2013 World Snooker Championship

First topic message reminder :

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP FIRST ROUND

(Seeded players are in brackets)

(1) Ronnie O'Sullivan v Marcus Campbell

(16) Ali Carter v Ben Woollaston

(9) Stuart Bingham v Sam Baird

(8) John Higgins v Mark Davis

(5) Shaun Murphy v Martin Gould

(12) Graeme Dott v Peter Ebdon

(13) Matthew Stevens v Marco Fu

(4) Judd Trump v Dominic Dale

(3) Neil Robertson v Robert Milkins

(14) Ricky Walden v Michael Holt

(11) Mark Williams v Michael White

(6) Stephen Maguire v Dechawat Poomjaeng

(7) Mark Allen v Mark King

(10) Ding Junhui v Alan McManus

(15) Barry Hawkins v Jack Lisowski

(2) Mark Selby v Matthew Selt

It's been a wee while since there was a big shock winner at the Crucible. 2005 - The sMurph.

Hawkins might actually lead Ok, it probably won't last but it will be the first time he will be behind in this tournament.

Hawkins getting in the groove now and moves into a 3-2 lead with two sizeable breaks.

I would ask whether he is nervous or not but just look at the colour of his shirt and it will explain all.

O'Sullivan squares things up and we are back level at 3-3.

What were the odds before the match as a matter of interest?

1/7 him (best price), Barry was about 6/1.

First century of the final for Ronnie and goes ahead 4-3. Key that Hawkins win this frame I think to keep him in this.

Right I am off for some lunch. Ronnie getting a head of steam up and leads 5-3 at the end of the first session. Before hand Barry would have taken that but bearing in mind how it panned out he may be a tad disappointed.

Barry will win the next 15 frames on the trot

Kenny wrote:Barry will win the next 15 frames on the trot

A pound on that would change your life Kenny. Do it!

ok i will , i have a few quid in my account so going to have a few bets of the Hawkster

Good man. Da Freek is with you

Hawkins 7 - 1 to win the match but only a poor 100 - 1 to win the next 15 frames surely that should be a bigger price

That's the bookies for ya. 10 years ago you'd have probably got at least 500.

yes hes 100 -1 to win anywhere between 18- 5 and 18 - 9

Oh no, the black shirt is on. Pray for Barry boys, pray for Barry.

The Special Juan wrote:Oh no, the black shirt is on. Pray for Barry boys, pray for Barry.

I have my mat out.

Feels like Ronnie's had most of the run so far

Ok this Barry is starting to get on my nerves.

Hasn't he read the script?

He should be giving up and just be pleased that he can watch Ronnie play live. Then get his autograph afterwards.

Snooker needs a Ronnie win. He is the only one that can save snooker.

If Ronnie wins this WC it'll trump any of Hendry's WC's.

Only Ronnie could take a year off and win the WC in his first tournament back.



emancipator

WUM alert folks.

He really cued across that one

He doesn't have the angles like Angles

What a shocking miss.

Personally, I would have kept that last red on the table. O'Sullivan leads 6-4.

Is he allowed to carry weapons into the Crucible?

CaledonianCraig wrote:WUM alert folks.

Come on Craig you know better than to label me a WUM.

This really will be the most astonishing performance ever if he were to win the WC having not played competitively for a year. Cant think of an equivalent in any other sport.

The only person that can beat Ronnie right now is Ronnie.

Infanct that's the way it's been for most of his career. When Ronnie plays his absolute best he wins. If he plays well but just below his best then Highins is good enough to beat him if he (Higgins) plays his absolute best.

Having said that I think peak Hendry (91-93) vs peak Ronnie is a close call simply because Hendry is the best opening long red potter ever. Of course he would then follow it up with devastating break building. However overall Ronnie is a stronger player than Hendry - his safety and tactical game is considerably stronger.

emancipator please refrain from such nonsense. Any seasoned snooker fan will tell you that this year's world championships have certainly been no vintage. The quality at the top is not a patch on what it was and legends such as John Higgins and Mark Williams are past their best whilst the next generation are not show-stoppers by any means hence we are now in a vacuum in my opinion. As for the good of snooker Ronnie must win remark now that is very WUMmish. Ronnie has already said he is only in it for the money. Mercenary talk like that sickens me when I think of the great players of this sport that toiled for many years but never won the title and here is is talking so ungraciously.

Amazing yes, but best World Championship performance ever? No, I don't think it is.

Also, if Higgins plays his best and Ronnie plays his best then it's 50-50 for me and the matches that they play eventually come down to a bit of bad luck here and a worldie of a pot there.

Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

What's all this nonsense about Ronnie being skint?

Just that?

FreekShow wrote:What's all this nonsense about Ronnie being skint?

Just that?

Says he doesn't know where the money's gone.... *sniffs*

Let me clarify. Not the best WC performance wise but certainly the most astonishing given the circumstances. I honestly can't imagine any other player doing what Ronnies may do.

Peak Ronnie v Higgins 55-45 in my book

The Special Juan wrote:

FreekShow wrote:What's all this nonsense about Ronnie being skint?

Just that?

Says he doesn't know where the money's gone.... *sniffs*

Expensive game that Juan.

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

Fair point, but Ronnie probably had to deal with a greater depth in quality.

Both Hendry and Davis regularly had a couple of gimmes in the early rounds at major tournaments, meaning they would only have to produce their A-game two or three times to be in with a shot at winning it.

The standard of the players ranked 9-32 has been a lot higher post-2000 than it was back in the 80s or 90s IMO, therefore the scope for single player dominance is greatly reduced.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

You may be right wrt Davis.

It was certainly tougher to break build with the slower cloths and heavier balls, but to counter that the pockets were more forgiving. In any case it's very difficult to judge with Davis because the conditions were so different

Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

As much as it pains me to say it, Higgins has been the best player over the last 10 years

Davis and Hendry were ruthless in their pursuit of dominance. Ronnie clearly isn't all that bothered most days of the week. With the same drive, desire and determination I have no doubt that Ronnie could have dominated the noughties just as thoroughly as his predecessors did their respective decades. His career achievements are at least equivalent to Higgins but I doubt very much that he has been as dedicated as Higgins over the course of his career.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not sure that analogy fits exactly, as the crossover between Nadal and Federer is massive, including a good chunk of both players' peak years. Can't say that about Hendry, and certainly not with Davis.

Davis is still, in absolute terms one of the greatest safety players of all time, but he dominated in an era where there was a lack of depth in terms of tactical play, breakbuiling and dedication to the sport.

Hendry at his peak was the most ruthless scorer of all time, who put that pressure on you of knowing that one missed ball or mistake = end of frame.

But...could the same claim about lack of depth in the 90s vs post-2000 be justified?

Hendry/Davis could have a bad day at the office in the first two rounds and scrape through - Ronnie never had that luxury.

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

Fair point, but Ronnie probably had to deal with a greater depth in quality.

Both Hendry and Davis regularly had a couple of gimmes in the early rounds at major tournaments, meaning they would only have to produce their A-game two or three times to be in with a shot at winning it.

The standard of the players ranked 9-32 has been a lot higher post-2000 than it was back in the 80s or 90s IMO, therefore the scope for single player dominance is greatly reduced.

And players like Campbell aren't a gimme either? Of course they are. If you ask snooker fans who the greatest player never to win the world title was the unaminous answer you will get is Jimmy White who plied his trade in the 80's and 90's. Why not Mark Selby if the here and now has more strength in depth? That is a great fallacy.

There is near enough no doubt Hendry got everything out of his game and perhaps should have had more world titles given who he played in a couple of his finals. No matter how many titles he wins, people will always say he should have won more.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not at all. Hendry is clearly the GOAT of modern snooker, his achievements attest to that. My view is that Ronnie is overall a better more complete player but certainly not the greatest achievement wise. Nadal is neither the GOAT achievement wise or, as I think any sensible tennis fan would agree, a better or more complete player than Federer. He is just better than Federer on clay, assisted largely by a favourable matchup which happens quite often in tennis.

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not sure that analogy fits exactly, as the crossover between Nadal and Federer is massive, including a good chunk of both players' peak years. Can't say that about Hendry, and certainly not with Davis.

Davis is still, in absolute terms one of the greatest safety players of all time, but he dominated in an era where there was a lack of depth in terms of tactical play, breakbuiling and dedication to the sport.

Hendry at his peak was the most ruthless scorer of all time, who put that pressure on you of knowing that one missed ball or mistake = end of frame.

But...could the same claim about lack of depth in the 90s vs post-2000 be justified?

Hendry/Davis could have a bad day at the office in the first two rounds and scrape through - Ronnie never had that luxury.

Sorry I totally disagree. Look at O'Sullivan's world final opponents and players of the ilk of Carter (twice), Dott and Hawkins are not in the same league of difficulty as matches against White, Williams and Doherty. Two of those were world champions in their own right and White is seen as the best player never to win a world title. Lest we not forget Ronnie was around in the 1990's as well.

Ronnie reminds me of Alex Higgins, not Davis or Hendry.

TERRY TIME!

Here's Terry to lighten the mood.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Certainly right with Hendry as well - no two ways about it.

What you are advocating in tennis parlance is that Nadal with fewer slam wins is GOAT ahead of Federer a la O'Sullivan over Hendry.

Not sure that analogy fits exactly, as the crossover between Nadal and Federer is massive, including a good chunk of both players' peak years. Can't say that about Hendry, and certainly not with Davis.

Davis is still, in absolute terms one of the greatest safety players of all time, but he dominated in an era where there was a lack of depth in terms of tactical play, breakbuiling and dedication to the sport.

Hendry at his peak was the most ruthless scorer of all time, who put that pressure on you of knowing that one missed ball or mistake = end of frame.

But...could the same claim about lack of depth in the 90s vs post-2000 be justified?

Hendry/Davis could have a bad day at the office in the first two rounds and scrape through - Ronnie never had that luxury.

Sorry I totally disagree. Look at O'Sullivan's world final opponents and players of the ilk of Carter (twice), Dott and Hawkins are not in the same league of difficulty as matches against White, Williams and Doherty. Two of those were world champions in their own right and White is seen as the best player never to win a world title. Lest we not forget Ronnie was around in the 1990's as well.

I think Ronnies opponents demonstrate the greater depth a the top of the game in the noughties whereby there has been around 10 potential finalists at the start of the tournament. For much of the nineties one knew that it would be Hendry v White/Davis/parrot. Only later did the likes of Doherty, McManus, bond and Wattana emerge. Out of that bunch only Doherty was a true champ. By the time Ronnie, Williams and Higgins established themselves Hendry was almost done.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:Peak Davis would also run him very close but it's much tougher to judge the standard of the 80s players given the different conditions.

If anything conditions were tougher then. Pretty sure they were still playing with the heavier ivory balls which were tougher to get a reaction from. Davis was above O'Sullivan in my opinion as he was dominant for a number of years - unlike Ronnie. As in the 90's Hendry was dominant unlike Ronnie who has never had a totally dominant phase.

Fair point, but Ronnie probably had to deal with a greater depth in quality.

Both Hendry and Davis regularly had a couple of gimmes in the early rounds at major tournaments, meaning they would only have to produce their A-game two or three times to be in with a shot at winning it.

The standard of the players ranked 9-32 has been a lot higher post-2000 than it was back in the 80s or 90s IMO, therefore the scope for single player dominance is greatly reduced.

And players like Campbell aren't a gimme either? Of course they are. If you ask snooker fans who the greatest player never to win the world title was the unaminous answer you will get is Jimmy White who plied his trade in the 80's and 90's. Why not Mark Selby if the here and now has more strength in depth? That is a great fallacy.

Campbell was certainly a favourable draw for Ronnie - there were more dangerous players outside the top 16 who could have taken him into the trenches after a year out, and we have no idea how that would have gone...

Overall I'd say the standard between 9-32 is slightly higher than in either the 80s or 90s.

Agreed on Jimmy, though the fact he made six finals makes that something of a cut and dried argument. He just happened to fit neatly into the Davis/Hendry passing of the torch and was desparately unlucky...