MARK ALLEN MARCHES INTO CHAMPION OF CHAMPIONS SEMI-FINALS
MARK ALLEN booked his place in the Champion of Champions semi-finals with a 6-2 victory over Ali Carter on Monday evening.
The Northern Irishman followed up his 4-1 win over Jimmy White in the afternoon to progress from Group 4 in the tournament at Bolton’s Toughsheet Community Stadium.
Allen, 37, raced into a 3-0 lead over Carter with the help of century breaks in the first and third frames – opening with a break of 135 in less than 10 minutes.
The second frame was much tighter, before the colours fell kindly for Allen to clean up and he ran out winner by 71-42. A break of 104 then sealed the third frame.
Carter found his rhythm in frame four as two confident breaks helped him to a 112-4 win, but a crisp 70 break in the fifth frame restored Allen’s three-frame cushion. He moved to within one frame of victory when he took the next 71-36.
Allen, the 2022 UK Champion and World Grand Prix winner, had to wait for victory as Carter won the seventh frame with a brilliant 143 clearance. It was the best of the day and the 397th century of his career.
Allen crossed the finish line when he took the next frame with a comfortable 98-5 win.
“I feel like I’ve turned a corner, but I am still not where I want to be,” said Allen. “It would be nice to win a tournament when playing well, and I am getting closer.
“I’ve been working hard on the mental side of my game and I have improved. I am more controlled now.”
Allen was flying home on Saturday morning to rest and will play the winner of Group 1, which includes defending champion Ronnie O’Sullivan, on Saturday.
In the afternoon’s best of seven frame matches, the curtain raiser saw Allen beat White in the battle of the left-handers.
The opening frame saw White bounce back from five “fouls and misses” on the same red after being snookered. The duo were tied on 58 points when “The Whirlwind” won it with a great pot of the black.
Veteran White, a 500-1 outsider, struggled with the speed of the table and that was to be his only highlight as Allen ran away with it, winning the second frame with a break of 76 and the third with a break of 84, before edging a tight fourth frame 62-45.
By then, “The Pistol” Allen was firing on all cylinders and finished the job with a break of 108 to clinch victory.
In the other Group match Carter, 44, from Essex, was appearing in this tournament for the first time since 2016, having qualified by winning the German Masters. He pulled of something of a surprise in when he beat Mark Selby 4-3.
Carter took the opening frame 75-34, and “The Captain” was in control of the second before missing a straightforward pink into the middle, allowing Selby to level with a narrow win of 65-56.
There was no joking around from “The Jester” as Selby took a 2-1 lead thanks to a break which ended just short of a century when he missed a difficult yellow.
An early foul in frame four when Selby potted the cueball allowed Carter to build a 48 break, and then return to win the frame with a second break of 76 which cleared the table and levelled the tie.
It was then Carter’s turn to pot the cueball when he was 35-0 ahead and Selby stepped up to take the frame 87-35 and lead 3-2.
Carter ensured the match went to a deciding frame when he won the sixth with the first ton of the tie, clocking up an impressive 121. He then clinched victory by taking the final frame 83-47.
Tomorrow sees world champion Luca Brecel take on European Masters winner Barry Hawkins before British Open winner Mark Williams faces Welsh Open champion Robert Milkins live on ITV4 in the UK.
Nothing much to add really. Allen played well all day, Carter and Selby served the fans an excellent match. The arena looks really great.
The T-shirts divided the fans, some find them terrible, others find them nice … me, I think they’re OK.
… and Ronnie has decided to withdraw from the event …
Not really surprised either … with a possible disciplinary hearing coming over comments he made, he won’t be in the best of mindset, and, maybe, resting his elbow ahead of the UK Championship isn’t such a bad idea.
12 thoughts on “2023 Champion of Champions – Day 1”
bit counterintuitive to withdraw from one of the only events he actually likes and usually wins for fun
I’m absolutely surprised, because this is the tournament he likes playing, one table setup, plenty of money, he even played it when he was only invited by ranking, but this is a very good idea if he wants to give the UK any chance at all.
What comments did he make that warrant a hearing?
I’m not sure Csilla. Probably something in support to those involved in the Macau exhibition and WST reaction to it.
I guess O’Sullivan doesn’t want to make it three in a row against Zhang. So to speak, getting right back on the horse after having fallen off isn’t his thing.
I haven’t found the comments, but reporting suggests O’Sullivan unloaded on the WST, again, over the oh-so restrictive WST contracts and the well-to-do snooker celebrities’ terribly reduced income opportunities.
Also, it appears Ding, next in line to the top 16, is currently flying in from China to replace O’Sullivan and to cross cues with Zhang.
The “well-to-do snooker celebrities” are those who bring bums on seats, hence the money that allows WST to pay the others who don’t. You should never forget that. In my book, as self employed they should be allowed to play in whatever they want and it’s up to WST to make their events good enough to get them on board at those events. They all started at the bottom. Those now at the bottom have the opportunity to do the same IF they are good enough.
Thanks, Mark also mentioned something before I wish he stopped making these comments which just add controversy and stress. It might be counterintuitive to withdraw from the event he likes, but I would so much like to believe he wants to give a good chance to the UK instead of playing another lucrative invitational.
Well, I was half joking about finding his new bogeyman in Zhang but why are we supposed to believe that it would be three in a row, that is he would lose to him again?
We’ve been through all this before, Monique. If the well-to-do snooker celebrities destroy the WST tournament structure (by way of massively drawing attention elsewhere, and possible WST sponsors subsequently heading for the hills), those now at the bottom do NOT have the same opportunity those now at the top had.
…
Well, I was half joking about finding his new bogeyman in Zhang but why are we supposed to believe that it would be three in a row, that is he would lose to him again?
He lost twice in a row already, and, I trust, he doesn’t feel at the top of his game, as he said. So, the risk of three in a row is certainly there. But, of course, I am just guessing. O’Sullivan certainly knows how to secure his advantage, but, going in half-hearted and dispirited (drained and stressed) won’t give his self-confidence the boost he would want to take the UK Championship in style.
You are wrong on that Grump. They have MORE opportunities, more tournaments, more exposure not having to win any number of matches in Blackpool, and later Pontins and its cubicles. They are shown on television/streams. Most qualifiers have spectators, although WST has gone backwards on that this season. They have 20000 pounds guaranteed. The current “well-to-do celebrities” had none of this and often had to win three or four matches before even seeing a penny. Ronnie played 78 matches in Blackpool in his first season. Think about it: 78 qualifying matches… and he won 76 of them. What helped the likes of Ronnie, Williams, Higgins to climb fast is that they came shortly after the game was opened. The “closed” game protected those in place and many weren’t (anymore) that good. Doing an exhibition – not streamed – in China at the same time as a WST event in Europe doesn’t destroy any “structure”. If anything it opens opportunities for some up-and-coming player. Why doesn’t WST promote those instead of relying on a bunch of 40+ – event 45+ – for the promotion of their events all the time?
You are talking about the situation as it is now, Monique, and I trust there is much truth in your depiction. I am talking about the likely future AFTER the WST lost that fight with the well-to-do snooker celebrities over the enforcement of the “no compete” clause. After the streaming wars have been won. After WST sponsors jumped ship. After the WST is at pains to pay the table fitters, let alone the venue. Let alone securing prize money for those trying to take advantage of opportunities their predecessors had.
I, for one, find it easy enough to understand that the WST doesn’t give an inch, and, for once, I agree it makes sense what they are doing, even though they might have handled things better. It seems, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that matter, again.
Yes we have to agree to disagree, but let me explain why I’m so distrustful regarding WST true motives. For ten years, Paul Mount, a Gloucester business man, passionate about snooker, organised a pro-am during the summer at his place, the Capital Venue: the Pink Ribbon. All money gathered from the event went to breast cancer charities. Paul had lost his beloved sister to the disease and was passionate about helping other women suffering from breast cancer as well as their families. The event was a huge success. It attracted top players, including of course Paul’s own “stable”, and in the final years over 200 amateurs. It lasted a week. I went every year, except the first, to cover the event photographically, dragging the hubby with me and even convincing him to play! Nobody was doing this for the money. The prize money for the latest rounds existed but was quite symbolic. One of the early years – I think it was 2012 – Paul decided to stream the “main table” in order to attract more viewers to the event. The Capital Venue was outside the town and attracting viewers was not that easy. No problems during the first four days, only amateurs played. Mike Ganley came on site during two of those days, saw the setup, said nothing. When, on the Friday, the pros entered the fray, WST told the pros involved that they would be in breach of their contract as they had not authorised Paul to stream the matches. Actually Paul simply hadn’t thought he needed to do it. There was no WST event going on, or even close to go on. It was in the middle of the summer break. Anyway WST forced him to stop the streaming. They could have told him, ok, you didn’t know, next time don’t forget to ask. No. They stopped him and didn’t allow him to resume it after he asked. Why? He wasn’t overshadowing any of their events. He wasn’t a threat to their business. He wasn’t making any money out of the event, quite the opposite. So why? And why wait until the Friday to tell him? Other than enforcing their “authority” for the sake of it, I can’t think of any sensible reason. And, in my view, it’s the same now with this Macau exhibition. Players are not compelled to play in events. If they didn’t enter it, they should be free to do what they want with their time. The exhibition wasn’t streamed. The spectators going to watch the exhibition live were never going to watch the event in the UK anyway for obvious reasons. In addition to that, it made sense for some of the top players/older players to stay in China anyway given that this was a week sandwiched between two Chinese events, sparing on flight costs and sparing their body several “time zone” adjustments in a short time space. Their poor calendar structure created that situation – and opportunity – in the first place. So?
To explain my thinking a little better (I hope):
1. Your experience seems entirely plausible. I find thwarting Paul Mount’s plans deplorable. Yet, institutions need to enforce their authority, for otherwise they’ll be seen as push-overs.
2. Players are entirely free to play at any venue that would have them. Perfectly free. Unless, of course, they sign a contract that says otherwise. Then they have to comply with the obligations to which they have agreed to submit.
3. Playing under a contract for many years, or even decades (previous versions included), taking advantage of the benefits it bestows, and at some point later with huge benefits in the bag to decide that the obligations are suddenly too onerous to follow, that doesn’t fly. It doesn’t for anyone, not for you, or me, and not even for well-to-do snooker celebrities.
4. I think we agree that there are doubts now already about the future of snooker, and for me (I think for you as well) that future absolutely needs to be secured. In any reasonable universe, that, secure the future, is done via stable institutions. These institutions need funding, personnel, and a certain authority. They shouldn’t be trusted to use this authority well, and they should face fierce criticism in case they abuse their authority. Yet, care shall be taken so that the institution is not taken down before something is in up and running to replace it, for otherwise the future of the whole thing might be falling apart.
5. Lastly, competing events are a direct assault on the WST revenue stream, hence on the institutional backbone of snooker as currently organized, and thus put the future of snooker in peril. Well-to-do celebrities might survive this, albeit those coming up now, snooker’s future-to-be, who don’t get these lucrative invitations, will likely not. If that happens, to me (professional) snooker is as dead as a door-nail, and I will hang its rotting corpse around the necks of O’Sullivan, Mark Allen, and a few others.
The rest, both physically and mentally, will do him no harm.
To be honest, retiring from WST at the end of the season wouldn’t be a surprise. He just looks like he’s had enough.
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
bit counterintuitive to withdraw from one of the only events he actually likes and usually wins for fun
I’m absolutely surprised, because this is the tournament he likes playing, one table setup, plenty of money, he even played it when he was only invited by ranking, but this is a very good idea if he wants to give the UK any chance at all.
What comments did he make that warrant a hearing?
I’m not sure Csilla. Probably something in support to those involved in the Macau exhibition and WST reaction to it.
I guess O’Sullivan doesn’t want to make it three in a row against Zhang. So to speak, getting right back on the horse after having fallen off isn’t his thing.
I haven’t found the comments, but reporting suggests O’Sullivan unloaded on the WST, again, over the oh-so restrictive WST contracts and the well-to-do snooker celebrities’ terribly reduced income opportunities.
Also, it appears Ding, next in line to the top 16, is currently flying in from China to replace O’Sullivan and to cross cues with Zhang.
The “well-to-do snooker celebrities” are those who bring bums on seats, hence the money that allows WST to pay the others who don’t. You should never forget that. In my book, as self employed they should be allowed to play in whatever they want and it’s up to WST to make their events good enough to get them on board at those events. They all started at the bottom. Those now at the bottom have the opportunity to do the same IF they are good enough.
Thanks, Mark also mentioned something before I wish he stopped making these comments which just add controversy and stress. It might be counterintuitive to withdraw from the event he likes, but I would so much like to believe he wants to give a good chance to the UK instead of playing another lucrative invitational.
Well, I was half joking about finding his new bogeyman in Zhang but why are we supposed to believe that it would be three in a row, that is he would lose to him again?
We’ve been through all this before, Monique. If the well-to-do snooker celebrities destroy the WST tournament structure (by way of massively drawing attention elsewhere, and possible WST sponsors subsequently heading for the hills), those now at the bottom do NOT have the same opportunity those now at the top had.
…
He lost twice in a row already, and, I trust, he doesn’t feel at the top of his game, as he said. So, the risk of three in a row is certainly there. But, of course, I am just guessing. O’Sullivan certainly knows how to secure his advantage, but, going in half-hearted and dispirited (drained and stressed) won’t give his self-confidence the boost he would want to take the UK Championship in style.
You are wrong on that Grump. They have MORE opportunities, more tournaments, more exposure not having to win any number of matches in Blackpool, and later Pontins and its cubicles. They are shown on television/streams. Most qualifiers have spectators, although WST has gone backwards on that this season. They have 20000 pounds guaranteed. The current “well-to-do celebrities” had none of this and often had to win three or four matches before even seeing a penny. Ronnie played 78 matches in Blackpool in his first season. Think about it: 78 qualifying matches… and he won 76 of them. What helped the likes of Ronnie, Williams, Higgins to climb fast is that they came shortly after the game was opened. The “closed” game protected those in place and many weren’t (anymore) that good. Doing an exhibition – not streamed – in China at the same time as a WST event in Europe doesn’t destroy any “structure”. If anything it opens opportunities for some up-and-coming player. Why doesn’t WST promote those instead of relying on a bunch of 40+ – event 45+ – for the promotion of their events all the time?
You are talking about the situation as it is now, Monique, and I trust there is much truth in your depiction. I am talking about the likely future AFTER the WST lost that fight with the well-to-do snooker celebrities over the enforcement of the “no compete” clause. After the streaming wars have been won. After WST sponsors jumped ship. After the WST is at pains to pay the table fitters, let alone the venue. Let alone securing prize money for those trying to take advantage of opportunities their predecessors had.
I, for one, find it easy enough to understand that the WST doesn’t give an inch, and, for once, I agree it makes sense what they are doing, even though they might have handled things better. It seems, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that matter, again.
Yes we have to agree to disagree, but let me explain why I’m so distrustful regarding WST true motives. For ten years, Paul Mount, a Gloucester business man, passionate about snooker, organised a pro-am during the summer at his place, the Capital Venue: the Pink Ribbon. All money gathered from the event went to breast cancer charities. Paul had lost his beloved sister to the disease and was passionate about helping other women suffering from breast cancer as well as their families. The event was a huge success. It attracted top players, including of course Paul’s own “stable”, and in the final years over 200 amateurs. It lasted a week. I went every year, except the first, to cover the event photographically, dragging the hubby with me and even convincing him to play! Nobody was doing this for the money. The prize money for the latest rounds existed but was quite symbolic. One of the early years – I think it was 2012 – Paul decided to stream the “main table” in order to attract more viewers to the event. The Capital Venue was outside the town and attracting viewers was not that easy. No problems during the first four days, only amateurs played. Mike Ganley came on site during two of those days, saw the setup, said nothing. When, on the Friday, the pros entered the fray, WST told the pros involved that they would be in breach of their contract as they had not authorised Paul to stream the matches. Actually Paul simply hadn’t thought he needed to do it. There was no WST event going on, or even close to go on. It was in the middle of the summer break. Anyway WST forced him to stop the streaming. They could have told him, ok, you didn’t know, next time don’t forget to ask. No. They stopped him and didn’t allow him to resume it after he asked. Why? He wasn’t overshadowing any of their events. He wasn’t a threat to their business. He wasn’t making any money out of the event, quite the opposite. So why? And why wait until the Friday to tell him? Other than enforcing their “authority” for the sake of it, I can’t think of any sensible reason. And, in my view, it’s the same now with this Macau exhibition. Players are not compelled to play in events. If they didn’t enter it, they should be free to do what they want with their time. The exhibition wasn’t streamed. The spectators going to watch the exhibition live were never going to watch the event in the UK anyway for obvious reasons. In addition to that, it made sense for some of the top players/older players to stay in China anyway given that this was a week sandwiched between two Chinese events, sparing on flight costs and sparing their body several “time zone” adjustments in a short time space. Their poor calendar structure created that situation – and opportunity – in the first place. So?
To explain my thinking a little better (I hope):
1. Your experience seems entirely plausible. I find thwarting Paul Mount’s plans deplorable. Yet, institutions need to enforce their authority, for otherwise they’ll be seen as push-overs.
2. Players are entirely free to play at any venue that would have them. Perfectly free. Unless, of course, they sign a contract that says otherwise. Then they have to comply with the obligations to which they have agreed to submit.
3. Playing under a contract for many years, or even decades (previous versions included), taking advantage of the benefits it bestows, and at some point later with huge benefits in the bag to decide that the obligations are suddenly too onerous to follow, that doesn’t fly. It doesn’t for anyone, not for you, or me, and not even for well-to-do snooker celebrities.
4. I think we agree that there are doubts now already about the future of snooker, and for me (I think for you as well) that future absolutely needs to be secured. In any reasonable universe, that, secure the future, is done via stable institutions. These institutions need funding, personnel, and a certain authority. They shouldn’t be trusted to use this authority well, and they should face fierce criticism in case they abuse their authority. Yet, care shall be taken so that the institution is not taken down before something is in up and running to replace it, for otherwise the future of the whole thing might be falling apart.
5. Lastly, competing events are a direct assault on the WST revenue stream, hence on the institutional backbone of snooker as currently organized, and thus put the future of snooker in peril. Well-to-do celebrities might survive this, albeit those coming up now, snooker’s future-to-be, who don’t get these lucrative invitations, will likely not. If that happens, to me (professional) snooker is as dead as a door-nail, and I will hang its rotting corpse around the necks of O’Sullivan, Mark Allen, and a few others.
The rest, both physically and mentally, will do him no harm.
To be honest, retiring from WST at the end of the season wouldn’t be a surprise. He just looks like he’s had enough.