John Higgins (5) v Michael Holt (34). Being fifth in the world (and in the provisional ranking too) doesn't tell the story for Higgins. Last season was horrendous for him. This year, he's been on fire. One of only two players to top 20,000 ranking points this season (the other being Ali Carter), and Higgins did it without taking part in the Bahrain Open. A win in the Grand Prix set the tone, and by finishing runner up in this month's China Open, he is bang in form. I expect him to win the tournament. He could have had an easier draw than Michael Holt though. One of the most improved men, on the circuit, Holt was looking for a kind draw to nudge the top 16. As it is, his provisional ranking of 24 may be as good as it gets this year. It'll be a good tune up match for Higgins, though. 10-7.

And last, but by no means least, Stephen Maguire (2) v Jamie Burnett (45). Maguire is the prodgy made good, yet probably the last heralded member of the elite. It's not that his record here isn't good (it is, one semi final, one quarter final, and the only player to beat him in the first round is Ronnie O'Sullivan - twice), it's just that he tends to be overshadowed by his opponent for one reason or another. No difference here, as all the spotlight will be on Jamie Burnett. A journeyman. A career pro, whose best world ranking was 27 in 1999-2000. These two met in the UK Championship, and the backstory was that they were practice partners and great friends. That was until a betting scandal broke. 'Unusual betting patterns' emerged on a 9-3 scoreline. Unforgivably, the players were told, not only of the fact that betting had been suspended, but also the scoreline. And with the game at 8-3, Jamie Burnett faced with a tough black to win the frame, he missed, leaving Maguire to take the frame and the match by the suspended scoreline. Interviewed after the game, Burnett with tears in his eyes admitted it had been the biggest pressure shot of his entire career. That the police waited until last Friday to announce an investigation was poor timing, and all eyes will be on Burnett. In Burnett's favour, he has played like a man possessed since, showing his best form in ten years, almost as if he feels like a man hung out to dry, who needs to earn as much as he can, while as he can (the two men found guilty of match fixing received bans of 5 years - a ban that would effectively end Burnett's career). That said, he's still no match for his best mate and practice partner in a best of 19. These are Maguire's speciality. 10-5.

And that's yer lot for the first round.

[VinnyBoy]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Phoebe,what on earth has happened to Matthew Stevens?

Enjoying the reports by the way.

[David Agnew]

World Snooker Championshipzzzzzzz

Stevens? He's still around, but his form's dropped a lot. Currently world number 17, but knocked out of the qualifiers by Martin Gould, and likely to start next season seeded 26.

Second round:

Not much to say that hasn't already been said, so I'll just do a line or two and a prediction.

Ding Junhui (11) v Stephen Hendry (6). Both won their first round games against more in-form players. Hendry showed some ofhis old form against Mark Williams, while Ding ground his win out against Liang. Ding went about an hour without potting a ball. Twice. He won't be able to do that here. 13-7, Hendry.

Ronnie O'Sullivan (1) v Mark Allen (16). Just do anything you can to watch this, it won't be on for long. Allen will try and pot just about anything, which could leave O'Sullivan in amongst the balls, where he is most dangerous. If Allen can restrict O'Sullivan to long pots (which he struggled with against Stuart Bingham) he could spring a suprise, but it goes against his natural game. 13-9, O'Sullivan.

Nigel Bond (23) v Ryan Day (8). Bond's 10-5 win over Peter Ebdon sounds as flattering as it was. But two wins here in 10 years isn't the sort of history you want, if you're facing one of the sport's more in-form players. Luckily for Bond, he's facing Day, who has the worst track record over the longer frames, with only one win over 25 frames in four attempts. But that one win was last year against John Higgins, so Bond should be no problem, as long as it's not too tight. 13-5, Day.

Shaun Murphy (3) v Marco Fu (14). Fu made short work of Joe Swail and looks a match for anyone. Murphy, on the other hand struggled with a head cold against Andrew Higginson, and if he doesn't recover in time (and I don't think it will), it's a different story. If he does recover, we've got a repeat of the classic UK Championship final. 13-9, Fu.