Ronnie threatening to miss the triple crown events

D4P wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:From one angle, I would like him to stay away as I think he disrespects these tournaments with comments like these.

IMO, Ronnie doesn't disrespect snooker or the tournaments: His critical comments are pretty much always aimed at Barry Hearn and the way Barry runs World Snooker.

Even though Barry Hearn has actually done a very good job...

I agree PinkBall that Hearn has done a good job.

I think D4P is accurate too in that Ronnie's disdain for the sport is actually aimed at Hearn rather than the game itself. IMO

Not sure the game needs a genius who deiberately misses balls...

I think he is becoming a bit of a sad spectacle at the moment.
He should either perform on the table or give his gob a rest.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I think he is becoming a bit of a sad spectacle at the moment.
He should either perform on the table or give his gob a rest.

You said it.

SnookerFan wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

D4P wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:From one angle, I would like him to stay away as I think he disrespects these tournaments with comments like these.

IMO, Ronnie doesn't disrespect snooker or the tournaments: His critical comments are pretty much always aimed at Barry Hearn and the way Barry runs World Snooker.

Even though Barry Hearn has actually done a very good job...

Ronnie's idea of doing a very good job, is having Hearn allow him to miss whatever ranking events he wants to, but still turning up to top-8 only invitationals whenever he feels like it.

Given his performance over the last two years, that actually sounds pretty doable.

Small signs of the old Sullivan petulance have been returning lately, haven’t they?

My guess is he's been in discussions with Barry about something and it hasn't gone his way.

From what I recall, Ronnie's primary complaints have been about:

1. The Ranking Points™ system, which is clearly flawed and outdated

2. The quality of the venues, which could presumably? be upgraded if some of the prize money were to be re-allocated

3. Too many tournaments with little-to-no break in between, multiple trips to China required, etc.

4. Too much prize money given to the winner, and not enough given to the guys at the bottom of the pack who struggle to make ends meet


As far as I'm concerned, Ronnie's complaints (and suggestions for improvements) are all legitimate, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. Barry Hearn comes across as an arrogant dictator who is unwilling to consider feedback from the players. Basically, Barry is someone who wants to boss people around, and Ronnie is someone who refuses to be bossed.

In the end, Barry won't consider any of Ronnie's suggestions, Ronnie will become increasingly unhappy and continue to complain publicly, Barry will continue to penalize Ronnie for his comments, and Ronnie will stop playing. Whether Barry will ever recognize and acknowledge his own complicity in killing snooker's golden goose remains to be seen...

Complaining that there are too many tournaments is like complaining that you boss is just paying you too much money, man!

I do think there’s merit to the idea of the ranking being based on your best x number of results.

Iranu wrote:Complaining that there are too many tournaments is like complaining that you boss is just paying you too much money, man!

The main problem here is when one event starts the day after the previous event ends. This is a particular problem for players who make it to the final of one event and then are expected to play a day or two later in the first round of the next event.

This problem is exacerbated by the ranking system, because the players who made it to the final essentially get penalized in the rankings for either skipping the next event or showing up but losing early because they didn't have enough time to recover from the previous event...

I just don't get the need for recovery.

To use a different sport as an analogy -as Snookerfan likes to do- in the Tour De France they have two rest days in three weeks. I know it is not a perfect analogy but it does make the snooker athlete's need to rest after a tournament seem a little weak.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I just don't get the need for recovery.

To use a different sport as an analogy -as Snookerfan likes to do- in the Tour De France they have two rest days in three weeks. I know it is not a perfect analogy but it does make the snooker athlete's need to rest after a tournament seem a little weak.

From what I can tell having never played in one myself, snooker finals are often intense and mentally/emotionally/psychologically draining. The loser has to deal with the effects of putting a lot of effort into something that didn't fully pay off, and the winner wants a bit of time to celebrate and recover.

Not to mention that both players are likely to get very little sleep on the night of a final, both because the finals end late and because the players might be "wired" and have a difficult time getting their minds to settle down.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I just don't get the need for recovery.

To use a different sport as an analogy -as Snookerfan likes to do- in the Tour De France they have two rest days in three weeks. I know it is not a perfect analogy but it does make the snooker athlete's need to rest after a tournament seem a little weak.

I kind of agree but I do think that tournament finalists should be guaranteed the latest possible first round match in the next tournament if the tournament starts the following day.

Particularly if a final finishes late, there’s another couple of hours of press stuff and other logistics. Bit harsh to then play a match at 10am the next day.

I do think fatigue is overstated though.

I reckon Ronnie’s Still just a bit down because of the World Championship. The moment he gets thinking about breaking Hendry’s record for ranking titles he’ll cheer up a bit. You know Ronnie: “...up and down like a hussy’s drawers”. ;)

D4P wrote:
The main problem here is when one event starts the day after the previous event ends. This is a particular problem for players who make it to the final of one event and then are expected to play a day or two later in the first round of the next event.

This problem is exacerbated by the ranking system, because the players who made it to the final essentially get penalized in the rankings for either skipping the next event or showing up but losing early because they didn't have enough time to recover from the previous event...

Since somewhere in the middle of last season there actually is a rule that you can request your match to be moved when you have played in another tournament in the 24h prior, because players complained about it and vile monster Barry Hearn acted upon their suggestions.

Iranu wrote:I do think there’s merit to the idea of the ranking being based on your best x number of results.

I disagree: If only the best e.g. 10 results counted towards your ranking, the top players would only play in the 13-14 biggest tournaments. At that point they would have 10 good results and stop playing. The rest of tournaments would die or become like Gibraltar with small prize money, horrible venues and lots of open spots filled by amateurs.
Nobody wants to watch tournaments without any of the top players!

Lemnas wrote:I disagree: If only the best e.g. 10 results counted towards your ranking, the top players would only play in the 13-14 biggest tournaments. At that point they would have 10 good results and stop playing. The rest of tournaments would die or become like Gibraltar with small prize money, horrible venues and lots of open spots filled by amateurs.
Nobody wants to watch tournaments without any of the top players!

Golf's ranking system would work better. It's based on an average of performance across all events played, assuming a minimum number has been played. If you don't play, your ranking is unaffected accept that you lose whatever points you might have gained from an event from 2 years ago dropping off. If you play, your ranking goes up if you perform better than your average, and it goes down if you perform worse than your average.

For all of O'Sullivan's great achievements in the game he knows that not at least equalling Hendry's World Title haul be a glaring indictment on his legacy. After all he has constantly been billed as the greatest talent the game has seen and rightly so. But being the greatest talent isn't the same as being the greatest.


You can talk about century breaks, ranking event wins, triple crown wins, left handed play, speed of play, entertainment value, fan base, and any number of things but it doesn't make up for the World Titles he needs to become the greatest.


He is also no doubt still very annoyed with his effort at Sheffield. It is one thing losing through the pressure of the occasion but to just give it away by scarcely trying must leave him thinking what may have been if he had applied himself.


He seems to really try in those ITV events, The UK and Masters events, but for the most important event he doesn't want to commit himself.

The greatest of each sport has the heart of a lion and O'Sullivan seems to lack that quality.

As for the term 'triple crown' events that is a joke. The World Championships stands alone.

SnookerFan wrote:

The_Abbott wrote:I think he will miss a lot of tournaments this season. I believe him there but I cannot see him missing the Masters invitational event. I can see him missing UK though. Worlds? maybe to make a point but I doubt it.

What point do you reckon he'd be making?

Hes Selling his Cook Book so a bit of contriversy to make the media take notice is always good.

1. The Ranking Points™ system, which is clearly flawed and outdated
Despite Ronnie complaints hes World no 1 without playing many events 20 out of 40 tournamets played in 2 years

2. The quality of the venues, which could presumably? be upgraded if some of the prize money were to be re-allocated
the quality of venues to hold multi tables is limited if not impossible with him its not the venue its about how many playing at the venue

3. Too many tournaments with little-to-no break in between, multiple trips to China required, etc.
if they had to be away playing 4 chinese tournaments back to back including qualifiers they be away from home for 2 months and if you lose 1st round you would have to wait around until the next tournament or go home anyway.

4. Too much prize money given to the winner, and not enough given to the guys at the bottom of the pack who struggle to make ends meet
I Do agree with that far too much top heavy

vodkadiet1 wrote:The greatest of each sport has the heart of a lion and O'Sullivan seems to lack that quality.

As for the term 'triple crown' events that is a joke. The World Championships stands alone.

1. Ronnie has always been more of a lover than a fighter. He doesn't take any pleasure in beating other people, though he does take pleasure in playing well. That's a big part of why he prefers exhibitions over real matches. Exhibitions allow him to show off his incomparable skill and entertain his fans without having to worry about beating someone else (or getting beat).

That being said, I wouldn't say that Ronnie is widely thought of as a choker or someone who collapses at the end of a close match. If he's going to collapse, it's usually before the match, when he decides (for whatever reason) that he doesn't want to give 100% effort.

2. Golf and tennis make a point of playing the majors on different courses/surfaces, in an effort to reduce the advantage that some players have over others if (for example) a particular course or surface happens to suit their game. If (for example) all of tennis’s majors were played on a grass surface, grass court specialists would have a big advantage over players who fare better on clay or hard courts.

In snooker, it’s not really possible to vary the table conditions. Every table is more or less the same. But that doesn’t mean that there are no other variables that might give some players an unfair advantage over others. One of the main variables in snooker that the Powers That Be can manipulate is the format of the matches, i.e. the number of frames that must be won to win a match.

This is an important variable because (experience suggests) that some players naturally perform better in shorter matches and some in longer matches. Some players are naturally better able to get off to a fast start, while some other players are naturally better able to concentrate and not lose their patience for long periods of time. I would argue that many of these features are general personality traits, rather than specific snooker skills.

With this mind, I think it’s only fair that snooker would offer a variety of “majors” or “Triple Crown” events that use different formats, so that players whose personalities are naturally better-suited to shorter formats don’t always have the advantage and so that players whose personalities are naturally better-suited to longer formats don’t always have the advantage.

Giving one type of player a consistent advantage over another type of player by only offering a single format would seem to be unfair and not very good management of a sport…

D4P wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:The greatest of each sport has the heart of a lion and O'Sullivan seems to lack that quality.

As for the term 'triple crown' events that is a joke. The World Championships stands alone.

1. Ronnie has always been more of a lover than a fighter. He doesn't take any pleasure in beating other people, though he does take pleasure in playing well. That's a big part of why he prefers exhibitions over real matches. Exhibitions allow him to show off his incomparable skill and entertain his fans without having to worry about beating someone else (or getting beat).

That being said, I wouldn't say that Ronnie is widely thought of as a choker or someone who collapses at the end of a close match. If he's going to collapse, it's usually before the match, when he decides (for whatever reason) that he doesn't want to give 100% effort.

2. Golf and tennis make a point of playing the majors on different courses/surfaces, in an effort to reduce the advantage that some players have over others if (for example) a particular course or surface happens to suit their game. If (for example) all of tennis’s majors were played on a grass surface, grass court specialists would have a big advantage over players who fare better on clay or hard courts.

In snooker, it’s not really possible to vary the table conditions. Every table is more or less the same. But that doesn’t mean that there are no other variables that might give some players an unfair advantage over others. One of the main variables in snooker that the Powers That Be can manipulate is the format of the matches, i.e. the number of frames that must be won to win a match.

This is an important variable because (experience suggests) that some players naturally perform better in shorter matches and some in longer matches. Some players are naturally better able to get off to a fast start, while some other players are naturally better able to concentrate and not lose their patience for long periods of time. I would argue that many of these features are general personality traits, rather than specific snooker skills.

With this mind, I think it’s only fair that snooker would offer a variety of “majors” or “Triple Crown” events that use different formats, so that players whose personalities are naturally better-suited to shorter formats don’t always have the advantage and so that players whose personalities are naturally better-suited to longer formats don’t always have the advantage.

Giving one type of player a consistent advantage over another type of player by only offering a single format would seem to be unfair and not very good management of a sport…

Good points.

Much of it still is all about how quickly one cannons off the problems balls. It´s not about if they managed to make those cannons but how quickly they are at it. So I am talking about the effort.

That´s the main attraction of a game. The others include suchs as an ability to avoid all the contacts while the cue ball is travelling.

All the banks are ready and available to fund our project. We need 600 million euros, I can guarantee you a 400 million euros.

The self-confidence is absolutely everything, and I am really happy the old self-confidence has made a mass comeback! Everyone once again seemingly possessing it once again. All we need now a person who would be able to explain why all the self-confidence is valid and should be handled with all the seriousness. There can´t be self-confidence just out of a nothing.

But a self-confidence or not, one should be able to know what´s the position of yourself. Is it that 600 million euros could still be too much to you but some people might found that as a pocket-money ? That´s the reaiity also. But still, the self-confidence is everything and we need a person who would be explain why it is so. We need a smaller tour, where there is just players who just keeps on making the correct decisions, slowly or not, but preferably with a slow rhytm as that is a problem to many, and where there is just 5 tournaments in a season (including the pot black-cup) We need a tour like that, and rather obvious is that Johal should be one the players out there.

Frites mixed with spaghetti, Sprite. Top Belgian dish.

Just trust that the contracts holds. Never just appreciate the efforts only. That´s the worst possible thing to do to yourself. But to think that it WAS always meant to be so, and that it is the contract which does all the telling. That´s the way to steady yourself and to be a happy! To be the next Johal...

D4P wrote:

Lemnas wrote:I disagree: If only the best e.g. 10 results counted towards your ranking, the top players would only play in the 13-14 biggest tournaments. At that point they would have 10 good results and stop playing. The rest of tournaments would die or become like Gibraltar with small prize money, horrible venues and lots of open spots filled by amateurs.
Nobody wants to watch tournaments without any of the top players!

Golf's ranking system would work better. It's based on an average of performance across all events played, assuming a minimum number has been played. If you don't play, your ranking is unaffected accept that you lose whatever points you might have gained from an event from 2 years ago dropping off. If you play, your ranking goes up if you perform better than your average, and it goes down if you perform worse than your average.

So you would have to force players to play a certain number of events. I am sure Ronnie wouldn't complain about that...

This also aggravates the problem of top players reducing their schedules, because your ranking could actually go down when you play in more tournaments under the 'golf' system. (It would stay the same using the system I criticized earlier).

Lemnas wrote:

Iranu wrote:I do think there’s merit to the idea of the ranking being based on your best x number of results.

I disagree: If only the best e.g. 10 results counted towards your ranking, the top players would only play in the 13-14 biggest tournaments. At that point they would have 10 good results and stop playing. The rest of tournaments would die or become like Gibraltar with small prize money, horrible venues and lots of open spots filled by amateurs.
Nobody wants to watch tournaments without any of the top players!

I see what you mean, but last season there were 20 ranking tournaments, three of which were limited fields based on ranking and one of which was the Shoot Out. Plenty of top players already skip events like Gibraltar, Riga, the Indian (and the Shoot Out). So I’m not convinced it would make much of a difference to how many events players enter. I’d wager, without researching, that most top players already enter 13-14 per season or fewer anyway.

Ranking tournaments entered for the top 16 18/19:
Ronnie O'Sullivan 8
Judd Trump 15
Mark Williams 14
Neil Robertson 16
John Higgins 14
Mark Selby 14
Mark Allen 14
Kyren Wilson 19 (Indian Open)
Barry Hawkins 17 (Paul Hunter, Indian)
Ding Junhui 10
Jack Lisowski 18 (Shootout)
David Gilbert 18 (Paul Hunter)
Stuart Bingham 19 (Paul Hunter)
Shaun Murphy 18 (all tournaments eligible)
Luca Brecel 17 (all eligible)
Stephen Maguire 15

[quote="Lemnas"So you would have to force players to play a certain number of events. I am sure Ronnie wouldn't complain about that...

This also aggravates the problem of top players reducing their schedules, because your ranking could actually go down when you play in more tournaments under the 'golf' system. (It would stay the same using the system I criticized earlier).[/quote]

My goal isn't to design a ranking system that Ronnie would like per se: my goal is to design a ranking system that makes sense.

Setting the "minimum number of events required to have a ranking" would require some thinking as to what the number should be, and it's unlikely that everyone would agree on a single number. But as long as the number isn't "really high", then I think most players would be on board.

Players who reduce their schedules don't make as much money, so they still have an incentive to play. Ronnie seems to be pretty much the only player skipping a lot of events these days, and that's partly because he doesn't need or care much about the prize money...

A player's ranking would only go down if they don't play up to their own established standard. In my view, that's a good feature of a ranking system.