Will O'Sullivan win 8 World Titles?

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan is a good player. He would have won 3 world titles even if he had been born in the same year as Hendry. But he would have had to wait for Hendry to decline before winning a World title.

Nope, don't back away from doubling down now. You can't say Ronnie is a good player to prop up your favourites if he just wins with weak draws because that'd just make him a weak player. By your logic all of your favs wins don't mean anything by beating Ronnie, a supposed weak player.

And no, Ronnie wouldn't have to wait. Unlike you a 2004 WC Ronnie or a 2013 WC Ronnie, especially 2013 WC which was the perfect mixture of break building and safety play would beat Hendry multiple times at the WC and Hendry would do the same. They would share the wins in that era. Not all of Hendry's wins in the 90s were the same, just like not all of Ronnie's wins are equal in terms of performance, same with Higgins, Williams etc.

vodkadiet wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:In 2004 O'Sullivan only had to beat debutant Maguire; Hicks: Hamilton; a well past his best Hendry; and Dott.

What an incredibly difficult draw!!!!

Hicks aside (who, oddly, gave him his toughest match) how is that in any way an easy draw? Maguire-Hamilton-Hendry-Dott. That would only ever be considered easy for O’Sullivan.

Hendry was as good in 2004 as he’d ever been. It was just no longer enough.

Of course he was. His 13-12 victory over Barry Pinches in the 2nd round was one of the highlights of his career.

Even the greatest player of all time, Ronnie O’Sullivan, threw in some bad performances, albeit less frequently than Hendry.

I think Hendry’s greatest World Championship performance was in 2002. Hendry was much better then than in 1993.

I think that is a fair and balanced post Erza Scarlet. I was surprised at the lack of quality in those WC that Vodka mentioned, but also Hendry had runs of a similar quality and ROS has also won one or two with tougher runs.

I hope nobody is suggesting Ronnie is a weak player - without doubt one of the best ever - but I think you are right. It would have been close if they had met in the nineties - one way or the other.

I like 'A Flock of Seagulls'

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I think that is a fair and balanced post. I was surprised at the lack of quality in those WC that Vodka mentioned, but also Hendry had runs of a similar quality and ROS has also won one or two with tougher runs.

I hope nobody is suggesting Ronnie is a weak player - without doubt one of the best ever - but I think you are right. It would have been close if they had met in the nineties - one way or the other.

Wouldn’t dispute any of that. I think Hendry winning just one major in his prime was more an underachievement than a reflection on his quality. To be serious for a moment, as I’ve been really enjoying winding people here, Hendry is definitely one of the two best players of all time. I have no doubt O’Sullivan was the greatest ever, but Hendry and Higgins are the only two who hold a candle to him.

Hendry was at his best from about 1992 -1996.

Ironically when Hendry was considerably past his best in 2002 he still beat a prime O'Sullivan 17-13 at The Crucible. This proves the gulf in class.

Hendry is the GOAT by some distance. This is irrefutable.

I think it is good that there are differing opinions on here and that we can all respect those.

It is interesting to speculate what we would be thinking if Selby had won the Worlds this year and been one behind ROS.

vodkadiet wrote:Hendry was at his best from about 1992 -1996.

Ironically when Hendry was considerably past his best in 2002 he still beat a prime O'Sullivan 17-13 at The Crucible. This proves the gulf in class.

Hendry is the GOAT by some distance. This is irrefutable.

Hendry was a much better player in 2002 than he was in the nineties. He showed no signs of decline until (roughly) 2006.

Nobody on this earth knows more about snooker than I do, with the possible exception of Clive Everton. Hendry was an animal always striving to improve his game, which he was successful in doing throughout his prime years (1995/6 to 2002/3). Unfortunately, he just could not attain the level of O’Sullivan, Higgins or Williams on a consistent basis.

Very strange. Whenever Hendry lost a match its because of his decline. Thats what the Hendryfanboys keep saying. When did this guy actually decline? In his mid or late 20's? And very strange that a man who had won so much suddenly only won one more major after he turned 27.

Lets look at the 2003/2004 season. Hendry beat a strong O'Sullivan in the British Open final that season and outplayed him in the UK semifinal (both bo17 matches). You can watch those matches and take a look at the stats and you'll see that he played and scored as good as he'd ever done in those two matches.
But when it comes to that famous semifinal that season they all have that decline excuse.The reality is. O'Sullivan entered a different gear and humiliated Hendry.

Iranu wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:Hendry was at his best from about 1992 -1996.

Ironically when Hendry was considerably past his best in 2002 he still beat a prime O'Sullivan 17-13 at The Crucible. This proves the gulf in class.

Hendry is the GOAT by some distance. This is irrefutable.

Considerably past his best at 33 years of age

Yes, he absolutely was.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I think it is good that there are differing opinions on here and that we can all respect those.

It is interesting to speculate what we would be thinking if Selby had won the Worlds this year and been one behind ROS.

Selby is great, but the current era is a bucking joke, and it’s only going to get worse. For buck sake, Sullivan Higgins and Williams are about 15 years past their prime and they won ten ranking events last season!

vodkadiet wrote:

Iranu wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:Hendry was at his best from about 1992 -1996.

Ironically when Hendry was considerably past his best in 2002 he still beat a prime O'Sullivan 17-13 at The Crucible. This proves the gulf in class.

Hendry is the GOAT by some distance. This is irrefutable.

Considerably past his best at 33 years of age

Yes, he absolutely was.

No, he absolutely wasn’t.

vodkadiet wrote:Hendry was at his best from about 1992 -1996.

Ironically when Hendry was considerably past his best in 2002 he still beat a prime O'Sullivan 17-13 at The Crucible. This proves the gulf in class.

Hendry is the GOAT by some distance. This is irrefutable.

It's funny you say Ronnie's been slogging it for 26 years then say Hendry's only been good for 5 years, and you claim to be objective.

I think Hendrys prime was in 1993. Thats the year when he destroyed everyone. In 1992 and 1994 Jimmy White bottled it. As we all know.

So 1990-1992: pre prime
1993: prime
1994-2012: post prime

Optimus Prime - 1983

Hendry Prime - 1993

Amazon Prime - 2003

bucking spooky that

TheRocket wrote:I think Hendrys prime was in 1993. Thats the year when he destroyed everyone. In 1992 and 1994 Jimmy White bottled it. As we all know.

So 1990-1992: pre prime
1993: prime
1994-2012: post prime

Nonsense. Hendry was even better in the late nineties and early noughties.

Pink Ball wrote:Selby is great, but the current era is a bucking joke, and it’s only going to get worse. For buck sake, Sullivan Higgins and Williams are about 15 years past their prime and they won ten ranking events last season!

Ronnie and Higgins have different sets of peaks across their careers. They've never kept coming down. With them it's been up and down. I think 2012/2013 WC Ronnie is better than 2001 and 2008 Ronnie. 2013 version would beat 2008 version handily. Higgins in 2011 is better than 2007 or 2009. Ronnie's performance at the EO 2017 is better than most of his performances in finals in previous years.

Erza Scarlet wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Selby is great, but the current era is a bucking joke, and it’s only going to get worse. For buck sake, Sullivan Higgins and Williams are about 15 years past their prime and they won ten ranking events last season!

Ronnie and Higgins have different sets of peaks across their careers. They've never kept coming down. With them it's been up and down. I think 2012/2013 WC Ronnie is better than 2001 and 2008 Ronnie. 2013 version would beat 2008 version handily. Higgins in 2011 is better than 2007 or 2009. Ronnie's performance at the EO 2017 is better than most of his performances in finals in previous years.

In 2012, Sullivan was nothing special. In 2013 he was brilliant in firs and spurts, but nothing like the tail end of the 2004 World Championship.

Coming back to the topic. I dont think O'Sullivan will get to 8 World titles. Its too late now. 6 is possible but cant see anything beyond that.

TheRocket wrote:Coming back to the topic. I dont think O'Sullivan will get to 8 World titles. Its too late now. 6 is possible but cant see anything beyond that.

I think that is the one hole in his palmares that won't be filled.

The acid test.

TheRocket is one of the few balanced posters on here.

Longevity is overrated. Jimmy Connors had longevity. Bjorn Borg didn't have longevity. Borg was better.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Coming back to the topic. I dont think O'Sullivan will get to 8 World titles. Its too late now. 6 is possible but cant see anything beyond that.

I think that is the one hole in his palmares that won't be filled.

The acid test.

Absolutely Badsnookerplayer. This is the ultimate. And O'Sullivan has failed.

I miss Alex Borg

Pink Ball wrote:In 2012, Sullivan was nothing special. In 2013 he was brilliant in firs and spurts, but nothing like the tail end of the 2004 World Championship.

Yes that's why I left 2004 out, that version is the best and edges 2013 but it'd be a tough match if those two versions played against each other, 2013 was just as sublime all throughout. 2012, his safety carried safety got him through the tournament but he still scored heavily.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I miss Alex Borg

He might come back. He is only 5 World Titles behind O'Sullivan. He could still match this tally.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Coming back to the topic. I dont think O'Sullivan will get to 8 World titles. Its too late now. 6 is possible but cant see anything beyond that.

I think that is the one hole in his palmares that won't be filled.

The acid test.

I don’t like saying it but, looking at the shit-tits coming up, I think he could well reach seven. I’ve no doubt he’ll win another one.

vodkadiet wrote:TheRocket is one of the few balanced posters on here.

Longevity is overrated. Jimmy Connors had longevity. Bjorn Borg didn't have longevity. Borg was better.

Not really. There are some people who still have Connors over Borg because of his longevity and the number of titles he won. I think Borg was better too but Tennis is different because of its surfaces. Borg was better on clay and grass. Connors was better on HC with his 5 US Opens. When Djokovic wins his 15th slam that doesn't mean he's better than Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. Nadal has 17 slams but lot of people consider Djokovic greater because of his slam and surface distribution, as well as winning the World Tour finals 5x even though he's 3 slams less. Tennis is different. There's more to consider. Then there's Laver's CYGS x2. Slam count isn't everything with Tennis either.

Erza Scarlet wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:TheRocket is one of the few balanced posters on here.

Longevity is overrated. Jimmy Connors had longevity. Bjorn Borg didn't have longevity. Borg was better.

Not really. There are some people who still have Connors over Borg because of his longevity and the number of titles he won. I think Borg was better too but Tennis is different because of its surfaces. Borg was better on clay and grass. Connors was better on HC with his 5 US Opens. When Djokovic wins his 15th slam that doesn't mean he's better than Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO. Nadal has 17 slams but lot of people consider Djokovic greater because of his slam and surface distribution, as well as winning the World Tour finals 5x even though he's 3 slams less. Tennis is different. There's more to consider.

Yes. Some valid points.