World Championship 2013 Draw & Gossip

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ronnie gets a lot of stick so i'm just gonna make a case for the defence.

His dad locked up when he's 16, his mam sent down for a year at 17, he's left as a teenager trying to look after his sister on his own and oversee the Sex Shops until his mam gets out. By the time he was 18 he was already on anti-depressants and that's only months after winning the UK Championships. He met the mother of his kids in Narcotics Anonymous trying to get off the Coke.

A good quote of his:

" People are quite ignorant about mental illness. They think “you moany old sod, why don’t you just cheer up.” Sometimes I think, "yes I am a moany old sod" and I play that character and get a sense of happiness out of it. The worst thing someone can say is “jack yourself out of it”; in the end I tell them “do you think I enjoy being like this?”. "

At the end of the day he's a mercurial talent and supreme player. And yes he does wind people up the wrong way with some of his comments and antics. Every time i hear him say he wants to retire i think the same as everyone else - 'do it or shut up' - But for all that he's lived a tough life out in the public domain and i don't think it's very fair to judge him by the professionalism standards set by the likes of Hendry, Federer or O' Driscoll.

If you combine Ronnie's talent with Hendrys personality, you would have had an absolute killing machine on the table who would have set unbeatable records. As it happened, he's more Alex Higgins than Hendry and we're left with some amazing snooker and some annoying outbursts.

People having a go at Ronnie would do well to remember he's not been well for a long time. Just take his eccentricity with a pinch of salt and enjoy his talents, we won't see the like of him for a long time.

Top notch post.

Summed up Ronnie superbly, personally I think he's one of the nicest guys on the circuit, always has time for you and good fun to be around.

wonderfullife

SarahBM wrote: »

Can I ask a really stupid question??

Do women play in separate tournaments to the men? Snooker doesn't seem to me like a sport that should be separated into mens and womens.

Reanne Evans is a female professional (or was) - she's Mark Allens ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. She didn't have any success on the tour and is trying to re-qualify in Q School.

One problem facing women is breasts. For the men, there are usually 4 points of contact with cue and body. Hand, chest, chin, hand. For men the cue can go through the chest area a lot more seamlessly than for the women.

Still, that's only a small reason and not a massive problem if a girl is talented enough. There's social issues too - it's still very much a "boy thing". Lads of 9/10/11 going down the snooker hall with their dads or mates, it's not really a sport that girls tend to go for. Most girls of that age, if given a choice, would sooner choose hockey, camogie, football or rugby than snooker.

Funding is also a massive problem. Reanne won the female world title the other week. She made 2 century breaks in the final. But she got £500 for the winner. 500! pounds! Ronnie got £250,000..... so there is no incentive there for women to pursue it professionally as a career in the female-only event and without good competition at under-age levels, they will find it hard to become pro-standard for the mens tour.

Same arguments can be made for Darts though, there should be top level female darts and snooker players but there isn't. One day i firmly believe a girl, likely from China, will become a top 32 snooker player.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

Reanne Evans is a female professional (or was) - she's Mark Allens ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. She didn't have any success on the tour and is trying to re-qualify in Q School.

One problem facing women is breasts. For the men, there are usually 4 points of contact with cue and body. Hand, chest, chin, hand. For men the cue can go through the chest area a lot more seamlessly than for the women.

Still, that's only a small reason and not a massive problem if a girl is talented enough. There's social issues too - it's still very much a "boy thing". Lads of 9/10/11 going down the snooker hall with their dads or mates, it's not really a sport that girls tend to go for. Most girls of that age, if given a choice, would sooner choose hockey, camogie, football or rugby than snooker.

Funding is also a massive problem. Reanne won the female world title the other week. She made 2 century breaks in the final. But she got £500 for the winner. 500! pounds! Ronnie got £250,000..... so there is no incentive there for women to pursue it professionally as a career in the female-only event and without good competition at under-age levels, they will find it hard to become pro-standard for the mens tour.

Same arguments can be made for Darts though, there should be top level female darts and snooker players but there isn't. One day i firmly believe a girl, likely from China, will become a top 32 snooker player.

Only saw Reanne play for the first time at the cue zone in Sheffield, a really decent player as was Ronnie's cousin Maria. The hard honest truth is they are simply not good enough to compete on the men's tour. Reanne played in several of the UK based PTC's last season and correct me if I'm wrong but won only two matches. She does however practice at the South West Academy and her practice partners amongst others include Barry Hawkins.

In the late 80's Alison Fisher was a regular on the men's circuit and was a member of the Barry Hearns Matchroom team, a regular practice partner of Steve Davis and a century maker she too struggled on the men's tour as did Karen Corr. Those two now make a fortune playing on the women's 9 ball circuit in the States.

As for the future of women's snooker, I believe the next big player will come from mainland Europe rather than China.

wonderfullife

zack01 wrote: »

Only saw Reanne play for the first time at the cue zone in Sheffield, a really decent player as was Ronnie's cousin Maria. The hard honest truth is they are simply not good enough to compete on the men's tour. Reanne played in several of the UK based PTC's last season and correct me if I'm wrong but won only two matches. She does however practice at the South West Academy and her practice partners amongst others include Barry Hawkins.

In the late 80's Alison Fisher was a regular on the men's circuit and was a member of the Barry Hearns Matchroom team, a regular practice partner of Steve Davis and a century maker she too struggled on the men's tour as did Karen Corr. Those two now make a fortune playing on the women's 9 ball circuit in the States.

As for the future of women's snooker, I believe the next big player will come from mainland Europe rather than China.

True but it's worth noting that Reanne didn't disgrace herself either. In one of those PTC events she lost 4-3 to Neil Robertson. I know it's still a defeat but make no mistake you don't push Neil Robertson to 4-3 in a best-of-7 without being very very good.

The problem she faces is there are so many good snooker players. Even a quick look at the Irish Amateur ranks will testify to that - in the South we have Goggins, McCrudden, Davy Morris, David Hogan, Mick Judge, Brendan O' Donohue, Colm Gilcreest, Joe Delaney and in the North you have the likes of Jordan Brown, Ray Fry, Julian Logue, Joe Swail, Joe Meara.

Of those 12 players, 8 of them are ex-pro, all have made a Max in competition, and any of them with a bit of luck could have made better careers as professionals.

So the problem facing Reanne is this - she's picked a very bad time to be one of the best female players in history. The standard she plays to now would have been top 32 in the world in 1990. Given she is a mother as well, she will need a lot of luck (sponsorship, practice partners etc) to make it as a pro but it would be great for snooker if she did make a breakthrough.

SarahBM

Thanks for the replies, very informative.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

True but it's worth noting that Reanne didn't disgrace herself either. In one of those PTC events she lost 4-3 to Neil Robertson. I know it's still a defeat but make no mistake you don't push Neil Robertson to 4-3 in a best-of-7 without being very very good.

The problem she faces is there are so many good snooker players. Even a quick look at the Irish Amateur ranks will testify to that - in the South we have Goggins, McCrudden, Davy Morris, David Hogan, Mick Judge, Brendan O' Donohue, Colm Gilcreest, Joe Delaney and in the North you have the likes of Jordan Brown, Ray Fry, Julian Logue, Joe Swail, Joe Meara.

Of those 12 players, 8 of them are ex-pro, all have made a Max in competition, and any of them with a bit of luck could have made better careers as professionals.

So the problem facing Reanne is this - she's picked a very bad time to be one of the best female players in history. The standard she plays to now would have been top 32 in the world in 1990. Given she is a mother as well, she will need a lot of luck (sponsorship, practice partners etc) to make it as a pro but it would be great for snooker if she did make a breakthrough.

Add the fact that on average the cost of playing the full tour will cost on average £32K in expenses per season.
That figure was given to me by Judge & Morris.

Unless she has a sponsor or indeed any upcoming player has a sponsor its an impossible task.


* sleep time for me, the weekend in Sheffield has caught up on me !
Catch you later.

Ps . You know your stuff wonderfullife, where you a player ?

wonderfullife

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/40/bc/0,,13165~179264,00.pdf

It's the prize money list for the previous 2 years up to now.

Just shows that despite the big improvements under Barry Hearn there is a long way to go.

Jimmy White down in 57th place at 37k. That's £18,500 a year before tax, i say before tax - im not even sure that reaches the tax threshhold. Jimmy is an exception as he is likely sponsored but that 37k probably doesnt cover travel and hotels over a 2 year period.

So you have a lot of players on that list making a loss or breaking even at best and even some of the players at the top of the list are not making fortunes. Stuart Bingham has had an amazing couple of years but it still only works out at about 65k a year after tax and expenses.

Ok 65k a year is good for a job but for a top sportsman it's not exactly brilliant.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/40/bc/0,,13165~179264,00.pdf

It's the prize money list for the previous 2 years up to now.

Just shows that despite the big improvements under Barry Hearn there is a long way to go.

Jimmy White down in 57th place at 37k. That's £18,500 a year before tax, i say before tax - im not even sure that reaches the tax threshhold. Jimmy is an exception as he is likely sponsored but that 37k probably doesnt cover travel and hotels over a 2 year period.

So you have a lot of players on that list making a loss or breaking even at best and even some of the players at the top of the list are not making fortunes. Stuart Bingham has had an amazing couple of years but it still only works out at about 65k a year after tax and expenses.

Ok 65k a year is good for a job but for a top sportsman it's not exactly brilliant.

It's a huge increase on what the players were earning before Hearn got involved. Whereas before perhaps only the top 4 would only earn over £200K over two years now that stretches down to the top 16.

No surprise really with Jimmy earning so little, he's hardly won a match over the last two years yet still he's earned £37K, mind you Jimmy is earning plenty off the circuit through the legends tour and his numerous exhibitions, last season alone he played 13 in Ireland and at €1,500 per night he's doing ok.

With money list soon to determine the rankings more and more earning opportunities will be available.
For instance 9 events next season where the 128 players all start at round one, if you reach the last 16 of all 9 events players are guaranteed a minimum of £90stg.

The prize money is up throughout every event next season and let's not forget that those little patches on a players waistcoat also brings on revenue too.

The expenses are substantial but the rewards are there and are increasing each season

oneillMan999

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!
In the end of the day its just a cop out.
As far as OSullivan winning it...well lets break it down, he had a journeyman in the 1st round (Campbell) a player who is afraid to beat him in the 2nd round (Carter) an woefully out of sorts Bingham in the quarters, a disappointing Trump in the semis.
So he never got tested really and i know u can only beat what's in front of u but this can't be ignored.
Then the final and congrats to Hawkins for making a game of it but lets face it, he's no Selby Robertson or Higgins.
So all in all this was the least impressive world crown of Ronnies imo.

Regarding the old who's the greatest debate well its simple enough for me..
Who would win between Hendry at his best and Ronnie at his best?

Still Hendry for me...

mikehammer67

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!
In the end of the day its just a cop out.
As far as OSullivan winning it...well lets break it down, he had a journeyman in the 1st round (Campbell) a player who is afraid to beat him in the 2nd round (Carter) an woefully out of sorts Bingham in the quarters, a disappointing Trump in the semis.
So he never got tested really and i know u can only beat what's in front of u but this can't be ignored.
Then the final and congrats to Hawkins for making a game of it but lets face it, he's no Selby Robertson or Higgins.
So all in all this was the least impressive world crown of Ronnies imo.

Regarding the old who's the greatest debate well its simple enough for me..
Who would win between Hendry at his best and Ronnie at his best?

Still Hendry for me...

ronnie at his best?

i'd be very surprised

wonderfullife

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!
In the end of the day its just a cop out.
As far as OSullivan winning it...well lets break it down, he had a journeyman in the 1st round (Campbell) a player who is afraid to beat him in the 2nd round (Carter) an woefully out of sorts Bingham in the quarters, a disappointing Trump in the semis.
So he never got tested really and i know u can only beat what's in front of u but this can't be ignored.
Then the final and congrats to Hawkins for making a game of it but lets face it, he's no Selby Robertson or Higgins.
So all in all this was the least impressive world crown of Ronnies imo.

Regarding the old who's the greatest debate well its simple enough for me..
Who would win between Hendry at his best and Ronnie at his best?

Still Hendry for me...

What's the common factor here?

Campbell played unreal snooker and lost 10-4. Ali was playing very solid and lost 13-7. Bingham took a hammering and Trump was dismantled, despite playing very solid. And Hawkins played to a standard that was borderline frightening himself , 92% pot success over 30 frames!!

Common factor? Ronnie.

Ronnie made top quality, in-form players look decidedly average. It was not them making Ronnie look good.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

What's the common factor here?

Campbell played unreal snooker and lost 10-4. Ali was playing very solid and lost 13-7. Bingham took a hammering and Trump was dismantled, despite playing very solid. And Hawkins played to a standard that was borderline frightening himself , 92% pot success over 30 frames!!

Common factor? Ronnie.

Ronnie made top quality, in-form players look decidedly average. It was not them making Ronnie look good.

That's the beauty of the sport and any other sport every will have their own opinion and rightly so.
I can't remember but did Hendry win and then retain his title without losing a session ?

zack01

I posted this earlier in the favourite player thread when really it should belong here if we're talking about the greatest player.



"I remember asking referee John Williams a few years ago the same question. Now here is a man who has seen and reffed them all, sometimes when you see a player up playing up close they are better than on tv as you can see how well they hit the ball etc. Anyway i asked who was the best he had ever seen, was it Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan etc, to my surprise he didnt consider them at all, the best player he ever saw in his opinion was the late John Pullman".

Quite a surprise but a respected answer from a man involved in the game for so long.

radiata

zack01 wrote: »

I posted this earlier in the favourite player thread when really it should belong here if we're talking about the greatest player.



"I remember asking referee John Williams a few years ago the same question. Now here is a man who has seen and reffed them all, sometimes when you see a player up playing up close they are better than on tv as you can see how well they hit the ball etc. Anyway i asked who was the best he had ever seen, was it Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan etc, to my surprise he didnt consider them at all, the best player he ever saw in his opinion was the late John Pullman".

Quite a surprise but a respected answer from a man involved in the game for so long.

Yes, Pullman was supposedly a bit of a legend in the 60s. I'd like to see a few clips of him playing.
I'm not sure if you saw the story BBC done on Joe Davis from the 1920s up to the 50s. He beat his brother Fred in the 1940 final 36-35. That must have been some final to watch!
I don't know how they decided a winner back then. Some of the finals were best of 145 frames I think, it seemed different every year.

oneillMan999

wonderfullife wrote: »

What's the common factor here?

Campbell played unreal snooker and lost 10-4. Ali was playing very solid and lost 13-7. Bingham took a hammering and Trump was dismantled, despite playing very solid. And Hawkins played to a standard that was borderline frightening himself , 92% pot success over 30 frames!!

Common factor? Ronnie.

Ronnie made top quality, in-form players look decidedly average. It was not them making Ronnie look good.

Come on now..

Campbell played ok the first session not brilliantly! Then just rolled over 2nd session.

Carter played well for 2 sessions but when he realized he might actually have a chance to beat Ronnie, he bottled it as usual.

Most top pros woulda beat Bingham easily the way he played.

Trump didn't play a solid semi, if he did he woulda beat Ronnie 17-13. He had numerous chances he failed to convert and simply played too aggressively.

I agree Hawkins played a great final but you're never gonna out pot and outscore Ronnie (unless you're Stephen Hendrys clone) so a little more guile and trickery was needed to frustrate Ronnie.

Don't get me wrong Ronnie played some awesome snooker but was never really tested

Bruthal

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Come on now..

Campbell played ok the first session not brilliantly! Then just rolled over 2nd session.

Carter played well for 2 sessions but when he realized he might actually have a chance to beat Ronnie, he bottled it as usual.

They were both beaten by a far superior player, as would be expected.

Most top pros woulda beat Bingham easily the way he played.

O sullivan would likely beat him no matter how well he played.

Trump didn't play a solid semi, if he did he woulda beat Ronnie 17-13. He had numerous chances he failed to convert and simply played too aggressively.

He would probably be more likely to convert his chances against most other players, but he did tell us he doesnt fear the name, like most other players do.

I agree Hawkins played a great final but you're never gonna out pot and outscore Ronnie

Which is why he won it.

(unless you're Stephen Hendrys clone) so a little more guile and trickery was needed to frustrate Ronnie.

Don't get me wrong Ronnie played some awesome snooker but was never really tested

He was tested, but he passed the test.

BQQ

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!

Burnout was definitely a factor.
All the top-ranked players seemed to underperform.

There's been an average of 70 centuries over the previous 5 years with a high of 83 in 2009.
This year there were 55 (13 of which were made by Ronnie who was not burnt out)

I think, in future, top players will manage their schedule similar to the way golfers do in order to peak for the major tournaments.

zack01

Burn out ?

It's a pretty lame excuse for not playing well at the world championships.

KERSPLAT!

zack01 wrote: »

Burn out ?

It's a pretty lame excuse for not playing well at the world championships.

How so? You nor I can say for certain if they are or are not, only the lads themselves know for sure

Bruthal

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

How so? You nor I can say for certain if they are or are not, only the lads themselves know for sure

It is excuses, which is showing lack of respect to those who beat them.

Matches against players of lower rankings are likely not as easy today as they were in the 90`s or 80`s.

zack01

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

How so? You nor I can say for certain if they are or are not, only the lads themselves know for sure

I know several of the players personally and spent eight days in Sheffield at this years championship. No mention of burnout, in fact most seemed in great form. It's funny but you never hear the winner complain of burn out? No reason for O'Sullivan to be burnt out but runner up Hawkins played more snooker than anyone this season and no mention of burn out from him.

There was a three week break between the end of the china open and the worlds, that was one of the longest breaks of the season and for some it was longer as they didn't play in Sheffield until the middle of the first week.

BQQ

So what's your theory on why the standard was so below par this year?

zack01

You don't need a theory, the fact is it wasn't a very good world championships, it wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Cast your minds back over the last 30 world championships, can you pick out five that you instantly remember ?

Even Ken's great triumph in '97 wasn't a great championships, the final for one was possibly one of the most boring.

Possibly the last good final was ken v Williams in '03 when he staged the great comeback only to lose 18-16.

oneillMan999

Bruthal wrote: »

They were both beaten by a far superior player, as would be expected.


O sullivan would likely beat him no matter how well he played.


He would probably be more likely to convert his chances against most other players, but he did tell us he doesnt fear the name, like most other players do.


Which is why he won it.


He was tested, but he passed the test.

But he wasn't tested! That's my point.

zack01

oneillMan999 wrote: »

But he wasn't tested! That's my point.

You can only beat what's put in front of you

desodon

zack01 wrote: »

Even Ken's great triumph in '97 wasn't a great championships, the final for one was possibly one of the most boring.

Possibly the last good final was ken v Williams in '03 when he staged the great comeback only to lose 18-16.

I thought the final 2 years ago between John Higgins and Judd Trump was epic, one of the best snooker matches I've ever seen. One of the best experienced tactical match players in the game versus a refreshing potting machine. Score was very close too for a lot of it. And Johns finish with a snooker and a double on the pink was just crazy.

The year before though, Dott and Robertson. Jesus. I watched about 3/4 frames of that match I'd say.

Anyone know when tickets for 2014 will be out?

padd b1975

radiata wrote: »

Yes, Pullman was supposedly a bit of a legend in the 60s. I'd like to see a few clips of him playing.
I'm not sure if you saw the story BBC done on Joe Davis from the 1920s up to the 50s. He beat his brother Fred in the 1940 final 36-35. That must have been some final to watch!
I don't know how they decided a winner back then. Some of the finals were best of 145 frames I think, it seemed different every year.

I think back then the final would be played out over a much longer period in different venues around England.

BOHtox

What's the next few snooker tournaments on TV?

zack01

BOHtox wrote: »

What's the next few snooker tournaments on TV?

The Wixi Classic mid June and the Austrailian Open first week July both on Eurosport.

zack01

padd b1975 wrote: »

I think back then the final would be played out over a much longer period in different venues around England.

The final used to be played over the best of 145 frames and played in London, it then moved to various venues then to Bellvue in Manchester and then onto its current home in Sheffield.

loyatemu

they played it in Australia one year in the early 70s too. The format has varied a lot over the years - I think Joe Davis won most of his titles playing just the one match.

zack01

loyatemu wrote: »

they played it in Australia one year in the early 70s too. The format has varied a lot over the years - I think Joe Davis won most of his titles playing just the one match.

I don't recall it being held in Austrailia anytime especially in the early '70's, I'm am open to correction though.

In fact I stand corrected , I just referred to my snooker almanac and yes it was played in Sydney in 1971, John Spencer being the winner that year.

loyatemu

zack01 wrote: »

I don't recall it being held in Austrailia anytime especially in the early '70's, I'm am open to correction though.

In fact I stand corrected , I just referred to my snooker almanac and yes it was played in Sydney in 1971, John Spencer being the winner that year.

before my time, I just read about it somewhere - did they play the tournament twice in the same year as well?

zack01

loyatemu wrote: »

before my time, I just read about it somewhere - did they play the tournament twice in the same year as well?

Yes my book says in 1952 the Billiards & Snooker Control Council had a disagreement with several players who then organised their own world matchplay trophy. This continued for several years, it was'nt until 1969 when the WPBSA was formed that the tournament was then held on an annual basis.

oneillMan999

zack01 wrote: »

You can only beat what's put in front of you

I agree Zack.

But its slightly hollow for the next few years but then again, in 20 years noone will even remember who he played, just that he was champion.

desodon

Anyone know when 2014 WSC tickets go on sale?

Arthur Daley

As recently as 1975 the world championship was held in Melbourne. Then it moved back to England and the crucible in '77.

I think Eddie Charlton brought it down to Melbourne, and he just lost the final 31-30. Eddie was a bit unlucky not to win one world championship. Almost as unlucky as Jimmy.