David Gilbert battled past Yuan Sijun to secure a spot in Winners’ Week of the BetVictor Championship League Snooker – Ranking Edition at the Morningside Arena in Leicester.
China’s Yuan had found himself top of the group after picking up two victories in his first two matches – beating both Sean O’Sullivan and Ishpreet Singh Chadha 3-0. Gilbert trailed in second place, having opened the day with a 2-2 draw against Singh Chadha and disposing of O’Sullivan 3-0.
The two table leaders collided in the final match of the day on Table One. Having picked up the opening frame, Gilbert formed a 69-1 lead in the second. Yuan came back to the table and almost stole it – but a missed pink gave the Tamworth potter the frame and a 2-0 advantage.
Yuan forced a final-frame decider by taking the third, meaning a point would be enough to send him into the second stage. However, Gilbert took the last to ensure his progression.
Cao Yupeng produced a day of dominance, winning all three of his matches to top Group 31. The Chinese star completed the early session with no frames dropped against Steven Hallworth and Ian Burns.
Lyu Haotian sat second in the table, taking four points from a draw with Burns and win over Hallworth. Lyu knew that victory over Cao in the group decider would take him into next week’s second stage, but ultimately fell short at the table.
A monster 145 in the final frame saw Cao record the highest break of the tournament so far. He went on to seal a 3-1 win and secure his place in Winners’ Week.
Scottish Open winner Gary Wilson looks to secure his place in the next round on Friday, 14 July as the final qualifying spots will be filled. He faces John Astley, Nutcharut Wongharuthai and Hai Long Ma in Group 9. Meanwhile Ricky Walden, David Lilley, Yisong Peng and Hongyu Liu are in action on Table 2 – live on the Matchroom Muti Sport YouTube channel.
In other news … looking back at the 2010 Higgins affair
John Higgins has been Nick Metcalfe and Phil Haigh’s guest on talking snooker and, inevitably, what happened during the 2010 World Championship was discussed.
John Higgins says he still doesn’t feel like he’s over the unfounded match-fixing allegations made against him in 2010 and ban for much lesser offences, admitting it was the toughest time in his life.
Higgins was the target of a sting operation from the News of the World and the now defunct newspaper alleged that he agreed to lose four frames in four matches for €300,000 (£261,000).
After being suspended from snooker Higgins was cleared of match-fixing by an independent hearing four months later, but did receive a ban of six months for failing to report the illegal approach and intentionally giving the impression he was prepared to act in breach of betting rules.
The Wizard of Wishaw returned to the sport in impressive style, winning the first tournament he played in after his ban and the 2010 UK Championship shortly after, beating Mark Williams in a classic final.
He says the period beforehand was the most difficult time of his life, though, as he waited for the verdict of the independent hearing and whether he could continue his career or not.
Asked if the situation was the toughest time of his life, Higgins told the Talking Snooker podcast: ‘Without a doubt. I didn’t know if I was ever going to be picking a cue up again.
‘Your career was in the hands of independent committees. You just had to put your trust in them, that they were going to come to the correct decision.
‘Obviously then, trying to get your career back on track again. Without a doubt that was (the toughest time). I still don’t think I’ve really got over it now.’
The allegations emerged during the 2010 World Championships (Picture: Getty Images)
There is an especially painful reason why the 48-year-old feels he has not got over the scandal, as he believes the stress of the situation could have cost his father in his battle with cancer.
John Higgins Sr passed away in early 2011 and his four-time world champion son has felt that what the family went through the previous year could have made things worse.
‘My dad at the time, he wasn’t well at all,’ Higgins said of the controversy. ‘I think (about) what it did to my family and my dad.
‘It’s a terrible illness that my dad had, but you sometimes think, if that never happened, you don’t know if he could have lasted longer. That’s the tough part of it. That’s just life isn’t it, you’ve just got to get on with it.
‘I suppose I did have a lot of anger, I’ve got to be honest. But I knew I couldn’t keep that with me. If I’d have kept the anger and shut everybody away, it would have ended up bursting you from the inside.
‘I believe you’ve got to just let that go and try and be the same person you are again.’
Higgins would go on to win the 2011 World Championship, the fourth and most recent of his Crucible triumphs and has since gone on to take his ranking title tally to 31.
What I’m not sure about is if John Higgins fully understands what impact this whole affair had on the sport at the time. I remember that evening very vividly. The last session of the second semi-final at the Crucible was underway, featuring Graeme Dott and Mark Selby. Barry Hearn had just taken responsibility of snooker, although he had not yet been officially voted in as chairman. I was in the media room, with a number of journalist, waiting for the match to finish, and for the post-match interviews. Most of them were chatting lightly on various sport related subjects. I was processing my pictures. Suddenly, one of them, sat behind me, said “this is bad, very bad” in such a deeply concerned tone that all conversations stopped and everyone gathered around him as we watched, in horror and disbelief, the video that the NOTW had published. It was all the worse because John Higgins was the defending champion. He had lost earlier to Steve Davis, but he still was the defending champion. Steve Davis BTW was in tears when the possible implications unfolded.
Barry Hearn was trying to dig snooker out of near-bankruptcy caused by years of lazy mismanagement. He had the confidence of the bookies, especially BetFred, the title sponsors. But there were huge concerns in the immediate aftermath of the NOTW publication that BetFred could withdraw their support which would have been catastrophic. Fred Donne however very quickly offered reassurance that he wasn’t going to withdraw his support, quite the opposite.
John Higgins was not the only person involved in the scandal. Actually the “main culprit” was his then manager, Pat Mooney. Pat Mooney was a member of Hearn’s board, along with Jason Ferguson and Brandon Parker. From what I heard at the time from Brandon Parker himself, each of them had been tasked to develop the game in specific regions, especially the future PTCs: Jason in the UK, Ireland and Asia, Brandon in Western Europe, with a focus on Germany, and Pat in Eastern Europe. The thesis of people defending John Higgins has always been that the matches that were discussed were just exhibition stuff but from what I had learned at the time from Brandon … well, let’s put it this way … I’m far from convinced that it was just exhibition stuff and not future PTCs they were discussing.
Pat had previously tried, in association with John Higgins, to further develop snooker in Europe by creating the World Series of Snooker. Some of those events had been played in the USSR. It was a great initiative but it wasn’t the commercial success they had hoped for and the pair was said to have huge debts, notably towards players who had participated in those events and hadn’t yet been paid in full.
The whole situation wasn’t improved by the fact that a few days later, it transpired the John had attempted to bet on himself to lose. This wasn’t that uncommon at the time: players, although they tried their best to win, still took “insurance bets” in case they still lost to recoup some of their financial loss. But of course it came across as particularly bad under the circumstances.
So this whole affair was far from being just a storm in a cup of tea. It could have destroyed snooker there and then.
I also heard from sources I reasonably trust that the NOTW had been “tipped” about Mooney’s financial situation and hence his vulnerability to such approach. If true one has to wonder who could have benefitted from this scandal and how. I always wondered if it wasn’t actually Hearn who was the actual main target.
In the light of all that, I believe that John actually got away lightly. Most of his ban happened during the summer break; he was back playing mid-autumn, and didn’t miss any of the “majors”. To his credit though, despite his private concerns and sorrows – he had to leave the 2011 German Masters, after winning his first round match, because his father condition had worsened and he didn’t make it back to Scotland in time to say his farewell – John did work incredibly hard in the 2010/11 season to redeem himself.
Also a collateral victim of all this was Graeme Dott. Graeme won his SF and was informed of the whole situation during his post-match presser. Pat Mooney was actually his manager and he immediately distanced himself from him … but surely that’s not a great situation to find yourself in when a few hours later, that same day, you have to play, and concentrate on, a World Final.
3 thoughts on “Day 15 at the ranking CLS and thoughts on the Higgins affair.”
Thanks for your account of the Higgins affair, Monique. I realize it’s complex, and reasonable people can reasonably disagree on it. I agree with a lot of what you said.
Much of my disagreement hinges on the question whether or not Higgins really believed to be in danger at that meeting, into which Mooney tricked him. I tend to believe, Higgins actually believed he negotiated with the Russian Mafia, and was in peril. That shapes my assessment that the conviction for signaling a preparedness to fix matches was defective. There has to be a difference between signaling that intent to secure a reward, and doing so to get out of that meeting and out of Ukraine as fast as humanly possible to avoid harm. I believe the fact that for this infraction no significant extra penalty was levied confirms my assessment.
That leaves not reporting Mooney, and that conviction is in order. The assertion that this could have destroyed snooker, however, I find overblown. Higgins should have convinced Mooney to report himself, and the man would have been better off for it. Both men, actually, and snooker, too.
I also don’t believe Higgins got away (too) lightly. Apart from paying £85,000, Higgins – back on tour by Nov. 2nd – missed significant earning opportunities. That’s on top of the reputational damage, and … I also think Higgins never really got over it. Not sitting down with his manager and friend, and not cleaning up, is what I identify as the core of Higgins’s personal failing.
Finally… as of my reading, not nearly enough has been said about NOTW’s role in all of this. Contrary to their sanctimonious claim, they didn’t reveal corruption in snooker. Rather, they revealed that humans in sufficiently desperate circumstances will find it exceedingly hard to refuse an offer that promises to get them out of crushing debts and other dire straits. That insight is about as old as humankind and about as surprising as “water is wet”, and, far from a public service, I hold that NOTW’s contribution was a giant bag of self-serving, odious sleaze. Again, Ian Mill, not levying a fine, seemed to have realized what was really going on – while getting Mooney out of snooker forever probably was the right call. Moreover, in that context I would have found cutting ties with “BetFred” et al altogether on that occasion would have accrued to snooker’s long-term benefit, even though financial difficulties would have been hard to overcome for a while. Not getting that done still leaves them railing against match-fixing while lying in bed with the bookies. That smell is hard to bear.
Thanks again. Food for thought, that…
Not really sure how you come to the conclusion that John Higgins got away lightly. Yes, he might not have missed any big events, but given the actual charges he was found guilty of, the ban doesn’t seem mild. After all, his only mistake was failing to report the incident to World Snooker, which can hardly be compared to initiating talks of match fixing himself, let alone being involved in match fixing. And let’s not forget that it would’nt be the actual fine he received that affected him and his family greatly, but rather the ‘court of public opinion’. To this day you can read many comments on social media relating his name with actual match fixing without knowing any details of what actually happened in 2010 or even containing abusive comments. It obviously didn’t help that the full version of the video by NOTW never got released to the public, but it was later stated by the investigating commitee that the video released to the public was significantly cut to paint John Higgins and Pat Mooney in the worst possible picture.
Going by the public opinion one can only imagine how those events must have affected his personal life and his family. So as potentially damaging and dangerous the whole situation was for Snooker, I can’t help but look at how his life was impacted by it first and feel for him. As much as we love our sport and wish to see it grow and thrive, this should never go at the cost of player’s emotionsl and mental well-being.
Dave Gilbert was a bit lucky – that final frame could have gone either way. But at least it gave the broadcasters someone to interview. Cao Yupeng was very strong on Table 2.
So we have now reached the final day of the first round. In general, the new players have performed quite well, with a couple of exceptions. Meanwhile some established players have proved a bit rusty, which is expected. Today there are two new professionals, both Chinese teenagers. Ma Hailong is from Guangxi (an unheralded province), a good tactical player but doesn’t score heavily enough at this level. Liu Hongyu from Guangzhou is a mad potter and breakbuilder. Expect lots of spectacular shots, but also catastrophic blunders. He also has a very hot temperament. Wilson and Walden are very strong favourites today.
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Thanks for your account of the Higgins affair, Monique. I realize it’s complex, and reasonable people can reasonably disagree on it. I agree with a lot of what you said.
Much of my disagreement hinges on the question whether or not Higgins really believed to be in danger at that meeting, into which Mooney tricked him. I tend to believe, Higgins actually believed he negotiated with the Russian Mafia, and was in peril. That shapes my assessment that the conviction for signaling a preparedness to fix matches was defective. There has to be a difference between signaling that intent to secure a reward, and doing so to get out of that meeting and out of Ukraine as fast as humanly possible to avoid harm. I believe the fact that for this infraction no significant extra penalty was levied confirms my assessment.
That leaves not reporting Mooney, and that conviction is in order. The assertion that this could have destroyed snooker, however, I find overblown. Higgins should have convinced Mooney to report himself, and the man would have been better off for it. Both men, actually, and snooker, too.
I also don’t believe Higgins got away (too) lightly. Apart from paying £85,000, Higgins – back on tour by Nov. 2nd – missed significant earning opportunities. That’s on top of the reputational damage, and … I also think Higgins never really got over it. Not sitting down with his manager and friend, and not cleaning up, is what I identify as the core of Higgins’s personal failing.
Finally… as of my reading, not nearly enough has been said about NOTW’s role in all of this. Contrary to their sanctimonious claim, they didn’t reveal corruption in snooker. Rather, they revealed that humans in sufficiently desperate circumstances will find it exceedingly hard to refuse an offer that promises to get them out of crushing debts and other dire straits. That insight is about as old as humankind and about as surprising as “water is wet”, and, far from a public service, I hold that NOTW’s contribution was a giant bag of self-serving, odious sleaze. Again, Ian Mill, not levying a fine, seemed to have realized what was really going on – while getting Mooney out of snooker forever probably was the right call. Moreover, in that context I would have found cutting ties with “BetFred” et al altogether on that occasion would have accrued to snooker’s long-term benefit, even though financial difficulties would have been hard to overcome for a while. Not getting that done still leaves them railing against match-fixing while lying in bed with the bookies. That smell is hard to bear.
Thanks again. Food for thought, that…
Not really sure how you come to the conclusion that John Higgins got away lightly. Yes, he might not have missed any big events, but given the actual charges he was found guilty of, the ban doesn’t seem mild. After all, his only mistake was failing to report the incident to World Snooker, which can hardly be compared to initiating talks of match fixing himself, let alone being involved in match fixing. And let’s not forget that it would’nt be the actual fine he received that affected him and his family greatly, but rather the ‘court of public opinion’. To this day you can read many comments on social media relating his name with actual match fixing without knowing any details of what actually happened in 2010 or even containing abusive comments. It obviously didn’t help that the full version of the video by NOTW never got released to the public, but it was later stated by the investigating commitee that the video released to the public was significantly cut to paint John Higgins and Pat Mooney in the worst possible picture.
Going by the public opinion one can only imagine how those events must have affected his personal life and his family. So as potentially damaging and dangerous the whole situation was for Snooker, I can’t help but look at how his life was impacted by it first and feel for him. As much as we love our sport and wish to see it grow and thrive, this should never go at the cost of player’s emotionsl and mental well-being.
Dave Gilbert was a bit lucky – that final frame could have gone either way. But at least it gave the broadcasters someone to interview. Cao Yupeng was very strong on Table 2.
So we have now reached the final day of the first round. In general, the new players have performed quite well, with a couple of exceptions. Meanwhile some established players have proved a bit rusty, which is expected. Today there are two new professionals, both Chinese teenagers. Ma Hailong is from Guangxi (an unheralded province), a good tactical player but doesn’t score heavily enough at this level. Liu Hongyu from Guangzhou is a mad potter and breakbuilder. Expect lots of spectacular shots, but also catastrophic blunders. He also has a very hot temperament. Wilson and Walden are very strong favourites today.