Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

NNear wrote:I would like to see Ronnie focus on two things and that's defending the Worlds and defending the Masters. He's had many attempts at defending the Masters before, just coming up short in several finals.

This reminds me, Ronnie has a particular incentive to win the WC this year (and indeed defend his Masters) - he no longer is in the Top 16, so needs to be champion to be automatically seeded. He knows this better than anyone, and if he really has his sights set on Hendry's record, which he says he does, then he's not going to want to go through the qualifiers. And there aren't qualifiers in the Masters.

No but aren't they changing the rankings system to the money list soon? I don't fully understand it but I think on the whole it benefits Ronnie despite not having Masters or CoC prize money accounted for (which equals about 300k, amazingly)...

NNear wrote:No but aren't they changing the rankings system to the money list soon? I don't fully understand it but I think on the whole it benefits Ronnie despite not having Masters or CoC prize money accounted for (which equals about 300k, amazingly)...

I've heard it's changing to a money system but I'm not sure what it really means. Is it ranking gets based on how much money you earn?

Yes, it's ranking based on prize money earned but doesn't include non ranking events. As prestigious as the Masters is, it would be unfair to count the prize money from there as it excludes most of the players. It counts prize money won over a two-year period, I believe, and will be in effect after the conclusion of the WC's.

NNear wrote:Yes, it's ranking based on prize money earned but doesn't include non ranking events. As prestigious as the Masters is, it would be unfair to count the prize money from there as it excludes most of the players. It counts prize money won over a two-year period, I believe, and will be in effect after the conclusion of the WC's.

So would that actually benefit Ronnie, considering he missed pretty much all of 2013's season?

http://www.prosnookerblog.com/rankings/ ... oney-list/

If the system were in effect now, Ronnie would be world rank #4.

I don't understand if prize money for events will be dropped only after the iteration that follows two years after or not but as you can see from this table, the Welsh Open victory might be more important than we realise.

Especially if prize money won only drops off after a two year period rather than all prize money being wiped clean from two seasons ago at the beginning of a new season (like in tennis how ranking points for Wimbledon only change/dropoff/whatever after Wimbledon the year after, rather than just automatically at the beginning of the tennis year) then Ronnie's ranking will be very healthy. Not sure it matters so much though with the increase in flat 128 draws.

NNear wrote:http://www.prosnookerblog.com/rankings/201314-rankings-pages/latest-provisional-money-list/

If the system were in effect now, Ronnie would be world rank #4.

I don't understand if prize money for events will be dropped only after the iteration that follows two years after or not but as you can see from this table, the Welsh Open victory might be more important than we realise.

Especially if prize money won only drops off after a two year period rather than all prize money being wiped clean from two seasons ago at the beginning of a new season (like in tennis how ranking points for Wimbledon only change/dropoff/whatever after Wimbledon the year after, rather than just automatically at the beginning of the tennis year) then Ronnie's ranking will be very healthy. Not sure it matters so much though with the increase in flat 128 draws.

It does seem a fairer system to me. With so many tournaments taking place, missing one or two can be devastating for rankings. There also isn't much longevity with them - every time i view the chart it seems pole positions have switched to someone else. Prize money seems more concrete.

Trumpster wrote:Yeah, and William's lack of interest in making a big break once the frame was won. Happy enough with 75; don't worry about entertaining a crowd that has traveled and forked out to see you Mark. After all, they're just mortal punters compared to your great self. Such a shame, he could and should have won more if he could have been bothered with practice.

there's more to being entertaining than making centuries.

i think over a long career Mark Williams has been as entertaining as anybody

If it will work on some strange system of there being a sudden wipe of all prize money from the beginning of a new snooker season, then Ronnie's Welsh Open win stands him in good stead anyway and will probably secure him a top 16 ranking.

webcat86,

It's a system that rewards winning more than consistency, or at least the balance has been severely shifted in that direction.

Wildey wrote:

Trumpster wrote:Yeah, and William's lack of interest in making a big break once the frame was won. Happy enough with 75; don't worry about entertaining a crowd that has traveled and forked out to see you Mark. After all, they're just mortal punters compared to your great self. Such a shame, he could and should have won more if he could have been bothered with practice.

there's more to being entertaining than making centuries.

i think over a long career Mark Williams has been as entertaining as anybody

Are we talking about the same Williams? About 8 years ago I nicknamed him The Sloth, because he looks as though he just doesn't want to be there. He practically shuffles around the table, some pained expression on his face. "A great single ball potter" they call him - meaning what, he can't pot 2 or 3 balls consecutively?

Can't stand the man. And Trumpster is right, the crowd wants to be entertained. They aren't in the venue for his whole career, they're there for a match. They don't go home and say 'ah well, at least he played well that one time'. A large part of Ronnie's popularity is his ability - and desire - to entertain the crowd. He talks about it frequently, especially final frames.

NNear wrote:webcat86,

It's a system that rewards winning more than consistency, or at least the balance has been severely shifted in that direction.

I think that may be just what's required these days. When it was a smaller tournament calendar with less travelling, consistency was easier to rank. But nowadays, with it being what, 50 weeks of the year? Multiple events in China, PTC events that players seem to loathe, it doesn't seem fair to me that missing one or two events can seriously punish your rankings.

Ronnie has probably been the most vocal of the old guard about it, but I'm inclined to agree with him - it's one for thing for the likes of Trump and Allen who are still young, but for Ronnie and his peers, he's a father. When they signed up to be professional players, this wasn't a decision they had to make, and now suddenly they're told play all over the world all year or you're out of the rankings.

Other players, like Allen, have criticised the calendar too, namely that there are multiple events in China but not consecutively, so they need to pay for the travel 5 separate times a year, plus the other events. If you're not winning much, they say you pretty much don't earn a living.

So it makes sense to me that players won't be punished for deciding how the calendar fits in with their life, or not being punished if they get ill and miss a tournament. And even more importantly, if attending an event is something they physically cannot afford, but missing it drops their rankings even further, they won't be penalised for that now.

Of course the downside is the big events like the WC have so much more weight - winning that single event will put you higher than players who have won maybe 6 or 7 elsewhere.

Yeah, the WC will be the equivalent of around about 4 standard rankers.

I agree with your post and reasoning.

webcat86 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Trumpster wrote:Yeah, and William's lack of interest in making a big break once the frame was won. Happy enough with 75; don't worry about entertaining a crowd that has traveled and forked out to see you Mark. After all, they're just mortal punters compared to your great self. Such a shame, he could and should have won more if he could have been bothered with practice.

there's more to being entertaining than making centuries.

i think over a long career Mark Williams has been as entertaining as anybody

Are we talking about the same Williams? About 8 years ago I nicknamed him The Sloth, because he looks as though he just doesn't want to be there. He practically shuffles around the table, some pained expression on his face. "A great single ball potter" they call him - meaning what, he can't pot 2 or 3 balls consecutively?

Can't stand the man. And Trumpster is right, the crowd wants to be entertained. They aren't in the venue for his whole career, they're there for a match. They don't go home and say 'ah well, at least he played well that one time'. A large part of Ronnie's popularity is his ability - and desire - to entertain the crowd. He talks about it frequently, especially final frames.

every time Mark Williams played ive been entertained and not just me.

Between 1998 and 2003 he was the Best player in the World without doubt He reached 2 World Finals before Ronnie reached one. yes his career has dramatically nose dived but that shouldn't detract from the entertainment hes given many.

Wildey wrote:

webcat86 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Trumpster wrote:Yeah, and William's lack of interest in making a big break once the frame was won. Happy enough with 75; don't worry about entertaining a crowd that has traveled and forked out to see you Mark. After all, they're just mortal punters compared to your great self. Such a shame, he could and should have won more if he could have been bothered with practice.

there's more to being entertaining than making centuries.

i think over a long career Mark Williams has been as entertaining as anybody

Are we talking about the same Williams? About 8 years ago I nicknamed him The Sloth, because he looks as though he just doesn't want to be there. He practically shuffles around the table, some pained expression on his face. "A great single ball potter" they call him - meaning what, he can't pot 2 or 3 balls consecutively?

Can't stand the man. And Trumpster is right, the crowd wants to be entertained. They aren't in the venue for his whole career, they're there for a match. They don't go home and say 'ah well, at least he played well that one time'. A large part of Ronnie's popularity is his ability - and desire - to entertain the crowd. He talks about it frequently, especially final frames.

every time Mark Williams played ive been entertained and not just me.

Between 1998 and 2003 he was the Best player in the World without doubt He reached 2 World Finals before Ronnie reached one. yes his career has dramatically nose dived but that shouldn't detract from the entertainment hes given many.

I guess we have different expectations of entertainment then. He puts me to sleep.

Do you have a link to any of what you consider his standout performances?

Every time he was on tv it was a stand out performance! I always found him the most entertaining player to watch. But each to their own.

I know Hendry never mentions it, but it must give him personal satisfaction that he made Ronnie quit a match. Its rare in snooker to overwhelm an opponent to such a degree that they throw in the towel completely.

He didn't overwhelm Ronnie, though. Parrott at the time made it clear that he knew something was up with Ronnie before the match had even begun. It wasn't Hendry playing great that made Ronnie quit (Higgins at the Masters one year, and Hendry 1999 were far bigger defeats), it was Ronnie losing his head.

Those are the types of mental weaknesses that are now under control.

Lucky wrote:I know Hendry never mentions it, but it must give him personal satisfaction that he made Ronnie quit a match. Its rare in snooker to overwhelm an opponent to such a degree that they throw in the towel completely.

Being 4-0 down and looking likely to make it 4-1 didn't overwhelm Ronnie to that degree. As Edwards said, something was already up. If you remember it, or watch it now, Ronnie was at the table, he didn't concede after losing another frame. The cushion pushed the cueball off faster than it hit, and Ronnie conceded.

Sonny wrote:Every time he was on tv it was a stand out performance! I always found him the most entertaining player to watch. But each to their own.

This must be a side of his play I've not seen then. Can you link me to a particular game that showcases it?

I'd say the most exciting final I can remember happening involved Williams, and you must have seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN6tdJhNpoc
(just a quick note. The whooping and clapping for that fluke is disgraceful.)

But that's not really a fair reply. In his prime, Williams was a good all rounder. He had a very good safety and tactical game, and an extraordinary long game (the best I have seen). I always thought he was great to watch. Any match from 1997 until 2005 should show that.

The world final in 2000 from 13-7 down to Stevens springs to mind. For me MJW was the king of cool whenever he played. And when he had his second wind a couple of years ago there were plenty of performances to celebrate, like the German final when he beat Selby and the China final when he beat Ding but again, just about every time he steps on the table his class is blindingly obvious. Williams in full on float mode is just poetry in motion. I don't mind admitting to getting goosebumps many times watching him play snooker.

I agree MJW is a great player to watch, very entertaining. His match against Selby in the Rotterdam open last year was a joy to watch, he played a very attacking game.

Holden Chinaski wrote:I agree MJW is a great player to watch, very entertaining. His match against Selby in the Rotterdam open last year was a joy to watch, he played a very attacking game.

Absolutely, that was by far the best he's played in a match against a top player like Selby since he became WN1 in 2011. Went for almost everything and most of them went in.

We saw a few glimpses of good form at the Welsh Open last week, but nothing else than that I'm afraid.

I would still love if he won at least another ranking tourney, his best bet an overseas one, but definately needs some consistency in his game.

I guess I've not seen the best of Williams then.

Mark was very relaxed on the table, might have given the impression he didn't care. In reality he just cared about getting on with the business of winning.

Mark was pure class at his peak even though he seldom chased the ton. Certainly one could make an argument for not pursuing tons once a frame is won as every shot takes focus. A player is more likely to be able to maintain focus for longer by simply doing only as much as needed to win a frame.

Trumpster, snooker is a professional sport with players going after big money, being entertaining isn't their main goal. Do you think professional golfers or tennis players care if they're entertaining?

Do you really find century breaks to be the only interesting/fan pleasing frames there are? If so that's really quite sad as the number of tons you'll see per match on average is well less than half the frames, possibly as low as maybe 10% across all matches (that stat pulled from my ass, not sure what the average numbers are for tons per match). That means that you'd find less than 1/2 the frames to be entertaining, possibly as low as 10%. Hard to be a fan of a sport if you're only entertained by a small percentage of the play.

I seriously doubt his lack of tons had anything to do with lack of practice, to my knowledge he practised as hard as any of the top players and was fully capable of turning his many 70+ breaks into tons, he just elected not to.

Sickpotter wrote:Mark was very relaxed on the table, might have given the impression he didn't care. In reality he just cared about getting on with the business of winning.

Mark was pure class at his peak even though he seldom chased the ton. Certainly one could make an argument for not pursuing tons once a frame is won as every shot takes focus. A player is more likely to be able to maintain focus for longer by simply doing only as much as needed to win a frame.

Trumpster, snooker is a professional sport with players going after big money, being entertaining isn't their main goal. Do you think professional golfers or tennis players care if they're entertaining?

Do you really find century breaks to be the only interesting/fan pleasing frames there are? If so that's really quite sad as the number of tons you'll see per match on average is well less than half the frames, possibly as low as maybe 10% across all matches (that stat pulled from my ass, not sure what the average numbers are for tons per match). That means that you'd find less than 1/2 the frames to be entertaining, possibly as low as 10%. Hard to be a fan of a sport if you're only entertained by a small percentage of the play.

I seriously doubt his lack of tons had anything to do with lack of practice, to my knowledge he practised as hard as any of the top players and was fully capable of turning his many 70+ breaks into tons, he just elected not to.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about Mark at the start, but if he was so good and practiced so hard, why can he not do much these days?

Regarding the points in bold, it's a logical assumption but I don't think it's accurate, because the big break builders are the ones at the top of the tree aren't they? Ronnie, Selby, Ding, Robertson, Trump when he wins things. And no, century breaks aren't the only exciting part of a snooker match but come on, the crowd always enjoys a century and they enjoy it when a player gives a few exhibition shots when a frame or match is safe.

Actually his desire to throw his arm at a few and play his under the body shots and whatever else was purely about crowd pleasing if you want to be pedantic about it. He'd rather go for crazy shots than chase the ton with standard shots, and often finished with nonchalant deliberate fouls just for the amusement factor. Williams is a snooker players snooker player.

Sonny wrote:Actually his desire to throw his arm at a few and play his under the body shots and whatever else was purely about crowd pleasing if you want to be pedantic about it. He'd rather go for crazy shots than chase the ton with standard shots, and often finished with nonchalant deliberate fouls just for the amusement factor. Williams is a snooker players snooker player.

Ah, well, I'm going to use my defence of having not seen him in those matches. Just the ones where he slopes around the table like a man defeated and makes me want to pull my teeth out through boredom. I suppose I owe it to myself to look up some of his better performances then.

webcat86 wrote:

Sonny wrote:Actually his desire to throw his arm at a few and play his under the body shots and whatever else was purely about crowd pleasing if you want to be pedantic about it. He'd rather go for crazy shots than chase the ton with standard shots, and often finished with nonchalant deliberate fouls just for the amusement factor. Williams is a snooker players snooker player.

Ah, well, I'm going to use my defence of having not seen him in those matches. Just the ones where he slopes around the table like a man defeated and makes me want to pull my teeth out through boredom. I suppose I owe it to myself to look up some of his better performances then.

You should watch some matches of Mark Williams in his prime! Fantastic player to watch! One of the best potters ever.

Take a look at this little video:
http://youtu.be/b9FllExurQs