Originally posted by pootstick
I thought the commentators seemed actually a little biased and disappointed that the young guy didn't win it.
They were very obviously impressed, yes. Personally, I was happy to see Higgins win. I always prefer watching a complete player to a genius potter who has yet to learn his tactics. (They did a quick survey during one of the games I watched; it wasn't good statistics at all, but apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.)
Higgins has everything: potting ability, great safety play, break building, matchplay, and character. Judd Trump as yet only has the potting craft, impressive as it is. He will get many of those as he progresses even more, and may get them all. But he doesn't have them yet.
That said, I can see where the commentators were coming from. All sports need a constant inflow of new inspiring players, personal sports like snooker even more than team sports. Without people like Trump to keep injecting new enthusiasm into snooker, it would be reduced to a display of same-old-players-same-old-game within a generation. As such, the arrival of Trump is a good thing, and his performance at this championship was
a pleasure to behold. But, IMO, Higgins' was even more so.
Also, in the post match interview she was shamelessly probing Higgins with emotive questions trying to force some tears. His family, his difficult recent circumstances. I thought she was going to show pictures of a dead family pet, but in the end she settled on his dearly departed dad, and that did the trick, and she was happy.
What you must remember about that is that Higgins senior was a well-known, and apparently well-loved, figure on the tour. Hazel Irvine had probably spoken to him herself more than once. The commentators, all professionals and some still active, presumably all knew him personally. It's a small circuit; it's not the same as when a footballer's father dies. Well, it's the same for that footballer, of course; but not for the commentators or the opposing team.