Will Ronnnie win the World Title in his 40s?

Alright. Simple yes or no question.

After Ronnie winning a 6th Masters crown at the age of 40, the big question remains: Will he win (at least) one World Title in his 40s? It's something that hasn't been done since Ray Reardon won the World Title in 1978. Can Ronnie do it?

Yes.

Sadly, yes.

He will win one more I think, and to do it in his 40s will be just

viewtopic.php?f=553&t=5633

Probably.

As a massive ROS fan i just have a bad feeling. I did not like his comment after winning the masters. "it is easy to maintain your form for a week and win the masters but to maintain it for 17 days is really tough". I really dont know lads. Steve peters could play a part. I think it maybe tough now

I am certain he will win it again.

SnookerFan wrote:I am certain he will win it again.

I think he will win it two or three more times.

The real question is will he win it in his 50s and 60s.

I say yes.

Cloud Strife wrote:The real question is will he win it in his 50s and 60s.

I say yes.

Rocky came back to fight in his 60s so why not Ronnie.

Certainly not in his 60s!
His ability, stamina, eye-sight, consistency and more importantly - motivation, will be considerably diminished in 20 years time! I seriously doubt he'll even still be playing competitively at 50, let alone 60!

Ronnie79 wrote:As a massive ROS fan i just have a bad feeling. I did not like his comment after winning the masters. "it is easy to maintain your form for a week and win the masters but to maintain it for 17 days is really tough". I really dont know lads. Steve peters could play a part. I think it maybe tough now

Of course it's tough, but he's reached the final on 6 occasions, he'll do it again and has 10 more cracks at it if he wants to do it in his 40's.

It's perfectly achievable, if he wants it bad enough.

45 is the oldest crucible champion. Id say ROS has 3 or 4 years left to win it max

mantorok wrote:

Ronnie79 wrote:As a massive ROS fan i just have a bad feeling. I did not like his comment after winning the masters. "it is easy to maintain your form for a week and win the masters but to maintain it for 17 days is really tough". I really dont know lads. Steve peters could play a part. I think it maybe tough now

Of course it's tough, but he's reached the final on 6 occasions, he'll do it again and has 10 more cracks at it if he wants to do it in his 40's.

It's perfectly achievable, if he wants it bad enough.

As with Ronnie, that's the bigger issue than whether he has the skill.

Of course he has the ability to do it, that's not in any doubt. But he admitted himself in the interview Sunday night, he wasn't sure he was motivated for 17 days. And though he always says that, we are now found with a Ronnie who misses tournaments such as the CoC and the UK. The older he gets, the less motivated to enter he seems. How long will it be before Ronnie retires completely and makes the Snooker Legends tour his full time job?

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't play again until Sheffield, but Ronnie tends to win tournaments when he's had a few months off. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins at The Crucible this year, personally.

Well, he aint gonna win another one in his 30s is he? hehehe


WHAT DOES RONNIE WANT!

- a time machine

WHEN DOES HE WANT IT!

- er, it doesn't really matter

Dan-cat wrote:Well, he aint gonna win another one in his 30s is he? hehehe

Even he isn't that talented.

I thought the odds were still slightly against, so I voted "NO". In your 40's things can just suddenly start to go wrong. I noticed that only two people agree with me, but then I was in the minority in 2011 when I said that Ronnie was still the best player in the world and would do really well in the 2011-12 season.

Andy Spark wrote:I thought the odds were still slightly against, so I voted "NO". In your 40's things can just suddenly start to go wrong. I noticed that only two people agree with me, but then I was in the minority in 2011 when I said that Ronnie was still the best player in the world and would do really well in the 2011-12 season.

I voted yes, because I think it's possible, and I think he's capable of doing it. I think that's the logic most people took.

SnookerFan wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:I thought the odds were still slightly against, so I voted "NO". In your 40's things can just suddenly start to go wrong. I noticed that only two people agree with me, but then I was in the minority in 2011 when I said that Ronnie was still the best player in the world and would do really well in the 2011-12 season.

I voted yes, because I think it's possible, and I think he's capable of doing it. I think that's the logic most people took.

The question was "Will Ronnie...?" not "Might Ronnie...?" As there are only "yes" and "no" answer options then (IMO) the inference is to select what you believe is the most likely outcome, not just picking "yes" because it's possible.

since the German masters 2012 he had only one real blip and that was the wc final in 2014. it would have been so different. 6 wc and we could have witnessed history.

All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

Andy Spark wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:I thought the odds were still slightly against, so I voted "NO". In your 40's things can just suddenly start to go wrong. I noticed that only two people agree with me, but then I was in the minority in 2011 when I said that Ronnie was still the best player in the world and would do really well in the 2011-12 season.

I voted yes, because I think it's possible, and I think he's capable of doing it. I think that's the logic most people took.

The question was "Will Ronnie...?" not "Might Ronnie...?" As there are only "yes" and "no" answer options then (IMO) the inference is to select what you believe is the most likely outcome, not just picking "yes" because it's possible.

Let's not get into another argument about this.

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

Yes, that was one of the most memorable matches ever. I was 14 at the time and even though it should now be a distant memory, I remember that match more than matches that happened last season.

You will never get that now with today's UK set up. If someone was 7-0 up today the match would be over.

The UK is devalued, and in addition, there just isn't the rivalries like there used to be.

The Rack Pack was quite good, but it seemed to miss something.

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

I disagree, the tournament is a true test of consistency, focus, mentality and skill over a long period, I think it's good to have something for players to strive for, anyone who wins it has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it, and having it once a year makes it all the more special.

Any more than 1 like that and you risk diluting its importance, every player wants to be WC, I think it's important to have that pinnacle in such a sport.

Yeah it was visually really good and I loved the soundtrack, but the script was a bit lacking,the characters lacked any real depth and I was actually quite bored by it - which is ridiculous really because I love the real story. Still, it was clearly a labour of love.

Can a player be considered great, if they have never won the World Championship?

Discuss.

SnookerFan wrote:Can a player be considered great, if they have never won the World Championship?

Discuss.

Yes. Jimmy White is definitely one of the greats.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Can a player be considered great, if they have never won the World Championship?

Discuss.

Yes. Jimmy White is definitely one of the greats.

Good discussion.