2013 World Snooker Championship Part II

First topic message reminder :

Moving the conversation here..... Come on Barry! Boo him!!!

Imo and it's just that mo , O'Sullivan should of won more World Titles but as we all know his head hasn't always been in it .

I think it's hard to compare players and say who is the best because different players have different strengths

O'Sullivan has the natural talent

Hendry had talent and nerve and i think played the game better then the rest

Davis will always be my favourite player though , i just liked his dedication

Yes mentally he is inferior to Hendry and Davis hence why I would put him behind both. Check out the BBC site and Mark J Williams hit the nail on the head describing this year's tournie as weak. Others agree on that point as well and I certainly do. No complaints about the eventual winner but lets put the feat into perspective is what I say.

If Williams thinks it's a poor tournament, then I am glad to disagree. What's happened is that the top players underperformed, so the 'weak' tournament is entirely his fault. I wish these players would stop talking snooker down.

Kenny wrote:Imo and it's just that mo , O'Sullivan should of won more World Titles but as we all know his head hasn't always been in it .

I think it's hard to compare players and say who is the best because different players have different strengths

O'Sullivan has the natural talent

Hendry had talent and nerve and i think played the game better then the rest

Davis will always be my favourite player though , i just liked his dedication

O'Sullivan is like a modern day Alex Higgins with the perfect technique allied to a pure natural ability for playing snooker, just like Lord Federer is the modern day John McEnroe with the physical presence plus perfect ball-hitting technique allied to pure natural ability for playing tennis. As for Steve Davis he is the ultimate no-thrills version of a snooker player, i.e. a Ivan Lendl type player who needs tons and tons of practice under his belt in order to compete at his best at the highest level.

I'd never describe myself as an expert on such matters but I'd be staggered if those that were experts would describe Alex Higgins as having the "perfect technique"!!

Hibbz wrote:I'd never describe myself as an expert on such matters but I'd be staggered if those that were experts would describe Alex Higgins as having the "perfect technique"!!

Well the thing about snooker is that each player has their own technique what works for them. To Alex Higgins his unorthodox technique worked well for him, and what let him down eventually or more often than not was a combination of drinking and pressures away from the snooker table which affected his tournament play. If Alex Higgins had gained a orthodox technique like what Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry had I doubt he could have been any better as a player, in fact by changing the existing mechanics of his game in an attempt to improve it, it well could have worsened it. Terry Griffiths is a classic example of an excellent player who tried to change the mechanics of his game around 1983 in order to compete better against Steve Davis and Jimmy White. Yet he only succeeded in making his game worse as cueing action got longer along with the loss of any flair from the way he naturally hit the ball.

I watched an interesting documentary on snooker a few years back , in it they showed footage of interviews of other players when Alex won his first World title and nearly all of them thought given his ability that he would dominate the game and take it into different more aggressive direction .
What they didn't take into account was that the likes of Reardon figured out how to frustrate Higgins and put him off his natural game ( a bit like Hendry did to Ronnie ) so that dominance never happen .
Later on it concentrated on Hendry and it was interesting to see him preparing for individual opponents differently ( ie slow his play , or slightly curbing his attacking play ) it showed how Stephen mastered all the aspects of winning a snooker match , he had tremendous talent but he also had the knack of beating a player who was playing better then him .

They had (especially Hendry) the all round talent to succeed , a plan B, C , D as it were

For me Ronnie's success this year is down to a lack of opponent that can win frames at one visit. Take yesterday's play in the final - I counted FOUR frames that Hawkins was in first and broke down with breaks of 30 or 40 and lost the frames. A player of the ilk of Hendry or peak Williams or J Higgins wouldn't have broken down and would have closed out the frames. That explains why a Ronnie world title in the 1990's was as rare as an appearance of Haley's Comet.

But if the lack of a decent opponent continues and Ronald keeps playing he does have a more then decent chance of more World Titles .

Would they mean as much as Hendrys or Davis's ? in the history books yes in reality no

CaledonianCraig wrote:For me Ronnie's success this year is down to a lack of opponent that can win frames at one visit. Take yesterday's play in the final - I counted FOUR frames that Hawkins was in first and broke down with breaks of 30 or 40 and lost the frames. A player of the ilk of Hendry or peak Williams or J Higgins wouldn't have broken down and would have closed out the frames. That explains why a Ronnie world title in the 1990's was as rare as an appearance of Haley's Comet.

Or maybe because he was still developing as a player??? Pretty poor insight being honest. Also watch any match with any player, including prime Hendry, you'll see players breaking down in the middle of breaks. To criticise the win because players didn't win every time at first go is pretty weak point.

Kenny wrote:But if the lack of a decent opponent continues and Ronald keeps playing he does have a more then decent chance of more World Titles .

Would they mean as much as Hendrys or Davis's ? in the history books yes in reality no

Decent opposition? Didn't Davis beat Joe Johnson, Doug Mountjoy and Cliff Thorburn in finals for World title? They would struggle to get near Top 16 in modern game. Also lost to Taylor when 9-0 up in a final.

The most frustrating thing for me is there are no real stars apart from Ronnie right now imo .

I though Robertson would step up , but he seems to of stalled .

I know people will argue for the Selbys or Trumps but they too need to step up .

Higgins is still a big name and is capable of winning tournaments , but his form has dipped .

Kenny wrote:The most frustrating thing for me is there are no real stars apart from Ronnie right now imo .

I though Robertson would step up , but he seems to of stalled .

I know people will argue for the Selbys or Trumps but they too need to step up .

Higgins is still a big name and is capable of winning tournaments , but his form has dipped .

Last year Ronnie was oldest player since Reardon to win the title. I think he is simply just a one off. I think Higgins is passed it, still capable of a win but just not consistent enough, similar to the last 5 or 6 years of Hendry's career.

Trump/Selby will step up but even when they do they're just not as good as Ronnie. As Hendry said, he's just better than everybody else.

No way Pedro (as Delboy would say). O'Sullivan won the UK Championship in 93 so he was ready as that is a good measure of readiness but couldn't win the world title for years. Hawkins played well but not of the standard of an all-time great of the sport. His inability to kill off a frame cost him the title. My point is that if O'Sullivan had of been playing a truly great player the result would have been different and explains his drought of world titles in the 90's.

The game now sadly lacks all time greats. Ronnie is one as is Higgins but his game is in a slump. Williams is a pale shadow of himself and his retirement looks imminent which leaves us with who? The 90's had a plethora of all-time greats such as Davis, White, Hendry, J Higgins, O'Sullivan, Williams and perhapd Doherty

Yes but I'd probably say he won the UK too early, similar way to which Murphy won the World's. For example, if Judd had beat Higgins a few years ago he would've won it ahead of schedule and as the years since have shown, he needs to develop his game.

Also, Ronnie is a depressive. People laugh and say he's attention seeking but mental illness is huge. In fact it's the biggest treated condition/illness in the UK at the moment.

In terms of who's the best player ever, this is how I always say it: In terms of achievement it's Hendry but in terms of playing the game to the highest possible standard then it's Ronnie. Hendry even said he found him unplayable on his day. My two cents on it anyway.

Also, you say the greats of the 90's and include Higgins and Williams. Both of them didn't win a world title until 1998 and onwards so it's probably mroe accurate to say they were players who achieved and peaked in the 00's.

In he 90's who also had players like Bond and Wattana getting top 3 in the world. Again, would struggle to get near the top 16 today.

Pedro name me players playing today at the top of their game that qualifies as an all-time great?

We always hear the depressive argument with Ronnie and that only counts against him. It shows that he had/has mental fragility that the likes of Davis and Hendry never had. In my books to be the greatest of all-time you need to dominate for years and Ronnie hasnt done that. He may do it now but don't get me started on who stands in his way again. The only world champions in the game now are Higgins possibly past it, williams definitely past it, Ebdon past it, Dott somewhere in between and Murphy the jury is out on.

The thing that differentiates them for me is that for 10 years I was truly shocked whenever Hendry lost a match, he was simply that good.

With Ronnie, I'm never that surprised when he loses

CaledonianCraig wrote:We always hear the depressive argument with Ronnie and that only counts against him. It shows that he had/has mental fragility that the likes of Davis and Hendry never had. In my books to be the greatest of all-time you need to dominate for years and Ronnie hasnt done that. He may do it now but don't get me started on who stands in his way again. The only world champions in the game now are Higgins possibly past it, williams definitely past it, Ebdon past it, Dott somewhere in between and Murphy the jury is out on.

You forgot Robertson, who's won 7 ranking events and could easily go on to win multiple titles

LastDamnation wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:We always hear the depressive argument with Ronnie and that only counts against him. It shows that he had/has mental fragility that the likes of Davis and Hendry never had. In my books to be the greatest of all-time you need to dominate for years and Ronnie hasnt done that. He may do it now but don't get me started on who stands in his way again. The only world champions in the game now are Higgins possibly past it, williams definitely past it, Ebdon past it, Dott somewhere in between and Murphy the jury is out on.

You forgot Robertson, who's won 7 ranking events and could easily go on to win multiple titles

Sorry yes there is Robertson as well but I question his consistency.

Both Robbo and Murphy have the game to win titles, as they've proven. It's a mystery as to why they haven't won more than one WC each.

As for Selby, I doubt he'll ever win one. No other major prepares you for the WC, and he bottles it each and every year despite being one of the perennial favourites.

CaledonianCraig wrote:We always hear the depressive argument with Ronnie and that only counts against him. It shows that he had/has mental fragility that the likes of Davis and Hendry never had. In my books to be the greatest of all-time you need to dominate for years and Ronnie hasnt done that. He may do it now but don't get me started on who stands in his way again. The only world champions in the game now are Higgins possibly past it, williams definitely past it, Ebdon past it, Dott somewhere in between and Murphy the jury is out on.

Were as Hendry had Davis, Parrott in the 90's and possibly Doherty?? I also I think Parrott and Doherty are no better than Murphy, Trump or Robertson. Again I'm not downplaying as I've already said how highly I rate him but if you're rating players or generations then you have to be fair.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:Both Robbo and Murphy have the game to win titles, as they've proven. It's a mystery as to why they haven't won more than one WC each.

As for Selby, I doubt he'll ever win one. No other major prepares you for the WC, and he bottles it each and every year despite being one of the perennial favourites.

Precisely my point Azzy. At the mo the world title is almost like an 'Excuse me' dance with top players saying 'After you' etc. And that just isn't the hallmark of all-time great players for me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Pedro name me players playing today at the top of their game that qualifies as an all-time great?

Very hard to answer when players are still currently playing and only when they stop playing can you class them as being an ATG or not. As of now I'd say Williams and Higgins whom are both passed their best. Only time will tell with players like Murphy, Trump, Selby and co.

Parrot and Doherty won world titles (Doherty beating Hendry near his prime) and Doherty reached three world finals so places him above Robertson and Murphy in my book certainly.

Pedro147 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Pedro name me players playing today at the top of their game that qualifies as an all-time great?

Very hard to answer when players are still currently playing and only when they stop playing can you class them as being an ATG or not. As of now I'd say Williams and Higgins whom are both passed their best. Only time will tell with players like Murphy, Trump, Selby and co.

Well Selby is hardly one with time on his side is he? We've been hearing for the past five or six years how he was destined for great things and the world title still alludes him so I cannot see Selby becoming an all-time great. Trump has time on his side and may make it but that would be a presumption at the moment and Murphy has regressed if anything since bursting on the scene and I reckon we have already seen the best of him. I may be wrong but I certainly wouldn't bet a penny on Selby or Murphy becoming an all-time great so you are pinning all your hopes on Trump. Sadly, the days of clashes of the titans in snooker is fast becoming a distant memory.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Parrot and Doherty won world titles (Doherty beating Hendry near his prime) and Doherty reached three world finals so places him above Robertson and Murphy in my book certainly.

Dott reached 3 World Finals and so did Ebdon, in an era with Higgins, Ronnie and Williams whom you rate so highly. So as you say, they're certainly in your book.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pedro147 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Pedro name me players playing today at the top of their game that qualifies as an all-time great?

Very hard to answer when players are still currently playing and only when they stop playing can you class them as being an ATG or not. As of now I'd say Williams and Higgins whom are both passed their best. Only time will tell with players like Murphy, Trump, Selby and co.

Well Selby is hardly one with time on his side is he? We've been hearing for the past five or six years how he was destined for great things and the world title still alludes him so I cannot see Selby becoming an all-time great. Trump has time on his side and may make it but that would be a presumption at the moment and Murphy has regressed if anything since bursting on the scene and I reckon we have already seen the best of him. I may be wrong but I certainly wouldn't bet a penny on Selby or Murphy becoming an all-time great so you are pinning all your hopes on Trump. Sadly, the days of clashes of the titans in snooker is fast becoming a distant memory.

Please read piece in bold, how does that say pinning my hopes on?

Is it really so hard to answer Pedro? Come on and be honest. If Selby was going to be an all-time great in the sport he would have surely have sealed at least one world title by now but no and if anything he looks further away from one now. Murphy burst on the scene but since then has not had any ground-breaking moments. Trump has time on his side granted, Ding has been put forward as a world champion elect but failed to step up to the plate and Robertson has won once and like Murphy regressed somewhat. Not much all-time great potential there I'd say to fit into the bracket occupied by Steve Davis, Ray Reardon, Stephen Hendry, Jimmy White, Mark Williams, Alex Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan and John Higgins.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is it really so hard to answer Pedro? Come on and be honest. If Selby was going to be an all-time great in the sport he would have surely have sealed at least one world title by now but no and if anything he looks further away from one now. Murphy burst on the scene but since then has not had any ground-breaking moments. Trump has time on his side granted, Ding has been put forward as a world champion elect but failed to step up to the plate and Robertson has won once and like Murphy regressed somewhat. Not much all-time great potential there I'd say to fit into the bracket occupied by Steve Davis, Ray Reardon, Stephen Hendry, Jimmy White, Mark Williams, Alex Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan and John Higgins.

You say Murphy and Robbo not too good as only win one final. Yet Jimmy White an ATG who had no bottle and never won the worlds? Being honest I don't think the guys around now are as good as Hendry, Ronnie or John Higgins. But as I said, you need to have objectivity to argument and apply the same criteria to everyone, not the player you like.

But anyway, I'm off now. Have a good evening Sir.

Well White will be regarded as the greatest player to never win the world title so that is another tick for the 80's and 90's. I don't think you will see anyone arguing that Selby should have that accolade above White.

Yes you do need objectivity and be able to assess everything. For me snooker now lacks the all-time greats (Ronnie aside) to throw up clash of the titans matches that we had in the past a la Hendy V White or V O'Sullivan or V Higgins etc etc. The type of matches that really got the juices flowing. They just do not exist any more.

I will give Ronnie his dues - at least he knows his place:-

http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/07/ronnie-osullivan-insists-he-hasnt-got-the-bottle-to-match-stephen-hendry-as-snookers-greatest-3715753/

Case closed I reckon until Ronnie reaches 8 world titles.

If Ronnie wins 7 titles, it's a bigger achievement. Hendry had easy wins over Jimmy White, Ronnie will have battled his mentalism 7 times to win. I know which is the more impressive achievement!

Mental illness isn't an excuse. If a sportsman isn't fit physically or mentally, they shouldn't be competing. (I'm not saying he shouldn't be competing at all).

I wasn't using it as an excuse, I was using it as a comparator - Jimmy White beat himself, all Hendry had to do was turn up - but Ronnie has to beat himself, a much harder proposition imo.

I'd tell you what I'd love to see.

Prime Ronnie v Prime Alex.

I'm not saying you are Azzy I admire his fight to conquer it but I won't have it as an excuse.

I agree Dave; there's a meltdown there someone, plus someone's getting punched.

Ronnie would wipe the floor with Alex, I reckon. Look at how he played in this year's final, 4 matches after a year off and he makes a big break in about 16/18 of the frames he won. I don't think Alex would be able to cope with Ronnie's 'one visit' style.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:If Ronnie wins 7 titles, it's a bigger achievement. Hendry had easy wins over Jimmy White, Ronnie will have battled his mentalism 7 times to win. I know which is the more impressive achievement!

White losing three times to Hendry in the worlds is no disgrace as Ronnie himself can testify to. And besides Ronnie has beayen Ali Carter (twice) and Hawkins for world crowns. Ask snooker fans who the greatest player never to win the world title and invariably the answer will be Jimmy White and certainly not Carter or Hawkins.

That would be because Jimmy's career is finished, while Carter and Hawkins are still carving their names into the snooker annals. I'd argue that Carter would beat Jimmy anyway.

So are you seriously saying Carter has a good chancd of usurping Jimmy White as the best player never to win the world title? Point of fact:- White got closer to beating Hendry in his prime than Ronnie did.

Harsh on Ronnie, seeing as he was only 15 when Hendry won his first title. By the time Ronnie was playing at anything near 'prime level', Hendry had won 6 of his 7 world titles already. So of course Jimmy got closer, he had years and years to try his best.

I'm not saying Carter will usurp Jimmy as best player to never win the WC, I'm saying I think Carter would beat Jimmy in his prime. I think he's a better player. Jimmy proved time after time that he couldn't handle Hendry's (or anyone else's) safety play, and Carter would be able to chip away at Jimmy over a 35-frame match.

Not at all. Ronnie won the UK in 1993 long before he first met Hendry in the worlds so he was in good shape. White stretched Hendry to 18-16 whereas Ronnie never got so close. Look at those matches as well and Ronnie bagged century breaks (five in one of their match ups and he still lost).

Which shows the extraordinary talent that Ronnie had as a youngster, but shows that he wasn't in the snooker elite at that time because he lacked the experience of the big stage. Ronnie didn't enter his prime until the late 90s imo, co-incidentally about the time Hendry was tailing off.

And I still maintain that Hendry's competition wasn't actually all that good - I think this current crop of players is every bit as good as the early 90s.

I dont think you are ever going to agree

Naturally not, but it's fun to discuss it

I have no problem with people backing Hendry, dissing Ronnie, dumping on Carter, bigging up the world's biggest loser (Jimmy), anything. Snooker is a really great sport, and I love the passion that fans have for it. My favourite player ever is Alain Robidoux, part of me truly hates Ronnie for what he did to him

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we all agreed would it ?

Anyway Steve Davis is the best player ever

Haha, Interesting Steve Davis. I was introduced to him at that Mosconi Cup I went to, he beat me at a game of 9-ball but he actually complemented me on my strategy, so I was more than chuffed.

I have met him a few times a snooker events , he is a nice bloke