Didn't see this yesterday... latest update, quite good if anyone likes snooker:
BBC Sport - Snooker - Ronnie comes clean over 147 wind-up
Bit longer that interview, 5 mins or so, quite good.
In it he says along lines of .. it's a great buzz to leave the last black, wasn't about the money, he knew there was no prize, he was just winding everyone up... mmm'k! Digging so hard he'll be in Oz soon...
Got to give it to him he does make snooker (even) more interesting(!).
I agree with all the above but still feel he owes the crowd.
Where did the money that has made him rich come from.
What would any of it mean without a crowd watching.
And he can't be bothered to let the crowd who may never have or ever will see the pinnacle of a 147. It robs them I think.
His interview then just rubs salt in.
Maybe to say I saw him get to black and then leave it may be an anecdote for them but I doesn't come from a good place.
Personally I don't think he owes the crowd anything, he is the reason why most of the crowd are there. If anything the crowd owe him for keeping the game they love interesting.
Originally Posted by section22
I used to love snooker in the 80s, even to the extent of watching it on a black and white telly, when i was supposed to have gone to bed
There was some real characters in the game back then, now the only two I would be interested in watching play would be Ronnie and Jimmy White.
What I'm trying to get at, is that snooker needs Ronnie, more than he needs snooker. Personally I've no problem with an arrogent sportsman, as long as he's backing it up with his performance, which Ronnie clearly does.
He's definitely a genius, although not quite a legend yet imo.
"Bomber likes you!" R.I.P. Pat 1937 - 2004
OK can't resist
As is well known I utterly loathe O'Sullivan & everything about him. I also had to laugh at the title of this thread as it's spot-on. He (nearly) refused a 147. Just as he's (nearly) retired & (nearly) done a million other things he's threatened to do in the past.
The reality is of course, all he wants is attention because he's a pathetic little whiner who's personality appears not to have progressed beyond a level most of us manage by the time we start school. So we get lots & lots of threats of what he's nearly going to do, just in case there's any possibility of us forgetting what a tough life the poor ickle chap has.
All that (& much more) about how I detest him aside though, do NOT fall into the trap of thinking he's the best ever. Much as I'm sure he'd love us to think he is, or at least he would be "if he could be bothered", actually he's not & in every measurable way his record demonstrates that. His record is dire compared to Hendry or Davis. And anyone who remembers Hendry at his peak will remember just what a remorseless machine he was, I can think of untold specific matches where he stepped up to a gear that O'Sullivan rarely hits & never for more than maybe a session. The fact O'Sullivan is fast & ambidextrous dazzles a lot of people but neither of those actually win you anything. And in fact he is horribly deficient in that final all-important ingredient - temperament. Temperament is every bit as important as talent for without either you don't win much. And his is awful, he throws the towel in in half the tournaments he plays in. Or sometimes sits under it, just to remind us yet again how much he's suffering.
Anyone who disagrees, don't take my word for it, just look at his record in the world championships - a tournament I think everyone would agree he cares about & would like to win. He's managed a dismal 3 titles in EIGHTEEN attempts. Not in the same parish as Davis or Hendry & in fact only as many as Honest John Higgins & only one more than Mark Williams.
FWIW I also think that not only does snooker not need O'Sullivan, I think he's poison for the game. I can't think of anything worse for a sport than to have a (sometimes) world number one who repeatedly demonstrates both in words & in actions that he loathes the sport, despises his opposition & is only in it for the money. No surprise to me whatsoever that the game has steadily declined in popularity since he entered it.
"Bomber likes you!" R.I.P. Pat 1937 - 2004
For natural talent there's no-one comes even close to him. Had he been playing with Davis back in the 80s he'd have far, far more titles - the standard has improved immensely since then. Regardless - even if you can't stand him he's a talking point and people enjoy watching him. As munk says - asking about the 147 at that point (and then getting it) really is astonishing. Makes me smile even though he does annoy me at times as well.
Have to say I 100% disagree that no-one comes close to him on natural talent, there is simply no basis to say that. Quite seriously, anyone who thinks that can't have been watching snooker when Hendry was at his peak. Now THAT was talent! An unstoppable machine with nerves of steel.
Incidentally, people think O'Sullivan is great to watch because he is quick etc which is fair enough if that's what they like, however, if you analyse their games, Hendry was FAR more aggressive than O'Sullivan (who actually plays a fairly conventional game albeit very quickly). In fact Hendry still is ridiculously aggressive, but now that he can't back it up with the same level of ability it doesn't work for him.
Like I say, records don't lie. O'Sullivan has a miserable 3 world titles in 18 attempts. I never understand why fans of O'Sullivan think that his occasional brilliant displays are the "real" O'Sullivan & his far greater amount of miserable performances can somehow be forgotten.
It's much easier to look outstanding when you're on form & in the mood, and then simply give up & not try when you aren't, than it is to maintain outstanding form & to dig in when things are tough.
Incidentally his record in the only other tournament most players really want to win - the UK - is also worse than both Hendry or Davis, further confirming he's nothing like as good as his hype. Results - over an 18 year period - simply do not lie.
Not a dig at O'Sullivan fans BTW.
I suppose I should have said IMHO but there's no basis to say it because natural talent can't be measured in scientific terms - White was naturally talented but never won the Worlds either. Even the fact he can play left-handed better than most pros play with their natural hand is astonishing.
As for the record books it's not really valid to compare today's era with that of the 80s or indeed 90s - game is far, far tougher now and the general standard so much higher. If we're just going to use record books we may as well say Joe Davis was the best ever and leave it at that.
I'm not really a Ronnie apologist either - he can and does act like an utter cock most of the time. However I'd still rather have the snooker world with him in it than without...
Tags for this Thread