For me, there are two distinct things; someone's ability at their profession and their personality. You don't have to like their personality to appreciate their gift. And you don't have to rate their gift to appreciate their personality.
Of course, it would be amazing to find people with a great gift and a great attitude and to dislike those with no talent with a bad attitude. Life would be so much simpler polarised like that.
If you have a naff footballer with a great attitude, he doesn't make the Brazil squad because you can't 'forgive' his lack of ability just because he's a good guy. Equally, I don't think there's a need to 'forgive' or condone bad attitudes or actions displayed by people with incredible talent. Just because they do something better than everyone else does not mean they should be allowed to disrespect their sport/profession.
With O'Sullivan, he makes snooker interesting to me not because of things like this or his repeated threats to quit the game etc. but because of his clear natural gift and his style at the table when he is treating his talent, the opponent and the fans with respect - playing aggresively to win like no-one else can do. The fact is, anyone can be a dick... it takes no skill at all. Look at me!
And it doesn't take much to appear to have 'personality' in the world of snooker. Most players have less personality than Terry Griffiths' ironing board. Ronnie O'Sullivan made more news doing what he did than playing the 147 'normally' but that neither makes it interesting to me or right. After all, cocking his leg up and pissing on Mark King as he sunk the black would achieve more news coverage too. And in fact, that would have been a combination of being wrong AND interesting. These 'usual' displays of 'Ronnie-ism' get a bit boring, no?
So I think I've concluded that the video clip was missing a bit of urination. I started so well.
(Mark King, the opponent, has earned approx. £45k per year since being in the game and never scored a 147 - he is not as good as O'Sullivan and never will be, but, along with the fans who pay to see you play, I think a little respect to your opponent and the game goes a long way, rather than showing money matters more than those things. We may all be greedy to some extent, but not everyone acts like that)
I personally can't stand the guy, but for the son of a murderer I'll concede that he has done quite well for himself.
Don't hate the player, hate the game!
Another thing..... there is probably not another player on the tour that would be arrogant enough to ask for the prize money for a 147 after only potting 2 then actually going ahead to get the 147, quite amazing really IMO! Some players can only dream of getting a 147 in the first place.
Yes he is a bit of a tosser but that is why I like him even more - he doesn't put a face on for the media or the fans. What you see is what you get, see his interview afterwards and you'll see that he is not trying to impress anybody!
Having been at a club and seen Mark King play when he's had a few he's not the most sporting player of all time either. He threw his toys out a couple of years ago and said he was going to be a bricklayer and never pick a cue up again. Quickly lost that idea lol.
Sports persons and pathological arrogance tend to go hand in hand. Largely, because they need it. If a boxer isn't 100% confident, he will hesitate. If he hesitates, he's KOed.
Originally Posted by blowingbubbles
Then there are people who are just needlessly arrogant.
I am not a big sports fan, but I used to appreciate O'Sullivan's attitude to an extent. Kinda of the genius-madman axis.
However, I think he is going a little too far here. Most of all, I don't like his attitude in the interview about it. He's just being needlessly arrogant and actually being pretty disrespectful to the guy interviewing him. There is no call for that.
And don't whine about a lack of money. You get paid truckloads of cash to do something that you love. He's had depression and still comes back to make good money. Some people are in a position where a prolonged bout of depression like he has suffered would ruin their livelihood.
There are times when arrogance/delusional self-belief are acceptable/required. There are times when people are reticent/insular/self-centric with justified reason.
And there are times when people displaying one or both of those traits need to be slapped across the face don't to stop being such a tosser.
"Pay no attention to what the critics say. No statue has ever been erected to a critic."
Just watched the break. Nothing wrong with that. The ref hardly "talked him into it", looked like he just said "pot the black" or similar! I was expecting some sort of remenstration!
If he was that set on a protest, he could'should have missed the damn black!
It was his interview afterwards where it all went wrong for me. But then that's the only time I don't really like Ronnie - whenever he opens his mouth.
To each his own; you can't fault him on the snooker table (or round it! ) Bit of a prat otherwise from the little I've seen.
Agree totally with everything you said. That discussion with the ref was really built up into something it just wasn't.
Originally Posted by EvilMickey
I actually quite like O'Sullivan... I'll watch snooker every now and again, but I can't deny that it's interminably boring. Somebody with a bit of unpredictability and personality does spice it up a bit, so it's hard to dislike him, but at the same time I find it hard to understand why he treats his sport and fans with such contempt. It's not exactly a bad life.
Well there's arrogant and there's taking the fans for fools.
At the end of the day a tournament without fans is meaningless.
So to not give a .... about the fans at such a moment is pathetic.
Boycott his next match is what i would do.
Show him that two can play that game.
he is nothing without an audience.
But of course this will never happen.
like the proposed boycott of England's next game after the World Cup.
Personally I think he's been carrying snooker for a number of years and the game would be much less without him. I can see why he got annoyed as the buzz of potting the final black for say £50K must be big even for him. And I guess he feels the money should be his as he is delivering the ultimate performance. It does seem daft there was no proper prize as Hearn seems to be doing well out of this new thing he has going.
The thing is with O'Sullivan is that he has always played for himself and has never really milked the fans the way some other players might do. Guys like him don't owe the fans a thing. And it must be hard to find the motivation when he is clearly so much better than the other players. It's a great shame there isn't a Davis or a Hendry in their prime to challenge him.
It can't be easy coping with that amount of talent without a focus. I think even Roger Federer would have found it tough had he been a snooker player.
Very good point. It's a bit like darts is at the moment, Phil Taylor is so far ahead of the pack it is unreal. I've actually gone right off the darts because it has become so predictable (i.e Taylor wins 90% of the big tourneys.)
Originally Posted by Diamondgeezer
A couple of years ago Barney on a very good day was a match for him but these days Whitlock, Barney, Wade, King, Aidey Lewis and the rest of them can't even get close.
Tags for this Thread