Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan 2012 World Champion
It should be 50/1.
Ladbrokes - Extracting the urine once again.
-
vodkadiet - Posts: 9421
- Joined: 05 September 2010
- Location: Zanzibar
- Snooker Idol: Gino Rigitano
- Highest Break: 48
- Walk-On: Broken Wings
Wild WC wrote:Sonny wrote:I don't get why Judd needs to be compared to Ronnie anyway. Judd is his own man, he's a fantastic player, he's exciting to watch and a he's really nice down to earth lad who has the right amount of arrogance to see him right. Some say he's a basher, the truth is he times the ball sweeter than pretty much everyone and has shots others can only play in their dreams. I for one can't wait to watch him play again.
its simple Ronnie fans would compare rubbish to Ronnie to put over a non existent point.
vodkadiet wrote:I must laugh at the miserly 16/1 Ladbrokes are quoting for O'Sullivan winning 7 world titles or more. Are they joking? The guy will be 37 next world championshp. Furthermore, who is going to place a bet that is going take 3 years at an absolute minimum of 3 years to come to fruition?
It should be 50/1.
Ladbrokes - Extracting the urine once again.
onlyevertonjon wrote:vodkadiet wrote:I must laugh at the miserly 16/1 Ladbrokes are quoting for O'Sullivan winning 7 world titles or more. Are they joking? The guy will be 37 next world championshp. Furthermore, who is going to place a bet that is going take 3 years at an absolute minimum of 3 years to come to fruition?
It should be 50/1.
Ladbrokes - Extracting the urine once again.
I work for Ladbrokes and that is tip of the iceberg stuff from them. Why the shops get any customers with their prices is beyond me.
and worse still they have Chris Kamara giving out football tips
Snooker Overdrive wrote:Ronnie O'Sullivan is the 2012 World Champion.
It looked like his star was descending and his time as a world class players was over.
Andy Spark wrote:Well, if people round here had bothered to listen to me when I came on here before the season began then this great season of Ronnie's wouldn't have come as any surprise! It didn't come as a surprise to me, I told people here what would happen! I didn't think Ronnie was in decline, Neil Foulds didn't believe Ronnie was in decline, there were actually many astute individuals who could see things with Ronnie as they really were before the season began.
John From London Town wrote:Andy Spark wrote:Well, if people round here had bothered to listen to me when I came on here before the season began then this great season of Ronnie's wouldn't have come as any surprise! It didn't come as a surprise to me, I told people here what would happen! I didn't think Ronnie was in decline, Neil Foulds didn't believe Ronnie was in decline, there were actually many astute individuals who could see things with Ronnie as they really were before the season began.
You spelt Neal wrong, but I get your points. Ronnie is different gear.
Jewell wrote:This Steve Peters must be the modern day Friedrich Nietzsche such is the impact he has had on Ronnie's mentality.
I agree with you, Andy, that with Ronnie it is all about his psychological well-being. Personally, I reckon Ronnie has, at least, another 5 World titles in him, it's all about whether he wants them or not. If he wants them, he'll get them, there's no doubt about that, LOL.
Jewell wrote:It was mainly tongue in cheek when I said he has another 5 in him, but I can definitely see him winning a couple more. I think he and John Higgins can be real contenders for another 10 years minimum. Mainly because they have the B game to beat most players, unlike Stephen Hendry for example, who had no middle ground in his game, he was brilliant during his peak years and garbage the rest.
Casey wrote:Ronnie has been a pro for 20 years and been to 4 World finals - he will not win another 5 World titles in his career.
First of all he has never defended a major championship, so maybe he should start there.
Jewell wrote:Wild WC wrote:i think its a myth Hendry did not have a good safety game when he chose to play it he chose not to most of his career because his Long game was just so clinical followed up with a clinical Breakbuilding.
but he needed a good safety game in thoes years because there was more emphasis on tactics so to get the best of Davis he needed to compete whitch he did.
i tink to be a good safety player you have to be a good long potter because most safties are Long Range and if you havent got a good potting eye safties will also suffer.
Hendry last 10 years should have adopted a more saftie oriantated game instead of trying to pot riskey pots whitch has cost him many matches in recent years but that dont meen he couldnt he just chose not to a pride thing i guess.
Let's get one thing straight, Hendry's first and only priority was to win. Doesn't matter how, just win. He wasn't there to entertain. He was there to play the style that allowed him win.
So my question is this. Did Hendry CHOOSE not to employ the more tactical style in order to maybe win more? I reckon he surely would have if it meant he could win more. But in my opinion, his tactical just wasn't good enough, certainly not at the level of Davis (even the current version) or Higgins.
Monique wrote:He didn't need a good safety game. He had the potential to have one - everyone with such a good cue ball control has this potential - but he never developed it because he didn't like it and didn't need it.
I've talked with players from the 80th and what they told me basically was that putting the cue ball on the baulk cushion was - at the time - considered a good enough safety. Hendry changed that. Baulk cushion or not, if he could see the potting angle, he'll go for it and more often than not get it.
Just watch some old footages, and some recent ones and you'll see what I mean. Now all players go around the table to see exactly where they want the cue ball. You rarely see that in older footages.
Wild WC wrote:winning at all cost aka Ebdon was never his way he would rather Lose than doing that hence his Poor return in his later career had he been more of a winning at all cost type he would have won a hell of a lot more in his career than he did.
boris_the_butcher wrote:Wild WC wrote:winning at all cost aka Ebdon was never his way he would rather Lose than doing that hence his Poor return in his later career had he been more of a winning at all cost type he would have won a hell of a lot more in his career than he did.
that's as silly as the idea that Ronnie only wins when he he wants to. Hendry's safety game has always been sub-par, he learned the game in a very short space of time (first picking up a cue to the crucible in five years) playing all out attack that terrified the pros of the late 80s. when the post 92 generation had the overall game and eventually matured he seemed much more fragile. There's that quote "Steve Davis loves snooker, but Stephen Hendry loves winning" losing because of stubbornness doesn't befit a person who loves winning.
Jewell wrote:Sadly, we only ever saw a fraction of Hendry's true ability. He chose to keep most of his talent to himself. As an avid snooker watcher, I feel robbed!!
Witz78 wrote:We keep hearing how Hendry was only interested in WINNING
if this was true, then surely he would have tapped into this supposed great safety game instead of not winning anything big for the last 13 years of his career
Witz78 wrote:Davis could have won all the world titles in the early 90s that Hendry won if hes tapped into an all out attack game that hes good at, but he chose to continue to play his hit and run game from the 80s to be true to himself