Post a reply

How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby SnookerFan

Anthony McGill's run at The Crucible has reminded me of James Cahill's run in York.

McGill's run has possibly been more impressive, but Cahill's was still good. He beat Ding Junhui along the way, and looked composed to beat off a Ding comeback.

Unfortunately, he didn't qualify for the worlds. Will we see much of him in the future? What do people think?

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby Arne B

He is a bit overhyped after this UK run. Certainly a good player, and I loved watching him play. He seems so calm around the table and smiles all the time, a lot like McGill. But has hardly done anything apart from this run, so there is much space for improvement. I hope he will go on and become a major player on tour, but it is not guaranteed at all.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby roy142857

To turn to an old cliche, time will tell!

Actually, that's probably what he needs, time. He has the talent but isn't able to play consistently at the level needed, hence ranked 85 and scraped back onto Tour as I think the very last qualified through Euro Tour ranking. Like McGill a while back actually, but the consistency appears to be starting to come for McGill.

The question always with good but not outstanding talents, will they work at their game (which includes the mental side) when the realisation strikes that they aren't just going to fly up the rankings, that they could be working at it for years (see Bingham!).

Only occasionally does a player come to peak early, seems for most the peak will come anywhere from late twenties to early forties as they hone their game, whereas there's a wish from snooker fans for them to be a Hendry or O'Sullivan and come through early, and quite a few players are lost to that false expectation.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby roy142857

Snooker Overdrive wrote:Roy142857, may I ask you a question?

I always wondered, why are you never posting at the main tour events?


Mainly timing - I'd often be posting way after something's happened. So I'l look but I'll be looking through several pages, sometimes think 'oh, maybe I'll respond to that' ... then realise the post was hours back!

Maybe not a lot to say about specific frames anyway, can't comment much as VERY rubbish as a player :-)

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby Wildey

He did nothing before York and hes done nothing after york

He got £12,000 in york and £6,450 in the other 36 tournaments hes played as a pro.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:He did nothing before York and hes done nothing after york

He got £12,000 in york and £6,450 in the other 36 tournaments hes played as a pro.


Well, being that you put it like that.... rofl

Certainly puts it into perspective.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby Andre147

Ronnie79 wrote:He is clearly talented. But give the lad a chance he is very young yet. He has a two year card now so he should develop his game


Yeah I agree, many expect that after a good result like he had at UK, if he then suddenly starts having bad results everyone panics and says "oh he's got no talent, that was just a fluke result, etc" pmsl

These young kids need time to learn, I personally think he has a bright future, same as Luca, although Luca has shown more good results than him. We definately need new talents in the game who can compete with the top players. We now have Michael White who soon I reckon will enter Top 16 and really become a good player, so my hope is many others follow his example.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby SnookerFan

Without meaning to turn into one of those people like you mentioned, I would like to see Luca kick on a bit in his career. He got to the latter stages in Cardiff. I'd like to see more of that.

Though, for once the BBC were talking about something interesting, with that age discussion the other day. How some players doing better later in their careers. You never know...

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby Arne B

I had the impression that Luca's run was the beginning of things to come. In his interviews he talked about having a more serious, "grown-up" approach to the game now. I think/hope he is going to improve now. And whatever he does, it is difficult to compare anyone to his achievement and (apparent) talent. As far as I remember, Luca was the youngest ever to play at the crucible and not even a British player; Cahill just joined the main tour at that age.
Maybe there is indeed a shift towards older players doing well, but I would not write off anyone as young as Cahill. He may never live up to the current hype, but he can still become a notable pro a few years from now.

Re: How do you rate James Cahill?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

While there are more players peaking later in their careers now none of these have actually been able to win the biggest titles. The likes of Hawkins, Walden, Bingham, Perry etc have all won ranking titles and have had good runs at the Crucible but they haven't managed to win any of the Big 3 events. The winners of those events are still players who made the breakthrough by 22/23. Even late developers like Murphy and Selby were Crucible winners or finalists at that age while Robertson whose career had a lot of disruption early on was still able to establish himself as a top player at 24. Even Dott who is the exception to all this qualified for the World Championship as a teenager and made a ranking final when he was 21. That would indicate that if there's plenty of time for players to reach Top 10 level and win ranking events but if they want to reach the very top then the clock is ticking.