Apparently WST reports become shorter and less “complete” with every passing day. Here is yesterday’s instalment:
Williams Eases To Nuremberg Berth
Mark Williams thrashed Zhang Anda 5-0 to clinch his progression from BetVictor European Masters qualifying in Leicester.
The three-time World Champion’s only ranking semi-final appearance last season came in this event and today’s victory ensures he will be in Nuremberg for the final stages this time around.
Williams required just one hour and ten minutes to wrap up the win. He fired in breaks of 79, 104, 77, 69 to wrap up a comprehensive victory.
Barry Hawkins made the final stages despite conceding a 147 in his clash with Sean O’Sullivan. The Hawk ran out a 5-2 victor and crafted runs of 117, 90, 64 and 53 en route to the win.
India’s Ishpreet Singh Chadha secured his first knockout event win as a professional with a superb performance to beat Ryan Thomerson 5-2. He crafted breaks of 131, 95, 69 and 53 on his way to victory.
Shoot Out champion Chris Wakelin won five frames on the bounce to beat Malaysia’s Thor Chuan Leong 5-2, while Jordan Brown defeated Ma Heilong 5-2.
That’s five matches reported on out of 12 played… fortunately there is snooker.org with all the detailed results.
Yesterday, 10 out of 12 matches were won by the highest seeded player. One of the two “exceptions” was Ishpreet Singh Chadha who, I must say, surprised me agreeably. He played well, positively, at a good pace and he is very easy on the eye. The other “exception” was Anthony Hamilton beating Matt Selt by 5-4 in a match that finished close to midnight and where there was never more than one frame difference between the players.
Here is the end of Sean “the Storm” beautiful 147, from the last red. That fifteen black was the first difficult ball Sean had to pot. His break up to then had been a model of controlled break-building.
Interestingly, Sean had made a “quasi-maximum” in the World Championship qualifiers earlier this year.
In this 140 break, Sean potted all reds with blacks and all the colours, yet his break was 140. Before watching it, can you guess what happened?
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Not completely sure about the rules: Going in-off on the last black would mean, the last black is being placed back on the table (as if it hadn’t been potted), and so the “all the colours” condition would not be met. So, it has to be a double-red. Correct?
Not sure if the rules say that, technically the black would come back, but the would only continue (with a “respotted black”) in that case if frame scores would be even, in all other cases the frame would be over. Since we are talking about a maximum break scenario, the condition “all the colours would be met, because there is no way that the frame scores are even at a maximum scenario other than the one who attempted the maximum had commited so many foul worth 140 points. But still then, in fact, he would have potted the black, and the “quasi-maximum” would have been made.
“…but the [frame] would only continue…”
If only the black remains on the table, any foul on that black would end the frame, so, no the black would not come back.
Not if the opponent is 7 points behind…? Right? Got confused by this “quasi-maximum” talk myself now.
Indeed, but that can’t be the case in the scenario we are looking at.
Thanks for the correction, Monique. I should have been aware of that. Somehow I arrived at the assumption the rule applies in case of a re-spotted black only.
Having done some checking of the rules, I was made aware of another distinction I didn’t know about, in that a ball falling due to a “foul shot” (such as going in-off), would be called “pocketed”. Whereas a legit shot would be called “potted”. So, “Sean potted all the colours” makes clear he didn’t go in-off on the last black.
Wow, Grump. Thank you for that clarification!
Yes. It’s allowed to pot as many reds in a shot as you want, but then after that there is only one ball “on” and as I said that you’re right on the linguistic level, BUT imagine someone was to make a “quasi-maximum” as you called it, and was to pot 7 reds in one shot with one black and 8 reds in one shot with one black and all the colours, then he “potted all reds with blacks and all the colours”, as you put it in the report above, would, in the context of the game, for someone who hadn’t seen the match, be a very misleading sentence. So for me personally all reds with blacks means 15 reds and 15 blacks, because I think if someone makes 2 reds in one shot in snooker, it is considered a fluke in 99% of the cases which makes the break not “ideal” regarding the etiquette of the sport. And I’m personally wondering a bit since discovering snooker why it is allowed to pot multiple reds in one shot. I think this rule doesn’t fit the otherwise strict rulebook and if flukes are not liked in general in snooker, it would be very easy to change that rule. I’m not saying that it should be changed though.
I was playing on words as I’m sure you know. I, personally, wouldn’t touch the rules when it comes to potting multiple reds. Years ago, I was on a forum where we had a guy who was absolutely obsessed with punishing flukes. How, in the first place, can you always be sure if a shot is a fluke or not? Sometimes it’s obvious of course, but on other occasions, it’s not. Some of the players are quite prone to playing daring shots if they see a big reward should they get it right … or to prevent their opponent to drag them into long defensive frames 😉
Finally!… Maximum from O’Sullivan.
Il a fait d’un coup deux rouges.
I just watched it because of Atons comment. Because judging by your wording Monique, before watching it, my guess was that he went in off on the final black, because my understanding of “potting reds with blacks” is potting one red with one black, because he in fact he potted one red without a black. You can understand it how you wrote it, Monique, but we, as snooker fans, knowing the rules, I think, should, judging by your wording, think that he went in off on the final black.
Well … purely on a linguistic level … for me potting reds with blacks does not mean one red, one black, it means a red followed by a black. In Sean’s case which of the two reds was not followed by a black? The middle pocket one? The corner pocket one? How can you decide that? They were played in one single shot, and the next shot was potting a black. So both of them were followed by a black, in this case, the same black.
That would be a 139 break.