Murphy calls Ronnie "Offensive, Pathetic, Unprofessional"

I am sorry Mon, Murphy is one of the least supported players on the tour (a lot of fans actually despise him) so if you think for one second that he would not have been hounded for doing the same thing as Ronnie then i feel your admiration of Ronnie has clouded your judgement. This can also be seen by the way you think that Ronnie was the catalyst for change in snooker. Please try and put your admiration for Ronnie aside and look at this in a unbiased manner.

what has happened since should not detract from what happened in the run up to barry hearn once again getting his hands involved in snooker.

maybe mooney was starting to feel his self importance that he could walk on water and he drowned.

Players are entitled to their own opinion and murphys views are correct. But i dont see why hes craving for media attention at the moment.

Monique wrote:

Sonny wrote:I don't see how Ronnie sitting back and having a go at snooker calling it boring and saying we need Simon Cowell can take any credit for the number of events this season. I think the snooker world owes far more to John Higgins and Pat Mooney on that score.

Snooker owes those two the biggest scandal it ever had to face and it could have been a killing one under the old board. Fred Done came forward right after the facts saying he trusted Hearn to put it right ... HEARN. I doubt he would have done the same for Sir Rodney.
Sonny I'm almost certain you read snooker scene and so you know that Ronnie was misquoted and didn't actually called snooker boring and he didn't say snooker needs Cowell, he said snooker needs someone of the type of Cowell with a mind for entrepreneurship and entertainment. That's not exactly the same thing innit?

Hearn was in place before the NOTW sting. I'm talking about Higgins and Mooney before the sting. They did 100000% more than Ronnie to instigate change in the game.

And yes I have read Ronnie and I've heard him and he's mentioned Simon Cowell on a number of occasions. I know he said someone "like" Cowell but it's not the biggest misquote in history. And he has called snooker boring on many occasions or aluded to the fact that he finds it boring and thinks Power Snooker is the future.

eirebilly wrote:I am sorry Mon, Murphy is one of the least supported players on the tour (a lot of fans actually despise him) so if you think for one second that he would not have been hounded for doing the same thing as Ronnie then i feel your admiration of Ronnie has clouded your judgement. This can also be seen by the way you think that Ronnie was the catalyst for change in snooker. Please try and put your admiration for Ronnie aside and look at this in a unbiased manner.

Murphy has certainly his supporters as he has his haters. Just like Ronnie in fact. He would have got stick from his haters but then that's the case whatever he does. As I wrote he is entitled his opinion although I disagree with him here.
And Ronnie was one of the catalyst for the change, even if he wasn't actually doing that on purpose, and if you can't see this it's your judgement that is clouded.
John Higgins and Mooney were promoting snooker in Europe - which was great - but they weren't actually asking for a change in the way things were run. They were doing their own business on a sideway.

Mon, I never denied that Ronnies outbursts didnt make people sit up and listen. My judgement is fine thankyou, i just took umbridge with your comment that he WAS the catalyst which is clearly wrong (and why you are trying to change your view by now saying "one of the catalysts"). Unfortunately when you say things like this, you do come across as someone who thinks that Ronnie is the be all to end all of snooker.

As for Murphy fans, You compare him with Ronnie fans? Ronnie has 10X the fans as Murphy. I would actually say that Ronnie has as many fans as Murphy has detractors so that is an unfair comparison. Murphy, i would hazard a guess, has at least 10X as many fans that dont like him as he does supporters. So once again if you honestly think that he would not have been taken apart more than Ronnie, your judgement is clouded.

Shaun Murphy's comments seem pretty accurate when describing Ronnie and there can be no doubt he has been all of those things and thought he had improved his attitude greatly until the World Open incident.

As someone else on this forum pointed out I think in ten or twenty years time when Ronnie has long since retired all his mis-demeanours will be largely forgotten much like was the case with Alex Higgins. People will only remember the good side of Ronnie as in his snooker talent and disregard his darker side.

Perhaps Shaun Murphy's comments stem from a bit of jealous. I mean he is far from popular without really doing a heck of a lot wrong in his career (compared to Ronnie) yet he probably watches Ronnie's terrible behaviour but yet has a large fanbase who will speak no ill of him. Murphy probably finds that very hard to take.

Billy I've been in many events with Murphy and I'm always surprised at how much support he actually gets from the crowd, in Europe at least. So no, sorry, he isn't the poor unloved one. Maybe his supporters are not very vocal on forums but they are present in venues in numbers I can assure you.

I also have been to many events acros Europe Mon and have seen things differently to you. This has now run off topic and you seem truely unable to answer my questions and points in an unbiaesd manner. I am sorry that i questioned Ronnie's behavour and his influence to the game.

You have every right to question Ronnie's behaviour and I have every right to disagree with your views... that's debate innit? You don't want to accept my answers, it's not that I didn't answer your questions.
my answers are
No Murphy would not have got stick, not more than Ronnie certainly
No it did not harm the game quite the contrary and I'm 100% certain the sponsors were delighted
and yes I believe that if that outburst in the Masters had not happened we still would be with 6-7 tournaments a season if not less and the same old board. Again I don't claim this was Ronnie's goal, I don't believe for an instant he had any agenda other than expressing his feelings, but it nevertheless started the balls rolling.
and this comes from Ian Doyle (on Matt's blog, Ian Doyle, not Lee Doyle)

Ronnie has never been the most diplomatic player on the circuit but it should be remembered he donated the high break prize to charity.It has to be said that he is absolutely correct there should be a special prize for a 147 break the public love it and in front of the T.V camera’s there are few players in the game capable of achieving it, also how many times have you seen a player taking on a more difficult shot just to keep the dream of a max alive. When it comes to playing the game Ronnie is one of the best sportsmen around never in a million years would you see him ask the Ref to dock a frame because his opponent forgot his chalk Murphy did so against Maguire also Ronnie creates headlines for the game and that is important ok some people may not agree with what he say’s however he fills venues something Shaun does not do.

That pretty sums it up. I will add that Ronnie is also one of the very, very few who would accept a shot while the ref called a "foul and a miss" if he thinks his opponent made a good enough attempt, he's done it many times.

Ian Doyle Bringing his own politics into it to have a bash at Murphy

Debate is fine Mon, i didnt say that you didnt answer my questions, i said that you were unable to answer them in an unbiased manner. You are a Ronnie fan and i respect that but i also find you a very apologetic fan. You seem to be exactly the fan that Mr Murphy was talking about, Ronie is just Ronnie.
I do not foe 1 second believe that Murphy would not have been slaughtered more had he done the same as Ronnie as he has 10X the amount of detractors as Ronnie does.

As for Ronnie putting a player back in after a definate attempt at getting out of a snooker, i am in total agreeance but what has that got to do with the conversation? Or are you just trying to paint me into a corner as a I am a twat?

Did you not read my comment about Ronnie being the model professional after the incident? Does it not strike you as odd that he does this, has a quick talk with Mr Hearn and is suddenly a model professional for the remainder of the tournement?

case_master wrote:Ian Doyle Bringing his own politics into it to have a bash at Murphy

I don't always agree with the Doyles but I think this is perfectly spot on. And it's not as if Ian Doyle didn't know the guy: he's had his rough rubs with Ronnie in the past more than once!

@Billy. Let's agree to disagree OK? You think I'm biased, I think you are biased.

I don't believe Ronnies comments had any effect on Hearn or other changes. Prior to the Masters 09 other personal where making different kinds of statements at their concerns for the game, Higgins and Mooney had their their tour to Europe 9one of which Ronnie did not support).
It suddenly didn't dawn on others that the game was in trouble because of a few comments by Ronnie in 09. Mooney was the one who approached Hearn and again this was not because of Ronnie comments. The opportunity came with Walker putting himself up for renewal of tenure and others took it full blooded.

case_master wrote:I don't believe Ronnies comments had any effect on Hearn or other changes. Prior to the Masters 09 other personal where making different kinds of statements at their concerns for the game, Higgins and Mooney had their their tour to Europe 9one of which Ronnie did not support).
It suddenly didn't dawn on others that the game was in trouble because of a few comments by Ronnie in 09. Mooney was the one who approached Hearn and again this was not because of Ronnie comments. The opportunity came with Walker putting himself up for renewal of tenure and others took it full blooded.

Ronnie himself was embarked in another exhibition tour in Europe organised by Dragonstars (there were 12 or 13 eventsGermany mainly) and if he did not take part to the World Series he didn't speak against it neither and he supported the SPA from the start.
The fact that Sir Rodney put himself up for renewal only came after the discontentment had become blatant and it is to his credit that he did it. He wasn't the most dymanic chairman but he is an honourable man. In January 2009, people were well aware the game was in trouble and players were not happy and were anxious about their future but it took Ronnie to bring it in the open and launch the debate (and once again I'm not suggesting this was his agenda, it just happened). Only after that (some of) them started to voice their opinion. Before that they were too scared of the possible consequences. The first one to do so was Steve Davis (and I doubt he was scared actually) only days after Ronnie's outburst. Steve Davis and Barry Hearn are not only close friends they are also commercial partners for many, many years (matchroom ... ). I have no doubts Steve's position on the matter played its role in Barry's involvement. Pat Mooney saw the opportunity to have support for his World Series rather than it being sabotaged so yes he approached Hearn but not before things had started moving.

i have to question one thing

WHY the bloody hell was it only after a derangeed rant of 1 man people have done something about it

holy rubbish snookers future was hanging by the thread of one man talking bullocks ...... don't know about anyone else but that's scary.

it was common sense something needed doing ive said it on forums long before Ronnies Rant as has many other people but it seemed everyone in the Game was blind as a bat until Ronnie Opened it for them.

jesus that is scary we got thick people running snooker.

When Ronnie made his comments it's all we were talking about on forums in the months leading up, so it's not like he was the first to spot that 6 events was poor. And then Mooney and Higgins set up the SPA after people like Hendry were calling out for a players union way before Ronnie's comments in January 2009. So for me personally, I would credit a lot of people like Davis and Hearn, Mooney and Higgins, Dave Hendon and Clive Everton ahead of Ronnie in instigating the change that happened.

Anyway, all this is off topic. The fact is Murphy has said some things which has got snooker back in the newspapers so fair play to him for that and I don't hold anything against him for doing it. And it means the PL is more appealing come Thursday.

Can you believe one clown in Hendon's blog comments actually called the Murphy v Ronnie semi-final in the 2007 GP "an unremarkable match"? It's amazing how people remember things differently, it was one of the best matches I've ever witnessed.

But Murphy was on the attack before that encounter too, so he knows what he is doing - bringing publicity to his clashes with Ronnie.

I know Ronnie doesn't like Murphy, because when he won that match in the interview afterwards he expressed how particularly satisfying the result was (in a blatant reference to it being Murphy) and also in last seasons Premier League when him and JH were together being interviewed by Andy Goldstein, Ronnie let slip a dig about Murphy which made Higgins smile I seem to remember. It was cheeky and nothing more than that, but I wouldn't think Murphy's recent remarks can be seen as unprovoked.

I am sorry Mon, i was going to leave the debate as i didnt deem it worthwhile anymore but your last comment is pure rubbish.

Many players and managers were making waves long before the rant of Ronnie in 09. His rant did make some more people take notice but you can hardly say that Ronnies rant (intentional or not) was the turning point in snooker. You call me biased but i feel that i have brought a very balanced view, i am more than capable of accepting others views but your view that Ronnie was the catalyst is just so wrong.

Word up mates... BUMPF.
If you can't put that over-stuffed-with-himself, smug Smurf's Ronnie-slagging together with tomorrows PL
and the first POWerball in few weeks... go back and re-do MARKETING 101.



=oP

Noel

Of course its marketing Noel. Murphy knows what he is doing and is trying to get into Ronnies head before the match. Its a tactic that he has used before but not sure its the right tactic to use against Ronnie as Ronnie always raises his game against him.

wildJONESEYE wrote:i have to question one thing

WHY the bloody hell was it only after a derangeed rant of 1 man people have done something about it

holy poo snookers future was hanging by the thread of one man talking balls ...... don't know about anyone else but that's scary.

it was common sense something needed doing ive said it on forums long before Ronnies Rant as has many other people but it seemed everyone in the Game was blind as a bat until Ronnie Opened it for them.

jesus that is scary we got thick people running snooker.

Yes it was common sense he? So why did he get so much stick for saying it?
I agree it was common sense but yet most players kept silent. I'm not speaking about forums, I'm speaking about the players. There was no sign that they would do a thing. I remember how the forums were scratching their heads at their lack of interest for their own game and future when the old board had been re-elected a few months before. They were scared, kept silent and dispirited.
Ronnie on that occasion had no agenda, was not trying to make anything happen, was not making a political statement, he just expressed his feelings and not in the most diplomatic way. But it had an impact, it was talked about in the press, in forums, and players also; it was all the more in the highlight that he did win the event ...

he did not have any stick from me thats for sure for saying it because a lot of what he said in that rant was spot on however as we know with ronnie his tongue gets in to overdrive and then he starts rambling on about snooker being boring without explaining what he means by it.

snooker is snooker doesn't matter if its barry hearn,simon cowell or mr blobby in charge but once players start branding the game "BORING" we are on to a losing battle.

eirebilly wrote:Of course its marketing Noel. Murphy knows what he is doing and is trying to get into Ronnies head before the match. Its a tactic that he has used before but not sure its the right tactic to use against Ronnie as Ronnie always raises his game against him.

This is business not club psychology.
Both players are having a good laugh.
Hearn rubs his hands together and loudly
expresses his pleasure... "Cha-Ching!"


=o)

Noel

it definitely adds spice to the match lets hope its a draw then both will be talking to Andy goldstein after the match together and we all know the type of questions he asks

He hasn't stopped yet

http://yhoo.it/9SCCA3

Cmon Ronnie, destroy this fat bible bashing frame-stealing, in-law ejecting from crowd farce 6-0 !!!

Witz78 wrote:Cmon Ronnie, destroy this fat bible bashing frame-stealing, in-law ejecting from crowd farce 6-0 !!!

why ?

because he had guts to be honest.

I think Shaun Murphy deserves a lot of praise for being totally honest and having the balls to question O'Sullivan

More importantly though, it sets the stage for a seriously interesting game of snooker tomorrow, which does the game no harm.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Cmon Ronnie, destroy this fat bible bashing frame-stealing, in-law ejecting from crowd farce 6-0 !!!

why ?

because he had guts to be honest.

honest??

Murphys always got plenty to say about others. Hes hardly squeaky clean himself is he.

There was always suspicion he got favourable round 1 draws thanks to connections in high places

Theres the chalk incident with Maguire, that should hang over his head like a dark cloud for the rest of his career, a disgrace

And theres getting the in-laws chucked out of the Crucible incident what a clown

murphy has got over the years stick for that and i agree he made a goof of himself with the chalk thing but just because he did that doesent mean he has to be gagged about everything else does it.

murphy being a goof does not cancel out Ronnie being a goof or looking a bit stupid.