c4countdown

So it's snooker season again - not quite as prestigious as the World Championships but I'm not a tournament snob

'Course, the funny thing about this tournament is it's John Higgins's first after his little break spending time with his family by bringing the game into disrepute for agreeing to fix matches, but only 'cause he was scared about the Russian Mafia and didn't really know what was going on at all. Cheating (sadly) seems to be pretty ubiquitous in sport - after all, these millionaires need a little something to bolster their measly incomes.

So what do you think? Should cheats be banned for life, no come back? At the time I was quite pleased he was cleared, cos it was a bit like finding out a favourite uncle's a paedophile (I'd imagine), but now I look at every easy missed shot and wonder. I can't help but think now it would probably have been better, as a message and for at least that sport, if he'd just retired. Or should he carry on because he didn't actually do anything (much) wrong?

He didn't do anything wrong (morally wrong, as opposed to a mistake). Retiring would seem like he was to admitting he has done something wrong. I loathe the News of the World.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I loathe the News of the World.

Like
It's still true that he got banned for failing to mention a meeting where he offered to swing a game to anyone. The question stands though as a wider question in sport - what happens when there's a cloud hanging over someone's head? It's a shame that people's names will always be muddied if they really didn't do anything wrong, but there are a lot of players who would never have been considered as possible candidates to be present at a meeting like that anyway, in any sport.

I agree, Lesley.

Lesley Hines wrote:The question stands though as a wider question in sport - what happens when there's a cloud hanging over someone's head?

I think you can overcome it. How many people remember that Linford Christie was an Olympic gold medallist, and how few remember that he was caught doping, twice? I hope Higgins will recover his reputation with time.

Hmm yes Linford Christie was a cheat and so is John Higgins, they're just different types of cheat. Thinking John Higgins did nothing morally wrong is up there with believing in Psychic Sally.

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm yes Linford Christie was a cheat and so is John Higgins, they're just different types of cheat. Thinking John Higgins did nothing morally wrong is up there with believing in Psychic Sally.

Craig Beevers in simplistic binary opinion shocker.

Losing games/frames on purpose isn't really cheating. It may be immoral, but I would say cheating is where you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Obviously you can cheat the bookies that way, but it's not reallly cheating in the actual game.

Charlie Reams wrote:How many people remember that Linford Christie was an Olympic gold medallist, and how few remember that he was caught doping, twice?

Twice? I thought it was just the one time when he was already retired.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm yes Linford Christie was a cheat and so is John Higgins, they're just different types of cheat. Thinking John Higgins did nothing morally wrong is up there with believing in Psychic Sally.

Craig Beevers in simplistic binary opinion shocker.

Oh right so it wasn't a blatant whitewash using a load of bullshit about mafia that would have been laughed out of proper proceedings.

Martin Bishop wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:How many people remember that Linford Christie was an Olympic gold medallist, and how few remember that he was caught doping, twice?

Twice? I thought it was just the one time when he was already retired.

I thought that too until I checked his Wikipedia article. He was caught in Seoul as well but narrowly avoided punishment. The fact that we both forgot illustrates my point to some extent.

Charlie Reams wrote: How many people remember that Linford Christie was an Olympic gold medallist, and how few remember that he was caught doping, twice?

TBF, Linford does his best to remind us with his sanctimonious opinions he seems to offer whenever the notion of doping in sport props up in the press.

On another note, Stephen Hendry has apparently had the 'yips' for 10 years, and now that they've got really bad he's consulting Bernhard Langer. It would be sad for him to bow out of snooker in this manner.

Adam Gillard wrote:On another note, Stephen Hendry has apparently had the 'yips' for 10 years, and now that they've got really bad he's consulting Bernhard Langer. It would be sad for him to bow out of snooker in this manner.

Just looked it up on the Wikipedia. "The yips is an expression used to describe the apparent loss of certain fine motor skills seemingly without explanation in one of a number of different sports." I presume the name is a coincidence and that Bernhard Langer is the name of his doctor.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm yes Linford Christie was a cheat and so is John Higgins, they're just different types of cheat. Thinking John Higgins did nothing morally wrong is up there with believing in Psychic Sally.

Craig Beevers in simplistic binary opinion shocker.

Oh right so it wasn't a blatant whitewash using a load of bullshit about mafia that would have been laughed out of proper proceedings.

Correct, and satellites don't exist.

Show me a straight sport that would have swallowed that complete shite Higgins came up with.

If they accepted that sort of argument you'd never ban anyone for match fixing. It is not a defence. It's not particularly credible either.

Craig Beevers wrote:Show me a straight sport that would have swallowed that complete shite Higgins came up with.

I spy a true Scotsman on the horizon...

I guess the Russian Mafia told him to win this time.

I feel sorry for the others having to play the proven cheat. Can't be easy in a game like snooker.

Craig Beevers wrote:I guess the Russian Mafia told him to win this time.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we have now learnt that the Russian government had an influence on the snooker. Thought they would have more important things to attend to.

Let's say two top players of equal ability, in the final of the world championship, are in a neutral situation in a frame. How does the score affect their probability of winning the frame? For example, 25-1 with 5 reds gone, how much of a favourite is the guy who is winning?

Jon O'Neill wrote:Let's say two top players of equal ability, in the final of the world championship, are in a neutral situation in a frame. How does the score affect their probability of winning the frame? For example, 25-1 with 5 reds gone, how much of a favourite is the guy who is winning?

Interesting question. I think if they are top players, a 24 point lead with 107 points left on the table is inconseqential really, as it depends on which player gets the next potting opportunity (as whoever gets the next chance could easily win the frame at a single visit).

Yeah that's what I thought. It would be interesting to plot a graph of probability of winning on one axis and ratio of points on the table to points gap on the other. We'd need some sort of snooker scoring model.

Jon O'Neill wrote:It would be interesting to plot a graph of probability of winning on one axis and ratio of points on the table to points gap on the other. We'd need some sort of snooker scoring model.

It'd be more interesting to watch the snooker, I'd wager.

On a (very slightly) related note, I have work experience at Opta Sports in July after exams. They don't do snooker though.

Snooker is sooooooooooooooooo boooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nearly fall asleep after 3 seconds of watching it!!!!!!!!!!

I love snooker.

Oliver Garner wrote:On a (very slightly) related note, I have work experience at Opta Sports in July after exams. They don't do snooker though.

Prettyawesome.

By "neutral position" I assume Jon means no player has an easy pot on or is snookered etc.

Nowadays I'd expect one of the top 8 players in the world to make a 70 break (which is basically what you need to win a frame) from a reasonably open table, about half the time at the World Championships. Not that I have any stats to back that up.

However, the position of the balls is the key factor here. Stick a couple of balls out of position and the probability of a 70 break reduces. Presumably, if you looked at enough frames, you could smear out the effect of position of balls, but I'm not about to do that analysis. A lead of 25 is pretty substantial if black, pink and blue are tied up.

Yeah true.

Rest in peace Ted Lowe. A household name to anyone who followed snooker any time from its early tv appearance in the '60s until the mid '90s.

Matt Bayfield wrote:Rest in peace Ted Lowe. A household name to anyone who followed snooker any time from its early tv appearance in the '60s until the mid '90s.

Seconded, Matt, although 90 is a pretty good innings (or should that be break?).

Come on Trumpy!

Why are lots of famous people dying recently? Ted Lowe, Henry Cooper and now Bin Laden. Why God? Why?

Ryan Taylor wrote:Why are lots of famous people dying recently? Ted Lowe, Henry Cooper and now Bin Laden. Why God? Why?

Always in threes. Or not. But it's a nice pattern to pick out.

This is so exciting! Come on Judd!

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Come on Trumpy!

Never mind. Maybe Donald will win.

Think Judd will win many major for sure. He missed some easy ones towards the end, but to beat a player as good as Ding over 4 sessions shows that he does have the temperament.

Oliver Garner wrote:Think Judd will win many major for sure

But if he's the new Jimmy White he could end up with 5 more silver medals at the big one. Great final; typical John Higgins to fight his way back into that final frame and others before it. I can't think of many other players who could have watched Judd pot all those balls yet fight their way back in frames that seemed like a lost cause. Perhaps Williams and Dott, but Higgins is the master. Steve Davis calling him the greatest player of all time, and he wasn't too shabby himself. On another note, it was a bit mean of Hazel to make Higgins cry for the TV cameras like he was an X-Factor contestant or something.

Adam Gillard wrote:On another note, it was a bit mean of Hazel to make Higgins cry for the TV cameras like he was an X-Factor contestant or something.

Yeah, you just knew that someone was going to mention it for the umpteenth time but you wouldn't expect her to just pop that out again bringing it all back up. Silly Hazel.