Post a reply

whats more important

world number 1
3
23%
World Champion
10
77%
 
Total votes : 13

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

Templeton Peck wrote:To be fair Ronnie had to beat at least one of Higgins, Williams and Hendry along the way to win each of his titles. You're lucky if you don't have to beat at least one world class player to lift the world title.


Williams and Hendo of 08 played far worse standard than gould and dott did this tournament but then again people can be influenced by names instead of standard of play produced

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

GJtheaussiestud wrote:
Templeton Peck wrote:To be fair Ronnie had to beat at least one of Higgins, Williams and Hendry along the way to win each of his titles. You're lucky if you don't have to beat at least one world class player to lift the world title.


Williams and Hendo of 08 played far worse standard than gould and dott did this tournament but then again people can be influenced by names instead of standard of play produced


i dont think theres any doubt about that.

if snooker was played on paper Ronnie got the named players but standard of play wise Robbos opersition Davis aside was superior .

Re: whats more important

Postby Witz78

I didnt ask for this to become a Ronnie debate but as per usual some chose to angle the debate that way.

Im also not knocking Robbo, regardless of the opposition and their rankings / quality etc, he still had to beat them and ultimately hes the only man who won 5 matches in the 17 days and he will forever be in the record books for being a World Champion. I was simply making the point that he definelty had a favourable draw.

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:I didnt ask for this to become a Ronnie debate but as per usual some chose to angle the debate that way.

Im also not knocking Robbo, regardless of the opposition and their rankings / quality etc, he still had to beat them and ultimately hes the only man who won 5 matches in the 17 days and he will forever be in the record books for being a World Champion. I was simply making the point that he definelty had a favourable draw.


im not knocking Ronnie i am mearly saying you get lucky with draws if and only if Ronnie had a harder draw and met a tougher opersition he would not be 3 times champion sometimes draws goes for you or open up for you then you take advantage of that it swings in roundabouts.

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I didnt ask for this to become a Ronnie debate but as per usual some chose to angle the debate that way.

Im also not knocking Robbo, regardless of the opposition and their rankings / quality etc, he still had to beat them and ultimately hes the only man who won 5 matches in the 17 days and he will forever be in the record books for being a World Champion. I was simply making the point that he definelty had a favourable draw.


im not knocking Ronnie i am mearly saying you get lucky with draws if and only if Ronnie had a harder draw and met a tougher opersition he would not be 3 times champion sometimes draws goes for you or open up for you then you take advantage of that it swings in roundabouts.


very true mate

Re: whats more important

Postby Roland

OK then, yes Robbo definitely had an easy draw, but you don't become World Champion unless you're a seriously good player and from 11-5 down to Gould, Robbo showed what he's made of. I forgive him his performance in the final because he was obviously feeling very edgy but the fact he's done it will make him a very dangerous opponent from now on. And I can't wait to see him and Selby clash horns over the next few seasons!

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

Sonny wrote:OK then, yes Robbo definitely had an easy draw, but you don't become World Champion unless you're a seriously good player and from 11-5 down to Gould, Robbo showed what he's made of. I forgive him his performance in the final because he was obviously feeling very edgy but the fact he's done it will make him a very dangerous opponent from now on. And I can't wait to see him and Selby clash horns over the next few seasons!


next years masters would be a good start as they will be seeded 1 and 2 there

hopefully they will play each other in other tournaments as well

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

sonny

what do you make of Alex point that players need more matches tournaments just to be able to maintain a level throughout 17 days of World Championship and to toughen them up then tieredness wouldnt be such a issue it does seen its getting.

in 2002 i dont remember Hendry and Ebdon being tired in the decider but resently its becoming more and more a issue.

Re: whats more important

Postby Roland

I don't think Robbo was tired, I think he was nervous. Dotty was tired but then think about what was happening to his stablemate and manager as he was winning his semi. That can't not have affected him and he said himself he only got 3 hours sleep that night.

I think it's unfortunate that it ended like this but I don't buy into any arguement that it needs to be shorter or that players can't cope. I'm they've all had sessions through the night at their club maybe playing for money like in The Hustler movie when they play for 40 odd hours straight.

It's a bizarre coincidence that the Higgins v Selby match finished at the same time as this years and they had the same scoreline. They should go back to having the sessions 7, 10, 7, 11 or whatever they used to do. First night of the final should have more frames.

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

i think hearn will tinker with the schedule abit for the final for next year <ok>

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

yes Robbo did look fresh to be honest....

and yes i agree the evening session on the first night should have more frames played but when you think about the 85 final going to the wire and it finished before the 2006,2007 and 2010 finals after a 60+ minute final frame what time did that start i cant think Dennis and Steve was faster than Robbo and Dott.

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

wildJONESEYE wrote:yes Robbo did look fresh to be honest....

and yes i agree the evening session on the first night should have more frames played but when you think about the 85 final going to the wire and it finished before the 2006,2007 and 2010 finals after a 60+ minute final frame what time did that start i cant think Dennis and Steve was faster than Robbo and Dott.


born winner wild he knows how to get the job done :afro:

the only player in top 16 with a 100 % record in 5 or more finals

Re: whats more important

Postby Witz78

GJtheaussiestud wrote:i think hearn will tinker with the schedule abit for the final for next year <ok>



yes one thing for definite that should happen should be an earlier starting time on the Monday afternoon session say 12pm and why not play 9 frames, then have a 7pm start with a maximum of 10 frames to be played which should then ensure worst case scenario if it goes trhe distance a midnight finish.

Had Dott had a bit more left in the tank i think he would have made more of a fight of the final late on, he seemed extremley tired around midnight and IMO resigned himself to the loss around 13-16 down, and just didnt seem as up for the fight.

Had it went the distance and the frames carried on in a similar vein then a 3am finish would have been probable which would have been farcial

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

i had the cocoa ready for the afternoon australia time lol

Re: whats more important

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I didnt ask for this to become a Ronnie debate but as per usual some chose to angle the debate that way.

Im also not knocking Robbo, regardless of the opposition and their rankings / quality etc, he still had to beat them and ultimately hes the only man who won 5 matches in the 17 days and he will forever be in the record books for being a World Champion. I was simply making the point that he definelty had a favourable draw.


im not knocking Ronnie i am mearly saying you get lucky with draws if and only if Ronnie had a harder draw and met a tougher opersition he would not be 3 times champion sometimes draws goes for you or open up for you then you take advantage of that it swings in roundabouts.


then again on the flip side you could say hes had plenty of hard draws over the years at the WC, none more so than this year

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I didnt ask for this to become a Ronnie debate but as per usual some chose to angle the debate that way.

Im also not knocking Robbo, regardless of the opposition and their rankings / quality etc, he still had to beat them and ultimately hes the only man who won 5 matches in the 17 days and he will forever be in the record books for being a World Champion. I was simply making the point that he definelty had a favourable draw.


im not knocking Ronnie i am mearly saying you get lucky with draws if and only if Ronnie had a harder draw and met a tougher opersition he would not be 3 times champion sometimes draws goes for you or open up for you then you take advantage of that it swings in roundabouts.


then again on the flip side you could say hes had plenty of hard draws over the years at the WC, none more so than this year


your right and he didnt win it so you got to take advantage of every chance you get this year Robbo did in 2008 Ronnie Did i dont really like people pointing to easy draws its what it sais on the tin THE DRAW or Luck of the Draw. in 1982 the Draw opened up for Alex Higgins with the Faverites getting knocked out early but nobody mentioning that do they.

Re: whats more important

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:
your right and he didnt win it so you got to take advantage of every chance you get this year Robbo did in 2008 Ronnie Did i dont really like people pointing to easy draws its what it sais on the tin THE DRAW or Luck of the Draw. in 1982 the Draw opened up for Alex Higgins with the Faverites getting knocked out early but nobody mentioning that do they.


Yeh your def right about 82 with Davis and Griffiths exiting early. Funniest bit for me was the difference in the semis, one was the battle of the natural flair players Alex and Jimmy whilst the other was a battle of the old grinders.

Who could grudge Alex a Crucible World Title though, laughable when critics say "Oh he was useless, he only won 1 ranker" Some people must forget that he won 2 Worlds and a UK crown <doh>

Poor old Jimmy, really is hard to believe its almost 30 years now since he was first contending the world title and 16 years since he last made the final. I feel old :sad:

Re: whats more important

Postby Templeton Peck

The reality is that he had to beat the UK champ and world number 2 in the final to lift his first title (arguably the toughest opponent any finalist faced since Doherty shot down Hendry), and in 2004 Hendry was a UK finalist and British Open Champion before being ripped a new trumper in the semi.

Re: whats more important

Postby GJ

well robbo has had his fair share of tough draws he had ronnie in 07 and maguire who at that stage always played great in early rounds and beat robbo in round 2 in 08

anyway when anyone looks at the world trophy it will say

NEIL ROBERTSON 2010 WC

there will be no mention of an easier draw <laugh> :afro:

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

there was a thread on break off where anglo put together a ranking list of all time that included the Masters and Alex was extreamly high on that because he did very well in all the majors.

he reached 4 Masters Finals on the Trott and had a very good Run in the UK Reaching 4 finals in 5 years but only one was Ranking in 1984 a year after he won it.

Re: whats more important

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

In the past when there a lot of different ranking events than the No.1 probably held more prestige although for players winning titles was always most important as if you do that than your ranking will sort itself out. During the 80's when Steve Davis wasn't World Champion for two years his ranking showed he was still the main man in Snooker. In recent years there have been so few tournaments and they all seem to have different winners. Ronnie in 2004-05 was the last player to come close to dominating a season winning three out of eight ranking events and the Masters. Since then with no player winning that much the World Champ has become the real No.1. The only way that would be disputed would be if someone won both the UK and the Masters. Hopefully there will soon be a proper tour and a decent ranking system to restore it's status.

Re: whats more important

Postby Templeton Peck

The problem with the ranking system is the lag of course, and the protection it offers to soft draws in the top 16, but a rolling ranking system would sort that out. It still does a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff, because I don't think anyone would dispute that Ronnie and Higgins have been the men to beat these last few seasons and that's been reflected in the number 1 position.

Re: whats more important

Postby Templeton Peck

wildJONESEYE wrote:there was a thread on break off where anglo put together a ranking list of all time that included the Masters and Alex was extreamly high on that because he did very well in all the majors.

he reached 4 Masters Finals on the Trott and had a very good Run in the UK Reaching 4 finals in 5 years but only one was Ranking in 1984 a year after he won it.


I don't think it's a coincidence that Higgins started to do better in the events once the TV and sponsorship started to increase the prize fund. In the early 70s Higgins would earn £500 a night for an exhibition which is more than what he earned from his first world championship which went on for weeks because the matches were so long. Playing in tournaments actually cost him a lot of money, and they weren't millionaires in those days so it was a lot of money to lose. There was actually a huge incentive to get out of the tournament early and get back to the exhibition circuit, at least in the 1970s. If today's prize money was on offer I think the roll of honour for the 70s would have looked at lot different.

Re: whats more important

Postby Eirebilly

For me it has to be winning the world titel. That ultimately is the biggest prize in the game. Being world number one is nice but winning a trophy like that has to be the best feeling going around.

As for Robbo's weak draw, al i can say is Rubbish. He had the current world number one and 'then' world champion in his draw. Its not his fault that they didnt play to their potential. At the end of he day, Robbo has been one of the best and most consistent players in the last year so it was no suprise to see him lift the trophy. Fair play to him :bowdown:

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

eirebilly wrote:For me it has to be winning the world titel. That ultimately is the biggest prize in the game. Being world number one is nice but winning a trophy like that has to be the best feeling going around.

As for Robbo's weak draw, al i can say is Rubbish. He had the current world number one and 'then' world champion in his draw. Its not his fault that they didnt play to their potential. At the end of he day, Robbo has been one of the best and most consistent players in the last year so it was no suprise to see him lift the trophy. Fair play to him :bowdown:

not to mention the last 2 World Championship runner ups Carter and Murphy.

Re: whats more important

Postby Monique

GJtheaussiestud wrote:
Templeton Peck wrote:To be fair Ronnie had to beat at least one of Higgins, Williams and Hendry along the way to win each of his titles. You're lucky if you don't have to beat at least one world class player to lift the world title.


Williams and Hendo of 08 played far worse standard than gould and dott did this tournament but then again people can be influenced by names instead of standard of play produced


You should really go back and watch the footages GJ, objectively if you can do that for once in your life when it's about Ronnie. This is simply not true. Hendry played better in 2008 than he did in 2004. He had beaten Allen, Ding and Day to reach the semis. And during the round 2 match, Williams had 7 breaks over 50 ... but Ronnie made 10 of them, including 4 centuries (and a maxi). It was a high quality match by anyone's standard.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Neil, he's a very deserving World Champion and one can only beat who is in front of you. It wasn't a very good final, but in fact we rarely have a good final: the guys are just dead on their feet and the tension is extreme.

Re: whats more important

Postby Monique

And to answer the initial question just consider this: all people who have been n°1 in the modern era are also World Champions, but some World Champions never were n°1.

Re: whats more important

Postby Wildey

monique

Hendry played ok in 2008 but nothing special same with Williams however Greame Dott if he had played Hendry in 2008 would have steamrolled him something Day and Ding failed misrebly.

i thought Hendry played better to beat ding in 2009 than he did in 2008.

Re: whats more important

Postby Monique

wildJONESEYE wrote:monique

Hendry played ok in 2008 but nothing special same with Williams however Greame Dott if he had played Hendry in 2008 would have steamrolled him something Day and Ding failed misrebly.

i thought Hendry played better to beat ding in 2009 than he did in 2008.


Go and rewatch the footages with unpeeled eyes. It's all I have to say. (I did recently).

Graeme Dott played extremely well during the 2010 championship up to the semis and if he had been able to maintain his standard in the final he would have won it confortably. But he didn't. We will never know how much the late night finish combined with the shocking news about his manager Pat Mooney played on his mind. But as I said you can only beat who is in front of you and that's what Neil Robertson did, so all credit to him.

Re: whats more important

Postby Casey

Monique is it not a bit unfair on Neil to say that if Dott had carried his form over he would have won the final?

If neil had carried his form over from the 3rd session against Gould, I could say he would also have won.

Its all speculation, one of the reasons why the world championships is so hard to win is because you need that consistency over long periods. Dott just fell shot unfortunately.

Also another theory would be, if Dott played better Neil might also have raised his game. At no point did he really have to.