Dafabet Masters Final : Ronnie O'Sullivan v Judd Trump

TheRocket wrote:@ BSP.

Speaking about the age of a player or the age factor is a fair point. And I think you know from my comments that I dont believe in this "ROS is playing as good as ever" stuff anyway. Because I don't think he is. Even though I'm quite amazed he can still compete at this age to this level tbh. Thats a different story however.

My point is that there's just too much hypocrisy going on in this forum. Especially from those who pretend to be neutral. Sometimes you'd think only reason ROS wins his matches is because all of his opponents are folding. Yes there a few. And even I make fun of players like Ford or Milkins. But lets be honest. Even if they were not scared they would still lose 8 out of 10 matches. Because Ronnie is simply a better player.

Fair points Rocket. I have definitely been guilty of the comments about folding but I do know that he would beat them even if they were at the top of the game. I just want to see players giving it a real good go against each other.

Point taken.

Fair point BSP. And you can be sure.

I'd always want ROS to beat someone like Trump,Higgins or Selby on the way to a title and not those Fords, Milkins's and whoever they are. Because it definitely makes a tournament win more special. And a World title even more. Even though, statistically it obviously isnt. But you know what I mean. It feels that way.

Thats why Trump deserves big credit for his Masters win as he beat three top class opponents.

Dan-cat wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:Not for the first time, O'Sullivan fell apart like a cheap suit when a player decided he wasn't going to taken in with all of the O'Sullivan hype.

Welcome back

Thank you Dan-Cat.

TheRocket wrote:Fair point BSP. And you can be sure.

I'd always want ROS to beat someone like Trump,Higgins or Selby on the way to a title and not those Fords, Milkins's and whoever they are. Because it definitely makes a tournament win more special. And a World title even more. Even though, statistically it obviously isnt. But you know what I mean. It feels that way.

Thats why Trump deserves big credit for his Masters win as he beat three top class opponents.

Thats why im baffled theres so much talk of Draws on here in the run up to the Crucible.


Who cares who they play lets throw the Big guns against each other and Win the WC.


Thats something ive never done i couldnt have cared less who Hendry played just get them ASAP or in the Final just send them home.

Whatever the case, just be sure that Sullivan is far from finished. He is still the best in the world, even if he shipped a heavy defeat here. Trump has still only won two tournaments this season. Being the best is about beating nearly everyone consistently, not just one player.

Tickets seem to be selling out massively quickly. This year, I got a Row C ticket a month before play started.

A lot of sessions for next year seem to only have Row Q available.

Should I buy a load of half price tickets to The Masters for.next year, then sell on ones I don't want?

They look to be selling out fast. Don't want to miss out.

Pink Ball wrote:Whatever the case, just be sure that Sullivan is far from finished. He is still the best in the world, even if he shipped a heavy defeat here. Trump has still only won two tournaments this season. Being the best is about beating nearly everyone consistently, not just one player.

I don't think it was suggested that ROS was finished or that Judd is the best player. It was a rational discussion (IMO) and thankfully avoided the 'Ronnie is best at everything' theme.

SnookerFan wrote:Should I buy a load of half price tickets to The Masters for.next year, then sell on ones I don't want?

They look to be selling out fast. Don't want to miss out.

Oh, actually. No worries. It was only the blue section that was selling out, there are other seats available in other sections.

Hopefully, I should be able to find tickets later in the year.

I wonder if Jack Trump is proving a better mind coach than Steve Peters.

?

Wildey wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Fair point BSP. And you can be sure.

I'd always want ROS to beat someone like Trump,Higgins or Selby on the way to a title and not those Fords, Milkins's and whoever they are. Because it definitely makes a tournament win more special. And a World title even more. Even though, statistically it obviously isnt. But you know what I mean. It feels that way.

Thats why Trump deserves big credit for his Masters win as he beat three top class opponents.

Thats why im baffled theres so much talk of Draws on here in the run up to the Crucible.


Who cares who they play lets throw the Big guns against each other and Win the WC.


Thats something ive never done i couldnt have cared less who Hendry played just get them ASAP or in the Final just send them home.

What gets me about some people on here is, one minute they'll be going; "Ooooh. Ronnie's the GOAT!" Then the next minute they're saying they want him to avoid the big names in tournaments. Why should he need to avoid anybody, when he's that good?

Ronnie is the best player in the world but hes not head and shoulders above the rest. There are 4-5 players who have an almost 50-50 shot to beat him in a match and we've seen in the Crucible in recent time that even players you'd not expect to win did beat him.

Thats why I dont agree with the rhetoric or mantra that people keep saying it was important someone showed ROS can be beaten and stuff like that.

Ronnie hasnt dominated. Hes the leading player but he is not as invincible as he was from 12-14. Should he win a World title he might get to that stage again but atm hes not.

TheRocket wrote:Ronnie is the best player in the world but hes not head and shoulders above the rest. There are 4-5 players who have an almost 50-50 shot to beat him in a match and we've seen in the Crucible in recent time that even players you'd not expect to win did beat him.

Thats why I dont agree with the rhetoric or mantra that people keep saying it was important someone showed ROS can be beaten and stuff like that.

Ronnie hasnt dominated. Hes the leading player but he is not as invincible as he was from 12-14. Should he win a World title he might get to that stage again but atm hes not.

In terms of ability, he is.

Not so much now, but earlier in his career, it was his temperament that let him down. Walking out on matches/giving him half way through lost him a lot of matches that he shouldn't have. With his talent, he SHOULD have dominated. He should've won three times as much as what he has in his career. Ability-wise, he really is that good.

Yes I totally agree SF. If he had the current mental approach 15-20 years ago he would have broken all the records quite easily and have dominated.

But thats in the past now. You could say, now as a 40+ year old he's making up for lost time and we'll see where and how it ends.

Good posts

TheRocket wrote:Yes I totally agree SF. If he had the current mental approach 15-20 years ago he would have broken all the records quite easily and have dominated.

But thats in the past now. You could say, now as a 40+ year old he's making up for lost time and we'll see where and how it ends.

Since 2012, Ronnie has been making up for lost time, and as you say we'll see where that finally ends and what amount of titles he ends up with.

Not that he's a better player since 2012, but he's more consistent now, that is a fact.

Andre147 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Yes I totally agree SF. If he had the current mental approach 15-20 years ago he would have broken all the records quite easily and have dominated.

But thats in the past now. You could say, now as a 40+ year old he's making up for lost time and we'll see where and how it ends.

Since 2012, Ronnie has been making up for lost time, and as you say we'll see where that finally ends and what amount of titles he ends up with.

Not that he's a better player since 2012, but he's more consistent now, that is a fact.

Yes thats obvious. For me its always been like this.

00's ROS: -Higher peak game and better player in terms of raw ability

Since 12: much better mental approach, thus a more balanced game and better in winning "ugly".

The second version is definitely a better tournament winner. Thats pretty clear.
The first version had too many up and downs but on a good day he did play to a higher level than the second version.

TheRocket wrote:For me its always been like this.

00's ROS: -Higher peak game and better player in terms of raw ability

Since 12: much better mental approach, thus a more balanced game and better in winning "ugly".

The second version is definitely a better tournament winner. Thats pretty clear.
The first version had too many up and downs but on a good day he did play to a higher level than the second version.

Well said.
I've also said this, the "after 2012" version of ROS beats any previous version of himself in the long run cause he's stronger mentally and is willing to win "ugly".

Like SF said, if ROS was as mentally stable as he is now since the 90's, he would have rewritten all snooker records by now. IMO he'd have 10 WC, 10+Masters, and around 50 ranking titles to his name.

He will definitely surpass Hendry's tally of rankers, but I doubt he'll ever win 8 WC. My dream is for him to win it 1 more time, nothing more than that.

Also, I'll try to update my system by also taking into account finals and I'll give the same points to non- rankers, in order to make it fairer towards the 70's and 80's ATG's. HappyCamper made some good observations and I'll try to improve my assessment.

TheRocket wrote:
Yes thats obvious. For me its always been like this.

00's ROS: -Higher peak game and better player in terms of raw ability

Since 12: much better mental approach, thus a more balanced game and better in winning "ugly".

The second version is definitely a better tournament winner. Thats pretty clear.
The first version had too many up and downs but on a good day he did play to a higher level than the second version.

Well put TR.

I think the highest standard of snooker ROS has played was between 2004-2005, and he did win his fair share of titles then, but that level of play was hard to maintain.

Now he's more equiped to not get frustrated when things dont go his way, so for instance if it was nowadays, ROS would never have lost that 2005 Ebdon match, and instead win something like 13-4.

Only just watched the full first session as I was out when it was on.

Judd's standard was insane - Every aspect of his game was top notch.

It was a real demolition job at a level I have not seen from him for a while.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Only just watched the full first session as I was out when it was on.

Judd's standard was insane - Every aspect of his game was top notch.

It was a real demolition job at a level I have not seen from him for a while.

+1

Absolutely brilliant display

But was it naughty?

It wasn´t naughty. Which counts only as a good thing, as now there´s also some future to keep going. But it will get only worse and Judd´s standards will be bobsleighing slightly, as I previously pointed out. But it will still be strong enough to most top-players and Judd will probably enjoy the game more as he can do some things differently

He kind of a snake hissed the cue ball every time he needed, a wee bit of a side involved. But mostly a very, very robotic display, any given shot was very much learned, learned and learned. 8 hours per day to go for those shots, and on the day they all looked exactly the same.

Was strong enough to put Ronnie away. Didn´t look that much good. Hopefully no offence taking as that´s just my personal opinion. But when he really needed to do something with a cue ball, he few times snake hissed the cue ball extremely well when it really counted. Those shots really putted Ronnie away. It would have been the same if the match would had go on and go on, even when it would had started again. Ronnie wasn´t there anymore. Which happens to him at times, not often at all, need to be stated. So it wasn´t naughty, it wasn´t anything great but it was strong enough. And a good base to keep going. And did some favours overally also. So well played Judd, need to be said.

But the way Selby played to win that CL group 5 a couple of days later was just even much better. There were that creativity of Mark´s also very much involved. Nothing silly, nothing robotic, nothing muppet-like, just great. Even when Gilbert made that really, really impressive and correct 147, Mark got the response and putted Gilbert completely away also. The muppets are always somewhere else. Surely Selby´s no muppet at all.

Judd didn´t made a century during a lengthy final when everyone expected to see those. Selby fired 5 centuries during the Monday and Tuesday. And only during the best of 5 - matches. The Masters Star-table wasn´t that much tricky and tight as some thought it was. It was tight but nothing too difficult. The misses were all miles of from the line required, the commentators just once again needed to chat just something. So they came out with that.

At the End of the day the Worlds is that counts for me. Don’t like Trump, but he played an awesome game. Ronnie has really two records left to get. The ranking Titles and the Worlds.

Rockettim147 wrote:At the End of the day the Worlds is that counts for me. Don’t like Trump, but he played an awesome game. Ronnie has really two records left to get. The ranking Titles and the Worlds.

Fair play to you for giving the Ace the credit

I also dont really like Trump, but I dont let those emotions cloud my djugement when I see a great performance, and thats what I saw last Sunday.

Andre147 wrote:I also dont really like Trump, but I dont let those emotions cloud my djugement when I see a great performance, and thats what I saw last Sunday.

What's a djugement?

Bungke

It was so naughty. Handing the king his bottom like that.