Ronnie O'Sullivan's greatest triumph?

Getting himself dressed.

Snooker is a game where the mental aspect is equally as important as the technical aspect. If a player is not mentally tough he will achieve nothing in snooker. Ronnie has struggled with mental health issues his whole life. Despite all that, he has been able to become the most succesful player the game has ever seen.

He has always tried to better himself, both mentally as well as on the technical side of playing snooker. He has tried therapy, medication, worked with sports psychologists, Ray Reardon, started running and keeping fit, and has always looked at how the game was developing and never stopped working on his game. A forty year old Ronnie could still look at Judd's cue action and decide to learn from it and change things he'd been perfecting for years. He has showed that he is a flawed human being, but he has overcome those flaws with tenacity, dedication, and a willingness to change and keep learning. I think that is his greatest triumph. He has a difficult personality, and lots of people don't like him, but the way he has worked on his snooker career deserves respect and admiration. I recently saw the footage where he was hugging his children and saying "I can't do this anymore".... I think this shows how hard he works and how much of a perfectionist he is.

Another triumph is, he never stopped playing snooker the way he feels it should be played. He believes in an attacking style of play, and he really stays true to that and never backs down. Never uses slow play tactics, never stops going for pots he should go for and always shows bottle.

To have had the success he had by playing the way he does. To be the most successful player of all time and at the same time the most watchable (or at least one of the most watchable). Its a very rare thing in any sports.

TheRocket wrote:To have had the success he had by playing the way he does. To be the most successful player of all time and at the same time the most watchable (or at least one of the most watchable). Its a very rare thing in any sports.

I think it's unique to be fair. He's the most sucessful, plus never changed the attacking way he played. Ok with Reardon he developed a better safety game, but his main weapon has always been the attacking side.

It's unique to combine everything and still be the greatest. You had the likes of Alex Higgins and Jimmy White who had the flair but never won as much as other players, but Ronnie combines everything, which I think for me in Sports is unique.

Andre147 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:To have had the success he had by playing the way he does. To be the most successful player of all time and at the same time the most watchable (or at least one of the most watchable). Its a very rare thing in any sports.

I think it's unique to be fair. He's the most sucessful, plus never changed the attacking way he played. Ok with Reardon he developed a better safety game, but his main weapon has always been the attacking side.

It's unique to combine everything and still be the greatest. You had the likes of Alex Higgins and Jimmy White who had the flair but never won as much as other players, but Ronnie combines everything, which I think for me in Sports is unique.

Fast and attacking aren't the same thing. Most players are attacking these days because of the playing conditions. Cliff Thorburn was an attacking player given the conditions in his time but that is masked by the fact he was so slow.

The really attacking players in the old conditions rarely had success. For example; Steve James, Tony Drago, Mark Bennett, David Roe.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Andre147 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:To have had the success he had by playing the way he does. To be the most successful player of all time and at the same time the most watchable (or at least one of the most watchable). Its a very rare thing in any sports.

I think it's unique to be fair. He's the most sucessful, plus never changed the attacking way he played. Ok with Reardon he developed a better safety game, but his main weapon has always been the attacking side.

It's unique to combine everything and still be the greatest. You had the likes of Alex Higgins and Jimmy White who had the flair but never won as much as other players, but Ronnie combines everything, which I think for me in Sports is unique.

Fast and attacking aren't the same thing. Most players are attacking these days because of the playing conditions. Cliff Thorburn was an attacking player given the conditions in his time but that is masked by the fact he was so slow.

The really attacking players in the old conditions rarely had success. For example; Steve James, Tony Drago, Mark Bennett, David Roe.

I think Cliff Wilson from the old days must have been the most attacking I've seen, and he was quick too.

Who shouldn’t have won all the world titles that Ronnie and Hendry should have won?

Iranu wrote:Who shouldn’t have won all the world titles that Ronnie and Hendry should have won?

Yes, how often can you definitely say someone who didn't win the title should have?

Eddie Charlton in 1975?
Steve Davis in 1985?
Jimmy White in 1992?
Jimmy White in 1994?
Matthew Stevens in 2000?

That's as far as I'd go. Steve Davis himself says Joe Johnson was easily the better player in the 1986 final, and if Stephen Hendry had won the 2002 final, people would have said "Peter Ebdon should have won it". He had a glorious chance to win it before the decider.

Iranu wrote:Who shouldn’t have won all the world titles that Ronnie and Hendry should have won?

I imagine you're at least implicitly only thinking about World Finals they lost but "should have won", but I think it's reasonable to argue that Ronnie "should" have won events such as the 2005 WSC, in which he lost in the QF to the guy who took 5 minutes to make a 12 break. That kind of shenanigan shouldn't be tolerated...

Oh I’m not disputing Joe Johnson was the better player in 86, and I’m so glad he won it, both at the time and now.

I think it’s the only instance in the 43 World Championships I have watached ( ) where a player has hit the sweet spot of playing at the absolute peak of his game, and sustained it over several days. For Joe, he just had the good fortune of finding that sort of form in the midst of the World Championship fortnight; he was potting them from everywhere and playing exhibition shots - in a World Final! It remains the most remarkable, and probably enjoyable, World Championship performance I have ever seen and I wouldn’t change it for anything.

I’m just saying ‘on paper’, he shouldn’t have stood a chance against the-then dominant player of the era - I suppose backed up by the fact he never won another Ranker - had he been able to hit that sweet-spot again he’d have won several.

Juddernaut88 wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:In pure snooker terms winning a 1st world title was his greatest triumph. He wasn't going to be the next 'Jimmy White'.

Seems daft to say it now, but that was a serious discussion at the time.

Yes! I was a huge RO’S fan in his early years (somewhat tired of him since) and until he won his first it was always in the back of my mind that he might ‘do a Jimmy’, particularly as other such as John Higgins, Mark Williams - even Ken Doherty - had already broken their ducks.

Does seem daft now, with all those WC’s now under his belt. If I was still a fanboy, I’d now actually be disappointed he is only on 7. Should easily be in double figures at least.

Hendry definitely should have won a few more as well to be fair.

There is no should.

He didn't.

SnookerEd25 wrote:Oh I’m not disputing Joe Johnson was the better player in 86, and I’m so glad he won it, both at the time and now.

I think it’s the only instance in the 43 World Championships I have watached ( ) where a player has hit the sweet spot of playing at the absolute peak of his game, and sustained it over several days. For Joe, he just had the good fortune of finding that sort of form in the midst of the World Championship fortnight; he was potting them from everywhere and playing exhibition shots - in a World Final!.

A bit similar to Luca in 2023, no?

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:Oh I’m not disputing Joe Johnson was the better player in 86, and I’m so glad he won it, both at the time and now.

I think it’s the only instance in the 43 World Championships I have watached ( ) where a player has hit the sweet spot of playing at the absolute peak of his game, and sustained it over several days. For Joe, he just had the good fortune of finding that sort of form in the midst of the World Championship fortnight; he was potting them from everywhere and playing exhibition shots - in a World Final!.

A bit similar to Luca in 2023, no?

Very similar, which is why last year was almost as enjoyable

D4P wrote:

Iranu wrote:Who shouldn’t have won all the world titles that Ronnie and Hendry should have won?

I imagine you're at least implicitly only thinking about World Finals they lost but "should have won", but I think it's reasonable to argue that Ronnie "should" have won events such as the 2005 WSC, in which he lost in the QF to the guy who took 5 minutes to make a 12 break. That kind of shenanigan shouldn't be tolerated...

I’m not only thinking about anything, I’m asking what others are thinking of.

Regardless of Ronnie’s loss in 2005 (and let’s face it, if we’re going down that road he “should” have been able to withstand such obvious gamesmanship). If Ronnie “should” have won in 2005, by extension you’re saying that Murphy “shouldn’t” be a world champion?

Or “should” he have won another year? Which year? “Should” Bingham not be a world champion? Or “should” Murphy have won two or four years later which would mean Higgins only has 3 world titles (or perhaps Higgins “should” have won an extra one another year)? Or maybe one of the countless years he lost in the first/second round?

You see my point.

Good lord, Phil, what have I wandered into.

the person who "should" win is whoever wins the requisite matches.

even the strongest pre tournament favourites would typically be more likely to not win then win. saying ex ante that any individual "should" win is just very silly.

Iranu wrote:

D4P wrote:

Iranu wrote:Who shouldn’t have won all the world titles that Ronnie and Hendry should have won?

I imagine you're at least implicitly only thinking about World Finals they lost but "should have won", but I think it's reasonable to argue that Ronnie "should" have won events such as the 2005 WSC, in which he lost in the QF to the guy who took 5 minutes to make a 12 break. That kind of shenanigan shouldn't be tolerated...

I’m not only thinking about anything, I’m asking what others are thinking of.

Regardless of Ronnie’s loss in 2005 (and let’s face it, if we’re going down that road he “should” have been able to withstand such obvious gamesmanship). If Ronnie “should” have won in 2005, by extension you’re saying that Murphy “shouldn’t” be a world champion?

Or “should” he have won another year? Which year? “Should” Bingham not be a world champion? Or “should” Murphy have won two or four years later which would mean Higgins only has 3 world titles (or perhaps Higgins “should” have won an extra one another year)? Or maybe one of the countless years he lost in the first/second round?

You see my point.

Can you explain further?

Dan-cat wrote:Good lord, Phil, what have I wandered into.

I’m staying out of this.

one could do back of fag packet calc and say if in the long run we expect o'sullivan to win about 75% of his matches, then that would translate to an expectation of winning the crucible one in every four times. which is reasonably in line with what he has done.

HappyCamper wrote:one could do back of fag packet calc and say if in the long run we expect o'sullivan to win about 75% of his matches, then that would translate to an expectation of winning the crucible one in every four times. which is reasonably in line with what he has done.

If he wins this year he'll be on exactly a quarter. Looks like the maths is on his side this year.

HappyCamper wrote:one could do back of fag packet calc and say if in the long run we expect o'sullivan to win about 75% of his matches, then that would translate to an expectation of winning the crucible one in every four times. which is reasonably in line with what he has done.

Interesting to think how pretty much no other player wins the Crucible nearly as often as their match win percentage...

D4P wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:one could do back of fag packet calc and say if in the long run we expect o'sullivan to win about 75% of his matches, then that would translate to an expectation of winning the crucible one in every four times. which is reasonably in line with what he has done.

Interesting to think how pretty much no other player wins the Crucible nearly as often as their match win percentage...

Using these metrics we'd expect Higgins to be on 5 and Selby to only be on 3. Hendry would also only be on 4.

Andre147 wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Andre147 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:To have had the success he had by playing the way he does. To be the most successful player of all time and at the same time the most watchable (or at least one of the most watchable). Its a very rare thing in any sports.

I think it's unique to be fair. He's the most sucessful, plus never changed the attacking way he played. Ok with Reardon he developed a better safety game, but his main weapon has always been the attacking side.

It's unique to combine everything and still be the greatest. You had the likes of Alex Higgins and Jimmy White who had the flair but never won as much as other players, but Ronnie combines everything, which I think for me in Sports is unique.

Fast and attacking aren't the same thing. Most players are attacking these days because of the playing conditions. Cliff Thorburn was an attacking player given the conditions in his time but that is masked by the fact he was so slow.

The really attacking players in the old conditions rarely had success. For example; Steve James, Tony Drago, Mark Bennett, David Roe.

I think Cliff Wilson from the old days must have been the most attacking I've seen, and he was quick too.

Cliff Wilson beat Tony Drago 5-2 at the Grand Prix, this included a mid session interval. The match on the other table was still in the second frame. The matches started at the same time.

Iranu wrote:Do people just not understand what stage fright is, or what?

"The fear of public speaking or performance, often called stage fright, exacts a huge toll on self-confidence and self-esteem and causes some people to leave school or a job or pass up a promotion. Many, including seasoned professional performers, suffer in silent terror"

Nobody can accuse Ronnie of Suffering anything in silent.


But how many other players suffer with that and says nothing just carries on best they can.

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:Do people just not understand what stage fright is, or what?

"The fear of public speaking or performance, often called stage fright, exacts a huge toll on self-confidence and self-esteem and causes some people to leave school or a job or pass up a promotion. Many, including seasoned professional performers, suffer in silent terror"

Nobody can accuse Ronnie of Suffering anything in silent.


But how many other players suffer with that and says nothing just carries on best they can.

No other player gets the kind of attention Ronnie gets. Not even close.

The guy is a Prince amongst numpties.

he had a 1976 dolomite sprint.

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:Do people just not understand what stage fright is, or what?

"The fear of public speaking or performance, often called stage fright, exacts a huge toll on self-confidence and self-esteem and causes some people to leave school or a job or pass up a promotion. Many, including seasoned professional performers, suffer in silent terror"

Nobody can accuse Ronnie of Suffering anything in silent.


But how many other players suffer with that and says nothing just carries on best they can.

That’s their decision to make, just like Ronnie speaking about it is his decision to make.

It also doesn’t have anything to do with my point, which is people talking as if stage fright is a chronic, consistent (and trivial) condition that can be easily predicted. Rather than something that can be debilitating one week and absent the next. Because it suits them to think that way because it means Ronnie is lying.

And I say this as something who thinks Ronnie probably WAS lying.

Iranu wrote:And I say this as something who thinks Ronnie probably WAS lying.

My own take is that Ronnie wasn't so much saying that he was afraid of being on stage in the Welsh Open, but rather that he suffers from stage fright in a general sense and has found that it isn't worth subjecting himself to being watched unless the event is relatively meaningful to him.

Home Nations would (understandably) not be on the "meaningful" list, and he wants to save himself for the bigger events, rather than using up some of his "willingness and ability to be on stage" at smaller events. There's a chance that he experiences stage fright at every event, and that he has learned/decided that it's not worth going through that experience unless the prize money is big and/or the tournament has meaning for him in the record books.

Managing to sell tickets in and around the Liverpool area having previously agreeing to sponsorship money from the sun