What's gone wrong for Ronnie in finals ?.

Cloud Strife wrote:In that 1999 world semi Ronnie played like a clown in the first session and that's what made the difference in that match.

Hendry made 3 big breaks in the first 3 frames without Ronnie scroting a point. I hate it when O'Sullivan fans refuse to give Hendry credit.

sas6789 wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:In that 1999 world semi Ronnie played like a clown in the first session and that's what made the difference in that match.

Hendry made 3 big breaks in the first 3 frames without Ronnie scroting a point. I hate it when O'Sullivan fans refuse to give Hendry credit.

Watch that first session again and tell me Ronnie didn't play like a clown? His safety was crap and he was missing pots by the proverbial mile and leaving Hendry bang in. Fair enough, Hendry did what he had to do to mop up, but Ronnie didn't exactly make it too difficult for him. Watch it again if you're memory's abit hazy.

Anyway, that was just first session and Ronnie did play well after that so credit to Hendry for holding him off for the win.

@sas6789

Do you even know what peak means or do you just look at the stats on cuetracker and if good scoring is involved it means peak to you? Scoring three centuries in a bo19 match means nothing. Even in a bo7 match it means nothing if you play 4 totally rubbish frames, missing balls everywhere and lose 4:3.

I'll tell you what peak means. Getting maximum value of every single chance you get from your opponent. Not missing any easy balls, maybe 1-2 sitters at max throughout the whole match. Doing it frame after frame. Throughout the whole match.

And as I said. He did lose matches at his peak. I'm not trying to hide that and never will. These are the three key examples.

1999 semi vs Hendry
2000 first round vs David Gray
2016 2nd round vs Barry Hawkins

However. This thread is supposed to be about a different subject. We'll see how the next finals will be like.

TheRocket wrote:@sas6789

Do you even know what peak means or do you just look at the stats on cuetracker and if good scoring is involved it means peak to you? Scoring three centuries in a bo19 match means nothing. Even in a bo7 match it means nothing if you play 4 totally rubbish frames, missing balls everywhere and lose 4:3.

I'll tell you what peak means. Getting maximum value of every single chance you get from your opponent. Not missing any easy balls, maybe 1-2 sitters at max throughout the whole match. Doing it frame after frame. Throughout the whole match.

And as I said. He did lose matches at his peak. I'm not trying to hide that and never will. These are the three key examples.

1999 semi vs Hendry
2000 first round vs David Gray
2016 2nd round vs Barry Hawkins

That Hawkins match wasn't peak Ronnie, far from it. For a start his safety was poor for most of it and he did miss some relatively easy balls at crucial times. He scored well when in, but made a lot mistakes too.

TheRocket wrote:@sas6789

Do you even know what peak means or do you just look at the stats on cuetracker and if good scoring is involved it means peak to you? Scoring three centuries in a bo19 match means nothing. Even in a bo7 match it means nothing if you play 4 totally rubbish frames, missing balls everywhere and lose 4:3.

I'll tell you what peak means. Getting maximum value of every single chance you get from your opponent. Not missing any easy balls, maybe 1-2 sitters at max throughout the whole match. Doing it frame after frame. Throughout the whole match.

And as I said. He did lose matches at his peak. I'm not trying to hide that and never will. These are the three key examples.

1999 semi vs Hendry
2000 first round vs David Gray
2016 2nd round vs Barry Hawkins

Matey, his safety in that Hawkins game was dreadful, and I mean bucking dreadful.

sas6789 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:

sas6789 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:
He has played most of his finals against Hendry and Higgins and has a leading record against both of them.

When O'Sullivan plays at his best it doesnt matter whos in front of him.

No quite true actually, Higgins and Hendry have both beat him when he's played at his best eg 1999 World semi final, 2003 British Open final and 2006 Masters Final.

I admit. I shouldnt have said it doesnt matter because it did indeed happen. Him losing at his peak.
And I definitely agree with the 1999 semi, not with the others. That wasnt peak O'Sullivan. But in the end it doesnt change the overall context.

The match is more often than not on Ronnies racquet and not on the racquet of his opponent. Like it was with Federer or Nadal in their primes.

Of course you'll have these 1 or 2 matches every 2-3 years where your opponent just completely plays out of his skin. Playing the match of his life and even beat you at your peak like Hawkins for example has done in the World.

Agreed O'Sullivan wasn't peak in 1999 but in that semi final he played as well as he ever has that can't be denied he also played pretty well in the semi in 2002 and Hendry beat him then also when Hendry was past his peak.

And don't tell he wasn't playing his best in the 2003 British open final and Master's 2006, he was, there was 6 centuries, 2 80 breaks and a 90 break and a couple of 60's as well between the players in that British open final.

Scoring heavily don't necessarelly mean he was at his best. Back then, he didn't have the all-round game he now posesses.

Ronnie will win more titles, not that he has anything else to prove, but nevertheless he'll win more and shut his critics up once again who've been saying he wouldn0t win another title since 2010.

And he has beaten them all, the Higgins, The Trump's, Selby's, Hendry's, all of them, at some point in his career, so please don't tell me he's lost because he faced hard opponents.

They were better on the day, end of. As I said, Ronnie's beaten them all in Finals at some point in his career.

Ronnie will win more titles, that much is a garantee, so not an "if" but "when", even if that annoys some of the haters.

I think people are overreacting a little here in discussing what has gone wrong for O'Sullivan in his final appearances. It's just three snooker matches that he's lost, in comparison to fifteen good performances he's put in to reach that stage.

Point one - O'Sullivan has faced players in these last three finals who were capable of beating him regardless of whether he was at the top of his game or woefully out of form.

Point two - In the finals against Higgins and Trump, even though he did have leads, from 7-7 in the Champion of Champions Final and from 8-6 in front in the European Final he didn't really get a chance to score.

Of course, had he played better on Sunday afternoon and not gone 7-2 behind against Selby then it may have been a different story.

Yes, it's three finals he could have won. But it's not three major shocks. He's more than capable of beating all three of those players in finals still. He just needs to keep the motivation to play in every scenario.

When Ronnie starts regularly losing finals - or losing finals to players in 'upsets' then you can start to examine what's going wrong.

PL shares the same thoughts I said above. It's just we are so used to him winning a Final when he reaches that stage, that when he loses 3 on the trot people start overreacting.

This isn't like MJW's meltdowns in the 2010 UK, 2011 Shanghai and Aussie Finals. He was just beaten by a better player, who like PL says from 7-7 and 8-6 played very very well. In the UK he could have won if he had a better opening session, but even then we can't be sure, as we will never know if he would win it or not.

Imagine Ronnie had faced Higgin's last 3 opponents in ranker... Gilbert, Woollaston and Gould... if he didn't win all 3, at least 2 he would I'm sure. And like I said he's beaten all those 3 players Ronnie faced in his last 3 Finals at some point in his career in Finals.

against those 3 it's always 50/50 match, who knows, if he faces either of them next time in a Final Ronnie will win it, I hope he meets one of them in a Final again this season.

I'll always give Selby the credit he deserves. And its obvious he and Higgins are the only players who can get under Ronnies skin on a regular basis.

Im just speaking about peak level here. Id make peak O'Sullivan favourite to beat anyone at anytime, no matter how well his opponent is playing. But it has to be peak ROS, nothing else.

He has a strong B-game which is still enough to beat the far majority of his opponents.

Selby and Higgins however dont belong to this 95%. And Ronnie knows it. Knowing that you have to play at your peak to beat Selby and Higgins puts massive pressure on him and thats what makes him crumble so often.

He doesnt have this kind of pressure against the other players.

Wildey wrote:

TheRocket wrote:

sas6789 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:
He has played most of his finals against Hendry and Higgins and has a leading record against both of them.

When O'Sullivan plays at his best it doesnt matter whos in front of him.

No quite true actually, Higgins and Hendry have both beat him when he's played at his best eg 1999 World semi final, 2003 British Open final and 2006 Masters Final.

I admit. I shouldnt have said it doesnt matter because it did indeed happen. Him losing at his peak.
And I definitely agree with the 1999 semi, not with the others. That wasnt peak O'Sullivan. But in the end it doesnt change the overall context.

The match is more often than not on Ronnies racquet and not on the racquet of his opponent. Like it was with Federer or Nadal in their primes.

Of course you'll have these 1 or 2 matches every 2-3 years where your opponent just completely plays out of his skin. Playing the match of his life and even beat you at your peak like Hawkins for example has done in the World.

The match is more often than not on Ronnies racquet and not on the racquet of his opponent. Like it was with Federer or Nadal in their primes.

a very arrogant way of looking at things.

Players can work out a way of getting to Ronnie and make him crumble like any other player, in itself that is skill.

Selby more than any other player has done that in important matches lets give credit where its due and not think Ronnie is in charge of his destiny sometimes his destiny is dictated to him

Not quite. It's a reasonable assumption given that the vast majority of the players on tour are likely to play a game more palatable to O'Sullivan's style in the same way that a significant proportion of tennis players play to a style which is going to suit a top player during their prime.

You're absolutely right that players can definitely figure out how to beat O'Sullivan and how to send a match against his taste - and indeed some players are very adept to it - but you cant deny if players try to play like Ronnie against O'Sullivan then in all likelihood this is only going to play into his hands.

Not only Hendry, Paul Hunter too managed to play all out attack Snooker and beat Ronnie when he was near his peak, the 2004 Masters Final is the best example of it.

Andre147 wrote:Not only Hendry, Paul Hunter too managed to play all out attack Snooker and beat Ronnie when he was near his peak, the 2004 Masters Final is the best example of it.

Yes the late Paul hunter who left us far too early.

What a great player it was.