Players with positive h2h record against O'Sullivan?

I know Mark King had one, but it's 6-6 after the World Open.

Maybe John Parrott and Marco Fu?

O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

Witz78 wrote:O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

Witz78 wrote:O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

SnookerFan wrote:

Witz78 wrote:O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

its the sort of we come to expect from witz



thakfully ronald is more gracious than some of his fans when he loses

Witz78 wrote:O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

True and false...

I think John Parrott had the number on him, but he's the only one who jumps out. Marco Fu?

http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/HeadTo ... ayerKey=10
dunno though if it's up to date

Black2white wrote:http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/HeadToHeadList.aspx?playerKey=10
dunno though if it's up to date

No, it's all wrong, and only takes ranking events into consideration.

thetubberlad wrote:

Black2white wrote:http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/HeadToHeadList.aspx?playerKey=10
dunno though if it's up to date

No, it's all wrong, and only takes ranking events into consideration.

Higgins has a big lead over him in ranking events, something like 15-7. Also until the World Open he was tied at 11-11 with Hendry in ranking events.

case_master wrote:

thetubberlad wrote:

Black2white wrote:http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/HeadToHeadList.aspx?playerKey=10
dunno though if it's up to date

No, it's all wrong, and only takes ranking events into consideration.

Higgins has a big lead over him in ranking events, something like 15-7. Also until the World Open he was tied at 11-11 with Hendry in ranking events.

yes but in non ranking ronnie leads higgins i believe

ROBBO V RONALD IS

3-3 in ranking events

rocket_ron wrote:

case_master wrote:

thetubberlad wrote:

Black2white wrote:http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/HeadToHeadList.aspx?playerKey=10
dunno though if it's up to date

No, it's all wrong, and only takes ranking events into consideration.

Higgins has a big lead over him in ranking events, something like 15-7. Also until the World Open he was tied at 11-11 with Hendry in ranking events.

yes but in non ranking ronnie leads higgins i believe

Yea, I was just pointing out their results in the bigger matches when more is at stake. Although if you add the Masters its 16-9 Higgins

case_master wrote:

rocket_ron wrote:
Yea, I was just pointing out their results in the bigger matches when more is at stake. Although if you add the Masters its 16-9 Higgins

I agree with you casey the big matches count, and John leads

rocket_ron wrote:

case_master wrote:

rocket_ron wrote:
Yea, I was just pointing out their results in the bigger matches when more is at stake. Although if you add the Masters its 16-9 Higgins

I agree with you casey the big matches count, and John leads

I think you'll find they all count Rocket. And Ronnie leads

I think it's 15-8 to Higgins in the ranking events and 16-10 if we add the Masters. I know that Ronnie has 5 or 6 wins more if we look at the whole h2h so it's a bit strange. It means that they have met about 20 times in non-ranking tournaments without including the Masters?!

O'Sullivan leads something like 28-20 overall I think...

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Witz78 wrote:O'Sullivan ???

He beats himself more than others do.........

its the sort of we come to expect from witz



thakfully ronald is more gracious than some of his fans when he loses

thats the typical response ive come to expect from GJ - look at the name of the person whos made the comment and base the response on that only

i only said that posing it as an unanswered question, i never really said it was my point of view or that it was fact.

But far more important people within snooker than me have said similar sentiments, including the man himself so it can hardly be written off as a load of BS

Are H2H's all that important at the end of the day? It doesnt really show much. Take Andy Murray, he has a better H2H against Federer but would anyone dare to say that he is a better player? I know that i would'nt. I am sure thats one stat that Murray would gladly swap for a GS. Champion players know when to turn it on and win on the big occasions.

Indeed, same with Nadal and Federer's HTH

eirebilly wrote:Are H2H's all that important at the end of the day? It doesnt really show much. Take Andy Murray, he has a better H2H against Federer but would anyone dare to say that he is a better player? I know that i would'nt. I am sure thats one stat that Murray would gladly swap for a GS. Champion players know when to turn it on and win on the big occasions.

Well, they mean what they mean, don't they? They can illustrate a point, but that's about it. Any time you rely too heavily on these kind of statistic you run the risk of not telling the full story. It doesn't take into account things such as where the players are in their career, how many frames were included in a match, conditions. If one player won, say 30 matches over another, and the other one had won zero matches, then yes it proves a point. If a player has a superior h2h, but the only matches the two played were when one of the players was in his first season, then it means next to nothing because that player would've gained more experience, and should have improved.

To get weighed down on it to think it's the be all and end all, it isn't. A bit of interest that is noticed before the match, but that is all.

Bourne wrote:Indeed, same with Nadal and Federer's HTH

Nadal owns Federer

Also with Higgins I was pointing out that (including the Masters) Higgins has won most of their important matches 16-10. Ronnie has won a large amount of their exhibition style matches but when it comes to the important tournaments it's the other way around.

case_master wrote:

Bourne wrote:Indeed, same with Nadal and Federer's HTH

Nadal owns Federer

Also with Higgins I was pointing out that (including the Masters) Higgins has won most of their important matches 16-10. Ronnie has won a large amount of their exhibition style matches but when it comes to the important tournaments it's the other way around.

It's all pretty ambiguous. You can usually find statistics to prove just about anything you want to. We've all seen posters on these boards, no names mentioned, that would then come out with statistics to prove a persons superiority by having statistics ready for 'how many balls has Ronnie potted against Higgins?"

There's more to snooker, and more to life, then looking at longs lists of numbers. Sometimes knowledge comes through witnessing, not trying to decide ways to analyse endless statistics.

Couldn't agree more snookerfan

All i am saying, snookerfan, is that all stats can be manipulated in the way you want them to be seen. Its funny that nearly every team/sport has statisticians and of them, very few have actually played the game or have a basic understanding of the game. They can be a good guidline but are not to be used as gospel.

Ultimately there is nothing that can overtake the 'on the day' factor. You can have a 20-2 record over someone, have won 10 majors more than someone but you can still be feeling crap on the day and missing silly balls that you would only do once a year, it happens. Snooker is such a mental game, mind-control is an absolute must to succeed.

I think h2h is important sometimes. In the Federer - Murray case it's not because they have only played about 10 times, all the matches are on one surface and most of them are after Federer's very best years. But when we talk about Higgins and O'Sullivan there are several things:

- They have met about 50 times
- They are born in the same year and play each other since the beginning of they professional careers (they have met even before that )
- They have played in most of the tournaments
- They have played best of 9, best of 11, best of 13, best of 17, best of 19, best of 25, best of 33 and best of 35 matches.
- They have played a lot of finals where you can really see how good a player is because there is so much pressure

After the Welsh it was 27-21 to O'Sullivan. Have they played since then? And btw a h2h that doesn't really show that much is, for example, Hendry vs O'Sullivan. :P

H2H's are only a guidline and should never be used as the basis to prove one player is better than another and as Bourne says, that 'one the day factor' can never be defined.

SavoMilosevic wrote:I think h2h is important sometimes. In the Federer - Murray case it's not because they have only played about 10 times, all the matches are on one surface and most of them are after Federer's very best years. But when we talk about Higgins and O'Sullivan there are several things:

- They have met about 50 times
- They are born in the same year and play each other since the beginning of they professional careers (they have met even before that )
- They have played in most of the tournaments
- They have played best of 9, best of 11, best of 13, best of 17, best of 19, best of 25, best of 33 and best of 35 matches.
- They have played a lot of finals where you can really see how good a player is because there is so much pressure

After the Welsh it was 27-21 to O'Sullivan. Have they played since then? And btw a h2h that doesn't really show that much is, for example, Hendry vs O'Sullivan. :P

Higgins vs Ronnie is perhaps one of the rare times the head to head is useful-ish. As you say, they've had long careers and have been playing each other their whole career. But, even then, all 27-21 really tells you is that Ronnie has had the better of Higgins on six more occasions then the other way around. Over 48 times, I wouldn't say that was a huge difference, especially against somebody of the class of Ronnie. (Bear in mind Higgins beat Ronnie 3 times last season, Ronnie beat him once.)

Maybe you can use it to make the statement that Ronnie has a 'slight edge' over Higgins. But I've seen it used to mean; "Ronnie is so much better then Higgins. Look Higgins only won a paltry 21 times". Thats clearly a nonsense whether you are basing it on stats, or on witnessing the two play.

your only as good as your last Match....unfortunatly but true...

we all can look back over the years but in resent matches John has very much the Edge on Ronnie.

SavoMilosevic wrote:I know Mark King had one, but it's 6-6 after the World Open.

Maybe John Parrott and Marco Fu?

Tian Pengfei.