Johnny Bravo wrote:Couldn't agree more.
Had Ronnie not missed that black when he was leading 10-5, I'm sure things would have unfolded entirely different. Worst case scenario, he would have still went into the 3rd session with a 11-6 lead.
Same with Higgins. He was leading 10-4 at one point and then somehow he lost the plot.
If Selby would play amazing snooker and destroy his opponents, I would praise him, I really would. But as it stands, crawling and stumbling your way to a title, while barely surviving certain rounds isn't something one should admire.
Selby plays a different style to Ronnie, and one that won't win him as many fans as Ronnie. I also think it's fair to say that Ronnie is a much more naturally gifted player to Selby, there's no really any debate on that.
But I never liked the idea that this makes Selby some mug player. He just has a rock-solid safety game. He plays the style that the majority of players did in the 80s, where if he can't find a guaranteed shot/break, he'll make the balls awkward because he's so confident that he can win when the frame his scrappy. It's up to his opponent to take that confidence away from him by outplaying him. Something a lot of players struggle to do against Selby.
I can live with people saying Selby isn't as good a player as Ronnie. But I don't think Selby is a mug when compared to Robertson. Even if Robertson is 'better than Selby when at his best'. Robertson should find ways to play his best more often, if that's the case. Or at the very least, learn how to win when you're not as your best.
That's the mark of a great player. Not who has the best A-game. Who has the best C-game is a better indicator.
If Selby was so mediocre, players of the class of Ronnie / Higgins wouldn't have lost such big leads against him.