Mark Williams will play in the Pokerstars.com Masters at Wembley tonight despite sustaining whiplash when his car was rammed from behind in London last night.

Stephen Hendry was also slightly injured in the incident.

Williams said today that "you'd have to cut my head off to stop me playing."

Carter's odds to win the match have shortened since news of the injury spread but punters should beware.

Pressure has now transferred to Carter, who will do well to shut out thoughts that the twice former Masters champion is operating below par.

I recall the shock news at the 1994 World Championship that Hendry had slipped in the bathroom and broken his elbow.

I also recall who ended up winning that tournament.


Anonymous said...

Carter is nothing more than a journeyman pro. It amazes me how bad the world rankings are that Carter is so highly ranked. Why is this? Is the standard of tournament play so bad these days, or is it the shockingly bad ranking system that only updates once a year! Probably both.

Dave H said...

It's more to do with the fact that he reached the world final - making a maximum en route - won the Welsh Open and made several more semis, surpassing the 100 century mark for his career in the process

Not bad for a 'journeyman'

Anonymous said...

Dave... you'd have to agree the top16 has never looked so bad: Perry, King, Day, Carter, Selby. The standard is so poor these days that even average players can be high ranked.

SupremeSnooker.com said...

These comments about the top 16 really are complete rubbish.
Joe Perry played very well on times in his season in the Premier League.
He also won the Championship League, and has reached the final of the European Open.
If anything, he's learning to cope with the big occasions better now.
Mark King is rarely spectacular but can be very tricky to beat, and has made a 146 at The Crucible. "Bad" players don't tend to do that.
I've been aware of Ryan Day's ability since he was a kid (he's actually 3 years older than me!). He's been a runner up at three major tournaments and nobody with a brain can deny he's a significant talent.
Dave has already stated how good Ali Carter is, and I'll just endorse his words.
Mark Selby is a former Masters and Welsh Open champion who has also reached the final of the World Championship.
I accept the overall quality isn't quite as high as it was in the late 1990s, but with so few ranking tournaments and players going months without taking part in a competitive match, is this really a surprise?

Anonymous said...

7.23 and 10.33 both spouting a load of rubbish

players climb and stay in the rankings as they are doing better than the rest of the players. that is quite a simple fact and not hard to grasp.

yes there are rules that could change it slightly, but as it stands these players are there on merit.

now, if you want to change who gets autoqualify to a certain stage of tournamnets befor ethe last 32 or whatever it could throw up a few spanners, but in the end those who are there just now would largely remain unchanged....otherwise those ranked 33-48 would be higher up by beating folk lower down than them just now.....

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:33 I dont agree with you ,maby with exception of King. The others have proven their selves as winners on the match tables. Just because you see a few mistakes on tv ,the lower ranked players would not produce the form they do in pontins on tv so easily.

My point being thats the game of snooker - you cant have 16 o'sullivans and higgins making up the top 16.

On another note I got williams at 7-4 when he was 2-1 up from boylesports online - happy days!

kimball said...

Of the "old pros", there are - to me,
only two to be missed, namely Matthew Stevens and Ken Doherty
+ of course Paul Hunter.
The quality of the last 80 from 1991 to 2004 has been as best average for professionals.
The current situation is poor but
anyway a huge improvement to yesterdays.
As a matter of fact, it mirrors the UK situation, with no young stars behind Judd Trump and juniors snooker dead in the water for the rest of the world. China excepted.

kimball said...

I think the results 1991-2004 really
says it all.
How many big surprisewinners/ outsiders were there in the rankingtournaments.
80% are on four hands!

Anonymous said...


You're talking rubbish. You're using all the non ranking events you can name to justify a player's inclusion into the top 16. So what if a player playes well in the Masters or Championship League? Does that mean they deserve their ranking in the top-16?

The rankings are a complete farce. What other sport updates them just once a year? Not one that I know of.

As an example, an outsider could feasibly come through the qualifying rounds and win the UK Championship. This win will guarantee him enough points to be in next season's top-16, yet he will still have to qualify for the remaining ranking events in the current season! But wait, it gets worse. This same player, now ranked in the top-16 for the next season due to his UK win, fails to win a match in this new season. This carries on through to the World Championships. It is so farcical that this player can get automatic entry into the WC without having to win a ranking match for 18 months - his entry based just solely on winning an event all that time ago.

Until snooker sorts out this ranking farce it will remain a quaintly parochial sport that muddles along without the dynamism required to allow new faces to break through.

Dave H said...

New faces do break through by winning matches - Mark Allen managed it fine

However, the ranking system will be completely different come next season

Anonymous said...

exactly Dave, and that other annonny mouse will think those in 43-58 will be the new top 16

kimball said...

Good, good, good Dave!
How will it be different??
Please give a hint:-)

Anonymous said...

Dave, how will the rankings be different next year? What changes do you see happening?

I heard rumours of possibly some smaller tournaments with small points on offer to attract lower ranked players and also top amatuer players trying to make it...

Anonymous said...

Tell us about the new ranking system please.

Dave H said...

They have various ideas but I suspect a money list will replace the current way of working out the rankings as that is much easier for the genral public to understand

Obviously it would only be money earned from ranking tournaments

Anonymous said...

the general public would understand perfectly well if they were shown how ranking points work

ive a 12 year old relative who fully understands them and has done for years.....and understood them after having it explained once.

Anonymous said...


Will the rankings be adjusted after each ranking event, or will it still be once a year?

Dave H said...

I don't know because nothing's been decided yet, these are just ideas being discussed

ady said...

I'm sorry I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to mention rolling rankings :(

jamie brannon said...

Surely snooker could adopt a similar system to tennis and golf where everyone understands what is going on. Money list is what they do in the PDC.

Anonymous said...

I think the rakings should be based on the splendidness of a players beard.
Anthony Hamilton world number one.

Anonymous said...

think rory beats AH