Ladbrokes World Grand Prix: Fu and Murphy feature in our Headline Double
We’ve already seen plenty of upsets at this year’s Ladbrokes World Grand Prix. In fact, we’ll be heading into the semi-finals without any of the top five players in the world right now. There’s no room for Ronnie O’Sullivan either.
But even with that in mind, we still can’t see this afternoon’s favourites, Shaun Murphy and Marco Fu losing.
It’s for that reason we’re right behind our Headline Double, as we’re offering odds of 15/8 for the pair to win their respective quarter-final matches.
Defending World Grand Prix champion Murphy faces Ryan Day, who’s been handed arguably the toughest draw of the lot. Victory over Stuart Bingham in the First Round was followed by a win over fellow Welshman, Michael White, in the Second.
But this could be one match too many for the 36-year-old – especially when you consider he’s lost his last seven on the bounce against the Magician.
In fact, Day has only taken three frames from Murphy in their last six meetings, while the 8/15 favourite has taken 18.
While that price on its own is tempting enough, there’s even more value to be had when you throw in Marco Fu.
He’s up against Mark King this afternoon. 13 places separate this pair in the rankings table, and while the recent Head to Heads suggest a victory for The Romford Battler could be on the cards, their performances in this year’s World Grand Prix suggest quite the opposite.
King has had to grind out victories against both Stephen Maguire and Ali Carter over seven frames, while Fu, in truth, has hardly faced any danger – winning both of his previous matches 4-2.
The world number eight will certainly have a battle on his hands this afternoon. And while King has already proven to us twice already this week that he’s got the bottle, this – like Day – might just be one game too many.
Fu heads into the match as the 4/9 favourite, but there’s plenty more juice in our Headline Double.
Click here for a full list of Ladbrokes World Grand Prix odds.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing