BetVictor Welsh Open Final !!!!!

Dan-cat wrote:The final yesterday was fascinating... Robbo scored an early knock down but Ronnie recovered and dug in. Finishing off in style with a TKO - the final frame flourish of a 141.

Reading back over the thread I see only Holden kept the faith in his man. I couldn't see him losing either, especially when he made it 5 - 3. I didn't expect it to be quite so conclusive though.

Were you there, man? I looked around, didn't see you.

Dan-cat wrote:The final yesterday was fascinating... Robbo scored an early knock down but Ronnie recovered and dug in. Finishing off in style with a TKO - the final frame flourish of a 141.

Reading back over the thread I see only Holden kept the faith in his man. I couldn't see him losing either, especially when he made it 5 - 3. I didn't expect it to be quite so conclusive though.

At 5-2 I think the general feeling on here was this could be Robbo's final, he was potting everything and winning in one visit, but finishing 5-3 instead of 6-2 was massive. It really should have been 7-1 or 6-2, but that's credit to Ronnie for grinding it out. Davis always likes to say that every player generally has a bad session in a tourney, it's about minimising the damage and coming out strong in the next session, which Ronnie did.

I always remember the 2000 World Final between Williams and Stevens. Stevens was 13-7 up in the second day, Williams was shocking on the first day, but ended up winning 18-16. Just shows what can happen if you don't take advantage of when your opponent isn't at their best, Robbo will be kicking himself.

SnookerFan wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:The final yesterday was fascinating... Robbo scored an early knock down but Ronnie recovered and dug in. Finishing off in style with a TKO - the final frame flourish of a 141.

Reading back over the thread I see only Holden kept the faith in his man. I couldn't see him losing either, especially when he made it 5 - 3. I didn't expect it to be quite so conclusive though.

Were you there, man? I looked around, didn't see you.

No, sadly - I defo would have found you for that beer SF... :) I had double-booked with my housemate's 40th birthday party. Not much I could do. I did mention in a thread somewhere I couldn't make the final as planned but you must have missed it.

Did you have a good time? Next live snooker for me will be the Crucible :)

Dan-cat wrote:
No, sadly - I defo would have found you for that beer SF... :) I had double-booked with my housemate's 40th birthday party. Not much I could do. I did mention in a thread somewhere I couldn't make the final as planned but you must have missed it.

Did you have a good time? Next live snooker for me will be the Crucible :)

Ah, I did. I've been out at the snooker all Saturday and Sunday, and only posting from the hotel. So I must have. Sorry.

I'm up the opening weekend this year. Decided to cut back from three sessions a day to two sessions a day this time. I was knackered after 8 sessions over three days last year.

Cheshire Cat wrote:At 5-2 I think the general feeling on here was this could be Robbo's final, he was potting everything and winning in one visit, but finishing 5-3 instead of 6-2 was massive. It really should have been 7-1 or 6-2, but that's credit to Ronnie for grinding it out. Davis always likes to say that every player generally has a bad session in a tourney, it's about minimising the damage and coming out strong in the next session, which Ronnie did.

I always remember the 2000 World Final between Williams and Stevens. Stevens was 13-7 up in the second day, Williams was shocking on the first day, but ended up winning 18-16. Just shows what can happen if you don't take advantage of when your opponent isn't at their best, Robbo will be kicking himself.

Well said... yeah I think it was Hendry who said that? Not sure - to expect one bad session and limit the damage. Much like Ronnie failed to be further than 10 - 7 up on Selby in the World Final in 2014, when Selby had a shocker.

Master Blaster wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:It will be a shame for O'Sullivan if after this great run of wins he loses at The Crucible. 2014 all over again.

This should be the fear for all Ron fans, we've seen it before. He can't dominate a seasons like Hendry. But maybe this is the year to break the curse and win everything he contests (Germany excluded of course). Sport is full of surprises, so we cross our fingers for the rocket, don't we?

If he loses he loses. Not a big deal, you can't win every tournament. Unlike Hendry Ronnie spreads his victories over his entire career; instead of a period of ten years or something.

Ronnie didn't win the worlds in 2014, but he got to the final for the third time in a row, that's a great achievement. Ronnie's doing better than the rest of the top 16, that's all that matters. My world does not end when Ronnie loses a match.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Master Blaster wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:It will be a shame for O'Sullivan if after this great run of wins he loses at The Crucible. 2014 all over again.

This should be the fear for all Ron fans, we've seen it before. He can't dominate a seasons like Hendry. But maybe this is the year to break the curse and win everything he contests (Germany excluded of course). Sport is full of surprises, so we cross our fingers for the rocket, don't we?

If he loses he loses. Not a big deal, you can't win every tournament. Unlike Hendry Ronnie spreads his victories over his entire career; instead of a period of ten years or something.

Ronnie didn't win the worlds in 2014, but he got to the final for the third time in a row, that's a great achievement. Ronnie's doing better than the rest of the top 16, that's all that matters. My world does not end when Ronnie loses a match.

When I got into snooker it was the 2013 World final, where Ronnie beat Barry. I then saw Ronnie win the Champion of Champions, Masters, Welsh and when he got to the World final I expected him to win that too because I was so used to him winning everything. I'll never forget how devastated I felt when he lost, i'd never really seen him lose a big final before - that's when I knew I really loved snooker, i'd never felt so emotionally attached to a sport or game before.

Since then i've learned so much more about the game and i've come to appreciate so many more players, but even as a neutral, Ronnie is still the biggest excitement for me and I love seeing him play.

Twitter attack!

Neil Robertson
‏@nr147
Well done to Ronnie and his team last night. Great performance. He's what strives me to be the best I can.

Skullman wrote:

TheRocket wrote:And nothing against Robertson as a person but he's proved it tonight that he isn't and never will be in the same league of the likes of Hendry,ROS,Higgins.

Everyone's twitched a match at some point. Higgins lost from 14-10 against Mark Williams because of a handshake.

Including Ronnie nobody is imune to it.

Ronnie is without question, the most brilliant player the sport has ever seen, in terms of ability - but, for me ranks at no.2 all-time behind Hendry.
The stats speak-for-themselves.

They are neck-and-neck with 5 UK Championships each - and neck-and-neck with 6 Masters titles each.
However, Hendry has the edge in World crowns, by 7 to 5...(and therefore an 18-16 lead in the 'Triple Crown' tournaments).
Hendry, also has 36 ranking wins vs. Ronnie's 28.
And Hendry has also been World Ranked no.1 for 9 seasons (season-ending ranking) - whereas, Ronnie's been at the top for 'just' 5 seasons.
Yes, Ronnie now leads on Maximums and centuries, but there are so many more opportunities to make those nowadays - besides, a century or max secures just one frame - not even the match...Tournament wins are of significantly more significance.
Sorry, Ronnie fanboys, 'Suck On That'! As masterdoctorgenius would say!

I agree that Ronnie is the best player ever for me, but the greatest should be based on what you have won so that is Hendry as he has won more. Clive Everton says you have to look at the record books to see who the greatest is, and I agree any other way is just opinion and nothing more.

Richproc wrote:I agree that Ronnie is the best player ever for me, but the greatest should be based on what you have won so that is Hendry as he has won more. Clive Everton says you have to look at the record books to see who the greatest is, and I agree any other way is just opinion and nothing more.

Agreed!

Thankfully, a voice of reason!

Notice that Ronnie said last night that he hasn't qualified for any other events this season, however won't he now have qualified for the World Grand Prix?

PoolBoy wrote:Ronnie is without question, the most brilliant player the sport has ever seen, in terms of ability - but, for me ranks at no.2 all-time behind Hendry.
The stats speak-for-themselves.

They are neck-and-neck with 5 UK Championships each - and neck-and-neck with 6 Masters titles each.
However, Hendry has the edge in World crowns, by 7 to 5...(and therefore an 18-16 lead in the 'Triple Crown' tournaments).
Hendry, also has 36 ranking wins vs. Ronnie's 28.
And Hendry has also been World Ranked no.1 for 9 seasons (season-ending ranking) - whereas, Ronnie's been at the top for 'just' 5 seasons.
Yes, Ronnie now leads on Maximums and centuries, but there are so many more opportunities to make those nowadays - besides, a century or max secures just one frame - not even the match...Tournament wins are of significantly more significance.
Sorry, Ronnie fanboys, 'Suck On That'! As masterdoctorgenius would say!

I don't recall anyone in this thread disputing that?

What is admirable is his longevity to winning, Hendry dominated for many years but when he fell he crashed hard and fast. When Hendry retired it was 13 years after his last WC win, Ronnie's last was only 3 years ago, and yet he's only 3 years away from equaling Hendry's years on the tour - and I'm fairly confident he will win another world title within that time span.

Sure, the record-books absolutely count, they are the legacy and of the up-most importance, but I'm pretty sure that even Hendry will say (and probably has said) that to maintain such a high level of play over that length of time is probably something that will not re-occur in a very, very long time, if at all in the sport.

When players decline they rarely bounce back to such heights, Hendry and Ronnie are two very different beasts, and they have both succeeded in areas where the other has failed.

But let's not forget, Hendry's records remain dormant, whilst Ronnie catches up, so until Ronnie retires it's probably best to let it lay, after-all, didn't Davis reach a ranking final in his late 40s...?

Goldenballs147 wrote:Notice that Ronnie said last night that he hasn't qualified for any other events this season, however won't he now have qualified for the World Grand Prix?

I'm sure he has qualified for the Grand Prix. Either way I doubt we'll see him again before the World Champs. (I'm not counting the CL)

Poolboy you are on about stats fair enough. Hendry leads Ros 36-28 in ranking titles but ROS only plays 5 events a year. How many rankers would he have won if he played in all of them. Secondly you say ROS has more centuries only because there are more events these days but as i say again he only plays 5 events a year is 7 years younger than hendry when he broke the record. Plus Hendry played more than 5 events a season. Puts a different slant on your theory.

Ronnie79 wrote:Poolboy you are on about stats fair enough. Hendry leads Ros 36-28 in ranking titles but ROS only plays 5 events a year. How many rankers would he have won if he played in all of them. Secondly you say ROS has more centuries only because there are more events these days but as i say again he only plays 5 events a year is 7 years younger than hendry when he broke the record. Plus Hendry played more than 5 events a season. Puts a different slant on your theory.

Careful, next you'll be saying Hendry played in a weak era...

I too think Stephen Hendry is the greatest player ever (although I find Ronnie a more interesting person, Hendry felt a bit dull to me) but instead of this 'who's the best?' debate I think snooker needs NEW young talent. Ronnie winning the Welsh Open felt a bit "meh" to me. Sure, his talent shone through but man, the sport needs some major new blood. I can't say I look forward to a 45 or 50 year old Ronnie O'Sullivan winning more major events. It's going to make snooker feel a bit stale.

I think Judd Trump hasn't got the true confidence of a Hendry/Higgins/Williams/O'Sullivan etc so I'm starting to doubt he's the great new talent for the sport. I'd love him to win a WC but looking longer term we need a 20 year old to win the WC or other major event. O'Sullivan is a legend of the game but can we move on from him (just a wee bit)? Time for some major new talents to appear!

GOAT debate again..

Ronnie, Hendry, Davis, J. Higgins, Reardon.... They all deserve the title. Stop moaning about it. It's not an exact science, opinions differ. For me it's Ronnie, but Hendry was great as well. As was davis and John Higgins..

I'm back, baby.

You should've seen the Welsh lass I was sat behind on the coach.

She was the real GOAT!

SnookerFan wrote:You should've seen the Welsh lass I was sat behind on the coach.

She was the real GOAT!

Apart from the Polish bird from the hotel, of course.

I think if you said to her 'You're the GOAT!' that would be the perfect opener.

Dan-cat wrote:I think if you said to her 'You're the GOAT!' that would be the perfect opener.

She'd have worn my bullocks for earrings.

SnookerFan wrote:
She'd have worn my bullocks for earrings.

You seriously should've seen this girl though.

I'd have probably let her.

Hendry is the greatest match player by stats but I'd say Higgins deserves that title given he graduated from a much stronger era, MJW, him, Ronnie, Lee and the year before, Ebdon. Hendry had a declining Davis, Jimmy on crack and JP. Once he hit 30 he couldn't compete with the class of 92; this is his major weakness within the stats. Higgins and Ronnie are still winning titles, MJW still competing.

MJW, Higgins and ROS are all better players by dint of talent. But Hendry was the man of his generation, as Davis was, as Reardon was. But those three generations have been surpassed. We wait for another generation that surpasses the class of 92. It may take some time..........

Hendry for me is king of desire, passion and the will to win. He never walked out of a match, even when Ronnie hammered him. He never threatened to retire a dozen times. He doesn't constantly complain about this and that. If Ronnie had his hard nose, he'd be in double figures.

Master Blaster wrote:Hendry is the greatest match player by stats but I'd say Higgins deserves that title given he graduated from a much stronger era, MJW, him, Ronnie, Lee and the year before, Ebdon. Hendry had a declining Davis, Jimmy on crack and JP. Once he hit 30 he couldn't compete with the class of 92; this is his major weakness within the stats. Higgins and Ronnie are still winning titles, MJW still competing.

MJW, Higgins and ROS are all better players by dint of talent. But Hendry was the man of his generation, as Davis was, as Reardon was. But those three generations have been surpassed. We wait for another generation that surpasses the class of 92. It may take some time..........

Hendry for me is king of desire, passion and the will to win. He never walked out of a match, even when Ronnie hammered him. He never threatened to retire a dozen times. He doesn't constantly complain about this and that. If Ronnie had his hard nose, he'd be in double figures.

It's a myth to say that Hendry never threatened to retire. He hinted at it plenty of times in pressers/interviews and was always alluding to it. That's not a criticism on Hendry. Frustration can get the better of even the best of us.

Richproc wrote:I agree that Ronnie is the best player ever for me, but the greatest should be based on what you have won so that is Hendry as he has won more. Clive Everton says you have to look at the record books to see who the greatest is, and I agree any other way is just opinion and nothing more.

So Joe Davis with 14 world titles is the best because the record books say so. Margaret Court would beat Serena Williams because the record books say so. Really?

I'm a huge fan of Reardon, Davis and Hendry. I respect them a lot, but in my opinion Ronnie and John Higgins have had more and tougher competition in their career than Reardon, Davis and Hendry.

I think if either Ronnie or John Higgins would have become pro in the same year as Reardon, Davis or Hendry, they would have won a lot more titles. And I think if Hendry would have became pro in the same year as Ronnie or Higgins he would have won less. But that's all if's and maybe's.... That's just my opinion.

The four best players are Davis, Hendry, Ronnie and John Higgins. Most people agree about that. Ronnie and Higgins have had the bad luck of becoming pro in the same year. Davis and Hendry did not have that bad luck.

Holden Chinaski wrote:I'm a huge fan of Reardon, Davis and Hendry. I respect them a lot, but in my opinion Ronnie and John Higgins have had more and tougher competition in their career than Reardon, Davis and Hendry.

I think if either Ronnie or John Higgins would have become pro in the same year as Reardon, Davis or Hendry, they would have won a lot more titles. And I think if Hendry would have became pro in the same year as Ronnie or Higgins he would have won less. But that's all if's and maybe's.... That's just my opinion.

The four best players are Davis, Hendry, Ronnie and John Higgins. Most people agree about that. Ronnie and Higgins have had the bad luck of becoming pro in the same year. Davis and Hendry did not have that bad luck.

From 1 to 64, all the pros are better than Davis was. Ding is a better player than Davis, as is Fu.