Post a reply

Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Tubberlad

Any comments moving away from his playing ability will be deleted. Here I intend to focus on one thing: how people rate O'Sullivan as a player. Why may you ask? For one simple reason: I feel certain people only feel the need to mention his behaviour. This perhaps isn't their fault, O'Sullivan's antics have been poor and at times downright shameful. But I don't think it should ever detract from how good he actually is at what he does, although it clearly does for some. I can think of one or two people here who I've never heard say anything good about him. Here are my thoughts:

[*] I think he's the second best player to ever pick up a cue, and the only man to hold a candle to Stephen Hendry. He's a better player than John Higgins and Steve Davis, great players though they may be.

[*] I think O'Sullivan has reached a higher level of play than anyone else could hope for. Including Stephen Hendry. O'Sullivan at his best is another class to anyone else at their best. I reckon if you put together the top ten performances of all time, it would not be altogether ridiculous to suggest that O'Sullivan could fill the entire list out. Seven or eight at the very least.

[*] His safety game is outstanding. Better than Hendry's. A lot better.

[*] He is the most naturally gifted player of all time.

[*] He is the greatest genius the game has ever had. We've only had two, Alex Higgins and O'Sullivan, and I'd rate O'Sullivan higher. White is the closest to a third.

[*] His long potting is very poor in comparison to other great players.

[*] He is extremely tough to beat playing well, but it is a myth to suggest he is unbeatable playing well. Read: Master final 2004, World Championship first round 2000, Masters final 2010 etc. He is however unbeatable at his very best.

[*] He is the most exciting player to watch of all time, with the possible exception of Alex Higgins.

[*] He is arguably the best break builder of all time. Very close between him and Hendry.

[*] He did not have the desire to dominate like a Hendry or Davis. This does not mean he wasn't as good, especially in the case of Davis. I don't actually think he was as good as Hendry.

[*] His 2004 World Championship run was probably the best tournament any player has put together.

[*] He was the best player of the noughties, comfortably ahead of Williams and Higgins.

[*] I don't think any player over the next ten years could hope to be as good as him. Ding, Murphy, Robertson, Selby are all fine players. But they're not as good as Ronnie O'Sullivan, and I'd be amazed to think they ever will be.

[*] He has underachieved greatly.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Wildey

Ronnie O'Sullivan is the only player playing or probably will ever play this game with a chance of overtaking Hendry as the Greatest Player.

when i first came online i thought he was amazing a trully great player(still do) then i encountered just say people that well in a word talked bullocks and i was guilty of fighting fire with fire so to speak and said stuff i wish i hadn't and ive wanted him to lose just to shut those people up.

id like to hit this negative streak out of him that does my nut in but playing wise although on the wane i still see him winning another World Title in the next 3 years.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Noel

I've been playing snooker and following and watching matches as much as has been possible for almost 50 years.
No one comes even close to the magic of O'Sullivan. No one.


=o)

Noel
Last edited by Noel on 07 Aug 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

He is a great player to watch. I'm not sure why certain players just look better at the table but O'Sullivan just has something. The five mnute 147 is best Snooker moment I've ever seen. This break here isn't far off.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Witz78

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:He is a great player to watch. I'm not sure why certain players just look better at the table but O'Sullivan just has something. The five mnute 147 is best Snooker moment I've ever seen. This break here isn't far off.



awesome, dont think ive seen that before, unless i saw it at the time and cant remember it. Genius. Hendry AKA Doubtfire could only dream of doing that.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote: I've heard people try to claim Higgins is a better player than O'Sullivan

[*] His safety game is outstanding. Better than Hendry's. A lot better.




I've heard people try to claim Higgins is a better player than O'Sullivan :ashamed:

Of all the thing you have mentioned tubber i think your spot on but there is one i have to disagree on and thats his safety. there is no way on this planet that his safety game the best. higgins davis hendry and maybe doherty are all better safety players. It wasn't till about 2001 season that ronnie decided to knuckle down with his safety game and with the help of some good couches aka Ray Reardon his safety came on leaps and bounds and that shone through in his results as he became pack leader so much players like williams and higgins were left fighting for distant number 2 in the rankings.

Now behavious aside like you have asked, you have got to look at his consistantcy - he burst on to the scene with outstanding results in qualifiers was it something like 74 wins out on 76? that wont be beaten then spanking hendry to win 1993 UK then after that didn't really acheive his best, only in patches like above clip of B&H masters and 1997 WC 147 but it taken 7 years to achieve true Greatness but even then hot and cold.
I feel if he had done something during them 7 years then who knows? some of hendrys records could be non exsistant.

Thanks all

R-ron

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby SnookerFan

With respect, if you take away his personality, is there anybody here that isn't going to rate Ronnie? Some people think he's the greatest, some people think Hendry is the greatest. But in 1995 if you'd say there'd be anybody close to Hendry, people would've called you a mug. Ronnie is the most naturally gifted player of all time, but his consistency lets him down.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 07 Aug 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Monique

Ronnie's safety game is as good as Higgins IMO ... he's actually more creative overall.
His weakest point is his long potting that is in and out (in synch with his confidence) especially over the last 5-6 years. He was a tremendous long potter as a youngster.
I disagree that he has underachieved. He may not have fulfilled the expectations the fans put on him but achieving what he has, under the circumstances of his live and suffering from bipolar disorder is actually extremely remarkable.
As a final word: Ronnie is an artist ... he has the sensitivity, the inspirational genius as well as the inconsistency, the darkness and the angst that so often goes with it. He's raised the game to sheer beauty at times and in that he's unique.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby SnookerFan

Consistency is Ronnie's weakness. Obviously, nobody plays their best all the time. But Ronnie seems to swing between being god-like to being fuck-awful. I'm trying not to mention his personality too much, but I think if he's not making 100-breaks in every game, he thinks he's playing poor. This stops his concentration, and hunger to grind out a win. If there's a weakness in Ronnie's game, it's that his B-game doesn't win matches. He won't scrape out wins if matches go scrappy.

When the balls are open, he's almost impossible to beat. You have to make high opening breaks to stay level with him, and pounce on maybe the one mistake he'll make all game to beat him.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Monique

SnookerFan wrote:Consistency is Ronnie's weakness. Obviously, nobody plays their best all the time. But Ronnie seems to swing between being god-like to being intercourse-awful. I'm trying not to mention his personality too much, but I think if he's not making 100-breaks in every game, he thinks he's playing poor. This stops his concentration, and hunger to grind out a win. If there's a weakness in Ronnie's game, it's that his B-game doesn't win matches. He won't scrape out wins if matches go scrappy.

When the balls are open, he's almost impossible to beat. You have to make high opening breaks to stay level with him, and pounce on maybe the one mistake he'll make all game to beat him.


Well allow me to disagree. Ronnie's B-game does win him matches. His run to win the NIT in 2008 and his Masters in 2009 are both tournaments (not matches, tournaments) he's won on his B-game. He does scrape through matches, even very hard matches when he's feeling well enough within himself. Remember how he came frome 2-8 down to 8-8 against Higgins last December? He can be a very hard pressure player then.
When he's not well he can indeed enter in discouraged, or even self-punishment mode and give up. People tend to forget how hard it can be only to come and play when you suffer deep depressions, not to mention battle it through, which he has done on many occasions. Ask Dott (and Dotty is a very brave man!).

Don't get me wrong: I'm not blaming every defeat on Ronnie's depressions. He has been beaten when playing at his best. His 9-10 defeat to Gray in 2000, in a match where he made 5 centuries is the prime example.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Wildey

he has been beaten many many times playing at his best everyone has.

snooker is a game where you can be at your absolute best ever form and lose because the other players has more table time through playing great safeties and getting chances. no matter how well you cue it doesn't matter sitting in your seat.

but Ronnie has a far better safety game than he is credited with and his B Game is as good as anyones ive ever seen and that switch he has from scratching about missing everything playing poor to making a magical break is absalutly priceless.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Consistency is Ronnie's weakness. Obviously, nobody plays their best all the time. But Ronnie seems to swing between being god-like to being intercourse-awful. I'm trying not to mention his personality too much, but I think if he's not making 100-breaks in every game, he thinks he's playing poor. This stops his concentration, and hunger to grind out a win. If there's a weakness in Ronnie's game, it's that his B-game doesn't win matches. He won't scrape out wins if matches go scrappy.

When the balls are open, he's almost impossible to beat. You have to make high opening breaks to stay level with him, and pounce on maybe the one mistake he'll make all game to beat him.


Well allow me to disagree. Ronnie's B-game does win him matches. His run to win the NIT in 2008 and his Masters in 2009 are both tournaments (not matches, tournaments) he's won on his B-game. He does scrape through matches, even very hard matches when he's feeling well enough within himself. Remember how he came frome 2-8 down to 8-8 against Higgins last December? He can be a very hard pressure player then.
When he's not well he can indeed enter in discouraged, or even self-punishment mode and give up. People tend to forget how hard it can be only to come and play when you suffer deep depressions, not to mention battle it through, which he has done on many occasions. Ask Dott (and Dotty is a very brave man!).

Don't get me wrong: I'm not blaming every defeat on Ronnie's depressions. He has been beaten when playing at his best. His 9-10 defeat to Gray in 2000, in a match where he made 5 centuries is the prime example.



The point remains though. How many times has he beaten himself, rather then his opponent? I'm not trying to bring personality into this, but I think he sometimes loses games he could and should have won, so many times.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby gallantrabbit

I often used to arrive home from pro-ams around midnight. My mum would often think I`d won the thing :john: But no I`d been watching Ronnie`s progress. Not just Ronnie,; Ebdon Doherty and a few others, but Ronnie even then at around 13/14 years old was an absolute joy to watch on the table, a genius. I saw him make a bunch of tons in 3/4 minutes. Geezer must have thought I was a stalker rofl but i wasn`t the only one.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Tubberlad

Ronnie O'Sullivan has been beaten playing well Wild, nobody has beaten him at his best. That's my judgement.

Rocket: I never claimed he was the best player safety wise. That would go to, as you quite rightly mentioned, one of Doherty, Higgins or Davis. I do however think O'Sullivan has an outstanding safety game.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Wildey

i disagree

you can only play as well as your opponent lets you ....he goes in to a match playing on top form and his opponent puts the breaks on its happened and it will continue to happen no matter who the player is.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Tubberlad

I also disagree.

O'Sullivan played very well against Gray in 2000, against Hunter 2004 and Selby 2010. But there's no way I'd consider those performaces his best. At his best, O'Sullivan does not miss ANY chances, whereas he did in these games.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Wildey

thetubberlad wrote:I also disagree.

O'Sullivan played very well against Gray in 2000, against Hunter 2004 and Selby 2010. But there's no way I'd consider those performaces his best. At his best, O'Sullivan does not miss ANY chances, whereas he did in these games.


at their best nobody misses chances but you got to get chances and when you frustrate a player playing brilliantly he can then look avarage.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Noel

Monique wrote:Ronnie is an artist ...


Exactly.
This is just about the greatest praise one can receive for doing virtually anything at the highest level.

Post of the Thread Award ... and Monique is someone who KNOWS!

Image


=o)

Noel

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Monique

thetubberlad wrote:I also disagree.

O'Sullivan played very well against Gray in 2000, against Hunter 2004 and Selby 2010. But there's no way I'd consider those performaces his best. At his best, O'Sullivan does not miss ANY chances, whereas he did in these games.


Well you see this is typically the kind of posts that make me very uneasy. Ronnie isn't some kind of machine or God, he's human (very human actually ;)) and sure enough, even at his best, he does miss chances. Not many, not easy ones maybe but he does. It is this kind of unrealistic expectations that fans and media put on him, competition after competition, that weights on his (already fragile) mind and are his undoing only too often. It is those kind of expectations that add to his anxiety and make him sometimes wish to take a break or even quit a game he otherwise loves with a passion. And this is also why he so often tries to downplay his chances, it's the only coping strategy he knows. I so wish fans and media could give him a break and let him simply ... play and get pleasure out of it. He still has a lot to give to snooker but he should be allowed to do it his own way, not under constant almost unbearable pressure.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Wildey

that puts over my point thanx monique <ok>

he is only human and even playing at his ultimate best he can come a cropper because of himself but also his oponement putting him under it.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Bourne

You don't win 3 world titles if you're a mug, that's for sure. Whether or not he's the greatest or not, I don't care, he is a massive reason why I and so many other people love this sport because his matches are exciting, either for his incredible snooker prowess or wondering if he's going to explode out there.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Casey

thetubberlad wrote:I also disagree.

O'Sullivan played very well against Gray in 2000, against Hunter 2004 and Selby 2010. But there's no way I'd consider those performaces his best. At his best, O'Sullivan does not miss ANY chances, whereas he did in these games.


What if he doesn't get any chances? Like when Higgins hit 400+ points without reply against him in the GP, nothning Ronnie at his tip top best could have done. Thats the nature of snooker, 2 players can't be at the table.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Witz78

case_master wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:I also disagree.

O'Sullivan played very well against Gray in 2000, against Hunter 2004 and Selby 2010. But there's no way I'd consider those performaces his best. At his best, O'Sullivan does not miss ANY chances, whereas he did in these games.


What if he doesn't get any chances? Like when Higgins hit 400+ points without reply against him in the GP, nothning Ronnie at his tip top best could have done. Thats the nature of snooker, 2 players can't be at the table.


your player can only get the opportunities to repeatedly get in and score points if you leave them opportunities

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby N_Castle07

My views on Ronnie the player.

One of the greatest of all time he has a knack for making this difficult game look ridiculously easy at times it’s unreal. When he is on form it is a total pleasure to watch him play (the same goes for Hendry, White, Higgins J, Higgins A, and Murphy) He has been beaten when he is at his very best the same as all the greats Ronnie is no exception to this. It is fair to say that Ronnie and John Higgins have under achieved in there career’s and Ronnie certainly has lost a lot of matches which he should of won. I don’t think there should be too much empathise on his depression because I think it is unfair to many other players who have suffered from Depression but hasn’t got the media attention that Ronnie has. Ronnie as a person raises a lot of eyebrows but I’m not going into this because Tubberlad has specifically requested this article to be about Ronnie the player. As much as people don’t like him as a person I find his antics adds to the excitement he creates and makes him more of a popular player in a strange way, the same as it did for Alex Higgins.

Love him or hate him nobody can deny his on table brilliance and his desire to entertain the audience to which I applaud him.

Re: Your thoughts on Ronnie O'Sullivan: the player

Postby Casey

Higgins safety that day was top draw, he made his own chances. Just like Ronnie did at the Masters when he beat John 10-3.

The fact that Ronnie didn’t score as John amassed 400+ points shows 2 things

1. John didn’t leave him ANY chances
2. 2. Ronnie didn’t miss when in to leave it easy fro John.

This is a world record by the way and if Ronnie had of amassed 400+ points without reply against John you and other would be pointing to that match saying how Ronnie couldn’t be beat at his best. There would have been no mention of ‘he was left chances’.

The nature of snooker makes it extremely difficult for two players to play at their very best at the same time, we all know this.

Tubber, I think Ronnie is overall a better player than John but certainly not different class. The reason being temperament, Ronnie has put himself in many tournament winning positions in recent years only to ‘blow’ them. John rarely does this, although I would suggest there are other problems with John’s dedication over the last 10 years.

When John first came on the scene he was up for winning everything, however I have noticed over the last 6 or 7 years outside of ranking events has been very poor. Yes he has won a couple of Masters in that time, but if you look at his Masters record and see how many times he has lost in the first round!

I also think his barren spell in the mid 00’s was costly for him, a lot of drink and that, only for this he could have won a lot more, I am talking about 5 world titles and that’s no exaggeration.

To find out how could Higgins was you only have to look at his play in 98!