Snooker

O'Sullivan has unfortunately never really been consistent at any point in his career. Much like Nadal (O'Sullivan) and Djokovic (Selby) in tennis, it's entirely possible that Selby could notch up more weeks at number 1 than O'Sullivan despite winning less tournaments. But yeah, Selby wins a tournament or two a year.

My man Ding lost

To some extent, yeah. Credit should also go to Selby for those tactical frames and winning those frames that Ding should have won, they go a long way in determining the result.

Agreed that Ding let Selby off a couple of times though. He sometimes lost position on the important shots and frames that he would have easily won in one visit earlier in the tournament, he was messing up. Coming back from 6-0 was tough and was probably the reason he lost. He was catching up the whole match and Selby just did enough to stay ahead.

If Ronnie had control of his demon's, then I honestly think he'd be in the double figures for World Championships won.

Selby is the ultimate bore and is a bad advert for snooker.

Oh, if he had the attitude and temperament of Hendry or Davis, everyone else would have given up years ago. It's why they were greater players than he is: they dominated entire decades in a way that his talent says that he could, but he's simply been unable to do so.

Joe Davis dominated far more so according to your rationale he should be the best player. The standard has risen. If you time warped O'Sullivan back into Davis or Hendry era obviously they wouldn't dominate. So O'Sullivan is the better player.

Well, you can only beat the people you're up against. Davis, Davis and Hendry all changed the way the game is played. You can argue that no-one else can emulate O'Sullivan, but he won his first major title - the UK, beating Hendry in the final - back in 1993. Hendry won the World Championship again that year. And in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1999. He was #1 until 1998 (and regained it later). So there's a major overlap in their careers with both in top form.

O'Sullivan is the most naturally talented, of course. But he's had too many incidents like the one in the 2006 UK Championship to be considered the greatest. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/6180591.stm if you've forgotten. Oh, yes, against Hendry.)

O'Sullivan beat Hendry at 17. Roughly the same age that Hendry Qualified for the World Championship. Hendry is 7 years Ronnie's senior and Ronnie's first world championship was 2001 so he wasnt much older than Hendry and was playing stronger competition. Hardly seems fair to hold Ronnies early ability against him. Ronnie just matured more slowly so peaked later. He was the oldest world champion since 1978 and he hasn't been eclipsed in the way that other greats were. Plus he has most centuries and most maximums.

Oh, he's great.

Hendry: seven World Championships, including five in a row. First one aged 21. World #1 for nine seasons, including eight in a row.

O'Sullivan: five World Championships, only able to retain the title once. First one aged 25. World #1 for five seasons, but never had three in a row.

But he's not the greatest until he can get to seven. Even then, if I had to play one of them in their prime for my life, I'd still pick him. Both could beat anyone at their best, but Hendry's worst was much better than O'Sullivan's. Whatever we disagree on, we both agree that O'Sullivan is horribly inconsistent, don't we?

So, finally I have watched the last missed frames till Selby's victory (it is so annoying not watching those to the end because of working the next day!).

Although the gabs in the first session (6-0 ahead for Selby) and the fourth session (16-11 ahead for Selby) were the crunchpoints in the final, DIng has had his chances to diminish the frame score in the 31st frame, but he failed when it matters. Selby was in a good position: administrating the frames by playing good safeties and to pot the balls when the chance is real. Selby has had the better nerves, surely thanks to his experience: For Selby it was the third final, for Ding the first one. Feel a bit pitty for the latter one. Played fifteen (!) centuries, but this great effort was not awared with the victory. Nevertheless, Selby is a worthy Champion. By the way his gesture, showing the Leicester City flag, was so nice. As far as I know, he is a great Leicester fan. That was surely a great moment for him.

Selby was playing like a ****. Playing on when he needed about 5 snookers just to piss Ding off.

Another reason O'Sullivan gets sick of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4qrOAU-7I

Sometimes he doesn't wanna be there. He's said so much:

"I'm bored with the game and I'd rather be planting a few shrubs in the garden"

Selby was playing like a ****. Playing on when he needed about 5 snookers just to piss Ding off.

As much as I'm a huge fan of Ronnie, the fans that go to see him are f***ing annoying. Why do you need to vocally cheer him on every time the chance for an incredibly low percentage shot comes up??? What happened to having a bit of respect for the other player, for f***'s sake... Fans like this are cancer to snooker.

His fans have been like that for a few years. I agree 100%

You should try the 'c'mon Ronnie!' drinking game. I'm sure you can guess the rules.

Not watched this tournament and it's a rare opportunity to watch snooker these days as I've drifted away from it due to the lack of compelling, competitive characters in my opinion compared to the 90s so anytime Ronnie competes, O hope he does well just to show up this new generation of talent that has failed to dominate once the old guard disappeared


Posted from TSR Mobile