There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
O'Sullivans Latest Interview!
-
06-09-2024 12:58am#1
Right, generally I take nothing of what he says seriously, but he made a comment that did annoy me. Whinging that he's playing so poor, he'll be lucky to be in the top 16 in 2/3 years. The implication is, he expects to be if he's playing well, that's his arrogance, but what players of his age were in the top 16, ever? On top of that, he knows very well he will be in the top 16, if he chooses to be, as the standard is so poor, again, patronising the field!
I've always had a bit of a gripe with O'Sullivan, and I don't know how many people agree. People fall over themselves hailing him as the greatest natural player ever, but for me, a testament to that title is who's the "greatest single ball potter" ever. And by a distance, that's Mark Williams and Alex Higgins. I don't think O'Sullivan, has pulled off the impossible shots they did, with anything close to the regularity they did. You put your life on one man to pull off an impossible shot, an eye for that shot, and your picking Williams and Higgins over him everyday. Thats raw talent for me.
After cica 05, when Williams stopped practising, Hunter passed away, Hendy declined, Stevens regressed, Doherty declined etc, he's had a bit of an open field. As did John Higgins. The success both had, I don't think would of happened had the standard in general been higher. Before people start saying there's more centuries now than ever, Mark Williams makes more centuries than he did in his prime, yet a shadow of the player he was. That's external factors, the quality in talent has defintely dropped.
O'Sullivan has beaten Dott, Carter, Hawkins etc in finals since, that's a joke, foregone conclusions. No where near the standard he had to face up to 05. The only player to come through, genuinely up to the level of the top guys in the early 00's, is Selby. And he has personal issues, leading to huge inconsistency, one season to the next.
I think O'Sullivan is blessed with the record he actually has (many people actually believe he should have won more), due to being a fluid player, and extending his level. If he regularly had to face the competion he did up to 05, he's not winning half of what he did. Even Higgins went from 1 world title to 4 without breaking a sweat, such was the lack of talent.
It's telling that Mark Williams can half refocus for about a month, and for the first time in 12 years, put a bit of daily practice in, and canter to a world title. Imagine Hendry in his prime facing Carter, Dott or Hawkins etc in finals, he'd curbstomp them. O'Sullivan grew up in a priviledge position imo, and continues to have one, being hailed as the most naturally gifted ever and being fortunate to win what he has with, at times, the appalling standard he faces. Yet continues to patronise the field and fans, the guy is a joke imo!
2
Comments
-
Never liked him..
He has a nasty streak about him,, it just puts me off him.
3 -
Alex Higgins had a "nasty streak" but was still likeable. He was a "working class hero". Ronnie has a smug patronising attitude, the sort you get off the same people in the likes of Dalky, entitlement. His father used to pay Ken to practice with him as a teenager.
But because he father was locked up, the assumtpion was he was working class, the new peoples champion, and he's lived off that since. In reality, a posh entitled toff! When he loses, "didn't care anyway", to take the good from his opponents win. That's how bitter he is, and can't accept losing.
Doherty even said, he practised harder than anyone, and does. This "not caring anyway", is a defense mechanism, to soften the fact he can't accept losing.
Mark Williams doesn't play up to this, he actually doesn't practise, and when he casually does, wins a world title. Thats the difference people don't realise.
Williams has an innate ability to consistently pot shots O'Sullivan can't. Alex Higgins had it too
1 -
There's a perception that O'Sullivan has an innate ability no one else had. He does to a point, in how fluid he is, can pot with both hands. That's an innate ability from a technical stand point. People rarely make the distinction between an innate fluid ability technically, and that of having an innate ability to pot an impossible shot. O'Sullivan simply doesn't have the razor sharp eye Mark Williams or Alex Higgins did.
In the world final where Williams beat Higgins, Williams pulled off more "impossible" shots in that match alone, than Ronnie did all season. Ronnie simply doesn't have that ability, to that level. Thats before you get into Williams' matches against Hawkins etc, some of the pots the man regularly pots are simply mind boggling.
And Alex Higgins is a level up again from Williams, in terms of innate ability. People put him down for lack of centuries, didn't win enough etc. These people simply didn't watch him. He cued wrong, learned how to play wrong, did everything wrong, and was drunk, impatient. Had no control on the cueball. An absolute disaster from every technical standpoint. Spent every frame trying to "rescure the situation".
But if you watch him play, therein lay his brilliance. His whole game was built on "rescueing the situation" from one shot to the next. Every ball he potted was ridiculous, such were the situations he got himself into with the cueball and positional play. For people that doubt his talent, watch any frame he plays, and the shots he has to pull out of the bag to keep a basic break going.
Ye he didn't utilise his game, and the fact he struggled with basic breaks can be held against him, but thats what true innate ability really is. Alex Higgins' whole career was about shooting himself in the foot, and anything he won, was in spite of himself, constantly having to pull it out of the bag. But the fact he did win what he did, with the lowest percentage game ever played is actually staggering. It was so low percentage, one frame you'll watch him win on youtube, contains more impossible shots than many players would pull off in a season. And that's not even joking.
If he wasn't an addict and was shown how to play right in the first place, he was a once in a century talent. He had the innate ability we now laud on O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan simply wouldn't have potted a fraction of the shots Higgins pulled off every frame. For how bad Higgins was positionally, how he stood and cued wrong, how he was constantly drunk, and for every other way he handicapped himself, despite all this, he was still an absolute potting machine. His career was built on potting shots no one else before or since could pot regularly.
In an era of "statistics", looking back on his career (which seems relatively poor now), people don't understand that about him. He consistently did, what no one else ever had the ability to do, pretty much every frame he won. Simply put, no one to this day, could pot balls like him. Imagine he grew up being shown how to play the game right, and was sober!
3 -
Ronnie never battered women or head butted officials etc etc. Or threaten to have an opponent (Dennis Taylor) shot by paramilitaries I certainly would not call Alex Higgins likeable. You are correct that Ronnie is no "working class lad" that annoys the hell out of Shaun Murphy. As he is painted as the "posh boy" by Ronnie and most of his fans, just because he speaks well. When the reality is a lot different.
However, you have to factor Ronnie's parents were "new money" given the industry they were in and their background, they will always have an edge. You can't buy class.
As for Ronnie's comments the fella clearly is riddled with all sorts of mental disorders, bipolar on "the spectrum" or whatever the phrase is. He is never going to be right in head. Which is why he comes out with these dopey/odd interviews.
Personally I think the fella is definitely the best of all time snooker wise (for longevity alone, nevermind the fact he reinvented himself and his game) but it is pointless to really take to heart anything he says off the table. He is an oddball.
His background and upbringing have to have a lot to do with it. He has tried to fix himself at least, and he was not as bad as he was. So he deserves some credit for that how he reinvented himself.
However, there is always going to be that up and down thing with Ronnie to some extent. Has to be his condition/conditions. Likely formed by his dysfunctional family background, and having underlying issues added to that.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
6 -
Do you really think he could consistently pot the outrageous pots Higgins did every frame to save himself? I actually don't think he could.
I get that he wouldn't be in the position in the first place, but if we're to accept Alex wouldn't be either, without being handicapped in everyway possible if he was sober and showed how to play right as a youngster, do you really think O'Sullivan could build a career on potting the impossible.
People don't understand, Higgins handicapped himself to the point, his innate ability to pot impossible shots was so good, it offset all those handicaps to a point. By rights, Higgins shouldn't of won anything, and I don't think any other player would under the same conditions!
1 -
Advertisement
-
Alex higgins likeable. I've heard it all now😁
Sure didn't they all get handy world titles, davis and hendry. There's usually a mug in the final
Don't know what the rest of its about. The best player is the best potter ?
7 -
Ronnie ‘anyone wanna give me a nosh’ O Sullivan.
Despicable baby. That’s how he’s always come across.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/mar/27/snooker.davidhendon
0 -
Hardly news that O'Sullivan isn't the most likeable either
Is snooker a personality contest or a sporting contest
0 -
He's likeable in the sense he's a working class fan favorite. Black b*stard though id call him. But he was such a fan favorite, not because of his antics, but what he could do.
In an era of stats, people just look up his century record and dismiss him. If you seen him play, then you understand. That guy's career was built on swimming against the tide, rescuing that impossible, that he often did.
The balls he potted, and the consistency he potted them, those impossible shots, is unmatched.
His career was about offsetting all his disadvantages
1 -
He off set his poor positional play with the fancy pots
He won some big matches and beat the best
0 -
Advertisement
-
The key thing is though Ronnie's positional play meant he rarely if ever has to pot outrageous shots time and again.
That is why I will never rate that Alex Higgins 60 plus break fellas like White eulogises over from the 1982 WC. It actually annoys me watching that break it is sort of comedically so bad it is good.
My logic is why put yourself under that much pressure on each shot. That type of play does not bring consistency. And that is what you need to have longevity and consistent success in the game.
I think O'Sullivan could go for hail mary shots if got out of position, but let's be honest he rarely loses the cueball. And if he does it is a shock moment type thing.
It is actually funny how annoyed O'Sullivan gets with himself if his positional play is not spot on at times.
It was one of those Eurosport commentators had a great paraphrased quote from Ray Reardon today "The most important ball on a snooker table is the white ball, learn to control that and you control the game".
Sure Alex Higgins could not control himself, never mind the white ball! As he said himself he could not help himself wanting to "entertain" the crowd. basically showing off for the sake of it.
Yeah I know Ronnie can be a complete arse, but from his perspective he cannot get his head around why others do not have the same cueball control as he does. And he is baffled that he is STILL around at his age dominating.
I get the impression with O'Sullivan deep down beneath all the silly interviews, is that he feels owes it to snooker and to himself to keep going. That's the vibe I get. He is waiting for the next 20 year old prodigy to take over, and is shocked it has not happened yet. So he stays going.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
1 -
The impressive thing about O'Sullivan was the way he got the head down over the years and didn't throw it all away
Higgins had quite a few great moments but he's not in the goat discussion
Neither particularly nice people if it matters
1 -
The thing is though, if Higgins was taught growing up, how to play right technically, how good was he potentially. And without drink. The mad thing about Higgins is, even at his "prime", he was operating at a shadow of the level he potentially could. No one has ever actually seen Alex Higgins play right or anywhere near his potential.
Add alcohol into the mix, it led to huge impatience with the cueball, and the more he drank over a long game, got progressively worse.
Dunno how true this is, but I've read that in the lead up to the 82 final he didn't drink as much and actually practiced, as he broke down crying, looking at his toddler daughter up on a stool trying to pot balls. Basically the first, and only tournament, he half practiced for and took serious, he won, and backed himself heavily to win it too he was that confident.
I still don't think any player, could pot outrageous shots, consistently the way he did, regardless of whether they should or shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. It was actually phenomenal the pots he was regularly pulling off every frame to offset every handicap he gave himself.
To put it into context, and this is actually no exaggeration, he was pulling off Mark Williams or Ronnie O'Sullivans best shots highlight reel, every match to just keep himself competitive.
You never felt he had the situation under control, always rescuing the situation, but I mean the pots he so regularly pulled out of the bag to make a basic 64 break was actually incredible.
His detractors have to give him that at least, his ability to pot out of this world shots, consistently. Just watch any old match he plays on YouTube, it's amazing
1 -
And the reality is with O'Sullivan practices harder than anyone, Doherty would tell you that. It's why he doesn't like Williams, the attitude he tries to portray of not practicing, not caring about records, is exactly Williams' attitude. He wants to be like Williams in that regard, but isn't, and over compensates. It's why he's never liked him.
He likes to be seen as the tortured genius, but again, the man who actually doesn't practice and continues to pull off mercurial unorthodox shots, is Williams. Williams is actually the more naturally talented potter of the two.
If Williams actually applied himself after circa 2005, he may have won more than 7 world titles. It's like what Becker said about Sampras, he didn't like him, cause on his best day, he wasn't as good as Sampras on his best day
O'Sullivan believes to himself, deep down, on his best day is better than anyone else, including Henry. The only exception is Williams. He genuinely believes, that on his best day, he may not be good enough to beat Mark on his best day. That's why there's always been that needle between the two, well it only goes one way in fairness, Mark doesn't actually care.
And I don't think many Ronnie fans would be that confident either. Mark in his prime didn't miss, was a robot. O'Sullivan at his best doesn't either. What would separate them is who could get in first every frame. The hard reality is that's Mark, he can consistently output Ronnie, on ridiculous reds no one else would even think of taking on, and get them more often than not.
Mark in his prime is simply the best player ever, the most talented actually, but didn't practice after 05, and only casually does now. The only other man who was potentially better, in terms of potting, was Higgins. O'Sullivan for me is third as the most talented ever, and second to Hendry as being the best ever.
O'Sullivan knows this himself, particularly in relation to Mark. At his very best, he doesn't fancy himself against Mark at his very best. It's actually why their hth is so lobsided, he puts everything into beating Mark, even when Mark was rubbish, to try and prove to himself he's better. But he doesn't really believe it, it's clear to see!
1 -
And I'll just post one more message about Alex Higgins that people retroactively fail to take into account, and consider.
He's a lifelong alcoholic, that rarely played a professional game sober. And became more intoxicated as matches went on. What other player could do that, to a point, successfully?
He was never shown how to play properly, and refused help and coaching in any meaningful way. Again he spent his whole career playing wrong.
And to further handicap himself, the minute he got a bit of money, the practice went out the window. Hardly practiced a day in his life after that.
Yet still had a relatively successful career, as his talent was so great, could often offset that. But when you really consider it, what players could achieve what he did, playing wrong, refusing coaching, not practicing and being heavily intoxicated every match?
I genuinely don't think anyone end could. And the pots he was still pulling out of the bag, were on a different sphere to what most other players could pot consistently.
It's actually staggering the man managed to win the world title in 82, seeing as how low percentage and handicapped every facet of his game was. He was carried by a raw and innate talent I genuinely don't believe even O'Sullivan carries. It's actually baffling the more you weigh it up.
The pots the man was regularly pulling off were genuinely ridiculous, but became standard and expected from him, such were the holes he had to pull himself out of! No other player could succeed playing under the same set of handicaps in any match, let alone have to do it in every match
0 -
This whole thread is just the OP screaming into and echo chamber that he loves Alex Higgins and doesn't like Ronnie O'Sullivan.
7 -
Higgins according to Jimmy White - played better when drunk.
Basically in summary Alex Higgins never changed = zero consistency. You obviously prefer the myth and aura of Higgins. But to me he was a bit of clown to put it mildly. Even O’Sullivan and Williams changed their lifestyle and game.
OK O’Sullivan does silly interviews but the man is a professional. Higgins was more of a circus act who used to blame everything and everyone before himself.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
2 -
You're the poster who previously stated that Higgins was a novelty act
The truth lies somewhere in between the 2 views here
0 -
Higgins beat the best on his day. UK and Worlds .
His game was limited by poor positional play and tactics etc.
He was what he was but he was no circus act
That's doing him a disservice
0 -
Well you say Williams changed his lifestyle and game. He did, he went to giving up practicing full time after 05. Since around winning the world title lately, he casually practices. You say it like he consciously put huge effort into evolving and improving his game. Hes hardly tried a leg since 05
0 -
Advertisement
-
I often reckon I play pool better after a few pints. At that level it's not the case. White being facetious, just to underscore how talented the man was.
Even if it was the case, it would also depend. He clearly went over that apex of where you could say he was better regularly, and was scuttered, particularly in the longer matches.
And even if you could argue his potting was better drunk, it clearly led to impatience with the cueball position and tactical play, that will cost you countless games per match. Thats where I was really highlighting the handicap lay in being intoxicated!
I see the man's shortcomings but it's not the myth I rate him on. Ive seen the pots with my own eyes, he regularly pulled off every frame, that I've never seen another man do to that level. It was incredible.
Ye it was always last ditch stuff rescuing the situation, but the pots the man was regularly putting in, every frame, was simply baffling!
Post edited by The Golden Miller on0 -
Nah Higgins was a prod haha. But I think people retroactively dismiss him, it's all about stats now
0 -
I think Higgins still was a novelty act. Although I changed my opinion slightly and ended up with “talented novelty act” . The top lads who win consistently are professional. What did Higgins do between 72 and 82? That was supposed to be Alex the hurricane at his peak. Yet Reardon and Spencer dominated. Plus let’s be honest. Higgins was blessed that Davis was knocked out early in 82. And faced an over the hill Reardon in the final.
At least the top draw ambassador of the game Ronnie O’Sullivan treats snooker very seriously. Higgins rarely did.
Ronnie is a top pro not only on ability but in attitude ON the table.And only for O’Sullivan many casual watchers would not bother watching snooker at all. When Higgins was briefly top dog he literally and metaphorically pissed it away not once, but twice.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
I think if Davis met Higgins in the 82 World Championships, it was one match Higgins would of blown him away. He was on a mission that tourament, so his daughter had one example of him playing sober, practising and with his head in the game, to show what he was capable off. To prove it to himself, her and the public. Jimmy is often seen as one of the first modern day, heavy break builders, Alex could live with him.
When you know Alex had blown most of his money, yet puts most of what he had left on himself to win, he meant business. There was no one beating him that tournament. You pushed him to the edge, he responded by pulling off ridiculous shots.
Generally he couldn't hack Davis tactically, dragging the game down, and would get progessively more impatient, intoxicated and erratic, leaving Davis easy clear ups every frame. But in 82, he was on the ball. Couldn't see Davis getting close to that Alex.
Just look at the interview match he played with John Virgo on Youtube, and the pink and black he potted. He called both, and black into the middle was one handed. Most other players would pot either shot 1/2 times in 10. He called both and knocked both it, like it was nothing. Thats simply outrageous talent
0 -
I've asked you several times, and you've never really answered. You say O'Sullivan took the game serious, and Higgins didn't. That he's a novelty act. If he did take it serious, was coached properly from the start etc, how great do you think his potential was, going by what you've seen off him?
If he was a model pro, how good do you think he may have been, ability wise? How highly do you rate his ability and talent, had he taken the game serious?
0 -
when he just sat back arrogantly slagging off other players… “ id have to lose an arm and a leg to fall out of the top 50 “…was one statement by him I believe…. No player is going to feel motivated by that..
It’s nasty, it’s arrogant, it’s demeaning. And he says he doesn’t care, but if he loses, he doesn’t care apparently right, ohhh he never practices or so he says… very respectful to snooker fans, not. Very respectful to opponents, not. It’s all böllocks anyway as he misses a pot, routinely he slams the butt of the Q off the floor, was doing it this year…Not exactly the actions of someone not caring…
1 -
All that is "if's but's and maybe's" the fact is Higgins had not it in his make up to be a dedicated pro.
I remember reading Jimmy White's book where he said he would have won 10 WC's title's if had lived more sensibly - ie not taken the "devil's dandruff" as he called it. But it annoyed me, the fact is White did not have the cop on to live like a dedicated pro in his early days. He has knuckled down now but it is way too late in the day.
That is part of pro top level snooker, no way Hendry would have done as well as he did without "treating it like a job" ie pure dedication. Ian Doyle basically babysat him him making him play in club on his own away from distractions of his friends. While Doyle looked on from his office.
Higgins/White would not have had the application and focus to do that.
In answer to your question, I think Higgins was always destined to implode, it was in his make up. He knew no other way.
I would agree with you it does sound nasty, but given Ronnie's mental disorders/background he is prone to such statements. He can't change that now. I honestly think he is fed up having to carry the torch for snooker as well. Wanting someone new to take over.
Bingtao could have been that guy but whether he was pressured into it or not it was an even worse choice than Stephen Lee. Bingtao had a great chance to be the first Chinese World Champ, setting himself up for life and his descendent's.
There is a lot of truth to what O'Sullivan said though at the same time. As there is no one coming up that is even close to him. If anything O'Sullivan has improved his all round game. There is plenty of times I have seen O'Sullivan make clearances from frames he looked dead and buried in. Where balls were really awkward etc. He used not to be bothered about those frames now he gives it a go
And there is one thing I realised in relation to @the golden miller said no one was better than Higgins for outrageous shots. What I noticed when asked to do recreations of shots O'Sullivan seems to find it fairly easy to get close to/recreate them. He has a natural instinct for a snooker shot.
Having application on top of natural talent, plus various mental disorders. Gets you a 30 year snooker career at highest level, over 1200 centuries, the most world titles of the modern era, and the occasional daft interview.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
The idea that higgins was a novelty act doesn't hold water
You simply can't fluke your way to a UK or World's win
At the same time he was what he was . He was limited by his overall game .
Jimmy White was consistently making world finals and should have won more
0 -
Well you say "to answer your question", but again you don't. We're all aware of Alex' handicaps. It's just you keep calling him a novelty act. I'm not asking about "ifs". I'm simply asking, of what you've seen of him, how highly do you rate his natural talent? Do you think he's overrated in that sense, when people say he was possibly the best ever, talent wise?
I get that it's hard to distinguish that, from how he was hardwired to be, but do you not think he had outrageous natural ability? I don't rate him as the best ever either overall, far from it, but I can't say I haven't seen him repeatedly do stuff other players simply couldn't imo, even Mark, Stephen, Steve, Ronnie etc at their best. Some of the obscure unorthodox stuff he was regularly pulling out of the hat was simply baffling.
I guess you could say the paradox of Alex Higgins is that he made an easy routine break look hard, but made the hardest shots look easy.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Just in relation to the recreations of Alex's shot's, yes it may be fairly easy now, when it's just that, recreation shot. No one was pulling them off in competition though. And recreations on modern tables make it easier.
I remember one year during the World Championships on the BBC, they recreated his famous shot on the blue in the studio. Not too hard to pull off now. But they used an older table, heavier cloth and balls, which wasn't as heated as tables now. None of the pro's could successfully pot the ball, and come off the cushion with anywhere close to the required spin to get the position on the following ball. And Alex done it in a scenario where it was no miss snooker, he was out otherwise.
See people like yourself, will say that break is over rated, because it's to hold up the myth of Alex. On modern tables it's doable, to pot the blue and get position. But it wasn't then and under the pressure. No other player could actually pot that blue and get position to this day. The only reason why Alex could, is due to how he naturally struck the ball, and jutted it, creating far more natural stun and spin that anyone else was capable of. There's an irony there, he could only pot it, because his stance was "wrong". And it's often hailed as showing his "genius". It actually had nothing to do with his "genius" in this case, again, simply a result of the akward looking way he naturally cued. Still, no one else to this day, could pull it off. People don't realise that, when they retrospectively call it overrated.
I also think you overstate Ronnie's mental conditions. I simply think he's a product of entitlement, a snob, who was handed everything and can't accept losing. You'll find the same arrogance and ego in many parts of affluent Ireland and UK. He simply looks down on others, and tried to ridicule and belittle them if they are a threat. Like Hendry. Williams is even "one of the lads" who doesn't care, you'd think him and Ronnie would get on, but Ronnie hates him, Willams being who Ronnie wants to be, makes him insecure.
Post edited by The Golden Miller on0 -
To be fair to Ronnie you can't pick your parents. One was a convicted murder the other was jailed for tax evasion.
I don't think O'Sullivan is entitled at all. He only kept going at the snooker to please his auld fella who was "banged up". And he worked his bollocks off on his game. Ken Doherty tells the story of how he was brought in to play a young Ronnie at home.
Doherty was walloping him. Ronnie said he had homework to do. Ken forgot his extension. Only to find Ronnie back practising on his own. That seems like anything but "entitled" to me.
To me "entitled" looks like this - 1990 World Championship - Mr Alex Higgins
Saying he "made the game" giving the impression that those in charge were expected to constantly put up with his outrageous behaviour off the table etc
Even Barry (H)earn would not touch him as manager he was just too volatile a character. A wreck of a man really.
Look at Mark Allen's story about his interaction with Alex. Allen was aged 15 and his mother got a call in the middle of the night looking for money. Because the local newspaper had claim Allen could be the "next Alex Higgins"
What a lovely guy Alex was….great ambassador for the sport
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
1 -
I know, I heard Doherty's interview on the radio, which is why I said he'd tell you Ronnie practices more than anyone. But his dad did hand him everything, and he's always been entitled and felt he was better. Even as a teenager, felt he was superior to Doherty.
Higgins was entitled too, but was working class, lacked education etc. But the game has risen and fell with him, only for a golden period in the late 90s/early 00s. No one is bigger than the game, but it's hard to argue Alex wasn't in this case.
You asked what did Alex do between 72 and 82, the whole popularity of the game was built on his back, even moving to the crucible. Without Alex, Hearn would be nobody, yet cut him out. The game has risen and fell with him, as a premier sport in the general publics eyes, bar a brief early 00s spell.
Snooker would of never even entered the mainstream without him, and has generally struggled since his exit from the game. He is by far snookers most important player, in terms of any mainstream success it had. He did "make the game" as a mainstream sport, and the Hearn "dynasty" owes everything to Alex!
0 -
Simply put, how highly do you rate his natural ability? Compared to say Ronnie. I'm not talking about anything else, other than raw natural ability
0 -
Higgins would never in a million years do that 5 minute 147
0 -
The Higgins we got wouldn't, but if he learned how to play right, a Higgins at full potential might!
I think it's hard to dispute, that for all his faults, Higgins is the best potter ever. No one had his eye for a pot.
Hendry said when he died, "people don't actually realize how good he was". What he meant by that, for all we seen of him, he could simply do things no one else could, and Hendry seen first hand just how talented he actually was!
Post edited by The Golden Miller on0 -
Advertisement
-
I've actually read Hendry's book, and there was an interesting piece on his match v Higgins where he lost in the Irish Masters. He said if he was potting heavy, would of beaten Higgins well, but couldn't find routine, but accepts Higgins was over the hill anyway.
What put him off was he couldn't get any rhythm. Higgins, as usual, would miss a hard shot on a break as he ran out of position. But kept leaving Hendry hard "tempters", awkward shots but you felt you had to take them on, and then miss himself. He noted though, Alex would come back, and be left and equally challenging "tempter", but he'd always sink that sort of shot without fail, and win a frame in two breaks then. Alex had a great strenght of being able to get back into a frame, in situations where players are "low on confidence" to pull off a shot, and regain some rhythm. That's why he's regarded as such a strong "single ball potter", his range.
You could usually rely on an Alex break breaking down due to dire positional play, but unless he left you, you had two choices. Take on a hard tempter, or try and play safe. This is where Alex "had" you. If you take the tempter and miss, he won't miss again. It's low percentage and that's where he specialised. You won't beat him on low percentage shots. But if you play safe and don't get a snooker, no matter where you leave him or how tied on a cushion the cueball is, he'll pot himself out of trouble, and more often than not get it.
Hendry said he was one of the hardest players to "contain". You could usually beat him because he beat himself, losing nearly every match with his positional play, but if he was solid there on any given day, there was no real way to contain him, with the range he had in his potting ability. That's why Hendry always maintains, people don't actually realise how good he was.
Someone said he had an easy final in 82. There was always heavier potters than Reardon, but he'd tie you up in knots. That's why his career was longer, didn't rely on potting like others. But anytime he was conservative and tied the cueball on the baulk cushion in that final, Alex was simply potting himself out of trouble, and pulling off long reds from being tied on the baulk cushin. Reardon simply couldn't contain him, with the range of potting he had, and being on form.
Other players may have beat Reardon in that final, outplaying him in a tactical game, but no one else could of beat him in the fashion Higgins did, potting himself out of any trouble he was in, not missing any long range reds from being tied on the baulk cushion. Some of his shots in that game were incredible. You simply can't contain that range of potting when its on point! And no one else has ever had that range.
Maybe the question is wrong, who's the best or most talented. A more apt question might be, what player had the greatest range of shots in his locker, an ability to successfully pot himself out of any situation or trouble?
Post edited by The Golden Miller on0 -
Still O'Sullivan took his chances and he basically had to be the man of the house for a period when his mother and father were both jailed. Another person would have cracked up completely. Maybe given up the game and god knows what. But O'Sullivan was STILL one of the best talents in the game, and had real matches against top players.
Your point about Higgins "making the game" is bladder. There were limited viewing figures between 72 and 82 anywway. Also the arrival of Jimmy White was inevitable.
Here is another "silly" O'Sullivan interview where O'Sullivan gives a then recently dead Alex Higgins plámás saying the good of Higgins outway the bad etc.
I disagree with O'Sullivan, Higgins was a talented clown who played clown/circus like snooker.
O'Sullivan also said that Alex Higgins was known for stealing snooker cues (which Ronnie was warned about) - who the hell does that?
And Alex was eyeing up young Ronnie's cue in the photo while O'Sullivan held it tight.
Let's look at Alex Higgins overall as a snooker player -
Technique = awful
Temperament = questionable at best, to the extent that it a surprise that he makes a comeback
Match Play/percentage shots = non existent
Positional play = what is positional play?
Marketable = if he turned up on time for sponsors
Dedication = does drinking count as practice?
Adaptability/changing his game = what's adaptability?
Flair shots - excellent but always HAD to play them because of non existent positional play and no match play brain
—
You again go on about the flair shots as if no one else ever did them. Do you not remember O'Sullivan in his younger days. Trump can do it, Williams in his own way. And of course Jimmy White.
O'Sullivan flair shots -
Trump flair shots -
Mark Williams flair shots -
Jimmy White flair shots -
But those lads did not not play fair shots for the sake of it/or HAD to do it to get out of trouble ALL the time. Alex Higgins was simply incapable of playing like a professional which is why he won so little. Both on and off the table.
No doubt you make an excuse that the balls and cloths have changed etc so what? If anything that should have meant Alex Higgins had a competitve advantage and won even more. Yet he ended up with the same amount of centuries as Terry Griffiths!!!!! Terry Griffith's!!!
Also the "Alex Higgins" people's champion is a joke in my opinion. The real people's champion is Jimmy White.
Steve Davis made the point himself that Jimmy was more the "People's Champion" than Alex Higgins.
"Jimmy more the people's champion than Alex Higgins, who was 'self proclaimed' in many ways"
—
Back to the question at issue O'Sullivan's interview do you think he was factually incorrect in any of the statements he made. It was honest about the state of the game and O'Sullivan basically lamenting that he has no young up and comer to push him. And even at his age he would have a job to get knocked out of a competitive ranking in about a decade. The impression I get as I said earlier that O'Sullivan is longing for someone to step up and take over.
At the moment he is "Mr. Snooker" the one who draws in the casual fans. Many do not watch snooker matches O'Sullivan is not involved in. But O'Sulivan's inbulit competitiveness has kept him going. He has adapted his game, learnt matchplay, overhauled his cue action, safety play vastly improved etc. That is what a pro does IMO. He has improved his lifestyle off the table. Sorted his head out mentally as best he can despite his various diagnosed conditions.
Your "saviour" Alex Higgins would not be fit to chalk O'Sullivan's cue IMO, he might not turn up for a start and if even if he did he might only do so to steal it.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
1 -
From what I remember Hendry said Higgin's basically rattled him, the crowd the atmosphere etc. As for the Reardon v Higgins final. This was an over the hill Reardon but still could have won the final. I would say if both played 10 matches of 10 frames each Reardon would have beaten him overall. Alex just had no consistency or match play and that is what wins snooker matches.
A pushing 50 year old Ronnie has proved this.
John Higgins even closer to 50 who is the "snooker player's snooker player" all rounder etc etc
Mark Williams who revamped his game, and always had that match play in him another who is hitting 50 soon.
Matchplay and positional play basically wins snooker matches, as Ronnie said of some of the younger snooker players they don't have a "snooker brain"
All the flashy shots do not bring consistency or longevity. If peak Alex Higgins played now I think he would have a job to stay in the top 32.
In a previous post mention the Alex Higgins paradox making the harder shots look easy. By the same token you can say he made the easy shots look hard. The amount of time watching him you would say "Why did he power that in so much?" He has way over screwed that. Alex Higgins basically played like an amateur IMO. He was not a break builder and played the way young children would play.
Complete contrast to O'Sullivan aged 14 Steve Davis described his play as "advanced positional play". "He doesn't look like a 14 year old at all"
Again, is Ronnie incorrect in anything he said his latest interview be honest? Look at the longevity, look at the adaptability, look at where is in game at pushing 50. Despite his troubled family background and mental issues which whether you like it or not are there*. STILL the star of game. Where are the young players who are going to knock him out of the top 64?
This is also a Ronnie who worried a peak Hendry,
1997
could compete with a seasoned veteran in Steve Davis 1993,
despite all his background issues at the time. He has great games with peak John Higgins. peak Mark Williams etc etc
To be honest I think the truth just irks you, as Ronnie has not only made the most of his talent, but surpassed expectations. Whereas the likes of Alex Higgins your "shot making hero" went off a cliff and drove himself into an early grave destitute and malnourished.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
bizarre thread, you don’t like him fair enough, but he is clearly the best snooker player of all time, and that’s according to Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis, Mark Williams, Judd Trump, John Higgins and many more. There is no debate.
5 -
Exactly, it is like the OP is manufacturing "crietria" like "shot making" a la Alex in order to lower O'Sullivan's achievements.
When all snooker players know that O'Sullivan's top tier positional play does not need to play outrageous shots. He ALWAYS had top level positional play even in his first TV appearance at 14. What is more O'Sullivan in his younger days could decide to go for a flair shot if "he fancied it" but his play matured especially after Reardon. I can't imagine Alex Higgins having the cop on/patience to work with Reardon!!
Whether Ronnie's interviews are "nice" interviews is another debate, but let's be honest there is a lot of truth to the recent one in that O'Sullivan should not be still no1 in the game at his age. And he would have great difficultly to be outside the top 64 maybe even in ten years? It is hard to fathom, and I am not sure Ronnie can believe it himself. A game based on positional play, consistent long potting, now with improved match play/safety and decades of experience that you can't teach. If you were to manufacture the ultimate snooker player that would be it. Throw in improved mental fortitude/techniques Where are the weaknesses now?
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Inconsistency and attitude are still problems with O'Sullivan
0 -
O'Sullivan didn't maximize his talent either
He said it himself he had wasted years and he wasted opportunities in tournaments
What he did was show resilience over his career and adapted and improved
0 -
Its a bit tedious a poster who clearly dislikes Higgins referring to him constantly as a novelty act
Higgins competed and beat the best on his day
Was Joe Johnson a novelty act ?
0 -
This poster has a habit of going on long winded rants, best ignored.
3 -
O’Sullivan obviously isn’t the full shilling, but it doesn’t mean his interview aren’t boring and self-indulgent. He’s been retiring and playing terribly according to himself for about the past 15 years.
Being young is a great advantage, since we see the world from a new perspective and we are not afraid to make radical changes - Greta Thunburg
0 -
O'Sullivan is not a nice person
He's just not as not nice as Higgins was 😁
Higgins was a proper c u next Tuesday
0 -
The fella has got over 1200 centuries and has won 8 world, 8 UK, 8 Masters. 41 ranking titles in all 23 "treble crowns".
Current world number 1
Plus the only natural ambidextrous player, to the point where people barely notice. Making his 1000th break completely left handed was audacious.
If that record is inconsistent, god help the rest of the field.
What do people expect him to do beat Joe Davis record of world titles?
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
That's just my opinion the fact you caveat Higgins with "on his day" makes my point. The more I think about it, the more I think he was a novelty act. When Alex Higgins did well it was a surprise. A surprise to win WC n 72, a surprise to win WC in 82. A surprise to win the UK in 83. Joe Johnston did fantastically well to get to world finals back to back and win one. By all accounts the fella seems like a gentleman.
The fact that the OP uses arguably the most bizarre/unconventional snooker player in history "Alex Higgins" to use an example to contrast against O'Sullivan is bizarre in itself. Why would you choose Higgins as barometer??? And even had the gall to call Alex Higgins more likeable! If you read Doherty's book his first meeting with Alex Higgins was not a nice one, and Doherty is a fella who idolised Higgins.
The way I judge a snooker player is firstly are they making the most of their talent? Then at the top level of player I look at what they won. How dedicated and adaptable they were. As good as Steve Davis and Hendry were. Davis said he could not adapt his game to compete with Hendry. And as for Hendry when he got "the yips" he was finished as a pro. He could not change his mentality. Sports psychology did not work for him.
Yet after all these greats have come and gone, Ronnie O'Sullivan has been the one constant in snooker. From the youngest World Ranking Title winner, to the oldest World Champion winner. Given all his background family issues and undoubted flaws that is seems to be seriously impressive. O'Sullivan has reached the stage in the game where he is setting records that might not be beaten for generations, if ever in the modern game.
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
A load of titles over 30 years doesn't prove consistency
0 -
That's just daft and makes zero sense. That fact Ronnie is at the top of the game after 30 years IS proof of consistency in itself. Simple as that. Plus Ronnie solved his weaknesses he used to be questioned on matchplay, safety (Reardon), mental fortitude (Steve Peters).
Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
1 -
Advertisement
