Post a reply

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Wildey

TheRocket wrote:I don't wanna start another Hendry v ROS debate but to have a career like ROS must be a lot more enjoyable than Hendrys.

Hendry had 10 years at the very top and won everything countless times. The second ten years were painful though.
ROS on the side has been playing at the very top for more than a quarter of a century and winning titles at a age people thought it wasn't possible.

Not to mention that he isn't far behind in title count anyway. More Masters, more UK's , more rankers very soon. And even in terms of World titles he might catch up Hendry. Even though its getting unlikelier at this stage obviously.

But still. I''d choose Ronnies career over Hendrys anytime. Much more fun.

Yea Stephen would have agree with you but i think Stephen would have been happy just having the career of Nigel Bond for 30 years because once you hit the hight of titles and performance he managed. To have that no more is much tougher and devestating.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Andre147

TheRocket wrote:I don't wanna start another Hendry v ROS debate but to have a career like ROS must be a lot more enjoyable than Hendrys.

Hendry had 10 years at the very top and won everything countless times. The second ten years were painful though.
ROS on the side has been playing at the very top for more than a quarter of a century and winning titles at a age people thought it wasn't possible.

Not to mention that he isn't far behind in title count anyway. More Masters, more UK's , more rankers very soon. And even in terms of World titles he might catch up Hendry. Even though its getting unlikelier at this stage obviously.

But still. I''d choose Ronnies career over Hendrys anytime. Much more fun.


This is a great post mate, and something I never thought about...

I would choose Ronnie's career over Hendry's anytime.

Yes many people may disagree with me, but at least he was almost always at the top of the game.

The only time I really did think he would retire was between 2010 and especially 2011 when his game was at his worst. Even ROS in his book admited that if it wasnt for winning the 2012 German Masters, who knows.. he might have retired for good.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Wildey

The Only thing id say had Hendry reached 30 with the record Ronnie had of 2 World, 3 UK and 2 Masters he would have been really snake hissed off.

Even as a thresome the Class of 92 of Ronnie, Higgins and Williams did not reach the level of success Hendry did by 30 with 5 Worlds, 7 UK and 5 Masters.

By the age of 30 Higgins was the Worst with 1 World, 1 Masters and 2 UK

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Holden Chinaski

Wildey wrote:TEven as a thresome the Class of 92 of Ronnie, Higgins and Williams did not reach the level of success Hendry did by 30 with 5 Worlds, 7 UK and 5 Masters.

Of course not. Because Ronnie, Higgins, and Williams are three of the greatest snooker players of all times, and they all turned pro in the same year. They had to compete with each other from day one.

If Hendry had turned pro in 1992 do you think he would have won as many titles as he did? Of course not. He would have to compete with the class of '92, and that would be a problem.
John Higgins had to compete with Ronnie O'Sullivan and Mark Williams from day one. Hendry had to compete with Jimmy White from day one. There's a difference.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby masterdoctorgenius

Wildey wrote:The Only thing id say had Hendry reached 30 with the record Ronnie had of 2 World, 3 UK and 2 Masters he would have been really snake hissed off.

Even as a thresome the Class of 92 of Ronnie, Higgins and Williams did not reach the level of success Hendry did by 30 with 5 Worlds, 7 UK and 5 Masters.

By the age of 30 Higgins was the Worst with 1 World, 1 Masters and 2 UK


Didnt Higgins have 2 Masters title by the age of 30?

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby SnookerFan

masterdoctorgenius wrote:Congratz Ronnie, never thought you would win the first event of your season.

Only downside: 0 pound towards the ranking.


Moan that he won't win.

Moan when he does.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby SnookerFan

masterdoctorgenius wrote:https://twitter.com/UnifyMgt/status/1041346229102419968

What a guy


Fair play to him. That was a nice gesture. :hatoff:

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Dan-cat

Hoped to avoid the result and watch the final on youtube, accidentally went on Facebook and the first post was World snooker congratulating Ronnie. Argh!

Still, I now have a veritable orgy of matches to watch back on YouTube. I only managed to see a few frames here and there during my travels bringing my mate Dom who can’t walk to my mum’s retreat in the Spanish mountains in his specially adapted car. A tricky and worthwhile mission. He’s staying for a month then I fly back to do the reverse journey on the ferry from Santander.

Has SightRight given Ronnie yet another weapon in his over-flowing arsenal? He’s already armed to the gills. I have to admit when I heard about him signing up with SR I cynically thought it was purely a business decision. Someone on here posted that it looks like he’s sighting some shots differently, I look forward to studying the videos closely, and I may undertake the coaching.
Last edited by Dan-cat on 17 Sep 2018, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby The_Abbott

masterdoctorgenius wrote:Congratz Ronnie, never thought you would win the first event of your season.

Only downside: 0 pound towards the ranking.


Not sure that bothers Ronnie. That 200k will go towards school fees.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby SnookerFan

This SightRight lot seem to have caused a lot of debate on Twitter.

Mark Allen was suggesting it was all placebo the other day, and Mark Williams was telling him to bugger off.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:This SightRight lot seem to have caused a lot of debate on Twitter.

Mark Allen was suggesting it was all placebo the other day, and Mark Williams was telling him to bugger off.

Who cares if it is? Placebos exist because they work.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:This SightRight lot seem to have caused a lot of debate on Twitter.

Mark Allen was suggesting it was all placebo the other day, and Mark Williams was telling him to bugger off.

Who cares if it is? Placebos exist because they work.


Well, quite.

I have no real opinion on it. It just seems to have divided Twitter's snooker players.

Even Willo says he wasn't sure about it, until he tried it.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:Placebo, or something to occupy your mind while down on the shot?

Anyone else remember Frank Callan’s Drill?


I do not.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby eraserhead

Don't care if it's a placebo it shows after all he's won Ronnie's trying to make improvements in his game where he can.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby TheRocket

Well both (Allen and MJW) have a point. Allen says you can't say Ronnie was any less likely to win the Shanghai Masters without SightRight. True.

And MJW says Ronnie has used the SightRight technique (whatever that might be) and won the first tournament he entered. So it hasn't done him any harm. True again.

Future will tell. But it'll be hard to top the last season anyway. Unless he wins the World title. But Snooker is too much of a mental sport anyway. If you don't bring your ability to the matches, even the best technique is useless.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Dan-cat

eraserhead wrote:Don't care if it's a placebo it shows after all he's won Ronnie's trying to make improvements in his game where he can.


Yeah I was thinking that too, pretends he doesn’t care. ‘Course he does

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Holden Chinaski

masterdoctorgenius wrote:https://twitter.com/UnifyMgt/status/1041346229102419968

What a guy

Class act :hatoff:

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Wildey

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Wildey wrote:TEven as a thresome the Class of 92 of Ronnie, Higgins and Williams did not reach the level of success Hendry did by 30 with 5 Worlds, 7 UK and 5 Masters.

Of course not. Because Ronnie, Higgins, and Williams are three of the greatest snooker players of all times, and they all turned pro in the same year. They had to compete with each other from day one.

If Hendry had turned pro in 1992 do you think he would have won as many titles as he did? Of course not. He would have to compete with the class of '92, and that would be a problem.
John Higgins had to compete with Ronnie O'Sullivan and Mark Williams from day one. Hendry had to compete with Jimmy White from day one. There's a difference.

Maybe not as many but i can guarantee you he would have won more by 30 than the other 3 would have and sevearly dented their achievemant his record against all 3 was dented in the last 10 years of his career and yet he was equal with higgins and had a better head to head than Williams at the end and prior to 2002 his head to head with Ronnie was 18-17 to Ronnie after that ronnie won 12-4.

and nobody can argue his game fell apart in the last 10 years only fools would argue otherwise.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Andy Spark

I always find it interesting that Hendry's ten year domination operated within a wider era of domination by Steve Davis (80's) Ray Reardon (70's) etc etc all the way back to Joe Davis; while Ronnie's longevity coincided with John Higgins and latterly Mark Williams.

My point is that snooker is a psychological game, and that psychology operates, in turn, within a wider psychological environment. Maybe Ronnie in the 00's will turn out to be the last genuine opportunity anyone ever has to dominate like Steve Davis and Hendry, simply because now the psychological environment has turned unfavourable for any future geniuses hoping to exert a ten-year one-man dominant streak; although larger average break size also has a part to play.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Wildey

In 10 years Both Davis and Hendry had overtook their predecessor in achievement. Ronnie, Williams or Higgins still hasent so the motivation goes on 20+ years later.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby Andre147

TheRocket wrote:Well both (Allen and MJW) have a point. Allen says you can't say Ronnie was any less likely to win the Shanghai Masters without SightRight. True.

And MJW says Ronnie has used the SightRight technique (whatever that might be) and won the first tournament he entered. So it hasn't done him any harm. True again.

Future will tell. But it'll be hard to top the last season anyway. Unless he wins the World title. But Snooker is too much of a mental sport anyway. If you don't bring your ability to the matches, even the best technique is useless.


The only thing that would top last season is him winning the World Title.

Nothibng else would top that, unless he won 6 rankers which seems very unlikely. I'd rather he won the Worlds and nothing else this season.

Re: Shanghai Masters

Postby TheRocket

Andre147 wrote:The only thing that would top last season is him winning the World Title.

Nothibng else would top that, unless he won 6 rankers which seems very unlikely. I'd rather he won the Worlds and nothing else this season.


Yeah fully agree. I said it a few times. Winning another English or Welsh Open wouldn't have that much of a great affect or impact.

Winning another World title however would be a really huge story and make him an even greater player than he already is. Just to show one more time at this old age and stage of his career that he's the best in the World and prove a point.

I know people go on and say he already is but the fact is his last world tite dates back to 2013 and he hasnt even got to the one table stage after 2014. So if there's one last thing he has to prove its winning that sixth World title.