Post a reply

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

Cloud Strife wrote:Ronnie is a far nicer and far greater human being than arrogant Federer. I think he's more talented too.


I am a far nicer and greater human being than Ronnie O'Sullivan. And I am more talented than him also at everything other than snooker. That wouldn't be hard though....

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

Love to Ronald if he ever reads the comments on here.

Ronald would actually tell you he is not worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

Ronald is equivalent to Gustavo Kuerten.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

vodkadiet wrote:Love to Ronald if he ever reads the comments on here.

Ronald would actually tell you he is not worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

Ronald is equivalent to Gustavo Kuerten.


Who is she?

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Iranu

There's a difference between comparing sports and comparing individual sportspeople

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

kolompar wrote:It's just Ronnie fanboys making him out to be better than he is <ok>

Actually, I think Steve Davis and Mark Selby were the first ones to compare Ronnie with Federer...

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

I don't care what Davis/Selby said. O"Sullivan is at least 2 levels below Federer...

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

I always forget the snooker hipsters know more about snooker than greats like Davis, Reardon, Hendry... Ronnie’s a terrible snooker player in the eyes of the hipsters.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:I always forget the snooker hipsters know more about snooker than greats like Davis, Reardon, Hendry... Ronnie’s a terrible snooker player in the eyes of the hipsters.


Only because tennis exists.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby kolompar

Holden Chinaski wrote:I always forget the snooker hipsters know more about snooker than greats like Davis, Reardon, Hendry... Ronnie’s a terrible snooker player in the eyes of the hipsters.

Are you getting snake hissed off at people saying Ronnie is not like Federer? <laugh>

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Who in snooker is like Sharapova?


Jack Lisowski.


I've never googled photos of him.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Who in snooker is like Sharapova?


Jack Lisowski.


Lisowski is better looking.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

kolompar wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:I always forget the snooker hipsters know more about snooker than greats like Davis, Reardon, Hendry... Ronnie’s a terrible snooker player in the eyes of the hipsters.

Are you getting snake hissed off at people saying Ronnie is not like Federer? <laugh>

No because you say he's an inferior sportsmen. I don't see him as inferior.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Who in snooker is like Sharapova?


Jack Lisowski.


Lisowski is better looking.


:limp:

Re: Once and for all....

Postby mantorok

You can draw comparisons because tennis is a much more physically demanding sport, so age differences are probably about right.

I would draw comparisons with Phil Taylor personally who time and time again provoked speculation of his demise only to come out and start winning again, he often went away and made changes to keep him competitive.

I'm pretty sure Ronnie follows darts so must've been inspired by this to some degree.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Raphael98

I've been reading these comments and I have to say, although right now I like snooker more than tennis, what I'm watching here is two different sides: one is the O'Sullivan fanboys (don't get me wrong, I like O'Sullivan) who hate tennis, and the other is the "haters" (the ones who like O'Sullivan the least) who like tennis. Sorry for being rude (If I am being it) but to be honest, I can't compare the two players because of age, the commitment and of course the different sports. The first is because O'Sullivan like it was said here, is 6 years older than Federer. The second is that Federer is more committed than O'Sullivan when it comes to the sport they play (the professional part). The third thing is that tennis is a more physical sport, and snooker is more psychological (all those things already mentioned here in this topic). The only thing they have in common, really, is the natural talent, because they were both born to play the sports they love. Sorry for the long message everyone

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Raphael98

Of course, when I wanted to say fanboys, I didn't mean it in an insulting way, and the haters part, is actually not really hating the player, is more the person itself <ok> <ok>

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet wrote:Federer is far better than O'Sullivan. Why?

He has achieved more in a much more global sport than O'Sullivan.

There is far too much premature talk about O'Sullivan being the 'greatest player ever'.

You need to win the titles that matter to put that issue out of doubt.

Until O'Sullivan has won at least 8 world titles there is still legitimate debate.

Snookeren hates tennis too much to be taken seriously.

Honestly, how can anyone give enough of a buck about this piss-silly debate to reply as seriously as you have?

Go for a walk.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Pink Ball

Holden Chinaski wrote:I say the mental aspect of snooker is what makes it hard, but actually the technical side is far from easy as well... Snooker is a much more harder game to play on a high level than tennis in my opinion. Tennis is easy. Snooker is damn hard. Federer's not fit to tie Ronnie's bow tie!

Holden, relax. Enjoy the Easter weekend. Bring your dog for a walk. Anything but reducing yourself to worrying about cockerel like this.