2018 World Championship

Joe_ Public

velo.2010 wrote: »

O'Sullivan won't win another Worlds, I believe. He can still dominate the shorter format tournaments and knock up many more centuries and maximums. He's talked about the increasing distractions away from snooker and he probably has a work/life balance which favours shorter matches instead of the slog of the Worlds.

As for the best/greatest debate. He is the most talented snooker player of all time but Hendry remains the most dominant and therefore arguably the best player ever. O'Sullivan never had a run of nearly a decade of almost complete dominance like Hendry.

The greatest/best debate in sport can be an odd thing. Ali is considered the greatest boxer and greatest sports person of all time but he is hardly the best boxer ever. There are many names that boxing pundits would put clearly ahead of Ali in that debate.

One point I would make in Ronnie favor is that he didn’t, unlike Hendry, decline into his 30s. I think his longevity should count for something.

I’d also suggest that Ronnie’s peak years, the noughties or thereabouts, were the hardest in terms of strength in depth in the game. The so called class of 92- Higgins, Williams, Doherty, McManus, Ebdon, Hunter among others. Plus with the likes of Hendry himself and Davis still on the scene. I think that was a great generation of tough, hardened match players who all knew how to win. Not suggesting that’s decisive in Ronnie’s favor, just something to throw into the mix.

Inviere

I think Ronnie is the GOAT. Hendry was a powerhouse of the game, and took Snooker from where it was in the 80's, toward what we know of it today. His seven titles have stood out alone for a long time now, & may never be beaten (though I personally think if Selby gets his act together, he has a chance of matching or beating the 7).

Ronnie, while never dominating a decade like Davis or Hendry, has been at the the business end of tournaments for over 20 years. That to me shows a talent, that even Hendry, just never had. Ronnie arguably too has had far stiffer opposition than other mentioned greats, and to shine today at 42 like he does, against players like Selby, Trump, Ding, etc, says he's a player that we'll likely never see the type of again.

velo.2010

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One point I would make in Ronnie favor is that he didn’t, unlike Hendry, decline into his 30s. I think his longevity should count for something.

That's objectively true. I would say though that Hendry was so dominant that he simply couldn't keep it up, ran out of steam and probably motivation after that long at the top.

As for opposition. Sure, todays snooker standard is higher than 20 odd years ago but you can only beat what is put on front of you. That Hendry was able to have played to such a high standard - that only O'Sullivan has matched and probably surpassed only recently - against such an apparently weaker set of players, speaks volumes as to his ability. I think he deserves huge credit for bringing the sport along so much.

Joe_ Public

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I seriously doubt Higgins or Williams can go all the way here either. New name on the trophy this year. Really it should be Ding all the way now. But as the man once said it's a funny old game.

A new name would be great and the game could do with it. I do fear Higgins might be hard to beat but that prospect slightly wearies me though I have nothing against him. Ding is the best hope for new blood, I’d agree, followed by Hawkins and Allen in that order.

walshb

On their absolute best day I’d put Higgins on top...he was the complete machine. So brilliant in all areas, and a monster match player...

Pure raw talent it’s clearly Ronnie..

Joe_ Public

velo.2010 wrote: »

That's objectively true. I would say though that Hendry was so dominant that he simply couldn't keep it up, ran out of steam and probably motivation after that long at the top.

As for opposition. Sure, todays snooker standard is higher than 20 odd years ago but you can only beat what is put on front of you. That Hendry was able to have played to such a high standard - that only O'Sullivan has matched and probably surpassed only recently - against such an apparently weaker set of players, speaks volumes as to his ability. I think he deserves huge credit for bringing the sport along so much.

To me Hendrys decline remains a mystery. Yeah he just ran out of steam, though there were also major cue issues, but I don’t know really why that should have been, why he couldn’t continue peaking for a couple of big tourneys every year. Sometimes things just aren’t easily explainable I guess.

Hendry changed the mentality of how the game was played entirely, a fantastic legacy outside of what he achieved in titles.

One thing though, the assertion that the standard is better now than 20 years ago is debatable imo. I know the bbc would have us believe that’s there’s more strength in depth now than ever but I’m just not sure that’s true.

walshb

velo.2010 wrote: »

The greatest/best debate in sport can be an odd thing. Ali is considered the greatest boxer and greatest sports person of all time but he is hardly the best boxer ever. There are many names that boxing pundits would put clearly ahead of Ali in that debate.

He has always been placed very high in an all time sense...

Not sure of these “many” names that pundits are putting ahead of him...

Any lists I have read, and there have been many, he is right up there in the argument..

AnneFrank

walshb wrote: »

On their absolute best day I’d put Higgins on top...he was the complete machine. So brilliant in all areas, and a monster match player...

Pure raw talent it’s clearly Ronnie..

A great player yes, maybe top 5, but also a cheat who should have been banned for a long time like others before him

walshb

AnneFrank wrote: »

A great player yes, maybe top 5, but also a cheat who should have been banned for a long time like others before him

I couldn’t give a fiddlers about his cheating..

Simply saying that all on their best day I would back him to beat all at the crucible..

Ridiculously good break builders, excellent cue control, excellent safety play, excellent temperament and excellent under pressure..

Of course, others are too. But he stands above for me...

Brae100

walshb wrote: »

I couldn’t give a fiddlers about his cheating..

Simply saying that all on their best day I would back him to beat all at the crucible..

Ridiculously good break builders, excellent cue control, excellent safety play, excellent temperament and excellent under pressure..

Of course, others are too. But he stands above for me...

Ronnie agrees with you. He thinks The Governor is the best ever.

Snake Plisken

Peter File wrote: »

Williams should steamroll Milkins this evening and Wilson should ease to victory tonight

Ha you where saying Milkens is playing well 3-3 now

Joe_ Public

Glad the milkman is acquitting himself well so far. Was seriously worried he wouldn’t turn up.

Inviere

AnneFrank wrote: »

A great player yes, maybe top 5, but also a cheat who should have been banned for a long time like others before him

A good read here for anyone still hung up on the 'cheating' thing - http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/21/revealed-why-john-higgins-was-cleared-of-match-fixing-because-the-evidence-including-a-statement-from-mazher-mahmood-told-the-full-story-210901/

Joe_ Public

Inviere wrote: »

A good read here for anyone still hung up on the 'cheating' thing - http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/09/21/revealed-why-john-higgins-was-cleared-of-match-fixing-because-the-evidence-including-a-statement-from-mazher-mahmood-told-the-full-story-210901/

It’s amazing the amount of players who have been associated with dodgy stuff and you don’t hear a peep about it, yet Higgins who got done by a discredited tabloid sting gets this same tired old nonsense around this time every year.

eric hoone

Joe_ Public wrote: »

To me Hendrys decline remains a mystery. Yeah he just ran out of steam, though there were also major cue issues, but I don’t know really why that should have been, why he couldn’t continue peaking for a couple of big tourneys every year. Sometimes things just aren’t easily explainable I guess.

Hendry changed the mentality of how the game was played entirely, a fantastic legacy outside of what he achieved in titles.

One thing though, the assertion that the standard is better now than 20 years ago is debatable imo. I know the bbc would have us believe that’s there’s more strength in depth now than ever but I’m just not sure that’s true.

Definitely. Hendry moved the goalposts, no more cagey champions after he showed the way forward.
I think he had some kind of curved cue since childhood that broke in transit 2003, don't think he won much after losing that cue.

BQQ

Looks like Ronnie could be in trouble over the barging

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/snooker/tension-at-the-crucible-as-ronnie-osullivan-collides-with-ali-carter-during-shock-world-championship-defeat-36854432.html‬

Mervyn Skidmore

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One thing though, the assertion that the standard is better now than 20 years ago is debatable imo. I know the bbc would have us believe that’s there’s more strength in depth now than ever but I’m just not sure that’s true.

I think Ronnie was saying this a couple of years ago too, that the standard, he thought, was poor.

Brae100

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

I think Ronnie was saying this a couple of years ago too, that the standard, he thought, was poor.

The standard today is off the charts compared to twenty years ago. Steve Davis was asked if he was playing today at his peak, where he thinks he'd be ranked. He said, probably top 64, maybe top 32, but not top 16.

Joe_ Public

eric hoone wrote: »

Definitely. Hendry moved the goalposts, no more cagey champions after he showed the way forward.
I think he had some kind of curved cue since childhood that broke in transit 2003, don't think he won much after losing that cue.

The cue issues certainly didn’t help him but the only thing I have with that is he’d already gone several years without winning a major title by then so it seemed he was already regressing by that stage.

There were definitely more young players coming through then, all playing the game the way he had evolved it, so do think that was one factor. It was harder and harder for him to dominate and whatever fear factor might have existed was significantly diminished.

AllForIt

As we come up to the end of the first week of the televised stages of the WC's I have to say it's been one of least entertaining I can remember.

As for predictions for the coming week, I can't see an obvious winner. I think the winner of the Wilson/Allen match could well lift the trophy. I think I'd like to see Allen win it this year. I've always underrated him in the past but I think he's got it in him to win a World Championship. Higgins must fancy his chances too though.

As for this Ronnie/Hendry thing no player has be me go WOW as often as O'Sullivan.

Joe_ Public

Brae100 wrote: »

The standard today is off the charts compared to twenty years ago. Steve Davis was asked if he was playing today at his peak, where he thinks he'd be ranked. He said, probably top 64, maybe top 32, but not top 16.

As great a champion as he was, I don’t agree with a lot of Davis’s analysis on the bbc. I suspect he’s a bit too keen to big up the modern game because it suits that agenda. He asserted yesterday that all the older players doing well was a sign of the great strength in depth in the game when, logically, it would seem to me it is evidence of the opposite. Not necessarily saying he’s wrong, just that it is very debatable at a minimum.

Arthur Daley

Brae100 wrote: »

The standard today is off the charts compared to twenty years ago. Steve Davis was asked if he was playing today at his peak, where he thinks he'd be ranked. He said, probably top 64, maybe top 32, but not top 16.

I think Steve is being modest there. At his peak he would easily be in the top 10 today. He was a hell of an all round player in his day. You felt you were beaten before you started. He still reached the quarter final in Sheffield in 2010 for God's sake.

Brae100

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I think Steve is being modest there. At his peak he would easily be in the top 10 today. He was a hell of an all round player in his day. You felt you were beaten before you started. He still reached the quarter final in Sheffield in 2010 for God's sake.

Perhaps. He is still a very decent player. I saw him in a seniors tourny in Goffs in January and he was very impressive.

Snake Plisken

Brae100 wrote: »

Perhaps. He is still a very decent player. I saw him in a seniors tourny in Goffs in January and he was very impressive.

Speaking of the seniors tour anyone know why the lovely Michaela Tabb doesn’t ref on the main tournaments anymore? Did she have a falling out with Barry Hearn?

Brae100

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Speaking of the seniors tour anyone know why the lovely Michaela Tabb doesn’t ref on the main tournaments anymore? Did she have a falling out with Barry Hearn?

I'm not sure. I didn't even get to meet her as she and Ken and a couple of others were sick with a bug when we were there. It's a great event and I'd recommend it. Fairly light hearted and more of an exhibition really. But very enjoyable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

buzzing147

Comic Book Guy wrote: »

Ah Ronnie, that missed blue...

Seemed like the friggin blue kicked:( huge difference 10-11 to 9-12, disastrous, Ronnie would of won 13-11 but for that darn blue, he was getting into his zone. Won't watch rest of event now, just bits and pieces. Turned into one of the worst championships I seen. Young lyu is a decent player pity he didn't beat Hawkins, another dull sluggish player like Carter who would help you doze off in front of the TV.

C__MC

Carter will no doubt fluff in the quarter final

Joe_ Public

How can you rattle in so many long ones and miss so many sitters? Don’t think I can watch any more of Milkins, it’s just too frustrating.

Think Ding will be too good for McGill and hoping against hope for a composed and authoritative display from Trump.