2013 World Snooker Championship

First topic message reminder :

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP FIRST ROUND

(Seeded players are in brackets)

(1) Ronnie O'Sullivan v Marcus Campbell

(16) Ali Carter v Ben Woollaston

(9) Stuart Bingham v Sam Baird

(8) John Higgins v Mark Davis

(5) Shaun Murphy v Martin Gould

(12) Graeme Dott v Peter Ebdon

(13) Matthew Stevens v Marco Fu

(4) Judd Trump v Dominic Dale

(3) Neil Robertson v Robert Milkins

(14) Ricky Walden v Michael Holt

(11) Mark Williams v Michael White

(6) Stephen Maguire v Dechawat Poomjaeng

(7) Mark Allen v Mark King

(10) Ding Junhui v Alan McManus

(15) Barry Hawkins v Jack Lisowski

(2) Mark Selby v Matthew Selt

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not at all. Hendry is clearly the GOAT of modern snooker, his achievements attest to that. My view is that Ronnie is overall a better more complete player but certainly not the greatest achievement wise. Nadal is neither the GOAT achievement wise or, as I think any sensible tennis fan would agree, a better or more complete player than Federer. He is just better than Federer on clay, assisted largely by a favourable matchup which happens quite often in tennis.

Sorry I disagree.

Ronnie is the most naturally-gifted player ever to pick up a cue but has too many other flaws in his make-up to qualify him as the GOAT.

If we could compile Top Trump cards (remember them) for Davis, Hendry and O'Sullivan I would score them something like this:-

Natural Talent:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 9

Domination of the Sport:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

Dedication:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 4

Concentration:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 6

Break-building:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 8

Safety:-

Davis 10
O'Sullivan 8
Hendry 8

Career Achievements:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

If we were to have a rating for ambassador for the sport Ronnie would score very lowly and Davis highest with Hendry just behind.

I think I heard someone say on Twitter Terry was the Obi Wan Kenobi of snooker.

I disagree.

Surely he's Yoda?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not at all. Hendry is clearly the GOAT of modern snooker, his achievements attest to that. My view is that Ronnie is overall a better more complete player but certainly not the greatest achievement wise. Nadal is neither the GOAT achievement wise or, as I think any sensible tennis fan would agree, a better or more complete player than Federer. He is just better than Federer on clay, assisted largely by a favourable matchup which happens quite often in tennis.

Sorry I disagree.

Ronnie is the most naturally-gifted player ever to pick up a cue but has too many other flaws in his make-up to qualify him as the GOAT.

If we could compile Top Trump cards (remember them) for Davis, Hendry and O'Sullivan I would score them something like this:-

Natural Talent:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 9

Domination of the Sport:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

Dedication:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 4

Concentration:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 6

Break-building:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 8

Safety:-

Davis 10
O'Sullivan 8
Hendry 8

Career Achievements:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

If we were to have a rating for ambassador for the sport Ronnie would score very lowly and Davis highest with Hendry just behind.

Not sure what you're disagreeing with. I've already stated that Hendry is the GOAT of modern snooker (in the above post) However I do think Ronnie is the best all round player I've ever seen.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not at all. Hendry is clearly the GOAT of modern snooker, his achievements attest to that. My view is that Ronnie is overall a better more complete player but certainly not the greatest achievement wise. Nadal is neither the GOAT achievement wise or, as I think any sensible tennis fan would agree, a better or more complete player than Federer. He is just better than Federer on clay, assisted largely by a favourable matchup which happens quite often in tennis.

Sorry I disagree.

Ronnie is the most naturally-gifted player ever to pick up a cue but has too many other flaws in his make-up to qualify him as the GOAT.

If we could compile Top Trump cards (remember them) for Davis, Hendry and O'Sullivan I would score them something like this:-

Natural Talent:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 9

Domination of the Sport:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

Dedication:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 4

Concentration:-

Davis 10
Hendry 9
O'Sullivan 6

Break-building:-

O'Sullivan 10
Hendry 9
Davis 8

Safety:-

Davis 10
O'Sullivan 8
Hendry 8

Career Achievements:-

Hendry 10
Davis 9
O'Sullivan 8

If we were to have a rating for ambassador for the sport Ronnie would score very lowly and Davis highest with Hendry just behind.

On a slight diversion you might want to play this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/spl/hi/other_sports/03/sn_world_champs/game/html/initial.stm

COME ON JIMMY!

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

Fair point, but Ronnie probably had to deal with a greater depth in quality.

Both Hendry and Davis regularly had a couple of gimmes in the early rounds at major tournaments, meaning they would only have to produce their A-game two or three times to be in with a shot at winning it.

The standard of the players ranked 9-32 has been a lot higher post-2000 than it was back in the 80s or 90s IMO, therefore the scope for single player dominance is greatly reduced.

And players like Campbell aren't a gimme either? Of course they are. If you ask snooker fans who the greatest player never to win the world title was the unaminous answer you will get is Jimmy White who plied his trade in the 80's and 90's. Why not Mark Selby if the here and now has more strength in depth? That is a great fallacy.

Campbell was certainly a favourable draw for Ronnie - there were more dangerous players outside the top 16 who could have taken him into the trenches after a year out, and we have no idea how that would have gone...

Overall I'd say the standard between 9-32 is slightly higher than in either the 80s or 90s.

Agreed on Jimmy, though the fact he made six finals makes that something of a cut and dried argument. He just happened to fit neatly into the Davis/Hendry passing of the torch and was desparately unlucky...

Talk 90's and the world title contenders were Hendry, White, Parrot, Williams, O'Sullivan, Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens and J Higgins. Talk 2010's world title contenders and you have Trump (unproven at the very top), O'Sullivan, Selby (yet to crack the big one), Ding (another yet to step up to the plate), Higgins (thought to be past his best) Robertson, Maguire and Murphy. Doesn't have anywhere near the same ring as the 90's.

Dave. wrote:I think I heard someone say on Twitter Terry was the Obi Wan Kenobi of snooker.

I disagree.

Surely he's Yoda?

Like snucker, he does. Moral equivalent of war, snucker is.

On a different note, cracking match so far!

LastDamnation wrote:On a different note, cracking match so far!

Yes - and at a brilliant pace!

Higgins/Selby it ain't.

Would love a McLeod v Ebdon BO 35 WC final....

The Special Juan wrote:Would love a McLeod v Ebdon BO 35 WC final....

More than a Pipe v Priestley PDC World Final?

FreekShow wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Would love a McLeod v Ebdon BO 35 WC final....

More than a Pipe v Priestley PDC World Final?

Actually yes.

But not Priestley v Ovens.

Probably Freek. Although the PDC final would be hilarious as the crowd would slowly start turning on each other and the night would descend into a drunken nightmare where the crowd tear each other's faces off, McLeod v Ebdon would last at least 20 hours and the commentary would be joyous.

Dave. wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Would love a McLeod v Ebdon BO 35 WC final....

More than a Pipe v Priestley PDC World Final?

Actually yes.

But not Priestley v Ovens.

I still haven't seen the Heat live yet Dave. I know I am missing out.

FreekShow wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Would love a McLeod v Ebdon BO 35 WC final....

More than a Pipe v Priestley PDC World Final?

On a brighter note, Bazza back level at 7-7.

Hey, The Eagle Eyed Hawk is going nowhere yet. He might make a contest of this after all.

The Hawk ensures there will be a fourth session!

Must say he's shown more bottle than anyone of Ronnie's opponents. He hasn't folded, and boy, can he win this!

The Special Juan wrote:Hey, The Eagle Eyed Hawk is going nowhere yet. He might make a contest of this after all.

He may even win it..

Cracking break by Hawkins of 135 and out-scoring Ronnie.

Lowest number of centuries since before 2004. Says it all.

And yet the world no.14 is playing like a hero...

The inbreds are in tonight I hear

Do they play with the same size pockets and balls and the same or similar type of cloth as they did in the 90s, 80s and before? Has it been made any harder to acheive century breaks or 147s in any way compared to years back? Or is the same? Thanks.

Henman Bill wrote:Do they play with the same size pockets and balls and the same or similar type of cloth as they did in the 90s, 80s and before? Has it been made any harder to acheive century breaks or 147s in any way compared to years back? Or is the same? Thanks.

Well if Barry Hearn has his way the pockets will become bigger if the trebles on his dart boards are anything to go by.

I think all of the above are different. Nowadays the cloth is thinner, the balls are lighter and the pockets are smaller.

New topic Kenny?

The Special Juan wrote:I think all of the above are different. Nowadays the cloth is thinner, the balls are lighter and the pockets are smaller.

thanks, so how many of today's players could say beat Steve Davis at his peak do you reckon?

Henman Bill wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:I think all of the above are different. Nowadays the cloth is thinner, the balls are lighter and the pockets are smaller.

thanks, so how many of today's players could say beat Steve Davis at his peak do you reckon?

Not many as he would tie them up with his safety game.

8-7 Ronnie.

But I think The Hawk will win this. Got this feeling. And I just can't fight it anymore.

Now, I'll be taking it on the run here to tomorrow.

But regardless, Snooker, I'll keep on loving you......

Commentators are so annoying, they didn't say anything when Ronnie got away with three missed long pots earlier

Pretty sure the pockets were a lot bigger back in the 1980s than they are now. Davis stood out at massively at his peak, and would have been quality in any era, but the favourable conditions, allied to the TV surge in snooker at the time, made many of the rest look a bit better than they were IMO.

Henman Bill wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:I think all of the above are different. Nowadays the cloth is thinner, the balls are lighter and the pockets are smaller.

thanks, so how many of today's players could say beat Steve Davis at his peak do you reckon?

I had a nice response to this and then the internet cut out on me..........

Under 80s conditions with the heavier balls and thicker cloths, break building was much more difficult despite the larger pockets. I think, out of the players since then, only Higgins and O'Sullivan could give Davis a proper game, with Hendry probably joining them along with a peak MJW. However, we must remember that Steve has pretty much done it under today's conditions too with a Masters win in the late nineties and a few finals in the early 00s.

If Ronnie wins this frame he is guaranteed an overnight lead.

Ban any inbred that shouts "Come on *Player*!!" when the opponent has missed a shot. Classless, inbred chavs.

Thanks for your answers everyone.

Is there another frame in the session? I thought they played 8,8,8 (up to)11.

The Special Juan wrote:Ban any inbred that shouts "Come on *Player*!!" when the opponent has missed a shot. Classless, inbred chavs.

I reckon Ronnie fans just have to be Millwall fans. You know the sort? Contemptible.

In the final they play 8, 9, 8, 10.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Ban any inbred that shouts "Come on *Player*!!" when the opponent has missed a shot. Classless, inbred chavs.

I reckon Ronnie fans just have to be Millwall fans. You know the sort? Contemptible.

I know what you mean. Repugnant.

The Special Juan wrote:In the final they play 8, 9, 8, 10.

Did they change that in the last few years? Always remembered it as 8-8-8-11.

Henman Bill wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:In the final they play 8, 9, 8, 10.

Did they change that in the last few years? Always remembered it as 8-8-8-11.

I can't remember if/when it changed, all I can say it was the same this year as it was last year.

I've always been in slight disagreement with those that say The Nugget won his titles due to his safety and tactical game.

As I remember it when he was at his peak in terms of success the players he beat were also grinders. Steve's main attribute/skill was that he would make a 30/40 then when he got out of position play safe, force a mistake from his opponent and then make another 30/40. His break building was far superior to that of his opponents in those days and he cut out the mistakes that the lesser players were want to make.

It was only once the better potters came onto the scene such as Hendry, Doherty, to a lesser extent Foulds maybe and later Williams that Steve became an out and out grinder.

Hibbz wrote:I've always been in slight disagreement with those that say The Nugget won his titles due to his safety and tactical game.

As I remember it when he was at his peak in terms of success the players he beat were also grinders. Steve's main attribute/skill was that he would make a 30/40 then when he got out of position play safe, force a mistake from his opponent and then make another 30/40. His break building was far superior to that of his opponents in those days and he cut out the mistakes that the lesser players were want to make.

It was only once the better potters came onto the scene such as Hendry, Doherty, to a lesser extent Foulds maybe and later Williams that Steve became an out and out grinder.

A very fair assessment.

This is a key moment/frame for Bazza. If Ronnie wins it to lead 10-7 it will start to look ominous but if Hawkins can win it he will be right in there with a shout after the first day.

He's still 4th on the centuries list with 336.

Just popped on the action to see the score and whilst I was pleasantly surprised to see it's still closish I did initially think I was watching Emmerdale Farm.

Andy Sugden v Bob Hope.

Hawkins looking ragged just now.

How does your game fall apart in a split second?

Probably tiredness creeping in in this case

I now feel this is a must win frame for Bazza.

LastDamnation wrote:Probably tiredness creeping in in this case

Twas my thought too but I thought the 13-something would have been enough to get him up for the rest of the session.