Post a reply

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:
Wildey wrote:Statistics dont take in to consideration the amount of chances players missed against you for example if a player misses a black off the spot or a simple red the chances are a top player going to clean up that's another reason why pot % are high.

If Ronnie had won again this year and you'd made your point with reference to this year, I'd have completely agreed with you, but the events of the 2014 World Championship rather illustrate my own point; Ronnie still managed to get to the final and even be 10-7 up at one stage without playing as well as the previous couple of years. I think the extent of his progress this year is powerful evidence of not being at all lucky during 2013.

Im not disputing how well Ronnie played last year but the opposition made it look better than it actually was with respect to Barry Hawkins Ronnie was never going to lose to him and he played like that in 2013.

When players play against Ronnie there is the X Factor to contend with and Hawkins and Murphy was found wanting this year, but also last year Trump, Bingham and Carter wavered and made it easy for him But Mark Selby stood up to him from 10-5 down i know its hard for some of you to grasp but Against Selby even Ronnie looks over his shoulder.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

I would like to outline my viewpoint on the game in general, and the final itself.

Firstly, it doesn't matter how a player wins, and you cannot judge the standard of a match by frame scores. An example will help to illustrate this. Mark Allen played Ryan Day in the 2009 quarter final, and if you looked at the frame scores, you would be forgiven for thinking it was a match of decent quality. Both players are attacking players and were opening the balls up and trying to win frames in one visit. However, they were both missing many chances, before eventually a player would get in and make a big break. The point here is that an 80 break at the end of the frame doesn't compensate for low quality snooker earlier in a frame. An 80 break made off the break off is quality, but an 80 break made after both players have missed 3 chances each isn't quality. Big breaks don't necessarily mean quality snooker.

Quite often you will get a much more high quality match played without many big breaks at all. If 2 players are very good defensively, play a tight game, and have excellent safety, then the quality will not be reflected in the frame scores. There are different ways of playing the game. This is why I get sick of hearing about a player's century break tally. It doesn't matter at all.

Regarding the final, O'Sullivan had a massive advantage going in to the final. Firstly he had won it 5 times before, and Selby hadn't won before, and more importantly O'Sullivan was fresh, whereas Selby was tired. Effectively the tiredness issue gave O'Sullivan at least a 4 frame start. The format had worked in his favour. Playing the first semi, and winning with a session to spare, gave him a full day off. Compare that to Selby, who had played a very tough 16 frames on the day before. It was a mentally draining semi final match, and Selby was visibly tired on finals day.

O'Sullivan had everything in his favour, went 5 frames clear of a fatigued opponent, and couldn't finish the job. He should have won the match on day one of the final. Even though, he was still 3 frames ahead at the end of the first day, and was a big favourite. In short, he was tactically naïve on the second day. He allowed Selby to dictate the match and O'Sullivan didn't have a presence at the table. Erstwhile Selby gained a foothold, and adrenalin kicked in when he realised O'Sullivan was there for the taking.

I think as the match got close O'Sullivan's head wasn't clear as he was probably wondering why he was embroiled in a struggle, which didn't look possible at several stages the previous evening.

It will be difficult for O'Sullivan to eliminate this match from his mind, and he will need to be made of stern stuff to bounce back and have any chance of equalling Hendry's record.

No doubt, the loss was an enormous blow to O'Sullivan's legacy, and he isn't now at an age where it will be easy to lay the ghosts of this defeat to rest.

It will be the biggest challenge of his career.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Andy Spark

Yes, he was 10-5 up, but I was thinking more between sessions and 10-7 sticks in my mind because that was when I stuck £50 on Selby at 5/1. I still think Coral lost the plot.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Andy Spark wrote:Yes, he was 10-5 up, but I was thinking more between sessions and 10-7 sticks in my mind because that was when I stuck £50 on Selby at 5/1. I still think Coral lost the plot.


Selby was 10/1 when he was 10-5 down.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Andy Spark

vodkadiet wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Yes, he was 10-5 up, but I was thinking more between sessions and 10-7 sticks in my mind because that was when I stuck £50 on Selby at 5/1. I still think Coral lost the plot.


Selby was 10/1 when he was 10-5 down.

Who actually put their money on then? Ronnie had just played two fabulous frames of snooker. It would have been best play in this case, but long term it's a losing strategy.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Andy Spark wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Yes, he was 10-5 up, but I was thinking more between sessions and 10-7 sticks in my mind because that was when I stuck £50 on Selby at 5/1. I still think Coral lost the plot.


Selby was 10/1 when he was 10-5 down.

Who actually put their money on then? Ronnie had just played two fabulous frames of snooker. It would have been best play in this case, but long term it's a losing strategy.


I doubt many would have backed Selby at 10-5 down. I confess I thought it was all over.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Holden Chinaski

People are making such a big deal of Ronnie losing this world final. Ronnie did not find his best form this year at the worlds and he lost in the final. Thats all there is to it. Of course he will bounce back, it's Ronnie O'Sullivan ffs.

Selby is a great player. Brilliant tactician and hard to beat, and Ronnie does not like to play him. But he's no Stephen Hendry or John Higgins. Selby should have achieved a lot more in his career already. Ronnie is an old man (in snooker terms) and he's still the best. Let's see Selby win five world titles and 26 ranking titles.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

No one is saying Selby win will 5 world titles. This was about O'Sullivan ruining his chance of equalling Hendry's 7 world titles. This result will not only have left mental scars on O'Sullivan but will have given the rest of the field confidence that they can go out and beat O'Sullivan. The sword is very much double edged in that regard.

In addition O'Sullivan is nearly 40.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Holden Chinaski

vodkadiet wrote:No one is saying Selby win will 5 world titles. This was about O'Sullivan ruining his chance of equalling Hendry's 7 world titles. This result will not only have left mental scars on O'Sullivan but will have given the rest of the field confidence that they can go out and beat O'Sullivan. The sword is very much double edged in that regard.

In addition O'Sullivan is nearly 40.

Ronnie losing this one final after having won two in a row doesn't ruin his chances to win seven titles in my opinion. Ok, it was always going to be very hard, but he can still do it. He just needs two more titles. It's definitely possible. Never underestimate him. A couple of years ago a lot of people were saying they didn't believe Ronnie would win the worlds again, and look what happened.

The Ronnie I saw playing in this years CoC, Masters and Welsh is definitely a player I can see win two more world titles. Ok, he lost in the worlds, but thats not the end of the world. He'll bounce back.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Holden Chinaski wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:No one is saying Selby win will 5 world titles. This was about O'Sullivan ruining his chance of equalling Hendry's 7 world titles. This result will not only have left mental scars on O'Sullivan but will have given the rest of the field confidence that they can go out and beat O'Sullivan. The sword is very much double edged in that regard.

In addition O'Sullivan is nearly 40.

Ronnie losing this one final after having won two in a row doesn't ruin his chances to win seven titles in my opinion. Ok, it was always going to be very hard, but he can still do it. He just needs two more titles. It's definitely possible. Never underestimate him. A couple of years ago a lot of people were saying they didn't believe Ronnie would win the worlds again, and look what happened.

The Ronnie I saw playing in this years CoC, Masters and Welsh is definitely a player I can see win two more world titles. Ok, he lost in the worlds, but thats not the end of the world. He'll bounce back.


Age can catch up with a player very quickly at 40. O'Sullivan missed a major chance this year. It is unlikely it will be so easy again.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Wildey

This season could be so telling.

Ronnie had built up a aura of invincibility and the psychology of Steve Peters was key to that. People on here did comment on it by saying "Ronnie will be fine today Steve Peters in the building" or words to that effect and players did seem to think the days of being phsyced out was behind him.

Like it or Not Selby did show everyone Steve Peters did not matter if you play the right way to compete with him Ronnie could still crumble in some way.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Jester82

vodkadiet wrote:No one is saying Selby win will 5 world titles. This was about O'Sullivan ruining his chance of equalling Hendry's 7 world titles. This result will not only have left mental scars on O'Sullivan but will have given the rest of the field confidence that they can go out and beat O'Sullivan. The sword is very much double edged in that regard.

In addition O'Sullivan is nearly 40.


Hendry has won 7 titles in 9-10 years. ROS has won 5 titles in 12 years...

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Holden Chinaski

vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.

He's had a lot of success. Part of his job is also preparing a sportsman for losing. You cant win everything. Ronnie was very graceful in defeat and did not break down. I fail to see why Peters is a joke. Do you know what Ronnie has won and how he changed since working with Peters?

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Roland

Jester82 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:No one is saying Selby win will 5 world titles. This was about O'Sullivan ruining his chance of equalling Hendry's 7 world titles. This result will not only have left mental scars on O'Sullivan but will have given the rest of the field confidence that they can go out and beat O'Sullivan. The sword is very much double edged in that regard.

In addition O'Sullivan is nearly 40.


Hendry has won 7 titles in 9-10 years. ROS has won 5 titles in 12 years...


So Hendry had a 70% win rate compared to Ronnie's 41.7%

speaking in the language of century rate stats


Don't worry Ronnie fans his legacy is already secured especially after his back to back wins for 4 and 5 and reaching the final after that. And Selby's legacy is now secure because not only did he finally achieve the big one, but he beat the great Ronnie O'Sullivan in the final in order to do it.

I would like to see Selby get 3 World titles and win a few more other ranking events to do himself real justice though.


And btw good post Vodka earlier on this page

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Wildey

Yea nobody disputing the legacy and sheer Brilliance of Ronnie but over the last 3 weeks since Mark Selby's win ive heard people on all sorts of media using all sorts of excuse to why Selby won. Bottom line is he stood up to Ronnie when so many others failed that in itself deserves great respect Yes Ronnie wasent at his best but i think its ignored that Selby too wasent at his best.

in the build up to the World Championship people was saying Selby didnt have the game to win it because of the way Selby played well i always knew that was a load of rubbish and im glad he proved it.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby mantorok

vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.


When you consider how many titles Ronnie has won since working with Peters I fail to see why he's a laughing stock?

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

mantorok wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.


When you consider how many titles Ronnie has won since working with Peters I fail to see why he's a laughing stock?


Okay, I exaggerated. I confess I am not a fan of psychologists in sport. Sport has lost some of the romance of days of old, as it has become more 'professional'.

I much prefer a player who just plays the game without outside help and beats the player with psychologists, advisors, business managers, and the like.

It was especially pleasurable to see O'Sullivan lose as the BBC were waxing lyrical about Steve Peters as though he was 'the second coming', and no one under his wing could ever lose.

Selby stuck 2 fingers up to O'Sullivan and Peters, and reminded viewers that you can have all advisors and psychologists you want, but you still have to win the match on the table.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby mantorok

Wildey wrote:yea i think there was too much made of Steve Peters.


So because Ronnie didn't play his best and beat Selby then it's suddenly down to Peters?

Peters has done a great job of balancing Ronnie. Losing a WC final doesn't really change or devalue that in any way. You can't help it when someone plays better than you.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Paddpotter

vodkadiet wrote:
mantorok wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.


When you consider how many titles Ronnie has won since working with Peters I fail to see why he's a laughing stock?


Okay, I exaggerated. I confess I am not a fan of psychologists in sport. Sport has lost some of the romance of days of old, as it has become more 'professional'.

I much prefer a player who just plays the game without outside help and beats the player with psychologists, advisors, business managers, and the like.

It was especially pleasurable to see O'Sullivan lose as the BBC were waxing lyrical about Steve Peters as though he was 'the second coming', and no one under his wing could ever lose.

Selby stuck 2 fingers up to O'Sullivan and Peters, and reminded viewers that you can have all advisors and psychologists you want, but you still have to win the match on the table.


It was Judd Trump who said.. 'I don't need somebody to tell me how to think, you should know how to do that already.' This was his reply after somebody asked him if he would ever use someone like Peter's to help him like O'Sullivan has. Tbh this would have been my response because I feel uncomfortable with the idea that we can be manipulated like computers to carry out an action more robotically without emotion. But the fact is WE CAN and Peter's and the like have been successful in doing so for many sport stars.

There was a programme on Channel 4 not that long back looking at how psychopathic as an individual you were and how it actually helped people achieve success because psychopaths don't let emotion get in the way of them achieving what they want. I couldn't help thinking of Stephen Hendry when I watched this programme and wondering how high on the psychopath scale he would have come on this programme. This is what the likes of Peter's are doing... they are turning people into robots with less emotion to achieve their sporting goals and if I was one of them I would feel wrong for selling out my natural humanity to achieve my goals. But it does work just ask Hendry who has it naturally!

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Paddpotter wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
mantorok wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.


When you consider how many titles Ronnie has won since working with Peters I fail to see why he's a laughing stock?


Okay, I exaggerated. I confess I am not a fan of psychologists in sport. Sport has lost some of the romance of days of old, as it has become more 'professional'.

I much prefer a player who just plays the game without outside help and beats the player with psychologists, advisors, business managers, and the like.

It was especially pleasurable to see O'Sullivan lose as the BBC were waxing lyrical about Steve Peters as though he was 'the second coming', and no one under his wing could ever lose.

Selby stuck 2 fingers up to O'Sullivan and Peters, and reminded viewers that you can have all advisors and psychologists you want, but you still have to win the match on the table.


It was Judd Trump who said.. 'I don't need somebody to tell me how to think, you should know how to do that already.' This was his reply after somebody asked him if he would ever use someone like Peter's to help him like O'Sullivan has. Tbh this would have been my response because I feel uncomfortable with the idea that we can be manipulated like computers to carry out an action more robotically without emotion. But the fact is WE CAN and Peter's and the like have been successful in doing so for many sport stars.

There was a programme on Channel 4 not that long back looking at how psychopathic as an individual you were and how it actually helped people achieve success because psychopaths don't let emotion get in the way of them achieving what they want. I couldn't help thinking of Stephen Hendry when I watched this programme and wondering how high on the psychopath scale he would have come on this programme. This is what the likes of Peter's are doing... they are turning people into robots with less emotion to achieve their sporting goals and if I was one of them I would feel wrong for selling out my natural humanity to achieve my goals. But it does work just ask Hendry who has it naturally!


I agree. Can you imagine Alex Higgins having a Steve Peters type guy in his corner. He would ended up head butting him if he lost. I think it is a sign of weakness that a player needs someone to help you get in the right frame of mind for a match, or tells you how to deal with situations that arise in matches. It is the equivalent of using Viagra for intercourse.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Paddpotter

vodkadiet wrote:
Paddpotter wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
mantorok wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Steve Peters is a laughing stock. He is like a 40% alcoholic drink that became a 3% alcoholic drink.


When you consider how many titles Ronnie has won since working with Peters I fail to see why he's a laughing stock?


Okay, I exaggerated. I confess I am not a fan of psychologists in sport. Sport has lost some of the romance of days of old, as it has become more 'professional'.

I much prefer a player who just plays the game without outside help and beats the player with psychologists, advisors, business managers, and the like.

It was especially pleasurable to see O'Sullivan lose as the BBC were waxing lyrical about Steve Peters as though he was 'the second coming', and no one under his wing could ever lose.

Selby stuck 2 fingers up to O'Sullivan and Peters, and reminded viewers that you can have all advisors and psychologists you want, but you still have to win the match on the table.


It was Judd Trump who said.. 'I don't need somebody to tell me how to think, you should know how to do that already.' This was his reply after somebody asked him if he would ever use someone like Peter's to help him like O'Sullivan has. Tbh this would have been my response because I feel uncomfortable with the idea that we can be manipulated like computers to carry out an action more robotically without emotion. But the fact is WE CAN and Peter's and the like have been successful in doing so for many sport stars.

There was a programme on Channel 4 not that long back looking at how psychopathic as an individual you were and how it actually helped people achieve success because psychopaths don't let emotion get in the way of them achieving what they want. I couldn't help thinking of Stephen Hendry when I watched this programme and wondering how high on the psychopath scale he would have come on this programme. This is what the likes of Peter's are doing... they are turning people into robots with less emotion to achieve their sporting goals and if I was one of them I would feel wrong for selling out my natural humanity to achieve my goals. But it does work just ask Hendry who has it naturally!


I agree. Can you imagine Alex Higgins having a Steve Peters type guy in his corner. He would ended up head butting him if he lost. I think it is a sign of weakness that a player needs someone to help you get in the right frame of mind for a match, or tells you how to deal with situations that arise in matches. It is the equivalent of using Viagra for intercourse.


It is a sign of weakness and 99% of us have it. In the the heat of battle the adrenaline starts flowing and our minds get haunted by past experiences. I would guess Hendry is part of the 1% who are not affected in the same way and can preform without worrying about such inconveniences. I don't begrudge Hendry his achievements because that's who he is but it does leave a bad taste when people like O'Sullivan try to engineer themselves to gain success.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Snooker isn't a physical sport, so I guess you can equate using a 'Steve Peters' type to an athlete taking steroids.

Tennis is worse. Some of the entourages for these players regularly goes in to double figures.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Paddpotter

vodkadiet wrote:Snooker isn't a physical sport, so I guess you can equate using a 'Steve Peters' type to an athlete taking steroids.

Tennis is worse. Some of the entourages for these players regularly goes in to double figures.


I can't stand Tennis so can't comment but take your word for it! I did actually think it could be a type of enhancement like drugs but it's not something you could ever police. I think it's fine if someone like O'Sullivan chooses to do so but I personally could not enjoy my success if I did so myself. I'd be thinking ...well it's not really me?

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby vodkadiet

Paddpotter wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Snooker isn't a physical sport, so I guess you can equate using a 'Steve Peters' type to an athlete taking steroids.

Tennis is worse. Some of the entourages for these players regularly goes in to double figures.


I can't stand Tennis so can't comment but take your word for it! I did actually think it could be a type of enhancement like drugs but it's not something you could ever police. I think it's fine if someone like O'Sullivan chooses to do so but I personally could not enjoy my success if I did so myself. I'd be thinking ...well it's not really me?


In tennis they have so many advisors, psychologists, coaches, fitness trainers, dieticians, stringers, and beyond. Djokovic even employed a volleying coach for a while!

When a grand slam tennis event finishes, players always say I would like to thank 'my team'. It is meant to be an individual sport!

It takes away from the enjoyment from sporting success.
Last edited by vodkadiet on 27 May 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Paddpotter

vodkadiet wrote:
Paddpotter wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Snooker isn't a physical sport, so I guess you can equate using a 'Steve Peters' type to an athlete taking steroids.

Tennis is worse. Some of the entourages for these players regularly goes in to double figures.


I can't stand Tennis so can't comment but take your word for it! I did actually think it could be a type of enhancement like drugs but it's not something you could ever police. I think it's fine if someone like O'Sullivan chooses to do so but I personally could not enjoy my success if I did so myself. I'd be thinking ...well it's not really me?


In tennis they have so many advisors, psychologists, coaches, fitness trainers, dieticians, stringers, and beyond. Djokovic even employed a volleying coach for a while!

When a grand slam tennis event finishes, players always say I would like to thank 'my team'. It is menat to be an individual sport!

It takes away from the enjoyment from sporting success.


Most people don't ever consider how much goes on behind the scenes for such things. Like a product a person purchases they don't consider how much went into producing that product in the first place. They just see the finished article they paid for and are happy with that. The same goes with high end sport today. Most of the audience do not give a rubbish how such and such a star got to their peak position they just want to see the result and the success at the end. and so much money is involved in this is it any surprise mind doctors like Peter's are suddenly god like and so indispensable? Money talks

Re: Ronnie still hurt by losing the WC final

Postby Wildey

mantorok wrote:
Wildey wrote:yea i think there was too much made of Steve Peters.


So because Ronnie didn't play his best and beat Selby then it's suddenly down to Peters?

Peters has done a great job of balancing Ronnie. Losing a WC final doesn't really change or devalue that in any way. You can't help it when someone plays better than you.

i did not say that

i said the way the BBC Was going on about Peters made some fans believe Ronnie was never going to lose a WC Match over long frames and for a while it did look that way