John Higgins seemed a little edgy at the Crucible tonight, possibly because he was keen to kill off his semi-final with Mark Allen in three sessions.

He failed to do so but let's keep a sense of perspective. If you'd have offered John a 15-9 lead after three sessions before the match began he'd have taken it.

I expect him to complete victory pretty quickly on Saturday.

I also expect Shaun Murphy to ultimately prevail against Neil Robertson, although he had a chance to take control at 9-5 and lost two frames to leave the semi-final poised at 9-7 and very much up for grabs.

Neil's mother, Alison, has been watching on an internet stream at horrible times of the day and night.

In Australia, they only get TV highlights several weeks after the event.

Neil will be hoping to provide those highlights programmes with more Aussie success but he will have to tighten up to reach the final.


Claus Christensen said...

I wonder if Allen could be the new comeback kid? Not likely, I know, but he finished well.

Anonymous said...

Surely he can afford to pay for hi's mother to come over.

Sheepland Lover Pistol Loves Griffiths said...

Hope robertson beats murphy. Just don't like the guy after what he said about wales.

Hopefully it will be higgins against robertson in the final. A scottish-australian affair, a bit like braveheart.

Matt said...

What did he say about Wales?

Claus Christensen said...

Murphy slammed Wales? Do tell. Is he vying for the title as snooker's bad boy?
It looks like it will be Higgins-Murphy in the final (11-7 at this stage) so we will get a good match.

Anonymous said...

Sry for being totally off-topic, Dave, but could you explain how the "safety success" percentages as shown on TV are measured? In other words: when is a safety shot regarded as being successful? And who decides this? I'm just curious...


Sheepland Lover Pistol Loves Griffiths said...

He said something like in the old days there wasn't much else to do in wales, therefore the snooker players from the country were amongst the best around, eg Ray Reardon and Terry Griffiths. And he compared that with the current welsh players, Matthew Stevens and Mark Williams as examples saying that they were both lazy and since there was more to do in Wales now, were not dedicated to the game, which explained their inconsistent results.

It's one thing to call these players inconsistent, but to first say that there wasn't much to do in Wales and that they must have played snooker all the time is pretty thick. Does he not understand that the money in the game was not sufficient in those days and that these people had proper jobs? Also a bit harsh calling Stevens and Williams inconsistent, has he not seen his own performance after his world championship win? And it was fairly clear he was not joking.

It was a couple of years ago I think when he said it. Might have read it on eurosport or something, will try to find the link.