Post a reply

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby boris_the_butcher

vodkadiet wrote:
Walden is awful.

Murphy is revitalised. He hasn't played O'Sullivan very much anyway.

If my ranking was based on wins over Rigsby then I would have had Allen and Trump much higher up the list.


Ronnie, off the back of his most disappointing season beat Murphy at Sheffield in 2011 despite Murphy having won the PTC finals and reaching the semi's at the china open. Murphy was in great form, Ronnie had none at all.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

boris_the_butcher wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Walden is awful.

Murphy is revitalised. He hasn't played O'Sullivan very much anyway.

If my ranking was based on wins over Rigsby then I would have had Allen and Trump much higher up the list.


Ronnie, off the back of his most disappointing season beat Murphy at Sheffield in 2011 despite Murphy having won the PTC finals and reaching the semi's at the china open. Murphy was in great form, Ronnie had none at all.


Yeah definately agree, Ronnie pretty much owns Murphy, and apart from that PL Final they had when prior to that Ronnie had run about 10 miles (think it was) Ronnie always comes on top and for Murphy there always seems to be something missing in his game when both meet, especially when the match gets close.

I rate Fu a much tougher opponent for Ronnie for instance than Murphy, because Fu has beaten Ronnie plenty of times and always raises his game against the top players.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cloud Strife

There is only one contender: Ronnie O'Sullivan

Beyond that, you have a couple of outsiders (Ding and Robbo). The rest are no-hopers.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Snooker Overdrive

Cloud Strife wrote:There is only one contender: Ronnie O'Sullivan

Beyond that, you have a couple of outsiders (Ding and Robbo). The rest are no-hopers.


No need to be arrogant. Yes Ronnie is the favourite but to win the World Title is NEVER a certainty.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

Snooker Overdrive wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:There is only one contender: Ronnie O'Sullivan

Beyond that, you have a couple of outsiders (Ding and Robbo). The rest are no-hopers.


No need to be arrogant. Yes Ronnie is the favourite but to win the World Title is NEVER a certainty.

Ronnie will be such a favorite this year its frightening in my opinion the best thing that could happen for the championship is Ronnie losing early and blowing the championship wide open

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

Wildey wrote:
Snooker Overdrive wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:There is only one contender: Ronnie O'Sullivan

Beyond that, you have a couple of outsiders (Ding and Robbo). The rest are no-hopers.


No need to be arrogant. Yes Ronnie is the favourite but to win the World Title is NEVER a certainty.

Ronnie will be such a favorite this year its frightening in my opinion the best thing that could happen for the championship is Ronnie losing early and blowing the championship wide open


That's exactly the same thing as saying if Hendry was knocked out early in the 90s, him losing early would have done the championship the world of good anbd would leave the draw wide open <doh> :wave:

At least he lost in the opening round back in 2000.

Ronnie is a deserving favourite, and no, him losing early won't do good or bad for the tournament, same thing as Davis or Hendry in their era, if he loses he loses, end of story, just like any other player, just accept that.
Last edited by Andre147 on 06 Apr 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

O'Sullivan is favourite but not by as wide a margin as many feel. The strong favouritism won't help him. Murphy hasn't played O'Sullivan enough to be owned by him. Murphy isn't Carter.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan is favourite but not by as wide a margin as many feel. The strong favouritism won't help him. Murphy hasn't played O'Sullivan enough to be owned by him. Murphy isn't Carter.


For once I agree with you, being so overwhelming favourite won't be good for him, this year he doesn't have that "unknown" factor like he had last season, so yeah if he wins it again I reckon it will be much harder this year, but I have total confidence in Ronnie doing it again.

As for Murphy, yes they haven't played much, but almost everytime Murphy gets close to Ronnie something ssems to be missing and he can't cope with the pressure.

Murphy had by FAR his best chance of beating Ronnie at the Worlds when both met back in 2011 after Ronnie had his worst ever season as a pro, and still Murphy didn't manage to beat Ronnie and lost 13-10 after having played well that season when he won the PTC Grand Finals and had a great run in China, so in short if he couldn't beat him then, this season his chances are much less.

Fu is much more dangerous than Murphy for instance.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cloud Strife

One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.


Don't exactly agree with that, although beating Ronnie would be a tremendous achievment, you can only beat who's put in front of you so it isn't that player's fault Ronnie didn't manage to get that far to face him.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.


This is a ridiculous statement. So any winner of the World Champs is not worthy unless they beat the favourite at the outset of the tournament? If the name goes on the trophy it cannot be removed.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

vodkadiet wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.


This is a ridiculous statement. So any winner of the World Champs is not worthy unless they beat the favourite at the outset of the tournament? If the name goes on the trophy it cannot be removed.


My thoughts exactly Vodka, as I said previously it isn't that player's fault the favourite for the title didn't reach that far to face him, you can only beat who's put in front of you and like you say what counts is your name on the most important title of all.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.

bullocks what are you on

you have paper brain and that's being unkind to paper

if the winner wins who ever they are they deserve it and if Ronnie bottled it against someone else that's Ronnies weakness as a champion not the fault of the eventual champion.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

Andre147 PGC wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.


This is a ridiculous statement. So any winner of the World Champs is not worthy unless they beat the favourite at the outset of the tournament? If the name goes on the trophy it cannot be removed.


My thoughts exactly Vodka, as I said previously it isn't that player's fault the favourite for the title didn't reach that far to face him, you can only beat who's put in front of you and like you say what counts is your name on the most important title of all.


Cloud Strife's thoughts are an example of fanboyism taken way too far.

No one has been more dominant in snooker than Hendry was in 1990/91, yet he was knocked out in the quarters, when he was more favoured to win the title than O'Sullivan is this year. Try telling John Parrott he was a 'paper champion'. Jimmy White lost in the final that year, and that defeat hurt as much as any of his other final losses. He didn't go into the final saying "It is pointless winning this year as Hendry is out, and it won't count as a World title".

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Snooker Overdrive

I agree with my previous posters 100%. Whoever wins that 18th frame in the final is the new king of snooker, end of story. Obviously some World Champions had easier routes to the title but no matter who they played, the winner is the best player in the World, it's as simple as that.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.


What nonsense.

If they don't beat Ronnie, they'll still have to beat the person who was good enough to knock Ronnie out of the tournament. (Or the person who was good enough to knock Ronnie's conqueror out of the tournament etc.)

Ronnie is strong favourite. That doesn't mean every other player is rubbish.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andy Spark

Snooker Overdrive wrote:I agree with my previous posters 100%. Whoever wins that 18th frame in the final is the new king of snooker, end of story. Obviously some World Champions had easier routes to the title but no matter who they played, the winner is the best player in the World, it's as simple as that.

If you choose to define "best" by whoever wins the World Championship then fine, but many don't. I know Hendry doesn't, he wants the best player to win because he knows there's a chance they won't.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Snooker Overdrive

Andy Spark wrote:
Snooker Overdrive wrote:I agree with my previous posters 100%. Whoever wins that 18th frame in the final is the new king of snooker, end of story. Obviously some World Champions had easier routes to the title but no matter who they played, the winner is the best player in the World, it's as simple as that.

If you choose to define "best" by whoever wins the World Championship then fine, but many don't. I know Hendry doesn't, he wants the best player to win because he knows there's a chance they won't.


By what do you define then who's the best player in the World?

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andy Spark

Snooker Overdrive wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
Snooker Overdrive wrote:I agree with my previous posters 100%. Whoever wins that 18th frame in the final is the new king of snooker, end of story. Obviously some World Champions had easier routes to the title but no matter who they played, the winner is the best player in the World, it's as simple as that.

If you choose to define "best" by whoever wins the World Championship then fine, but many don't. I know Hendry doesn't, he wants the best player to win because he knows there's a chance they won't.


By what do you define then who's the best player in the World?

Oh that's easy, you define it the same way you define the "best player of all time", by endless arguments until everyone gets bored of the whole debate. :-D

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark defines best by how many balls is potted multiply how many hours in the day divide by speed of play

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cloud Strife

Wildey wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:One thing is for sure. Whoever does beat Ronnie will have to go on and take the title, otherwise the eventual winner will, quite rightly, be seen as a paper champion because they didn't beat Ronnie on the way.

bullocks what are you on

you have paper brain and that's being unkind to paper


if the winner wins who ever they are they deserve it and if Ronnie bottled it against someone else that's Ronnies weakness as a champion not the fault of the eventual champion.


pmsl rofl

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andy Spark

Wildey wrote:Andy Spark defines best by how many balls is potted multiply how many hours in the day divide by speed of play

If you want a reasonable definition of best player, then as good as any is the top ELO rated player by "snooker analyst". The bookies is also a reasonable definition as that's people betting their own cash rather than bandying about words.


If you still want to define "best" by what happens during a paltry 17 day fraction of the snooker year then remember that you are saying "Peter Ebdon, Joe Johnson and Graeme Dott were all once the best player in the world"; I'm not saying that's incorrect, but many would regard that idea as laughable when compared to contemporaries such as Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry and Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Andy Spark wrote:If you want a reasonable definition of best player, then as good as any is the top ELO rated player by "snooker analyst". The bookies is also a reasonable definition as that's people betting their own cash rather than bandying about words.

If you still want to define "best" by what happens during a paltry 17 day fraction of the snooker year then remember that you are saying "Peter Ebdon, Joe Johnson and Graeme Dott were all once the best player in the world"; I'm not saying that's incorrect, but many would regard that idea as laughable when compared to contemporaries such as Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry and Ronnie O'Sullivan.


<doh> That's not a reasonable definition at all.

Punters putting money on a player proves as much about who gets good odds at the time. I've met people who only put money on things if it's a massive long shot, just in case the long shot wins and they get a massive pay out. Would you trust expertise of people who bet that way?

And as you say, winning one World Title doesn't make you the greatest player of all time, but you're not betting money on who is the greatest player of all time. You are betting on who you think will win that one specific tournament.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Slightly changing the subject, how far do people thing Ding will go?

I still make Ronnie favourite, but you can't discount somebody who has won 5 ranking tournaments this season. Surely, that would be folly.

He's obviously broken his China jinx. Will he be able to do the same with Sheffield?

Even if it's not this year, surely a matter of time? Or am I too optimistic?

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

I can easily see him reaching the semi finals and with respect to the players in his quarter he does have the easier section and if Murphy or Marco Fu gets the better of Ronnie he could win it and add his 6th Ranking event of the season but if he plays Ronnie then that would be a major hurdle to over come because there's no doubt playing Ronnie in the Welsh final he sank like the titanic.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:I can easily see him reaching the semi finals and with respect to the players in his quarter he does have the easier section and if Murphy or Marco Fu gets the better of Ronnie he could win it and add his 6th Ranking event of the season but if he plays Ronnie then that would be a major hurdle to over come because there's no doubt playing Ronnie in the Welsh final he sank like the titanic.


He seems to have gotten over most of his mental blocks since that final. But I think he still seems a bit rattled when playing Ronnie.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andy Spark

I'm not optimistic about Ding's chances. As I said on the China thread, I don't think he's got what it takes to win this year.

The problem is that there seem to be too many factors working against him at the moment. First, his record at the Crucible is quite bad for a player of his class. Secondly, he hasn't worked out how to really play well against Ronnie yet. Thirdly, he hasn't looked the same player in Britain generally this season. Fourthly, he's played a lot recently and could well be a tad burned out.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

The loss against O'Sullivan would have done him good. He had plenty of chances in that match, and I think if he played him at The Crucible he would take a lot more of these chances. if he performs up to his usual standard he has every chance.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Ayrshirebhoy

SnookerFan wrote:Slightly changing the subject, how far do people thing Ding will go?

I still make Ronnie favourite, but you can't discount somebody who has won 5 ranking tournaments this season. Surely, that would be folly.

He's obviously broken his China jinx. Will he be able to do the same with Sheffield?

Even if it's not this year, surely a matter of time? Or am I too optimistic?


I don't think hel win it, IMO just doesn't have it great player thou that he is. I'm going for ronnie or Murphy or maybe an outsider. Players like mags, selby, ding, hawk will never win it. Carter Mibbe has a chance if he avoids ronnie.