World Championship 2013 Draw & Gossip

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.