Post a reply

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby boris_the_butcher

SnookerFan wrote:
Andre147 PGC wrote:So outside those, and apart from Selby <laugh> who else you would like to reach the Final?

Selby v Fu Final? Selby v Murphy?


I wouldn't complain about either of those finals. :emb:


I would, both of them feature Mark Selby ffs.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Snooker Overdrive

Sonny wrote:Good initial piece Snooker Overdrive, think you're right in most of what you say. I had to laugh at the "x has got no chance of winning" summaries - blunt but accurate I'd say. Although I think maybe you under estimate Hawkins.


I put Hawkins 4th, so I wouldn't say I'm underestimating Barry's chances <laugh> or did you want to write overestimate?

Sonny wrote:If he is to win it again I think it would be fitting in an ideal world that along the way he beats Murphy, Ding and Selby because then he'd have beaten all his main rivals (bar Higgins who on current form you'd expect him to prevail) in his last 3 wins.


Surely Robbo would be a tougher opponent than Selby on current form.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Skullman

What Sonny's saying is that Ronnie would've beaten most of the other top players at the worlds from 2012-2014 with that run. He needs to face Selby in the final for that to happen as he hasn't faced him in that period, and he has beaten Robbo (2012 QF of course).

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

I'm going to do the same thing I did at The Masters, and predict a Robert Milkins win.

I may even get in the programme again. <laugh>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

SnookerFan wrote:I'm going to do the same thing I did at The Masters, and predict a Robert Milkins win.

I may even get in the programme again. <laugh>


You mean your interesting facts about the players that appear in the programme? rofl

Wild was sick of you saying those <laugh>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Andre147 PGC wrote:You mean your interesting facts about the players that appear in the programme? rofl

Wild was sick of you saying those <laugh>


He was indeed, but that wasn't what I meant.

They published one of my tweets in the Masters programme. The one where I predicted Robert Milkins would win the whole tournament. I don't know if they realised I was joking. <laugh>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Roland

Yes I did mean what Skullman said.

My apologies Snooker Overdrive, when I read back I see it was Wildey who dismissed Hawkins and it was you who told him he was underestimating him.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Yes I did mean what Skullman said.

My apologies Snooker Overdrive, when I read back I see it was Wildey who dismissed Hawkins and it was you who told him he was underestimating him.

yup im dismissing Hawkins and no im not underestimating him he over achieved last year by a massive margin i cant for the life of me see him getting close to repeating that.

its the most closed World Championship for best part of 20 years.

I Hope to dear god im wrong though.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby boris_the_butcher

Wildey wrote:
Sonny wrote:Yes I did mean what Skullman said.

My apologies Snooker Overdrive, when I read back I see it was Wildey who dismissed Hawkins and it was you who told him he was underestimating him.

yup im dismissing Hawkins and no im not underestimating him he over achieved last year by a massive margin i cant for the life of me see him getting close to repeating that.

its the most closed World Championship for best part of 20 years.

I Hope to dear god im wrong though.


Weren't you a big Stephen Hendry fan? therefore it's hypocritical to bemoan that fact that Ronnie is almost a cert. I bet you weren't complaining back in the early 90s.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Andre147

boris_the_butcher wrote:
Wildey wrote:
Sonny wrote:Yes I did mean what Skullman said.

My apologies Snooker Overdrive, when I read back I see it was Wildey who dismissed Hawkins and it was you who told him he was underestimating him.

yup im dismissing Hawkins and no im not underestimating him he over achieved last year by a massive margin i cant for the life of me see him getting close to repeating that.

its the most closed World Championship for best part of 20 years.

I Hope to dear god im wrong though.


Weren't you a big Stephen Hendry fan? therefore it's hypocritical to bemoan that fact that Ronnie is almost a cert. I bet you weren't complaining back in the early 90s.


Exactly, and he even says if Ronnie were to be knocked out early it would do the tournament the world of good because it would leave the draw wide open rofl

I bet he wasn't saying that in the 90s when Hendry was winning all those World titles, by that brilliant logic Hendry being knocked out early would also have been better for the tourney, right? rofl :wave:

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby hitman_ronnie1

the main contenders.

jimmy white. :D

ronnie fairly big favourite i reckon. :-)

robbo, ding or selbore, leading the pack

matt stevens as an outside sentimental choice. <cool>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cannonball

ROS is the favourite but the odds on him don't reflect the chance of a banana skin, that have affected all the greats down the years at the Crucible. Any player can have a bad day, and every player will have a day at the crucible that is below their form peak. Then again, everyone I know has tipped him this year.

But hey, he's still the Greatest of all Time, and that's the title that really counts.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Ronnie has got to be favourite. German Masters aside, he seems to be really up for the tournaments he enters these days. When he's up for it, he'll be very difficult to beat.

For him to get knocked out, he'll either have to show shades of his old personality where he gets in a bad mood because he burned his toast at breakfast and gives up, or you'll have to have a Selby or a Robertson playing almost flawless snooker against him.

I don't see either as likely though.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:the main contenders.

jimmy white. :D

ronnie fairly big favourite i reckon. :-)

robbo, ding or selbore, leading the pack

matt stevens as an outside sentimental choice. <cool>


Matthew Stevens won't win it.

I'd put your other pick Jimmy White as more likely than him. :-D

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby hitman_ronnie1

SnookerFan wrote:
hitman_ronnie1 wrote:the main contenders.

jimmy white. :D

ronnie fairly big favourite i reckon. :-)

robbo, ding or selbore, leading the pack

matt stevens as an outside sentimental choice. <cool>


Matthew Stevens won't win it.

I'd put your other pick Jimmy White as more likely than him. :-D


jimmy probably won't qualify again.

20 yrs since his last final this year.

depressing to think that. :sad:

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cannonball

hitman_ronnie1 wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
hitman_ronnie1 wrote:the main contenders.

jimmy white. :D

ronnie fairly big favourite i reckon. :-)

robbo, ding or selbore, leading the pack

matt stevens as an outside sentimental choice. <cool>


Matthew Stevens won't win it.

I'd put your other pick Jimmy White as more likely than him. :-D


jimmy probably won't qualify again.

20 yrs since his last final this year.

depressing to think that. :sad:


Bloody hell, time has flown. 20 years ago. Credit to him, he's still trying to qualify. He loves the game. Top man.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cannonball

Should Ronnie even have to play the rounds at the Worlds? When Joe Davis was King, players had to fight for the right to play the defending champion. Given that Ronnie is the greatest ever, I believe that the other 127 players should compete for the right to challenge Ronnie in the final. Why does the King have to compete in rounds? Blatantly wrong.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

Trumpster wrote:Should Ronnie even have to play the rounds at the Worlds? When Joe Davis was King, players had to fight for the right to play the defending champion. Given that Ronnie is the greatest ever, I believe that the other 127 players should compete for the right to challenge Ronnie in the final. Why does the King have to compete in rounds? Blatantly wrong.

jesus christ <doh>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Holden Chinaski

Trumpster wrote:Should Ronnie even have to play the rounds at the Worlds? When Joe Davis was King, players had to fight for the right to play the defending champion. Given that Ronnie is the greatest ever, I believe that the other 127 players should compete for the right to challenge Ronnie in the final. Why does the King have to compete in rounds? Blatantly wrong.

I don't agree with this. This is the modern era of snooker, not the old era.
Joe Davis is a legend of course, he was a pioneer of the game, but he didn't have a lot of competition and he even had a say in who could become pro and therefore the multiple world champions of the modern era (starting with the likes of Ray Reardon, John Spencer,etc...) are greater champions than Joe Davis in my eyes.
Ronnie is the best player in the world right now, but he still has to prove himself like all the other players. You have the earn the title of "the king". Right now Hendry is still the king of the crucible. Ronnie has every chance of stealing that title but he will have to do it the hard way.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

Trumpster wrote:Should Ronnie even have to play the rounds at the Worlds? When Joe Davis was King, players had to fight for the right to play the defending champion. Given that Ronnie is the greatest ever, I believe that the other 127 players should compete for the right to challenge Ronnie in the final. Why does the King have to compete in rounds? Blatantly wrong.


What an outstanding idea.

I think the other 127 players should all play a tournament, and the winner of the tournament then gets to play Ronnie in a one-off match to decide who is the World Champion.

<doh>

You'll be suggesting Ronnie gets a 50-point head start in every frame next.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby mantorok

Trumpster wrote:Should Ronnie even have to play the rounds at the Worlds? When Joe Davis was King, players had to fight for the right to play the defending champion. Given that Ronnie is the greatest ever, I believe that the other 127 players should compete for the right to challenge Ronnie in the final. Why does the King have to compete in rounds? Blatantly wrong.


If.......wha......bu.....errr.......?

......ahh you were joking, phew.... <cool>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Cannonball

Ok, it was a bit tongue in cheek. But having thought about it, there is merit and logic to my argument. In boxing, the king is the king, you fight him where he wants and when he wants, if you're lucky enough to win enough matches to earn the right. Snooker is very 1 on 1, like boxing, so I say, let them play off for the right to play Ronnie, and lets have the best of 71 frames final as well, played over a two week period. Game on.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

Trumpster wrote:Ok, it was a bit tongue in cheek. But having thought about it, there is merit and logic to my argument. In boxing, the king is the king, you fight him where he wants and when he wants, if you're lucky enough to win enough matches to earn the right. Snooker is very 1 on 1, like boxing, so I say, let them play off for the right to play Ronnie, and lets have the best of 71 frames final as well, played over a two week period. Game on.


Boxing is a joke. Promoters decide who fight who, and the public are denied seeing the best fighting the best. Please don't compare snooker to boxing.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby SnookerFan

vodkadiet wrote:
Boxing is a joke. Promoters decide who fight who, and the public are denied seeing the best fighting the best. Please don't compare snooker to boxing.


I'm a fan of boxing. (Hitman_Ronnie might disagree, mind.) But even I agree with you on the flaws of the sport. There are several world championships per weight division, and the top fighters avoid each other, whilst people get title shots long past their best just because they're a big name and can bring in paying public.

I've never understood this thing about comparing snooker to other sports any way. It's always been compared to tennis on this forum, and that's one of the most diabolically boring sports on the planet. Snooker is snooker, lets not compare it to other sports.

And if we do have to, don't point out the problems in boxing and say it's a good thing if snooker has those problems. <doh>

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby snookerfan97

The only thing i would change for the WCH is the length of the SF's, which I think are far too long now.I would make them best of 29 instead of best of 33.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby Wildey

snookerfan97 wrote:The only thing i would change for the WCH is the length of the SF's, which I think are far too long now.I would make them best of 29 instead of best of 33.

best of 29 would still be 4 sessions 7,7,7 and 8 instead of 8,8,8 and 9 all you would gain per session is 1 frame

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

Wildey wrote:
snookerfan97 wrote:The only thing i would change for the WCH is the length of the SF's, which I think are far too long now.I would make them best of 29 instead of best of 33.

best of 29 would still be 4 sessions 7,7,7 and 8 instead of 8,8,8 and 9 all you would gain per session is 1 frame


I would make the semis best of 29; 3 sessions of 9,9, and 11 frames.

Re: The Main Contenders

Postby vodkadiet

I should have added that I would have no snooker on the 2nd Thursday, so everyone gets a break. I find that the opening session of the semis lack intensity.


   

cron