Ronnie O'Sullivan

wildJONESEYE wrote:that was a prime example of someone having a pre conceived idea about selby......... in that match dott was the player that played negative

Dotty won

Monique wrote:To come back to the initial post I don't think it will suit him. In general he's often a slow starter in matches. More often than not he's very anxious and needs a couple of frames to settle. I must say I'm not too happy to see he hasn't entered PTC2 and 3 and apparantly not EPTC1 neither (although there is still more than a week to do so). Last year he didn't do great in the Championship league snooker neither. Whatever he claims (and probably thinks) short formats don't really suit him. Best of 11 in the Masters is longer than the standard best of 9 and he has a good record overall in the WC, he's reached the semis or more 8 times in 17 participation, that's not bad, only Hendry did better. So I don't expect much in that tournament and being away from home doesn't help usually.
In fact I expect his ranking to suffer big time ... and that might wake him up ... or not.

Davis and White must have done better than at least 8 semis in their first 17 WC appearances

That's indeed true ... both did better than Hendry also with 10 for Jimmy and 11 for Davis in their first 17 appearances. Somehow I was thinking only of the players still in the race nowadays, although if you look at Steve, well, he is. My bad.

There is a lot of talk about Selby’s tactics and gamesmanship. I would call it tactics yes but I wouldn’t call it gamesmanship. Players have used these tactics for many years Mark is not the first and it is a testament to how good the opponent is to how they cope with it. I can’t stand when people slate him for this (especially on 606) how many of you out there have used these tactics whilst playing pool? I know I certainly have when the othere player is in form and I’m having a bad day on the table. Ronnie seems to let these tactics get under his skin and his head starts to drop. The same could be said for Higgins in the World final but then he turned it round when it really mattered

I think too much is made of it at times, especially when the person is playing Ronnie. I think the now infamous match against Peter Ebdon a few years ago was an example.

Ronnie had a clear lead, and Ebdon started taking his time thinking over every shot. People claimed he was doing this to through Ronnie off. They said Ronnie would've outpotted Ebdon if he'd played a quick attacking game. Firstly, that isn't Ebdon's natural game, and plays that way more often then he doesn't. Secondly, in what sense is it cheating if Ebdon decides to play a style that his opponent struggles with? Isn't that just strategy? In boxing, if you are smaller then your opponent, and know he is stronger, you don't just stand toe-to-toe and trade punches. You'd get killed. To succeed, you have use superior speed to evade his blows and get in quick to land your own. I don't see what Ebdon did that was so controversial. He played his natural style, and it is a style that Ronnie wasn't in the mood to deal with that game. I remember watching the last five frames of that match, whereby Ronnie only needed to win three frames. He had at least one match winning opportunity in pretty much all of those frames. Sometimes he was getting three. He had got bored, wasn't trying, and was missing things due to no longer wanting to concentrate. I think the fuss made at Ebdon's expense was somewhat harsh.... And the analysists and commentators were just as bad as the fans, if not more so. (We may hear about anti-Ronnie bias in the papers, the commentators have very much a pro-Ronnie bias at times.)


Whatever you say about Ebdon, Ronnie had a clear lead in the match, which he himself is just as responsible as anybody else for losing. Even if Ebdon did deliberately play slowly to unnerve his opponent, I don't see this as in any way cheating. And Ronnie himself was gracious in defeat that day.

Out of interest, hand on heart, can anybody say that they think a prime Stephen Hendry would've lost a match due to be frustrated with how many times his opponent cleaned the cue-ball?

I've said it till I'm blue in the face about Selby. When people harp on about him sometimes taking in excess of one or two minutes over a shot firstly they are being influenced by the BBC who always bring up a "Shot time 1:00" notice on screen so it makes it more noticable, and secondly and more importantly, the situation of the frame and match and the lie of the balls determine the shots which require extra care. The only times he takes this long are on significant shots, ones which if he gets wrong could see him losing ground to the opponent and maybe the match with it.


And the Ronnie v Ebdon match yet again comes up. I asked Cliff his views on it in the interview.

Sonny wrote:I've said it till I'm blue in the face about Selby. When people harp on about him sometimes taking in excess of one or two minutes over a shot firstly they are being influenced by the BBC who always bring up a "Shot time 1:00" notice on screen so it makes it more noticable, and secondly and more importantly, the situation of the frame and match and the lie of the balls determine the shots which require extra care. The only times he takes this long are on significant shots, ones which if he gets wrong could see him losing ground to the opponent and maybe the match with it.


And the Ronnie v Ebdon match yet again comes up. I asked Cliff his views on it in the interview.

I only bring it because we were discussing something for which it could be brought up naturally in conversation. I know that as a match it has probably been discussed to death on internet forums, so apologies if it's repeating debates we've had before.

I think people are a bit biased in trying to make Selby look boring. I will admit that there were a couple of matches that spring to mind last season that he had that weren't of total interest. I watched his match against Ken Doherty at the Grand Prix on TV, and his match at the UK vs Jamie Cope in the arena. I missed the last few frames of that match, but apparently he did speed up a bit. The only reason that I can remember them two as boring matches though, are because people like to harp on about how boring Selby is, so when he has a less then classic match, it's more noticable. I am sure most players have been involved in matches that weren't completely gripping, the balls run harsh for everybody. That's the point I was trying to make.

I think at The Masters, maybe when the pressure is off, he has had some classics, a lot of which ended 6-5. Neither of his finals against Ronnie I considered boring, which are the matches people use as 'proof' that he's boring. And who could forget his final appearance against Higgins which made his name. I think people get on his back unfairly sometimes, and I think because he has played and beat Ronnie a few times, people have to over-analyse why Ronnie lost for some reason.

I don't think Selby is boring and if Ronnie lost it's either because Mark was the better player or because Ronnie couldn't cope with the pressure Mark put on him or both. Simple as that. I think Selby is actually very often a creative inspirational player BUT it does not stop me to think that he does occasionally resort to tactics I, personally, don't like and don't want to see. Just like I don't like Ebdon's tactics be it against Ronnie ... or Jamie Cope to name only one other one who has been at the recieving end of them. And I insist: personally. This is about me and what I expect and like to enjoy from a match. I know some take enjoyment at seing the mental crushing of a player. I don't.

"I only bring it because we were discussing something for which it could be brought up naturally in conversation. I know that as a match it has probably been discussed to death on internet forums, so apologies if it's repeating debates we've had before."

No I was just pointing out that it's still talked about and that's what I said to Cliff when I asked the question and you've just reaffirmed that.

Monique wrote:I don't think Selby is boring and if Ronnie lost it's either because Mark was the better player or because Ronnie couldn't cope with the pressure Mark put on him or both. Simple as that. I think Selby is actually very often a creative inspirational player BUT it does not stop me to think that he does occasionally resort to tactics I, personally, don't like and don't want to see. Just like I don't like Ebdon's tactics be it against Ronnie ... or Jamie Cope to name only one other one who has been at the recieving end of them. And I insist: personally. This is about me and what I expect and like to enjoy from a match. I know some take enjoyment at seing the mental crushing of a player. I don't.

I won't argue, as you pointing out this is what you personally enjoy. But I will ask do you think Ebdon (as an example) tries to 'mentally crush' a player. Or is it just the way he plays? I don't rate Ebdon as the most exciting player, but from the limited times I've met him, and from the way he comes across in interviews, he doesn't look like the sort of player that is malicious, or tries these tactics to break down other players. More so he is a determined grinder, who if there aren't clean pots on, likes to play a more safety first game.

Though I believe that Ebdon has the ability to make big breaks, as all the top players do, he is somebody that prfers to make them when balls are on their spot, or handily placed. I have seen him actually open up, and play a more attacking game, if his opponent gives him the opportunity. It's just in many cases, in top flight snooker, his opponent is going to be too good to give him that many opportunities this way.

Thats my stance, I've always kind of seen him more of a gentleman, with a game that many don't see as exciting these days. (And I admit to having found the Ebdon-Dott final, for example, particularly dull.)

Sonny wrote:"I only bring it because we were discussing something for which it could be brought up naturally in conversation. I know that as a match it has probably been discussed to death on internet forums, so apologies if it's repeating debates we've had before."

No I was just pointing out that it's still talked about and that's what I said to Cliff when I asked the question and you've just reaffirmed that.

It'll be interesting to hear what Cliff has to say on this issue. In the days Cliff played, he was known as a slow player, but this wasn't days where were used to Ronnie O'Sullivan and Ding Junhui type speed players. A lot of the slower players now are still faster then some of the players now. Cliff was known as slow, but it wasn't seen as surprising in those days. I'd be interested on what he makes of somebody playing that style nowadays, when it isn't considered the norm.

It's not about it being the norm or not. I never had a problem with Dave Harold or Rory Mc Leod paces: those guys play like that all the time and it's their natural pace. They don't do it to disrupt the match, it's not tactics. Sometimes I have had the feeling that by playing this way, Mark who isn't slow naturally, has disrupted his own game as well as his opponent making the whole thing poor viewing for the audience.

Monique wrote:making the whole thing poor viewing for the audience.

Maybe, just maybe, it is the audience that has sped up not the players slowing down?
Maybe the audience has been led to mistakenly believe that the fastest max is the best
snooker can be. Maybe false beliefs lead to expectations that can only be self-defeating.
Maybe, from a media point of view it is the presentation of the sport that is out of sync
with it's audience? Maybe the audience is getting the wrong picture about snooker?

The world is faster than yesterday and the older one gets the faster it seems.
Didn't the summer holiday seem to last forever when you were 10 too?
Our nervous systems change and adapt continually responding to stresses that come
at us from all sides and times. Technology is a huge part in that. Think video games.
When snooker was played on TV "in the day", commercials were measured in minutes.
Now, in seconds.
Attention spans have changed too yet the time and mental demands of playing snooker well haven't.
I'm sure this must drive the BBC and Eurosport crazy with their no "dead air" mantras.
That is why lesser commentators seem to be droning on and on non-stop, because they must.
They haven't the musicians skill of knowing that the spaces between are almost more meaningful
than what they say. Clive does.
So did the legendary players in their way. The venue was their stage not just the table.
Cliff and Alex and Ray and Bill were entertainers. Their job wasn't dutifully going up to write
out an entire blackboard-full of complex physics equations and then when they made a mistake or
broke their chalk walk dejectedly back to their chairs and STFU. They made the class LIVELY!
This is one reason Ronnie is the only true star in the Top 16.
He is unpredictable and human, and even with horribly uncreative, underwhelming TV
direction, he still comes across even just sitting in his chair as potential.
It is that that must be communicated... that living energy and dynamic of the snooker drama.
And that resource must be communicated to hundreds of millions of people worldwide if the sport is to survive.
We need great communicators as much as we do great players all working together in a timeframe that feels right
and makes sense.

[ Remember PTC - every sperm frame is sacred. ]


Rant over. I feel better now.


=o)

Noel

It kind of depends for me why snooker is slow. And in what contestxt.

Like you say, we are bred on fast attacking snooker at the moment, so it can sometimes be easy to think that's the most exciting way of playing the game. Sometimes watching safety battles can be just as interesting. Watching somebody make a good safety, then somebody else get out of it and make a good safety himself can be entertaining.

A frame where there are a few easy shots missed due to mounting pressure. If it is the deciding frame, and everybody keeps missing, it might not be gourmet snooker, but it makes it more tense. I thought the World Final this year was entertaining, because though slow, it obviously meant everything to both participants, and the struggle to stay awake in the early hours, knowing that you had work the next day added to that. If somebody walked out, and the first frame of a match was an hour and a quarter because nobody could pot even the simplest ball, you kind of know you're probably not going to be in for a stinker.

In the same way, watching a player take five minutes on a shot can be enormously entertaining, if he's caught in an impossible snooker, and you can't see how he's going to get out of it. Sounds weird, but something like that can really build to the tension. Watching somebody stand there for five minutes working out how to pot a red thats over the cushion, when you know full well a one-armed chimp could pot it, is just annoying.

I remember a poll on break-off once asked; "How long is your ideal frame length?" or some such. I didn't bother posting. A frame of snookers entertainment value isn't judged by looking at a stopwatch. It's judged by the quality of the play. I've seen frames where they've put up frame time is 45 minutes, and your left wondering where the time has gone. I've also seen other ones, where are 45 minutes you'd swear you'd been watching twice that.

The frame in the Dott v Ebdon final which went on for 5 hours was fantastic drama

Yes the audience has changed, no doubt. We are in a "culture" where things have to be fast and immediately available. However I don't think it's fair to blame the audience only. When Hendry brought his new brand of snooker around, the one visit paradigm, people loved it. Maybe not ALL people but a great many of them. He is the one who changed the game ... Before him they loved Alex Higgins and Jimmy White, not exactly adepts of slow boiling things.
BTW I am not saying that when Mark slowed down it spoiled the viewing because it was slower ... I'm just saying that sometimes, not always, he seems to put himself out of his natural rithm by doing this and the quality of the match suffers.