Can Dott Break the Winners curse?

[Alex0paul]

I am not saying Murphy fluked the title but he did have a lot of fortune playing a man about to retire and Steve Davis, who was just happy to be there.

[PaulTheSoave]

And he got Jimmy White II in the final!!

[moondan]

Maija,
your point about the crucible curse is a very valid one and an added thought he does not need.
2 appearences in the final in 3 years speaks louder than any argument.
Dott is not the most charismatic player on the circuit and most peoples poor opinion of him stems from this, but you get points for potting balls, not for style, just substance.
I think he is just one of a good few that can win, he has the bottle and that means so much in this tournament, I would neither recommend him or put anyone off, as a player he has earned most peoples respect.
Much of snooker is played in the mind and Maijas point could be very relevent.

[The Statman]

Actually, Dott is an interesting character and I think he is possibly right – he needed the win to give his confidence a real boost.

In the UK he played some remarkable stuff and beat Scott MacKenzie 9-2. Here is the match summary; the first 6 frames took less than 70 minutes:

92(40)-0, 84(83)-0, 91(91)-0, 65(36)-32, 100(100)-0, 95(76)-29, 49(38)-74(57), 15-73(73) [6-2], 107(107)-0, 92(92)-4, 114(112)-0

MacKenzie's only score in that second session was a Dott foul. He then went on to beat Robin Hull nearly as comprehensively – 9-2 – and afterwards said, "I won at the Crucible with my B game. I was dogged and determined but now I'm showing what I'm capable of. It's nice to know you've got a B game to fall back on but this is the way I prefer to play. Now I can reel off four frames and take nothing out of me. Shots seem easy so I don't have to concentrate as hard. Maybe winning something was what I needed. I'm certainly a different player."

And so it would seem. Perhaps he just needed to get over the line that once to realise he could do it.

In the semi-final he went for a long blue when the roll-up snooker seemed the better shot. (If I remember them both rightly, it was rather reminiscent of Hendry's attempted long blue in the decider of the 2002 final.) He said "A year ago I'd have laid the snooker but I've been attacking all tournament so why stop now?"

And his display against Higgins this afternoon was magnificent by the look of it; a 97 and two tons to wrap up the match.

I don't think the added pressure of being defending champion – or, now, of being provisional number one – will bother him too much. Maybe a couple of seasons ago it would have done.

[PaulTheSoave]

I remember that blue indeed as I was present and we were surprised he did not play the snooker. Was it being over confident? Turning point in the match? Its all about these kind of decisions that decides a match. Of course the opponent your playing against. gping for the pot against a lesser opponent it would probably not have costed him the frame and match. Against Hendry it can be costly. Should that be in your mind? Considering what shot to play and at the same time having in mind the opponent sitting in the chair?

[moondan]

The first rule in any cue game is to play the table and not the man, but easier said than done, and perhaps only a very small handful of players are actually able to do that.
I think at the chinese this week two players were in a position to put Ronnie on the plane home but their mental ability let them down which leads me to stray from this thread for a moment.
Im scared for Ronnie at the worlds, I hope he doesnt throw his cue at everything. There have been several shots he has played this week that have shocked me and could see no reason why he attempted them, this was kami kasi stuff, straight out of Hendrys book of weaknesses, Im hoping to see a measured Ronnie it is his only chance I feel.

[snooky147]

Well, from 2-1 down and 37 down he had 287 unanswered points against higgins to go 4-2 up, broken only by a 30 from John and then a 102 from Graeme. He was certainly playing well and IF he can take that form to Sheffield there's no reason why he cant go very close or even win it again.

[chasmmi]

Dott really has seemed to have turned into a very good player and looking at how he has scored in some tournaments, an entertaining one too.

Sometimes I wonder if the level of entertainment of one's snooker is based on the player and not their game. For in the UK, Dott and Ebdon were the most entertaining players there yet nobody would admit that because they are of course meant to be the slow dull ones.

On the way to the final of last years worlds, Ebdon got close to THREE maximums, surely a dull player cannot do that. The fact is that a Dott Ebdon final this year would be a repeat of last year in personel only. I can't see anyone grinding their way to the final this year and both Dott and Ebdon have shown they don't need to grind out results, they have the fluid break building game even if it isnt total flair snooker.

Can Dott win this year. Yes he can, very much so. In fact I believe the final will be the same as last year and many people not happy at that prospect will eat their words if it comes true (for the record I actually really enjoyed the final last year).

The reason for all these claims of fluked titles is because people are used to the best player in the world being winning at the crucible that they are not used to the world champion being the best player on the day/fortnight.

Davis, Hendry, Williams, Higgins, Hendry were all best in the world so their win was seen as justified. Murphy and Dott were both fully deserving of their titles but in Murphys case especially, he was the best player in that tournament in 2005, but you could not argue he was ever the best player on the planet and that is what sticks in people's heads.

Snooker has always been a game where the greatest player (not just a great player) becomes world champion. maybe if more results like Griffiths, Taylor and Johnson had occured between 1975 and 1996 then there would be less rejection of the recent worthy champions, despite their lack of global dominance.

Saying that, Dott is actually on the cusp of being officially the best in the world, so even that point may not hold water.

What confuses me is how if say Trump, or Selby won the title that seems like it would be seen as less of a fluke than Murphy or Dott winning for a second time in some people's eyes.

[Maija]

Sometimes I wonder if the level of entertainment of one's snooker is based on the player and not their game. For in the UK, Dott and Ebdon were the most entertaining players there yet nobody would admit that because they are of course meant to be the slow dull ones.

Just as a wee side note here; I don't think I saw Dott in the UK, but Ebdon vs Higgins (semi, wasn't it?) was certainly one of the most thrilling and entertaining matches I've seen.

Ebdon gets 'boring', i.e. slooow (like watching a snail fighting its way out of a splotch of super glue), when he's uncertain of himself and not playing his best, whereas Ronnie gets fast and unpredictable when he's uncertain of himself. Therein lies an explanation of their different popularity levels, I am fairy certain.

[The Statman]

...

Ebdon gets 'boring', i.e. slooow (like watching a snail fighting its way out of a splotch of super glue), when he's uncertain of himself and not playing his best, whereas Ronnie gets fast and unpredictable when he's uncertain of himself. Therein lies an explanation of their different popularity levels, I am fairy certain.

But therein lies an explanation of why the likes of Ebdon and Dott can win matches when not at their best, while O'Sullivan is more likely to implode.

I know which I'd rather see as a viewer, but I also know which I'd rather expect of a professional.

[Cyril]

But therein lies an explanation of why the likes of Ebdon and Dott can win matches when not at their best, while O'Sullivan is more likely to implode.

I know which I'd rather see as a viewer, but I also know which I'd rather expect of a professional.

I've not read this thread completely but I think we should appreciate that we need a variety of styles and personalities. Therefore, Ebbo v O'Sullivan, for instance, creates an interest in its own right. Will the natural genius beat the hard man? It is interesting. If every player was like Ronnie we'd soon get bored because we want to see a contest of skill, brain, tactics, nerve etc and not, a contest of continual one visit frames, who ever gets in first.

I thought the 2006 final was great viewing, towards the end. Both players were feeling the Crucible pressure, yet making brilliant shot/breaks, between missing easy shots. It was live, hard core sport, at its best.

[pat39]

Dott's current form is certainly good enough to challenge for the World Championship but I think his first round match is going to be very tough. If he can survive the first day nerves I think he will reach at least the semis.

[dantuck_7]

Dotts odds have reduced form about about 25 to 15 over the past couple of months.

[rath]

no he cant

[elvaago]

I'd personally love to see Steve Davis v. Stephen Hendry. The two great masters of the game, with contrasting styles, both gentlemen, both popular.