Ronnie the 5th: Mission Accomplished!

Ronnie O'Sullivan played the very first shot of this championship and the very last. He successfully defended his World Title. What does this mean?

Let's take a look at the past. Ronnie never defended a major. He came incredibly close in the 2010 Masters final but as we all know it ended in one of his most painful defeats ever. He put up a good fight in 2002 to retain his World title but he was stopped by an superb Stephen Hendry. He fell apart against Peter Ebdon in 2005 who mentally destroyed him. He felt the pressure in 2009 against Allen in the final session and couldn't step it up.

It's one of the biggest challenges in snooker to win the title but it's an even greater feat to retain it. A couple of years ago I came to the conclusion that the successful defense of a World title is the biggest achievement possible in snooker. Why? Because there's an overwhelming pressure on the defending champion. No player wants to lose the status of being the best player in the World. Nobody wants to let go of that magnificent trophy. Deep down it's the biggest dream of every player who won the World title to somehow defend it. Graeme Dott was completely destroyed after he lost in the first round in 2007. I was devastated in 2009 after Ronnie lost to Allen.

Only Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry achieved that in the Crucible. No John Higgins, no Mark Williams in their prime could do it. Now Ronnie did it. At the age of 37 and after taking a year long break from competitive snooker.

It was an overall masterclass performance. But just like last year the most impressive thing about him was his incredible Higgins-like mental strength and determination.

Ronnie played like he never left the Crucible against Campbell only his long pots didn't go in. He clinched 2 very important frames to not go behind. After that he pulled away. With Carter he ran into the first in form opponent who was determined to finally beat his old foe. And at 7-7 Ali put Ronnie bang under pressure and what happened? Ronnie won 13-8. O'Sullivan took one of the most successful players of the season completely apart in the quarter finals. No other player could have done that to Bingham this year. In the semis Ronnie played Judd Trump, who always caused him trouble over the last years and who beat Ronnie more often than Ronnie beat him. But Ronnie was overall clearly the better player and was never really in danger due to some good matchplay and heavy scoring. In the final Ronnie faced his biggest challenge because Barry Hawkins played out of his skin and put Ronnie under pressure. O'Sullivan made 6 centuries (and he could have had even more), had a pot success of 93% and still couldn't shake off the Hawk. But he responded always at the right time with a big break and protected his lead. He took the title once again.

As a fan I enjoyed last years triumph more because my hopes of Ronnie ever winning a World title were fading and it was such a long time since his last "big one".

But objectively this is Ronnie's greatest ever achievement. Even greater than his first World Title. Even greater than winning the Masters with a brand new cue.

This is the pinnacle of Ronnie O'Sullivan's career. He overtook John Higgins his greatest rival and is only 2 titles away from the most successful player who ever played the game.

Ronnie O'Sullivan created another masterpiece that takes him even higher in the pantheon of snooker.

He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

It's so tough to compare eras. But I agree this era doesn't have someone of the class of Higgins, Ronnie or Williams. I thought Ding could become an all time great but it looks very unlikely now.

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

If this is a weak era, then by that token Selbys 2 Majors this season are even more devalued cos Ronnie wasnt playing in them events ?

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

If this is a weak era, then by that token Selbys 2 Majors this season are even more devalued cos Ronnie wasnt playing in them events ?

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

If this is a weak era, then by that token Selbys 2 Majors this season are even more devalued cos Ronnie wasnt playing in them events ?

Good analysis Snooker Overdrive. Yes indeed, to defend the World Title is the greatest thing you can achieve in Snooker. I don't want to be disrespectful but during a strong period any player in the Top 16 can win the World Title. You don't need to be an Alltime Great to do it.
Like Taylor,Johnson, Dott or Murphy at example.
But only a real Master can defend the World Title. That's why only the two greatest players of all time, Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis had done it and that a bunch of times. It's nice that Ronnie put himself into this great league of World Defending Champions.

Ronnie is no Hendry or Davis. He's an exceptional snooker player but he isn't a Hendry or a Davis or even a Reardon dare I say.

AC or LT? wrote:Ronnie is no Hendry or Davis. He's an exceptional snooker player but he isn't a Hendry or a Davis or even a Reardon dare I say.

I'm the first one who is admitting this. Ronnie is a legend and a genius but Hendry and Davis were machines and total freaks. That's why I called them the greatest players of all times. And for me they are still on 1 (Hendry) and 2 (Davis). Ronnie safely on 3 , ahead of Higgins (4) and miles ahead of Williams (5).

Ronnie himself said yesterday that Hendry is still by far the greatest player and that Ronnie compare himself more with Alex Higgins than with the "machine" Hendry despite beeing clearly more succesful than Alex Higgins.
But as I wrote. Just the fact that Ronnie defended his World Title is an amazing thing because it's the biggest thing you can do. That was the final thing which he still had to do and he finally did it.

It would have been a big shame for Ronnie to finish his career without defending a major. It is indeed a massive achievement and I am glad he managed to nail it.
I also agree with Sonny about those that laughed at Hendry winning in a weak era when Ronnie is filling his boots in one himself (as he should)

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

If this is a weak era, then by that token Selbys 2 Majors this season are even more devalued cos Ronnie wasnt playing in them events ?

Yes because he always wins everything he plays in doesn't he. No I wasn't saying he didn't deserve to win because he beat all in front of him, however that's what Hendry did yet you hear people who weren't around at the time going on about weak eras which is rubbish because there are always good players around however this years Worlds was a definite notch down on recent years standard wise. To be fair I do put a lot of that down to tired players and also there's no question those who have already received several tonkings from O'Sullivan in the past didn't play anywhere near their usual standard against him this time around. It was the same with Hendry, same with Tiger Woods, same with any player who can get the fear factor going. Maybe Ronnie taking a year out and no one knowing how he was playing helped him maintain that fear factor. Who knows.

I wouldnt have Williams as number 5.

Id def have Jimmy and Alex rated ahead of Williams.

As good as Williams was he'd 4 or 5 years at the top then has fluctuated ever since really.

Alex and Jimmy were inconsistent but there highest standards plus execptional natural ability and legendary status easily puts them above MJW for me.

Williams ahead of Jimmy every day of the week.

Anyone who thinks Hendry played in a weak era I have two words for you:

Jimmy White

Sonny wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:He played well but all those arguing about Hendry winning in weak era can surely stfu now after that event.

If this is a weak era, then by that token Selbys 2 Majors this season are even more devalued cos Ronnie wasnt playing in them events ?

Yes because he always wins everything he plays in doesn't he. No I wasn't saying he didn't deserve to win because he beat all in front of him, however that's what Hendry did yet you hear people who weren't around at the time going on about weak eras which is rubbish because there are always good players around however this years Worlds was a definite notch down on recent years standard wise. To be fair I do put a lot of that down to tired players and also there's no question those who have already received several tonkings from O'Sullivan in the past didn't play anywhere near their usual standard against him this time around. It was the same with Hendry, same with Tiger Woods, same with any player who can get the fear factor going. Maybe Ronnie taking a year out and no one knowing how he was playing helped him maintain that fear factor. Who knows.

You shouldn't give a rubbish about those who are always mentioning the thing with the weak era. Nobody of this fools knows how hard it is to play 71 frames over 17 days. How high your concentration has to be. How consistent you have to play. One rubbish session like a 1:7 and youre gone. Ronnie himself can tell you a thing or two about it when he played superb in the 2006 World Championship but played a horrible third session against Dott (0:8) and went home. You have to be there, in every single session and that's what Ronnie did this year. Always played 5:3 ,at worst 4:4. That's what you have to do.

Aye, when the questions were asked of him he answered them. All 2 times it happened

Sonny wrote:Williams ahead of Jimmy every day of the week.

I think Jimmys love for snooker helps him shade it too over Williams who has a couldnt care less attitude.

Jimmy in his pomp when he was flying, was pretty much as close to Ronnie as there was really so id def rate him above Williams.

What's funny is that in 2008 I actually thought Ronnie and Higgins had probably won their last world title each as they were much older than the next breed of players coming through who were gaining in experience all the time as they were getting on. Now look at them, since 2007 only Robbo has broken their domination.

Yeh, the likes of Maguire, Allen, Selby are going to end up missing the boat with regards to winning the big one soon.

Ding and Trump still have time on their side but it will become a monkey on their back if they dont win it in the next few years, given the expectations on both.

And then given the way the games going, there has to be an influx of new talents and contenders, along with all the Lisowski, Brecel, White, Yupengs etc of this world who are threatening to make their mark

TheRocket wrote:

AC or LT? wrote:Ronnie is no Hendry or Davis. He's an exceptional snooker player but he isn't a Hendry or a Davis or even a Reardon dare I say.

I'm the first one who is admitting this. Ronnie is a legend and a genius but Hendry and Davis were machines and total freaks. That's why I called them the greatest players of all times. And for me they are still on 1 (Hendry) and 2 (Davis). Ronnie safely on 3 , ahead of Higgins (4) and miles ahead of Williams (5).

Ronnie himself said yesterday that Hendry is still by far the greatest player and that Ronnie compare himself more with Alex Higgins than with the "machine" Hendry despite beeing clearly more succesful than Alex Higgins.
But as I wrote. Just the fact that Ronnie defended his World Title is an amazing thing because it's the biggest thing you can do. That was the final thing which he still had to do and he finally did it.

I can never really participate in the GOAT debates because I haven't seen Hendry or Davis play in their prime. But if you consider there was already a debate after Ronnie won in 2008 on the BBC website, you have to say the voices pro Ronnie are only getting stronger today.

And I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be debate if Hendry won an 8th World title in the 00s but he didn't. The question will always remain: Why hasn't Hendry won a major after turning 30?

Sonny wrote:What's funny is that in 2008 I actually thought Ronnie and Higgins had probably won their last world title each as they were much older than the next breed of players coming through who were gaining in experience all the time as they were getting on. Now look at them, since 2007 only Robbo has broken their domination.

Yes at the time players like Murphy looked like taking over. And in 2010 a lot of people thought we saw a change of the guard, the beginning of a new decade and era.

Sonny wrote:Williams ahead of Jimmy every day of the week.

Can't believe people think Williams is better than Jimmy.

Williams is a second rate snooker player who gets more credit than he deserves from practically all quarters.

Snooker Overdrive wrote:

Sonny wrote:What's funny is that in 2008 I actually thought Ronnie and Higgins had probably won their last world title each as they were much older than the next breed of players coming through who were gaining in experience all the time as they were getting on. Now look at them, since 2007 only Robbo has broken their domination.

Yes at the time players like Murphy looked like taking over. And in 2010 a lot of people thought we saw a change of the guard, the beginning of a new decade and era.

Robbo will be a double WC after next season

GJ wrote:

Snooker Overdrive wrote:

Sonny wrote:What's funny is that in 2008 I actually thought Ronnie and Higgins had probably won their last world title each as they were much older than the next breed of players coming through who were gaining in experience all the time as they were getting on. Now look at them, since 2007 only Robbo has broken their domination.

Yes at the time players like Murphy looked like taking over. And in 2010 a lot of people thought we saw a change of the guard, the beginning of a new decade and era.

Robbo will be a double WC after next season

Will he buck.

Snooker Overdrive wrote:I can never really participate in the GOAT debates because I haven't seen Hendry or Davis play in their prime. But if you consider there was already a debate after Ronnie won in 2008 on the BBC website, you have to say the voices pro Ronnie are only getting stronger today.

And I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be debate if Hendry won an 8th World title in the 00s but he didn't. The question will always remain: Why hasn't Hendry won a major after turning 30?

I agree that the major problem of Hendry after the age of 30 is a small dark shadow over his great career , although he played brillant in 2002 and should have won in that final. But overall, just this dominance over this 10 years is the point. The consistency and this unbelievable level, he played match over match in this 10 years and won tournament over tournament. Same for Davis. Ronnie for me is the most skillful player in Snooker history and played the game to the highest level we have ever seen. Hendry and Davis even said that. So in that way he's the best ever but overall I would still put Hendry and Davis on 1 and 2 because of the consistency and beeing machines and played 10 years at the very highest level and winning everything.

Ronnie played some great stuff lets be honest but this tournament will be remembered about the players that never stepped up to the challenge.

there's different reasons muted about

Burn Out
Pressure
miles behind Ronnie as players

i dont believe the likes of Judd, Ding, Selby or Robbo are miles behind him but looking back in hindsight Ronnie could play without expectation where as other players was Trying too hard to prove they were the Best and Ronnie had to play a bit Part from now on.

One possible suggestion for Hendry and Davis not winning as much in their 30s, while ROS and Higgins have still managed to 6 out of the last 7 in their thirties: Hendry and Davis were prolific winners overall, while ROS and Higgins had dips when they didn't win much as much and weren't at the top of their game, so maybe they didn't burn themselves out as much?

Skullman wrote:One possible suggestion for Hendry and Davis not winning as much in their 30s, while ROS and Higgins have still managed to 6 out of the last 7 in their thirties: Hendry and Davis were prolific winners overall, while ROS and Higgins had dips when they didn't win much as much and weren't at the top of their game, so maybe they didn't burn themselves out as much?

i agree 100 % sustained dominance over a long period means an earlier decline for a player

Skullman wrote:One possible suggestion for Hendry and Davis not winning as much in their 30s, while ROS and Higgins have still managed to 6 out of the last 7 in their thirties: Hendry and Davis were prolific winners overall, while ROS and Higgins had dips when they didn't win much as much and weren't at the top of their game, so maybe they didn't burn themselves out as much?

by the Time Davis reached 30 he had achieved his goal nothing left for him to aim for Joe Davis 15 World Titles was in a totally different era.

Same For Hendry

When Higgins reached 30 he had 1 World Title and Ronnie had 2 the Hendry and Davis records still achievable and the Motivation that each others careers put on to them.