The Masters 2016 10-17 January

[daffie]

I haven't expressed a view about what I'm told. I don't have a strong view. Ronnie may be right about playing fewer tournaments or you may be right. I don't have a strong view. you however seem to have a strong view - I am not just not sure how you can be so certain to the point where u seem to know better than Ronnie, someone who has won 5 world titles!

Nope...you have it the wrong way around mate. You replied to an earlier post of mine where I expressed my views on Ronnie's absence and this was in reply to even earlier communications on the board where some people attribute Ronnie's 'back injury' to him not having played much during the past 8 months. I express the view that this is a cop-out by RS and his fans. Like I said earlier...it's a win-win (or no-loose) situation he fabricates himself, and which gets perpetuated by his fans (and the Beeb!). He does well in the tournament...he can say "well even with a back injury I played well and even managed to win the tournament". If he looses in the final, or worse earlier in the tournament, he can always cite his 'back injury'. See...that way ther's always an escape route....

Furthermore I expressly said that should Ronnie loose early on in the tournament he has himself to blame due to not having enough matchplay under his belt (too few tournaments in 8 months). Of course this is completely his decision, but don't throw your toys out of the pram when this strategy turns around and bites you in the butt...

[armstm]

first of all it is "lose". loose = not tight.

secondly, I don't have a problem with your opinions - it is your right and you may be right

thirdly, my main point is you seem extremely sure of yourself. whenever I see that much conviction ie "absolute certainty" that you're right I have to question this - especially when you're effectively saying Ronnie should play more, that you know more about what creates success in tournaments than a 5-time world champion. you may be right. but it's not 100% certain that you're right

fourthly I admire Ronnie. I also admire John Higgins. As snooker players. this does not mean I blindly agree with everything they say.

Nope...you have it the wrong way around mate. You replied to an earlier post of mine where I expressed my views on Ronnie's absence and this was in reply to even earlier communications on the board where some people attribute Ronnie's 'back injury' to him not having played much during the past 8 months. I express the view that this is a cop-out by RS and his fans. Like I said earlier...it's a win-win (or no-loose) situation he fabricates himself, and which gets perpetuated by his fans (and the Beeb!). He does well in the tournament...he can say "well even with a back injury I played well and even managed to win the tournament". If he looses in the final, or worse earlier in the tournament, he can always cite his 'back injury'. See...that way ther's always an escape route....

Furthermore I expressly said that should Ronnie loose early on in the tournament he has himself to blame due to not having enough matchplay under his belt (too few tournaments in 8 months). Of course this is completely his decision, but don't throw your toys out of the pram when this strategy turns around and bites you in the butt...

[daffie]

first of all it is "lose". loose = not tight.

Well I guess thanks for the heads-up For us non-native English speaking we are doing our best. Spelling errors will occur...

secondly, I don't have a problem with your opinions - it is your right and you may be right

thirdly, my main point is you seem extremely sure of yourself. whenever I see that much conviction ie "absolute certainty" that you're right I have to question this - especially when you're effectively saying Ronnie should play more, that you know more about what creates success in tournaments than a 5-time world champion. you may be right. but it's not 100% certain that you're right

fourthly I admire Ronnie. I also admire John Higgins. As snooker players. this does not mean I blindly agree with everything they say.

First, my points weren't specifically directed to yourself, but you asked so I answered

Secondly, I feel sure of my own thoughts about this relating to Ronnie's back injury being directly coupled to out-of-form play. Btw I'm just as sure or confident as other people in here tend to be regarding their views and thoughts about Ronnie, specifically regarding the other side of the coin. Btw I have never claimed my views are the absolute truth or absolutely correct, however I do believe in those views rather strongly myself. No way will I force those views onto others, but a strong reply to my views and thoughts will get an evenly strong counter-reply from me...it's only fair I feel...everything is balanced out evenly.

Thirdly, I admire Ronnie as a snooker talent immensely. I'm not a fanboy nor do I feel lucky we have him. Let me explain the last part. Because the man is so much above the other players at most times, that it inevitably will result in very one-sided matches...and I HATE one-sided matches Give me a tense, evenly-matched battle on the table any day supposed to big breaks flying in by one player and the other one sitting it out...there's nothing to get for me there from a snooker match. But...that's not to say I don't enjoy watching Ronnie play. If we could get all the screaming muppets out of the arena and also off this board (whenever he plays they tend to come out of the woodwork), then we would have a much more enjoyable atmosphere, one that appreciates both players instead of just their need for Ronnie to win win win...and crush his opponent. Again...nothing at all to get for me from a match in that fashion. So to conclude, I have no issue with Ronnie as a snookerplayer, sometimes I do with him as a human being...he has done some really weird and sometimes horrible stuff (remember his thrusting hip movements towards Michaela who was bending over the table ). I do have a problem with the 'screaming muppets' who have absolutely no respect for anything regarding snooker. For them it's all and only about their man and him winning...nothing else matters or counts. And that is a complete no-go in my book.

You asked....

[armstm]

fair cop guv

Well I guess thanks for the heads-up For us non-native English speaking we are doing our best. Spelling errors will occur...



First, my points weren't specifically directed to yourself, but you asked so I answered

Secondly, I feel sure of my own thoughts about this relating to Ronnie's back injury being directly coupled to out-of-form play. Btw I'm just as sure or confident as other people in here tend to be regarding their views and thoughts about Ronnie, specifically regarding the other side of the coin. Btw I have never claimed my views are the absolute truth or absolutely correct, however I do believe in those views rather strongly myself. No way will I force those views onto others, but a strong reply to my views and thoughts will get an evenly strong counter-reply from me...it's only fair I feel...everything is balanced out evenly.

Thirdly, I admire Ronnie as a snooker talent immensely. I'm not a fanboy nor do I feel lucky we have him. Let me explain the last part. Because the man is so much above the other players at most times, that it inevitably will result in very one-sided matches...and I HATE one-sided matches Give me a tense, evenly-matched battle on the table any day supposed to big breaks flying in by one player and the other one sitting it out...there's nothing to get for me there from a snooker match. But...that's not to say I don't enjoy watching Ronnie play. If we could get all the screaming muppets out of the arena and also off this board (whenever he plays they tend to come out of the woodwork), then we would have a much more enjoyable atmosphere, one that appreciates both players instead of just their need for Ronnie to win win win...and crush his opponent. Again...nothing at all to get for me from a match in that fashion. So to conclude, I have no issue with Ronnie as a snookerplayer, sometimes I do with him as a human being...he has done some really weird and sometimes horrible stuff (remember his thrusting hip movements towards Michaela who was bending over the table ). I do have a problem with the 'screaming muppets' who have absolutely no respect for anything regarding snooker. For them it's all and only about their man and him winning...nothing else matters or counts. And that is a complete no-go in my book.

You asked....

[barrywhite]

100 pages and nearly a 1000 posts; it's the power of the RONSTER army!

[daffie]

100 pages and nearly a 1000 posts; it's the power of the RONSTER army!

masterblaster alert!!!

[leonardcan147]

Ronnie Osullivan the greatest player ever next to Hendry Davis Higgins Robertson Selby

Hope he does well in the World Snooker Champs 2016 in April May

[barrywhite]

masterblaster alert!!!

Who is this Pimpernel speak you of?

[barrywhite]

Ronnie Osullivan the greatest player ever next to Hendry Davis Higgins Robertson Selby

Hope he does well in the World Snooker Champs 2016 in April May

The name Selby in a sentence that contains the word greatest:

[P.Smith]

Depending on how you look at the game, Selby is one of the best players ever because on talent alone he wouldn't make it in the top 16. He has grafted his way into being the most consistently good player on the tour.

"Which is better - To be born great or to overcome your natural flaws through great effort?"

I appreciate both personally, but it wouldn't be unlike a Ronnie fanboy to scoff at every aspect of snooker other than natural talent

[barrywhite]

Depending on how you look at the game, Selby is one of the best players ever because on talent alone he wouldn't make it in the top 16. He has grafted his way into being the most consistently good player on the tour.

"Which is better - To be born great or to overcome your natural flaws through great effort?"

I appreciate both personally, but it wouldn't be unlike a Ronnie fanboy to scoff at every aspect of snooker other than natural talent

Cliff Thorburn could teach him how to grind mate, Selby knows nothing! On hard work, yeah, he's up there. Criteria I guess.

[daffie]

Hard work, sound tactical play (what's that? I hear you say...), playing the right shots at the right time, in other words strong and solid matchplay. It's what Higgins was renowned for in his hay days. Never heard anyone complain or bitch&moan about him. What's so different about Selby I ask...

[itsnoteasy]

Yes Higgins had a great safety game, but he used it through choice, not because he kept running out of position. I would be very shocked if Higgins wasn't a far heavier scorer in his prime but I don't know that as a fact just a feeling.

[barrywhite]

Hard work, sound tactical play (what's that? I hear you say...), playing the right shots at the right time, in other words strong and solid matchplay. It's what Higgins was renowned for in his hay days. Never heard anyone complain or bitch&moan about him. What's so different about Selby I ask...

Well now, here we have v.3 and v.4 of that line of robots. v.4 isn't as good as v.3, that's why he gets a pasting for lack of talent. v.1 was the original, v.2 the most successful of the production line. Luckily, a human called Ronnie outdid them all only to prove that a talented human could surpass any robot built.

Higgins didn't have the potting talent of ROS or MJW (all class of 92). But his tactical game is very good and it's earnt him a few bob. Or were those matches real?! lol

[Alba_]

Well now, here we have v.3 and v.4 of that line of robots. v.4 isn't as good as v.3, that's why he gets a pasting for lack of talent. v.1 was the original, v.2 the most successful of the production line. Luckily, a human called Ronnie outdid them all only to prove that a talented human could surpass any robot built.

Higgins didn't have the potting talent of ROS or MJW (all class of 92). But his tactical game is very good and it's earnt him a few bob. Or were those matches real?! lol

Higgins won a world title long before Ronnie. His potting couldn't be that bad now, could it?