Post a reply

Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby whitespider

Apologies for another Ronnie thread but his recent quotes have prompted this -

"I have been playing 25 years and I have only 28 ranking titles. You think, 'what the hell is going on'? I should have had about 56. I should be getting two a year."

So as ridiculous as it sounds to label someone who has won what's he's won as an under achiever what do people think? Ronnie seems to think so. He's labelled by many as the greatest to pick up a cue after all. He's had about 22 of those 25 years at the top with a few years to come. No-one can question his longevity.

2004 was his best calendar year for a ranking haul - he won 3 that year.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Cloud Strife

He defo should have won more than he has, yes. He's thrown away at least 3 world titles, by my reckoning.

There will always be that 'what if' factor with Ronnie, but maybe if he had the mindset of a Hendry and dominated like Hendry it wouldn't be the same Ronnie that we know and love?

He would have just become a Hendry and Davis clone albeit a far more successful one.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

In some ways, I don't like the term 'should have won'.

I know there are people who have had the talent, but have never translated that into the titles they could have won. But winning titles is more than talent, it's about temperament and confidence too. A player who loses confidence quickly, or who gets a temper when thinks aren't going their way isn't going to win as much as they could have done otherwise.

Nobody has a divine right to win stuff, no matter how talented. If Ronnie threw away titles he could've won, he has nobody to blame but himself. Often he was responsible for them being thrown away, so no he should NOT have won those titles. Ronnie lost a lot of matches, just because he didn't seem up for the fight, that's as much of a factor as his admittedly awesome talent.

I know I'm arguing semantics with the difference between 'could've' and 'should've', and often luck in a deciding frame here or there can also play a part in who wins a trophy. But my point is attitude plays as much of a part in deciding who wins matches as skill.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Cheshire Cat

Snooker Scene (Dave Hendon and Clive Everton) did a podcast on Ronnie and his career to celebrate his 40th birthday which was pretty interesting on this topic. I like hearing Clive's thoughts because he, like Ronnie, suffers from depression and gives a good outlook on how it can affect a snooker player; he seems to understand, unlike quite a few mindless haters, just how crippling depression can be for anyone, let alone a sportsperson, especially so in a game with a strong mental element such as snooker. You only have to look back to O'Sullivan's constant weight fluctuations in the 90s when it all kicked off to see just how physically bloated he became at times because of his problems, goodness knows what the inner workings of his mind was like.

Personally I believe he /could/ have won more titles I reckon if he had the mental prowess he does now, who knows how many more if any at all, but he hasn't and that's that. Sod his titles; I would rather have his longevity over titles, because these days I just love watching him produce snooker that quite frankly, no one else on the tour can.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Dan-cat

NNear wrote:Long answer: no.

Short answer: yes.


Hahaha couldn't have put it better myself.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Cheshire Cat wrote:Snooker Scene (Dave Hendon and Clive Everton) did a podcast on Ronnie and his career to celebrate his 40th birthday which was pretty interesting on this topic. I like hearing Clive's thoughts because he, like Ronnie, suffers from depression and gives a good outlook on how it can affect a snooker player; he seems to understand, unlike quite a few mindless haters, just how crippling depression can be for anyone, let alone a sportsperson, especially so in a game with a strong mental element such as snooker. You only have to look back to O'Sullivan's constant weight fluctuations in the 90s when it all kicked off to see just how physically bloated he became at times because of his problems, goodness knows what the inner workings of his mind was like.

Personally I believe he /could/ have won more titles I reckon if he had the mental prowess he does now, who knows how many more if any at all, but he hasn't and that's that. Sod his titles; I would rather have his longevity over titles, because these days I just love watching him produce snooker that quite frankly, no one else on the tour can.

:goodpost:

Excellent post, sir :hatoff:

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Wildey

you could argue that Hendry, Williams and Higgins underachieved too.

people achieve things at different times in their life.

Hendry's Success came at a younger age as did Steve Davis where as Ronnie plays to a higher standard as a much older man.

it took Higgins between 2001 and 2007 to play in a World Final even a World Semi final again and in 2002/2003 Mark Williams was dominant after that he won nothing for 3 years.

so the record books show that everyone should have had more success.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:you could argue that Hendry, Williams and Higgins underachieved too.

people achieve things at different times in their life.

Hendry's Success came at a younger age as did Steve Davis where as Ronnie plays to a higher standard as a much older man.

it took Higgins between 2001 and 2007 to play in a World Final even a World Semi final again and in 2002/2003 Mark Williams was dominant after that he won nothing for 3 years.

so the record books show that everyone should have had more success.


Actually, that's a good point.

Higgins, for example, spent a lot of time going down the pub when he should've been practicing. What would he have won if he hadn't?

Like I said, doesn't matter. There's no should win. If you don't practice hard enough, you're going to give yourself a disadvantage when the competitions come round. What's the point wondering what he could've done if hadn't have been partying so much? He was, and that's his fault. Nobody else's.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Cheshire Cat

Was John Higgins really that bad? The podcasts I listened to 'hinted' at him losing conviction to the game at times and not putting in the effort, but he doesn't really strike me as the type that would slack off.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Muppet147

I don't really think you can call Ronnie an under achiever. He's won stacks of events and set all sorts of records.

However, I think he should have won seven or eight world titles. He may well still do that before he retires.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Wildey

Cheshire Cat wrote:Was John Higgins really that bad? The podcasts I listened to 'hinted' at him losing conviction to the game at times and not putting in the effort, but he doesn't really strike me as the type that would slack off.

you didnt hear of Higgins party lifestyle as much as you have heard of say Judd Trump proberbly because his haunts wasent the bright life of London, Vegas or Ibiza not to mention he isnt on Twitter or Facebook.

But Higgins did like his pint and spending his spoils on the good things in life

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Muppet147

The biggest under achiever (not mentioned yet) is Jimmy White.

He wasted most of the 1980s drinking and putting stuff up his nose, when he should have been challenging Davis. By the time he wised up and started playing good safety Hendry had come along and it was too late for him. (Even though he did reach five finals in the 1990s.)

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:you didnt hear of Higgins party lifestyle as much as you have heard of say Judd Trump proberbly because his haunts wasent the bright life of London, Vegas or Ibiza not to mention he isnt on Twitter or Facebook.

But Higgins did like his pint and spending his spoils on the good things in life


I think Judd's age might be something to do with it.

There was a time when Judd was the new kid on the block, which coincided with Ronnie's age creeping towards the age where he might retire, or at least not be winning as much as used to be. Obviously, it's not quite worked out like that, but it did look like the BBC were worried who would take up the torch for a while.

When Judd first arrived, the BBC were all over him as the next big thing, but then he fell out of form for a few seasons. That's why the BBC nearly wet themselves when Judd started winning tournaments, and playing that 'naughty snooker'.

Here was a kid that like to spend money on cars and shoes, had a dopey haircut and was getting fans to support him. The BBC thought; "Oooh, look. Trendy. Let's make him the next Ronnie."

I always thought some of his international playboy image was played up a bit. In fact, I think most of it was. He was a bit of a mummy's boy, really. But because he looked the part, and liked to get some expensive things in, they could at least make sound a bit convincing that he was a bit of a wild child.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
Wildey wrote:you didnt hear of Higgins party lifestyle as much as you have heard of say Judd Trump proberbly because his haunts wasent the bright life of London, Vegas or Ibiza not to mention he isnt on Twitter or Facebook.

But Higgins did like his pint and spending his spoils on the good things in life


I think Judd's age might be something to do with it.

There was a time when Judd was the new kid on the block, which coincided with Ronnie's age creeping towards the age where he might retire, or at least not be winning as much as used to be. Obviously, it's not quite worked out like that, but it did look like the BBC were worried who would take up the torch for a while.

When Judd first arrived, the BBC were all over him as the next big thing, but then he fell out of form for a few seasons. That's why the BBC nearly wet themselves when Judd started winning tournaments, and playing that 'naughty snooker'.

Here was a kid that like to spend money on cars and shoes, had a dopey haircut and was getting fans to support him. The BBC thought; "Oooh, look. Trendy. Let's make him the next Ronnie."

I always thought some of his international playboy image was played up a bit. In fact, I think most of it was. He was a bit of a mummy's boy, really. But because he looked the part, and liked to get some expensive things in, they could at least make sound a bit convincing that he was a bit of a wild child.


Yep, the BBC needed a new snooker rockstar so they latched on to Judd.

Also Higgins's partying days pre-dated the Twitter age, so there is far more exposure to Judd's "international snooker playboy" antics - however minor they may actually be, they get magnified and dissected much more.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

whitespider wrote:"I have been playing 25 years and I have only 28 ranking titles. You think, 'what the hell is going on'? I should have had about 56. I should be getting two a year."


Well he has six Masters titles plus if add the non-ranking Irish Masters. Scottish Masters, CoC/Champions Cup titles then he would be above 40, the PL would put him in the 50's. Looking at his record the main things that stick out are not winning a World Title in the 90's and the slump he had in the mid 00's. He failed to win anything other than the PL in 2006. 2010 & 2011 and won nothing last year either.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Muppet147 wrote:The biggest under achiever (not mentioned yet) is Jimmy White.

Indeed. Should have won two world titles at least.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Wildey

Pink Ball wrote:Ronnie hasn't underachieved. Considering his mental condition, he's probably overachieved. Honest.

That is a interesting point

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Tonsgalore

Cheshire Cat wrote:Was John Higgins really that bad? The podcasts I listened to 'hinted' at him losing conviction to the game at times and not putting in the effort, but he doesn't really strike me as the type that would slack off.

I think with Higgins it was when he got caught cheating that threw him off a bit. Video evidence of him discussing how he would throw frames and how they could hide the money through his villa in Spain certainly did him no good. He luckily got away with it when he rightly should have been banned for life. He came good for a while after that but I think it's the main reason he does not get compared with ROS.
So I think ROS has under achieved but is still at the top of his game and will win a few more titles

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Wildey

Tonsgalore wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:Was John Higgins really that bad? The podcasts I listened to 'hinted' at him losing conviction to the game at times and not putting in the effort, but he doesn't really strike me as the type that would slack off.

I think with Higgins it was when he got caught cheating that threw him off a bit. Video evidence of him discussing how he would throw frames and how they could hide the money through his villa in Spain certainly did him no good. He luckily got away with it when he rightly should have been banned for life. He came good for a while after that but I think it's the main reason he does not get compared with ROS.
So I think ROS has under achieved but is still at the top of his game and will win a few more titles

No Higgins enjoyed the high life much earlier than that

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby NNear

There is only so much room for the winners. If everybody maximised their potential, they'd have probably won approximately the same amount. Hendry's stubbornness cost him titles. Higgins definitely slacked off and Ronnie is volatile and has had (or has) mental health issues. Hendry got complacent, Higgins got lazy and O'Sullivan is a nutter.

Did they underachieve? What does that even mean then: compared to average levels of potential achieved across high level sportsman, and especially one's direct peers; compared to absolute highest achievement for an individual (by natural means - no Armstrong stories or certain high suspicious tennis players); compared to chances they've actually garnered throughout their career e.g. has one lost too many finals or not won enough major events given their percentage of snooker frames won???

Did Hendry maximise his window of opportunity? Seems so, more or less. Did he underachieve as the full class of '92 hit full maturity? I'd say so, through stubbornness and settling down more into his family life. But wait, why did he have that stubbornness in the first place - maybe because it was part of a winning game that brought him the greatest dominance in the history of snooker? So is it really underachieving?
Last edited by NNear on 24 Feb 2016, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:No Higgins enjoyed the high life much earlier than that


I always thought that incident was the result of Higgins enjoying the 'high life' a bit much.

His mafia excuse was one of the least believable thing I've ever heard in my life. He expected us to believe he'd lied to the mafia, then come home, seen his kids in bed and gone to sleep? He hadn't even alerted World Snooker as he 'intended to do that the next day'. Hmmm.

What was more likely, in my opinion, was that the Daily Scribble, or whatever that paper was called, knew how much Higgins liked a drink. So they lead him to believe it was a social occasion, gave him a few drinks and made him boast a bit about how he could fix frames if he wanted to.

Instant story, Higgins comes home without thinking too much of it, because all he'd really done is had a boozey business lunch. Maybe even a bit hazy on exactly what he'd said.

His actions weren't one of somebody who feared for his and his family's life. I could believe it was the actions of somebody who'd had a few drinks and run his mouth.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby Dan-cat

SF, please stay on topic :wave: :love:

seriously though, that sounds like a pretty close guess to what went down. We'll never know.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby TheSaviour

I don´t think he has under achieved.

But what I would love to see would be Ronnie O´Sullivan and Kyren Wilson being on a collision course. The present versus the future. Ronnie versus the red-hot Kyren Wilson. The Essex man still holds that unrivalled flair and precision. But Kyren got bit that, too, and he can be a slightly more machinery-like than O´Sullivan.

I can´t see Judd being able to compete with Ronnie if they have that long exhibition matches - series. I would really like to see Judd playing really good, but.. Too many buts there.

Seems that I finally have got a really powerfull ally with Kyren.

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

TheSaviour wrote:I don´t think he has under achieved.

But what I would love to see would be Ronnie O´Sullivan and Kyren Wilson being on a collision course. The present versus the future. Ronnie versus the red-hot Kyren Wilson. The Essex man still holds that unrivalled flair and precision. But Kyren got bit that, too, and he can be a slightly more machinery-like than O´Sullivan.

I can´t see Judd being able to compete with Ronnie if they have that long exhibition matches - series. I would really like to see Judd playing really good, but.. Too many buts there.

Seems that I finally have got a really powerfull ally with Kyren.


You have an ally in Kyren?

Does Kyren know about this? rofl

Re: Has Ronnie Under Achieved?

Postby SnookerFan

boris_the_butcher wrote:^^ TheSaviour

are you drunk? what a ridiculous post comparing this kid with the GOAT.


That was a fairly cohesive post for The Saviour.

It was about snooker and I understood what he was saying, for the most part.